Sky picture quality - disappointing
 

I recently switched to Sky after having Telewest cable for some time.

One of my gripes with Telewest was the poor picture quality - heavily
compressed and blocky. I was assured by many people that Sky's picture
quality was significantly better, but that doesn't seem to be the case - in
fact I'd say it was worse on many channels, for example TV5. I asked the
installer whether the quality was ok and he said it was fine and perfectly
normal.

However, the pictures are full of artefacts and even the main channels such
as BBC1 seem very compressed.

My signal strength is 100% and the signal quality is around 50%. The box is
the latest Amstrad (not Sky+).

The TV input is RGB and the box is set for that. The TV is a Philips CRT
widescreen, good quality, especially with DVD playback.

Maybe I'm just being picky, but is this all I can expect from Sky? I'd be
interested to know how existing customers feel about Sky's picture quality,
and whether I can do anything to improve it on my setup. Has the compression
rate changed in recent months? Maybe having a Pace box might be better?

Perhaps these crap pictures are a cunning ruse to get people to sign up for
Hi Def!

Sky picture quality - disappointing
 

In article , Vaughan
writes
I recently switched to Sky after having Telewest cable for some time.

One of my gripes with Telewest was the poor picture quality - heavily
compressed and blocky. I was assured by many people that Sky's picture
quality was significantly better, but that doesn't seem to be the case - in
fact I'd say it was worse on many channels, for example TV5. I asked the
installer whether the quality was ok and he said it was fine and perfectly
normal.

However, the pictures are full of artefacts and even the main channels such
as BBC1 seem very compressed.

My signal strength is 100% and the signal quality is around 50%. The box is
the latest Amstrad (not Sky+).

The TV input is RGB and the box is set for that. The TV is a Philips CRT
widescreen, good quality, especially with DVD playback.

Maybe I'm just being picky, but is this all I can expect from Sky? I'd be
interested to know how existing customers feel about Sky's picture quality,
and whether I can do anything to improve it on my setup. Has the compression
rate changed in recent months? Maybe having a Pace box might be better?

Perhaps these crap pictures are a cunning ruse to get people to sign up for
Hi Def!



Sounds like you've discovered digital TV in all its fecked up glory.

Welcome to the future of broadcasting;(
--
Tony Sayer

Sky picture quality - disappointing
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Vaughan
writes
Sounds like you've discovered digital TV in all its fecked up glory.

Welcome to the future of broadcasting;(

Isn't it sad?

Bill

Sky picture quality - disappointing
 

John wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:13:31 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article ,
Vaughan writes
I recently switched to Sky after having Telewest cable for some
time.

One of my gripes with Telewest was the poor picture quality -
heavily compressed and blocky. I was assured by many people that
Sky's picture quality was significantly better, but that doesn't
seem to be the case - in fact I'd say it was worse on many
channels, for example TV5. I asked the installer whether the
quality was ok and he said it was fine and perfectly normal.

However, the pictures are full of artefacts and even the main
channels such as BBC1 seem very compressed.

My signal strength is 100% and the signal quality is around 50%.
The box is the latest Amstrad (not Sky+).

The TV input is RGB and the box is set for that. The TV is a
Philips CRT widescreen, good quality, especially with DVD playback.

Maybe I'm just being picky, but is this all I can expect from Sky?
I'd be interested to know how existing customers feel about Sky's
picture quality, and whether I can do anything to improve it on my
setup. Has the compression rate changed in recent months? Maybe
having a Pace box might be better?

Perhaps these crap pictures are a cunning ruse to get people to
sign up for Hi Def!



Sounds like you've discovered digital TV in all its fecked up glory.

Welcome to the future of broadcasting;(

I know there are variations from box to box and the box's signal
display is not an absolute figure but isn't 50% signal quality rather
low? Perhaps he's seeing the results of failing error correction.

John

Possibly. It does puzzle me that I can have 100% signal strength, yet only
50% quality, especially with the cable run from dish to receiver being
pretty short. I think I'll check with Sky.

Sky picture quality - disappointing
 

"Vaughan" wrote in message
. uk...
Possibly. It does puzzle me that I can have 100% signal strength, yet only
50% quality, especially with the cable run from dish to receiver being
pretty short. I think I'll check with Sky.

The strength reading is in fact mainly an indication of the length of the
cable. I think your dish could be a bit off, but that doesn't explain the
symptoms of which you complain.

Bill

Sky picture quality - disappointing
 

"Vaughan" wrote in message
.uk...
I recently switched to Sky after having Telewest cable for some time.

