*** Sky Q Thread ***

[varkanoid]

Anyway, I'm sure everyone's heard enough about Amps and Volts!

True but if you take it back on topic if Sky are expecting customers to use Powerline adaptors what happens when someone spends £125 or whatever per month for Sky q and two extra boxes for upstairs and finds they cant use them because the Powerlines dont work.

Also it depends on the quality of your wiring. I find it struggles with HD content from our dining room to the living room via powerline adaptors. Even with 500 meg adaptors as despite them allowing faster speeds if your wiring still allows lower average speed or you get interference from somewhere then you may get poor quality.

With BT when you order an extra box you get 10m of ethernet and you can pay for an engineer to come and fit it. In the end I fitted it myself hiding it where possible from view and I now have gigabit ethernet from my router to the lounge and also upstairs where our "computer room" is. Therefore I have no issues with internet content or the internet channels with either Sky or BT. Lets not forget the 4k content for BT comes via BT Infinity.


just makes me wonder whether this will be an issue for Sky Q.

 

[V F]

I can't see 4k ever coming to more than maybe a dozen channels. There are also far more channels Sky has no control over than channels that they do. And the content itself just isn't there. To begin with I believe it will be one sports channel, one movie channel and one entertainment channel.

It feels that way with HD as it is. Look at the amount of channels that is listed in white versus orange and then some HD channels have a lot of white listings. Not always but there are some broadcasts.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

... SNIP...


just makes me wonder whether this will be an issue for Sky Q.

I agree.

It'll be the customer support staff getting the brunt of it. The average Joe won't even want to understand, they'll just want what everyone else is getting.

It's amazing the amount of people that expect things like a perfect Wireless connection to their PC but give you the vacant look when you ask them if it has a wireless card or USB adapter. They genuinely think the broadband provider should be dealing with "all that".

 

[TheVoice]

It feels that way with HD as it is. Look at the amount of channels that is listed in white versus orange and then some HD channels have a lot of white listings. Not always but there are some broadcasts.

True, but then how many SD-only channels show anything worth watching? I can't say I ever feel like I'm missing anything by only ever recording from HD channels.

 

[V F]

In 2016 there are more News channels in SD vs HD. :/

 

[Cosimo]

The wait continues as what we've been told again today is "Customers with other broadband providers will then be able to place orders and get their installation in the coming weeks".

So don't hold your breath...

 

[AssaTM]

What would the switchover process be like when they open this up to non Sky broadband customers?

I'm on Virgin atm and i'd like to keep their broadband so what would they come and do on installation day? (im asking from a disruption point of view)

 

[MissChief]

Sky man arrives, installs Q kit, connects it to your Virgin, checks it all works then leaves?

 

[Cosimo]

Sky Q (Sky Forums):

Just been to Grimsby Sky kiosk to get a SkyQ demo. Instead of getting the demo all I got was pushing of Sky broadband, which I can't get in fibre. Was then told other ISPs will no longer be able to get it in a few weeks, it is now Christmas 2017! Is this correct or b******t? My current Samsung box is dying and needs rebooting at least once a week and the remote lag is nearly every time it is used. Don't want to pay for new box as hoping SkyQ will be available soon

 

[Psycho Sonny]

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-201312153517.htm


55" tv @ 9 feet away 4k is only slightly better

just goes to show you what a waste it is unless you sit right up to the screen or have a cinema sized display

 

[MissChief]

Sky Q (Sky Forums):

Completely untrue. Within the next few weeks.

 

[andicole0]

Completely untrue. Within the next few weeks.

A couple of people have reported these Sky kiosk reps have said this. I'm sure 2017 is wrong but the fact is people seem to be told this - I guess a ploy to get them to sign up for Sky BB. Dodgy practices.
Andi.

 

[Domi]

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-201312153517.htm


55" tv @ 9 feet away 4k is only slightly better

just goes to show you what a waste it is unless you sit right up to the screen or have a cinema sized display

That annoyed me at the time and still does now.

All the review team thought the 4K looked better and of 49 invited participants only one could not tell the difference at 9 feet.

