high definition TV

[karatekid]

I recently downgraded my sky package to the basic package. In doing so I lost the hd channels apart from the free ones. My question is why are the sd channels so blurry even on a top of the range samsung curved led tv? I'm sure that back in the day on my old tv with a tube, before hd was around, the standard picture was better. Watching football in sd on a modern telly is terrible.

[Rosehill Claret]

the SD quality has been downgraded to encourage people to upgrade to (or upgrade back to) HD or 4K quality.

[Chester Perry]

maybe it is your TV that is struggling to perform with a lower spec input - they are in it together you know the content providers and manufacturers - they want you to keep spending

very happy with my old Samsung LED with SD Freeview and the old HD channel - often forget about the HD and stay on SD

having said that would still prefer the picture quality on my old Toshiba CRT from the early 90's

[DCWat]

You're right SD, especially for football is awful. I wonder if HD might suddenly get a little worse as more move to 4K and beyond.

I wonder if we just get used to the better quality or of something a little more sinister is being done by the networks.

The motion blur on SD or HD that can be seen in sport particularly is more to do with the standard of a television though. Bound to be a difference between a £400 tele and a £3000 tele. That said, there was no motion blur on the old tube screens.

[karatekid]

I thought is was maybe because iv'e got so used to the quality of hd that sd now looks so bad but i'm sure the old tellys had a better picture than modern ones in sd. SSN in sd in particular is very bad , the league tables and ticker at bottom of screen is blurry.

Maybe a trip to specsavers is needed

[JohnMac]

A long time ago (1980's) the combination of old type tv and Sky analogue signal was absolutely superb. Along came digital and the analogue signal all of a sudden was very poor when compared to the new digital version. The same situation when HD was offered alongside SD, the latter deteriorated.

It's all a con but I'm in because I can't stand watching SD when HD is available. I now watch some of the UHD content on Netflix and amazon and it really is excellent but of course I'm using an old fashioned 55" Curved Samsung that's at least a year old so it will no doubt 'dumb down' as well soon

[claptrappers_union]

Remember the size of TV's are much bigger now, 32" for example is quite small, the larger you go the more lossy you have. However, I won't pay for HD tv because it SHOULDNT be an extra cost. It'll cost broadcasters more to re-encode and transmit Standard Definition now because HD is the broadcast standard.

[karatekid]

I have a 50 inch samsung curved tv with samsung curved soundbar and subwoofer ( ) and watching movies in hd is superb especially on a blu ray disc, great picture and cinema like sound, but turn over to a SD channel and its as though a fog has descended. I bought the technology but someone is detracting my enjoyment of it. All channels in this day and age should be HD and free of charge.

[Sidney1st]

Why should HD be free of charge if it isn't the standard method of broadcasting or filming etc?

[karatekid]

BBC , ITV ,Ch4 and CH5 offer it at no extra charge.

[Sidney1st]

Through freeview?

I don't have freeview, I've got Sky so it's all part of my package.

[karatekid]

Yeah , through freeview

[Diesel]

Does the 'car to penis size' rule also apply to tv's?

[DCWat]

Why should HD be free of charge if it isn't the standard method of broadcasting or filming etc?

If the standard definition was of a decent standard and at the level we know it can be, I'd agree. As it is it seems more of a con just to get everyone on to HD.

I wouldn't be without HD but don't think it's right that standard is poorer than it's been previously.

[Sidney1st]

Yeah , through freeview

Technically it isn't free from the BBC, your TV licence fee will go towards it.

As for the others you've mentioned, they make their money through advertising so it makes no odds to them to show the odd channel in HD for free.

In regards to what Sky do, of course they'd prefer us all to pay for the better packages, hence the incentive to do so by removing HD.

I know that if I get rid of Sky Sports HD I also lose all the HD channels, but where I like to watch my films in HD along with some other channels its just easier to keep the HD sports.

[Sidney1st]

If the standard definition was of a decent standard and at the level we know it can be, I'd agree. As it is it seems more of a con just to get everyone on to HD.

I wouldn't be without HD but don't think it's right that standard is poorer than it's been previously.

It is a con and I agree that standard does appear to be poorer quality than it used to be.

They pull the same trick with their broadband too.
Have the standard broadband in a new build house and its so bad it isn't worth bothering with.
Upgrade and all the problems have vanished conveniently.

[starting_11]

Probably because your TV has 4x more screen area than your old one.

You should probably learn to understand pixels

[karatekid]

Pixels - great movie , but only in HD

[dushanbe]

One word: compression.

