Game of Thrones Neon Quality

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Game of Thrones Neon Quality

Boeingflyer

593 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#196636 7-Jun-2016 15:42

What is everyone else experiencing when watching Game of Thrones on Neon?
I'm using a Samsung 2015 TV running through the tv app and the quality isn't even close to 720p. I have netflix and lightbox and they are perfect so it's not the internet that i believe is causing the problem. Have tried both wired and wireless.
I've even tried streaming it from iPad to chrome cast and it's no good.
I realise there are other ways to get the content but trying to do the right thing here.

1 | 2 | 3

3344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vocus

#1567198 7-Jun-2016 15:46

Is NEON HD at all? I thought it only went to 480p

Killerkiwi2005

352 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1567202 7-Jun-2016 15:51

Neon is NOT HD

Yes it is 2016

jarledb

Webhead
2551 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1567205 7-Jun-2016 15:54

Killerkiwi2005:

Neon is NOT HD

Yes it is 2016

No, its not 2016 in the Sky universe...

antoniosk

2062 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1567211 7-Jun-2016 15:58

As above. I watch on ipad and stream to large tv on occasion (block viewing), would be nice if it were HD but the blood and gore is realistic enough in SD and still easy to follow what Jon Snow doesnt know.

________

Antoniosk

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vocus

#1567212 7-Jun-2016 15:59

jarledb:

Killerkiwi2005:

Neon is NOT HD

Yes it is 2016

No, its not 2016 in the Sky universe...

Wouldn't want to cut their own lunch right? Let the competition do it for them...

scuwp

3343 posts

Uber Geek

#1567271 7-Jun-2016 17:10

Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering.

Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1567288 7-Jun-2016 17:24

NEON is SD and $20 a month... Who the hell would pay for that?

tdgeek

21531 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1567293 7-Jun-2016 17:28

UHD:

NEON is SD and $20 a month... Who the hell would pay for that?

Not many I guess, I doubt Sky have an issue with that. I feels its there, to be there.If and when they make a push to all or most SVOD, its all in place, they will then re hash them all as new offerings at prices that reflect the reduced cost of SVOD transmission

Dolts

201 posts

Master Geek

#1567300 7-Jun-2016 17:38

Vodafone gave me a 1-year sub to neon. No excitement was felt :/

And I like some of the shows it has to offer, but I am an HD snob.

ockel

1780 posts

Uber Geek

#1567325 7-Jun-2016 18:06

scuwp: Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering.

Lets see.... something with the library of a Lightbox ($13) plus HBONow content (USD15 = 22) = $35 less 30% for SD rather than HD.

And all offered for $20/mth.

My math is rusty but it looks cheaper than it should be.

loceff13

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1567328 7-Jun-2016 18:20

Sky isn't interested in being competitive, just appearing as if they are.

toejam316

992 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1567330 7-Jun-2016 18:26

ockel:
scuwp: Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering.

Lets see.... something with the library of a Lightbox ($13) plus HBONow content (USD15 = 22) = $35 less 30% for SD rather than HD.

And all offered for $20/mth.

My math is rusty but it looks cheaper than it should be.

Except the consideration you're missing is that Lightbox is a solo endeavor, whereas Neon piggybacks off the existing licenses for Sky/SkyGO, which cheapens the costs of running it. I'm not saying the HBO license is trivial, but it's also not an all inclusive HBO license. Also, I'd argue the value of being in HD isn't 30% - it's more like 100%. When the service desired isn't available, it's generally gotten from alternative means. Generally, with digital content, those means are seafaring and rum drinking.

Anything I say is the ramblings of an ill informed, opinionated so-and-so, and not representative of any of my past, present or future employers, and is also probably best disregarded.

ockel

1780 posts

Uber Geek

#1567332 7-Jun-2016 18:45

toejam316:
ockel:

scuwp: Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering.

Lets see.... something with the library of a Lightbox ($13) plus HBONow content (USD15 = 22) = $35 less 30% for SD rather than HD.

And all offered for $20/mth.

My math is rusty but it looks cheaper than it should be.

Except the consideration you're missing is that Lightbox is a solo endeavor, whereas Neon piggybacks off the existing licenses for Sky/SkyGO, which cheapens the costs of running it. I'm not saying the HBO license is trivial, but it's also not an all inclusive HBO license. Also, I'd argue the value of being in HD isn't 30% - it's more like 100%. When the service desired isn't available, it's generally gotten from alternative means. Generally, with digital content, those means are seafaring and rum drinking.

Buying streaming rights for content is an additional cost - you buy the rights for broadcast and streaming separately. There is no piggybacking - in fact it may be more expensive to buy the exclusive studio rights for all programmes produced in multi-years (called an output deal) than buying rights on a piecemeal basis but thats the choice that a broadcaster (whether via terrestrial, satellite or internet) makes.

