3D will never (in our generation) become mainstream TV. It's really just a gimmick, OK niche, I'll be kind.
If they want it to be something to shout about it'd help if they put films like Up and Avatar out on Blu-ray in 3D. I saw an ad for a 3D-capable TV which had a clip of Avatar superimposed on it as if it was linking the two together, but had a disclaimer at the bottom about Avatar's lack of 3D availability.
They had a 3D TV in Curry's the other week and I found this very poor.
I don't know if it was set up right.
But as soon as I put the glasses on I got a headache.
The people who work in Currys are as dumb as a chimp so it's bound to be wrongly set-up. Look at all the widescreen TVs which have (or had, for who've already gone through DSO) analogue 4:3 and 14:9 images stretched across a 16:9 screen?
One time I was in Currys I overheard a sales drone say to someone, "Look at that analogue picture. It's like it's got clingfilm all over the screen... now imagine *removing* the clingfilm.... THAT'S DIGITAL!"
I almost burst out laughing loud enough to waken the dead!
I don't watch SKY ONE normally but the latest season of Law and Order is on and I watch it live.
I'm just sick and bloody tired of HD being constantly advertised.
Even Hallmark are getting on my nerves with this HD shit, I can just about afford SKY+ and when my mother croaks I will have to get rid SKY altogether and use freeview.
Even the programs on TV have HD banners....
As somebody who has HD but no HD pack just free channels I get sick of Sky saying switch to a channel to watch HD.
Plus they have started the 3D thing on Sky Sports. I think they do mention it a bit much where as other broadcasters just mention it briefly.
Never spend more than about £15-£20 on an HDMI cable. Anything more is a waste of money and will not make any difference. Anyone who says their HDMI cable will "give you more colours" or anything is talking crap.
HDMI is digital, the signal is perfect or it isn't. And magazines have tested a £15 HDMI from Tesco at 6.5 mb and had zero errors.
If you need to run a HDMI for twenty or thirty feet then may be worth spending more. Otherwise don't.
Many shows will push expensive HDMI cables because they make a fortune from them.
I bought a 1.2m cable for less than a fiver from Amazon. I wouldn't spend even £15 unless it had to be long enough to trail around the house (to justify the price.... but then you wouldn't have such a long cable anyway)
I have Virgin HD and a 32" Samsung TV and I genuinely cannot see a huge difference between HD/SD, It is clearer but I just don't understand these claims about 'upto' 5 times better picture quality, maybe 'upto' is the pertinent part of the claim. I certainly would not pay a premium for HD.
Given that Sky reduced their analogue quality when they were plugging Sky Digital, and BBC dropped their SD satellite quality several years before they started plugging HD, and the BBC have downgraded their HD pictures already, as well as their DAB quality on stations like Radio 3, why should I invest when they're all being so crap about how they go about it?
It is a tad annoying that Sky always seem to save Sky One HD first instead of Sky One and Sky Sports 1/2/3/4 HD instead of Sky Sports 1/2/3/4.
During the last football season, Sky started making sure that events were advertised as being on its HD channels before mentioning they were also available in standard def.
It seems to me that Sky are paving the way for a quick turn off of its SD broadcasts, and will force its subscribers to pay a higher charge for HD whether they want it or not.
Sky customers are nothing but walking wallets to be fleeced by Murdoch at his discretion. All Premier League football matches, along with most other sports, are shown live on the internet for free.
During the last football season, Sky started making sure that events were advertised as being on its HD channels before mentioning they were also available in standard def.
It seems to me that Sky are paving the way for a quick turn off of its SD broadcasts, and will force its subscribers to pay a higher charge for HD whether they want it or not.
Sky customers are nothing but walking wallets to be fleeced by Murdoch at his discretion. All Premier League football matches, along with most other sports, are shown live on the internet for free.
IMO 3D is better suited for the cinema, not tv. 3Dtv seems a gimmick at the moment, although I am sure Sky hopes it will be popular, so they can sell Sky 3D.
As someone who doesn't watch football, what is the big deal about it being in 3D? Why is it a revolution?
During the last football season, Sky started making sure that events were advertised as being on its HD channels before mentioning they were also available in standard def.
It seems to me that Sky are paving the way for a quick turn off of its SD broadcasts, and will force its subscribers to pay a higher charge for HD whether they want it or not.
They have stopped installing digiboxes and Sky+ boxes now in favour of HD ones so that sounds a fair statement.
Personally I feel SD has a future as not every channel needs HD and the extra cost.
