[meaton]

Evening folks,


I was on the phone to sky this evening, just talking about a billing issue, and to see what happens when my 12 month contract is up next month, we got talking about SkyHD..

I asked her if she knew of any release date or prices, she said the last she heard was that the box would cost in the region of £300 but the subscription price is expected to be the same as of Sky+ w/ Multiroom..

so for instance, i have sky+ with multiroom, so the sky+ box would move upstairs in place of the multiroom box and the SkyHD box would replace the Sky+ box downstairs, and the price would stay the same each month, which for me is £52.50 (i think) per month (sky+ w/ multiroom).

Not sure what to make of this, but its good news if she was right.. I asked her was this just at the beginning because they didnt have "many" HD ready channels, and she said no, there were quite a few, (she went through each of the confirmed HD channels with me)...


we can only pray!

Michael

[rickman]

That would be great sub staying the same and £300 for the box?

Bring it on!!!!

Hope she was right?

[sbooth]

I hope she was right too! I can't wait to see some HD content on my Panny.

[Chris Simon]

Sound like a HUGE increase to me!

(currently on 2-mix package - £15 per month)

Sky are going to have their work cut out trying to persuade people to go to HD. The only people they'll convert are those already paying the top price!

Think I'll wait for FTA HD.

[David (2)]

£52.50 a month? Rip off tv in full swing.

HD is better (not forgetting you have to pay the cost of a new tv to see the improved pctures!), but I am very happy to stick with Freeview and SD pictures if Sky is going to be £52.50. Afterall, there's nothing particularly bad about SD pictures. Five's documentry on the Eurofighter the other night had outstanding SD quality pictures.

Dave

[POPMAN]

I would imagine there will be plenty of takers, even at that price. I bought my 42ins HD ready flatty just for this, the pricing quoted weren't far off what I had imagined.

[Jarrak]

Indeed.

I can fully understand some people recoiling in horror at the price of SKYworld and a HD premium but there are hundreds of thousands that already pay over £42.50 to SKY.
HD is not intended as a mainstream product and bottom line is that the people who buy HD displays and can afford HD boxes will want HD broadcasts. That will mean PAY services until the traditional broadcasters get their act together, they let SKY have their way in the analogue days and made a small effort in the dawn of the digital age and apart from the BBC they may have already lost the HD battle.

[andybno1]

I think I shall wait till theres an excisting customer offer or till the price comes down. £300 for me is about 2 1/2 weeks wages and that does seem a lot

[tiger]

It isn't the price of the sub that would stop me, but the total cost of the equipment. I would have to spend £300 on a Sky HD box, plus replace my TV, currently a 32'' flat screen CRT with if I want HD compatability is going to cost around £1400 which is a major outlay for something like this.....
http://www.dixons.co.uk/martprd/stor...ory_oid=-26569

I think the outlay for new televisions is going to be the real reason for a slow uptake of HD tv.

[tex]

hi my tv is all ready for hdtv, allso have built in freeview.
i have a 42INS proneer plasma pdp-435xde set.
do;S anyone know what cable will be cost.
tex

[Chippy99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David (2)

Afterall, there's nothing particularly bad about SD pictures. Five's documentry on the Eurofighter the other night had outstanding SD quality pictures.

Dave

You raise an interesting point. I have seen HD demos of 1080i Mpeg2 content delivered off a PC-based server box in John Lewis, feeding a 42" Panasonic plasma and the pictures were *astounding*. It wasn't just about the detail (i.e. the resolution), it was also the colour and the lack of banding and other artifacts. It was truly quite stunning.

Now having said...

1. This was MPEG2 HD content, probably with a bit rate of around 20MB/s. How will Sky's MPEG4 stuff look with considerably more compression and less bandwidth? (That is the $64,000 question, imho.)

And 2. I was viewing the Panasonic at JL at a distance of about 2 feet. Close up it really was incredible. But what about at 20 feet? Would I really be able to tell the difference between HD and SD at 15' to 20' from the screen - which it is in my lounge?

OK with a 60" plasma, or a projector, I can see it would be a big improvement. But most people have 42" or less. Many are on 30" LCD or smaller and are looking forward to HD. What on earth is the point of HD on a 30" screen if viewed from (say) 10 feet. You'd need damned fine eyesight to be able to see any difference at all!

Chip

[Jarrak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiger

I think the outlay for new televisions is going to be the real reason for a slow uptake of HD tv.

Yes which is why no one anywhere is talking about HD replacing SD, those that want HD will or have spent the money and the others have the choice when the time is right to buy HD hardware.


Given a reasonable time scale and the impact flat panel displays are already having on CRT's it's only a matter of time for HD displays to be the norm and that will mean even cheaper prices.
The introduction of FTA HD broadcasters will in turn drive up demand for non-proprietery STB's (just as it does in the EU) and that gives you even cheaper hardware.

For those with restraint there are huge benefits in waiting a while

[Jarrak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chippy99

1. This was MPEG2 HD content, probably with a bit rate of around 20MB/s. How will Sky's MPEG4 stuff look with considerably more compression and less bandwidth? (That is the $64,000 question, imho.)

Having seen H.264 in action (caps from broadcast) there is no reason why it won't look as good as the best mpeg2 but as you say until we see it implemented on a domestic UK service there are still questions.
The obvious comparison will be between mpeg4 broadcast and mpeg4 used on pre-recorded media and due to the costs of HD (and it's premium nature) SKY will not cut any corners they simply can not risk the negative press and hopefully neither will the BBC.

Quote:

And 2. I was viewing the Panasonic at JL at a distance of about 2 feet. Close up it really was incredible. But what about at 20 feet? Would I really be able to tell the difference between HD and SD at 15' to 20' from the screen - which is in my lounge?

One of the amazing things is how HD holds it's integrity up close and personal when a SD image breaks down into blocks/pixels.
There has long been discussions about the perfect screen size measured against viewing distance, I suspect it will come down to an individuals choice.
I can certainly see a difference between SD and HD on my 32" LCD from 15feet or so but that was bought as a stop gap and I intend to buy a 50" 1920*1080 panel which will give a more cinematic experience.

However my opinion is far from gospel on this matter

[Jarrak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tex

hi my tv is all ready for hdtv, allso have built in freeview.
i have a 42INS proneer plasma pdp-435xde set.
do;S anyone know what cable will be cost.
tex

High Def via cable televisions?

If so then NTL will probably follow the traditional model by loaning hardware (HD DVR in the case) for the duration of your subscription. There would likely be the additional premium for the DVR and/or HD aspects but we don't know for sure nor is it clear if SKY content will be on HD cable.

Once TW officially launch in the next month or so we will have a much better idea of what NTL may do.

[David (2)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chippy99

You raise an interesting point. I have seen HD demos of 1080i Mpeg2 content delivered off a PC-based server box in John Lewis, feeding a 42" Panasonic plasma and the pictures were *astounding*. It wasn't just about the detail (i.e. the resolution), it was also the colour and the lack of banding and other artifacts. It was truly quite stunning.

Now having said...

1. This was MPEG2 HD content, probably with a bit rate of around 20MB/s. How will Sky's MPEG4 stuff look with considerably more compression and less bandwidth? (That is the $64,000 question, imho.)

And 2. I was viewing the Panasonic at JL at a distance of about 2 feet. Close up it really was incredible. But what about at 20 feet? Would I really be able to tell the difference between HD and SD at 15' to 20' from the screen - which it is in my lounge?

OK with a 60" plasma, or a projector, I can see it would be a big improvement. But most people have 42" or less. Many are on 30" LCD or smaller and are looking forward to HD. What on earth is the point of HD on a 30" screen if viewed from (say) 10 feet. You'd need damned fine eyesight to be able to see any difference at all!

Chip

Which nicely leads on to the fact that so many "box" houses in the UK don't have enough space for a 42" screen let alone one of those 60" machines. Most people I know are still running various CRT tv's ranging from 21" to 32" (plus 14" portable crt's in other rooms, etc). Most of these people would not consider anything larger than 32" due to the space it would take up. I know CRT's have a "back" to them, but the left-right dimesion is equally important.

Dave

[sanderton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Simon

Sound like a HUGE increase to me!

(currently on 2-mix package - £15 per month)

Sky are going to have their work cut out trying to persuade people to go to HD. The only people they'll convert are those already paying the top price!

Think I'll wait for FTA HD.

I forget the exact figure, but I seem to remember that more than half of Sky subscribers do pay the top price. That gives them 4m homes to work with!

[Chris Simon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarrak

For those with restraint there are huge benefits in waiting a while

I agree! It was only last week I was going through some old VHS tapes in order to archive things that I want to keep onto DVD, and came across a feature that was broadcast about 15 years ago. Looked very Open University! It was about experiments in High Definition and showing very small prototype LCD displays, looking extremely naff actually like a 50s B&W TV. There was also discussion about LED displays which has been touched upon in these forums.

Considering I've been waiting 15 years for HD, I think I can wait a couple of years longer! Then, equipment prices will have fallen, bugs will have been ironed out, and non-subscription mainstream channels will be broadcasting in HD for no extra cost. I've no interest in sport or movies which is what Sky are aiming at initially. There are an awful lot of football fans out there. Discovery would be nice, but I don't subscribe to that mix at the moment anyway.

