Poor quality sd picture

Heinz

hardtimes wrote: »

So basically there is not much I can do,apart from give sky £10.25 a month for HD Channels?

Correct. Sky saw that vast numbers of the UK population are obsessed with soccer and invested heavily to rake in a good dividend therefrom.

You can get PSB (BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5) HD channels without such a subscription but, if you want the best picture quality for subscription sports channels, you pay Sky.

[Deleted User]

hardtimes wrote: »

So basically there is not much I can do,apart from give sky £10.25 a month for HD Channels?

I'm afraid so. You could investigate the standard definition picture from Virgin Media, but I doubt it's any better than Sky because it's Sky who provide the feed.
You really will see a vast improvement with HD, though.
Why not try it out?
I think Sky are offering it half price for three months still.

DragonQ

Sky's SD entertainment channels are terrible - poor bit rate and reduced resolution of 544x576. I wouldn't be surprised if the Sports channels suffered similarly.

almillar

Moneyineptitude:

It's the HD broadcasts which have the extra "definition", not the TVs themselves

That's a bit misleading - it's both.
yangptangkipperbang - you're mixing up CURRENT LCD screens with OLD CRTs. That's unfair on CRTs. Go back to say, 2002. A 32 inch CRT would be cheaper, with a far better picture (colour, saturation, black levels etc) and a lot cheaper too, than a 32 inch LCD of the time, which I don't think would have been HD ready, and would have had rubbish blacks, not good colour, poor viewing angles, worse sound and would have been more expensive too, all for the convenience of being thinner.
CRT technology is perfectly capable of displaying HD as I said, look at an old computer monitor. I do also have a friend who has a rare beast which is a 36 inch Panasonic that can do 720p over component cables, so apart from not being HDMI, that set is an HD Ready CRT TV. This is the point you're missing, CRT (the technology) is PERFECTLY capable of an HD picture, and it DID get there, but the manufacturers shifted (I agree, rightly) over to investing in flatscreens instead. CRTs got more advanced before they died off in USA than Europe, so you're more likely to see HD ones there.
hardtimes - I disagree with the above - there's plenty you can do. Set your TV up properly. Sharpness to zero and all the 'enhancements' switched off for starters. You might think you want a sharp picture, but you don't want to artificially sharpen one that isn't sharp in the first place...

[Deleted User]

almillar wrote: »

I disagree with the above - there's plenty you can do. Set your TV up properly. Sharpness to zero and all the 'enhancements' switched off for starters. You might think you want a sharp picture, but you don't want to artificially sharpen one that isn't sharp in the first place...

While I certainly agree with those particular suggestions, the fact remains that Standard Definition broadcasts just don't cut the mustard on large flat panel televisions. Tweaking the picture settings can certainly help reduce some of the more glaringly obvious faults (as can the "upscaling" done by the OP's Sky+HD), but it can't change the fact that it's still standard definition.
Looking at Sky sports in standard definition on my own 55" Sony, I can see exactly what hardtimes is complaining about. I do admit I'm probably "spoiled" by being able to compare the same channels in HD.

almillar wrote: »

Moneyineptitude:
"It's the HD broadcasts which have the extra "definition", not the TVs themselves"

That's a bit misleading - it's both.

Conceded.;)

almillar

I don't know how far away you are from your 55 inch TV, but plenty of SD stuff looks great on my 50. I don't have Sky Sports to compare, actually should have a look between the F1 HD and SD channels. Are we getting down now to how good SD can be (just fine in my book) versus some channels squeezing the bandwidth too much - I've noticed some of the HD channels are getting squeezed too much too!

[Deleted User]

almillar wrote: »

I don't know how far away you are from your 55 inch TV, but plenty of SD stuff looks great on my 50.

I think there is definitely a huge quality difference between, for example, the BBC's standard definition broadcasts and those of, say, Channel 5 and ITV1. However, I really find myself avoiding standard definition regardless, and I admit to not watching some channels at all if there is no HD equivalent.

Going back to the original topic of the thread, Sky Sports in standard definition really does look poor and I've read internet accusations that Sky actually reduced the bit rate of their Sports channels apparently to make HD even more attractive. I've not seen any comprehensive evidence for this however.

almillar wrote: »

I've noticed some of the HD channels are getting squeezed too much too!

Yes, some "so-called" HD is definitely of a lesser quality than others...

brewerdave

I watch Sky Sport in SD on my 51" Samsung plasma set - normally seems perfectly acceptable to me ...but I find some channels notably SciFi ,Watch and the 5 Family of channels, to be definitely inferior to the BBC SD broadcasts - presume its all down to compression ratios - I'm resisting the move to SkyHD with all my might despite family pressure!!!!
I second what has been said in an earlier post about setting up the screen - got plenty of helpful advice from AV Forums which improved the PQ no end.

[Deleted User]

brewerdave wrote: »

I second what has been said in an earlier post about setting up the screen - got plenty of helpful advice from AV Forums which improved the PQ no end.

I'd say these tweaks are rather essential if you view only standard definition on a 51" flat screen.

I've also got to say I think Plasmas produce better SD images than LCD sets-but I watch nearly everything in HD anyway!

t-elle

Since upgrading to sky HD the SD channels are now not as good as freeview which has a clear picture . So has sky changed the SD or is it the HD box giving me the lower quality?