I wouldn't take much notice of what you actually in a store as they don't bother calibrating the TV and have it on the worst setting possible. The sky thing is also a bit meh.
I saw my TV on show once and It looked awful...if I didn't have one then I would definitely not buy it looking like that.
It's when you watch a blu ray you can see the sexyness ooozing out the TV.
It always astonishes me how poorly set up TVs generally are in shops. A lot of the time they have their top of the range HD TVs showing the very low quality FTA channel Chart Show TV and it looks awful.
I wouldn't take much notice of what you actually in a store as they don't bother calibrating the TV and have it on the worst setting possible. The sky thing is also a bit meh.
I saw my TV on show once and It looked awful...if I didn't have one then I would definitely not buy it looking like that.
It's when you watch a blu ray you can see the sexynessooozing out the TV.
I wouldn't take much notice of what you actually in a store as they don't bother calibrating the TV and have it on the worst setting possible.
On the contrary, to extol the virtues of SkyHD, they need a very good quality setup to keep the HD side of the moving line as good as possible. As I say, the SD side is emulated, though they cannot emulate it to anything worse than a bad SD satellite broadcast lest they get fined by either the ASA or Ofcom for mis-representation.
Besides which, with modern TVs, the factory setup is designed to be the best quality one anyway, and the feed is all digital (via HDMI) so there's not much for shops to setup badly these days.
HD is only worthwhile if your TV is larger than 37", anything smaller than that and there is really no point. You will still get a better picture but to really see the detail and the more vibrant colors you really need the larger screen size.
I am lucky to have access to a standard definition DVD player and a Blue-Ray player. Playing the same film (different discs) on the same TV using the different players shows a total change in the viewing experience. I watch on a 42" plasma and I could tell you what was a HD channel and what was a SD channel straight away.
Sky1 SD and Sky1 HD I have noticed a BIG improvement in picture quality recently, programs like "Bones" and "Lie To Me" look great in HD.
If you have a large screen then HD is the way, if you have a small screen then don't bother.
It always astonishes me how poorly set up TVs generally are in shops. A lot of the time they have their top of the range HD TVs showing the very low quality FTA channel Chart Show TV and it looks awful.
Shops traditionally have boosted UHF wired throughout with RG-6 coax, and sometimes have a couple of satellite feeds to demo STBs.
Very newly refitted shops do sometimes have HDMI repeating (which is still very expensive), which is the only viable way to get HD demo streams from a central media PC/Bluray player to all TVs.
HD is only worthwhile if your TV is larger than 37", anything smaller than that and there is really no point. You will still get a better picture but to really see the detail and the more vibrant colors you really need the larger screen size.
I am lucky to have access to a standard definition DVD player and a Blue-Ray player. Playing the same film (different discs) on the same TV using the different players shows a total change in the viewing experience. I watch on a 42" plasma and I could tell you what was a HD channel and what was a SD channel straight away.
Sky1 SD and Sky1 HD I have noticed a BIG improvement in picture quality recently, programs like "Bones" and "Lie To Me" look great in HD.
If you have a large screen then HD is the way, if you have a small screen then don't bother.
I don't agree with that conclusion, personally. Whatever the size, the quality is still there. I could tell the difference instantly between SD and HD on a 19" screen.
BTW, this is a true comparison of non-compressed video between the different systems in the US (480i is NTSC, so it is worse than our 576i). It is a zoomed image as would appear on a full HD screen. I'd say it was a law of diminishing returns, but definitely better. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/HD_vs_SD_resolutions.png
Playing on the Xbox you really see the difference. The flames on Far Cry 2 as crystal clear and sharp, such fantastic detail. It actually took me a while to relearn my spatial awareness in some games, which meant I was once again a crap shot for a while.
One thing that annoys me with digital though is that with an analogue signal that gets disturbed, you get slight fuzzing on the screen. A disturbed digital signal is like watching a scratched DvD - it becomes unwatchable at a much higher signal strength than analogue.
I agree that there's a fad that has been going around for a while now and a big push to sell HD televisions, DVD's, broadcasting in general is apparent.
I don't agree that the differences are overrated though.
I played a few games in HD for a few weeks then had to go back to SD for a few hours when using the PS3 to the downstairs (and SD :rolleyes:) televsion.
