sky hd anyone have it and is it worth it??

alanhiggyno1

hi people thinking of getting in hd for my sports.ive seen it in action on other people tv and it seems cool to watch..just want to know how much sky charge for just football in hd.i already have all the sports and multiroom and want to upgrade if price is right..any help would be great.thanks in advance..

molby

15 euro a month and you get all sports if you already subscribe.You also get any other HD channels that they have available as long as you subscribe to that package.Worth it IMO as I find it hard to watch standard def these days.

Hannibal

its pretty amazing, i'd take HD over the 3D anyday

NIMAN

There is a belief these days that Sky have deliberately lowered the quality of their SD pictures to make the HD ones look ever better than they are.

I have noticed on my SD football on Sky there is nearly always a shimmer or ghosting around the players which was not there in the past. Perhaps they have had to lower the bitrates on their SD channels?

Anyway, HD is definitely impressive, but I will not easily give $ky even more money every month. 3D for me is just a gimmick too.

watty

3D is only Stereoscopic and usually sacrifices resolution on Broadcast (960 x 1080 instead of 1920 x 1080).

The Sky charges are however a rip-off. But if you want Sky Sport you have to pay.

Many channels are poorer quality on Satellite now due to packing more channels in. Irish Terrestrial Digital (Saorview) is now better than Satellite generally. HD BBC1 downsampled for a SD TV (via RGB SCART) is much better than BBC1 direct on SD.

rlogue

Most SD channels on Sky including the Irish terrestrials are throttled to 544x576 instead of correct SD which is 720x576.

The Sky extra HD charge is a complete rip off.

Minstrel27

NIMAN wrote: »

There is a belief these days that Sky have deliberately lowered the quality of their SD pictures to make the HD ones look ever better than they are.

I have no doubt that they did this. As you say Sky Sports always looked great on SD but it has lost the sharpness that was there a few years ago.

rlogue wrote: »

The Sky extra HD charge is a complete rip off.

Agreed.

bcirl03

Rip off big time - my HD is the multiroom box so double whammy €€€ for me.

Picture on sports is excellent but I can live without it.

To be honest I'm dumping $ky for UPC and have posted on the Cable forum asking if I am right to do so.

Looking at it from a cost perspective they are way cheaper and €ky need to stop charging so much for the little extras.

Cantona's Collars

bcirl03 wrote: »

Rip off big time - my HD is the multiroom box so double whammy €€€ for me.

Picture on sports is excellent but I can live without it.

To be honest I'm dumping $ky for UPC and have posted on the Cable forum asking if I am right to do so.

Looking at it from a cost perspective they are way cheaper and €ky need to stop charging so much for the little extras.

The range of HD channels on UPC is extremely limited compared to Sky,UPC increasing prices from today also. Pricewise they match up unless you decide to go for a bundle with phone/tv/broadband which is decent value depending on what package you choose.

cartman51773

sky HD is fantastic. but they know what they are at because when you go back to SD tv to watch something the picture is so pixelated and blocky its awful. but the 15.00 is a rip off. especially if you only have the sports and docs

paulm17781

bcirl03 wrote: »

To be honest I'm dumping $ky for UPC and have posted on the Cable forum asking if I am right to do so.

I have just done the opposite. Sky is in a different league to UPC. I wouldn't go back to UPC unless they dramatically upgrade their TV services.

madds

paulm17781 wrote: »

I have just done the opposite. Sky is in a different league to UPC. I wouldn't go back to UPC unless they dramatically upgrade their TV services.

Paulm, I'm looking at doing the same. What UPC services were you using before you jumped over to SKY and is it costing you any more being with SKY that it was when you were with UPC?

I'm using UPC for Digital TV (not HD) and Broadband but would be looking to get SKY HD mainly for their sports packages.

dar83

Just got Sky HD in before Christmas. Existing Sports and Family pack subscriber with Multiroom (both prev Sky+ boxes). If you ring them up as an existing customer, not sure about the level of package required, but I got the Sky HD box for free and the Sub is onl €5 a month for 12 months, then it increases to €10.

I wouldn't pay the €15 extra on what we already pay, but it's well worth it for a fiver. Sports channels are much better and once you tune in BBC One HD and ITV1 HD you get even more for it. Worth it if you can get it for the fiver extra and €30 installation charge.

paulm17781

madds wrote: »

Paulm, I'm looking at doing the same. What UPC services were you using before you jumped over to SKY and is it costing you any more being with SKY that it was when you were with UPC?

I had the max package & DVR from UPC, I think it was about 37.50.

I only have two packages from Sky (HD box, no HD subscription) and it costs me €23 per month, I only picked what I'm likely to watch plus there's loads of free channels.

