HD television - load of rubbish ??

[ppentertainments]

I just had sky HD installed last week - and what a dissapointment. :( :(

Yes, I agree, side by side you can see a difference but not so much you would walk into someones house and think 'they have / have not got HD'

Waste of £10 a month imo.

Anyone else ???

[Shaun]

I've not purchased the HD package out of principal. The likes of BBC and ITV provide HD at no extra charge, and the likes of Sky are just out to fleece every last penny they can get. All programming is recorded in HD so why should we have to pay an extra premium to view it in HD?

[Vectis]

We have Freesat HD.

Nowhere near as many HD channels as Sky (yet) but then it's free.

Brother in law has Sky HD on the same model series plasma as us, and our picture quality is immensely better.


Sky HD isn't £10 a month ... it's £10 EXTRA a month on top of your extortionate rental package.

[ppentertainments]

Sky HD isn't £10 a month ... it's £10 EXTRA a month on top of your extortionate rental package.
Your not wrong there. But as I live in a non-cable area and have a son who watched every channel NOT on freeview I decided to splash out.

[DJWilson]

I don't see much difference in HD to be honest...

I'm happy to stick with standard quality :)

[rob1963]

I just had sky HD installed last week - and what a dissapointment. :( :(

Yes, I agree, side by side you can see a difference but not so much you would walk into someones house and think 'they have / have not got HD'

Waste of £10 a month imo.

Anyone else ???

I agree with you...a waste of money. I might consider paying an extra pound or two a month for it, but certainly no more.

I watched Wimbledon on my mates Plasma, and although I could see the difference between HD & normal when he flicked between the two, it certainly wasn't enough to make me pay extra for it.

I understand a number of providers offer free HD television, and I have a feeling that due to a lack of take up with the providers who charge, all HD televison will probably be free within a few years.

[Danno13]

It's good and you can tell the difference, though scientifically not as much as the ear can with sound yet no-one seems to be improving that, but that's a whole other topic!

However i personally don't think it's worth £10 a month for the amount of channels I'd actually watch (I don't really do sport) so would rather put the money towards buying films on Bly ray.

It won't be long till it's free anyway and 3d will be the thing you have to pay extra for - same as happened with sky+

[mike8863]

HD to me is purely an over exposed picture, similar to an over exposed photograph with the contrast adjusted................:confused:

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Try it for a few months and you will notice the difference when you go back to normal channels.

Sport in particular looks fantastic and watching football or tennis is a lot better.

[discomobiledj]

It depends on what you watch on HD. I think the difference in football for example is massively better in HD.

Same for National Geographic, nothing like Deadliest Catch in HD!

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Just read this again and none of the people who commented actually have this installed, so how opinions can be reached on that basis, I'm not sure!

[rob1963]

Just read this again and none of the people who commented actually have this installed, so how opinions can be reached on that basis, I'm not sure!

My opinion has been reached based on watching my friends massive plasma TV, and seeing the difference when he kept flicking between normal TV & HD on live pictures of the Wimbledon tennis.

I think that gives me the right to form the opinion that it's overpriced & not worth an extra £10 a month.

:)

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

This is something you have to experience for a while to form a considered opinion.

I didn't think it was that great when I first got it, but I can really see the difference when not watching an HD channel now.

[BeerFunk]

My problem is that I tend to watch a lot of old films and TV shows, so I'm afraid that if I get used to watching in HD I won't be able to tolerate watching the classic stuff anymore :D

[Danno13]

I'm just a tight git and know it won't be long till the price comes down, or they want something to convince me to sign up for another 12 months :D

[Shaun]

Just read this again and none of the people who commented actually have this installed, so how opinions can be reached on that basis, I'm not sure!

I've not bought the HD package upgrade, but I do have an HD box connected via HDMI cable. I'm able to watch BBC HD, Channel 4 HD & ITV HD (as well as a few other ones) which are included free with my package.

I agree with you, there is a noticeable difference and I always opt to watch the HD channels.

[Jay]

Watching hollyoaks and dragons den in HD isn't insanely better, but football and sports and good films in my opinion(and I pay probably too much,(£61 for all channels and in HD)) is worth it. I have a big 50" plasma tv and wouldn't dream of not having HD now I have had it for a few months, i do like films and sports morer than most so I may be biased but the quality is far better and well worth it if you ask me. No fuzzy mess round players in football games lol.

[DeckstarDeluxe]

Nope not got HD. Would love to though.

When I went full time first thing I did was cancel Sky sports and went on the lowest package......

Still it looks awesome on my 50 inch tv :P

[DAVESOUNDS SERVICES]

Amazing thread!
Here at Sounds House we are still on Black and White and havent made the move to colour television yet!....when your gigging 7 nights a week (as i am this week) i dont suppose it really matters what television set or service youve got.( cause your out working)
Only downside with having black and white???
YOU CANT RENEW YOUR LICENSE ON-LINE !!

cheers

[BeerFunk]

Amazing thread!
Here at Sounds House we are still on Black and White and havent made the move to colour television yet!....when your gigging 7 nights a week (as i am this week) i dont suppose it really matters what television set or service youve got.( cause your out working)
Only downside with having black and white???
YOU CANT RENEW YOUR LICENSE ON-LINE !I've never understood why there was a discount for a B&W only license :confused:

A colour signal is still transmitted and received to the end user, but their equipment only deciphers it in B&W. I don't see why that merits a discount.

