Originally Posted by pengedragon (Post 35916703)

My eyes are quite bad anyway so HD doest make a huge difference for me :D

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35916781)

This is a pet subject of mine - when sky sports first broadcast in HD the picture quality was superb, on close ups of action you could see individual blades of grass.

Then someone decided it was acceptable to compress the transmission and over the years the PQ of HD transmissions has gradually decreased.

Additionally I believe (I may be wrong) that the current SD picture is a HD recording further compressed so is better than the original SD picture was - hence many people find there is little difference in PQ between HD and SD.

I would stress this opinion is based on my perception not on any fact (other than HD has been compressed more over the years - this is fact)

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35916781)

This is a pet subject of mine - when sky sports first broadcast in HD the picture quality was superb, on close ups of action you could see individual blades of grass.

Then someone decided it was acceptable to compress the transmission and over the years the PQ of HD transmissions has gradually decreased.
It makes one wonder if they have deliberately'do
Additionally I believe (I may be wrong) that the current SD picture is a HD recording further compressed so is better than the original SD picture was - hence many people find there is little difference in PQ between HD and SD.

I would stress this opinion is based on my perception not on any fact (other than HD has been compressed more over the years - this is fact)

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 35916809)

It makes one wonder if they have deliberately 'degraded' the HD picture quality so as to make uhd more attractive!

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 35916809)

It makes one wonder if they have deliberately 'degraded' the HD picture quality so as to make uhd more attractive!

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35916814)

So when these companies say to customers subscribe to us for our lovely shiny HD channels its all a load of ******** then?.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35916813)

As this process started soon after the introduction of HD that would have been forward thinking indeed.

In reality, I suspect the wishes of many subscribers to have more HD channels combined with the limited amount of satellite space led to ever more compression to squeeze more HD channels onto each satellite - resulting in compromising the picture quality

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 35916831)

Fair point but still think they could be holding off improving HD picture quality so as to make uhd seem so much better!

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35916866)

As stated in my previous post - HD used to be far better than it is now, so I cannot see your logic.

Alas, as VM do not carry Sky Sports UHD broadcasts I have no idea how much better UHD is and how it compares to the original days of HD.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35916866)

As stated in my previous post - HD used to be far better than it is now, so I cannot see your logic.

Alas, as VM do not carry Sky Sports UHD broadcasts I have no idea how much better UHD is and how it compares to the original days of HD.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 35916878)

Don't think I can agree with you there mate, I think it depends on the person viewing, everyone is different, I just watched the Chelsea V Arsenal game and I switched from the HD channel to SD, the PQ is like night and day imo.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 35916879)

Did it really used to be better or is it a case of you have got used to it?

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35916883)

It was 21mbps (think that is the term) was compressed down to around 12-14 Mbps.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35916887)

My viewing on a 55" TV set seems pretty good on both BT Sport HD and Sky Sports HD. Sky Sports UHD is better but certainly not the leap from SD to HD in my opinion.