The differences between HD and SD was instantly obvious and I hate playing games in anything but HD now.
The same thing applies to DVDs vs Blu-ray but I am inclined to watch DVDs at the moment until Blu-rays become cheaper.
I have watched all DVDs through my PS3, which is connected to a HD tv for the last two years or so. Old movies look great this way. I watched one on a regular DVD player connected via a scart lead today and the picture to me was just crap. One downside is that standard definition channels on and HD television can look appalling.
Care to explain why - that article goes quite indepth into the technical details of how a 1080p and 1080i picture are encoded and displayed - are you saying it is incorrect?
Movies are shot at 24 frames per second (we'll call it 25 for the purposes of this illustration) - therefore no matter what your TV is capable of (ignoring frame interpolation present on 100hz TVs) - all you get is 25FPS of a movie.
A 1080p TV refreshing at 50hz shows each frame twice - so essentially the movie frame is only changing every 1/25th of a second.
A 1080i TV refreshing at 50hz shows half of each frame per refresh (odd then even lines).
What this means is that each frame of the movie is shown in full every 1/25th of a second regardless of whether you have a 1080p or 1080i TV - therefore no information is lost by viewing at 1080i. The actual resolution of the movie frames is identical.
Movies are shot at 24 frames per second (we'll call it 25 for the purposes of this illustration) - therefore no matter what your TV is capable of (ignoring frame interpolation present on 100hz TVs) - all you get is 25FPS.
A 1080p TV refreshing at 50hz shows each frame twice.
A 1080i TV refreshing at 50hz shows half of each frame per refresh (odd then even lines)
What this means is that each frame of the movie is shown in full every 1/25th of a second regardless of whether you have a 1080p or 1080i TV - therefore no information is lost by viewing at 1080i. The actual resolution of the movie frames is identical.
Your correct in saying their is no res lost, but on faster programs like sport, their is a difference. In fact I would go as far as to say if you were watching sport 720p would be better. Just my opinion though.
Besides which, with modern TVs, the factory setup is designed to be the best quality one anyway, and the feed is all digital (via HDMI) so there's not much for shops to setup badly these days.
The factory set-up is usually set to be as bright as possibly compared to neighbouring TVs in store, which makes the picture look unnatural and awful.
I've seen plenty stores showing SD channels on top of the range TVs instead of showing the HD version of the same channel. (Note that some HD channels -such as Channel 4 or Sky 1- simulcast the SD content so that all of it's programming may not be in HD.)
The factory set-up is usually set to be as bright as possibly compared to neighbouring TVs in store, which makes the picture look unnatural and awful.
I've seen plenty stores showing SD channels on top of the range TVs instead of showing the HD version of the same channel. (Note that some HD channels -such as Channel 4 or Sky 1- simulcast the SD content so that all of it's programming may not be in HD.)
That's really pretty stupid considering there are channels which are perpetually HD.
The demo is to sell you it! There is a difference, but not ground breaking must have difference like black and white was to colour. I wouldn't pay extra for HD TV channels.
That's really pretty stupid considering there are channels which are perpetually HD.
Fortuantly, I'm anal enough to search for the remote and change the channel for them.
Once I was in PC World where two identical TVs were showing a HD vs SD demo. Problem was, both were showing a movie from one Blu-Ray player with one TV connected via a HDMI cable (which transmits HD quality) and the other connected via a component cable (which also transmits a HD quality -albeit slightly lower quality).
Again, being Mr Anal (that's my porn star name! ), I used the component cable to re-connect the second set via composite (which doesn't transmit HD quality). Not a perfect solution, but still better than theirs!
(I used to work as an in-store sales rep selling flat screens, so these obvious mistakes annoy me.)
I really dont see the point in HDF myself, do I really need to be able to see the blades of grass on a football pitch ? or the grouting in the wall of the Queen Vic ?
No I dont , and although my TV is HD I certainly wouldnt pay extra for any HD channels.
Comments
I saw my TV on show once and It looked awful...if I didn't have one then I would definitely not buy it looking like that.
It's when you watch a blu ray you can see the sexyness ooozing out the TV.
4444 puts down for one without delay!
