SD : Skysports in SD vs HD debate

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by denphone

And getting a good deal recently has nothing to do with you staying master.

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:37 ----------



Well most of the top sports are on HD 1 and 2 which Virgin have.

Yes thanks to VM and BT Sports , I got one Most isn't all though. Hopefully the remainders will arrive at some point

[denphone]

Which sports are you talking about?.

[Superblade7]

Completely agree with everyone on here as I watch everything in HD as it is so much better. The only exception is a few programs on Universal as we still haven't got the HD variant yet however Universal SD doesn't seem as bad as some of the other SD channels.

Watching sport and movies without HD now goes through me as the PQ is that bad.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by denphone

Which sports are you talking about?.

Live US Open tennis , Golf , Champions league games , NFL to name just a few.

[Anypermitedroute]

As DaMac says I think there is no debate that HD is way better in terms of picture quality but has SD got worse to make HD look even better and force everyone to pay premium or is the SD as it stands the same we had before?

With BT in the frame I wouldn't bet against a couple of major items slipping onto 3&4

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

has SD got worse to make HD look even better and force everyone to pay premium or is the SD as it stands the same we had before?

Or do you have a larger TV than you had when you only watched SD?

[cityfan247]

i have asked myself the same question- have the broadcasters made SD worse in order to make HD look even better. Like the OP says the picture in the past always looked ok. I watched a program the other day ,i think on Sky Sports News (SD) ,and i thought jeez what a crappy picture

i dont think so however . there are a few factors to consider. If you watch stuff regularly in HD then something in SD i think our eyes get conditioned to the better quality so SD as a result looks a lot worse. There is no doubt HD is far better picture quality than SD. I try to watch as much stuff in HD as possible- it's big a factor in my subscribing to XL.

as another poster has said most of us are watching large screen LED/LCD Plasma tv's rather than the old 20" CRT. That probably highlights the difference in the picture quality.

When DVD's came out we all marvelled at how great the picture was (compared to VHS). Well watch a DVD now then something in HD on the telly- the difference is quite telling-it's the same as HD/SD and is just as noticeable. DVD's look pretty ropey in comparison. And that is just what you would expect DVD = SD Blu-Ray =HD.

I have a blu-ray player and DVD player- the Blu-Ray can play a DVD and upscale it so it looks better than if played on the DVD player. A blu-ray disc however is far far better still.

oh and yes my missus hasn't really got the grasp of HD either and usually watches the SD channel version. Is it a woman thing?
(await lots of flak and accusations of sexism!! )

hopefully the day will come soon that HD is regarded as the new 'standard' and is not deemed to be a premium service and most channels will be available in the format

[Anypermitedroute]

I appreciate what you getting at spiderplant and that flatscreen have changed our perception but there must be an acceptable minimum allowance for SD taking into consideration these items as other channels have shown it can be done. For my mind skysports it's a lot Lower quality than others and considering it costs a lot in first instance I do wish it was my choice to choose a HD lifestyle (and £7 extra) than forcing to because unviewable. Exception to this is IMO F1 SD is acceptable and shows a better PQ than SS 3&4

On side issue does the up scaling work better for SD through TiVo than v+?

Cityfan247 makes a good fair post

[Doug P]

Am content with having to watch 3 and 4 Sky Sports in SD and lower my picture expectations accordingly. Would rather see my beloved rugby league in SD than not be able to see it at all...

[Harryn9000]

they have lowered bit rate of sd channels for sure as sd channels are unwatchable f1 and ssn are the exceptions

[Pea-Pod]

I put up with SD on Sky Sports channels as I refuse to pay extra for HD when you already pay over £20 a month to start with. It's watchable but can be irritating as you know just how good HD can be when watching sporting events on BBC or ITV HD channels.

[Doug P]

Unwatchable is such a strong word....

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Pea-Pod

I put up with SD on Sky Sports channels as I refuse to pay extra for HD when you already pay over £20 a month to start with. It's watchable but can be irritating as you know just how good HD can be when watching sporting events on BBC or ITV HD channels.

Well as they say, you pays your money and you takes your choice!

However, I agree with the general sentiment that we should not be paying more for HD. As for all channels being in HD, I don't know if we are ever going to see this. I don't know how they will find sufficient room on the spectrum, particularly with Ultra-HD just around the corner.

---------- Post added at 12:48 ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Doug P

Unwatchable is such a strong word....

Agreed, although some of this is down to the equipment you are using and there may also be some signal issues that some have not yet identified. If people are getting a rotten picture, might be worth flagging it up with VM.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

However, I agree with the general sentiment that we should not be paying more for HD..

We all agree with the sentiment but is it reasonable to expect that we shouldn't pay more?

The producers need to invest in new equipment (cameras etc.) and computer processing time in regards to editing and special effects/graphics takes longer for HD than SD, and time, as we know, costs money.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

We all agree with the sentiment but is it reasonable to expect that we shouldn't pay more?

The producers need to invest in new equipment (cameras etc.) and computer processing time in regards to editing and special effects/graphics takes longer for HD than SD, and time, as we know, costs money.

I guess you have a point there, but I still feel uncomfortable with charging for HD.

I would have less objection to being charged for 3D and Ultra-HD because to my mind, these are clearly premium type services and icing on the cake. Whereas HD is pretty essential if you have a larger screen, which is becoming standard in many homes now.