One of my gripes with Telewest was the poor picture quality - heavily
compressed and blocky. I was assured by many people that Sky's picture
quality was significantly better, but that doesn't seem to be the case -
in fact I'd say it was worse on many channels, for example TV5. I asked
the installer whether the quality was ok and he said it was fine and
perfectly normal.

However, the pictures are full of artefacts and even the main channels
such as BBC1 seem very compressed.

My signal strength is 100% and the signal quality is around 50%. The box
is the latest Amstrad (not Sky+).

The TV input is RGB and the box is set for that. The TV is a Philips CRT
widescreen, good quality, especially with DVD playback.

Maybe I'm just being picky, but is this all I can expect from Sky? I'd be
interested to know how existing customers feel about Sky's picture
quality, and whether I can do anything to improve it on my setup. Has the
compression rate changed in recent months? Maybe having a Pace box might
be better?

Perhaps these crap pictures are a cunning ruse to get people to sign up
for Hi Def!


Like many you have the belief that SKY owns UK Sat broadcasting as
responsible for the quality of broadcasts. This is not the case. Sky doesn't
own any satellites. Sky does hire sat transponders to broadcast it's own
channels. The likes of the BBC now upload their own broadcasts to
transponders it has hired for itself. It pays a fee to SKY to put them on
it's EPG. SKY cannot control the quality of channels it doesn't encode and
upload.

Sky picture quality - disappointing
 

Vaughan wrote:

Possibly. It does puzzle me that I can have 100% signal strength, yet only
50% quality, especially with the cable run from dish to receiver being
pretty short. I think I'll check with Sky.

You could make the strength as high as you like by adding amplification
in the dish cable, but this won't improve the quality one jot (unless
the strength is very low because of a long or faulty cable).

--
Andy

Sky picture quality - disappointing
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Vaughan
writes
I recently switched to Sky after having Telewest cable for some time.

One of my gripes with Telewest was the poor picture quality - heavily
compressed and blocky. I was assured by many people that Sky's picture
quality was significantly better, but that doesn't seem to be the case -
in
fact I'd say it was worse on many channels, for example TV5. I asked the
installer whether the quality was ok and he said it was fine and perfectly
normal.

However, the pictures are full of artefacts and even the main channels
such
as BBC1 seem very compressed.

My signal strength is 100% and the signal quality is around 50%. The box
is
the latest Amstrad (not Sky+).

The TV input is RGB and the box is set for that. The TV is a Philips CRT
widescreen, good quality, especially with DVD playback.

Maybe I'm just being picky, but is this all I can expect from Sky? I'd be
interested to know how existing customers feel about Sky's picture
quality,
and whether I can do anything to improve it on my setup. Has the
compression
rate changed in recent months? Maybe having a Pace box might be better?

Perhaps these crap pictures are a cunning ruse to get people to sign up
for
Hi Def!



Sounds like you've discovered digital TV in all its fecked up glory.

I'm very pleased with my Freeview digital reception, using a Sony set top
box and an Hitachi CRT 21 inch TV set. I live in NW London.

Sylvain.

Welcome to the future of broadcasting;(
--
Tony Sayer

Sky picture quality - disappointing
 

In article , Sylvain VAN DER
WALDE writes

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Vaughan
writes
I recently switched to Sky after having Telewest cable for some time.

One of my gripes with Telewest was the poor picture quality - heavily
compressed and blocky. I was assured by many people that Sky's picture
quality was significantly better, but that doesn't seem to be the case -
in
fact I'd say it was worse on many channels, for example TV5. I asked the
installer whether the quality was ok and he said it was fine and perfectly
normal.

However, the pictures are full of artefacts and even the main channels
such
as BBC1 seem very compressed.

My signal strength is 100% and the signal quality is around 50%. The box
is
the latest Amstrad (not Sky+).

The TV input is RGB and the box is set for that. The TV is a Philips CRT
widescreen, good quality, especially with DVD playback.

Maybe I'm just being picky, but is this all I can expect from Sky? I'd be
interested to know how existing customers feel about Sky's picture
quality,
and whether I can do anything to improve it on my setup. Has the
compression
rate changed in recent months? Maybe having a Pace box might be better?

Perhaps these crap pictures are a cunning ruse to get people to sign up
for
Hi Def!



Sounds like you've discovered digital TV in all its fecked up glory.

I'm very pleased with my Freeview digital reception, using a Sony set top
box and an Hitachi CRT 21 inch TV set. I live in NW London.


Glad for you. However what I see of it is much inferior to the analogue
I now have;.

Mind you if you had a few more inches you'd perhaps see it differently..

Like DAB .. fine on 2.5 inches but no good on anything more;).

--
Tony Sayer