Is HD overrated?

DavidKay

Thinking of taking up the Sky HD package but can anyone out there who has watched it for a while tell me is the difference as good as they try to sell us?

Minstrel27

HD looks nice but is not worth €15 per month imo.

xsiborg

i've had it a year now, and it really is fantastic, superb quality picture. it's good if you have the movies or sports in your sky sub already, but the one thing that still bothers me is the actual content. the picture can be as good as it likes, but im always reminded of that line in the stronbow beer advert:

"and you, dish installers, you bring us 'pets do the funniest things'... in HD"

pretty much sums it up really... :rolleyes:

DavidKay

Should have said this referes to picture quality bearing in mind that like most folk I`m looking at it with a Philips 37``Full HD set which I am very happy with and all I can afford and not a 2k to 5k lcd or plasma

DavidKay

I know the prog content is questionable but whatever I choose to watch will IO say WOW!!!

John mac

DavidKay wrote: »

I know the prog content is questionable but whatever I choose to watch will IO say WOW!!!

yes.

xsiborg

well, the difference between SD and HD is certainly noticeable, even now i cant bear to watch "fringe" on SD on my sky+ box, i HAVE to watch it on HD in my office (SOHO), that's how much more crystal clear and vibrant the picture is! but every so often it does kick in that you're paying an extra €15 for the benefit of HD, and even though i did toy with the idea of giving it up, when push comes to shove, i know i couldnt...

John mac wrote: »

yes.

haha, more direct answer!

Wizard007

Yes, you will say WOW.

Especially when the rugby is on and you can actually see the hairs on their legs. WOW

Sky presenters were actually requested to shave the top of their chests ( the men, not the women :P ) as the hair was extremely visable on HD.

John mac

Yea the rugby was good . ( wouldnt be looking at the legs though )

DavidKay

Me to!!! Thanks for the input, very tempted to give it a try, lifes too short so going for it!!! Watch this space!!

Vomit

Unless you have a massive telly, you'll hardly notice the feckin difference between HD and SD on a decent screen. It's over hyped, like all things they want us to buy.

redout

For Sports HD is amazing, for movies and regular tv I dont really mind SD tbh.

JONJO THE MISER

Im thinking of getting it as well, its 15 a month but you know what im going buying a 62 inch hd tv so im willing to pay a extra 15 a month to get the whole experience, the way i look at it thats only 4 less pints of guinness a week:D.

xsiborg

Vomit wrote: »

Unless you have a massive telly, you'll hardly notice the feckin difference between HD and SD on a decent screen. It's over hyped, like all things they want us to buy.

/me goes back to watching george and mildred on my 14inch black and white tv... no EPG, darn it, if only i'd invested in one o them freeview thingy boxes that everyone is talking about nowadays!

you get the idea...

of course sky want you to buy their services, so they will shove "super telly" down your throat till you're sick to the back teeth of it, but they dont actually FORCE you to buy it.

crosstownk

I've a 50" Plasma with a native res of 768 and the difference is well noticeable - if you have a full HD (1080) display then all the better. Audio is so much better on HD channels.

HD is well worth the extra €15 per month. Over the weekend I watched the rugby, the Man U v Liverpool game, 24 and some Nat Geo stuff - all in superior quality - in sports broadcasts, the pitch is no longer green - it's made up of visible blades of grass!

xsiborg

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

the way i look at it thats only 4 less pints of guinness a week.

geez, can i go for drinks with you?? sixteen pints o guinness for €15! :eek: even if they dont have 3D tv in the pub i could ingratiate myself in your abode quite nicely in front of that 62inch tv!

Vomit

TV is shi'ite these days anyway, so a HDTV could only provide a temporary wow factor at best IMO. I suppose it might be different if you're into your home cinema systems, but that's not what this thread is about.

azzeretti

Vomit wrote: »

Unless you have a massive telly, you'll hardly notice the feckin difference between HD and SD on a decent screen. It's over hyped, like all things they want us to buy.

I honestly think that if this is the case then either your telly isn't calibrated correctly (this took me months to do!) or you seriously have trouble with your eyes.

Standard bitrate compared to HD bitrates (not including BBCHD!!) is multiple times better.

EDIT: What do you mean by massive? I have a 28" in the bedroom and the HD is much better than the SD channels

Riskymove

SKY overpromote and overhype everything

that's not to say HD is not good or not worth getting, thats a personal view really depending on how much you watch, how much sport in particular seems to be a big difference, your TV, etc

basically HD is not going to change your life dramatically but its the latest good innovation in home tv (like sky+ before it etc)

Vomit

azzeretti wrote: »

EDIT: What do you mean by massive? I have a 28" in the bedroom and the HD is much better than the SD channels

Yeah but that's the bedroom. I have a 32" SD CRT in the living room and the couch is far enough away that my eyes cannot detect what the resolution is (my eyesight is perfect). I know that if I put a HD of the same size there, nobody would be any the wiser. My brother has a 42" 1080p LCD in his living room, and from what I've seen watching both DVD's and Blurays there, is that 42" is the bare HD minimum for an average living room.

