Who likes the black bars?

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Who likes the black bars?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

171 posts

Master Geek

#372090 24-Aug-2010 13:29

I have done some reading and I don't see too much about the 4 x black bars problem, if at all. It has been a fairly recent phenomenon that seemed to start about the time Sky started changing some of their non mainsteam channels to widescreen format. We mostly all understand the reason for 2 x black bars, either at the top and bottom or left and right, but not the 4 black bars simultaneously.

I indicated before that video quality is one of the primary criteria we judge broadcast TV by. OK, some commentators here don't really care about broadcast video quality but there are at least a few of us who do. And I am seeing the 4 x black bars problem increasing, not decreasing. I would like to see Sky alleviate customers concerns, better explain why and when it might be fixed. To blame it on an external supplier and that nothing can be done and that's the way it is is just a cop out. We would all still be watching 19 inch black and white CRT rounded screens if that was so.

MarkX

109 posts

Master Geek

#372285 24-Aug-2010 17:24

Isn't it time to let this thread die a natural death? You have made your point repeatedly throughout this thread.

Some people agree with you and some do not, myself included. Not an issue for me and not the fault of Sky in my humble opinion.

Let' move on now.

DS9

325 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#372304 24-Aug-2010 17:44

MarkX: Isn't it time to let this thread die a natural death? You have made your point repeatedly throughout this thread.

Some people agree with you and some do not, myself included. Not an issue for me and not the fault of Sky in my humble opinion.

Let' move on now.

+1 (just being ironic)

I aim to misbehave.

Zippity

683 posts

Ultimate Geek

#372328 24-Aug-2010 19:00

Thank God I'm not alone in my frustration :)

CutCutCut

1039 posts

Uber Geek

#372391 24-Aug-2010 22:04

RustyGonad:
login:
Zippity:
Is there a point to this post?

Is there a point to this thread?

It has been covered time and time before.

Where?

Do some reading through the Sky forum - you see it all over and over...

Usually someone starts be-atchin how much they hate Sky, sometime based on fact, mostly sometimes not...

Mostly they want the Ethiopian Thai Boxing/Tiddlywinks channel to be shown in HD, or want to complain why there's black bars on Dougal Loves Cooking... They usually demand it because every single Sky subscriber cares passionately enough to burn their houses down if it doesn't happen by tommorow... They know someone who watches Dougal Loves Cooking, so the whole country must watch it...

Most will have a complete lack of understanding of ratings, commercial economics, or the fact the not everyone wants to watch Star Trek, Dougal Loves Cooking, or the Ethiopian Thai Boxing/Tiddlywinks channel.

Everyone chucks in their 2 cents - many bleat on how they're going to cancel their subs for the 50th time this year.

Usually Clevedon then chimes in saying how happy he is with Sky, how it only costs the same as a cup of coffee, and how he's painted his house in Sky Blue, and with Sky logo's. He also has over 100 MySky HDi decoders in every room of his house including in every toilet. Don't forget this only costs him the same as a cup of coffee...

The rest of us just sit back and chuckle...

There should be a split in the Sky forum:

Sky - for all real questions/info:

Sky Be-atchfest - for all of this stuff...

Hehehe...and then somebody goes on to say that most complainants don't really know what they're talking about and they're just SKY bashing again.

login

171 posts

Master Geek

#372499 25-Aug-2010 10:17

What we are seeing in this forum is an indication of the importance of video quality. It's a major issue for us all. That's why the same topic keeps coming up time and time again!

Don't believe me? Go and ask anyone who has recently purchased a new high definition, wide screen TV and ask if they are happy to watch crappy picture quality. OK, so some here don't really care - some typically old arguments just don't get it do they: "It's been discussed before.", "It can't be fixed.", "Too hard.", "Who watches those channels anyway!.", ... blah, blah, blah ...

Still not convinced? Well then go and ask the CEO of Sky TV where in the his list of objectives for the company is the provision of quality video and audio services to the NZ market and where it ranks. It will be in the top three, or it had better be if he knows what his business is about. My guess is that it is number two on his list immediately following the one that says something about enhancement of stakeholder value, or words to that effect.

So maybe the message is not getting to the Sky technicians. But I am sure it is. We just need to keep pushing.

