Reply

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

Reply
Production Supervisor
Posts: 1,377
Post 106 of 222
499 Views

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

Just my 2 pennorth.

When changing from HD to UHD via the select or red button to watch football or F1 I'm not exactly blown away and barely, if at all, notice a difference.  I haven't watched UHD from other providers (not sure where to find it to be honest) so I'm unable to make that comparison. I only have Sky Sports and not BT Sport.

So I guess I fall into the 'I can't tell the difference camp'.

Sky Q 2TB Silver via LG 55" UHD TV

Sound Designer
Posts: 98
Post 107 of 222
532 Views

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


@Morgan+McDonnell wrote:

Just my 2 pennorth.

When changing from HD to UHD via the select or red button to watch football or F1 I'm not exactly blown away and barely, if at all, notice a difference.  I haven't watched UHD from other providers (not sure where to find it to be honest) so I'm unable to make that comparison. I only have Sky Sports and not BT Sport.

So I guess I fall into the 'I can't tell the difference camp'.

Sky Q 2TB Silver via LG 55" UHD TV


I just can't fathom how. F1 and Premier League football on Sky look "alright" on the HD channel, and I suspect that to be down to the source being downscaled, but it's still quite obviously compressed and when compared with the UHD channel there is a obvious (to me) step up in every which way one can define picture quality. 

 

What about other broadcasts that aren't 4K at source? Do you not see the poor HD we're all talking about?

Production Supervisor
Posts: 1,377
Post 108 of 222
526 Views

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


@Nevlol wrote:

@Morgan+McDonnell wrote:

Just my 2 pennorth.

When changing from HD to UHD via the select or red button to watch football or F1 I'm not exactly blown away and barely, if at all, notice a difference.  I haven't watched UHD from other providers (not sure where to find it to be honest) so I'm unable to make that comparison. I only have Sky Sports and not BT Sport.

So I guess I fall into the 'I can't tell the difference camp'.

Sky Q 2TB Silver via LG 55" UHD TV


I just can't fathom how. F1 and Premier League football on Sky look "alright" on the HD channel, and I suspect that to be down to the source being downscaled, but it's still quite obviously compressed and when compared with the UHD channel there is a obvious (to me) step up in every which way one can define picture quality. 

 

What about other broadcasts that aren't 4K at source? Do you not see the poor HD we're all talking about?


No obvious step up to me at all.  What other broadcasts that aren't 4K at source? What do you mean?

Sound Designer
Posts: 98
Post 109 of 222
457 Views

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


@Morgan+McDonnell wrote:

@Nevlol wrote:

@Morgan+McDonnell wrote:

Just my 2 pennorth.

When changing from HD to UHD via the select or red button to watch football or F1 I'm not exactly blown away and barely, if at all, notice a difference.  I haven't watched UHD from other providers (not sure where to find it to be honest) so I'm unable to make that comparison. I only have Sky Sports and not BT Sport.

So I guess I fall into the 'I can't tell the difference camp'.

Sky Q 2TB Silver via LG 55" UHD TV


I just can't fathom how. F1 and Premier League football on Sky look "alright" on the HD channel, and I suspect that to be down to the source being downscaled, but it's still quite obviously compressed and when compared with the UHD channel there is a obvious (to me) step up in every which way one can define picture quality. 

 

What about other broadcasts that aren't 4K at source? Do you not see the poor HD we're all talking about?


No obvious step up to me at all.  What other broadcasts that aren't 4K at source? What do you mean?


Anything that isn't F1 or Premier League football pretty much. What I mean is that when Sky are broadcasting Premier League they are recording it at a higher resolution than it is being broadcast in on the HD channel and so at some point in the chain it is being downscaled (and compressed of course).

 

What's your overall perception of quality on the HD channels then? 

Executive Producer
Posts: 3,795
Post 110 of 222
443 Views

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

There was an interesting article on room sizes in the press, apparently living rooms are now the smallest they have been since the 1930s.

If the trend continues for rooms to get smaller and TVs to get bigger then they will need to be waterproof so we can look at them in the garden from the warmth of the tiny living room.

Production Supervisor
Posts: 1,377
Post 111 of 222
432 Views

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


@Nevlol wrote:

@Morgan+McDonnell wrote:

@Nevlol wrote:

@Morgan+McDonnell wrote:

Just my 2 pennorth.

When changing from HD to UHD via the select or red button to watch football or F1 I'm not exactly blown away and barely, if at all, notice a difference.  I haven't watched UHD from other providers (not sure where to find it to be honest) so I'm unable to make that comparison. I only have Sky Sports and not BT Sport.

So I guess I fall into the 'I can't tell the difference camp'.

Sky Q 2TB Silver via LG 55" UHD TV


I just can't fathom how. F1 and Premier League football on Sky look "alright" on the HD channel, and I suspect that to be down to the source being downscaled, but it's still quite obviously compressed and when compared with the UHD channel there is a obvious (to me) step up in every which way one can define picture quality. 

 

What about other broadcasts that aren't 4K at source? Do you not see the poor HD we're all talking about?


No obvious step up to me at all.  What other broadcasts that aren't 4K at source? What do you mean?