Mr McBoatface

As an Ex-Sky HD subscriber my opinion is HD TV is at the moment not worth the extra expense. The main reason is because of the content being shown on HD channels. New programs such as Fringe and House look totally brilliant, the difference between them HD and SD is night and day. My problem is there is not enough of that type content and there is way to much of older repeat programs.

As for HD movie channels , yes they look really good but to be honest any movies I want to watch in HD I'd see them sooner on Blu-Ray or downloaded 1080P mkv files in better or equal quality.

Sport in HD is super ... but not my cup of tea.

At the moment there is nothing is available by any pay provider at a price that makes it worth the extra expense. I may revisited HD TV when HD content is the norm and at a reasonable price.

Wizard007

jobyrne30 wrote: »

In your opinion At the moment there is nothing is available by any pay provider at a price that makes it worth the extra expense.

I corrected that there for you

Mr McBoatface

@ Wizard no need to correct it

jobyrne30 wrote: »

As an Ex-Sky HD subscriber my opinion is HD TV is at the moment not worth the extra expense.

Satdog

redout wrote: »

For Sports HD is amazing, for movies and regular tv I dont really mind SD tbh.

Don't subcribe to $ky but have Freesat so limited to ITV1 and BBC. I have to add that HD is also noticeably better for documentaries despite the bitrates - Life, Solar System etc.

emaherx

HD is impressive but 15E is a bit steep especially since you need the full movies/Sports package to have any content. Also funny that people mention that its worth it for the rugby, considering thats on one of the few free channels.

Wizard007

jobyrne30 wrote: »

@ Wizard no need to correct it

My bad

Re the Rugby emaherx, it wasn't said it was worth it for the rugby, the hair on the legs was said in jest ie. the WOW factor.

John mac

I dont have a hd sub, as others have said there isnt enough native hd programming to justify the extra spend. (yet)
so for now the free hd channels do me.. (and the blu ray player)

200motels

I have HD since it came out and I love it, I have a Sony 40" TV and the picture is stunning.

reboot

Vomit wrote: »

Yeah but that's the bedroom. I have a 32" SD CRT in the living room and the couch is far enough away that my eyes cannot detect what the resolution is (my eyesight is perfect). I know that if I put a HD of the same size there, nobody would be any the wiser. My brother has a 42" 1080p LCD in his living room, and from what I've seen watching both DVD's and Blurays there, is that 42" is the bare HD minimum for an average living room.

Agree 100% I also have held onto the Sony Trinatron Crt.A lot of LCD TV sets have very bad SD pictures,which is most of the content.Do my eyes deceive me or my pictures even better on Crt when the programme originates in HD>
On a seperate matter does switching to Dolby sound on the Sky menu change the output? I am feeding a Marantz DSP receiver,Pro Logic ,5.1 etc.I can hear no difference.?PS Bring Back Valves.

snaps

Hd sports and programming is great on a tv over the size of 37". Wouldnt be worth it on a tv less that size. Id never pay 15e extra plus a sky sub for HD tv. Freesat and foreign sub will give you as much at a fifth of the price of sky!

Warper

Obviously you need Sky Sports and Movies to really appreciate HD as there is very little else being shown on HD presently. If you do and you're TV is 40 inch plus then it is worth it especially for the Sports. So effectively if youre a sports nut with a large TV - get it if you can.

3rdDegree

I've had HD since it came out and for me it is the best value for HD material available. I watch movies on a 100" projector screen and would find it impossible to go back to SD on that now. I watch a lot of the Sky 1 HD stuff, HD Documentaries and some of the other HD channels on a 46" Panny. It looks fantastic.

But for me, the big plus is the movies on the projector screen. If I rented 3 Blu-ray movies a month, it would cost nearly €18; and I watch a lot more than 3 Sky movies a month!

Great value (from me). Also, to the poster who said that 42" is the minimum to enjoy HD, I would tend to agree. But that said: You will see a difference in smaller sets - just depends how close you sit.

Minstrel27

3rdDegree wrote: »

But that said: You will see a difference in smaller sets - just depends how close you sit.

Don't forget the appalling bit rates used by some standard definition channels. That makes a huge difference for anyone with a smaller television.

Mr McBoatface

3rdDegree wrote: »

If I rented 3 Blu-ray movies a month, it would cost nearly €18; and I watch a lot more than 3 Sky movies a month!

Firstly I love movies in HD and it was one of the main reason I choose Sky HD. Now down to my point and not wishing to bring the thread off subject but Blu Ray rental can be got alot cheaper than 18 euro for 3 if you shop around.

Personal I'm now using screenclick.com on the bronze package last month I got 8 Blur Ray for 12.99 euro, I could have got maybe 10 or 11 had I returned some earlier. This was one of the factors that lead me to dump Sky. Blu Ray is getting cheaper to rent, it's better quality and titles are usually available before Sky HD. On the other hand I don't think Sky is getting any cheaper and in my opinion the visual quality of some of the HD content on the movie channels while good is more like very good high bitrate up-scaled DVD, the audio content is no where near that available on Blu Ray.

In my case as a movie buff and at current prices and quality my money is better spent on Blu Ray rental than paying Sky for a HD package.

If your a film buff do check out screenclick, they are giving a 2 week free trail at the moment!!!

Also check out my ads on adverts.ie http://www.adverts.ie/showproduct.php?product=203914&cat=109