So thanks for the contributors who posted valuable insights into this problem. There are two posts in particular that were both informative and entertaining! Well done guys. There were two others that belong in the trash can but oh well, they tried their best too.

RustyGonad

495 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#372525 25-Aug-2010 10:51

login: What we are seeing in this forum is an indication of the importance of video quality. It's a major issue for us all. That's why the same topic keeps coming up time and time again!

Don't believe me? Go and ask anyone who has recently purchased a new high definition, wide screen TV and ask if they are happy to watch crappy picture quality. OK, so some here don't really care - some typically old arguments just don't get it do they: "It's been discussed before.", "It can't be fixed.", "Too hard.", "Who watches those channels anyway!.", ... blah, blah, blah ...

Still not convinced? Well then go and ask the CEO of Sky TV where in the his list of objectives for the company is the provision of quality video and audio services to the NZ market and where it ranks. It will be in the top three, or it had better be if he knows what his business is about. My guess is that it is number two on his list immediately following the one that says something about enhancement of stakeholder value, or words to that effect.

So maybe the message is not getting to the Sky technicians. But I am sure it is. We just need to keep pushing.

So thanks for the contributors who posted valuable insights into this problem. There are two posts in particular that were both informative and entertaining! Well done guys. There were two others that belong in the trash can but oh well, they tried their best too.

What a load of crap.

You come on here harping on about the Living Channel, Food Channel and Discovery, and the occasional use of incorrect aspect ratios (which any half rs'd zoom button can fix), and then try and change the arguement to image quality.

Is anyone complaining about the image quality of the Rugby, Soccer, Rugby League, "insert other sports here", or Movie Channels??? Didn't think so - maybe Sky might understand something called ratings...

Fact is, not every channel is watched by everyone. Sky have defined priorities with HD content - they're have been publically stated by John Fellet in the press many many times. Sky are a commercial organisation in the business of making money. If you read the papers you will also gain an insight that they continue to grow their subsciber base. This probably means that not alot of people support your "very thin" argument.

Sky are also limited in the content they have available due to our geographic location. This is a simple fact. We must tag on to the back of either Australia, Asia or both to receive "fill in" content. You demonstrate a complete and utter lack of understanding when it comes to content production and distribution.

While it would be great to have every channel broadcast in HD, in the correct aspect ratio, all of the time, fact is this aint gonna happen - not too many people would pay the subscription price for this. Is the unique to NZ or unique to Sky for that matter - NO absolutely not - if you got your head out of the sand you would see this.

I'm sure you could easily list some of the programs which we are being robbed of, along with the ratings, so that we can all know how massive this issue really is.

That fact that you have the time on you hands to spend all day watching Food, Living and Discovery looking out for the occasional incorrect aspect ratio's, and then try to turn it into a national issue probably says alot...

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#372616 25-Aug-2010 13:02

RustyGonad
What a load of crap.

You come on here harping on about the Living Channel, Food Channel and Discovery, and the occasional use of incorrect aspect ratios (which any half rs'd zoom button can fix), and then try and change the arguement to image quality.

Is anyone complaining about the image quality of the Rugby, Soccer, Rugby League, "insert other sports here", or Movie Channels??? Didn't think so - maybe Sky might understand something called ratings...

Fact is, not every channel is watched by everyone. Sky have defined priorities with HD content - they're have been publically stated by John Fellet in the press many many times. Sky are a commercial organisation in the business of making money. If you read the papers you will also gain an insight that they continue to grow their subsciber base. This probably means that not alot of people support your "very thin" argument.

Sky are also limited in the content they have available due to our geographic location. This is a simple fact. We must tag on to the back of either Australia, Asia or both to receive "fill in" content. You demonstrate a complete and utter lack of understanding when it comes to content production and distribution.

While it would be great to have every channel broadcast in HD, in the correct aspect ratio, all of the time, fact is this aint gonna happen - not too many people would pay the subscription price for this. Is the unique to NZ or unique to Sky for that matter - NO absolutely not - if you got your head out of the sand you would see this.

I'm sure you could easily list some of the programs which we are being robbed of, along with the ratings, so that we can all know how massive this issue really is.

