# Tivo -v- Sky HD



## KiNeL (Feb 6, 2006)

I have been a faithful Tivo devotee for a number of years and still have 2 running but I'm finding myself more and more seduced by Sky HD, if for no other reason than with only one subscription card obviously I can only access the Freesat channels on the second one, with Sky HD we would get 2 bites of the cherry from one card and therefore less arguments about what to watch/record.

I hate OH's rubbish (cooking, biographies and house doctor sh*te) and she hates my rubbish (Law and Order, road wars, police interceptors etc.) so it's conflict all the time. Although I have an HD TV frankly I'm not too bothered with that side of it and it will be a bonus rather than a must have.

So, my question is: For those who have decamped what are the pros and cons. What do you really miss about Tivo or love about Sky Hd (HD itself apart)?


----------



## n1ckT (Nov 15, 2005)

My TiVo is connected to the Freesat HD box in the bedroom (obviously I can only record SD via SCART) and I have SkyHD+ in the living room. The main things I like about the TiVo compared with SkyHD+ are:
1) several weeks guide not just 7 days
2) season passes which let you check out upcoming episodes on all channels,
3) one button to get to now showing from the main menu
Lets hope sky will feel the pressure from virgin and do their own deal with TiVo


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

I'd miss the variety that wishlists and suggestions bring.

Those have picked up many new shows I'd probably not have watched over the years.

Only having record and seasonpass functionality that sky+ has - and that's all it has - means you still have to browse the schedules for things to watch
- otherwise you are just tied to the same old shows you have set SPs for


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

mikerr said:


> I'd miss the variety that wishlists and suggestions bring.


Sky+ navigation through the recordings is also rubbish with no 15 minute one button skip and no skip back to where you pressed Play when fast forwarding.

Only having a 7 day EPG instead of a 14/21 day one on Tivo is a real deal breaker as far as I am concerned. As is the lack of an equivalent to the Tivo Highlights module to easily interface setting recordings with Radio Times and Digiguide program recommendations.


----------



## gazter (Aug 1, 2001)

KiNeL said:


> I have been a faithful Tivo devotee for a number of years and still have 2 running but I'm finding myself more and more seduced by Sky HD, if for no other reason than with only one subscription card obviously I can only access the Freesat channels on the second one, with Sky HD we would get 2 bites of the cherry from one card and therefore less arguments about what to watch/record.
> 
> I hate OH's rubbish (cooking, biographies and house doctor sh*te) and she hates my rubbish (Law and Order, road wars, police interceptors etc.) so it's conflict all the time. Although I have an HD TV frankly I'm not too bothered with that side of it and it will be a bonus rather than a must have.
> 
> So, my question is: For those who have decamped what are the pros and cons. What do you really miss about Tivo or love about Sky Hd (HD itself apart)?


As an alternative to tivo, skyhd is pretty awful, everything is clunky, it lacks sophistication, it cant prioritise season passes.

Their updated software makes it even worse.

If you are a technical person and enjoy a challenge look at my post about pushing sky through windows media centre.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

gazter said:


> If you are a technical person and enjoy a challenge look at my post about pushing sky through windows media centre.


If there is no new non Virgin cross platform Tivo in the UK (as seems certain given the deal that has been signed) then MCE does seem an obvious way to go as it appears that C4 HD will only be FTA on Freeview whilst say Film Four HD may only be available on satellite. Meanwhile due to Ofcom's stupidity FTA/FTV HD versions of Five's channels may also only be available on satellite and not on Freeview.

Therefore a Media Centre solution that allows one to record satellite only FTV HD channels like Five HD or Film Four HD that may appear in due course whilst also being able to grab anything that is only FTA on Freeview (eg Dave, Virgin1, C4 HD etc) does appear very attractive. The idea that I have to pay £10 per month to Murdoch to record a non Murdoch HD channel broadcast by someone else is just too much to bear.

And then this also allows one to benefit from the vastly superior MCE interface compare to Sky+. Although when are Microsoft planning to come out with a Suggestions equivalent?

Personally I'm now waiting for the launch of 3D televisions/display panels and for their prices to fall to a sensible level (probably another two to three years) and by that stage a replacement of my current non HD television with a super duper HD 3D model and an all singing all dancing MCE system that does not have any ongoing subscription commitment to Sky to record (but that does allow me to subscribe for the odd month per year unlike BBC/ITV Freesat) looks like the way to go.


----------



## Trinitron (Jan 20, 2003)

I echo what's been said, but my TiVo and Sky+HD boxes co-exist reasonably happily together. I have converted most of the season passes for HD content to series links on the Sky box so that they record in the background, while TiVo can record its stuff whenever it likes. 

