Skip to navigation

PCPro-Computing in the Real World Printed from www.pcpro.co.uk

Register to receive our regular email newsletter at http://www.pcpro.co.uk/registration.

The newsletter contains links to our latest PC news, product reviews, features and how-to guides, plus special offers and competitions.

// Home / Blogs

Posted on August 20th, 2008 by David Bayon

Is HD TV finally worth paying for?

Sky

I remember when we first started talking about HD. Back then it was this mythical beast that would tear apart video as we know it with its millions of pixels, and leave us all cursing standard definition for being as fuzzy and vague as Colin Jackson’s “expert” Olympic analysis.

Then it arrived and we loved it. The first time I ran a 1080p video on my 40in TV, my non-techie housemate grabbed the controller and kept replaying the same HD movie trailer for what seemed like an hour, so enamoured was he with the detail. Those of us with a PlayStation3 or Blu-ray player can enjoy the delights of HD by renting movies, but TV has been much slower out of the blocks.

Put simply, even a drum-beating HD lover like myself can admit the line-up of HD channels just hasn’t been worth paying for. Cable customers with Virgin’s V+ box can watch several free channels like BBC HD (and enjoy the excellent Olympic coverage, Jackson aside), but Sky HD is the big gun we all pinned our hopes on. And it’s expensive. Very expensive.

The cost of the Sky HD box has recently been slashed by half to £150, which is a good step. But there’s still the £10 per month premium on your subscription, which if you want any decent line-up of channels will also have to include a Sky Sports and Movies subscription too. All in, the full HD package will cost you £55 a month – a lot of money for what began as a pretty paltry smattering of channels.

But that list has grown, and now Sky is upping the ante again. Today it announced the addition of seven more channels to the roster, bringing the total to a much more flattering 26. Three Sky Sports channels were already covered, but it always seemed unfair that the premium you were already paying for both the movie channels and the HD didn’t translate into a great amount of what you might expect – actual HD movies.

This update rectifies that with many of the best movie channels, including Sky Movies Action/Thriller, Sci-Fi/Horror, and the awesome Modern Greats, all appearing alongside the existing Screen and Premiere HD channels.

Don’t get me wrong, the Olympic coverage on the Beeb has been great, and the fact that we’ve all got so into it must partly be down to the techological advances like live online streaming – as Tim pointed out earlier in the week. But, apart from the two weeks of every year when people pretend to like tennis, it’s about the only major sport Auntie has left.

Sky has all the best bits, and seeing as movies and sport are the main things most people want in HD, it seems to me that the quantity of HD TV on offer has finally reached the threshold at which I always said I’d invest. Credit crunch? What credit crunch?

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted in: Random

Permalink | Trackback

Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

5 Responses to “ Is HD TV finally worth paying for? ”

  1. Ally Says:
    August 21st, 2008 at 8:07 am

    For me to get HD, I’d need to buy a new TV (£1000), a Sky HD Box (£150) and my Sky subscription will go up an additional £120 a year.

    Looks like I’ll be watching terrestrial TV for the next few years.

    I can always go into Curry’s and watch it there for 5 minutes every week or so anyway.

     
  2. muck Says:
    August 21st, 2008 at 10:49 am

    Yep, I don’t see the point really. I still watch the same programmes whether HD or not. I’m not paying out for a new TV, a PS3 and a Sky HD box. Then having to pay an increased subscription and for what? a clearer picture that can only be noticed on a tv above 37 inches.
    When my tv breaks i will probably get one but I hope my old one lasts another 5 years personally. Each to there own though

     
  3. BillC Says:
    August 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    Is Freesat not worth a mention, then?

     
  4. David Bayon Says:
    August 21st, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    Freesat’s a great innovation, but at the moment there are only two HD channels on it. It’ll probably get more than just BBC and ITV HD soon, almost certainly before Freeview does. But right now it’s not exactly HD heaven.

     
  5. Simon C Says:
    August 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Pay for TV (apart from the licence fee)??? Who in their right mind would do that?

     

Leave a Reply

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

* required fields

* Will not be published

SEARCH
SIGN UP

Your email:

Your password:

remember me

advertisement


Hitwise Top 10 Website 2010