How does Vision Film compare to SkyMovies (premier...

It looks like Vision Box Office ppv films are much the same as Sky Box Office (now "Store"), but how does the free Vision Film channel compare to Sky Movies Premier? From looking at the listings it would seem that VF is some way behind Sky Premier, which means a massive gap between when films are on Box Office until they're on VF.
My reason for asking is that I generally only watch the new releases, and currently on Sky I'm happy to watch on Premier rather than paying for Sky Store as they're not too far behind (and still massively ahead of what Lovefilm can offer). From a brief view of the Vision Film listings, I can see that I'd end up buying films from Vision Box Office instead of waiting.
An alternative would have been the NOW TV subscription, but its ludicrously in SD not HD, and they've stated no plans to move to HD on YouView (only Xbox). So no way I'd pay £15pcm for SD films.

kryten22uk wrote:
It looks like Vision Box Office ppv films are much the same as Sky Box Office (now "Store"), but how does the free Vision Film channel compare to Sky Movies Premier? From looking at the listings it would seem that VF is some way behind Sky Premier, which means a massive gap between when films are on Box Office until they're on VF.
My reason for asking is that I generally only watch the new releases, and currently on Sky I'm happy to watch on Premier rather than paying for Sky Store as they're not too far behind (and still massively ahead of what Lovefilm can offer). From a brief view of the Vision Film listings, I can see that I'd end up buying films from Vision Box Office instead of waiting.
An alternative would have been the NOW TV subscription, but its ludicrously in SD not HD, and they've stated no plans to move to HD on YouView (only Xbox). So no way I'd pay £15pcm for SD films.
The movies on VF are not as new as the releases on Sky or NowTV. But even if you had NowTV the films listed on their website may not actually be on Youview for licencing reasons and may only appear on other formats.
If you want the latest movies without having to pay after they have been on box office then you may as well use Sky - if you are willing to wait for them to be released on VF then go with BT.
Also if you have the unlimited package for Vision, then you get a choice of approx 250 movies, loads of tv series and music videos included. BT stream some movies in HD, which NowTV don't and nor do Sky (you have to download films first with Sky).
Also remember to get the premiers, etc on Sky, you pay a premium for it, compared to the monthly cost of BT Youview or BT Vision

Similar Messages

How does Oracle Database compare with IBM DB2?

Hi
thank you for reading my post
How Does ORACLE Database compare with IBM DB2 ?
Which one has better performance with similar workload?
Which one perform better on System Z hardware and z/OS?
Is there any document that compare these two product?
Thanks.

Hi
The below link may useful to you.
http://www.oracle.com/technology/deploy/availability/pdf/CWP_HA_Oracle10gR2_DB28.2.pdf
With best regards
Shan

How does the x300 compare to ultraportables today?

I am thinking about getting a refurbished x300 to replace my T60. How does it compare to today's ultra-portables with regard to performance? My T60 certainly have trouble watching 1080p youtube videos, I guess I can expect the same from the x300?

performance of the X300 and X301 is way behind the current ultrabook.
X301's Intel 4500MHD GPU was designed for 1080p videos, while the X300's intel X3100 is not designed for these.
As such the X300 will lag with these 1080p videos.
Regards,
Jin Li
May this year, be the year of 'DO'!
I am a volunteer, and not a paid staff of Lenovo or Microsoft

HT4381 Purchased Apple TV 1/13//12. It updated on 3/8/12. How does it now compare with the latest Apple TV release?

Purchased Apple TV 1/13//12. It updated on 3/8/12. How does it compare to the "new" Apple TV?

Thank you.

