Reply

4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

Reply
Anonymous
Not applicable
Posts: 0
Post 121 of 222
696 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@Nevlol wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

@Dazzasky wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

@Dazzasky wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

Wow! 4k hdr youtube videos are stunning. Really highlights sky uhd definately not worth £12 a month.


Most UHD HDR videos will look better that just UHD videos, so it's not really a comparison @Anonymous


Yes, so really does prove not worth £12 for an inferior experience 


Apart from you are only getting short videos on you tube rather than films, boxsets and sports. And not forgetting that £12 also gives you multiscreen so you can watch on a different tv. Sky will also be updating the Sky Q box to HLG later this year as well. Personally I think the £12 is a great price considering what you get. 


Films and sport cost even more! Not interested in sports, and can only watch 1 tv at a time so multiscreen is irrelevant to me, but thanks for your opinion.

 


Appreciate you may not be interested in those services, but comparing HDR 4K videos on YouTube to real world content is not a fair comparison. Certainly not a comparison from which you can draw a conclusion from. Those videos are nothing more than demos intended to wow and some of them really are astonishingly good. They show a best case scenario and aren't representative of day-to-day viewing on any service or means.


So you’re suggesting it’s a complete con in much the same way as the way TV manufacturers have a ‘store’ setting to show the meganess of the TV in store and encourage purchase?

Sound Designer
Posts: 105
Post 122 of 222
685 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

I mean that using a 4K HDR demo as a measuring stick is not realistic. That isn't to say that watching Blu-Rays and HDR content on Netflix, Amazon etc can't be amazing in the same way, it's just that a demo is created and post processed to do exactly that and so you cant realistically expect everything you watch to be as mind blowing and that doesn't mean it's a con or a gimmick. 

 

Maybe we're getting a little off topic but I do feel it important to add that HDR is not always a benefit. HDR is pretty common place on 4K sets these days and only very budget options (that just aren't worth buying anyway) will not support HDR but the way in which HDR is done can differ and indeed the set's peak brightness and other factors have a dramatic impact on just how capable it is of showing off HDR capabilities. Many lower end sets just aren't capable of really getting the benefits or best of HDR.

Executive Producer
Posts: 3,894
Post 123 of 222
670 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

I’m more impressed with a good film or programme than picture quality.  I’d rather watch excellent content in SD than bad content in UHD. Having said that, there’s a clear progression in picture quality from SD to HD to UHD from a Sky Q box. When Sky enable HDR, that will be a significant improvement over UHD.

Sound Designer
Posts: 105
Post 124 of 222
657 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@tarbat wrote:

I’m more impressed with a good film or programme than picture quality.  I’d rather watch excellent content in SD than bad content in UHD. Having said that, there’s a clear progression in picture quality from SD to HD to UHD from a Sky Q box. When Sky enable HDR, that will be a significant improvement over UHD.


IF your TV supports it and more importantly is capable of getting bright enough and wide colour gamut. For some HDR could be a step backwards.

Editor
Posts: 532
Post 125 of 222
648 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

Whatever you thought of Britannia, I think it showed the best you can get with SDR UHD on Sky.  Dolby Atmos was a bonus as well.

AD153222-5DC3-4551-B366-340A78630519.jpeg

================================
Panasonic DX902 65”; Panasonic VT50 Plasma
Pioneer SC-LX901 11.2 Receiver, 7.2.4 setup
KEF 2xQ750, Q650C, 4xT101 surround, 4xCi160QR and Velodyne SPL1200 Ultra ; REL t7/i subwoofers
Apple TV 4K, Oppo 203 Ultra blu-ray player
Anonymous
Not applicable
Posts: 0
Post 126 of 222
636 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@Nevlol wrote:

I mean that using a 4K HDR demo as a measuring stick is not realistic. That isn't to say that watching Blu-Rays and HDR content on Netflix, Amazon etc can't be amazing in the same way, it's just that a demo is created and post processed to do exactly that and so you cant realistically expect everything you watch to be as mind blowing and that doesn't mean it's a con or a gimmick. 

 

Maybe we're getting a little off topic but I do feel it important to add that HDR is not always a benefit. HDR is pretty common place on 4K sets these days and only very budget options (that just aren't worth buying anyway) will not support HDR but the way in which HDR is done can differ and indeed the set's peak brightness and other factors have a dramatic impact on just how capable it is of showing off HDR capabilities. Many lower end sets just aren't capable of really getting the benefits or best of HDR.


Forget HDR. It isn’t a part of this conversation because Sky don’t broadcast HDR.  Hence it’s a red herring.

We are talking Sky UHD.  Is it proper UHD or not. If not then it’s tantamount to being a con!

Sound Designer
Posts: 105
Post 127 of 222
610 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

Yes, it is 3840x2160, it's 4K UHD and to me it looks great. An obvious step up in colour, detail and sharpness. There is some compression, naturally. Nobody is ever going to broadcast uncompressed HD nevermind UHD but the compression codec used is very efficient and so it maintains all of its glory to my eyes. 

