Page 1 of Sky High Definition - Initial Reaction

After a few days of viewing here are some initial thoughts.

Stunning picture. "Planet Earth" is breath-taking and even "24" is clearer and sharper. The cricket and football are a clear improvement over standard broadcasts.

The amount of HD programming is very limited - even dedicated channels such as Sky One HD have very few HD programmes. So far, unless you want to watch re-runs of "Stargate Atlantis" or "Enterprise", "24" seems to be the only continuing major series in HD. "Human Trafficking" in HD starts tonight but it looks a bit grainy from the previews (but this is probably deliberate). One oddity. "Bones" is listed as HD on Sunday but the Thursday showing is merely "widescreen" - maybe this is just a fault in the listings, I`ll need to check.

It`s nice to see that Sky/Thomson have built in a sound adjustment so that surround sound and picture can be synchronised - there`s about a 100ms difference on my system.

One thing that will need to be sorted is rather obtrusive station ids. The Discovery HD logo is quite large and very distracting. It also tends to fade in and out (presumably to stop screen burn on plasmas) but let`s hope that this and the large BBC HD logo are just part of this "demo" phase.

All in all, the picture is beyond my expectations. The real downside is that a lot of the standard broadcasts now seem even worse as far as their picture quality goes.

How does standard broadcast seem worse? Do you mean, in comparison, or that the box outputs a worse signal?

---

Giggity giggity!

It`s a direct comparison between the HD picture and the "standard" Sky picture. The standard (576p) resolution for the non-HD channels looks about the same as my previous Sky+ box ( I don`t know enough about the technical side of this to know if this represents a change from the previous output) but the HD picture just makes you more frustrated with the quality of a lot of the stuff that`s transmitted on the other channels. Of course a lot depends on the quality of the source material and a lot of stuff that was filmed in HD (such as "House", "CSI" etc)still looks very good in 576p but after watching something in HD in can be a bit of a shock to realise just how (relatively) poor some of the studio based material is in terms of clarity.

Do you mean 576p or 576i, because terrestrial broadcasts are native 576i, and processing them to progressive won`t do them any favours. Can your display upscale to 720p/i from 576? If so, how does that look?

J Mark Oates

---

Anamorphism is simply a method of recording a wider-than-4:3 image on a 4:3 frame.
As virtually all movies made since 1954 have been wider than 4:3, they require anamorphic transfers
if they are to be shown properly on a 16:9 display. If you do not have a 16:9 display,
Isn`t it time you bought a new telly, you cheapskate?

I listend to a programme on Radio 5 last week and they had a expert in who said that normal TV transmission will not look as good on a HD set, also stated a lot of people are buying HD sets thinking that BBC ITV Freeview ect will all be viewed in HD when they get their sets home. :)

The Sky HD box has four video output settings: Auto, 576, 720p and 1081i. With the box set on Auto, HD programmes are showing as 1081i and "standard" programmes as 576p. I tried setting the output to 576 but it didn`t seem to have any appreciable effect on the video quality of standard BBC1 etc. The "standard" video quality seems to be about the same as Freeview.

First. What an absolute waste of money for so little. Better picture quality should be the norm, not a rip off for SKY etc to soak us with.

Here is further info`

I`ve watched a number of HD movies, TV series etc over the last few months & my initial conclusion is. Most documentarys & speciality (flowers etc) HD recordings are superb. SOME movies are better, some no better or the difference is not enough to shout about. Programmes like 24 & many inside scenes almost no difference as it`s too dark, a point made in another forum. Some of the CSI, especially Miami are superb.

This item was edited on Monday, 29th May 2006, 11:45

That`s like saying better patient care should be the norm. Better beer should be the norm. Better food should be the norm. Get real, we all have to pay extra for something, be it a service or material item, that is (a) perceived to be of a higher quality than something else, or (b) is in higher demand. Ever heard of supply & demand ? If, like i guess you have, then you will know what i am saying makes sense.

EVENTUALLY .... we will all have HD, a bit like, eventually we will all be watching digital pictures (analogue is being switched off), or, eventually everyone will have a mobile phone. It comes to us all eventually, it may take 10, 20 or even 30 years, in the mean-time you have two choices ; take HD from a supplier and pay the current price for that service, or (b) Don`t take it and shut up whinging.

Some people would like it because they have enough disposable income and would like the latest technology. Period. The facts over is it good ? Is it better ? Is it worth it ? may be questions that some other people have to weigh-up before signing the order form.

I am just guessing, but as it is the biggest thing for the Visual industry, (left Audio out cos it doesn`t really apply to this argument) most people will WANT IT ! Those that say the don`t are liars and are maybe just a little jealous.

Yes i agree, it is yet another expense £300 + £10 month on top of what we already pay. Some people like fast cars with £1500+ per year insurance and 20mpg from your £4.40 per gallon. Some people like beer and curries, gambling, fast women, whatever your `fix` is, that is what you choose to spend your hard-earned cash on. Until analogue gets kicked into touch and the necessary bandwidth is available, then people like bbc and itv can start transmitting it over air via digi boxes. By the way, do u really think that when that happens it`s going to be free ... ??? Dream on !!! Why should bbc and itv give it up for nowt ?

Get another satellite receiver and you may get `some` foreign channels in HD for free. Knock yourself out ! I don`t want it, thanks anyway.

Do u want Sky HD ? That`s what it`s going to cost you. The end. Make your choice.

Rant over.

Thanks.

davo171066. You comments are pathetic. To combine a service we should get automatically with health etc is stupid.

I`ve paid much too much too much too F`in Sky for one lifetime. The service & channels got worse whilst the price went (& is ever going) SKY high. Puts a new meaning into that phrase. I`m not whinging. I`ve a right to watch a service that has been available for a while now & NOT invented by sky without paying sky over the top prices. I will happily pay a subscription (reasonable) but not extortion because there is no alternative, don`t go down the cable route. The BBC should not be letting Sky viewers watch HD programming as I pay a subscription to the BBC so they should have made at least one channel available with the best of the HD content fo ALL it`s Forced subscribers. This could have been through the Satellite they broadcast through.

Pathetic ? I was thinking more pertinent actually.....

If you aren`t happy, then leave. As you say there aren`t any decent alternatives. Cable is ok, the service you will get from them though is lousy, which will make you regret ever leaving sky, and i am talking from experience. My analogy of using other services was just to make a point, and there it is - switch to cable, but as u have already said, it isn`t a viable one.

BBC have given Sky their HD content for no other reason than to raise much needed revenue. Without it they would struggle to give us freeview. Without a digital service of their own...... there would go another service provider, thereby strengthening even further sky position.

I agree with you that until sky have some real competition they will continue to dominate the market, but in this country (as many others) we have a monopolies comission which strictly monitors and reviews people like sky to ensure us punters don`t get ripped off.

It`s unfortunate that there are no other services that give us the same things, but there are - we have already mentioned cable, then there is freeview and freesat (yes i know it`s sky, but it`s free). But you and I choose to stay with sky because that`s what we prefer. What gets my back up is people who continually complain about it even though they refuse to do something else. If you are really that unhappy, leave.

You seem to think you have a right to sky at lower prices. Sorry, none of us is owed a living or anything else for that matter when it comes to payable services which essentially are classed as a luxury. `Sky` currently dominate the market, they have the best channel line-up currently available for main-stream viewers, and set their prices accordingly. As i have already said and will say again, the day we cannot or refuse to afford sky, we will leave.

No malice intended.