That fact that you have the time on you hands to spend all day watching Food, Living and Discovery looking out for the occasional incorrect aspect ratio's, and then try to turn it into a national issue probably says alot...

Stop being such an apologist for Skys crappy service. The first thing i noticed when I bought my 46" TV a couple of years ago was how crappy the picture on the channels in the basic package were. The ones like sports and movies were quite good. No doubt Sky looking after it's "premium" customers.

I gave up on Sky when I bought a new house and haven't missed it so as an x Sky customers I can still bitch and complain..

I suspect that no one from Sky reads this newsgroup or even cares what people say as long as the bottom line keeps getting better..

Regards,

Old3eyes

login

171 posts

Master Geek

#372653 25-Aug-2010 13:45

RustyGonad, you pseudonym says it all. Comments not welcome here. Please go and annoy someone else.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#372702 25-Aug-2010 14:54

login: RustyGonad, you pseudonym says it all.? Comments not welcome here.? Please go and annoy someone else.

Now, now folks. We give everyone the rigth to post here providing they follow the FUG.

Difference in opinions are welcome because that is the essence of debates.

LookingUp

411 posts

Ultimate Geek

#372715 25-Aug-2010 15:17

I totally agree with the posters who have a problem with the quality. Yes, most TVs etc. will allow you to scale up a letterboxed 4:3 picture to full screen, but by the time you do it's a complete mess.

My quick (and therefore probably wrong) calculation is that if you take a 576 line 4:3 frame, and letterbox a 16:9 image into it you get 576 * 4/3 * 9/16 = 432 lines of picture. On a 1080 line TV that's 2.5 pixels per line of image = FUZZ.

If you can't physically see that as a problem, I'd suggest an eye test....

Things are LookingUp.... A photo from my back yard :-)

MarkX

109 posts

Master Geek

#372722 25-Aug-2010 15:35

login: What we are seeing in this forum is an indication of the importance of video quality. It's a major issue for us all. That's why the same topic keeps coming up time and time again!

Don't believe me? Go and ask anyone who has recently purchased a new high definition, wide screen TV and ask if they are happy to watch crappy picture quality. OK, so some here don't really care - some typically old arguments just don't get it do they: "It's been discussed before.", "It can't be fixed.", "Too hard.", "Who watches those channels anyway!.", ... blah, blah, blah ...

Still not convinced? Well then go and ask the CEO of Sky TV where in the his list of objectives for the company is the provision of quality video and audio services to the NZ market and where it ranks. It will be in the top three, or it had better be if he knows what his business is about. My guess is that it is number two on his list immediately following the one that says something about enhancement of stakeholder value, or words to that effect.

So maybe the message is not getting to the Sky technicians. But I am sure it is. We just need to keep pushing.

So thanks for the contributors who posted valuable insights into this problem. There are two posts in particular that were both informative and entertaining! Well done guys. There were two others that belong in the trash can but oh well, they tried their best too.

So the few people who agreed with you were informative and entertaining. Anyone that disagreed with you though didn't know what they were talking about! What a balanced perspective you have. You can carry on your crusade for better picture quality on Food and Living Channels and I will continue to enjoy the great picture quality on TV1, TV2, TV3 and Movie and sports channels which make up 95% of my viewing time.

Zippity

683 posts

Ultimate Geek

#372748 25-Aug-2010 16:20

Jaysus - just look at the picture quality on ESPN.

That is about as good as the Americans get all the time.

login

171 posts

Master Geek

#372755 25-Aug-2010 16:37

Zippity: Jaysus - just look at the picture quality on ESPN.

That is about as good as the Americans get all the time.

Not at all. Most of their broadcast TV is in HD now, depending on where you live there of course.

login

171 posts

Master Geek

#372760 25-Aug-2010 16:45

MarkX: So the few people who agreed with you were informative and entertaining. Anyone that is agreed with you though didn't know what they were talking about!time.

No. Not at all. Nowhere did I say that!

MarkX: You can carry on your crusade for better picture quality on Food and Living Channels and I will continue to enjoy the great picture quality on TV1, TV2, TV3 and Movie and sports channels which make up 95% of my viewing time.

Thankyou and that's perfectly OK for you to do so. No one is going to belittle you for that. But you should try more of the other Sky channels too. You never know it may just help to broaden your perspective.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4