Camera Assistant
Posts: 170
Post 128 of 222
604 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

As someone said on here (or maybe a different thread) it's mainly about the bitrate and compression.  It would appear that Sky are ramping things down to a level where enough customers will accept it.  If Netflix and Amazon can consistently deliver significantly better picture quality (be it HD, UHD or UHD HDR) then why can't Sky?  Sky say they "believe in better" but the truth of that statement is highly questionable.  I wouldn't actually mind paying an extra £10 month or so for a proper premium service in terms of picture quality.  For me the real benefits of subscribing to Sky are the sports content and the fantastic functionality of the Sky Q box.  Sadly the picture quality is now just ordinary compared to Sky's competitors.  That never used to be the case.

Sound Designer
Posts: 85
Post 129 of 222
551 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

I think this thread needs to focus on the tv you have. I have a 55inch Sony 9005. It is brilliant at upscaling sd & hd, but the difference in the Premiership, F1, Sky Cinema and other programmes in UHD, is definitely an upgrade. Well worth the upgrade from HD for me. Sitting 7 foot from my set. Just need to save up for Dolby Atmos.

Boom Operator
Posts: 81
Post 130 of 222
539 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@atann wrote:

I think this thread needs to focus on the tv you have. I have a 55inch Sony 9005. It is brilliant at upscaling sd & hd, but the difference in the Premiership, F1, Sky Cinema and other programmes in UHD, is definitely an upgrade. Well worth the upgrade from HD for me. Sitting 7 foot from my set. Just need to save up for Dolby Atmos.


The next step along from, “get your sets calibrated”... Compare how much you paid for your TV.

 

It’s all subjective. Yes there are a lot of variables, including expectations, distance to TV, TV panel type, TV settings etc etc. For me, it’s definitely worth the upgrade as I want the best quality I can get. I think (admittedly due to marketing and expectations of SD to HD like jumps in quality) lots of consumers are expecting more, and it’s just not the way it is. Most users and reviewers confirm that HDR is the game changer, so fingers crossed HLG is the thing to take live TV to the next level.

Researcher
Posts: 6
Post 131 of 222
519 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

 I recently purchased a 4k lg oled 55b7v tv  and am wondering if after reading your comments is now the time to upgrade to Q and will the quality improve when netflix is offered or do I have it via the tv app?

Boom Operator
Posts: 58
Post 132 of 222
468 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@lewey13 wrote:

 I recently purchased a 4k lg oled 55b7v tv  and am wondering if after reading your comments is now the time to upgrade to Q and will the quality improve when netflix is offered or do I have it via the tv app?


Personally with your TV Go with netflix through the TV app. HD will be 1080p@24hz (correct framerate for films) and a mix of 4K SDR and 4k Dolby Vision HDR content (Your TV supports Dolby vision and Dolby Atmos).

 

From what we guessing it could be netflix content loaded onto the SKY Q platform as an option or an app on the SKY Q box.

 

Personally if your going to upgrade to sky q with UHD multiroom you should get Dolby Atmos sound as your TV supports it. Sky Q UHD at the moment has no HDR  and the UHD picture quality is the equlivant of a resaonably done blu-ray 1080p  so you get better picture at least.

Anonymous
Not applicable
Posts: 0
Post 133 of 222
454 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

@StargazerUK1984

Is netflix available as a trial period to check it out do you know.  And would it work better as a TV App or an app on the Amazon Fire TV.

I would like to try it and see the difference over Sky UHD broadcast prior to committing to a contract.

Anonymous
Not applicable
Posts: 0
Post 134 of 222
450 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@ianmerseyside wrote:

As someone said on here (or maybe a different thread) it's mainly about the bitrate and compression.  It would appear that Sky are ramping things down to a level where enough customers will accept it.  If Netflix and Amazon can consistently deliver significantly better picture quality (be it HD, UHD or UHD HDR) then why can't Sky?  Sky say they "believe in better" but the truth of that statement is highly questionable.  I wouldn't actually mind paying an extra £10 month or so for a proper premium service in terms of picture quality.  For me the real benefits of subscribing to Sky are the sports content and the fantastic functionality of the Sky Q box.  Sadly the picture quality is now just ordinary compared to Sky's competitors.  That never used to be the case.


Be careful what you ask for @ianmerseyside If Sky are slowly down scaling as some allege it might be the intention to eventually offer that extra quality at a premium Smiley LOL

Boom Operator
Posts: 58
Post 135 of 222
446 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@Anonymous wrote:

@StargazerUK1984

Is netflix available as a trial period to check it out do you know.  And would it work better as a TV App or an app on the Amazon Fire TV.

I would like to try it and see the difference over Sky UHD broadcast prior to committing to a contract.


Netflix do offer a Trial period. Also netflix is a one month rolling contract and cancel any time you like. No 12 month period.

 

Also check if you got any offers with your TV., LG usually do some offers. Mine came with sky and I know someone who got free 6 months of netflix with their LG. find out if yours came with an offer or not.

 

OK the LG offer is up to £500 back if you PURCHASE BETWEEN 01.04.2018 - 10.07.2018.

Reply