On the contrary, to extol the virtues of SkyHD, they need a very good quality setup to keep the HD side of the moving line as good as possible. As I say, the SD side is emulated, though they cannot emulate it to anything worse than a bad SD satellite broadcast lest they get fined by either the ASA or Ofcom for mis-representation.
Besides which, with modern TVs, the factory setup is designed to be the best quality one anyway, and the feed is all digital (via HDMI) so there's not much for shops to setup badly these days.
I am lucky to have access to a standard definition DVD player and a Blue-Ray player. Playing the same film (different discs) on the same TV using the different players shows a total change in the viewing experience. I watch on a 42" plasma and I could tell you what was a HD channel and what was a SD channel straight away.
Sky1 SD and Sky1 HD I have noticed a BIG improvement in picture quality recently, programs like "Bones" and "Lie To Me" look great in HD.
If you have a large screen then HD is the way, if you have a small screen then don't bother.
Shops traditionally have boosted UHF wired throughout with RG-6 coax, and sometimes have a couple of satellite feeds to demo STBs.
Very newly refitted shops do sometimes have HDMI repeating (which is still very expensive), which is the only viable way to get HD demo streams from a central media PC/Bluray player to all TVs.
I don't agree with that conclusion, personally. Whatever the size, the quality is still there. I could tell the difference instantly between SD and HD on a 19" screen.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/HD_vs_SD_resolutions.png
One thing that annoys me with digital though is that with an analogue signal that gets disturbed, you get slight fuzzing on the screen. A disturbed digital signal is like watching a scratched DvD - it becomes unwatchable at a much higher signal strength than analogue.
I don't agree that the differences are overrated though.
I played a few games in HD for a few weeks then had to go back to SD for a few hours when using the PS3 to the downstairs (and SD :rolleyes:) televsion.
The differences between HD and SD was instantly obvious and I hate playing games in anything but HD now.
The same thing applies to DVDs vs Blu-ray but I am inclined to watch DVDs at the moment until Blu-rays become cheaper.
http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html
Why do you consider 1080i to be not "full HD". The broadcast resolution is identical in both cases.
1080p is better than 1080i. This is only what I have read on forums.
What you have read is incorrect:
Read the "There Is No Difference Between 1080p and 1080i" section in this article.
http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/
Well I beg to differ.
Blu-Ray and HD Games are amazing looking though.
Care to explain why - that article goes quite indepth into the technical details of how a 1080p and 1080i picture are encoded and displayed - are you saying it is incorrect?
Movies are shot at 24 frames per second (we'll call it 25 for the purposes of this illustration) - therefore no matter what your TV is capable of (ignoring frame interpolation present on 100hz TVs) - all you get is 25FPS of a movie.
A 1080p TV refreshing at 50hz shows each frame twice - so essentially the movie frame is only changing every 1/25th of a second.
A 1080i TV refreshing at 50hz shows half of each frame per refresh (odd then even lines).
What this means is that each frame of the movie is shown in full every 1/25th of a second regardless of whether you have a 1080p or 1080i TV - therefore no information is lost by viewing at 1080i. The actual resolution of the movie frames is identical.
Your correct in saying their is no res lost, but on faster programs like sport, their is a difference. In fact I would go as far as to say if you were watching sport 720p would be better. Just my opinion though.
The factory set-up is usually set to be as bright as possibly compared to neighbouring TVs in store, which makes the picture look unnatural and awful.
I've seen plenty stores showing SD channels on top of the range TVs instead of showing the HD version of the same channel. (Note that some HD channels -such as Channel 4 or Sky 1- simulcast the SD content so that all of it's programming may not be in HD.)
That's really pretty stupid considering there are channels which are perpetually HD.
Fortuantly, I'm anal enough to search for the remote and change the channel for them.
Once I was in PC World where two identical TVs were showing a HD vs SD demo. Problem was, both were showing a movie from one Blu-Ray player with one TV connected via a HDMI cable (which transmits HD quality) and the other connected via a component cable (which also transmits a HD quality -albeit slightly lower quality).
Again, being Mr Anal (that's my porn star name!
(I used to work as an in-store sales rep selling flat screens, so these obvious mistakes annoy me.)
No I dont , and although my TV is HD I certainly wouldnt pay extra for any HD channels.