| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 96305 | 2009-01-06 05:14:00 | SkyTV quality | kenj (9738) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 735398 | 2009-01-06 07:38:00 | Nothing wrong with Sky quality. You don't have Sky yet you feel able to comment on it. I am quite satisfied with it. Compared with the snow and ghosting that we had to put up with years ago it is great quality. Some people seem to have short memories and are never satisfied. Yea but if I was paying for Sky digital I would expect the quality to be pretty damn good. Freeview DVB-S is great so why can't Sky be as well?? Because they are too cheap to buy more bandwidth on the satellite! |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 735399 | 2009-01-06 07:46:00 | Yea but if I was paying for Sky digital I would expect the quality to be pretty damn good. Freeview DVB-S is great so why can't Sky be as well?? Because they are too cheap to buy more bandwidth on the satellite! The difference between good and great is nothing to be concerned about. It doesn't detract from the viewing pleasure as far as I am concerned. It is like comparing a good quality sound system with a great one. Most people never notice the difference. It is only the purists who really care about it. |
Safari (3993) | ||
| 735400 | 2009-01-06 09:39:00 | Satellite freeview is way WAY better than Sky. HD freeview is a huge step up again on that. When analouge was the only alternative - well that's fine, but now with freeview they need to sort their **** out. I'm pretty sure sky haven't purchased any more bandwidth since starting the HD service, coupled with the fact when their old satellite shat itself they lost some bandwidth there too. So the available bandwidth for all the channels has dropped to compensate A. for losing some with the new satellite and B. cause they've had to grab a heap for the HD service as well as any new channels. When there's a major sports match on they crank up the bandwidth on Sky Sport 1 at the expense of Sky Sport 3, for one example. The quality on average of Sky I find annoying and budget. Shame on you, Sky. |
wratterus (105) | ||
| 735401 | 2009-01-06 11:21:00 | Yeah but some people *like* the quality, and once you've been watching HD movies, going back to regular TV just doesnt quite feel the same ... That said, the DVB-S Freeview isnt HD, but from what Ive seen its crisper and more defined than Sky |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 735402 | 2009-01-06 11:50:00 | Sky are have another transponder they are using for their HD. There is no bandwidth issue due to squeezing in HD. As for the lack of quality mostly noticable on larger screens, The problem with some of Skys channels is they don't use a full pal D1 resolution e.g not 720x576, i've not checked but a lot of them use to use 544x576 resolution. Freeview Satellite looks better than SKY as the bitrate is a lot higher. |
apsattv (7406) | ||
| 735403 | 2009-01-06 17:31:00 | How are you connecting the Sky decoder to your TV? Composite or S-video? SCART-RGB to HDD recorder then HDMI to TV Or... Composite for when I am recoding freeview on HDD recorder. I accept that this connection is inferior to the above but I only use it occasionally. OK, I am a fussy sort of a coot but I am not happy with their quality. apsattv probably has supplied the answer with the bitrate being reduced. Sometimes I think we pay a lot of money out over a year for a second rate service Ken |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 735404 | 2009-01-07 03:17:00 | Have you checked your signal strength in the Sky setup. Doesn't take much at all for your dish to go out of alignment. I am getting 71% on Strength and 70-75% on Quality. Anyone know if that is OK or not? Have had some pretty high winds here in Napier earlier in the summer. As a point of interest, I am in cricket heaven and am swapping betwen the Aussie/SA test and the thrashing our bowlers are giving to the West Indies. To my eyes, the picture quality of the NZ/WI game has got to be a hell of a lot better that the Aus/SA game. Ken ( :wub my cricket) |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 735405 | 2009-01-07 09:31:00 | The feed from Australia in HD I think is coming via Sky's Fibre link to Australia. The NZ / Windies game is using Kordias new HD uplink truck likely that the International feed is using much more mbits bandwidth on the satellite uplink than Sky's fibre feed of the cricket. Other than that, the quality of the cameras used can become very obvious at HD resolution. Also Sky allocate more bandwidth to Sky sports 1 and 2 depending on what's on. Live Rugby gets 10 mbitts for example.. |
apsattv (7406) | ||
| 735406 | 2009-01-07 10:16:00 | Nothing wrong with Sky quality. You don't have Sky yet you feel able to comment on it.Anyone who has watched Sky for more than five minutes can tell you that the picture quality is terrible on the SD channels. Perhaps you have a TV smaller than 32-inches? Poor picture quality isn't as noticeable on smaller screens. :) The basis of my comparison is this: A friend that has Sky set up with a Sony Bravia X series (40-inch) and MySkyHDi using an HDMI cable, and another friend a Sony Bravia W series (40-inch) with FreeviewHD built in. On larger screens it would be even more noticeable. It is only the purists who really care about it. My grandmother in her mid-80s can tell the difference. :p |
maccrazy (6741) | ||
| 735407 | 2009-01-07 10:33:00 | Seems alright to me. 40" Sony Bravia. :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||