*** Sky Q Thread ***

Higher picture quality my butt, I was eager to have a look at this new sky picture quality and the compression is even worse, I have a recorded copy of American ultra from movies premier and it takes up 6gb of disk space I have just downloaded the same thing this morning and the disk space taken up is less than half at 2.9gb, more smoke and mirrors from sky again I see.

They said nothing whatsoever about Increasing the bit rate. They've moved to a larger colour range and have removed the sound codec that made sure adverts were no louder than the rest of the program.
 
They said nothing whatsoever about Increasing the bit rate. They've moved to a larger colour range and have removed the sound codec that made sure adverts were no louder than the rest of the program.

If that was for 4K channels I could understand but HD should only be in Rec.709.
 
If that was for 4K channels I could understand but HD should only be in Rec.709.

As I said more smoke and mirrors, what they have done is moved from 1440x1080 masters to 1920x1080(remember they said 1/3 more pixels) but no increase in bit rate, and they also state colour will have 4 extra shade levels (-4 bits?) so that sounds like another cut down putting back up rather than a bonus:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Heh! What good is it if the bitrate is still poor. The gradients still wont be as nice as Blu-Ray.

Still shocking it was 1440x1080 with awful bitrates and sound. Its like what you'd expect for PS3 games with the resolution. Sometimes, I don't know... with all the things Sky has been up to I wouldn't have been surprised it wasn't in Rec.709 to save bandwidth.
 
Last edited:
Heh! What good is it if the bitrate is still poor. The gradients still wont be as nice as Blu-Ray.

Still shocking it was 1440x1080 with awful bitrates and sound. Its like what you'd expect for PS3 games with the resolution. Sometimes, I don't know... with all the things Sky has been up to I wouldn't have been surprised it wasn't in Rec.709 to save bandwidth.

I think they are purposely keeping the bitrate low so UHD looks that little bit better, remember they did the same with SD to make HD look even better:rolleyes: I would be amazed if before this "upgrade" it was rec.709.

Over the course of the European championships I have found myself watching freeview ITV HD and BBC HD because the picture and sound quality has been far superior to that of sky who's bitrate was in the low teens for the same showing, which I find shocking and totally unacceptable.
 
I think they are purposely keeping the bitrate low so UHD looks that little bit better, remember they did the same with SD to make HD look even better:rolleyes: I would be amazed if before this "upgrade" it was rec.709.

Over the course of the European championships I have found myself watching freeview ITV HD and BBC HD because the picture and sound quality has been far superior to that of sky who's bitrate was in the low teens for the same showing, which I find shocking and totally unacceptable.

If a channel isn't owned or run by Sky then the channels in question choose and then pay for their bitrate. ITV has always been absolutely shocking on their SD channels so the HD is a vast improvement. I've found BBC HD channels to be pretty good TBH.
 
If a channel isn't owned or run by Sky then the channels in question choose and then pay for their bitrate. ITV has always been absolutely shocking on their SD channels so the HD is a vast improvement. I've found BBC HD channels to be pretty good TBH.

Yeah BBC HD is pretty good but still nowhere near as good as the FREE over the air transmission which has a higher bitrate and more colour depth
 
Actually dont know whether its my eye sight but Sky HD in general seems to have got worse. Masterchef looked almost like SD quality. So I switched to BBC HD on my BT TV box and the difference in quality was very evident.
 
Sky Q comes with no mini, Q Silver comes with one mini as standard.

Although, I doubt there are that many normal Q boxes in circulation.

Each additional mini Q after the first 2 are £99 each, if you order one after the original installation a £50 install charge is added.

I would recommend everyone to get the SIlver, not only for the record 4 watch 5 facility, it is UHD and can support recording 5, watching 2 mini q and watching 2 tablets at the same time.
 
The standard (non-Silver) Q service doesn't support minis at all.

If you want to add a mini later then you can either keep your existing main box and up your subscription to the £56 Silver price or you can pay a one-off fee (don't know how much) to buy the Silver box and keep paying £44. In either case you'll have to pay the £99 for the mini on top I believe.
 
The standard (non-Silver) Q service doesn't support minis at all.

If you want to add a mini later then you can either keep your existing main box and up your subscription to the £56 Silver price or you can pay a one-off fee (don't know how much) to buy the Silver box and keep paying £44. In either case you'll have to pay the £99 for the mini on top I believe.

Yes it does, it supports 1 mini and 1 tablet along with recording 3 and watching a fourth.
 
Yes it does, it supports 1 mini and 1 tablet along with recording 3 and watching a fourth.

Where does it say that?

If you go through the website to order Q, the standard "Sky Q" service clearly says "Watch Sky TV in 1 room" as opposed to the "2+ rooms" of the Silver version. If you select the standard service there's no option to add a mini box.
 
Ok, while the SkyQ box (not SkyQ Silver) does support a single Mini box, sky currently restrict the sale of Mini boxes to customers ordering SkyQ Silver only. That's why the website doesn't show that the Standard box works with a Mini box. It works, but Sky won't sell you one.
 
Back
Top Bottom