Sky HDTV.

Discussion in 'Sky Digital TV Forum' started by Briazy, Dec 31, 2004.

  1. Briazy

    Briazy
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    12
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    West Lothian
    Ratings:
    +1
    According to Sky tv whom i spoke with yesterday,HDTV will be introduced in the UK from spring 2005 across all channels.Anybody heard anything about this..?
     
  2. Andrew_P_S

    Andrew_P_S
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sounds highly unlikely to me I am afraid.

    There isn't the bandwidth to put it across all channels.
    There isn't enough HD recorded content to support it across all channels
    The number of channels would be drastically reduced
    SKY would lose money!!

    Recent comms from SKY suggest early 2006. Best guess from me would be one or two premium channels innitially
     
  3. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    Yes, it's the whole system still needing upgrade. To get bandwidth they might well have to cut some channels, too. It's twice the bandwidth at least. You need the program makers to film with hi def cameras, the editing to be done with a hi def studio, which will require considerable investment, and faith in a commercial return from a lot of people. I wonder if hi def is profitable in USA? It is of course well known that early adopters pay a premium price, and this will go for all the hi def equipment for professionals as well as consumers. The biggie will be to film the footie in hi def. They need bandwidth back from the grounds as well there, not quite the same as making a costume drama.
     
  4. Nick_UK

    Nick_UK
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,748
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +270
    What Sky are saying is that all channels will be available on their HD box, but it will be up to the individual broadcasters to decide on the content, and I fear that not many channels will be HD.

    Since it took well over 10 years to get ITV to join Sky, I don't think too many broadcasters will be killed in the rush to join HDTV. There just isn't enough suitable material out there to support it.
     
  5. mcav

    mcav
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    456
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +58
    Thing is, most people on this forum are either talking about or are going to get a plasma TV. The majority are talking about getting an SD panel. At the moment, I'd say the average profile of someone who doesn't have a plasma on this forum will be a half way decent widescreen TV... perhaps 100Hz.... perhaps not.

    Either way, this is unteirely unlike the average TV ownership in the UK.

    Some people still have TV's with brown wooden panelsm let alone widescreen. In addition to this, some people haven't even been properly introcuced to SCART leads. "DVI, HDMI, Component connections? HDTV??"

    The dumb majority of the UK will hold back HDTV for some time to come I am afraid.

    If the more educated of us are having trouble finding the right technology for HDTV what chance to the norms have?
     
  6. grahamtriggs

    grahamtriggs
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Messages:
    779
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +33
    Well, ITV joining Sky is a rather different argument. I totally agree that the majority of of broadcasters won't be rushing HD content.

    But then do the majority of people spend the majority of time watching the majority of channels?

    BBC and ITV by far have the largest audience share, even among those with multichannel services. Sky's own content has a lot more viewers than the other non-terrestrial channels they carry.

    What the majority of channels do is a minor concern. The real question is what will happen to majority of what you watch. If the Premiership coverage goes HD, if the movie channels go HD, if Sky One goes HD, if BBC goes HD - how much of your regular viewing is available as HD?

    I'm not saying that all of those channels will be available from launch, but if I was going to place a bet, I would say they are the channels that would go HD soonest.
     
  7. AudioSlim

    AudioSlim
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,060
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +76
    Dont forget that Sky are probably responsible for the take up in digital TV as it stands now. When they started providing digi-boxes free for new subscribers some 6 years ago or so. Then again to a certain extent with SKY+. Could you get a HD PVR in the UK before SKY+ launched (TIVO doesnt count really , not widely available is it!) in mainstream type places. Not really

    Theres no saying they wouldnt do the same again with HDTV in some capacity.

    Slim
     
  8. Nick_UK

    Nick_UK
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,748
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +270
    Yes, I don't doubt that in 5 or 6 years time, HDTV will be pretty well established, but I don't think that there will be quite the stampede for it that some are predicting. That's why I'm not too worried about the compatibility or otherwise of my existing TV, because in 5 or 6 years I will be looking to change it.
     