If you're ok at juggling remote controls then even playing back content on Sky when Tivo decides to change channel is OK. Just have to decide how crucial the Tivo programme is and, to keep watching the recording, set it to record on the Sky box instead (Tivo records what it 'sees', so if you're playing back something that's all the Tivo gets). If we miss something, or I don't like the Sky scheduling - series link is seriously flawed in that it won't place future recordings until the last one has started - then I generally use Tivoweb to check as the search facilities are vastly superior.

It would be nice to know what VM are planning for their Tivos in non-cabled areas. Sky are clearly positioning themselves for internet VoD later this year (presumably utilising the ethernet link in the HD boxes), but doing that on a Tivo would be soooo much better!


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

Pete77 said:


> Personally I'm now waiting for the launch of 3D televisions/display panels and for their prices to fall to a sensible level (probably another two to three years) ...


I would have a look at them first.

I've tried a couple, and have been quite disappointed with the concept.

First, the 3D effects are more like watching 2D objects in several different planes. Distant objects are just 2D backgrounds.

Secondly, to minimise eye-strain you need to be in the optimum position in front of the screen, and the whole family are going to be fighting over that position.

Ignoring the long-term eye-strain, you are going to be taking the 3D glasses on and off, whenever you talk to somebody, or browse your iPad/iPhone/Radio Times/etc. They are going to kill the art of conversation more than normal television did.

I'm not convinced that people with 3D TV's are actually going to watch in 3D that much.

And will 3D televisions be as good as 2D televisions when it comes to watching the bulk of 2D broadcasts?

And what is the viewing like for other people when one person is watching in 3D and another member of the family is spending most of their time otherwise occupied, with occasional glances at the screen without any glasses on?


----------



## Ian_m (Jan 9, 2001)

Couple of interesting points I picked up from a mate of mine involved in TV world.

1. Panasonic are now accepting orders for their 3D plasma displays and 3D blu-ray players (HDMI 1.4 DMP BDT300 I think). No delivery date, yet.

2. 3D HD is acheived by halving the vertical resolution to only 540 lines....so no better than PAL:down:

3. There is nothing 3D available to play on the player, even if it were available.

4. There is a whole raft of PC software (running under AVI-synth) to "have a go" at converting 2D movies to 3D. May mate has tried some, most is very poor, but things will improve.

My mate is dead against 3D, due to various reasons, but mainly after spending years trying to get the broadcast interested in HD (he worked on HD MPEG2 algorithms, D-MAC and HD displays way back in early 1990's) they finally go HD and then mess it all up by halving the resolution.:down:


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Ian_m said:


> 2. 3D HD is acheived by halving the vertical resolution to only 540 lines....so no better than PAL:down:


Depends on the system. Full 1080p is specced in the Blu-ray 3D standard, so discs should be 1080p. But Sky 3D cameras work as you describe so sport is effectively 540p. Not sure if they'll be broadcasting movies in 1080.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

iankb said:


> Ignoring the long-term eye-strain, you are going to be taking the 3D glasses on and off, whenever you talk to somebody, or browse your iPad/iPhone/Radio Times/etc. They are going to kill the art of conversation more than normal television did.


You shouldn't be talking during films! "Normal" TV won't be 3d in the foreseeable, just films and some sport.



> And will 3D televisions be as good as 2D televisions when it comes to watching the bulk of 2D broadcasts?


No reason why they shouldn't be. it's just a tweak in the electronics.



> And what is the viewing like for other people when one person is watching in 3D and another member of the family is spending most of their time otherwise occupied, with occasional glances at the screen without any glasses on?


Horrible blurry mess. But as I said, it's for occasional event viewing, not on all the time.


----------



## velocitysurfer1 (Sep 6, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> But as I said, it's for occasional event viewing, not on all the time.


A brand new (and currently expensive) TV just for occasional use? Count me out!

Back on topic, we had to use SKY+ (I know that Sky HD has a better GUI) for a week or two last month due to a broken TiVo PSU. SWMBO missed the TiVo GUI due to the lack of onscreen information from SKY+ and the lack of skip back when fast forwarding. I missed it for all the reasons we love TiVo.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

3D is a gimmick - what we're all waiting for is affordable LED TVs

Proper LED TVs that is - not the "LED backlit LCD" which are currently selling...


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

mikerr said:


> 3D is a gimmick - what we're all waiting for is affordable LED TVs
> 
> Proper LED TVs that is - not the "LED backlit LCD" which are currently selling...