HD TV, however, theoretically uses more bandwidth, and when combined with facilities such as Sky+, which require two simultaneous transmissions to be received, you could argue that an extra cost is justified (not sure if it's worth £10 a month extra though).

[Steve the DJ]

I've never understood the animosity towards the monthly £10 HD charge because you always have a choice whether to pay it or not. :shrug:

Sky use the money to keep expanding the range of HD channels they can offer (Sky Sports News HD being the latest example), other platforms choose not too and just take whatever HD content comes along. The big push to HD is being driven by Sky and the £10 is part of that.

Sky's HD channels are far superior to anyone elses, even BBC HD is poor picture quality in comparison IMHO.

Bottom line, HD done correctly is much better than any other broadcast picture out there right now and Sky are at the forefront of delivering HD content in the UK and quite frankly do it better than anyone else.

I don't begrudge paying extra for the best quality I can get because I appreciate the difference.

[rob1963]

I've never understood why there was a discount for a B&W only license :confused:

Really?


A colour signal is still transmitted and received to the end user, but their equipment only deciphers it in B&W. I don't see why that merits a discount.

That's like saying you don't understand why Sky TV customers should pay less when they don't have any of the sports or movie channels. The same applies as in your argument, because the sports & movie channels are still transmitted to the end user, picked up by their dish & sent to their sky box.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what's transmitted or picked up by your aerial or dish. The charges for a TV licence are like the charges made by companies who supply TV channels, and are based on what you can actually watch.

A black & white TV is less enjoyable to watch than a colour one, therefore the licence costs less. I can understand that completely.

A colour TV licence only costs £8 extra a month than a black & white licence, yet the difference between the two is massive, making it far better value than £10 extra a month for the slightly better picture quality than you get with HD.

[discomobiledj]

Just read this again and none of the people who commented actually have this installed, so how opinions can be reached on that basis, I'm not sure!

I have Sky HD so not sure why you're saying this?

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

I have Sky HD so not sure why you're saying this?

Possibly because we posted at the same time and I didn't see your posts? ;)

[djdave01]

i have the full HD package from Sky, personally i think its great, Especially sport & movies. I now hate watching football thats not in HD. Really wish they'd get F1 in HD as well

ive seen sky 3d in my local pub, seriously considering getting a new 3d set very soon. I promised her in doors id wait till at least christmas for one lol.

[Ryu]

No complaints with Sky HD here...Nature programs, Football and Food programs all benefit from being more highly defined. The World Cup in HD was good...except for the Gerrard goal on ITV HD....that was a sign of things to come...

[discomobiledj]

Possibly because we posted at the same time and I didn't see your posts? ;)

I'll let you off then!

[BeerFunk]

That's like saying you don't understand why Sky TV customers should pay less when they don't have any of the sports or movie channels. The same applies as in your argument, because the sports & movie channels are still transmitted to the end user, picked up by their dish & sent to their sky box.Your argument is a good one Rob, but it is severely flawed! :D


At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what's transmitted or picked up by your aerial or dish. The charges for a TV licence are like the charges made by companies who supply TV channels, and are based on what you can actually watch.

A black & white TV is less enjoyable to watch than a colour one, therefore the licence costs less. I can understand that completely.That's not it at all. At the end of the day, someone using a B&W TV is using exactly the same resources and transmission power as someone using a colour TV. It makes no difference to the TV companies, all they will see is a loss of profitability from B&W license fees. Which is what I don't understand.

Sports channels are billed separately with good reason - broadcast rights for sporting events cost the TV companies large amounts of money, so that is a completely different situation.

[rob1963]

Your argument is a good one Rob, but it is severely flawed! :D

I had a feeling you might say that! :p


That's not it at all. At the end of the day, someone using a B&W TV is using exactly the same resources and transmission power as someone using a colour TV. It makes no difference to the TV companies, all they will see is a loss of profitability from B&W license fees. Which is what I don't understand.

Hang on a minute, you seem to be moving the goalposts. I don't remember your previous post saying anything about resources or transmission power.

As for the TV companies seeing a loss of profability, the only company this would affect is the BBC, as they're the only ones the licence fee goes to. Having said that, due to the very small amount of people with a black & white TV, I'd say the loss of profability would hardly register when compared to their total income.

[Jiggles]

Blu Rays WOW yes! HD thumbs up! as for HD TV leaves a lot to be desired imo.

[BeerFunk]

I had a feeling you might say that! :pI'd hate to let you down! :D


Hang on a minute, you seem to be moving the goalposts. I don't remember your previous post saying anything about resources or transmission power.How can I be moving goalposts which haven't moved for decades? :confused:


As for the TV companies seeing a loss of profability, the only company this would affect is the BBC, as they're the only ones the licence fee goes to. Having said that, due to the very small amount of people with a black & white TV, I'd say the loss of profability would hardly register when compared to their total income.I'm not sure that's true.. I believe that the independent channels also receive a percentage of the fees, but yes, the majority goes to the BBC.

In any case, as a straight comparison, there is no justification for charging more for a colour license (or less for a B&W license - whichever way you spin it). There is however a slight justification for the extra charges for HD channels - the extra bandwidth used (as mentioned previously), and the cost of upgrading equipment to facilitate HD recordings and transmissions.