I also have UPC broadband but the saving in Sky negates the extra charge.

crosstownk

I find Sky HD excellent. The picture quality is far superior to SD. It depends on your TV. I've been to two friends houses who have Sky HD and while the HDMI cable was connected, the input that they were watching Sky on was SCART because 'that's how they alway's watch Sky'. No wonder they reckoned Sky HD was not worth it!!!

molby wrote:

Worth it IMO as I find it hard to watch standard def these days.

I agree.

aphex™

We got a LED tv after the LCD one packed in recently (2 years it lasted, to the week).

The difference is amazing. Everything appears upscaled. Visitors comment on the amazing picture when we stick on films. It's a philips model.

No need for the extra HD expense here at all..

EDIT: SCART ftw!!

Nonoperational

Try watching proper HD through HDMI, you'll realise how wrong you are then! Sky HD on a Samsung LED and it's very pretty to look at.

aphex™

gpf101 wrote: »

Try watching proper HD through HDMI, you'll realise how wrong you are then! Sky HD on a Samsung LED and it's very pretty to look at.

I'm sure it is nice. But the jump isn't gonna be that big from where we are now, with upscaling/polishing engine included in the tv (unlike old lcds which are rubbish to look at in SD now IMO).

Don't see why anybody should have to spend extra for HD either. Surely the cost of satellite transponders is coming down as new ones are launched? MPEG4 helps take away some of the cost, too.

Minstrel27

aphex™ wrote: »

But the jump isn't gonna be that big from where we are now

HD will look much better.

NIMAN

Remember that a lot of 'HD' programming on satellite is not true HD but upscaled SD.

OK so it will look better, but we are being conned with this service.

BBC HD and ITV HD are particularly guilty of this from what I read on various forums. I think Sky would have better quality HD.

But I'd guess none of them will ever look as good as a top quality BluRay disk.

Satellite programming for me is all about packing in as many channels as possible (and thus lowering bitrates) rather than quality of image. Sure SD has the potential to be good enough if it wasn't so watered down.

fish fingers

The HD quality is far superior on sky Italia compared to sky Uk

Cantona's Collars

The BBC got into hot water in the UK over the quality and bitrate of their HD service.Sky have better bitrates for HD especially on Sport channels and picture quality is great.
I too have invested in a new LED tv and picture quality is superb even on SD channels. (apart from TV3 which looks like legoland even compared to ITV SD).

Minstrel27

NIMAN wrote: »

But I'd guess none of them will ever look as good as a top quality BluRay disk.

The same can be said about every HD channel on the planet.

M.J.M.C

dar83 wrote: »

........ BBC One HD and ITV1 HD you get even more for it..

ITV1 HD?
Couldnt see that on their site:
http://www.sky.com/ireland/high-definition/home/hd-channels/

Cantona's Collars

M.J.M.C wrote: »

ITV1 HD?
Couldnt see that on their site:
http://www.sky.com/ireland/high-definition/home/hd-channels/

You have to tune BBC1 HD and ITVHD into 'other channels'. Check sticky for frequencies.

NIMAN

Minstrel27 wrote: »

The same can be said about every HD channel on the planet.

I believe there are some channels on German satellites which transmit in Full 1080p 1920 x 1080 (Blu Ray quality). Plus they use very high bit rates.

Lets be honest, the likes of BBC and ITV HD could be a lot better if they really put their minds to it. Get rid of all the fillers on the satellites that no-one watches and free up some bandwidth.

Minstrel27

NIMAN wrote: »

I believe there are some channels on German satellites which transmit in Full 1080p 1920 x 1080 (Blu Ray quality). Plus they use very high bit rates.

There are no channels from Germany transmitting in 1080p.

NIMAN

Thoguht I had read that once, probably wrong.

But doing a quick search I see some countries do have channels transmitted in 1080i, which is a start.

Minstrel27

I think that all of the Sky HD channels are 1080i

NIMAN

Are BBC HD and ITV HD transmitted in 1080i ?

Or is it possible that one signal in 1080i can be significantly better than another in 1080i ?

watty

All European Broadcast HD is
960 x 1080i 25fps 50Hz for 3D on Satellite
1920 x 1080i 25fps 50Hz for most Satellite
1440 x 1080i 25fps 50Hz for most Terrestrial

The US uses 1280 x 720p 60Hz for some Broadcast content because 3:2 pull down conversion from film 24 fps to interlaced 30fps 60Hz is ghastly.
They also have some 1080p broacast Pay TV Movie Channels (download/Satellite only). These may be 24p, not 60p