How does Macbook Pro compare to G4/800 Powermac

I currently have a G4/800 Quicksilver Powermac with 1Gb of memory, two 7200rpm hard drives, and a ATI RAdeon 7500 GPU with 32Mb of RAM.
I mainly use my computer for amateur photograph editing (Photoshop elements) and video-editing (imovie and Final cut express), and I play the occasional game (older games like wolfenstein, medal of honor, warcraft 3). I've read a lot on this forum about how crappy the GMA in the macbook is, but to give me an idea, how does it compare to my equally crappy ATI radeon 7500 ? Would the macbook be ok to play games like C&C generals, Homeworld 2 and other 3D strategy games ? I like the occasional 3D shooter but I don't need the graphical splendour of Quake 4. And I've read that Final Cut pro has some issues with the macbook but I suppose Final cut express would be ok ?
How would the 2Gh Macbook compare to my G4 Quicksilver speedwise overall (I would max out the ram in the macbook) ?
G4/800 QS - G3/400 Pismo PB Mac OS X (10.3.9)
G4/800 QS - G3/400 Pismo PB Mac OS X (10.3.9)

I dunno your asking a MBP question in the MacBook
forum.
Try asking in the correct forum.
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that the MBP
would be faster then the QS on all accounts even when
running photoshop (which would run under rosetta).
The G4 has faster drives going for it, but overall
the MBP specs are superior to the g4 so my vote is
that yuor going to see an improvement. The only
suggestion I'd give is boost the ram to at least a
gig and your doing a lot of photoshop work,then get
1.5 to 2.0 gig.
Mike
Sorry, I actually meant the Macbook.

How does time capsule compare to a different external drive

how does time capsule cpmpare to other external drives used to perform backups with time machine?

Hi space needle,
Thank you for posting on the Adobe forums, please help us with the information listed below for further assistance on this.
1) which Application are you trying to install?
2) Operating System you are working on
3) Method of installation (customized or the standard installation)
Thanks,
Vikrantt Singh

How Does iTunes AAC Compare to Amazon MP3?

I haven't had an opportunity to try Amazon's MP3 downloads but did note that they are cheaper for selections across the board. They advertise that the MP3s are 256K which would seem better than the 128K AAC that iTunes offers. I was just wondering how the Amazon tracks compare to the standard DRM iTunes tracks in terms of quality? I do like iTunes Plus tracks which are virtually indistinguishable from a CD to me. However, until iTunes can get all the tracks upgraded to the Plus standard (256K AAC), I was thinking of just purchasing from Amazon. Opinions?

I have already purchased a large number of songs/albums from Amazon as I have found things on Amazon that aren't available in iT Plus versions in the store. For me, I can tell a huge difference between Amazon files & the standard 128 protected files from the iTunes store. I find the difference to be indistinguishable between the iT Plus files & Amazon. I use Bose Companion 5 speakers on my computer & Shure SE310 earphones on my Classic, so the 128 files are very noticeable. Hope this helps.

How does mac mini compare to PPC G5?

My company runs PowerPC G5s dual 2GHz/1GB RAM OS 10.4.11. We are looking to upgrade to CS5 which requires Intel Macs and we don't need the expansion capability of a tower, we recently purchased new 24" LaCie monitors, so we don't need monitors -- how do the mac minis compare? We use QuarkXPress, Illustrator, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, MSOffice, Entourage, FileMaker Pro.
I'm considering the 2.66GHz/8GB RAM/320HD -- don't need alot of internal storage because we are on a Windows network.

I replaced my 2004 PowerMac G5 dual 2Ghz with a Mac mini server and it's been great. I got the most recent server with two internal hard drives and set them up as a RAID stripe. I added an external blu-ray player / dvd burner. It worked out to be a better bargain that way. I couldn't find the benchmarks I recorded at the time but you can browse the geekbench results which is always helpful. They show 1734 for your G5 while the mini is scored at 3634 so that is twice as fast! Geekbench only measures CPU and doesn't account for graphics performance. The mini does use shared memory but I've not found it to be a problem. I really like the mini's ultra low power usage compared to the G5.
You still get dual threads but an iMac would be much better in terms of threads but I know you'd rather use your monitors. Cost vs performance the iMac is a much better deal, I actually got an iMac but returned multiple due to the 'yellow tinge' problem and decided to get the mini instead. Apple may put a newer Core chip in on the next mini refresh which would likely double the performance.

Awaiting my Apple TV - How does WiFi reception compare to your Macs?

