HD newbie question

[hotchilidamo]

I'm new to the world of HD

Only just got an HD tv this weekend and I was quite disappointed with the quality of the football on the weekend from my normal Sky+ subscription.

It got me thinking about HD. Is the quality really that much better? £230 for 12 months better? (Sky HD box + 12 months subscription)

Also, are there any alternatives to Sky HD?

 

[Rafe]

It's all relative. I have Sky HD and I watch quite a lot of tele so it's worth my subscription.

I have been impressed with the quality of Sky HD. I am a big sports fan so watching the foot and cricket in HD is fantastic.

BBC 1 has some great programmes in HD too.

 

[bsuttie]

I'd agree. Particularly if you have a full HD set rather than an "HD ready" set the difference is marked.

There are alternatives to Sky HD but with limited channel choice - Freesat or Virgin Media

Freesat currently has BBC HD and ITV HD, Virgin has BBC HD plus some HD VOD.

regards

Brian

 

[adrian3221]

I'm new to the world of HD

Only just got an HD tv this weekend and I was quite disappointed with the quality of the football on the weekend from my normal Sky+ subscription.

It got me thinking about HD. Is the quality really that much better? £230 for 12 months better? (Sky HD box + 12 months subscription)

Also, are there any alternatives to Sky HD?

Surely only you can make the decision if the outlay is worth it? Its your hard earned money.

 

[hotchilidamo]

Well, yes I am quite capable of making the decision. But, finances are a little tight at the mo and I haven't ever seen Sky HD in action so I'm not sure just how good it is.

What I was hoping for was some recommendations/ honest appraisals of Sky HD from a regular user

 

[montehampster]

Put simply if you like sports and movies in my humble opinion Sky HD is a must.

You will have to accept the PQ on ITV is crap! That is down to no ITV HD on Sky at present and low bitrates in SD. Setanta is marginally better but to enjoy the full effect you need to watch a Premier league game on Sky.

The money grabbing wasters at the FA have sold the average football fan short by giving the rights to ITV/Setanta but then I guess when you get to see every England game live, in a corporate box wining and dining and all paid for by the fans I don't suppose you give a toss what those left at home have to put up with!

 

[WATTS]

I'm new to the world of HD

Only just got an HD tv this weekend and I was quite disappointed with the quality of the football on the weekend from my normal Sky+ subscription.

It got me thinking about HD. Is the quality really that much better? £230 for 12 months better? (Sky HD box + 12 months subscription)

Also, are there any alternatives to Sky HD?

If your into sports then Sky+ HD is the way to go. You will appreciate the finer detail.
Also try not to expect the earth, it is good but its not 4D.

 

[choddo2006]

HD footy is way, way better.

And if your HDTV isn't that great at handling SD signals, the difference is probably even greater. Which one is it?

 

[hotchilidamo]

HD footy is way, way better.

And if your HDTV isn't that great at handling SD signals, the difference is probably even greater. Which one is it?

Thats what I was worried about. More money to spend !

Its the Sony KDL40V4000. Overall I'm really happy with it, but it really does show how crappy the SD signal is

 

[logiciel]

I haven't the slightest interest in seeing grown men play with balls but I'd be the first to admit that the quality of the picture - and also the sound - on games of football is very good - uncomfortably lifelike in fact!

 

[big rd]

bsuttie i have a pioneer hd ready plasma screen and i am getting sky hd instaled on thursday are you saying it wont look so good.

 

[kbj242]

big rd - Ive seen Sky HD on a Pio 436 (HD ready) and Sony 46" LCD (which is Full 1080 HD). Little or no difference in picture peformance to my eyes.

 

[bsuttie]

bsuttie i have a pioneer hd ready plasma screen and i am getting sky hd instaled on thursday are you saying it wont look so good.

You may not see as much of an improvement as someone with a full HD screen, but it should still look better than SD

regards

Brian

 

[bobcar]

I'd agree. Particularly if you have a full HD set rather than an "HD ready" set the difference is marked.

Depending on the distance you sit from the TV there may be no difference between a 768 set or a 1080 set - in most cases this is true though far from all.

The biggest improvement over SD will be seen with a lower quality TV set because the higher quality ones handle SD better.

 

[Playalistic]

I had my installed yesterday, unfortunately I live in a block of apartments with a communal dish so had to suffer only one feed into the box but that is another story. Anyway I'm more than happy with the quality and content so far. We watch quite a lot of telly so its worth it for us, you'll have to decide if its worth paying for though.

 

[Broadz]

I'd agree. Particularly if you have a full HD set rather than an "HD ready" set the difference is marked.

Full HD means the TV is capable of displaying a 1080p picture.
HD Ready means the TV is capable of displaying a 1080i picture.

