Sky T.V.

[Dustydog]

Think I will have to 👍

So what exactly do Sky give you for £51 a month?

 

[Richtee180]

I just use, Freeview, there is so much on there, Mrs H records programs onto a digital box, that we can take away in the caravan. The TV in the van is Freeview as well, but if there is no WiFi, we use the digital box or even end up talking to each other, rather than just listening to SWMBLO

Another option rather than talking is, to download Netflix to a smart phone with Samsung Dex and connect it via mini hdmi out to hdmi on the TV if you can't cast over WiFi, its what I did last year, I picked up a cheapo Samsung galaxy S9, don't use a SIM card, just download films over WiFi at home first.

 

[borderbilly]

So what exactly do Sky give you for £51 a month?

just the basic package, no sports or films.

 

[Jcloughie]

The extract you'be posted from the internet is basically saying what I said but leaves out some important information. However, they do qualify like I did that you may need larger screens or closer viewing distances.

Yes, technically a 4k TV could be capable of improved clarity and detail because it has more pixels. So what are the other factors that prevent this from actually be true in reality.

Firstly the raw data from the video source is not what's transmitted or streamed. It would require too much bandwith, so its compressed. Just like still images take the raw data and produce JPEG files, video is compressed with techniques that result in files like MPEG. Both of these compression processes are lossy - that is some detail is thrown away. Its done in a clever way such that the loss of information is minimised but its not 100% the same as the original. Amounts of compression can be varied. This is similar to the audio process that results in MP3 files, which again are lossy, compared to something like FLAC.

So depending how the provider compressess the video may affect the ability to benefit from a screen with more pixels.

Secondly, TVs (and computer displays) of the LCD/LED type have a fixed number of pixels. A Full HD TV would be 1920 x 1080, whereas a 4K TV would be 3840 x 2160. An SD video source has a pixel count of 720 x 576 ( figures may vary depending on whether or not you consider NTSC or PAL)

Getting a 4K TV to display an SD video means the TV has to make up the pixel count by upscaling from 720 x 576 to 3840 x 2160. This is no mean task and many TVs struggle to produce an acceptable image - again depending on size and viewing distance. Going from SD to HD is not such a hard task

Thirdly the aspect ratio (width to height) of different video sources varies. So the TVs have to make adjustments to accomodate this.

When I was looking for a new TV a couple of years back most of them were 4K types, which I had reservations about, particularly as I have a large DVD collection. So , I took some off my DVDs to a friends house who had a 55" 4K LG TV and played them back. The results were appalling , which confirmed my view that I really should just go with a Full HD.

That all makes sense and might explain why the SD broadcast does not upscale well on my Samsung TV.

But I do not see how it conflicts with what I have said and with the links I made. In my case, I use a 4k TV and try to make the best of it by watching the highest quality broadcast or streams. My example of watching Attenborough stuff on iPlayer, demonstrates this. But I also have DVD downloads which look very good.

It would appear that I just struggle with the SD broadcasts, As do very many who complain online. But I will put up with that for 30 mins of local news. So I can watch the highest quality broadcast quality stuff the rest of the time.

Years ago I had a female student who did very well and the Daily Mail, (Femail section) did an article on her. They sent a photographer with all the professional kit. He said his 2 mega pixel (big at that time), camera cost over £5000. They sent us an A3 poster print afterwards the quality of which would probably beat my 12 mp phone.

So I agree there is a lot more to this than just pixles.

John

 

[Martin_E]

Not sure how SD, HD or UHD is going to be cheaper for Borderbilly?

Have they got electric and capability of that up in them there hills now 🤔😂😂😂😂

 

[Sam Vimes]

One of my pet peeves is the way in which consumer technology is marketed and sold to the general public as if its going to change your life forever - well until the next revision comes out which will be bigger and better and you must have it. Apple anyone.

The headline benefits never mention the 'ifs and buts'.

Anyone remember the following:-

Quadrophonic Audio Systems - including Quadraphonic Earphones -uh!
3D TVs
Internet connected or bluetooth connected fridges, washing machines, cookers, toothbrushes.
Sinclair C5
Augmented Reality Headsets
Blackberry
Windows 8 - (which I actually liked)
Windows 11 - why?
Segway

Add your own....

