There's still huuuuge confusion in my family about it.
I think because of the digital switch over coming at the same sort of time as HD is confusing people into thinking that HD's coming and SD is suddenly going.
Both of my grandparents got new tellys recently and claimed the picture was soo much better now it was in HD. The problem was it wasn't, they were just watching standard definition on a new telly and had fooled themselves into thinking the picture was better.
Likewise they were also convinced that getting freesat was essential and that they were watching a picture using Freesat. Unfortunately they were still using the Digital tuner - the satellite connection wasn't even plugged in.
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.
No you can't !! You are being taken in by the hype. It is not possible (with human eyes) to differenciate between SD and HD on a 19" screen.
What you are perhaps seeing is low quality SD - which is eveything from mobile phone footage upwards - and HD which is better than SD.
As a previous poster said, SD (as in good quality SD) when viewed on a screen of 37" or less looks fine. HD only matters if: You have a big screen or You sit unnaturally close to your TV and watch the pixels rather than the programmes or you believe the hype (if it's digital it must be better/i-pods sound as good as cd's etc. etc)
HD broadcast quality is only going to decrease as more and more bandwidth gets used up.
They'll obviously have to provide more bandwidth, otherwise, people will just end up terminating their High Definition service and will just make do with the Standard Definition services.
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.
Well, really, it's only 3 times as better, because 3x640 is 1920. 3x doesn't really sound much. If they made it so it was, say, 10x, now this would be something to see. I've seen a High Definition broadcast and wasn't THAT impressed with it. Films on Blu Ray might very well be a whole lot better.
I saw a bit of Dr Who in HD, on a large plasma tv. have to say...you could see the pores (or close to) on his face. wasn't bad
Ah, yeah. I could see a lot of stuff I couldn't see with the Standard Definition I've got, but it still didn't meet with what I was expecting though. I personally think that they hyped this High Definition up too much.
No you can't !! You are being taken in by the hype. It is not possible (with human eyes) to differenciate between SD and HD on a 19" screen.
Um, why not? I work for a company which designs set-top-box decoder chips, and we have a large range of screens in the building, but there isn't space for everyone to have a 37" TV on their desk, so most people have smaller ~19" screens to do development on, and I can tell you that even on those, the difference between SD and HD test streams is still very noticable.
Theoretically and empirically, the difference is not a function of screen size at all!
No you can't !! You are being taken in by the hype. It is not possible (with human eyes) to differenciate between SD and HD on a 19" screen.
Well that depends on the screen you are viewing it on, surely?
I can tell the difference between an SD resolution video running on my 13 inch Macbook and an HD resolution video on it. The pixel density of my screen is 1280 x 800.... Its not a great deal better, but there is a certain sharpness in the image compared to the SD version.
HD is significantly better than SD. I was sceptical at first, but comparing BBC1 and BBC HD when they're both showing the same thing shows a noticeable difference. I have a 37" screen and it's only 720p.
Some programs do look bad, like Star Wars, which was recently shown on ITV HD. I believe this is because it was upscaled.
Some look great though, like Wimbledon last year, where you could see individual blades of grass or David Attenborough's Life series.
Some might think it is pointless having the extra detail, but overall it just makes things look more real.
Some programs do look bad, like Star Wars, which was recently shown on ITV HD. I believe this is because it was upscaled.
Since Lucasfilm hasn't done an HD print of any of the Star Wars films, what ITV would've showed on HD would certainly have been upscaled.
What really strikes me is the appallingly low bitrates that both BBC and ITV transmit SD in on Freeview and Sky. Watching Brazil v England on both ITV Freeview and ITV Sky was terrible. Every Sunday night when I watch La Liga games on Sky Sports, it's like watching HD because Sky transmit their own SD channels in a far higher bitrate.
SD at a decently high bitrate is perfectly good on a 37" LCD and 42" at a stretch. When analogue is switched off and people are made to pay a licence fee for the BBC's terrible quality Freeview output, SD bitrates will have to increase, leading to even far less appetite for broadcast HD than there is now.
Since Lucasfilm hasn't done an HD print of any of the Star Wars films, what ITV would've showed on HD would certainly have been upscaled.
What really strikes me is the appallingly low bitrates that both BBC and ITV transmit SD in on Freeview and Sky. Watching Brazil v England on both ITV Freeview and ITV Sky was terrible. Every Sunday night when I watch La Liga games on Sky Sports, it's like watching HD because Sky transmit their own SD channels in a far higher bitrate.
SD at a decently high bitrate is perfectly good on a 37" LCD and 42" at a stretch. When analogue is switched off and people are made to pay a licence fee for the BBC's terrible quality Freeview output, SD bitrates will have to increase, leading to even far less appetite for broadcast HD than there is now.
What do you mean by an HD print?, film is much higer resolution than HD
No you can't !! You are being taken in by the hype. It is not possible (with human eyes) to differenciate between SD and HD on a 19" screen.
What you are perhaps seeing is low quality SD - which is eveything from mobile phone footage upwards - and HD which is better than SD.