They make absolutely no mention as to if they thought it looked better at distances further than 9 foot, for all we know those 48 people might have still been able to see a difference at 30 foot.

I would have been embarrassed to share the results of such a poor test.

They further muddied the point mentioning the OLED display was better, that was not what they where testing.

For me if in a given group of 50+ people only one can NOT tell the difference then that difference is more apparent than there conclusions seem to indicate.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

That annoyed me at the time and still does now.

All the review team thought the 4K looked better and of 49 invited participants only one could not tell the difference at 9 feet.

They make absolutely no mention as to if they thought it looked better at distances further than 9 foot, for all we know those 48 people might have still been able to see a difference at 30 foot.

I would have been embarrassed to share the results of such a poor test.

They further muddied the point mentioning the OLED display was better, that was not what they where testing.

For me if in a given group of 50+ people only one can NOT tell the difference then that difference is more apparent than there conclusions seem to indicate.

Thats mainly because of the stupidly high quality media used

First, the 4K videos we served from a media PC were high quality, which included a demo clip from Chimei Innolux, as well as the Blender Foundation’s excellent open-source movie projects Tears Of Steel and Sintel. Critics may argue that this is unrealistic, since the native 4K material that may become available in streaming format will probably be compressed to a heavier degree. However, our intention was to demonstrate the difference – if any – between the best of 4K versus the best of 1080p. After all, if you wanted to show off your HDTV to your friends, you would use the most pristine Blu-ray movies, instead of softer HD content or (gasp) Netflix, wouldn’t you?

99.9% of people watching 4K will never use media of that quality on a day to day basis. It will be crappy broadcast or streams where the differences will be much smaller.

14GB for a 12 minute movie. Ridiculously high in quality which anyone could see the difference in.

 

[AssaTM]

Spotting the difference between 4k and 1080p upscaled is no issue at all, 4k is just very pleasant on the eyes, theres something satisfying about seeing detail in such a sharpness where it wasnt possible before

 

[Domi]

Thats mainly because of the stupidly high quality media used

.

No it is not.

Honestly If YOU can not see the difference that is fair enough.

But 4k streamed at 15mbs compares with Blu Ray 1080 content at 30mbs+ Netflix, Amazon Prime and BT all stream 4K in a quality similar to Blu ray and notably better than the best of broadcast TV.

That is if you own a 4K TV you can get the best TV image quality it is possible to get in the UK

Sky will very clearly be joining the above group shortly.

You can argue all you like that it is does not make much difference in your opinion but the simple FACT is that 4k material either streamed via Amazon or Netflix or played from a capable device does look better than even the very best of broadcast TV.

I also happen to completely believe that quality up scaling can enhance the viewing experience and HD content at 4K does indeed look better than the same content at 1080.

That yourself and your "99.9%" of users will not use this much does not stop it being the current best format for Video.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

it's obvious 4k streams are better than 1080p streams

it's also obvious 4k broadcast will be better than current 720p/1080i broadcasts.

what isn't obvious to most though is 4k streams/broadcasts are if at all marginally better than 1080p bluray at normal sizes and viewing distances. they aren't the holy grail they are made out to be by those that advocate them over 1080p.

i will buy 4k at some point but atm only a 4k OLED is better than my current tv in terms of PQ. because resolution is only 1 part of the picture and yup OLED has the qualities to offer better quality picture at 1080p than 4K LCD's.

contrast, black levels, colours, no banding, no ghosting, no Dirty Screen Effect, etc, etc. all of them put together beat a 4k lcd with their issues.

 

[Cosimo]

Completely untrue. Within the next few weeks.

Not the few weeks again.

Care to say what few is, one, two, three...... nine?

 

[MissChief]

Sadly I don't know. Customer installs only started this week so I'd say 2-3 weeks at most.

 

[varkanoid]

Sadly I don't know. Customer installs only started this week so I'd say 2-3 weeks at most.

are you sure thats not new customers because the quote was for existing customers which does ring true because if I go on the Sky website it doesnt say I can upgrade to Sky Q when I log into my account and I cant find any information on how existing customers can upgrade even if they use other ISP's. Care to elaborate on which customer installs have started this week ? New or existing ?