[IanMcL]

The football in SD has definitely got worse! HD essential. The 1080 on Sportsmania is very decent.

[dushanbe]

It's got worse because it's a compressed digital signal. To squeeze all those channels into the available frequency or bandwidth, they are horribly compressed. Analogue telly wasn't compressed at all, other than for some live broadcasts, which were slow scanned - think of the black white blurry images from the moon landings

[claptrappers_union]

Why should HD be free of charge if it isn't the standard method of broadcasting or filming etc?

Everything is shot in HD. Sports, movies, news, even Corrie. I can't understand why people pay premium for it when its that standard of quality from the outset.

I'll pay for HD when its a reasonable price.

[Sidney1st]

I clearly don't follow Corrie...

At some point they'll do away with standard def, like they did with analogue.
Then the 2 options will be 4k or plain HD.

HD will then get worse in regards to picture quality to 'encourage' people to upgrade to 4K.

We all know its going to happen.

[Walton]

Why should HD be free of charge if it isn't the standard method of broadcasting or filming etc?

Name me a programme on TV in the last 10 years which wasn't filmed in high definition.

Of course it's the standard method of filming. Your phone films in high definition for christs sake.

[superdimitri]

If you have an UHD tv then standard definition material will look awful vs a HD tv, is one of the downsides to an UHD tv. UHD is pointless to about 90% of viewers anyway as they don't sit close enough to benefit from it. Of course sky don't tell you this.

If sky cared for their customers they would just bump up the quality of HD but instead they want to piggyback on the UHD bandwagon and rip people off even more.

Btw you'd be surprised how much is still filmed in SD. The BBC for example can't afford to send HD cameras to every football League ground for the football League show. Then there's local bbc news also.

[Funkydrummer]

I have a Panasonic UHD 4K 40" TV which is fantastic. It "upgrades SD and produces a more than
satisfactory picture.

Footy is watched via Sportsmania either through Kodi on my laptop, which is connected to my TV via
HDMI cable, or directly through the TV on the Sportsmania website through pre-loaded Firefox browser. In
both cases the TV "upgrades" the picture quality which is fantastic.

Films are watched on Exodus or Phoenix via Kodi and are of excellent quality.

If you want UHD/4k films, try Netflix or Amazon, neither of which are anywhere near as
expensive as SKY.

[simonclaret]

The BBC for example can't afford to send HD cameras to every football League ground for the football League show. Then there's local bbc news also.

Pretty sure it's not BBC filming the games.

Local news is filmed in HD but Sky do not provide (or BBC don't pay for) bandwidth for HD broadcasts of all the regional channels.

[Sidney1st]

Name me a programme on TV in the last 10 years which wasn't filmed in high definition.

Of course it's the standard method of filming. Your phone films in high definition for christs sake.

I've already been corrected about Corrie.

I'm not trawling through every other programme because its already been proven I'm wrong.

For Christs sake

[RingoMcCartney]

I saw a Blackburn game in HD

It confirmed that they were quite clearly shite.

[Hipper]

Does the 'car to penis size' rule also apply to tv's?

Yes. I have a 50" one.

[minnieclaret]

http://en.kingofsat.net/pos-28.2E.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I recently downgraded my sky package to the basic package. In doing so I lost the hd channels apart from the free ones. My question is why are the sd channels so blurry even on a top of the range samsung curved led tv? I'm sure that back in the day on my old tv with a tube, before hd was around, the standard picture was better. Watching football in sd on a modern telly is terrible.

If you are still viewing through your sky box a good selection of hd channels are available through "other channels". The codes you need are at the link at the top.

[superdimitri]

Pretty sure it's not BBC filming the games.

Local news is filmed in HD but Sky do not provide (or BBC don't pay for) bandwidth for HD broadcasts of all the regional channels.

This isn't true at all. A lot of local broadcasting is handled by university students who very often aren't equipped with the latest kit, they do not always have HD cameras.

Same goes for the football matches, yes the broadcasters usually don't visit themselves, but I am talking about the companies they hire to do the filming for them.

I confirmed this a while ago when I wrote to the BBC complaining that often our highlights footage on the old football league show was in SD quality despite being aired on a HD channel and you will see much the same now watching football on 5. Its just not cost effective, nor is there enough HD cameras to go around.

The broadcast industry is leaps and bounds behind and bandwidth is a big part to play but its not the whole story.

If anyone is reading this, don't waste money on an UHD TV if you still care about the quality of SD channels and certainly don't pay for UHD sources like sky Q and intend to watch UHD content unless you can actually sit closer to notice it. Its a waste of money.