In the United States, 1080p over-the-air broadcasts still do not exist as of 2010; all major networks use either 720p60 or 1080i60 encoded with MPEG-2. However, satellite services (e.g. DirecTV, XstreamHD, and Dish Network) utilize the 1080p/24-30 format with MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 encoding for PPV movies that are downloaded in advanced via satellite or on demand via broadband internet only. At this time, no pay service channel such as USA, HDNET, etc. nor premium movie channel such as HBO, etc., stream their services live to MVPD's using this format because many MVPD's, especially DBS and cable, do not have sufficient bandwidth to provide the format streaming live to its subscribers without negatively impacting their current services and because of the high "cost" of using more bandwidth for one 1080p/24 channel than what would be used for a 1080i or even a 720p channel and for only those relatively few who have HDTV's that can display 1080p/24 as not being an efficient use of their limited bandwidth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p (not too well written)

Note that conversion of 1080i 25fps 50Hz to 1080p 50fps 50Hz is perfect for material from Film source as Film is 24p 24fps/24Hz. Cinema projects each frame at least twice 24 fps / 48Hz to reduce flicker.

Minstrel27

NIMAN wrote: »

Are BBC HD and ITV HD transmitted in 1080i ?

I don't think they are.

fat-tony

Minstrel27 wrote: »

I don't think they are.

As watty says - BBC and ITV HD are 1080i

As an aside I'm watching ZDF HD just now. It's a FTA channel on Astra 1(19.2E). DVBViewer is reporting it as 1280x720p (it's 50fps) as is Das Erste HD and arte HD.
Another FTA HD channel (Servus HD) on Astra 1 is 1920x1080i - same as one of the ITV HD variants.

Minstrel27

fat-tony wrote: »

As watty says - BBC and ITV HD are 1080i

When did they start broadcasting in 1920x1080i on satellite? I remember BBC HD and some ITV1 HD regions being 1440x1080i before I turned my dish to Hotbird.

fat-tony

Granada ITV region HD(10935V) is 1920x1080i

dolby

I got Sky HD in November, for the life of me I cant see much difference maybe it is my tv 3 years old! however when I watch a game on Sly Sports the HD channel is approx 10secs slower than the basic channel! not happy thinking about getting rid!

Minstrel27

fat-tony wrote: »

Granada ITV region HD(10935V) is 1920x1080i

No other regions?

watty

HD Channels that are same on Satellite and Terrestrial are 1440 x 1080i (25fps 50Hz), usually.

AFAIK all Terrestrial HD in UK and Ireland will be 1440 x 1080i

Any Satellite that isn't 1440 x 1080i (25fps 50Hz), is 1920 x 1080i (25fps 50Hz), except 3D HD, which does the left and right eye squashed side by side in a 1920 x 1080i (25fps 50Hz) frame, thus is true resolution of 960 x 1080i (25fps 50Hz),

stephendevlin

Dotsey wrote: »

its pretty amazing, i'd take HD over the 3D anyday

Me too!

watty

fat-tony wrote: »

As watty says - BBC and ITV HD are 1080i

As an aside I'm watching ZDF HD just now. It's a FTA channel on Astra 1(19.2E). DVBViewer is reporting it as 1280x720p (it's 50fps) as is Das Erste HD and arte HD.
Another FTA HD channel (Servus HD) on Astra 1 is 1920x1080i - same as one of the ITV HD variants.

If DVBviewer is correct, then that is a recent and bizzare development. There is no need for 720p in Europe. It's inferior to 1920x1080i The sole reason for it is reduced 3:2 artefacts on USA film broadcasts. USA SD is 480 lines, Europe is 576 lines, so 720p is not such a good improvement. Especially rescaled to fit a 1920 x 1080 screen.

Progressive conversion of film source of 1080i (25fps/50Hz) is perfect. No extra resolution even if transmission was 1920x1080p.

Your eyes can't see detail of rapid movement, so interlace saves 50% bandwidth. Before TV Film was only 24fps. 25fps 50Hz and 30fps 60Hz had to be chosen to minimise moving hum bars compared to 24fps 48Hz. The double field rate reduces flicker compared to Cinema. Modern Cinema after WII showed each frame twice to double from 24FPS to 48FPS. 1930s to 1990s TVs could not economically have a frame store to show frame twice, hence the interlace concept which for any detail more than one line high gives 50fps and for single line detail gives 25fps, the closed to Film rate the mains frequency allowed.

Nowadays with improved power supplies and digital TVs, we could use 24fps same as film and display at 48 fps or 72fps progressive in USA and Europe. Digital was a missed opportunity to have a single standard for SD and HD. For Digital we have five incompatible terrestrial transmission standards with 2 or 3 incompatible sub standards. Only three Satellite versions and two cable version though. We have at least 4 SD resolutions and maybe 10 HD resolutions (counting interlaced, progressive, frame rates) and ignoring 3D.
It's a mess.

Nonoperational

aphex™ wrote: »

I'm sure it is nice. But the jump isn't gonna be that big from where we are now, with upscaling/polishing engine included in the tv (unlike old lcds which are rubbish to look at in SD now IMO).

