General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

[pengedragon]

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

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by pengedragon

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

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)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Raider999

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)

Perhaps UHD is the new HD!

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by Raider999

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)

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

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

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

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

[denphone]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

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

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

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by denphone

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

About right Den,. all emperor's new clothes, used to be 3D - what happened to that?
I can honestly see only a slight difference between HD and SD but I don't have a 50ft TV. Tried but Mrs K said no....
UHD will soon become UUHD, anything to screw more money out of us. Going to the actual ground gives the best definition and sound I find.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by Raider999

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

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

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

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

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.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Raider999

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.

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.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by Raider999

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.

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

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

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.

Never said SD was as good as HD - I said HD is not as well defined now as it was at it's launch.

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

---------- Post added at 16:14 ---------- Previous post was at 16:12 ----------

Originally Posted by telegramsam

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

Yes it really was better.

Not able to get UHD so I cannot comment on how much better it is than current HD or indeed HD at inception.

By definition compression reduces quality.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Raider999

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

That's a very simplified way of looking at it though , video codecs improve all the time allowing broadcasters to deliver HD broadcasts whilst saving bandwidth.

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.

[Pbryanw]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

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.

I think people underestimate how much effect the make, model & size of their TV will have on their HD picture.

My parents and I both have 40” Panasonic TVs but theirs is an older model which doesn’t scale HD sources very well. Whereas with my slightly newer & more expensive model, I can easily tell the difference between SD & HD.

Conversely, back when I had a 32” TV, which was one of the first 1080P LCD sets, both SD & HD looked the same. I’m sure the difference would become really noticeable on a good, 50”+ TV though. Anyway, back to the sport

[Richc1977]

Next PL match on Mix features Brighton again, also on a Friday prior to an attractive Sunday double header

Friday 20th Oct 8pm West Ham v Brighton