Question Picture quality SKY movies v BBC on 4K

salfordred

Active Member
So I just purchased a new LG 4K TV.

I don't think this is anything to do with the TV... but watching TV programmes on BBC and ITV in HD... (Our Girl / Cold Feet)... the picture quality has been outstanding. Yet the movies on SKY don't come close. I am using the same settings on the TV watching both. Even Netflix stuff isn't as good.

Can anybody explain ?
 

logiciel

Moderator
Why have you posted, four threads from one called No Sky Here, and which Sky system do you have?
 
Last edited:

1080 jawbreaker

Well-known Member
So I just purchased a new LG 4K TV.

I don't think this is anything to do with the TV... but watching TV programmes on BBC and ITV in HD... (Our Girl / Cold Feet)... the picture quality has been outstanding. Yet the movies on SKY don't come close. I am using the same settings on the TV watching both. Even Netflix stuff isn't as good.

Can anybody explain ?
bbc pq looks dnr'd and flat, there encoder look like they are set to retain edge detail giving the illusion there pq is good.The family guy encoder:) Modern tv is easy to encode. Don't get me wrong the encoder does a stellar job with the pitifull bitrates. A head shot with a shallow DOF is easy to encode. Did you watch the Olympics, the wide track and field shots looked a mess. If they showed a wide variety of movies you would soon see the encoder struggle with not so stellar source content.
 

Clem_Dye

Distinguished Member
So, if HD quality is that bad, I can't ever see how using a 4K panel to upscale HD content is ever going to work to give something half decent. Having seen some SD Freeview stuff upscaled by a 4K panel was enough to put me off the idea of buying a 4K panel for now, but if they make HD stuff and output from the likes of Netflix appear bad then I doubt that I'll ever bother buying. If broadcasters are struggling to get HD content look reasonable, what hope is there for 4K? If I understand things correctly, Sky's 4K stuff isn't really 4K, and there's a question over bandwidth limitations which may well impact streamed output from the likes of Amazon and Netflix. From where I'm sitting, it's looking very much like that 4K is a solution waiting for a problem. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong, but even with my limited eyesight, 4K justs looks like overkill to me.

Clem
 

logiciel

Moderator
You have not read my first question correctly.
There were four threads between yours and No Sky Here.
My second question might have been relevant to the subject.
I'll move this thread in due course.
 
The only way you will see 4k is in the cinema. So called 4k TV is in fact UHD at 3840 pixels. Nobody broadcasts 4k or streams it on the net.
 

mike7

Distinguished Member
Actually the HD quality of programmes on TV does appear to vary a lot. No doubt someone will fill in the technicalities on that one. Programmes like the Antiques Roadshow are actually pretty good quality. Even some soaps, like the location shots in Emmerdale, are very good. Some of the present range of 4K (0r UHD, if you like) TVs are able to upscale these better transmissions very well. It's never going to be 'proper' UHD but it is very acceptable and certainly no worse than straight HD. The earlier generation of UHD sets were often less capable. Even a SD transmission, if it is in the higher range of quality rather than some of the low bandwidth ones, gives a much more acceptable result on current models. Obviously there are different perspectives if you have an exceptionally large screen or sit close to the TV.
 
Last edited:

pedro2000uk

Distinguished Member
Actually, the quality of HD programs on TV does appear to vary a lot. No doubt someone will fill in the technicalities on that one. ..
They do, there's a wide range of new, old, cheap & expensive equipment being used, varying quality of source material, some source material not liking some processing gear but OK on other gear, newer equipment using less & less bandwidth or Mb/s that can produce a better looking picture, or the improvements instead getting used to save bandwidth/costs & maintain the same picture quality or even lower it even more.

The best looking live broadcast SD on satellite might still be the free to air MBC movie channels on Arabsat's BADR4 satellite @ 26e & which often get confused with HD.

The best looking live broadcast HD on satellite might still be beIN Sports & mainly, IMO, down to quality of production at each stage rather than just about final bit rates at the final transmission.

I used to work in the studio in analogue to digital days & nothing's really changed in that respect.

You could do with an overall measure of SD HD UHD picture quality.
 

mike7

Distinguished Member
Thanks Pedro. I've got a theory that some broadcast material is being shot on 4k cameras and then, of course, it is downscaled for HD transmission. I remember this was the case before HD transmissions started when, again, better HD cameras started to be used and subsequently downscaled for broadcast. The quality of some SD programmes made this way was noticeably different. In my last post I mentioned Emmerdale. There is, to me, a noticeable jump in quality between studio and on-site location stuff. I'd love to know if my theory is correct. Obviously big drama productions will be shot in 4k for distribution to countries which can show them in 4k.
 

pedro2000uk

Distinguished Member
Thanks Pedro. I've got a theory that some broadcast material is being shot on 4k cameras and then, of course, it is down-scaled for HD transmission. ...
There will be 4k mastering about now & maybe higher, and using it to down scale to HD, SD & the lowest quality, for IPTV.