Don't see why anybody should have to spend extra for HD either. Surely the cost of satellite transponders is coming down as new ones are launched? MPEG4 helps take away some of the cost, too.

Unless your LED TV is infinitely better than my Samsung then the difference is huge! You think SD is good but when you compare the same thing on both there is a big difference.

watty

BBC HD otters awesome tonight compared to local up-scalled DVD.
Which is not quite as good as RTE's in house up-scale to RTE2 HD TX,
but better than broadcast RTE1 upscaled.

fat-tony

watty wrote: »

If DVBviewer is correct, then that is a recent and bizzare development. There is no need for 720p in Europe. It's inferior to 1920x1080i The sole reason for it is reduced 3:2 artefacts on USA film broadcasts. USA SD is 480 lines, Europe is 576 lines, so 720p is not such a good improvement. Especially rescaled to fit a 1920 x 1080 screen.

Progressive conversion of film source of 1080i (25fps/50Hz) is perfect. No extra resolution even if transmission was 1920x1080p.

Your eyes can't see detail of rapid movement, so interlace saves 50% bandwidth. Before TV Film was only 24fps. 25fps 50Hz and 30fps 60Hz had to be chosen to minimise moving hum bars compared to 24fps 48Hz. The double field rate reduces flicker compared to Cinema. Modern Cinema after WII showed each frame twice to double from 24FPS to 48FPS. 1930s to 1990s TVs could not economically have a frame store to show frame twice, hence the interlace concept which for any detail more than one line high gives 50fps and for single line detail gives 25fps, the closed to Film rate the mains frequency allowed.

Nowadays with improved power supplies and digital TVs, we could use 24fps same as film and display at 48 fps or 72fps progressive in USA and Europe. Digital was a missed opportunity to have a single standard for SD and HD. For Digital we have five incompatible terrestrial transmission standards with 2 or 3 incompatible sub standards. Only three Satellite versions and two cable version though. We have at least 4 SD resolutions and maybe 10 HD resolutions (counting interlaced, progressive, frame rates) and ignoring 3D.
It's a mess.

Was sort of a surprise to me also, as I thought 1080i was the accepted norm throughout Europe at least. I did a bit of googling and yes, the FTA public service HD transmissions are in 720 progressive since Feb 2010, but not everyone is happy - http://www.intelligencecentre.net/2010/02/22/german-public-broadcasters-face-flak-over-hd-picture-quality/

watty

really, really strange as it's about the same bandwidth (1280 x 720 x 50 = 46,080,000 and 1920 x 1080 x 25 = 51,840,000 and 1440 x 1080 x 25 = 38,880,000)

Even semi animorphic 1440 x 1080i is superior to 720p for 25fps / 50fps


Unless they are doing 720p25? (23,080,000 rather than 46,080,000)

colm1234

upc and sky both a rip off ive free sat cost me $0.00 a month over 70 channels including e4, sky news, itv, bbc, bliss, clubland, scuzz, dance nation ans so on.
also if you want it in hd just buy the hd box with pause record rewind function.

fat-tony

It's p50. Bitrate is around 12Mbps

mad muffin

aphex™ wrote: »

We got a LED tv after the LCD one packed in recently (2 years it lasted, to the week).

The difference is amazing. Everything appears upscaled. Visitors comment on the amazing picture when we stick on films. It's a philips model.

No need for the extra HD expense here at all..

EDIT: SCART ftw!!

aphex™ wrote: »

I'm sure it is nice. But the jump isn't gonna be that big from where we are now, with upscaling/polishing engine included in the tv (unlike old lcds which are rubbish to look at in SD now IMO).

Don't see why anybody should have to spend extra for HD either. Surely the cost of satellite transponders is coming down as new ones are launched? MPEG4 helps take away some of the cost, too.

I hope you post in jest, as you can not be serious?

MyKeyG

bcirl03 wrote: »

Rip off big time - my HD is the multiroom box so double whammy €€€ for me.

Picture on sports is excellent but I can live without it.

To be honest I'm dumping $ky for UPC and have posted on the Cable forum asking if I am right to do so.

Looking at it from a cost perspective they are way cheaper and €ky need to stop charging so much for the little extras.

Well you get what you pay for, or don't pay for if you want to look at it that way. Bear in mind one important factor if sports is your thing. UPC don't do the red button which means that during the Heineken Cup and Champions League you're stuck with the featured match. There's another thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056135449 that claims for the most part that the SD quality on Sky is better.

I mean don't get me wrong Sky are the biggest Satellite provider in the UK and Ireland. They have a lot more cash on the hip and they develop much of their own technology. UPC are a 'piggy back' provider so they are limited.