When the new black is really black.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

I think the future lies with LED screens built into the glasses (not the TV), and intelligent motorised lens systems and motion sensors are used to change the perceived depth of the image and to reduce the (sickening) effects of head movement. The technology is already starting to appear with augmented-reality HUDs.

The iPhone already has cheap motion sensors, cheap cameras have anti-shake lens systems, and OLED screens would be cheap when implemented at that size.

And each person can watch what they want, without disturbing their neighbour. Add surround-sound headphones and it could be perfect, if a little lonely. 

Flip them into a transparent augmented-reality mode and you can use them in supermarkets to find products on the shelves. Tesco already have an iPhone app that tells you which aisle, which bay, and which shelf a product can be found at your local supermarket. Integrate that with aumented-reality glasses and ... you're going to look a real fool.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

velocitysurfer1 said:


> A brand new (and currently expensive) TV just for occasional use? Count me out!.


Well HD TVs only come fully into play when connected to a Blu-ray player, which is for most of us occasional use.

I'm not in any queue to buy a 3D set though.


----------



## gazter (Aug 1, 2001)

TCM2007 said:


> Well HD TVs only come fully into play when connected to a Blu-ray player, which is for most of us occasional use.
> 
> I'm not in any queue to buy a 3D set though.


The broadcast hd material on sky is excellent, the selection of movies in hd is vast, and pretty much all sky1 new material is in hd.


----------



## Johnbyte (Nov 4, 2008)

Agree. While Tivo picture quality particularly in Mode 0 is pretty good, it doesn't come near Sky HD broadcast quality. 

BUT, in my experience (and I've had Sky HD since it first became available) HD boxes are annoyingly unreliable, the EPG is awful - slow and clunky to use - and series links aren't persistent. 

By comparison, my Tivo (and I've had that since they were released) is stunningly reliable, much more user friendly and gives far better insight into upcoming programmes of interest to me (wishlists, suggestions, showcase).

Give me Tivo any day.

And I won't be going for 3D TV either.


----------



## Sneals2000 (Aug 25, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> Depends on the system. Full 1080p is specced in the Blu-ray 3D standard, so discs should be 1080p.


Blu-ray 3D only supports 24p frame rates - and AIUI it encodes one eye view using conventional 1080p H264/AVC encoding (in a manner compatible with existing 2D Blu-ray players), and then encodes the difference between the two eyes as a supplementary second stream which 3D players can process to generate a second 1080p eye view.



> But Sky 3D cameras work as you describe so sport is effectively 540p. Not sure if they'll be broadcasting movies in 1080.


Not quite correct.

The PRODUCTION system Sky are using is 2 x 1080i for production, with dual streams of full 1080/50i HD-SDI whizzing around the vision mixers, routers, VT machines etc. Effectively you are making two totally separate streams in parallel and need twice as much of a lot of the kit.

For BROADCAST Sky are using Side-by-Side transmission, where the two 1920x1080/50i streams are squished to a pair of 960x1080/50i streams and broadcast next to each other to get them into a single 1920x1080/50i H264 stream, compatible with all receivers. When you look at a Sky 3D broadcast on a normal 2D HD set you get two half-width images next to each other. (Sky can't use chequerboard or alternate line as it isn't compatible with 4:2:0 vertical colour subsampling used in broadcast H264, and the top/bottom system doesn't work well with interlaced content)

Therefore you get the full 1080i vertical resolution (i.e. 1080 lines on static information, 540 lines on fast motion - just as in 2D) - but reduced horizontal resolution.

For DISPLAY - you have a choice - the display will accept the side-by-side image and process it as required for the system chosen.

Active shutter glasses use alternate 1920x1080 frames with synchronised glasses that blank alternate eyes (and thus the display has to run at 100Hz minimum to display two 50Hz images - which will be de-interlaced to 50p from 50i - and possibly interpolated up to 100p if the display is running at 200Hz etc.) Effectively the display shows alternate eye feeds in sequence. This system has more expensive glasses, but doesn't require anything clever in the display other than some image processing and a fast enough response rate (and you could buy a 3D Ready set and upgrade it if you needed to)

Polarised passive glasses use alternate line polarisation, which will thus drop the resolution to 540 lines, but both eyes see an image simultaneously. It requires the panel to have extra polarising layers, which makes the screen more expensive, but the glasses are a lot cheaper.

Thus Sky's Side-by-side system drops to 960x540 resolution for each eye with polarised glass flat panels, but stays at 960x1080 resolution with active shuttering glasses.


----------