 

[otherclive]

One of my pet peeves is the way in which consumer technology is marketed and sold to the general public as if its going to change your life forever - well until the next revision comes out which will be bigger and better and you must have it. Apple anyone.

The headline benefits never mention the 'ifs and buts'.

Anyone remember the following:-

Quadrophonic Audio Systems - including Quadraphonic Earphones -uh!
3D TVs
Internet connected or bluetooth connected fridges, washing machines, cookers, toothbrushes.
Sinclair C5
Augmented Reality Headsets
Blackberry
Windows 8 - (which I actually liked)
Windows 11 - why?
Segway

Add your own....

Smart watches
Cars with inbuilt wifi
Dynamic distance speed control with Lane assist when driving in country that drives on other side of road.

 

[Sam Vimes]

I'm wearing a Smart Watch at the momment as my real watch is in for a service. I only want it for the time display.

It's irritating as it keeps reminding me I've not taken enough exercise just as I'm devouring two croissants with butter and marmalade and coffee. Am I supposed to go jogging while eating!

 

[Jcloughie]

One of my pet peeves is the way in which consumer technology is marketed and sold to the general public as if its going to change your life forever - well until the next revision comes out which will be bigger and better and you must have it. Apple anyone.

The headline benefits never mention the 'ifs and buts'.

Anyone remember the following:-

Quadrophonic Audio Systems - including Quadraphonic Earphones -uh!
3D TVs
Internet connected or bluetooth connected fridges, washing machines, cookers, toothbrushes.
Sinclair C5
Augmented Reality Headsets
Blackberry
Windows 8 - (which I actually liked)
Windows 11 - why?
Segway

Add your own....

Absolutely true. But on the other side of the coin it finances innovation. Trick is to let others make the mistakes and hang back until things are proven.

Says me, who has an Apple phone and did buy a 3D TV. But that TV is still working well in non 3D mode for a grandaughter, 12 years on.

John

 

[Buckman]

Problem with phones is that they are loaded with apps, most of which you will never ever use. Same with laptops. When you try and remove the app you get a warning that it may affect the running of the unit.

Even more annoying is when using an app it wants access to photo, contacts, etc when there is no need for that app to access any of that information! If you say no, the app shuts down. 😡

 

[Mr Grumpy]

Still way over my head, what is wrong with just simple plug and play

Nothing! It even worked during a power cut unlike VOIP and in some cases, mobiles!

 

[Sam Vimes]

Absolutely true. But on the other side of the coin it finances innovation. Trick is to let others make the mistakes and hang back until things are proven.

Says me, who has an Apple phone and did buy a 3D TV. But that TV is still working well in non 3D mode for a grandaughter, 12 years on.

John

Its possible that some innovative ideas come about but as a Black Belt in Cynicism it seems to me that most consumer developments are more looking for ways to get the public to part with money for something they don't really need - just want. A solution in search of a problem.

Smartphones seem to be one example where the difference between the latest model and the last is only worth it to a few enthusiasts. Smartphones are really marketed as cameras these days and apart from a few dedicated photographers I suspect most people take snapshots that are 'fire and forget'.

No company really wants to wait for others to make the mistakes in case they miss out on something. Just look at the mad race to implement AI.

 

[Buckman]

In a couple of years, HD, UHD, 4k & 8k etc will be redundant when holographic TVs come onto the market.

 

[Mr Plodd]

In a couple of years, HD, UHD, 4k & 8k etc will be redundant when holographic TVs come onto the market.

Do you know something the rest of us dont? Do you have shares in a company working on it? If so where do we buy them?

 

[Buckman]

Do you know something the rest of us dont? Do you have shares in a company working on it? If so where do we buy them?

Been in the pipeline for sometime. Use Google and look it up. Probably will not be ready in our lifetime. LOL!

 

[Dustydog]

Been in the pipeline for sometime. Use Google and look it up. Probably will not be ready in our lifetime. LOL!

Google says the likes of Samsung have them already!

