HD TV - Oh yes I like this!
Discussion
What I've found interesting is how at first you look at the HD picture and think "Wow this is fantastic", which it is even on my basic plasma, then you sort of get used to it and then you switch to Freeview or an SD Sky channel and think "WTF is this, how did I ever watch this?" very quickly.
Some of the nature/documentary stuff on the BBC HD channel is amazing viewing - it'll be interesting when I get my own Sky HD box and subscription and have access to all the channels how good/different the movies and Sky Sports and Discovery/Nat Geo stuff is.
The down side is you can literally see people dripping under the studio lights
Some of the nature/documentary stuff on the BBC HD channel is amazing viewing - it'll be interesting when I get my own Sky HD box and subscription and have access to all the channels how good/different the movies and Sky Sports and Discovery/Nat Geo stuff is.
The down side is you can literally see people dripping under the studio lights
paddyhasneeds said:
Just hooked up a borrowed Sky HD box so for now I only have access to the very basic free to air HD channels, but bloody hell
Just imagine what it would be like if you had access to 'proper' broadcast HD content!The States have high-bitrate broadcast HD, usually around 22-24Mbit.
We peasants in the UK have to get by on a poor 15Mbit from Sky....and Sky have the cheek to brag about it.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Angry-BBC...
Broadcast HD in the UK is piss-poor but if you think it's Ok....as you were!
Edited by mp3manager on Saturday 26th February 19:02
Well a couple of weeks on and perhaps I am easily impressed, but this is pretty damned good if you ask me.
Given that the plasma TV only cost £350 and that the Sky HD box was free (of course you pay for the content) I'm still amazed at the picture quality on most of the HD channels.
It's highlighted 2 things IMO, firstly just how shoddy a job the average Curry's and PC World does of setting up their demo systems. Secondly, if you're not going to be using things like games consoles and Blu-Rays, does it actually get 2x better if you pay 2x as much for a TV, or 4x better or 5x better and so on.
Given that the plasma TV only cost £350 and that the Sky HD box was free (of course you pay for the content) I'm still amazed at the picture quality on most of the HD channels.
It's highlighted 2 things IMO, firstly just how shoddy a job the average Curry's and PC World does of setting up their demo systems. Secondly, if you're not going to be using things like games consoles and Blu-Rays, does it actually get 2x better if you pay 2x as much for a TV, or 4x better or 5x better and so on.
mp3manager said:
Just imagine what it would be like if you had access to 'proper' broadcast HD content!
The States have high-bitrate broadcast HD, usually around 22-24Mbit.
We peasants in the UK have to get by on a poor 15Mbit from Sky....and Sky have the cheek to brag about it.
Broadcast HD in the UK is piss-poor but if you think it's Ok....as you were!
The numbers certainly don't tell the whole story so I wouldn't read too much into them. That said, is your US figure even current? It seems somewhat higher than I'd expect nowadays for most broadcasters. By way of comparison, most European HD channels seem to run around 7Mbit, many only ~4Mbit; the UK's output is not what I would call 'piss-poor'. linkThe States have high-bitrate broadcast HD, usually around 22-24Mbit.
We peasants in the UK have to get by on a poor 15Mbit from Sky....and Sky have the cheek to brag about it.
Broadcast HD in the UK is piss-poor but if you think it's Ok....as you were!
As you note, the main thing is that the OP is pleased with the results which comes as no surprise, it's still a great improvement over SD.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff