A few months back I posted on here with regard to BT becoming a serious competitor to Sky and how it could only be good for the consumer. With Sky now charging a king's ransom for sport I thought I would just share this with you. BT's pledge to make televised sport 'more affordable' is a breath of fresh air and so far they're sticking to their promise. They have just launched an additional new channel, BTSport Europe HD which will be the new home of European Champions League football and which will STILL be free to BT Infinity customers. http://sport.bt.com/sport-football/...signings-for-champions-league-S11363985535645 Another new channel BTSport Ultra 4K will also launch on August 2nd showing ECL and PL matches in 4K resolution ! Only available to BT Infinity customers who will also be able to watch this for free. Okay, you will need the new 4K Youview+ box and a 4K TV for that one. However, this will be the first 4K sports channel in Europe and with 4K being the future of TV, BT have certainly stolen a march on Sky here. So if anyone on here is fed up paying IMO those exorbitant Sky prices, here's the deal that I've managed to strike with BT: Landline and rental with unlimited calls, BT Infinity 2 extra super fast broadband, BT TV including BTSport 1HD, BTSport Europe HD, BTSport 2HD, BTSport/ESPN HD, BTSport Ultra 4K, Eurosport 1HD, Eurosport 2HD, BT Extra HD Entertainment Pack (selected Sky channels). the cost ................ £59.50 per month ! I could pay extra for Sky Sports on the BT Platform but with that lot I feel it totally unnecessary. One point worth noting though is that if you are not a BT TV customer and currently watch BTSport on the Sky platform you will have to pay 5 quid for the privilege as from August if you want to watch ECL and EPL football. Reading that back it sounds like a bloody good advert for BT, I can however assure you I don't work for them
I've recently talked my myself into purchasing a 4k TV and it's awesome. Netflix do most of their new content in 4k and its amazingly clear. I almost wish BT hasn't announced this because I know I'll end up spending the money now.
It's not really good for customers, having competition for subscribers you think it would. But no, as both are paying over the odds for football rights, prices goes up and it's the customers who have to pay for it.
There are a lot of people in the business world who think that BT will come an almighty cropper taking on Sky because Sky, with their worldwide distribution network, can continue to pay over the odds whereas BT already face the problem of not really being able to continue with free TV to broadband customers but face losing them if they charge. I get BT free with broadband but certainly wouldn't pay for it. I also just want to be able to turn my television on and watch what I want to see without going through the rigmarole set out in the OP. I also understand that Sky are about to hit back with a ground breaking offer on broadband and TV which is going to cause BT a lot of worries. Interesting times but I suspect and, in many respects, fear that Sky will emerge triumphant.
This is why they're pushing the "quad-play" idea combining TV, landline, broadband and mobile phone into one contract. Effectively locking consumers into each contract as the others would go up if they leave one. Not a great deal for the consumer but very lucrative for the provider.
Makes me laugh all this '4k' nonsense. Its like all the hype that said CD's were better than vinyl. 35mm was the equivalent of (approx) 6/7k yet when 720 'HD' emerged they pronounced "film is dead" (still used for around 40% of features by the way), 95% of footage shot at 4k (or higher) is instantly downscaled to 2k (a fraction better than full HD) for post production, so even if it was "shot in 4k", it doesn't me an you'll see it in 4k. 4k sets are generally poor at upscaling 1080 and so 99% of what you view will look worse than the screen you just threw in the skip. CRX is STILL better than LCD and still used in post production. Some post houses use the Dolby flat screens @ £30k and believe me, they are dreadful unless you sit head on to it. OLED is king (sadly plasma is dead) but there are problems with larger screens Don't spend your money yet.....even the BBC can't decide which 4k system to adopt, Look East hasn't even started broadcasting 1080 yet, its still 576!! Thats my buttons pushed lol...... and breathe......
Agreed about OLED. Very impressive tech and I'm fully aware of the compression that the ultra HD picture I get from Netflix has. However OLED HD next to 4k led looks overly aliased. I know it's a comparison issue but I felt I could buy OLED in HD knowing that it would soon be out dated. And I would be able to afford what I want ie and OLED UHD TV for few years so I got a pretty good upgrade as an interim. I'm really enjoying it.
Fair play, I'm still a fan of 720! I shoot lots of 4k/6k car and food commercials, all we seem to do is look for old lens / filter combinations to mellow the harsh results, the cruel reality of (for example) actresses skin, moire on tiled roftops etc etc.... Bring back film! (actually just shot a supermarket commercial using a lot of Super 8 - looked brilliant)
Bloody hell!! I admire your knowledge but don't understand a word of it. I just turn on my tele - couldn't even tell you what make it is without looking - and watch it!!!
I can see that when your looking for that better than real life look the resolution must be irritating, I find that with the combination of high frame rates it looks very immersive. Would make football look very good. Thing I'm really not fussed with is 3d very glad that turned out to be a fad.
I got caught up in the 3D hype, I got one and never really used it and the 3D (''the next best thing'') quickly died. I'll probably get a 4k TV when there's more channels that use it, I have Netflix but my broadband isn't good enough for 4K.
My TV is 3D I think, it's hard to buy one that isn't, but I've never used it. 3D seems to give me a headache in about 45 seconds.
