Poor picture quality

[Invisiblename]

@nonnie1  Do you wear glasses? Cleaned them recently?

[GD1]

@nonnie1  Do you wear glasses?  If yes when was your last eye test?  Reason I ask is that everyone's eyes change with age, so even if you don't wear glasses now, maybe you do need to.  Likewise if you already wear them then you should get tested every 2 years for the reason stated.

I can very much tell the different on my TV between SD, HD & UHD, UHD on Sky is no worse in terms of bitrates compared to other broadcasters, e.g Europsort 4K on Sky no different to Europsort 4K for Germany (same feeds different markets)

[nonnie1]

Do you work for Sky....?

[GD1]

---

@nonnie1 wrote:

Do you work for Sky....?

---

Ahh, the default response from a poster who doesn't like the replies they get in a Sky forum.

Any Sky Employees are clearly labeled as such within the forum.

[nonnie1]

Can't be just me if this issue has been raised by others on this, and other forums

[Invisiblename]

---

@nonnie1 wrote:

Can't be just me if this issue has been raised by others on this, and other forums

---

Plenty of people have either avoided, or not been able to get an eye test in the last year....

[Chodley]

@Invisiblename Typically, deteriorating eyesight with age is associated woth long sightedness so wouldn't affect TV viewing but I have to say HD and (most) UHD stuff is still clearly higher quality for me on a 65" at 3.5m

[Chrisee]

---

@nonnie1 wrote:

It's nothing to do with settings, tv make/model, it's common knowledge that sky bitrate on HD - and recently Ultra HD is pretty poor. In fact I'm have trouble telling the difference between the two, especially on live football!

---

@nonnie1 sorry you are wrong both the settings and model of TV can make a huge difference to picture quality. Bandwidth is a factor certainly but without considering the compression technology used is meaningless as compression has improved massively in the last 10 years. You can getva quart into a pint pot satellite transponder. 😀

The difference between HD and UHD is far less noticeable than between SD and HD  The human eye has limitations on the detail it can resolve this page gives guidance on screen size and distance and you are sitting too far from your 55inch set to reliable see the extra detail in a UHD broadcast. Add-in that good TVs are pretty good at upscaling at your viewing distance then difference is pretty hard to distinguish. Get close and you will see the difference particularly in the crowd. It is why higher resolutions like 8K are only really important on bigger screens go up to 85 inchs and then the difference will be obvious.

Badly set up TVs can crush detail particularly when the camera pans - motion correction on many sets make this worse rather than better. Setting up your TV properly is sensible to maxmise the viewing experience. 

My point is thst "common knowledge" often over simplifies complex subjects. 

[Paulmhayes]

Have my tv set to UHD on Sky Q box 

Watching  BBC 1 Holland v Austria MOTD 

picture is superb 

Turn on sky sports and the quality of the picture ( I have HD subscription) is dramatically poorer . The football has always been a poorer picture imo.

There is definitely an issue with the quality of the Sky sports HD channels from my experience with the football and golf 

It's fine with F1 .

BT sports is definitely better than the Sky sports pictures 

[woppy1]

Just watching the Holland game in UHD HLG! Sky really need to take note, now this is how football should be broadcast, not the current pitiful UHD quality currently broadcast

[woppy1]

this is what football should look like

[blade+the]

Bbc UHD is currently measuring at 29 Mbps here, that’s substantially more bitrate than sky UHD, thats why BBC UHD has much better picture. Sky compress the UHD alot. Its very different to a UHD blu ray or test videos on tv’s in shops. The more the bitrate,the better picture for live broadcasts. Hopefully sky will find a way to not compress it as much, sky UHD is underwhelming to say the least.

[Paulmhayes]

@blade+the 
thanks for that explanation. That makes sense for the Mini boxes but why would that be different for the the main Q box considering signal comes from dish?

[nonnie1]

@blade+the 

At last someone else can see that Sky are really ripping people off. First it was HD, now UHD.

I agree with @blade+the BBC iplayer UHD much better quality than Sky and free!

[blade+the]

When HD came out, the SD bitrate dropped.  Making HD look better. Then when UHD came out, they dropped the bitrate of HD, making UHD look better than it actually was. This was mainly sky HD channel and Sky sports channels. BT sports bitrate was left alone, its always been a better picture than sky sports. There's nothing 'breathtaking' about UHD and UHD/HDR on sky. Its marginally better than HD. Sky is a let down and i won't renew my UHD package