Yes. But no indication if it is *only* connected using HDMI which was the point of my question.
@OP
You came here to a Humax-centric forum and posted a topic titled 'I Hate Humax...'
Then you commented on HD in general being poor.
I guess you have read the book 'How To Win Friends and Influence people' then?
Very Troll-like IMHO.
Shut the door on the way out...
Wallace - 20 minutes ago
Very Troll-like
Yep.
The OP still hasn't said what display he is using to judge the quality of the picture. All he said was its HD1080, which tells us precisely nothing. Presumably it's a 1920 x 1080 panel, if you buy one from one of the el cheapo makers (the same crap displays are sold under numerous names including some former quality TV makers like Toshiba). Basically they are complete rubbish, a decent quality 768 line (HD Ready) display will produce massively superior pictures, and will cost not much more than a poor Full-HD display.
Sadly most people are seduced by the picture resolution and assume 1920 x 1080 will be superior to 720p (1280 x 720). They ignore the fact that the image is moving and compressed using a lossy compression codec.
The truth is the two HD compression systems approved by EICTA in the original EU wide specs are broadly the same quality. The lower resolution 720P can easily produce superior pictures where rapid movement is involved.
1080i50 - 1440 x 1080 (For a long time all HD broadcasts used 1440 x 1080 - so called anamorphic HD because the pixel aspect ratio isn't square) - The signal is transmitted in two fields with the odd lines first (in the UK) followed by the even lines. Each field is transmitted in 1/25 second resulting in a frame rate of 25fps. The i indicates interlaced.
1080i50 - 1920 x 1080 - The signal is the same as the above - 50 fields/sec or 25fps
720p50. 1280 x 720 at 50 frames/second. The signal is progressive (each frame is delivered from line 1 to line 720 in one field)
Freeview-HD adds 720p25 (also used by iplayer HD). 1280 x 720 at 25fps.
No broadcaster uses the best combination, 1920 x 1080 at 50fps. (1080P50)
I suspect we may never know the answer.
In either case
Crap Display or watching SD inadvertently via scart, I imagine the OP would feel pretty foolish 
I use a Sony 26" 1366 x 768 HD Ready TV, I sit about 2.5m from it and it gives an excellent picture in HD and as good as can be expected in SD. Despite it's panel resolution it will accept 1080p24 from Blu Ray which works very well. I use 1080p from the HDR Fox T2, this gives a better picture than using 720p, presumably because 1080p involves only one set of scaling (in the TV) whereas 720p would be scaled in the Humax and then again in the TV to fit the panel.
Owen Smith - 18 minutes ago »
I use a Sony 26" 1366 x 768 HD Ready TV, I sit about 2.5m from it and it gives an excellent picture in HD and as good as can be expected in SD. Despite it's panel resolution it will accept 1080p24 from Blu Ray which works very well. I use 1080p from the HDR Fox T2, this gives a better picture than using 720p, presumably because 1080p involves only one set of scaling (in the TV) whereas 720p would be scaled in the Humax and then again in the TV to fit the panel.
I had a 40" 1368 x 768 display (Sony) for a number of years and my son had the same set. I replaced it with a FULL-HD Sony before my son changed his TV. TBH the improvement was hard to spot unless you got really close to the screen.
Did anybody see the original BBC-HD test transmissions (1440 x 1080 interlaced using approx 22Mbps) on a Pioneer Kuro Plasma 768 line display ?
The picture quality was amazing, it had the same almost 3D quality of a modern 4K display with a demo 4K signal.
Resolution is only a small part of what makes a great picture.
You must log in to post.