Described as 3 D holograms without the need to wear those funny glasses😎.

Some museums have been using holograms for moving images for years. Camera Obscura Edinburgh. The Kiss. The Scream.
Early attempts but as sure as there are EVs there will be hologram TVs sooner than Buckman thinks😉

 

[otherclive]

In 2013 researchers at MIT develops a hologram system for tv and predicted it would be in widespread use by 2023 and cost no more than conventional tv.

Still waiting!

 

[borderbilly]

ABBA

 

[Jcloughie]

Its possible that some innovative ideas come about but as a Black Belt in Cynicism it seems to me that most consumer developments are more looking for ways to get the public to part with money for something they don't really need - just want. A solution in search of a problem.

Smartphones seem to be one example where the difference between the latest model and the last is only worth it to a few enthusiasts. Smartphones are really marketed as cameras these days and apart from a few dedicated photographers I suspect most people take snapshots that are 'fire and forget'.

No company really wants to wait for others to make the mistakes in case they miss out on something. Just look at the mad race to implement AI.

I agree with you, you definitely are a black belt.

I admit to being one of the gullible one’s in going for new ideas, though not anywhere near as bad as some. I could update my iPhone14 to a 15. But I will resist and wait a few more years.

I have no doubt that manufacturers push new products in the first instance for profit. And they use all sorts of psychology in the advertising. But buyers are very canny, and always expect improvements. And improvement have to show. But only the buyer can tell if they give value.

I use few apps, camera, photos, simple editing, a few games, calendar and banking including payments and internet searching.

But my grandchildren use and switch between many apps with ease and speed.

I don’t agree with you regarding innovation. Technology has been innovating at a frightening rate for over 40 years. And R&D has to be financed in some way. It is the price we pay, but we are not forced to be the first.

I bought a Betamax at one time. Better technology than VHS, but VHS has better sales teams. But just look at how media has developed since, and still is. But an 8k TV, never-mind holograms are still a long way off for me.

I hear Microsoft is announcing quantum computer chips. A leap forward financed by millions of redundant computers. Sadly wasted with few recycled.

AI is not that new, film industry has been developing for years. Who knows where it will end up. Personally, I welcome advancement. But it has to be policed. (Not sure how).

John

 

[Buckman]

In 2013 researchers at MIT develops a hologram system for tv and predicted it would be in widespread use by 2023 and cost no more than conventional tv.

Still waiting!

The flat screen TV was developed way back in the early seventies by Sharp, but took nearly 3 decades to arrive in households. Be patient!

 

[otherclive]

The flat screen TV was developed way back in the early seventies by Sharp, but took nearly 3 decades to arrive in households. Be patient!

Be patient! A holographic tv is one of the least things I would want. But if others hanker after one , so be it.😂

 

[Dustydog]

The flat screen TV was developed way back in the early seventies by Sharp, but took nearly 3 decades to arrive in households. Be patient!

Another fact of the day .
The first colour TVs sets were sold to the USA public market in April 1954.

By 1960, roughly 2% of the U.S. population owned color televisions. The U.K. had to wait until 1968.
I hear Clive is still waiting😉

Apparently the hold up was the broadcasters who continued sending out B&W signals, so I am told.

 

[Buckman]

Be patient! A holographic tv is one of the least things I would want. But if others hanker after one , so be it.😂

You would probably need a separate room for it? Looks like you will be sleeping on the couch? LOL!

 

[otherclive]

Another fact of the day .
The first colour TVs sets were sold to the USA public market in April 1954.

By 1960, roughly 2% of the U.S. population owned color televisions. The U.K. had to wait until 1968.
I hear Clive is still waiting😉

Apparently the hold up was the broadcasters who continued sending out B&W signals, so I am told.

We bought a Murphy colour tv when we were students, and I recall we both were riveted to it during the anxious hours of Apollo 13 picking up whatever news was being broadcast.

 

[Buckman]

We never had TV until 1975 and then it was 90% colour. Broadcast was 4 hours a night from 6pm until 10pm and it was really awful, awful programs. Went to the pub instead as more exciting!