Sky Glass Blooming really bad

[SquareEyes86]

I'm really surprised this isn't mentioned that much on here. It's almost as if customers are just ignoring the biggest defect of the product. The patchy, jumping blotches in dark scenes with some light passing through make it look absolutely awful to view. Once seen, you can't unsee. How do others with Sky Glass put up with this? What setting is best to switch to and avoid seeing so much of these nasty imperfections? I've never seen a TV do this. Even TV's over 15 years old didn't. Is it just to do with the cheap panel used or is it more a streaming only thing? Is it likely to do the same with pictures via aerial and watching a blu ray for example via HDMI? I've only ever used Sky Glass via streaming only so I wouldn't know. I watch Sky Glass using the Vivid picture settings. Can positioning of lamps inside the living room eliminate seeing the nasty blooming? Please help on anything I can do to reduce seeing the unacceptable mess of the jumping zig zaggy blotches? Why Sky put their seal of approval on the TV, knowing of this flaw is beyond me. Their previous reputation of making innovating technology that you can trust is no more. If there is to be a Sky Glass 2, this is absolutely the first thing they need to address. 

[mikealanr]

@SquareEyes86 

These panels are three years old and weren't exactly the top end of the scale when released. I notice it more on certain upscaled content and viewing angle plays a big part. Sat head on the unit you don't notice it is as much. It has got slightly better with software updates, but ultimately it's limited by the age and technology used in the panel!

MikeAlanR

[TimmyBGood]

---

@SquareEyes86 wrote:

 Why Sky put their seal of approval on the TV, knowing of this flaw is beyond me. Their previous reputation of making innovating technology that you can trust is no more. 

---

As observed many times in this forum, the current Glass model is a product designed and specified under Comcast ownership during the pandemic, with its consent component shortages and manufacturing challenges.

[SquareEyes86]

Absolutely no excuse. There still would of been a panel of testers and seal

of approvers. It's not like it's a minor fault. TV's I had 20 years ago didn't do this. You keep using this line of response like it's the definitive and only reason. Experts that make technology, didn't just suddenly lose their minds for 1 year. The picture would of been a priority. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@SquareEyes86 wrote:

The picture would of been a priority. 

---

Except it clearly wasn't, otherwise it would be better: for whatever reason, they apparently chose to prioritise Bill of Materials allocation to that fancy bespoke metal enclosure and the speaker array over a distinctly average panel, generic backlight array and elderly ARM chipset.

---

@SquareEyes86 wrote:

Experts that make technology, didn't just suddenly lose their minds for 1 year. 

---

Actually, under those particular circumstances (new owner/inflated acquisition price/global pandemic) I rather suspect they did. 

I'd also suggest it was fundamentally a marketing, accountancy and stockholder relationship decision which tended to over-ride the 'experts that make technology'.

[Exiled-in-HH]

It's interesting Comcast made very different decisions for the USA🤔

There were Philips TVs from that time that were reasonable😉

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Exiled-in-HH wrote:

It's interesting Comcast made very different decisions for the USA

---

Yes, really cheap* (and unsurprisingly not particularly good) televisions with Xfinity-associated branding.

https://corporate.comcast.com/press/releases/comcast-launches-xclass-tv-powered-by-global-entertainm... 

I guess one factor would be the 'Sky'  name carries a bit of weight in the UK when associated with TV hardware, and Comcast had paid rather a lot of money for that.

*c£250 for the 43" Xclass model, compared to £699 for a Glass set of the same size.

[Exiled-in-HH]

Haven't they replaced those now .... and no built speakers contributed to their lower price😉

[TimmyBGood]

@Exiled-in-HH wrote:

There were Philips TVs from that time that were reasonable

---

There were, and are, some stonkingly good OLEDs with Philips branding, although I understand those are made by a different bit of TPV Technology to the Sky Glass contract.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Exiled-in-HH wrote:

 and no built speakers contributed to their lower price

---

No fancy metal box either.

[Elbo28]

Sorry for jumping in on an old thread. The blooming on my 55" Sky Glass is the worst I've seen from any television ever. It's so bad that in HDR, when playing a game, the "Sony Entertainment" white on black logo shows on the screen with at least a centimetre halo around it, with a light brown band on the edge of that. When the logo disappears, the Halo shrinks down over the space of a second or so. Some films, including some that have been lauded for their visuals, are unwatchable, and certain games (such as Alan Wake 2 and Until Dawn Remake) are rendered unplayable due to blooming halo's all over the screen. The pandemic is no excuse, if the TV couldn't be made to the specification it was marketed at, it should have been postponed till the components were more readily available. I've replaced it with an LG C4 OLED, and it is miles and miles apart, and the Sky Glass is relegated to the bedroom TV. Two more quick things. The included Dolby Atmos system isn't all it's cracked up to be, I replaced it at the same time as my TV with a High end LG soundbar, and again, It's night and day. Admittedly it has big sub and rear speakers, so it's given that it'll sound better. Secondly, don't think you'll be able to sell the TV it once you replace it, for anything near even a quarter of what you paid for it. CEX are offering about £75 for a 55" one. So we're stuck with a big white elephant of a TV. I feel like Sky has ripped off its most loyal customers by selling us an awful TV that has no resale value whatsoever

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Elbo28 wrote:

The pandemic is no excuse, if the TV couldn't be made to the specification it was marketed at, it should have been postponed till the components were more readily available. 

---

Glass meets the published specification.  Whether it lives up to the hyperbolic advertising, particularly three years after launch, is rather different.

[SquareEyes86]

As I say, I can't believe people aren't kicking up a fuss about this more and more. It is the single biggest issue for me with Glass and one that stands out like a sore thumb. I mean, did you ever in your life before Glass, see jumping pixels on black furniture in a drama or dancing about on an audience members black T shirt on an entertainment show? I check the new forum topics every other day and it never gets a mention. 

[Elbo28]

@TimmyBGood Marketing and advertising are the same thing. The hyperbolic advertising you refer to showed the TV as having amazing sound, and an amazing picture. Neither of those turned out to be true. A TV should last more than three years, they are not cheap disposable tech, and they are priced to put them in the upper mid range. They shouldn't be degrading in quality after such a short space of time. You seem to want to defend Sky at every opportunity, but there's no excuse. When a TV is beginning to become unwatchable in certain scenarios before you've finished paying for it isn't right. Sky's advertising wasn't hyperbolic, it was blatantly false. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Elbo28 wrote:

You seem to want to defend Sky at every opportunity, but there's no excuse. 

---

On the contrary, I've been routinely critical of Glass for almost exactly three years: it was frankly disappointing even back then, and its continuing retail at launch price is baffling beyond belief. 

None the less, people keep buying it.