HD Television screen sizes.

Kurtis_Blue

tifo wrote: »

There's no misinformation here, only a person's opinions.

" And yes, everyone who wants to watch HD on Sky HAS to pay the extra fee. Excluding any discount/offer you might negotiate. "

That's not an opinion its a statement of fact and its utterly wrong, even in the first 12months you do not need to buy the HD pack to receive the free channels.

tifo

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

That's not an opinion its a statement of fact and its utterly wrong, even in the first 12months you do not need to buy the HD pack to receive the free channels.

I think you're wrong. From what i know (and i will check) you HAVE to take the £10 HD package with a new Sky HD installation (for at least 12 months). Plus of course a Sky subscription.

Since you are paying a subsciption, the free channels don't really come into the equation here.

Inactive

liam8282 wrote: »

http://www.hdtvlounge.net/sky-hd-review/

Have a look at the above link for just one direct comparison between HD & SD. The pictures where it shows the guy with stubble. You can surely see the difference between the two pictures?

Then when this applied to HD films or sports etc. the difference is huge between SD & HD.

Then again, if you are just sat watching a programme in SD and have a decent picture and aren't bothered or looking for the differences, then you won't notice them.


Is this thread really about the difference between HD & SD, or is it that some people begrudge paying Sky £10 per month to have HD?

For me HD doesn't just end with watching tv, I use it when gaming and when watching films, the difference for me is very noticeable and it doesn't cost me any more than I would have to pay for the equivalent in SD.

But your link is just to Sky commercial hype, you would need to be gullible to fall for that.

If you have " look for the differences " why bother?

I don't pay Sky a penny, nor would I, that does not stop me from getting HD for free, not that it is worth writing home about.

postie_bear

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

No you don't, there are lots of free HD channels if you do not subscribe to HD, including ITV, BBC and BBC ONE.

Cant believe the misinformation on here.

ergg actually you do, I have a basic sky+ box that i have had for 2 years. I got in december a new 32" hd tv, ok small by some standards but looks ok in my lounge and i sit 8ft away.

I had a look at the BBC1HD screen, it states i have to contact sky to receive this channel,

I have to pay £50 to upgrade to a new hd box and pay an extra £10 a month for the 1st 12 months to receive HD so in total £170 to get HD then i can cancel and just get the 4 free channels, in my eyes this is not worth it.

PB

liam8282

Inactive wrote: »

But your link is just to Sky commercial hype, you would need to be gullible to fall for that.

If you have " look for the differences " why bother?

I don't pay Sky a penny, nor would I, that does not stop me from getting HD for free, not that it is worth writing home about.

Ok, you are just being pedantic now.

There is a clear difference, as shown. Maybe now that you actually have something to compare against and can see the difference, you just don't want to admit that you were wrong.

As I said before sections of this thread seems to be about Sky customers who don't want to pay £10 pm for HD, rather than HD being better than SD.

Personally I wouldn't pay £10 pm to Sky for HD, which is why I went to Virgin!

Inactive

liam8282 wrote: »

Ok, you are just being pedantic now.

There is a clear difference, as shown. Maybe now that you actually have something to compare against and can see the difference, you just don't want to admit that you were wrong.

Not being pedantic at all, I don't need to look at some Sky sponsored hype to make a decision, I am not that naive, anybody can alter photo's, a kid of five can do it.

I have my own TV and my own HD source to confirm that there is no significant difference

Kurtis_Blue

postie_bear wrote: »

ergg actually you do, I have a basic sky+ box that i have had for 2 years. I got in december a new 32" hd tv, ok small by some standards but looks ok in my lounge and i sit 8ft away.

I had a look at the BBC1HD screen, it states i have to contact sky to receive this channel,

I have to pay £50 to upgrade to a new hd box and pay an extra £10 a month for the 1st 12 months to receive HD so in total £170 to get HD then i can cancel and just get the 4 free channels, in my eyes this is not worth it.

PB

No you donot need to pay £10 a month to receive HD channels but obviously you need a HD box, which you can/will get without paying £10 pm.

moonrakerz

Inactive wrote: »

I do not sit with my nose pressed up to the screen, I sit a comfortable 15/18 foot away from my TV.

Do you read your newspaper from the same distance ?

Inactive

moonrakerz wrote: »

Do you read your newspaper from the same distance ?

What is that all about? .. we ain't discussing newspapers.

liam8282

Inactive wrote: »

Not being pedantic at all, I don't need to look at some Sky sponsored hype to make a decision, I am not that naive, anybody can alter photo's, a kid of five can do it.

Can't see anywhere on the link saying that it was sky sponsored?

Inactive wrote: »

I have my own TV and my own HD source to confirm that there is no significant difference

Yes but you sit double the distance away from you TV and from your other posts, your day to day viewing is watching SD programmes on your tv's built in freeview.

It is your opinion that there is no significant difference between HD and SD, but as your useage of HD seems pretty limited, you are not really basing your opinion on much.

Personally, watching documentaries (I would recommend Shark Men), watching films, watching sport and playing games in HD, it is remarkable the difference in picture quality rather than SD.

I also see the difference in basic programmes, even for example watching the Simpsons in HD, a cartoon, and you can still see the difference between HD & SD.

If you don't use your HD system for any of those, and for example all you watch is the news, you are not really going to get the full benefits of HD. You will see the wrinkles of your favorite news presenter much more clearly, but apart from that there isn't much that can be different between HD & SD.