I used the 30% price differential for HD over SD as that seems to be what the marketplace currently bears (eg Netflix, Google, Apple or even the box sets you buy retail - check SD vs HD vs 4K pricing) There is not 100% mark-up between the quality differentials but it seems to be c30%. Feel free to offer evidence otherwise.

Lightbox is not a solo endeavor - it piggybacks of its parents ability to fund it until it generates a profit.

tdgeek

21531 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1567335 7-Jun-2016 18:52

ockel:

toejam316:
ockel:

scuwp: Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering.

Lets see.... something with the library of a Lightbox ($13) plus HBONow content (USD15 = 22) = $35 less 30% for SD rather than HD.

And all offered for $20/mth.

My math is rusty but it looks cheaper than it should be.

Except the consideration you're missing is that Lightbox is a solo endeavor, whereas Neon piggybacks off the existing licenses for Sky/SkyGO, which cheapens the costs of running it. I'm not saying the HBO license is trivial, but it's also not an all inclusive HBO license. Also, I'd argue the value of being in HD isn't 30% - it's more like 100%. When the service desired isn't available, it's generally gotten from alternative means. Generally, with digital content, those means are seafaring and rum drinking.

Buying streaming rights for content is an additional cost - you buy the rights for broadcast and streaming separately. There is no piggybacking - in fact it may be more expensive to buy the exclusive studio rights for all programmes produced in multi-years (called an output deal) than buying rights on a piecemeal basis but thats the choice that a broadcaster (whether via terrestrial, satellite or internet) makes.

I used the 30% price differential for HD over SD as that seems to be what the marketplace currently bears (eg Netflix, Google, Apple or even the box sets you buy retail - check SD vs HD vs 4K pricing) There is not 100% mark-up between the quality differentials but it seems to be c30%. Feel free to offer evidence otherwise.

Lightbox is not a solo endeavor - it piggybacks of its parents ability to fund it until it generates a profit.

OTOH Sky is a satellite service, why would it setup an SVOD and pay for rights that in all likelihood on a low subscriber number service. I figure Neon is very much a low subscriber service. What a waste of Skys money. Or is it not a waste but an investment. If 2019 looms, Optus isn't budging heck of a lot, ok, Sky has two SVOD services already, it would be quite easy to put Basic, Neon, Soho, Rialto, and sport to SVOD, as they already run two SVOD services. If Sky intend to be a full SVOD services, much of it is in place. Thats how I see it.

ockel

1780 posts

Uber Geek

#1567379 7-Jun-2016 19:12

tdgeek:

ockel:

toejam316:
ockel:

scuwp: Twice the price for half the quality...sounds about right for a Sky offering.

Lets see.... something with the library of a Lightbox ($13) plus HBONow content (USD15 = 22) = $35 less 30% for SD rather than HD.

And all offered for $20/mth.

My math is rusty but it looks cheaper than it should be.

Except the consideration you're missing is that Lightbox is a solo endeavor, whereas Neon piggybacks off the existing licenses for Sky/SkyGO, which cheapens the costs of running it. I'm not saying the HBO license is trivial, but it's also not an all inclusive HBO license. Also, I'd argue the value of being in HD isn't 30% - it's more like 100%. When the service desired isn't available, it's generally gotten from alternative means. Generally, with digital content, those means are seafaring and rum drinking.

Buying streaming rights for content is an additional cost - you buy the rights for broadcast and streaming separately. There is no piggybacking - in fact it may be more expensive to buy the exclusive studio rights for all programmes produced in multi-years (called an output deal) than buying rights on a piecemeal basis but thats the choice that a broadcaster (whether via terrestrial, satellite or internet) makes.

I used the 30% price differential for HD over SD as that seems to be what the marketplace currently bears (eg Netflix, Google, Apple or even the box sets you buy retail - check SD vs HD vs 4K pricing) There is not 100% mark-up between the quality differentials but it seems to be c30%. Feel free to offer evidence otherwise.

Lightbox is not a solo endeavor - it piggybacks of its parents ability to fund it until it generates a profit.

OTOH Sky is a satellite service, why would it setup an SVOD and pay for rights that in all likelihood on a low subscriber number service. I figure Neon is very much a low subscriber service. What a waste of Skys money. Or is it not a waste but an investment. If 2019 looms, Optus isn't budging heck of a lot, ok, Sky has two SVOD services already, it would be quite easy to put Basic, Neon, Soho, Rialto, and sport to SVOD, as they already run two SVOD services. If Sky intend to be a full SVOD services, much of it is in place. Thats how I see it.

Neon has between 22,000 (Roy Morgan estimates) and 68,000 (FreeviewNZ estimates) subscribers. And needs Sky to fund it.

Lightbox has around 128,000 (Roy Morgan) and 170,000 (FreeviewNZ) subscribers . And needs Spark to fund it.

Netflix has between 246,000 (Roy Morgan) and 400,000 (FreeviewNZ) subscribers. And if the contribution margin for NZ is the same as the International contribution margin then Netflix NZ needs to fund it.

1 | 2 | 3