As a previous poster said, SD (as in good quality SD) when viewed on a screen of 37" or less looks fine. HD only matters if: You have a big screen or You sit unnaturally close to your TV and watch the pixels rather than the programmes or you believe the hype (if it's digital it must be better/i-pods sound as good as cd's etc. etc)
Well that's quite odd. Last year I downloaded an HD episode of Torchwood and watched it on my 4 year old Dell CRT monitor. I was stunned at the picture quality difference compared to 'regular' episodes. The difference was extremely obvious
Since Lucasfilm hasn't done an HD print of any of the Star Wars films, what ITV would've showed on HD would certainly have been upscaled.
What really strikes me is the appallingly low bitrates that both BBC and ITV transmit SD in on Freeview and Sky. Watching Brazil v England on both ITV Freeview and ITV Sky was terrible. Every Sunday night when I watch La Liga games on Sky Sports, it's like watching HD because Sky transmit their own SD channels in a far higher bitrate.
SD at a decently high bitrate is perfectly good on a 37" LCD and 42" at a stretch. When analogue is switched off and people are made to pay a licence fee for the BBC's terrible quality Freeview output, SD bitrates will have to increase, leading to even far less appetite for broadcast HD than there is now.
I watch La Liga matches, and to be honest with you, I don't think I can agree that they are anywhere near HD quality. In fact most seem worse than normal SD.
On broadcast tv, some things in HD are better than others. You can see the difference a lot more on distance camera shots, like a crowd of people at distance. You can see this difference even on smaller sets. But up close, say a studio situation the difference is less visible. Even on a brand new 32inch Sony the difference in such an example is not that massive.
Another point is that not all SD channels or source material is of equal quality. Some of it is quite poor, so put this up against any HD picture and HD wins everytime. But much of the modern SD material, such as the new series of Dr Who is filmed in HD to begin with. Using the same tv, I dont expect there will be much difference between the SD signal and HD signal, when its shown tonight. Same goes for the new series of TopGear (also tonight, and much of that is studio based as well, so not much scope for the HD *WOW* factor).
People also go on about how CRTs are better than LCD. Again this depends on the CRT and the LCD. I know several examples of where people have changed from an older CRT set to an LCD one. Where the CRT was modern and of good quality the move to LCD provides a similar quality. Where the CRT was very, very old and of poor quality the move to LCD provided a very significant boost to picture quality, even in SD mode.
DVD played on a HD Ready tv will work very well, better than SD tv on a HD tv. Reason is that DVD has a lot more data on the disc than you get in the broadcast signal. Much higher bit rate, much less compression. But some of the end result depends on the quality of the source material. For example, old snowy black and white tv series dont look brand new - they are limited to how they were made. Putting them on DVD doesnt resolve this.
BluRay has a massive capacity per disc, so they can stuff a HD film on it with minimal compression. Massive data, massive bit rates. Much better than broadcast HD. This is why BluRay has that extra quality that you dont get via hd braodcast tv. I expect that as we get old stuff put on BluRay, people will complain about the lack of quality. Like with DVD, if the original source is rubbish, simply putting it on HD BluRay wont change that.
There is a difference although some people do not see it. I am getting my eyes tuned to the differences now and I can actually tell now if I am watching a program on an SD channel and that it has been recorded in HD. Even at standard definition there is a difference. Maybe this is my sky HD box upscaling the standard definition picture I don't know. As an example, wehn Larkrise to Candleford was on I did not realise it was also on BBC HD at the same time. I was watching it on normal BBC1 and I could tell it was recorded in HD and immediately I checked BBC HD channel and sure enough it was airing on there aswell.
It is more than just picture sharpness and detail. HD pictures that are done properly (as in Larkrise to Candleford) have an almost 3D feel to them. The picture is not flat - ln a normal program items in the foreground are flat alongside items in the distance. But with HD, items in the foreground, for example a person will stand out more and will actually appear to have depth when against an item in the background like the horizon, or a building behind them.
I have tried to explain best I can with this but it is very difficult I feel to put into words so I hope people understand my ramblings.
Comments
I think because of the digital switch over coming at the same sort of time as HD is confusing people into thinking that HD's coming and SD is suddenly going.
Both of my grandparents got new tellys recently and claimed the picture was soo much better now it was in HD. The problem was it wasn't, they were just watching standard definition on a new telly and had fooled themselves into thinking the picture was better.
Likewise they were also convinced that getting freesat was essential and that they were watching a picture using Freesat. Unfortunately they were still using the Digital tuner - the satellite connection wasn't even plugged in.
No you can't !! You are being taken in by the hype. It is not possible (with human eyes) to differenciate between SD and HD on a 19" screen.
What you are perhaps seeing is low quality SD - which is eveything from mobile phone footage upwards - and HD which is better than SD.