Given that Sky reduced their analogue quality when they were plugging Sky Digital, and BBC dropped their SD satellite quality several years before they started plugging HD, and the BBC have downgraded their HD pictures already, as well as their DAB quality on stations like Radio 3, why should I invest when they're all being so crap about how they go about it?
Anyone notice how the BBC and ITV SD bitrate on both Freeview and Sky seemed to improve markedly during the World Cup?
Now it's gone back to being complete cack again.
Besides, I think most of us have cottoned on to the reality of their not being either enough money or space within the MUXs to have a decent quality SD picture. Plus there's always the benefit of deliberately making SD so bad that people have little choice but to pay through the nose for HD.
Really? Who's been tried and found guilty in a court of law?
No one has been done for it, but that doesn't mean the sites are legal. I am sure Sky would like to stop them doing the streaming, but they cannot do anything about it.
You just carry on giving ever increasing amounts of your money to Uncle Rupert. I'm sure it makes you happy.
What has it got to do with you if I have Sky or not? I never said it was wrong for people to view it, just pointed out it was Illegal streaming. If it is that legal to view it, how come it isn't advertised?
Besides, I think most of us have cottoned on to the reality of their not being either enough money or space within the MUXs to have a decent quality SD picture. Plus there's always the benefit of deliberately making SD so bad that people have little choice but to pay through the nose for HD.
We were told that one of the reasons for switching to digital was the improved picture quality. However, the powers that be at Freeview, or was that the mux operators, decided to squeeze as many channels in as possible which basically gives picture quality no better than analogue at best.
I don't think that this was a deliberate ploy to make us switch to HD - just to squeeze as much money out of the commercial broadcasters as possible.
And, sadly, most of the punters out there would rather have more quantity than quality.
imo HD is NOT that much better than standard, yes it is clearer but the difference is minimal and many people i speak to say the same.
the jump to LCD and Plasma in quality was far greater than the next jump to HD
But, SKY need to ramm it down our throats because their future depends on it, i just keep :sleep: on the whole process
I would agree there's little difference between SD and HD if the SD bitrate is at a respectable level. If SD was as good as it could be, there'd be little if any need for HD. But SD is now broadcast at pathetic bitates to make HD seem better than it actually is.
That said, I saw a minute of Wimbledon in HD last year in my local Currys before it shut down, and it was like the scales had been lifted from my eyes.
imo HD is NOT that much better than standard, yes it is clearer but the difference is minimal and many people i speak to say the same.
the jump to LCD and Plasma in quality was far greater than the next jump to HD
But, SKY need to ramm it down our throats because their future depends on it, i just keep :sleep: on the whole process
I think it depends how good an upscaler your TV or HD box has. If you have a good upscaler the improvement in quality from SD to HD will not be so obvious.
If I switch from, say, BBC1 in SD on my TV's Freeview tuner then switch BBC1 in SD on the Sky HD box, I can see an improvement in picture quality. Even the OH noticed this when the box was first installed.
We were told that one of the reasons for switching to digital was the improved picture quality. However, the powers that be at Freeview, or was that the mux operators, decided to squeeze as many channels in as possible which basically gives picture quality no better than analogue at best.
Analogue on my old 28" CRT was far superior to anything I get now on SD through Freeview or Sky. And that's on a £1800 plasma Pioneer. If it wasn't for techology supposedly evolving ie electronics manufacturers making new inferior tech to sell to the gullible public, CRT would be seen as far superior to plasma and LCD. We don't need TVs bigger than 32" in our homes, and CRT technology could cope with that screen size.
Digital TV is a big money making con. It's inferior in all respects, and the public have bought it hook, line and sinker.
You should have caught Wimbledon this year, and the Open Golf last week. Both were stunning on Freeview.
Freeview SD or HD? I saw plenty of Wimbledon this year on SD, and while it was good, it's only when you see the same in HD that you fully realise the difference. The difference is more than I can really visualise in my mind withouth actually seeing it for real.
Where is that rulle stated? Or maybe it should read that you don't need it? That might come as a bit of a shock to those who have installed screens of 42inches and above.
and CRT technology could cope with that screen size.
however such widescreen CRT sizes were far too heavy to be moved or lifted with any degree of comfort or safety. And they needed quite a great deal of space in order to accommodate the depth of the tube.
Comments
That anoys you? Seriously?? Something so petty and unnoticable actually annoys you?
Are you using a scart lead?
If they want it to be something to shout about it'd help if they put films like Up and Avatar out on Blu-ray in 3D. I saw an ad for a 3D-capable TV which had a clip of Avatar superimposed on it as if it was linking the two together, but had a disclaimer at the bottom about Avatar's lack of 3D availability.