My Apple TV is due to arrive Monday. So happy to finally be getting one. I have lots of videos, music, and podcasts ready in iTunes!
Unfortunately, my living room is the opposite of the house, from my airport express. Today I was doing some testing with my Powerbook at that far corner where the Apple TV will be.
The Powerbook steamed videos up to about 2200kbps without much problem. Things greater than that wasn't too successful.
Would this be a good comparison to how the Apple TV will do, since I had my Powerbook the same distance from the AE, or might the Apple TV do a little better, since it's specifically designed for this and also has more power than my Powerbook.
Final question: How do you guys find the airport reception compares on the Apple TV to your Macs? I'm hoping maybe the Apple TV has a bit stronger signal than my Powerbook resulting in ability to stream even higher bitrate stuff.
Thanks for your help. I know I should buy a new wireless N Airport, but I'd prefer to wait a couple months and save up for it.

Actually you are quite right, I spoke without thinking. I would think it is mostly aluminium actually, although from an external appearance only the edges are Aluminium, the top is plastic and the bottom is a sort of rubber. I understand the casing is also the units heat sink so I'm guessin' it's aluminium under the plastic and rubber.
However all that said. While I was waiting for my tv's I did much the same as you with my MBP (Aluminium) and my sons MB (plastic), at the time I got surprisingly better results on the MB and when the tv's came I found I got as good as a connection as I got with the MB (couldn't really tell if it was better, it did the job though), whereas the MBP had struggled in these places.

How does my system compare to more up to date systems?

I was just curious as to how you experts feel my system compares to what is out there now?
Is my system obsolete already or does it still have a few years of life left?
Would an additional 512 MB of RAM help much or not?
Thanks
Mike

Quote from: Richard on 14-July-05, 20:57:27
Mike,
It is a Thermaltake Heatsink and Fan:
Thermaltake Silent Boost 80mm Ball Cooling Fan
But I still prefer the Polo 735 since it will let you upgrade to an Athlon64.
Richard
I went back and found this thread because my computer kept shutting down tonight and I thought it was the PS at first. Then I pulled it out and looked at the Mobo and saw that the CPU fan was not spinning.
It was hot on the heatsink too.
So I found this thread and got the name of this cooler and went out to Fry's Electronics and bought me a Silent Boost.
Now I am up and running again.......hopefully.
Mike

How does new MB compare to old MBP?

Hi Guys,
In April of this year I bought a new MBP. I believe it to have the Penryn processor (whatever that means) and the multi-touch track pad. I miss the smaller footprint and lighter weight of my previous black MacBook.
I was just wondering how the specs of the new aluminium MacBook compare with my MBP. I currently have 2.4GHz Intel core 2 Duo, 4GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDram, 3MB L2 cache, bus speed 800MHz, GeForce 8600M GT graphics with 256MB Vram with a 200GB hard drive.
The new MacBook is 2.4GHZ, 2GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDram (though I could up the ram to 4GB), 3MB L2 cache, not sure of the bus speed, GeForce 9400M graphics with 256MB SDram and a 250GB hard drive.
Most of these details are very similar, but I don't know how much difference there is between 667MHz and 1066MHz, DDR2 and DDR3 SDram, and the 8600M GT processor with Vram verses the 9400M with SDram.
I am not concerned about the FireWire issue.
Any help from the enlightened ones would be most welcome.
Cheers

Hi,
I don't have neither Pro nor MacBook Al (yet, it's on the way), so I can't give you first hand answer. However you can compare benchmarks done by macworld.com.
Unfortunately, you have to go first to this website to see MacBook Al performance
http://www.macworld.com/article/136214/2008/10/macbookbenchmarks.html?t=201
and then to this one in order to compare with yours
http://www.macworld.com/article/132407/2008/03/macbookprocore2duo.html
Hope it gives you a bit more info.
Cheers.

How does my MacPro compare with new iMacs spec wise?