As a previous poster said, SD (as in good quality SD) when viewed on a screen of 37" or less looks fine. HD only matters if: You have a big screen or You sit unnaturally close to your TV and watch the pixels rather than the programmes or you believe the hype (if it's digital it must be better/i-pods sound as good as cd's etc. etc)
They'll obviously have to provide more bandwidth, otherwise, people will just end up terminating their High Definition service and will just make do with the Standard Definition services.
Well, really, it's only 3 times as better, because 3x640 is 1920. 3x doesn't really sound much. If they made it so it was, say, 10x, now this would be something to see. I've seen a High Definition broadcast and wasn't THAT impressed with it. Films on Blu Ray might very well be a whole lot better.
Ah, yeah. I could see a lot of stuff I couldn't see with the Standard Definition I've got, but it still didn't meet with what I was expecting though. I personally think that they hyped this High Definition up too much.
Um, why not? I work for a company which designs set-top-box decoder chips, and we have a large range of screens in the building, but there isn't space for everyone to have a 37" TV on their desk, so most people have smaller ~19" screens to do development on, and I can tell you that even on those, the difference between SD and HD test streams is still very noticable.
Theoretically and empirically, the difference is not a function of screen size at all!
Well that depends on the screen you are viewing it on, surely?
I can tell the difference between an SD resolution video running on my 13 inch Macbook and an HD resolution video on it. The pixel density of my screen is 1280 x 800.... Its not a great deal better, but there is a certain sharpness in the image compared to the SD version.
But I personaly dont put the TV on to see someones pores, I want to see the acting and storyline.
Mmm, you see, I'm more in it for the pores.
Now why doesnt that surprise me
Some programs do look bad, like Star Wars, which was recently shown on ITV HD. I believe this is because it was upscaled.
Some look great though, like Wimbledon last year, where you could see individual blades of grass or David Attenborough's Life series.
Some might think it is pointless having the extra detail, but overall it just makes things look more real.
Since Lucasfilm hasn't done an HD print of any of the Star Wars films, what ITV would've showed on HD would certainly have been upscaled.
What really strikes me is the appallingly low bitrates that both BBC and ITV transmit SD in on Freeview and Sky. Watching Brazil v England on both ITV Freeview and ITV Sky was terrible. Every Sunday night when I watch La Liga games on Sky Sports, it's like watching HD because Sky transmit their own SD channels in a far higher bitrate.
SD at a decently high bitrate is perfectly good on a 37" LCD and 42" at a stretch. When analogue is switched off and people are made to pay a licence fee for the BBC's terrible quality Freeview output, SD bitrates will have to increase, leading to even far less appetite for broadcast HD than there is now.
What do you mean by an HD print?, film is much higer resolution than HD
2) LCD televisions and SD looks terrible.
> exploit the public time
3) LCD televisions and HD goes hand in hand
It's more than three times. You're only thinking in one dimension. It's over six times.
SD = 307,200 pixels.
HD = 2,073,600 pixels.
HD on CRT TVs looks fine too.
I watch La Liga matches, and to be honest with you, I don't think I can agree that they are anywhere near HD quality. In fact most seem worse than normal SD.
Another point is that not all SD channels or source material is of equal quality. Some of it is quite poor, so put this up against any HD picture and HD wins everytime. But much of the modern SD material, such as the new series of Dr Who is filmed in HD to begin with. Using the same tv, I dont expect there will be much difference between the SD signal and HD signal, when its shown tonight. Same goes for the new series of TopGear (also tonight, and much of that is studio based as well, so not much scope for the HD *WOW* factor).
People also go on about how CRTs are better than LCD. Again this depends on the CRT and the LCD. I know several examples of where people have changed from an older CRT set to an LCD one. Where the CRT was modern and of good quality the move to LCD provides a similar quality. Where the CRT was very, very old and of poor quality the move to LCD provided a very significant boost to picture quality, even in SD mode.
DVD played on a HD Ready tv will work very well, better than SD tv on a HD tv. Reason is that DVD has a lot more data on the disc than you get in the broadcast signal. Much higher bit rate, much less compression. But some of the end result depends on the quality of the source material. For example, old snowy black and white tv series dont look brand new - they are limited to how they were made. Putting them on DVD doesnt resolve this.
BluRay has a massive capacity per disc, so they can stuff a HD film on it with minimal compression. Massive data, massive bit rates. Much better than broadcast HD. This is why BluRay has that extra quality that you dont get via hd braodcast tv. I expect that as we get old stuff put on BluRay, people will complain about the lack of quality. Like with DVD, if the original source is rubbish, simply putting it on HD BluRay wont change that.
I have a Bush HD Freesat receiver and when I switch from a prog that is on say BBC2 and BBC HD at the same time they look the same to me.
It is more than just picture sharpness and detail. HD pictures that are done properly (as in Larkrise to Candleford) have an almost 3D feel to them. The picture is not flat - ln a normal program items in the foreground are flat alongside items in the distance. But with HD, items in the foreground, for example a person will stand out more and will actually appear to have depth when against an item in the background like the horizon, or a building behind them.
I have tried to explain best I can with this but it is very difficult I feel to put into words so I hope people understand my ramblings.