Is Sky HD Worth getting??

[Rookies]

I am thinking of getting Sky HD to go with my 42 inch Panny PX70

But will i see a different at all between Sky Sport 1 and Sky Sport HD1 when same football match is showing are there really that much of a difference?

Cheers

 

[eastman3000]

Nah no point. Its all hype.

 

[JimmyT]

In my opinion you can see a definite difference on the HD to SD football and rugby and i dont consider my HD tv to be that special. The question is whether there is enough HD content on the HD channels to justify it. I definitely wouldnt recommend Sky HD based on the HD movie channels as i was a bit disappointed with them, but if you are in it for the Sky footie and dont mind the cost then go for it.

 

[Starburst]

I am thinking of getting Sky HD to go with my 42 inch Panny PX70

But will i see a different at all between Sky Sport 1 and Sky Sport HD1 when same football match is showing are there really that much of a difference?

Cheers

HD footy (sport in general) is perhaps the most obvious selling point of HD far more so than movies (which have to come from a good master) or even documentaries which if done well look good in SD.

SKY Sports SD footy is pretty good anyway but HD is a different league and the BBC HD coverage again is much better than their SD coverage, shame about there being no ITV HD footy.
Rugby also benefits from HD and judging from last summer the HD cricket will be spectacular again

With Summer coming up it may be worth putting a purchase off for a few months if footy is your thing, prices are not going to go up but there may be deals later in the year.

 

[RedIndian]

Definetly worth it mate....only problem is that you wont enjoy watching sport in SD after you have seen it in HD.

 

[tonkie]

Nah no point. Its all hype.

Yes there is a point and the point is PQ in HD is far superior

 

[vtrnutter]

I was one of the first to have Sky HD last summer, and my conclusions are as follows:

i) Bigger = better. i.e. the bigger TV you have, the more Sky HD will show its quality. I originally had it on a 32" LCD, and would not recommend somebody pay £300 to have HD on a set this size (like I did!). There is a difference, but is not so noticeable that it gives you the wow factor. I now have a a 42" 1080 LCD and on this set, HD material broadcast at a decent bit rate is outstanding on certain channels.
ii) Some HD channels seem to be rubbish. This is either because the material being broadcast is SD upscaled to HD, or are being broadcast in a lowish bit rate, or not worth watching to start with (e.g. Artsworld). Some HD channels show consistently superb HD material e.g. Hotel Babylon on BBC HD.
iii) There are not enough HD channels generally. I would have expected the number to have risen drastically in 12 months, but nothing has really changed.
iv) I think the Sky HD channels are the weakest, falling into many of the issues described in (ii) above. Sky One HD especially is a let down - although it does on occasion have decent quality stuff. It is the variability that annoys me.
v) £10 a month for a few extra channels of variable HD material is not worth the money
vi) The HD box itself is well designed, upscales SD material well, and has been problem free (apart from early software issues)

In summary, if you have Sky and want an upgrade to plus faciltiies, then the HD is the sensible upgrade option. Personally, I would not upgrade from Sky + to Sky HD as I simply do not think that it is value for money.

 

[Rookies]

I was one of the first to have Sky HD last summer, and my conclusions are as follows:

i) Bigger = better. i.e. the bigger TV you have, the more Sky HD will show its quality. I originally had it on a 32" LCD, and would not recommend somebody pay £300 to have HD on a set this size (like I did!). There is a difference, but is not so noticeable that it gives you the wow factor. I now have a a 42" 1080 LCD and on this set, HD material broadcast at a decent bit rate is outstanding on certain channels.
ii) Some HD channels seem to be rubbish. This is either because the material being broadcast is SD upscaled to HD, or are being broadcast in a lowish bit rate, or not worth watching to start with (e.g. Artsworld). Some HD channels show consistently superb HD material e.g. Hotel Babylon on BBC HD.
iii) There are not enough HD channels generally. I would have expected the number to have risen drastically in 12 months, but nothing has really changed.
iv) I think the Sky HD channels are the weakest, falling into many of the issues described in (ii) above. Sky One HD especially is a let down - although it does on occasion have decent quality stuff. It is the variability that annoys me.
v) £10 a month for a few extra channels of variable HD material is not worth the money
vi) The HD box itself is well designed, upscales SD material well, and has been problem free (apart from early software issues)

In summary, if you have Sky and want an upgrade to plus faciltiies, then the HD is the sensible upgrade option. Personally, I would not upgrade from Sky + to Sky HD as I simply do not think that it is value for money.

Thank you for a very good write up.

