Sky Sports UHD compared to BT Sport/Amazon.

[Anonymous]

Is it just me, or is Sky's UHD picture quality in their coverage of sport particularly poor compared to BT Sport Ultimate and Amazon Prime UHD?

This has been noticeable to me for a while (at least 12 months) but thought I'd give Sky time to improve it. Doesn't seem to have happened.

Amazon Prime UHD - their December live Premier League games to me look absolutely fantastic. The best I've experienced when it comes to sports streaming. Images are brighter, more vivid and noticeably sharper.

BT Sport Ultimate - very close to Amazon Prime's UHD coverage, excellent.

Sky Sports UHD - comparable with normal HD. I'd argue it looks even inferior to BT Sport HD, let alone BT Sport Ultimate.

Is it just me? Or is there a reason for this?

Are Sky intending to improve UHD picture quality any time soon?

[Melancholic]

@Anonymous 

Since upgrading my TV, I have noticed a big (positive) difference in Sky's 4K coverage, but yes, BT's is of a high quality, but here this is streamed via the app. The internet will provide a better quality though compared to satellite. For example, Apple's bit-rates are some of the highest and their 4K is incredible. 

There will always be limitations depending on equipment and environment.

[ozsat]

But the low bitrate on satellite is the choice of the broadcaster. I'd expect thatSky could use higher bitrates for UHD.

BT Sports HD and UHD pictures are much better then Sky Sport HD and UHD respectively.

But I even found the BT HD was much better than Sky Sports HD on the SkyQ box.

---

@Melancholic wrote:

@Anonymous 

Since upgrading my TV, I have noticed a big (positive) difference in Sky's 4K coverage, but yes, BT's is of a high quality, but here this is streamed via the app. The internet will provide a better quality though compared to satellite. For example, Apple's bit-rates are some of the highest and their 4K is incredible. 

There will always be limitations depending on equipment and environment.

---

[Ratinthekitchen]

This comes up time and time again. The only thing to do is keep complaining and don't get fobbed off with a level 1 customer service team response.  Sky cheap out on the bitrates due to cost. Its a con that quality is only marketed in resolution terms but bitrate is just as if not more important.

[SKYLJM]

Couldn't agree more 

[seandrews]

They could put UHD on the EPG & broadcast it over satellite and make it look as good as they want to. 

they don't want to do that. 
why? I don't know 

Sky are happy with what they are giving you and maybe don't care or do not do any research as to what customers want. 

[Ibrahim215]

I found this thread interesting because for me its the opposite - I am watching West Ham vs Leeds right now on Sky Sports UHD HDR and the picture is absolutely incredible, much better than City vs Chelsea on BT Ultimate yesterday. I only recently subscribed to Sky though, so perhaps they've made some changes since the OP made this thread?

[stereohaven]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

...Amazon Prime UHD - their December live Premier League games to me look absolutely fantastic. The best I've experienced when it comes to sports streaming. Images are brighter, more vivid and noticeably sharper.

BT Sport Ultimate - very close to Amazon Prime's UHD coverage, excellent....

---

Both Amazon and BT Sport Premier League coverage is done by a company called Sunset+Vine, so the output always looks similar.

Personally, I have found the Sky coverage in UHD HDR to be very good, but I concur that Amazon Prime and BT Sport Ultimate look better, albeit I watch those on an Apple TV 4K. 

---

@Anonymous wrote:

...Are Sky intending to improve UHD picture quality any time soon?

---

As others have suggested, they could right now as far as satellite bandwidth goes, but they won't.

[GD1]

@seandrews  Sky's Sports in UHD IS broadcast over satellite!