sky HD - worth it...

[timwileman]

well i am now allowed to get sky...woo hoo!

we are not going to get the movie or the sports packs so is it worth the extra monthly for HD?

Tim

 

[Gerrardasnails]

timwileman:well i am now allowed to get sky...woo hoo!

we are not going to get the movie or the sports packs so is it worth the extra monthly for HD?

Tim

It depends on what is important to you and how good your set up is. You would still get Sky OneHD, C4HD, BBC HD, ITV HD (with the new epg), Sky Arts HD, Fox HD, plus others. I am a believer that the SD picture is better with the HD box too.

 

[dangalf]

when i switched everything over to sky i told the guy i couldnt afford sports and movies so he gave me them free for a month. he also tried flogging me the HD box but i said it wasnt worth it as i wasnt going to keep sports/movies (a complete lie) and he told me he would give me the HD box but wipe my line rental for a year (in effect giving me a free HD box for a year).

am pretty sure these offers are fairly standard so just try your luck

 

[Anonymous]

Sky HD is definately worth it (assuming you have an HDTV). However I would say that BBC1, the movies and the sports are the ones I watch most regularly so without the last two I would find it hard to enjoy HD (Arts and SKy and FX sometimes has something) SO yes, but movies and sports are really great...

 

[Anonymous]

Bear in mind once you've actually got the HD box it's only a further £10 a month on top of your normal package. I wouldn't be without Sky Sports in HD for the football. Oh and of course the HD discovery channels. My favourite programme there is "Austin Stevens Snakemaster" in HD. This guy is absolutely nuts and the sick side of me would love to see him mauled by a 15 foot snake...................all in beautiful HD!!

 

[bretty]

I've had Sky HD for about a year. I really loved it until recently, when it seems that nearly all the HD channels have suffered a drop in picture quality. I've noticed it massively on BBC HD, FX HD, the football on SKY SPORTS HD and all the film channels. Apparently, this is going to get worse as more channels get added, sharing the same bandwidth.

I'm dissapointed, so i'm toying with the idea of going back to SKY+ and putting the tenner i'll save every month towards re-joining Love film, now that they are doing Blu-Ray.

EDIT - I watched 'Jonathon Ross' last night on BBC HD. It looked like a good standard def picture, not HD at all. BBC HD used to be amazing, with a picture so sharp and vivid that it had an almost 3D quality. Shame what's happening. I've just worked out that Im paying £744 a year to sky! Sod that, that's ridiculous for TV. I'm getting rid of HD soon as, going back to Freeview and watching the footy down the boozer!

 

[v1c]

Sky full stop is not worth it let alone the extra for HD. I had sky for virtually a decade when i had a problem with the box not receiving all the channels i was paying for i had the audacity to ask for a new box , yes that will be X £'s , so you want me a loyal customer to pay for a new box so i can keep giving you £40 a month !!!! and receive the service i'm paying for ........ yes. No oh ok have a box etc or get free rental for 12 months whatever. So i ditched sky and went freeview haven't missed it a bit oh maybe the odd movie premiere but i watch all the new films on blu-ray so not really a big deal. I do have access to 2 HD channels one is BBC and the other LUXE (asian) and yes i'll admit i like watching BBC HD but when i watch a standard def one i'm not thinking wow i wish this was HD. I will say i would like more HD channels but i am absolutely NOT PAYING FOR THEM even though i can afford them. It won't be to long before we have freeview HD , you can also access TV on PC i can not understand why people still pay the price they do for sky and accept it as value for money ( maybe a mega avid sports fan can justify it) but i for one won't accept it anymore. Put it this way if all of sky's customers went elsewhere what would sky do....... maybe just maybe the prices would drop and it would represent value for money. Hey if you love it that much and you want to keep dishing out for the awesome sky service then carry on paying the value for money prices but i'm not ,this is my one man can make a difference stand and i don't care if i'm on my own i like it that i said bye to sky.

 

[Anonymous]

Regardles of the drop in quality, watching Sky Sports and the fottball is worth the £10 a month to me. It's still an excellent picture.

 

[barrieJ]

I had sky hd for a few years now, the picture is great sound's good and everyone love's sky. Although i'm on my third box

2 new one's in the last 4 months all the hard drive have fauled losing everything you'v recorded (bad times) the box's are every slow and unresponce since they updated the new planner. If my sky hard drive go's again, free sat here i come.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Having recently moved and upgraded to SKY HD I would say yes it is worth it. I don't have movies or sports but I do watch alot of Discovery,History and National Geographic, looks fantastic in HD. I have even recorded a few programs from ArtsHD, Jimi Hendrix and a really good documentary on Graceland by Paul Simon. I havn't heard Graceland since I was a kid living in South Africa, I remember my dad playing that album alot at the time via his Marantz system..... brought back a few memories.
As the HD box has hdmi even the standard SD channels look better than they did from my old bog standard box via RGB Scart.

EDIT: My tv is a 42" Pany 1080p btw.

 

[tvspecv]

not worth it maybe in the next year or so might drop price then just then it might be worth it.

for now its pricey

 

[Alec]

Graham_Thomas:Regardles of the drop in quality, watching Sky Sports and the fottball is worth the £10 a month to me. It's still an excellent picture.

But will the trend continue? I mean, we already have "HD" channels that broadcast a lot of SD material.

 

[The_Lhc]

al7478:Graham_Thomas:Regardles of the drop in quality, watching Sky Sports and the fottball is worth the £10 a month to me. It's still an excellent picture.

But will the trend continue? I mean, we already have "HD" channels that broadcast a lot of SD material

That's because they're simulcast channels, the situation will actually improve as more and more TV companies adopt HD-only cameras, the BBC has been filming entirely in HD for a couple of years now.

Unless you're suggesting TV companies will throw away their HD cameras and go back to SD? Doesn't seem particularly likely.

 

[Alec]

im not suggesting anything just wondering. the situation is a million miles away from ideal, and seems to be taking backwards steps. but then, despite my telly and sky hd im enormously sceptical of the brave new tv world and have been for the last 5 or 6 years.

im not sure where bbc filming in hd comes in...? the programmes still exhibit god-awful quality on occasions, and the situation overall much less than ideal, but now im making a circular argument...

edit - are you equating being filmed in hd with being broadcast in hd?

 

[Big Aura]

a mate of mine had a blazing argument with me as he said "you can't tell the difference between HD and SD". He invited me round to demonstrate.

Turns out he was completely correct. But that was because his plasma pre-dates HD. Heh.

 

[harveymt]

I would have said a year ago that it was pointless getting HD with no movies or sport but looking at my planner most of what i tape is from the non movie/sport channels. There's loads of good new series starting up now on Sky1 and FX.

It does bug a little when people moan about the cost of Sky. It costs what it costs. They have to make money at the end of the day. I've made an effort to save money this year with the current economic climate. So far I've bought no DVDs this year, saving a small fortune. And I haven't missed it. My planner for the week is full of good series and there's usually one or two movies a night I'd be happy to watch. I think it's fine for a couple of quid a day.

Although I wouldn't object if they knocked the HD charge off!

 

[mikey2008]

I find the multiroom subcription more grating. At the moment, I've got two boxes, one standard and one HD, and I pay £10 for multiroom plus £10 for HD. As I understand it, if I was then to replace the standard box with an HD one, I'd then have to pay another £10 for the additional HD mix. I think they should scrap the multiroom charge and then just one HD charge for any number of boxes.