Why all the excitement now? It's only because of the hype that Sky have put out! It's certainly the future of broadcasting but at its initial launch it will be very limited and at a very high cost.

[chriswatts]

Hopefully you got to speak to someone in the know, I contacted Sky since my Digibox is packing up and I don't want to buy another Sky+ box if the HD system comes out the month later.

All I got was the standard release that it's coming out in 2006, no price yet and no ideal of the monthly fee.

[Chippy99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarrak

Having seen H.264 in action (caps from broadcast) there is no reason why it won't look as good as the best mpeg2.

I would say there's no reason why it can't look as good.

Whether it will or not I think is completely open to debate. Its very very very (3 veries) easy to make h.264 look terrible - just lower the bit rate far enough and there you go. And as bandwidth = money, I worry greatly that Sky will cut corners and f**k it up.

Even if it looks great to start with, what will be their temptation to trun the wick down a bit once more HD channels come on line.

Heck, you only have to look at how truly **TERRIBLE** the Sky Sports footy pictures are to see how little Sky really care about picture quality. One pan of the camera and all the grass disappears! Its mind-bendingly bad. And all that could be fixed with a couple more MBits/s, but Sky either don't see it, or don't care about their customers enough to bother fixing it.

Chip

[pillsburyb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chippy99

What on earth is the point of HD on a 30" screen if viewed from (say) 10 feet. You'd need damned fine eyesight to be able to see any difference at all!

Chip

I disagree mate, I was testing a Qosmio laptop that is HD, it's only got about a 17" screen but it was stunning no matter where you looked at it from.

However, I was shocked at the HD file size. 1 min 25 second of footage was 89MB

[Chippy99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pillsburyb

I disagree mate, I was testing a Qosmio laptop that is HD, it's only got about a 17" screen but it was stunning no matter where you looked at it from.

However, I was shocked at the HD file size. 1 min 25 second of footage was 89MB

Maybe I just have crap eyesight. But really, I challenge anyone to really benefit from HD on a sub 42" screen, if you are viewing from 15 feet plus.

Chip

[Jarrak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chippy99

Heck, you only have to look at how truly **TERRIBLE** the Sky Sports footy pictures are to see how little Sky really care about picture quality. One pan of the camera and all the grass disappears! Its mind-bendingly bad. And all that could be fixed with a couple more MBits/s, but Sky either don't see it, or don't care about their customers enough to bother fixing it.

Chip

I wouldn't say terrible, the BBC are worse and as for ITV well...

For SKY I just think stat muxing again is to blame, you can't have two live sports programming/channels on a single transponder if you then include 2 or 3 more channels to share the load.
Prem Plus is excellent though so while that's no benefit for normal subscription channels it may indicate that SKY still to some degree acknowledge Premium content.

[Jarrak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Simon

Why all the excitement now? It's only because of the hype that Sky have put out! It's certainly the future of broadcasting but at its initial launch it will be very limited and at a very high cost.

I was excited about HD long before SKY started making noise, god bless the US and the internet.

SKY just waved the promise of easy HD viewing in our faces

Television was only for the mega rich when it started, VHS would have cost you nearly a grand in the mid 1970's and DVD well that was not cheap either.
I don't think I would be far wrong in saying pound for pound and factoring inflation and average wages HD may be the cheapest new viewing technology for some time

[camaj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chippy99

Maybe I just have crap eyesight. But really, I challenge anyone to really benefit from HD on a sub 42" screen, if you are viewing from 15 feet plus.

You say you don't know, now you're saying you challenge anyone to see the difference at that distance?

As you said, HD pictures are amazing, do you really think that quality would deminish so rapidly? It just wouldn't make sense.

I watched 1080p video on a 19" monitor from around 15 feet and it still looked phenominal, just smaller obviously. I could probably go back twice the distance but then you probably wouldn't be able to see anything at all. At 42" you're probably going to have to go 50-60ft back before it being a problem, this is regardless of the resolution

Quote:

Why all the excitement now? It's only because of the hype that Sky have put out!

What hype? Sky have barely mentioned it bar a couple of pages in the Sky guide and a few teasers.

I don't know if there's any particular increas in excitement. I've been waiting for HD ever since I saw screencaps of the 2002 WC matches. Before then I didn't know what it was.

Any current interest has to be down to the launch of Xbox 360 and the launches of SkyHD and Blu-ray later this year

[Cable]

Well, that`s 200 down from the last price I read here. If the price stays around 300 I will order it.

Cable