In what way? Your recordings are available by pressing the Sky button as well as available direct from the first menu that comes up. If you have any suggestions Sky would be very glad to hear them.
*** Sky Q Thread ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
You press Home, then go down to TV guide? Also harmony remote users are single digit % of Sky Q users.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2015
- Posts
- 3,976
Why not setup a sequence and then assign it to the Guide button on your Harmony? That's what I did and it works well. Ditto for the recordings.
Why not have a single button to take you to TV Guide?
Because that means a bigger remote. And less chance to push content on the home screen.
It doesn’t mean a bigger remote but yeah, I guess pushing content wins.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,376
- Location
- newcastle
May I ask which tv you have? Totally agree with the +1 channels but I find the HD picture quality quite good on my HZ2000
Last edited:
I've had 3 in my time of having Sky+HD and then when it first came out... SkyQ, two Panasonics (one was £5k Panasonic TH-58PZ800 which was pro calibrated as well) and my current TV is a LG 75UK6200PLB 4K 75". I've found that the compression on Sky Cinema channels since the days of Sky+HD has been appalling and gotton worse year on year... no matter what of the 3 TV's I've had, a few of my mates are now sick of it as well and sacked it off for the same reason. It's really highlighted with the 4k projector I own as well to the point waste of time putting a Sky Cinema film through a 4k PJ (mine is the Sony VPL-VW320ES 4K also calibrated)
I've had enough when I can watch the same film on Bluray or even Netflix/Amazon and the stream is of a far superior quality which I never thought we'd ever reach that point. For example, we were watching Jaws a few months back and I got that cheesed off with it's crappy smooth picture, I lobbed the bluray on and even the missus was like wow yeah, what a difference. Everyone to their own, however the bandwidth is appalling and upto a few years ago their HD channels weren't even 1920x1080, they were generally 1920x920 or weird resolutions when they were analysed, so they lied for god knows how many years. They've got away with bad pictures for way too long for a rediclous cost and I just seen my backside and good ridence.
I've had enough when I can watch the same film on Bluray or even Netflix/Amazon and the stream is of a far superior quality which I never thought we'd ever reach that point. For example, we were watching Jaws a few months back and I got that cheesed off with it's crappy smooth picture, I lobbed the bluray on and even the missus was like wow yeah, what a difference. Everyone to their own, however the bandwidth is appalling and upto a few years ago their HD channels weren't even 1920x1080, they were generally 1920x920 or weird resolutions when they were analysed, so they lied for god knows how many years. They've got away with bad pictures for way too long for a rediclous cost and I just seen my backside and good ridence.
Blu-Ray vs compressed HD is never going to be a valid comparison. If you have UHD try a download and a Blu-Ray you have?
To be fair mate, a BD (non 4k) is superior to Sky HD. I do agree, the compression is ridiculous at times. Unfortunately having a decent TV such as an OLED does show it up more than other sets.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,376
- Location
- newcastle
I have skyQ and the HD picture is actually quite good on my calibrated Panasonic 65GZ2000 OLED, the scaling and processing on that LG TV you have isn’t the best, so that’s where your problem may lie
just watching the England Italy game and the picture quality is very good TBH
Last edited:
True, but vs Netflix/Amazon seems a fair comparison.
Exactly, this has nothing to do with the TV's I've had, this is SkyHD being rubbish for years and years and not enough complaints or Sky just blatently ignoring complaints. UHD on SkyQ is fine, not got a problem, however as this is not the default for 99% of normal TV watching for me it's useless. However like I say this is me, I hate the compression and the poor picture problems. I can watch exactly the same HD only film on Sky CinemaHD and watch the same on Netflix HD/Amazon and boom, the difference is night and day, it's nowt to do with my TV or previous TV's, it's simply Sky skimping year on year and charging Over £1k per year...
The simple hirarchy as far as I'm concerned is:, 4k UHD discs > 4K UHD netflix/Amazon > Sky UHD4k >= Bluray 1080P > SkyHD... and I know for what I pay for Sky and have been for 19 years, no more, it's a complete rip off for the performance it offers. I've had enough.
Nothing beats discs, we all know this hence why I own 500+ 4kUHD/Blurays and even 200 HDDVD's hahaha... however, the streaming services now blow Sky into the weeds. Anyway... doesn't matter what I think, it's cancelled and I have no regrets now at all. Just saving me a fortune and losing very little watchable content for me. Everyone to their own.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,376
- Location
- newcastle
Sky could definitely do with upping their on demand bit rate TBH
It's a balance. There's limited bandwidth available via satellite and the higher you put individual channel bandwidth the less channels you run on each transponder (of which there is a limited amount) and the fewer channels in total you can send via Satellite. Sky don't own the satellites so pay for the bandwidth.
Yep, dont' disagree... I think we could all agree, we could get rid of 50% of Sky's channels... and up the quality of the broadcasting, remove the + channels and use the bandwidth in a better way. however... woulda, shoulda, coulda lol
exactly and it infuriates me, we're just clogging the system up with what is imho crap. It's a shame as a 19 year user of Sky, if they sorted the crap sound and picture then it'd be fine... but in this day and age now, they need to move with the times and the costs of cost are just mental!!!