As I am with Sky Plus at the moment as you suggest it noth worth it yet so i stick to what i am on. I was going to buy HD box off ebay for £175 and connect it up myself and just take advantage of the free BBC HD for now.

But then again there nothing on there that i watch anywhere really

 

[C225]

I only have a 32" tv and think it is worth it (mind i did only pay £150 for the box)

 

[Jaycee Dove]

We have had Sky HD with a Panasonic 37 PX 60 since launch last May.

It is excellent for football. In fact comparing BBC HD or Sky Sports HD versus ITV is like sitting on the touchline versus watching through a window that nobody has cleaned since Tom Finney was a lad.

Nature documentaries like Planet Earth are utterly stunning in HD. Some drama series (eg Bones on Sky One) really bring out the best.

In fact Sky has increased bit rates recently and there is a big improvement in PQ on some channels.

At present the one downer is movies. The PQ on one of the two HD movie channels is great but the PQ on the other is visibly poorer and on the pay to view movie channels it can be attrocious.

I think they might be addressing this soon.

In any case, with an HD box you also get Sky Anytime. This is downloading overnight some very high PQ movies and better than usual transmission HD shows like Lost.

I have no complaints about HD and the Panasonic; although I am assuming that the PX 70 range is at least as good as last years models (???)

 

[colham]

I started a debate like this about 2 weeks ago, and ended up just going for it.

True there's not that much choice at the moment, but what you get is very good. Sports are excellent. I was shocked how much of an HD snob I've become in 2 weeks, but the Man U v Roma game on ITV might as well have been in b&w.

I got my box from Midsat, as I already had Sky+, and it was a piece of p!ss to set up.

 

[NEIL J JONES]

Some HD channels show consistently superb HD material e.g. Hotel Babylon on BBC HD.

Interesting comment, I was always of the opinion that HB was one of the poorer PQ HD shows on BBCHD. its not my cup of tea but the missues watches it and the HD version only appears to be slightly better then the SD version. Close up stuff is good but a lot of background noise in some shots. But it may vary show to show. I saw a couple of episdoes of Torchwood in HD and they were fantastic, while other weeks it was only average PQ.

 

[Barbs]

I recently jumped on the HD band wagon - but as Sky gave me the sat box for free this was a bit of a no brainer. As for the £10 sub - i think that it is worth it - if nothing else it just replaces the sky+ £10 sub.

I was very sceptical at first about the benefits of HD but some of the broadcasts are stunning and on a 42" panny there is a very clear and noticable difference. On the downside there is not enough HD content and as the panny is better than most with SD anyway I am not sure that spending £300 on a HD box is worth it (I wouldn't upgrade at that price). HD is brilliant when you can find it (and something worth watching), but only if you can justify the high cost of a HD sat box.

In saying that, now that I have it - I wouldn't go back........

 

[Gazza69]

I think its worth it.

The ITV coverage now is atrocious and the only way I can watch is PIP with the other game showing on iTV4

 

[tonkie]

I am thinking of getting Sky HD to go with my 42 inch Panny PX70

But will i see a different at all between Sky Sport 1 and Sky Sport HD1 when same football match is showing are there really that much of a difference?

Cheers

You will see all Sky better because it will be conected via the HDMI cable

 

[bob-avf]

In my opinion the difference is just not enough - especially for the football which is mainly what I watch

In addition, I have just cancelled my HD because the quality of the boxes are just not good enough - 3 boxes in one month - all sounding like hoovers - you just cant enjoy the movie/match etc with so much background noise from the fans and disk. there are other glitches - ticker tape distortion, volume on HD channels etc - so I am going back to Sky+ until box quality improves

cheers

Bob

 

[mutling]

Thinking of getting it as well. Only got Freesat at the moment.

Will the HDMI connections help PQ on my Panasonic LXD70 and is it worth the cost?

Don't watch much sport and happy watching films through the 360.

 

[pl34]

If you can afford it and you like the football - its worth every penny.

Take the plunge, you wont regret it.

 

[malcom]

I only have a 32" tv and think it is worth it (mind i did only pay £150 for the box)

I have been hovering shall I go HD or won't I go HD for many weeks now.

The other day i was watching BBC HD preview on demo in Comet on a 32" screen (Sony bravia LCD set). (preview was Robin Hood film) I was not at all impressed on a 32" screen. Little difference from bog standard SD broadcast. In many way worse than SD as it was shown on a Sony LCD the colour accuracy of which I have a great issue with compared to other LCD makes. Flesh tones more like "Orange" tones and grass green very much "Lime green" Thats not the fault of Sky HD but resolution wise on a 32" set it just aint nothing to write home about as a good CRT TV can deliver as good or better.....Also the action looked animated which i suppose is down to image lag on LCD's Who knows!!! The demo was lousy for several reasons........


