If your TV is decent enough, which mine is, and it's only a high st. Panasonic Viera, the difference between HD and not HD is not worth worrying about. I have a HD DVD recorder which isn't linked up by HDMI, the picture is spot on, as is my regular TV picture. I'll be ****ed if I'm giving Sky any money for HD when I can barely tell the difference.
I have noticed that some individuals on ESB appear to have a passionate dislike for Boxnation, and I think that regardless of what the channel delivers it will never be enough. As a boxing fan with no allegiance to any one channel I simply want to see a much boxing on TV as possible, regardless of whether it's in HD or the backdrop in the studio looks better, the number one priority for me is live boxing from around the world, and as much of it as possible. To have such a strong dislike for a TV channel is irrational (it's only a TV channel for gods sake), and I can only assume that there is perhaps another agenda. There is plenty of room in the market for both Sky and Boxnation to exist, for they cater to different markets. And at the end of the day the main thing to remember is if you don't like it (and that goes for Sky, Boxnation, Primetime etc) don't subscribe, simple!
M300, you ****ing nailed it.^ Someone on here mentioned how BBC report boxing but don't show fights? Paradoxical? Hypocritical? I can stick Boxnation on any time after 12pm weekday and watch fights I might have missed in the past. I saw the last half of Appleby/Walsh last week, never seen that fight, but I've been waiting weeks to watch it. If you want to watch boxing, subscribe to BN, it's £2.50 a week, I spend that on a weekend on kebabs and daily newspapers four times over. If you're not bothered for BN or Sky for that matter, hit off on the 'leccy switch which powers your TV, and cancel any subscription you might have with either. Me, I'm on board with BN, but I crave boxing. M300, great post.:good:good:happy
I think you're right there is a difference, and with something like a wildlife documentary or a film it can really add to the experience; but I have to admit that seeing a fight in HD does not make me enjoy it anymore than if it's in standard def. Most of the greatest fights in history are in anything but HD, but I love watching them and will continue to do so. Let's be honest how many people out there have a Blu Ray player? Quite a few, but far more still have standard DVD players (that don't play films in HD) and continue to buy films on normal DVD. If HD made that much of a difference why do so many people still buy films on DVD?:think
HD would be nice (if only to stop people moaning about it!) but anyone who prioritizes it above, or even close to, what fights the channel actually shows is crazy.
I've been a BN subscriber from day one, support the format and still enjoy non HD fights but they are a specialist channel. HDs main difference is for sporting events, movies etc HD is a key element of production value as all the graphics that Sky look so much better because of the HD. They said they are recording all their stuff in HD and a summer date was mooted so hopefully that shows good intentions. In regards to DVDs I think it is purely because of how expensive Blu Rays still are. Personally, I don't buy DVDs or go to the movies anymore, I catch it all on Sky.
I'm pretty much the same mate, I re-subscribed to Sky Movies last year (after a couple of years away) and the premiers each friday aren't too long after the films have come out to buy:good I remember when Sky Movies started, and for quite some time afterwards, there were no good ones on during the days, but you can turn on 24/7 and you're almost guaranteed to find something worth watching; Anytime+ is pretty good too, there is some excellent boxing on there, loads of Hatton and Khan fights, a few Prizefighters and quite a bit more......
A Sky sales team came to my house trying to better my current broadband/TV deal, telling me they could do this and that for me and undercut anyone else. They asked me if I was interested. I looked the woman in the eye as she asked me that question and said 'no'. she asked me why...I replied 'principles' and further went on to mention how I would have nothing to do with a right-wing nation-hopping crook like Murdoch. The sooner some **** puts a bullet through Murdoch's head (Rupert, James, either, both) the better. Then take out Rebekah Brooks and any **** that has been involved with NOTW or News Corp...irrespective of how high or low they are in the corporation.