Tivo V6 Virgin Media V6 - Powered by TiVo(new STB) - Page 191

muppetman11 · 12-02-2017, 10:16

Pretty poorly written and researched article that , it states Sky Q only has HDMI 1.4b funny that because I could have sworn it's UHD football is 2160p at 50fps something only possible with HDMI 2.0.

OLD BOY · 12-02-2017, 11:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Pretty poorly written and researched article that , it states Sky Q only has HDMI 1.4b funny that because I could have sworn it's UHD football is 2160p at 50fps something only possible with HDMI 2.0.

http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Sky-Q/HD...R/td-p/2407745

muppetman11 · 12-02-2017, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Sky-Q/HD...R/td-p/2407745

Thanks for proving my point did you even read the link you've posted through ?

Sky Q UHD runs at 50fps as such the HDMI is 2 rather than 1.4b which it was software limited to at launch.

OLD BOY · 12-02-2017, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Thanks for proving my point did you even read the link you've posted through ?

Sky Q UHD runs at 50fps as such the HDMI is 2 rather than 1.4b which it was software limited to at launch.

Ahem, muppetman, yes of course I read the link, that's why I posted it. I thought it would provide some clarity.

Note that I did not comment on the link, so I'm not really sure I understand why you appear to be criticising me for posting it, old chap.

muppetman11 · 12-02-2017, 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Ahem, muppetman, yes of course I read the link, that's why I posted it. I thought it would provide some clarity.

Note that I did not comment on the link, so I'm not really sure I understand why you appear to be criticising me for posting it, old chap.

So you agree it's a poorly researched article ?

OLD BOY · 12-02-2017, 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

So you agree it's a poorly researched article ?

As I understand it, the Sky Q box was indeed 1.4 HDMI at launch, and this was clarified in the specification. I understand that this was always intended to be upgraded to 2.0 with a software update.

If that is the reason for you saying that the article was poorly researched, I think that is a little harsh. Was anything else wrong with that article, in your view?

muppetman11 · 12-02-2017, 15:32

You see nothing wrong

The article was written in February 2017 , Sky has been broadcasting UHD 2160p at 50fps since August 16 so clearly HDMI 2.0 , I'd say poorly written.

denphone · 12-02-2017, 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

You see nothing wrong

The article was written in February 2017 , Sky has been broadcasting UHD 2160p at 50fps since August 16 so clearly HDMI 2.0 , I'd say poorly written.

Well not often do l agree with you old bean

but you are certainly spot on with your analysis here.

OLD BOY · 12-02-2017, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

You see nothing wrong

The article was written in February 2017 , Sky has been broadcasting UHD 2160p at 50fps since August 16 so clearly HDMI 2.0 , I'd say poorly written.

I said it was 'a little harsh'. So what else was wrong with it, or are you just drawing attention to that particular issue?

If you cannot find anything else wrong with the article, then it seems to me that the Sky Q and Virgin's V6 are pretty well on a par with each other, which was the point being made. They both have their differences, which leaves people the choice to go for whichever suits them. That's a good thing, right?

muppetman11 · 12-02-2017, 16:19

Please point out where I've said one is better than the other in fact I think if you look I've actually said they are both good offerings , I'm not however sure what this has to do with my original point that the part of the article I highlighted is incorrect.

passingbat · 12-02-2017, 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Thanks for proving my point did you even read the link you've posted through ?

Sky Q UHD runs at 50fps as such the HDMI is 2 rather than 1.4b which it was software limited to at launch.

That link seems to be to an old discussion with promises rather than facts (not surprising given the age of the discussion)

I really can't see Sky dropping the ball on this one, but are there any recent specs that specifically state HDMI 2 and HDR are available on Sky Q?

muppetman11 · 12-02-2017, 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by passingbat

That link seems to be to an old discussion with promises rather than facts (not surprising given the age of the discussion)

I really can't see Sky dropping the ball on this one, but are there any recent specs that specifically state HDMI 2 and HDR are available on Sky Q?

http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...unches-1314137

As for HDR we've had no word from Sky yet although they've been actively testing it and are part of the UHD alliance so it would be strange if it doesn't.
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2015/...dynamic-range/

OLD BOY · 12-02-2017, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Please point out where I've said one is better than the other in fact I think if you look I've actually said they are both good offerings , I'm not however sure what this has to do with my original point that the part of the article I highlighted is incorrect.

Let's start again!

You have picked on one point in that article and complained that it was poorly written. All I have done is try to work out whether you see any other inaccuracies with the report and you go out of your way to avoid the question.

The position as I understand it is that the issue you have drawn attention to is just one inaccuracy in the whole report. Given that, the two boxes are pretty well on a par with each other. Given your first sentence, it seems that you agree.

Good, that's cleared that up, then!

muppetman11 · 12-02-2017, 17:03

I honestly give up

If it makes you feel better let's just say it's well written , no wonder standards of journalism are slipping with readers like you.

Let's accept we have differing expectations when it comes to facts and leave it there because I seriously lost the will to go any further.

THE END.

OLD BOY · 12-02-2017, 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I honestly give up

If it makes you feel better let's just say it's well written , no wonder standards of journalism are slipping with readers like you.

Let's accept we have differing expectations when it comes to facts and leave it there because I seriously lost the will to go any further.

THE END.

I'm not sure whether you are deliberately missing the point here. I have merely tried to establish whether you have detected more inaccuracies in the report than you have highlighted. In the absence of an answer, then I think I must conclude not.

The issue is about whether one box is better than the other. I think we agree there's not much in it.

Now, that's the end.