I can well imagine the benefits will be seen on larger screens.......

I would most certainly not get HD if I only intended watching on a 32" TV and i would never watch on a Sony LCD of any size as they all seem to suffer from terrible lime green shades in place of grass green..........

Colour quality wise I find the Toshiba range of LCD's to be most accurate in fact any make other than the Sony bravia range gives fine colour rendition....


Perhaps around September when the latest Toshiba range becomes available I might consider HD as for now the demo in Comet has put me right off the idea along with reports of noisy HD boxes which is the last thing I want messing up the nice clean sound I have from an audio video reciever......

Ahh well rant over feel better now...

 

[tonkie]

I have been hovering shall I go HD or won't I go HD for many weeks now.

The other day i was watching BBC HD preview on demo in Comet on a 32" screen (Sony bravia LCD set). (preview was Robin Hood film) I was not at all impressed on a 32" screen. Little difference from bog standard SD broadcast. In many way worse than SD as it was shown on a Sony LCD the colour accuracy of which I have a great issue with compared to other LCD makes. Flesh tones more like "Orang" tones and grass green very much "Lime green" Thats not the fault of Sky HD but resolution wise on a 32" set it just aint nothing to write home about as a good CRT TV can deliver as good or better.....Also the action looked animated which i suppose is down to image lag on LCD's Who knows!!! The demo was lousy for several reasons........


I can well imagine the benefits will be seen on larger screens.......

I would most certainly not get HD if I only intended watching on a 32" TV and i would never watch on a Sony LCD of any size as they all seem to suffer from terrible lime green shades in place of grass green..........

Colour quality wise I find the Toshiba range of LCD's to be most accurate in fact any make other than the Sony bravia range gives fine colour rendition....


Perhaps around September when the latest Toshiba range becomes available I might consider HD as for now the demo in Comet has put me right off the idea along with reports of noisy HD boxes which is the last thing I want messing up the nice clean sound I have from an audio video reciever......

Ahh well rant over feel better now...

I've got two 32'' LCD's and while I accept your opinion I think it is wrong, I am more than happy with my HD on my two 32 inches ( thats TV's)

 

[gavinp2]

We have recently gone from an old Panasonic 36" CRT to a 46" Sharp 1080P LCD and changed from a 250Gb Sky+ (connected using a QED RGB-only SQUART) to Sky HD using HDMI.

I think the HDMI connection definitely helps as the SD channels now seem appreciably clearer than before. The HD channels (what little there are of them) look impressive in the programmes we have seen so far.

We have only had Sky HD for a few days but the box seems slightly quieter than our Sky+ (albeit with a replacement HDD).

The main discovery has been just how poor the quality of some of the channels are. I was surprised to find Harry Potter shown on Sky Premiere looking pretty dreadful compared to Channel 5 which looks good most of the time! Variation in picture quality was evident before but now it is hard to ignore!

Thanks

Gavin

 

[malcom]

I've got two 32'' LCD's and while I accept your opinion I think it is wrong, I am more than happy with my HD on my two 32 inches ( thats TV's)

As a matter of personal interest and to help me decide in the future TV purchase could you tell me the brand of TV's you have and are so pleased with(Not Sony I hope )

It might be that Comet have chosen a bad combination and sloppy set up settings to demo.......Which would not surprise me in the least.

Looking at the Sony screen was like looking through a "Haze" Like a fine net curtain which killed the higher res that was slightly apparent but nothing to write home about.

 

[TheIain]

Short answer no.

 

[wormvortex]

I'd say no theres not nearly enough content to justify it yet. If money's no object then you might as well as its no loss. But if like most people money isn't no object then i'd wait till theres more HD content.

 

[Timbo21]

I got Sky HD on a deal when I bought my 32" Philips LCD recently.

If I did not have a projector I think I would have sent it back.

You can get improved pq on a 32", but IMO it's not enough, although the documentary HD stuff you also benefit from it being widescreen.

HD movies on my projector look fantastic, if you've got a good transfer at the right time. I did two recordings of King Kong, and the second one, which started at 9 pm was much better.

Overall I really like it, and DD5.1 on some of the nature stuff is a nice touch IMO. I find I'm watching a lot more educational stuff, which can only be a good thing