  9. grahamtriggs

    grahamtriggs
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Messages:
    779
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +33
    Who is predicting a stampede? The statement is simply that it will launch in 2006. When it does launch, it will do so with enough content to be interesting to some people. Not all. Not most. Some.
     
  10. hornydragon

    hornydragon
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    28,299
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Somewhere near the M4 most of the time......
    Ratings:
    +1,215
    TIVO was available in currys comet etc but at £300 the joe public decide it would be no better than a VCR and spent the money on something else the brittish public really dont care....... DVD took off very very well but i think the slow take up of DTT TV is enough to prove that most people dont have the want or knowledge to do it and i doubt many will pay for sky HD especially it it means they need a new and expensive TV we are the minority sky are heading to 6 million subscribers the forum has 36,000 members every memebr with sky could cancel and they wouldnt really notice
     
  11. mcav

    mcav
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    456
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +58
    DVD only really took off once the PS2 was launched. It was not a coincidence. It introduced DVD to a huge audience. This lead to a huge amount of DVD media sales and the technology then became very cheap, very quickly. Most people do not have a decent DVD player, but they do have a DVD player. Hell, my "good" player only cost £125. (Sony player, not a DAV) My upstairs player cost £56 6 months later and it's nearly as good! (LG)

    People in Britain have a caveman like fear of change. Sky digital were not too long ago having trouble getting people to go from Sky Analogue to Sky Digital. They removed nearly all Analogue channels... still didn't help. They then started to call people and tell them "look, we'll give you a free dish, free digibox, and free installation. Just go digital" and that STILL didn't work.

    What are the chances of getting them all to change there TV's???
     
  12. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    8,797
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +673
    I would say that out of a 60million plus population in this country, less than quarter of a million people actually want, or see the point of HDTV.
    That is less than half a percent, so all in all not a big concern for any of the broadcasters. It would be nice for them to say they were the first to bring it to the public, but they will not be doing it as a money spinner.
     
  13. FEBABE

    FEBABE
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sky should concentrate on getting their existing digital signal to the same standard as the terrestrial (freeview) one before shouting about HDTV.
     
  14. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    8,797
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +673
    The picture I get from Sky is better than I get from freeview, freeview is alot softer.
     
  15. phil5743

    phil5743
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Messages:
    401
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Ongar, Essex
    Ratings:
    +27
    What amazes me is that this small percentage of the population that would be most likely to be early adopters of Sky's HDTV service now find they don't have plasmas with the required connectivity.This seems ludicrously unfair as these are the very people that would have given Sky their hoped-for initial uptake. Sky will now have to rely on a "slow trickle" as existing people buy new screens and then feel they want to spend even more money on HDTV. The people that would have been most likely to do were are the ones that were prepared to buy the hardware at the beginning.
     
  16. FEBABE

    FEBABE
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    That's interesting, its the opposite for me - maybe freeview quality varies depending on the transmitter.
     
  17. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    8,797
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +673
    Or the box??

    I am using an early Pioneer for freeview so maybe that is the reason?
     
  18. FEBABE

    FEBABE
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Good point. I'm using the decoder built into a Sony plasma, PQ is much better than Sky.
     
  19. hao

    hao
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I also use the plasma freeview decoder (panny) and find freeview marginally better than sky but both give very good PQ.
     
  20. El Geet

    El Geet
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    The problem is showing Joe Public what the difference is. It's very difficult to convey the difference between a HD and a SD image without someone seeing for themselves. I haven't seen a huge amount of such footage (limited to a few WMVHD demos on the PC LCD) but it's as though your eyesight was poor and someone has given you a new set of glasses...until that moment it's difficult to conceive of an image that is better than a an SD DVD image.

    I was under the impression that in the US HDTV is mainly used for sport and the odd high budget series (24). Apparently, it's in use in Australia also but is very expensive.
     

Share This Page

Loading...