Anything that isn't F1 or Premier League football pretty much. What I mean is that when Sky are broadcasting Premier League they are recording it at a higher resolution than it is being broadcast in on the HD channel and so at some point in the chain it is being downscaled (and compressed of course).

 

What's your overall perception of quality on the HD channels then? 


My overall perception of the quality on the HD channels is good.  My point is that when watching live football/f1 in HD, which looks good, I don’t notice any real jump in quality.  As an experiment earlier today I looked at some catch up in UHD from Discovery and Nat Geo.  Now they showed me UHD.  Quite a marked improvement of picture quality.

First Assistant Director
Posts: 2,005
Post 112 of 222
426 Views

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


@bob1234 wrote:

There was an interesting article on room sizes in the press, apparently living rooms are now the smallest they have been since the 1930s.

If the trend continues for rooms to get smaller and TVs to get bigger then they will need to be waterproof so we can look at them in the garden from the warmth of the tiny living room.


They started small then got bigger and now they are small again. 

 

I use to live in an old 2-bed Victorian terrace and the living room was much smaller than in the new-build I'm now in. Compare that to 1970's 3-bed I had to sell as part of my divorce settlement, the entire ground floor of my current place would have just about fitted in the living room.

_____________________________________________________
Sky Q 2TB v2 + 2x Mini, LG 55UH850V, Lumagen Radiance Pro 4242,
Yamaha RX-A2040 (7.1.2)
Boom Operator
Posts: 54
Post 113 of 222
385 Views

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

My view of any UHD content from sky and this also applys to 4K SDR content from Amazon and Netflix. If you were to put the Sky UHD next to a reasonably done blu-ray with reasonable bitrate there be very little difference in it.

 

Most UHD SDR content like Netflix House of cards 4K matched up to the regular blu-ray (if the content has it) and only on some scenes by a smidge if you were freeze framing it you notice the difference but playing you won't.

 

I saw blueplanet 2 in HLG HDR and it look quite good but also blueplanet had a higher bitrate then you would get when they actually go live and make any UHD content avilable. Be interesting to see HLG HDR on sky content and should make the UHD content look a little better until they decide the bitrates must go down by 75%.

My concern is that in time they will lower the UHD bitrates and with HD they realy took it down to the bone with a 75 - 80% reduction in bitrates for HD and if they do the same for UHD then it will look worse then a regular blu-ray and then I question why stay with sky but for me 1080p blu-ray quality (sorry UHD thats not UHD but regular blu-ray quality) for new TV shows is whats keeping me arround for now.

Boom Operator
Posts: 23
Post 114 of 222
358 Views

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

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

Oracle
Posts: 7,914
Post 115 of 222
335 Views

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


@impp 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 @impp

My Opinions Are My Own And Do Not Reflect Those Of Sky.
Boom Operator
Posts: 23
Post 116 of 222
330 Views

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


@Dazzasky wrote:

@impp 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 @impp


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

Oracle
Posts: 7,914
Post 117 of 222
321 Views

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


@impp wrote:

@Dazzasky wrote:

@impp 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 @impp


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. 

My Opinions Are My Own And Do Not Reflect Those Of Sky.
Camera Assistant
Posts: 130
Post 118 of 222
252 Views

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


@Morgan+McDonnell wrote:

@Nevlol wrote:

@Morgan+McDonnell wrote:

@Nevlol wrote:

@Morgan+McDonnell wrote:

Just my 2 pennorth.

When changing from HD to UHD via the select or red button to watch football or F1 I'm not exactly blown away and barely, if at all, notice a difference.  I haven't watched UHD from other providers (not sure where to find it to be honest) so I'm unable to make that comparison. I only have Sky Sports and not BT Sport.

So I guess I fall into the 'I can't tell the difference camp'.

Sky Q 2TB Silver via LG 55" UHD TV


I just can't fathom how. F1 and Premier League football on Sky look "alright" on the HD channel, and I suspect that to be down to the source being downscaled, but it's still quite obviously compressed and when compared with the UHD channel there is a obvious (to me) step up in every which way one can define picture quality. 

 

What about other broadcasts that aren't 4K at source? Do you not see the poor HD we're all talking about?


No obvious step up to me at all.  What other broadcasts that aren't 4K at source? What do you mean?


Anything that isn't F1 or Premier League football pretty much. What I mean is that when Sky are broadcasting Premier League they are recording it at a higher resolution than it is being broadcast in on the HD channel and so at some point in the chain it is being downscaled (and compressed of course).

 

What's your overall perception of quality on the HD channels then? 


My overall perception of the quality on the HD channels is good.  My point is that when watching live football/f1 in HD, which looks good, I don’t notice any real jump in quality.  As an experiment earlier today I looked at some catch up in UHD from Discovery and Nat Geo.  Now they showed me UHD.  Quite a marked improvement of picture quality.


What Discovery/National Geographic UHD content is there?  I've had a quick browse through but can't find anything.

Boom Operator
Posts: 23
Post 119 of 222
309 Views

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


@Dazzasky wrote:

@impp wrote:

@Dazzasky wrote:

@impp 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 @impp


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.

 

Sound Designer
Posts: 98
Post 120 of 222
285 Views

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


@impp wrote:

@Dazzasky wrote:

@impp wrote:

@Dazzasky wrote:

@impp 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 @impp


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.

Reply