I'm thinking of upgrading to a new iMac, I have a MacPro that is about 5-yrs old. Just curious, how do the specs on my MacPro compare with the specs available on the new iMacs? Will I notice a big difference in performance, OR are the upgrade processors and graphics card only going to result in minor performance increases?
Model Name:   Mac Pro
Model Identifier:     MacPro1,1
Processor Name:       Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed:      3 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores:        4
L2 Cache (per processor):     4 MB
Memory:       3 GB
Bus Speed:    1.33 GHz
Thanks!

I *think* you'll see a speed increase. You'll have more ram to start with, a faster bus, a faster graphics card, (i think) and on top of all of that a nicer screen, you'll be able to sell the mac pro to offset the cost, a bigger hard drive(probably) a new warranty.....and on and on. See why I say it's not so cut and dried?

How does Motion 2 compare to After Effects?

I have used After Effects in school but now that I am using FCP instead of AVID I was thinking that it'd probably be a good idea to switch over.
I mainly want to use Motion 2 for adding filter effects and transistions to my videos. Is the connectivity between FCP and Motion such a boon that I should learn how to use it?
From messing around in Motion I've found that it seems much more complicated than After Effects and a bit more unwieldy (but I've barely scratched the surface).
When I looked at what has been added in Motion 3 I was a bit upset that I bought FCS1 a couple months before 2 came out. Motion 3 seems to be much improved, but alas, it's too late.

I agree. I too am in the job market and find that there are more jobs that ask for After FX experience than Motion. Having learned both, I made the decision of just working with Motion and developing my skills to a higher level.
Motion is way more enjoyable to work with. I produce faster with it and it does just about everything that After FX can do. If it doesn't...I go to Shake 4.1. Shake has a much better keyer than After FX. You can combine Primate and Keylight together and get much better results than After FX. I even like the work flow better in Shake than I do in After FX.
I find that, for some reason, I am more creative in Motion than After Effects. It just flows nicer for me I quess. As far as intergration with Flash, there honestly isn't that much difference. While After FX imports and exports .swf and .flv files....Motion or should I say Quicktime exports to .flv. Both produce large file sizes...I think Motion was a few kb smaller than After FX....I usually end up exporting small image sequences with a alpha channel into Flash. Both Motion and After Effects export image sequences.
Once Motion 3 is out and stable, I think the gap will be alot closer to After FX. I am going to the Final Cut Studio 2 on tour in NYC on Tues, I'll be sure to ask about cast shadows! How can you leave that out?
As far as getting jobs, I want to find a company that uses Macs and Final Cut in their workflow. Companies that use PC have no choice but to use After FX....Who wants to work on a PC!
Best Regards,
Ed
Powerbook 15" 1.67 GHz Mac OS X (10.4.9) Maxed out!

How does Mac Pro compare to iMac?

Ok I'm Pisssed!
I just bought a mac pro with AMD FirePro D700 6144 MB to photo editing. I noticed that it's a bit sluggish with my 4k Dell monitor. I figured what I can do I already have the best mac there is guess I'll have to live with it.
And then BAM, the new iMac comes out with AMD Radeon R9 M295X. Will it perform better with photo editing?