The people who work in Currys are as dumb as a chimp so it's bound to be wrongly set-up. Look at all the widescreen TVs which have (or had, for who've already gone through DSO) analogue 4:3 and 14:9 images stretched across a 16:9 screen?
One time I was in Currys I overheard a sales drone say to someone, "Look at that analogue picture. It's like it's got clingfilm all over the screen... now imagine *removing* the clingfilm.... THAT'S DIGITAL!"
I almost burst out laughing loud enough to waken the dead!
As somebody who has HD but no HD pack just free channels I get sick of Sky saying switch to a channel to watch HD.
Plus they have started the 3D thing on Sky Sports. I think they do mention it a bit much where as other broadcasters just mention it briefly.
I bought a 1.2m cable for less than a fiver from Amazon. I wouldn't spend even £15 unless it had to be long enough to trail around the house (to justify the price.... but then you wouldn't have such a long cable anyway)
Given that Sky reduced their analogue quality when they were plugging Sky Digital, and BBC dropped their SD satellite quality several years before they started plugging HD, and the BBC have downgraded their HD pictures already, as well as their DAB quality on stations like Radio 3, why should I invest when they're all being so crap about how they go about it?
During the last football season, Sky started making sure that events were advertised as being on its HD channels before mentioning they were also available in standard def.
It seems to me that Sky are paving the way for a quick turn off of its SD broadcasts, and will force its subscribers to pay a higher charge for HD whether they want it or not.
Sky customers are nothing but walking wallets to be fleeced by Murdoch at his discretion. All Premier League football matches, along with most other sports, are shown live on the internet for free.
In HD you can see that they're not really naturally blonde...
As someone who doesn't watch football, what is the big deal about it being in 3D? Why is it a revolution?
Really? Who's been tried and found guilty in a court of law?
They have stopped installing digiboxes and Sky+ boxes now in favour of HD ones so that sounds a fair statement.
Personally I feel SD has a future as not every channel needs HD and the extra cost.
Anyone notice how the BBC and ITV SD bitrate on both Freeview and Sky seemed to improve markedly during the World Cup?
Now it's gone back to being complete cack again.
Besides, I think most of us have cottoned on to the reality of their not being either enough money or space within the MUXs to have a decent quality SD picture. Plus there's always the benefit of deliberately making SD so bad that people have little choice but to pay through the nose for HD.
And your problem with that is what?
You just carry on giving ever increasing amounts of your money to Uncle Rupert. I'm sure it makes you happy.
imo HD is NOT that much better than standard, yes it is clearer but the difference is minimal and many people i speak to say the same.
the jump to LCD and Plasma in quality was far greater than the next jump to HD
But, SKY need to ramm it down our throats because their future depends on it, i just keep :sleep: on the whole process
We were told that one of the reasons for switching to digital was the improved picture quality. However, the powers that be at Freeview, or was that the mux operators, decided to squeeze as many channels in as possible which basically gives picture quality no better than analogue at best.
I don't think that this was a deliberate ploy to make us switch to HD - just to squeeze as much money out of the commercial broadcasters as possible.
And, sadly, most of the punters out there would rather have more quantity than quality.
I would agree there's little difference between SD and HD if the SD bitrate is at a respectable level. If SD was as good as it could be, there'd be little if any need for HD. But SD is now broadcast at pathetic bitates to make HD seem better than it actually is.
That said, I saw a minute of Wimbledon in HD last year in my local Currys before it shut down, and it was like the scales had been lifted from my eyes.
I think it depends how good an upscaler your TV or HD box has. If you have a good upscaler the improvement in quality from SD to HD will not be so obvious.
If I switch from, say, BBC1 in SD on my TV's Freeview tuner then switch BBC1 in SD on the Sky HD box, I can see an improvement in picture quality. Even the OH noticed this when the box was first installed.
Analogue on my old 28" CRT was far superior to anything I get now on SD through Freeview or Sky. And that's on a £1800 plasma Pioneer. If it wasn't for techology supposedly evolving ie electronics manufacturers making new inferior tech to sell to the gullible public, CRT would be seen as far superior to plasma and LCD. We don't need TVs bigger than 32" in our homes, and CRT technology could cope with that screen size.
Digital TV is a big money making con. It's inferior in all respects, and the public have bought it hook, line and sinker.
Freeview SD or HD? I saw plenty of Wimbledon this year on SD, and while it was good, it's only when you see the same in HD that you fully realise the difference. The difference is more than I can really visualise in my mind withouth actually seeing it for real.
however such widescreen CRT sizes were far too heavy to be moved or lifted with any degree of comfort or safety. And they needed quite a great deal of space in order to accommodate the depth of the tube.