Discussion in 'Sky Digital TV Forum' started by derek500, Jun 11, 2009.
Sky News HD - coming next Spring - Sky+ HD - Digital Spy Forums
Or you could simply read the official press release Sky News HD
One assumes that 'Sky News HD' will occupy EPG channel 517 ..?
Unless they use 500 ..?
Why would you want to see news presenters in HD.?
I can understand stories yeah, but how many will be in HD.?
It does seem like a waste of a HD channel to me. Most news channels seem to be low bandwidth anyway.
the DS post is 'official'.
They need to trim a few unpopular channels - HD is starting to be compromised as they pack more in.
Really? What do you mean? I for one haven't noticed any degradation of quality since Sky have upgraded their encoders to fit four channels on one transponder. Have you?
Anyway there's still unused space. e.g 11876v has three HD tests currently running alongside the new Sky Arts 2HD transmission.
Shame its not SSN.
Id like to see millie clode in HD , but eamonn holmes? nah
**Makes a farting noise with mouth**
Sky News HD. Nice. Now we'll wait and see which other HD channels get squeezed for bandwidth to accommodate the Sky HD News Channel. I am not optimistic.
Are you honestly saying that since Sky implemented their new encoders the picture quality has worsened for you?
Why announce this? It's spring next year, almost 12 months away!!! The world will have changed a lot by then, although it seems Sky won't have.
It's bad enough paying £10 pcm for really limited HD content, unless you pay even more for the premium packs, but to be told this is the highlight of the next 12 months is really depressing.
Maybe they'll lull us into a this depressive thinking and then really surprise us and announce a half dozen more interesting channels in the interim.
Sky HD looks great but I'm really underwhelmed by the lack of channels on the basic package. And don't get me started on BBC HD - repeats, old series and limited air times for gawds sake...
I thought I was a late adopter of HD. Seems it's still in it's infancy.
To be fair to the BBC, they are limited as to what they are allowed to do, 9 hours per day plus some special events such as Wimbledon. They also are very selective about what is filmed in HD and have a limited catalogue of material. Remember that the production of HD is much more expensive and that comes from the licence fee.
I still question the benefit of a news channel in HD.
I haven't rated Sky Sports HD as highly as I rated last night's ITV HD offering from Wembley for a long time. And I'm not talking about pq in mixed sunshine/shadows in daytime games. Last night's pq was excellent. Am I alone in thinking that, for reasons best known to Sky, HD quality has suffered over the last year? Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder
We'll have to wait and see what, if any, effect Sky News HD will have on other channels sharing the transponder it ends up on.
Sky sports HD content varies greatly I admit, however this variation is still from good to excellent and has not suddenly gone worse because of any specific reason such as more channels, more likely variable production standards/studios/cameras. Last nights ITV HD PQ was very good, but is usually no better than Sky's.
I am not a lover of news channels purely from my days with a retentive old plasma, happily replaced, but old habits die hard, but surely if there is no capacity left for new channels then HD TV of which I am a huge fan has no real future.
Completely true! I don't get why ppl are moaning about the bandwidth and worries from losing picture quality on existing channels?? Are people really saying they want no more HD channels
No, i think more like "We want more quality HD channels"
What next, Baptist Church HD.
I know some people have not been able to tell any quality decrease in the last 12 months or so (and thats not a dig) but some people obviously have (like myself).
Sometimes we still get the stunning quality but its nowhere near on a regular basis as it was. Its not a major decrease, but its still a decrease. The football on Sky Sports use to be stunning on a regular basis, in recent times its just every now and again. Some so called experts tell us its the stadiums blatently forgetting its the same stadiums in use. Channels such as History HD and Nat Geo just dont seem to have that standout factor anymore. Compare Sky Arts HD to when it was first around and the shows for me do not look as crisp and colourful. The same with Sky One HD compared to a year or so ago.
I also think that Stat muxing plays its part as well in a negative way sometimes. Sometimes I watch shows such as Hollyoaks and Shameless and the the quality is fantatsic, other times I think its poor and looks washed out, yet when I watch the repeat of the episode I thought was poor its back to been great.
I just think Sky need to think more about the channels they launch in HD. For me 3 channels per transpoder is more than enoughin the main. With 4 channels teh quality is too patchy.
Do we really need 2 Sky Arts Hd channels??? Is there the content and demand for 2 channels? It would be interesting to see the viewing figures for such channel. We also have the many movie channels, which is great, but again is there the need for that many channels. How many times can Die Hard be screened in a week????
Anyway back on topic, Sky news Hd could be good if it is able to obtain plenty of HD news. Not really sure if this can be done.
ITV HD uses new encoders and the bitrates are much lower than any of the Sky Sports HD channels.
Separate names with a comma.