Actually you are wrong.
You can change CPU in mac pro, but you cannot fit inside anything better or newer as you are limited to specific TDP and chipset. For instance, putting in new generation of xeon won't give you TB3 support and so on. It can also lead to instability of the system overall. So in basic words: you shouldn't change CPU you already have inside so no CPU upgrade there as well.
Also iMac is much better in single core performance than mac pro and 99% of applications don't use more than 2 cores and even if they do those actions are not so critical (rendering where you can wait or go get one coffee meantime,...) compared to for instance 3D modelling or animation, where you need smooth rendering and good CPU real-time computation.
Also new radeon R9 M290X and M295X is much better supported from AMD side and also in windows. We all know OS X 3D performance is miserable compared to windows and having one year old drivers for mac pro GPU's (13.25 version) compared to newest radeon drivers (14.9).
In addition to all, 4K monitors are very poorly supported on mac pro. For example sometimes when I start OS X half of the screen remains black on my dell UP2414Q and only solution is to restart my computer again. Dell says that they haven't tested with apple hardware and it should be apple to fix this while apple says dell should fix it while customers remain in the dark and with poor support. Thank you dell and apple.
And there is more bad news for apple: adobe has started to shift their support to nvidia and windows system as Illustrator CC2014.2 now supports hardware accelerated graphics rendering with nvidia GPU on windows! And even more, new GTX980 beats any AMD cards on the market and AMD probably won't make anything better because they can't. I never understood apple latest fascination with AMD. AMD is the worst company for GPU's and their support is so bad I'm considering selling my mac pro.
The release of new iMac with 5K was a big slap in the face of professional apple customers who paid big money for their pro machine which can only run final cut pro X in it's full power. Any other software is unable to utilize all that "power" that apple put into mac pro. It's a big shame and a good waste of money to have just a nice room warmer.
Instead of fixing old things apple went and made new version of consumer class PC that is better or at least equivalent to pro class PC's the sell.
What apple need to fix is:
-10-bit support for displays. I don't know why we throw so much money on good displays when computer only outputs 8bit at the end.
-drop AMD and pick up nvidia cards. Apple already supports openCL 1.2 with nvidia cards under OS X and nvidia offers physX and CUDA in addition to only openCL that AMD offers. Also nvidia drivers are much more stable and performance of nvidia cards is better in all aspects.
-give more support to developers like adobe and others to upgrade their software to take advantage of GPU's we throw so much money on. What good is it to have a good computer and then software that can't even use that computer in it full potential except only few operations while majority of operations are still slow and laggy.
-give better support for 3D under OS X. Right now I'm watching like 9-30 FPS in Maya and Unity, and sometimes I even run some games to free my mind. WoW hardly reaches 60FPS on low settings while under windows bootcamp on same hardware I can get easily 60FPS! OS X still only has openGL 4.1, while we have there 4.3 and 4.4 GPU's out.
There has been almost one year since the release of this mac pro and nothing pretty much changed. This "pro" computer is actually pretty slow compared to what competition offers and the only good thing on mac is now the friendliness of OS X, stability and good integration with everything which windows lacks. But overall it's a very slow system to work on. Apple promised much but we got nothing of it except high price tag and a lot of lost nerves!
I'm very very disappointed in apple right now and really considering switching back to normal PC where at least I get latest drivers for everything and things at least runs at normal frame rate I can work with.
And don't even let me start on new Yosemite "flat" look which they obviously copied from windows and it is ugly as ****. Instead of changing icons they should fix old mac problems and give us professionals more to work with. In reality we get slapped and pushed on the edge. Don't try and make professional multimedia computer if you can't support it!

How does Lion performance compare to SL on 4gb "late 2010" MBA?

I'm getting my ducks in order to upgrade my MBA ("late 2010 model") from Snow Leopard to Lion. I have the 4gb model.
An Apple Tech person said that he was holding off from doing this upgrade on his own MBA because Lion is really slow on a MBA with only 4gb (which is the max.).
What has been your experience with Lion on a MBA?
And, with Mt. Lion so close do you think that is going to be better? (or worse??) Should I wait for 10.8?
Thanks!

I'm using the 2010 model with that same SSD. It's easier to replace than a standard hard drive as there's only a single screw holding it in. It's literally maybe a 5 minute job. Take the screws off the base... pop the cover off.... take the screw out holding in the SSD and remove it from the slot.
I haven't had any problems.
Thanks for this info. I think I'll give it a shot.
I haven't looked in a while, so there may be something out there now that will let you use the SSD in an external enclosure (there wasn't back when I did the swap).
The OWT site now offers an enclosure. [see: OWC Mercury On-The-Go USB 3.0/2.0 External Enclosure for Apple MacBook Air 2010 & 2011 Flash Storage Item Number: OWCSSDAPOTGU3]
That was one thing that helped make this idea attractive (hate to waste a perfectly good drive!!). They even sweeten the deal by offering the enclosure half price if you buy it when you purchase the SDD (making the enclosure around $36).

How does Vision Film compare to SkyMovies (premier...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for