Sky hd or Freeview hd

[admin_exported]

Hi all

I have sky hd but i am thinking off getting a freeview hd box,does any one know if there is a big difference in picture quality.

 

[Andy Clough]

Freeview has data-bandwidth restrictions and can only handle 5 channels in HD, whereas such limitations do not apply to Sky and Freesat's satellite systems. Sky's still the way to go if you want the maximum number of channels in high definition, but I appreciate you may not want to pay the monthly premium.

I haven't done a direct comparison of Freeview HD vs Sky, but we have noticed that the picture on Freesat HD is sometimes better than on Freeview HD when it's able to broadcast at higher bitrates.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Andy

i am paying £60+ a month for my sky hd,i have seen a freeview hd box for £169 (Humax HD-FOX T2 Freeview HD Box) what hifi rated this box with 5 stars.

So i am in two minds at the moment with what to do.

 

[Alsone]

As Andy Freeview is short of bandwidth so you're not going to get as good a HD picture as Sky because the bandwidth is strangled and unfortunately this is likely to be going to get worse not better (the government has sold or is selling off the bandwidth freed by analogue which means Freeview has nowhere to expand should more channels go HD or other technologies / resolutions increase bandwidth requirements).

There are claims that more efficient encoders can take up the difference but many of those currently on Freesat feel that BBC HD has fallen in quality since the encoder change and report Sky often having a better picture.

So if PQ is your main concern, then go Sky HD, its the better bet. A good receiver can't compensate for a poorer transmission.

 

[daveh75]

Alsone:

There are claims that more efficient encoders can take up the difference but many of those currently on Freesat feel that BBC HD has fallen in quality since the encoder change and report Sky often having a better picture.

That's a fairly ambiguous statement, Alsone!

Can you clarify what channels are supposedly better on Sky than Freesat? Are you suggesting BBC HD is better on Sky than Freesat, or compaired to other HD channels available on Sky or just better in general?

 

[Anonymous]

My recommendation would be to go to freesat, rather than freeview. You've already got the dish and the cabling so you just need the freesat box or, better still, a freesat pvr.

HTH

 

[Andy Clough]

The issue with Freesat isn't technical, rather the relative lack of channels: currently it only has BBC HD and ITV1 HD, with no tie-up deals in place for Channel 4 or 5. Freeview HD offers BBC, ITV1 and C4 in HD, with two more HD channels expected. Channel 5 HD will only be broadcast on Sky from July. Clicky

 

[Anonymous]

sorry but i don't know alot about all this stuff,so can i use my sky dish and cable to work with freeview hd?

And does freesat hd have a better picture than freeview hd.

 

[daveh75]

lcm1981:

sorry but i don't know alot about all this stuff,so can i use my sky dish and cable to work with freeview hd?No, Freeview requires an aerial, but you could use your Sky dish with a Freesat boxAnd does freesat hd have a better picture than freeview hd.From what i've seen yes, Freeview HD broadcasts are slightly softer...

 

[Andy Clough]

No and yes.

 

[Anonymous]

Have not got HD Freeview yet but the standard Freeview picture I receive is far superior the Sky Standard definition.I also find that the Sky HD / BBC HD picture can vary wildly depending on the source to the extent that you would'nt notice it was HD.While the sport is OK some films seem to very dull and lifeless in HD especially later films while the older films benefit much better.

Clive - Oxford

 

[Alsone]

daveh75:Alsone:

There are claims that more efficient encoders can take up the difference but many of those currently on Freesat feel that BBC HD has fallen in quality since the encoder change and report Sky often having a better picture.

That's a fairly ambiguous statement, Alsone!

Can you clarify what channels are supposedly better on Sky than Freesat? Are you suggesting BBC HD is better on Sky than Freesat, or compaired to other HD channels available on Sky or just better in general?

Just reporting what various other users have reported on the BBC Blogs regarding picture quality:

Most reports from people who commented on Sky on the BBC blogs suggest that Sky's HD channels in general are better quality although some feel BBC HD is better at times also. At least one person claims they had the election debate on BBC HD on Sky HD, back to back with Freesat, and the Sky picture was better and more detailed in the faces. I can't actually verify any of these claims myself as I don't have Sky.

However, Paul Geaton's Trust submission questions, on page 8, tables bit rates, and appears to show BBC HD with the lowest bit rate of any of the tabled companies (Ch4 HD, BBC HD and various Sky HD), and Eurosport HD with the highest. Document here: http://www.zen97962.zen.co.uk/downloads/BBC_HD_Visit_Questions_-_all_-_final.pdf

The posters comments on Sky vs Freesat are contained in these blogs:

This blog into its 3rd page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/12/the_hitchhikers_guide_to_encod_5.html?page=3

This blog: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2010/04/how-to-get-the-best-out-of-hd.shtml

 

[daveh75]

Cheers for the clarification, was just curious as to what was being compared with regard to Freesat vs Sky.

 

[Anonymous]

All, I have a slight variance on this query... I am looking for a Freeview+ HD box with record facility. I am not sure if Freeview + always has the option to record or if there is such thing as a Freeview+ HD PVR! can anyone recommend such a unit or are these not quite available as yet?

Cheers.

 

[strapped for cash]

One point that people are overlooking is that Freeview HD is only available in a limited number of areas at present; and it will be a good couple of years before Freeview HD has nationwide coverage. If you're lucky enough to live in an area where you can currently receive a Freeview HD transmission, and don't want to pay a monthly subscription fee, then at least you have options. For what it's worth, I get a more stable picture on standard def channels via Freesat than I do through the normal Freeview service, though I can't do a direct Sky vs. Freesat comparison in terms of pic quality.

