Anyone here with Sky HD?

All I can tell you is that we concluded after some deliberation that the extra it cost over the standard service was obscene for a few channels of HD content that we were unlikely to watch!

Hi Tony.

I've had a Sky HD box for a while now, in fact I'm on my third box! The HD material that's broadcast (and not all of it's "proper" HD, some's upscaled standard stuff)is superb, assuming you've got the display to do it justice. The number of channels available through HD is steadily increasing.

The Thompson-sourced box, however, is pretty unreliable. Touch wood my present box has lasted for nearly a year, but it's got a tendency to crash every now and again. I believe Pace are about to introduce a HD box shortly, which promises to be more reliable.

I'm surprised you consider the Sky interface annoying! To most folks, including me, it's great - unsurpassed in its simplicity and elegance. Pure genius in fact! Perhaps you haven't seen the latest one?

Another option if you want HD is to go for Freesat, which currently transmits some HD content (Freeview doesn't, nor does it look likely that they will). Unfortunately you can't buy a PVR for Freesat use yet; Humax are meant to be bringing one out later in the year.

So, is Sky HD worth it? To me, yes it is. We enjoy watching movies & nature programs, plus the occasional bit of sport. The Olympics on BBC HD were absolutely stunning!

I'm looking to see if the upgrade to Sky HD is worth doing. I like TonyM think the Sky+ system is a superb idea almost one touch series record links etc.The boxes can be a little flakey but are fixed/changed quickly,I find the remote to be a bit of APITA otherwise pretty good.
The last service guy out to me (an actual sky guy not a subbie) says Samsung are about to make the boxes as well, whether that will increase reliability or not time will tell.

All you can get on Freesat HD is BBCHD and occasional ITV programmes at present.

There's about 20 HD channels on the Sky platform but getting access to these will depend on you r subscription, ie sport, movies packages etc.

I've found that once you start watching HD you're constantly looking at the HD channel guide to see what's on. Try watching SD footy after HD.

Sky = Beelzebub's TV service, & is very expensive IMHO.

Sadly terrestrial digital (Freeview) doesn't have the data capacity to support HD,
& it's unlikely it ever will. Freesat has come about partly to provide PSB to areas that can't receive terrestrial digital, & partly to transmit PSB HD. At the moment the UK PSBs intend to migrate their HD services to Freesat, & also to go fully HD in the medium term.

When my TV goes HD I will take Freesat.

quote:

Originally posted by 555:
Sky = Beelzebub's TV service, & is very expensive IMHO.

Both true. But sadly, nothing else touches it for range of content, or ease of use.

If you are into sport - Sky HD is well worthwhile. If you don't like sport, then a few up-scaled movies and some HD documentary channels probably makes it doubtful value.

I agree with tonym, the boxes are crap but the interface is fine.

Steve

That's all true Steve, & I admit I don't enjoy watching sport on TV.
But in terms of content do you really want lots of crap on your telly?

The last time I stayed in a place where there was Sky,
it took me half an hour to wade through the electronic 'what's on' guide.
Then there's 3 minutes of adverts every 10 minutes,
ever decreasing data rates ...

Sky is of value if you are in a bad terrestrial reception area. Just because you have a subscription does not mean you have to watch any Sky populist channels.

Now that the BBC and ITV have set up a Freesat service with a good range of channels there is less need for a Sky subscription unless you are obsessed on sport or have so much time that you can watch lots of films.

It will be interesting to see if Sky subscriptions are reduced once the BBC Freesat PVR boxes appear on the scene.

I suspect that Sky will lose quite a few customers unless they do a price match.

It will be interesting Derek.
Along with sport the other major HD content on Freesat will be films,
because it's cheap for the broadcasters to source an HD version.

Of course you don't have to watch all the crap on Sky if you subscribe,
but you do have to pay for it!

To be honest, Sky Sports, some BBC channels and the comedy channels plus the odd movie are all I watch on TV ever. Sky HD works for me because I am a Golf, Cricket, Rugby Union and (to a lesser extent) Football fan.

All the other channels are just chaff. It's dead easy to tick your own favourite channels so you don't scroll through the lot.

I would never recommend Sky (or Hi Fi for that matter ) on vfm grounds. They both cost far too much. But the quality of Sky's HD channels are excellent and the Sky plus functionality is best of breed. However much it pains me to give money to Murdoch, I would only be cutting off my nose if I didn't - and it's hardly likely to bother the evil empire.

Come to think of it, I take the Times too - there is no hope. The alternatives are just too grim to contemplate.

Steve