SKY+HD

[DamienCBR]

Hi all,
Been sent a letter from SKY and i can upgrade to SKY HD for nothing with self installation and then the £10 after that.

I have heard that the SD is awful, is this really the case. We do not have an aerial on our house so i am keen not to loose quality on the SD channels.

I do not have movies or sport so is it worth the extra £10 per month for the next 12?

Cheers
D

[jagracer]

With the ordinary definition it depends what you are watching. I wasn't impressed with Sky when I bought an HD ready TV but the picture is slightly better with the HD box even on viewing non hd channels and a lot better on HD but I wouldn't say it's worth the extra money.
I found the picture was better on freeview via the TV ariel than Sky+ and only marginally better with HD and depending what they are broadcasting sd can be as good as hd at times.

[headcase]

Its worth it for the extra tenner assuming you have a HD ready TV.

[DamienCBR]

Yes, have a Panny 1080p.
D

[WEHGuy]

It's not worth it if, you don't have sport, movies or docs channels.

[DamienCBR]

Got the docs, everything but the sport and movies.
D

[IforB]

I have all of the sky channels. HD isn't worth it. When it's free, then I'll have it, but at the moment it isn;t worth the extra tenner a month.

[parapaul]

IforB said:

I have all of the sky channels. HD isn't worth it. When it's free, then I'll have it, but at the moment it isn;t worth the extra tenner a month.

I disagree. We have the movies, but no sports, and we watch a lot of films. On top of this, a lot of the stuff on HD channels is transmitted with 5.1 sound, so for me, £10 is well worth it.

[Moley RUFC]

Just ordered HD with the same free self install and £10 a month the OP has mentioned.

Just got to find the right TV now. Still drawn to the Samsung 6530 in 37"

[IforB]

parapaul said:

IforB said:

I have all of the sky channels. HD isn't worth it. When it's free, then I'll have it, but at the moment it isn;t worth the extra tenner a month.

I disagree. We have the movies, but no sports, and we watch a lot of films. On top of this, a lot of the stuff on HD channels is transmitted with 5.1 sound, so for me, £10 is well worth it.

Fair enough. It's a personal thing. I like the idea of HD and watching it on other people's TV's it is good, but for me it's just not good enough to justify giving Murdoch another £120 a year. I resent every penny I pay to that man, so that does colour my view somewhat!

[Tyre Smoke]

I think it's worth less than a pint of beer a week, quite frankly.

[astroarcadia]

I have a Sky HD box but did not have to subscribe to the HD service for £10 a month. Also paid nothing for install. Everything but sports, movies, music.

This means I can still get the BBC and ITV HD channels plus several others I can't remember as part of my £20 per month subscription.

I have a Panasonic TV and the HD picture is brilliant and really works well with football games. Would I pay £10 a month for it? Probably not but I don't watch much TV anyway. Will look forward to the World Cup Games though.

Edited by astroarcadia on Sunday 16th May 10:11

[MrNatty]

Last week we upgraded from sky freeview to sky+. The fitter said that as we had an HD tv (40" sony bravia), he might as well give us an HD box and so we have access to those few HD channels that are broadcast free. TBH, the biggest increase in visible quality has been the standard definition channels (the old freeview box was ancient - as was the ca-ax which was replaced at the same time). Whilst you can see a bit of difference with the HD, I wouldn't pay extra for it(might be more worth it if you have a massive TV).

[IforB]

Tyre Smoke said:

I think it's worth less than a pint of beer a week, quite frankly.

I already give Murdoch over £45 a month or £540 a year simply to watch television. Paying another £10 a month for something that should be provided for no extra cost over and above the ridiculous sums that subscribers already pay doesn't interest me.

Some think it is worth it. I don't. I watch films on BluRay and love the picture quality, but for just watching the telly, it doesn't bother me.

[DamienCBR]

MrNatty said:

Last week we upgraded from sky freeview to sky+. The fitter said that as we had an HD tv (40" sony bravia), he might as well give us an HD box and so we have access to those few HD channels that are broadcast free. TBH, the biggest increase in visible quality has been the standard definition channels (the old freeview box was ancient - as was the ca-ax which was replaced at the same time). Whilst you can see a bit of difference with the HD, I wouldn't pay extra for it(might be more worth it if you have a massive TV).

That is good to know, as i have been reading that the SKY+HD boxes produce and rubbish SD picture. Which is a little stupid as most channels are still SD.
What are others experiences?
D

[_dobbo_]

My experience was that the HD box gave a noticeably better picture on the SD channels than the previous Sky+ box was giving me.

The HD channels look better still. Personally I think it's worth a tenner. You've dropped a grand on an HD TV, you might as well make the most of it... Plus chances are you'll get a much bigger disk for the Mrs to fill up with episodes of America's Next Top Model.

[Dracoro]

IforB said:

parapaul said:

IforB said:

I have all of the sky channels. HD isn't worth it. When it's free, then I'll have it, but at the moment it isn;t worth the extra tenner a month.

I disagree. We have the movies, but no sports, and we watch a lot of films. On top of this, a lot of the stuff on HD channels is transmitted with 5.1 sound, so for me, £10 is well worth it.

Fair enough. It's a personal thing. I like the idea of HD and watching it on other people's TV's it is good, but for me it's just not good enough to justify giving Murdoch another £120 a year. I resent every penny I pay to that man, so that does colour my view somewhat!

If you feel that strongly about Murdoch, why have Sky at all then? Freeview has most the channels you want (since you don't have any of the premium channels). Many freeview recorders are available if it recording ability you want.

[IforB]

Dracoro said:

IforB said:

parapaul said:

IforB said:

I have all of the sky channels. HD isn't worth it. When it's free, then I'll have it, but at the moment it isn;t worth the extra tenner a month.

I disagree. We have the movies, but no sports, and we watch a lot of films. On top of this, a lot of the stuff on HD channels is transmitted with 5.1 sound, so for me, £10 is well worth it.

Fair enough. It's a personal thing. I like the idea of HD and watching it on other people's TV's it is good, but for me it's just not good enough to justify giving Murdoch another £120 a year. I resent every penny I pay to that man, so that does colour my view somewhat!

If you feel that strongly about Murdoch, why have Sky at all then? Freeview has most the channels you want (since you don't have any of the premium channels). Many freeview recorders are available if it recording ability you want.

You'll need to ask my wife about that...We do have ALL of the premium channels (apart from the pr0n of course...)

In reality I watch it simply for the sport and whilst freeview is pretty good for most things, it's pretty poor when it comes to that.

Sky is good in what it does, Sky+ is great and easier to use than most PVR's that I've seen. We can't get Virgin here, so unfortunately SWMBO hath spoken and I'm stuck with a bill for £45 a month...

There are far worse things to worry about of course!

[thatone1967]

jagracer said:

I wasn't impressed with Sky when I bought an HD ready TV but the picture is slightly better with the HD box even on viewing non hd channels and a lot better on HD I found the picture was better on freeview via the TV ariel than Sky+ and only marginally better with HD and depending what they are broadcasting sd can be as good as hd at times.

There will be an improvement on everything because you are using HDMI rather than Scart inputs to the tv.

[headcase]

thatone1967 said:

There will be an improvement on everything because you are using HDMI rather than Scart inputs to the tv.

Why?

If somebody even goes the 'its only 1's and 0's' route im gunna scream