Sky HD transmits at no higher than 1080i.

So how is a Full HD set going to show a better picture than a HD Ready set when watching Sky HD?

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just questioning whether Full HD or HD Ready makes any difference on broadcast high definition, as opposed to Blu Ray DVDs which are encoded in 1080p.

 

[bobcar]

Full HD means the TV is capable of displaying a 1080p picture.
HD Ready means the TV is capable of displaying a 1080i picture.

Sky HD transmits at no higher than 1080i.

So how is a Full HD set going to show a better picture than a HD Ready set when watching Sky HD?

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just questioning whether Full HD or HD Ready makes any difference on broadcast high definition, as opposed to Blu Ray DVDs which are encoded in 1080p.

Certainly there's no advantage in having 1080p signal capability however there may be an advantage in having a 1080 display if you sit close enough for your TV size - though most people don't.

To be honest the whole issue of screen resolution just clouds the issue when it comes to the decision as to whether to get Sky HD or not, even an SD panel will see a significant improvement on HD channels.

 

[Jaycee Dove]

I also am not convinced that you get a much better picture with Sky HD via a Full HD set rather than an HD ready one. Possibly with Blue Ray you might.

We have a supposedly (by this argument) inferior Panasonic Plasma and I have seen full HD LCDs that are not as good. So this simply is not correct as a general statement; although it may be in some specific instances.

HD ready - if a good TV - is terrific with Sky HD.

I suspect the difference might really be to do with Full HD sets making SD transmissions less good than HD ready does. So the jump from poorish SD to HD is greater than from an HD ready set showing SD to showing HD because the SD was already better.

Again this is probably too broad a generalisation but SD football on our Panasonic is perfectly acceptable (as, incidentally is ITV SD) - although HD football via Sky or ITV HD is miles better, of course.

 

[CaffeineJunkie]

Full HD means the TV is capable of displaying a 1080p picture.
HD Ready means the TV is capable of displaying a 1080i picture.

Sky HD transmits at no higher than 1080i.

So how is a Full HD set going to show a better picture than a HD Ready set when watching Sky HD?

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just questioning whether Full HD or HD Ready makes any difference on broadcast high definition, as opposed to Blu Ray DVDs which are encoded in 1080p.

I think he was aluding to the fact that most (but I dont think all) sets labeled as HD Ready are in fact 768 lines even if they can display a 1080i signal.

In that case it would be displaying a 1080i signal downscaled to 768 lines.

I think however there are some TVs labeled as HD ready which are 1080 lines but they only accept 1080i signals. Anyone care to clarify?

 

[GasDad]

You may not see as much of an improvement as someone with a full HD screen, but it should still look better than SD

regards

Brian

I too have a pioneer HD ready plasma - and the difference over SD is huge !

 

[bsuttie]

I think he was aluding to the fact that most (but I dont think all) sets labeled as HD Ready are in fact 768 lines even if they can display a 1080i signal. In that case it would be displaying a 1080i signal downscaled to 768 lines.

Yes that's just the point I was trying to make.

I see a lot of postings from people who "make the move to HD" and are underwhelmed by the results.

They invariably have a panel with a resolution of 1024 x 768 or 1366 x 768 or some such thing.

Many people may well be perfectly happy with that, depending on viewing distance, but I believe that in order to get the full benefit of 1080 line tranmissions you need to have a 1080 line panel and set it to 1:1 pixel mapping.

regards

Brian

 

[bsuttie]

I too have a pioneer HD ready plasma - and the difference over SD is huge !

Yes, but it could be even huger! (did I just invent a new word?)

regards

Brian

 

[GasDad]

Yes, but it could be even huger! (did I just invent a new word?)

regards

Brian

Having seen sky HD, on a full 1080p LCD (reasonably set up - not in a shop) - I'll stick with my plasma.

 

[paddymcn]

You lost me with all the figures so I'll just give a little feedback on my HD experiences so far. I have a full HD (1080P) TV that handles SD very well. Unless the broadcast is actual HD then I can barely tell the difference from say SS1 and SS1HD or Eurosport and Eurosport HD. When it is actual HD I can only only descibe it as lifelike, its almost like sitting in the stand. My problem lies with the fact not enough matches are shown in HD. I've even taken to watching rugby when it is shown in HD...

 

[Starburst]

Only one programme but the WTCC on Eurosport HD blows the already pretty good SD broadcast out of the water

If you mean footy matches then all PL and Championship games are native HD and virtually all Carling games. The home legs of British clubs are nearly always covered by SKY in HD and the often have native HD from selected venues in Germany and Italy(?), the problem with away legs is that for the most part the bulk of the EU are just getting their act together with widescreen.