If that's correct, it's bad news. The quality was so bad that I checked to see if YT hadn't somehow defaulted to lowest quality - but it hadn't, it was 1080. The picture should have been a lot better on that definition. As it was, details (like player's faces at distance) looked out of focus. The commentary sound was also poor.
I hope this was just a blip. The 'normal'STV quality is far superior.
Well after listening to you whinge and whine like a Gills fan about the quality of STV highlights I went back and had another look and low and behold there was absolutely nothing wrong with them so I don't know what you were watching old bean. A trip to Specsavers may be in order.
You stoop low, Mr Sword. Very low.
But Mr STV admits as much - something about having to use a "BT standard camera" at home games. Don't pretend to understand this, it seems daft to me - pro 'standards' being lower than amateur ones... Mad.
"JDL is quite correct in what he says so best you all apologise to him."
Watching on an Amazon cheap and cheerful tablet, the picture quality was poor for me - the definition wasn't as good as usual. I often use the tablet to watch footy and cricket when the wife wants ordinary TV, and the quality is always good, so certainly seems to be something amiss.