What I don't understand -- and maybe somebody can clarify here -- is why, given the greater available bandwidth on Freesat compared with Freeview, can't Freesat up their HD channel content to include the additional three HD channels available on Freeview HD? Is this purely down to contractual problems?

 

[Anonymous]

I am just not convinced by this HD malarkey. I watch TV intermittently on a small TV in a small room, and the last thing I would want would be to have to watch TV on a big, bright, HD screen, and for the same reason that I cannot watch film at the cinema from the front row. I find it a very uncomfortable experience. I have been told by an inevitably spotty yoof at John Lewis, that it is unlikely that small screen TVs will ever be true HD, in any case, and otherwise I am quite happy watching digital freeview 720p. I can quite understand people who wish to watch lots of HD film or Sky sports going full HD on a big screen, and must admit that watching the world cup on full HD would be tempting, even for me, but the real point surely is that the routinely nauseating content of everyday television ain't going to be 'improved' by HD. Moreover, the difference in cost between HD and SD is bordering on the exorbitant, and I suspect that for most punters it may well not be a price worth paying. Of course, it will probably pan out that in the future there will no choice, but it seems probable that people will find that our inadequate digital infrastructure may well in any case prove to be the real arbiter of whether true HD is actually obtainable for the majority of viewers.

 

[strapped for cash]

Romseyraver -- you are, of course, expressing a preference. With regard to your claim that the outlay to upgrade to full HD is "exorbitant", this is really down to consumer choice. If you don't think the outlay is worthwhile, and I fully understand why you would not want a 50" flatscreen in a small room, then you will not invest. Anybody who has watched full HD sports broadcasts, especially football which is notoriously bad in SD on new (larger) flatscreen televisions, would say the difference between SD and HD is night and day. You're right that, as we move inevitably closer to a HD standard, eventually consumers will have to opt in, irrespective of whether they are sold on the benefits of doing so. I just think that the cost of HD capable hardware has fallen so much in recent years that this becomes a moot point. At some stage, everybody will need to buy a new television set; and if you're getting more for your money I don't see this as a problem. If, on the other hand, you are only discussing the merits of 1080p over 720p on smaller screens, then most would agree that it's difficult to tell the difference. But since virtualy all televisions manufactured are now 1080p, I again don't really see an issue.

 

[Anonymous]

Mr Strapped, all points good and entirely taken in, and indeed you are right in pointing out that every post nearly always expresses an opinion. Still, the impression given to me by the aforementioned salesman was that I was more than slightly mad questioning whether I might opt for anything other than full 1080p, regardless of circumstances. Indeed, I felt compelled to ask him if full HD might mean being able to access some secret quality TV programming the existence of which had entirely escaped me until now. Alas, the answer was that I would still get the same derisory programmes, just 'bigger and better', and I cannot see myself ever wishing to opt into that. I feel I should re-state, first, that it is not possible, at least at present, to purchase a 1081p television that has not at least a 26" screen, and that I am informed that this will not change in the future. Second, I beg to differ with your opinion that the difference in the cost of 1081p equipment compared with SD equipment is so small as to make the choice a 'moot point'. It might be the case in years to come, if only because SD equipment will cease to exist, but right now the difference is actually considerable. The cost of a 22" Samsung TV compared to a 26" Samsung is over £150, and the difference between a Humax SD PVR and the new HD Humax PVR will be also be over £150 when the time comes, not including the fact that SD equipment will inevitably be discounted. So the actual difference will be an extra £300 on an intended outlay of £380, which I make to be almost 93% or almost double the cost, at least as far as the kind of equipment I would want is concerned. Of course you are right, if I were someone who watched a lot of sport, and watched in a bigger room, then full HD would be a no-brainer, but we are fast approaching a time when SD equipment will become very cheap, precisely because of the transition to HD, and for the likes of me, and I suspect large numbers of others, there will be some real bargains out there.

 

[Andrew Everard]

romseyraver and strappedforcash,

Any chance of hitting the return key every once in a while?

Might make the posts a bit easier to read...

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry about that.

Will do better next time.

Honest.

 

[strapped for cash]

Andrew Everard:
romseyraver and strappedforcash,

Any chance of hitting the return key every once in a while?

Might make the posts a bit easier to read...

Mr Everard, considering a few forum members seem frequently intent on redefining the rules of the English langauge (not mentioning any names) I think my posts are generally quite lucid! With regard to the (over)long paragraph (broken down, I might add into comprehensible sentences, unlike some posts I've read that employ questionable syntax) I was merely responding in kind.

Take issue, if you will, with my opinions, but not my ability to communicate in clear and cogent prose!

 

[strapped for cash]

Romseyraver -- I'd defend your choice to not upgrade if you're using a small screen in a small room, though I'd be inclined to agree with the salesman, why opt for a less capable and out of date product if you can get the latest tech for little outlay anyway.

Regardless, please don't consider my expression of opinion hostile, I just think it makes sense, if you're buying a television, to opt for one that makes the most of available technology. That's before we throw 3D options into the mix, of course...

 

[Anonymous]

No, didn't consider your opinion as being hostile, and apologies if it came across that I did.

I can quite understand your opinion and it makes sense.

It's just a pity that one can't get full HD on the kind of TV I want.

Oh, and for the kind of money one can buy SD equipment for.

Mostly, I guess I'm just a bit miffed at the moment trawling through TV schedules without finding anything I really want to watch.

Also, don't like this new instruction for using paragraphs whilst posting.

And lots of other things too ... but that's not really relevant.

There's nought wrong with your use of English, by the way.

 

[strapped for cash]

Well, whatever your preferences in terms of screen technology, not even the greatest television set can change the fact that we've now got a huge selection of channels and arguably fewer quality programmes. That said, I think BBC HD content is generally quite good.

Hopefully Andrew doesn't expect us to write using one sentence paragraphs from now on!