It still depends on the quality, even with 4k originating/ mastering gear. There will still be good & bad gear, the actual bit rate/ bandwidth used to master @ 4k, the level/type of lossy compression or non lossy compression, or maybe non compressed [maybe not] & the abilities of the H/W S/W.

On motorised satellite systems, you routinely get treated to stunning studio quality broadcast feeds with HD @ 45Mb/s or more & it's questionable whether it's not better than certain DTH 4k already, particularly the way lossy handles (or rather doesn't handle) m o t i o n .
 

pedro2000uk

Distinguished Member
More promotion of motorised systems , it's a fanatics market the majority just aren't interested.:D
@muppetman, can I ask you, do you work for Sky in any manor &/or come on forums for them? because so many of your posts point that way, I'm not referring to this, but in particular, when people are complaining about something to do with sky q, you have seem to have an unnatural eagerness to assure everything is OK & your's has been faultless & you been seen saying that sky have a fix coming anyway... that only you seem to know about, which kinda sorta makes you think?

Motorised satellite might sound fantastic to you- [it is lol], but it's normal for owners & lots of people on here use motorised satellite systems.
This is or was about the final picture quality & the originating/ mastering/ editing to produce it, which is absolutely fundamental to picture quality & far less about the final bit rate &/or screen res. On motorised satellite, it 'is ' easy to routinely see the original high end live broadcast quality, I don't know anything else that can do that & I can't change that nor the fact that I use motorised satellite pretty much everyday or install satellite systems or worked for years in the AV studio, but if you can pull live 45Mb/s broadcast HD or what's been pushing live 100Mb/s broadcast UHD on a fixed sky dish pointed at Astra 2, I'd be most interested & if you notice, I didn't make any reference to your beloved Sky's picture quality.
 

muppetman

Well-known Member
No I don't work for Sky , probably the reason I've had Virgin TV , BT TV over the years. Basically I go where the deals are it just so happens of late Sky's retentions and offers has kept me.

I do however standby the comment above motorised is niche at best its something the majority just can't be with. I'm sure being honest you'd agree with that.

Oh and whilst we are discussing PQ if you check my posts you'll see I've already stated I've not been overly impressed with the UHD non Sport picture quality from my beloved Sky.;):smashin:
 

logiclee

Well-known Member
The Fact is if you only view SD TV, 1080i broadcast TV and 1080P Bluray then stick with a Full HD set.
 

pedro2000uk

Distinguished Member
No I don't work for Sky ....
Oh and whilst we are discussing PQ ...
That is what we were discussing before your interjection

..... if you check my posts, you'll see I've already stated I've not been overly impressed with the UHD non Sport picture quality from my beloved Sky.;):smashin:
Well, you know what, I took your advice & low & behold, there you are on a thread defending sky [again] against people complaining about the Sky Q UHD picture quality of certain films, blaming the source material & certain sports events blaming the weather.

That's not you claiming "you've not been overly impressed with the UHD" but yet again defending sky against people who have stated that "thev're not been overly impressed with the UHD".

The quality & resolution of source material is extremely important for the end result [what this thread is about] & actually that does include weather conditions when filming outside events.

That's not something I'd level at Sky, it's industry wide & tackled daily by the whole of the av / broadcast industry & issues do come into play with a change of equipment.

But Sky inadvertently admitting they were using legacy 1080 x 1440 HD gear for Sky HD, instead of what most assumed was 1080 x 1920 they were paying for & watching is a bit different & if that now means some Sky source material is held/ stuck at 1440 & is being up scaled to UHD, that would be something, but as I've said, there's all sorts across the industry.
 
Last edited:

muppetman

Well-known Member
So you pull me up for saying Source material matters and outdoor conditions can impact a production and then later on go on to agree with those points. Must admit though I fail to see how I was defending Sky here when the same applies to all broadcasts.


let's just agree to disagree and move on , I'm not one for getting into personal insults and flame wars.
 
Last edited:

logiciel

Moderator
Yes, move on!
Who'd have thought a one line post would lead to this?:facepalm:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Best Hi-Fi products of 2020, Plus Best of the Month for TV Shows & Movies

Latest News

What's new on Sky and NOW TV UK for December 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
PS5 vs. Xbox Series X: Which Next-Gen Console is Best?
  • By Rik Henderson
  • Published
Black Friday 2020: Best UK deals currently available
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 25th November 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Top Bottom