Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

HD v SD


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-06-2013, 19:36
ktla5
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,125
I've been harangued for years on these forums for saying much the same thing as you.

Bottom line - with a good set up and a great TV like Panasonic plus sitting the right distance away SD is the equal of HD in our household. To me it's very much the Emperors New Clothes syndrome. Neither me or the wife can tell the difference and to be quite honest most of the people I work with have now dropped the Sky HD sub having once said HD was great they now say the really can't tell the difference.
We have said for sometime 'Kings New Clothes' even my son who is 28 is not overly bothered about HD anymore, will happily watch F1 on 101 rather than 141 the wife (as most I reckon!) could not give two hoots about HD !
ktla5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 10-06-2013, 22:52
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,132
Good to see that the regulars have managed to keep yet another pointless debate going for over a week.

As I have said before, for 99.99% of viewers what matters is the quality of the content not the quality of the picture, provided the latter is adequate to avoid undue distraction even on larger screens. They achieve that by sitting a sensible distance from the screen so that both SD and HD channels look OK most of the time. Then, as pointed out by Faust, you no longer notice a sufficient difference between SD or HD broadcasts of the same programme to worry about it - especially if the programme is actually worth watching.

Possibly those on here who do worry about SD vs HD actually have the least adequate equipment, ie which does a particularly bad job of displaying SD on a large screen.
Absolutley spot on analysis. For the vast majority of users what matters is programme content - I know that is all that matters in our household. Goodness knows how some folk would have coped with a 12" monochrome TV complete with a magnifiying lens strapped to the front. That is the type of TV I grew up with - not that we had TV until I was around seven or eight years old.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2013, 22:58
markdyer72
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 240
Absolutley spot on analysis. For the vast majority of users what matters is programme content - I know that is all that matters in our household. Goodness knows how some folk would have coped with a 12" monochrome TV complete with a magnifiying lens strapped to the front. That is the type of TV I grew up with - not that we had TV until I was around seven or eight years old.
yep used to watch those meselft, mind even now i can quite easily watch tv on my iphone with no problems
markdyer72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2013, 23:18
emptybox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scottish Borders
Posts: 10,642
It's all very well saying that the content is all that matters, but there are a lot of factual programmes, wildlife docs, sport etc, where the visuals are all important.
For those HD gives a much nicer experience, and is often far more immersive....with the right size of set; at the right distance.

I often think those who say they don't see any difference are probably not really looking at the screen very closely anyway. They've probably got their heads filled with plots and characters and other nonsense.
emptybox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 00:05
mwardy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,729
As I have said before, for 99.99% of viewers what matters is the quality of the content not the quality of the picture,
Erm, is that figure something of a guess, I guess? And anyway, what follows from it? That HD should be done away with? Really? If not, why not?

It's perfectly possible to be engaged by what you are seeing but wish it looked better. And when the picture really is good, to feel it adds to the experience. It's not absolutely either/or. Is it?

provided the latter is adequate to avoid undue distraction even on larger screens.They achieve that by sitting a sensible distance from the screen so that both SD and HD channels look OK most of the time. Then, as pointed out by Faust, you no longer notice a sufficient difference between SD or HD broadcasts of the same programme to worry about it - especially if the programme is actually worth watching.
At that point the difference between SD and HD is by definition more or less lost. That doesn't mean the pictures are essentially equally sharp though (as I suspect you well know), which seems to be the current drift of the thread. So yes, you can of course minimize the difference by sitting far enough away but you are missing out on the high frequency information HD offers. For HD just to look OK is a waste of HD.

Possibly those on here who do worry about SD vs HD actually have the least adequate equipment, ie which does a particularly bad job of displaying SD on a large screen.
Yes that's possible, though in my own case I doubt it as the SD signal is going through a Reon processor. Admittedly there are some programmes that are harder to distinguish because the director is going for a particularly murky 'film look', but these just tend to lack detail in both formats.
mwardy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 00:12
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 19,829
It's all very well saying that the content is all that matters, but there are a lot of factual programmes, wildlife docs, sport etc, where the visuals are all important.
For those HD gives a much nicer experience, and is often far more immersive....with the right size of set; at the right distance.

I often think those who say they don't see any difference are probably not really looking at the screen very closely anyway. They've probably got their heads filled with plots and characters and other nonsense.
There are many people who clearly see the difference but who aren't bothered either way. Even on football, I can see all that I need to see in a match in SD. Sometimes I switch to HD but not often - even though the difference is clear to see. I suppose it improves my enjoyment by what, 2%? Probably something like that but it could be anything from 0% to 5% depending on the programme - and if it's free to watch, I will do that. You won't catch me paying for the "privilege" though, not any more. My years of subscribing to Sky HD are long since over and I rejected without a moment's thought their offer last week of a year of HD for an extra 2.50 a month.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 00:12
mwardy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,729

720p Panasonic PX60 professionally calibrated. Having said that I have been to a couple of local independents who have dedicated viewing booths for displaying HD, 3D and high end audio. Whilst I can see some improvement over my own TV, hand on heart I would never accept a bet if I had to choose which was SD and which was HD. The difference to me at any distance is minimal, it simply isn't an issue.
I recommended this set to a friend and it does a very, very fine job of upscaling SD. (There isn't a great deal for a professional calibration to get to grips with to be honest. It will all have to be done in the service menu and I imagine there are only two point greyscale controls, no CMS and maybe no gamma setting. But even so, getting the greyscale close will make a big difference and I'm sure it was worth doing.)

But...fed an HD signal it takes off and I'm almost at a loss as to why you can see little difference at 12 feet (or indeed at any distance!). If vision problems are eliminated as you say then it seems to come down to something with the way individual brains process information. This goes against the assumptions of everything I've read about information theory, but you can't discount testimony. The fact that you are more or less indifferent to (presumably bigger) high end displays adds weight to this idea. Anyway, it's clearly not a crime--but it doesn't mean everyone who finds otherwise is wrong.
mwardy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 08:08
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,132
I recommended this set to a friend and it does a very, very fine job of upscaling SD. (There isn't a great deal for a professional calibration to get to grips with to be honest. It will all have to be done in the service menu and I imagine there are only two point greyscale controls, no CMS and maybe no gamma setting. But even so, getting the greyscale close will make a big difference and I'm sure it was worth doing.)

But...fed an HD signal it takes off and I'm almost at a loss as to why you can see little difference at 12 feet (or indeed at any distance!). If vision problems are eliminated as you say then it seems to come down to something with the way individual brains process information. This goes against the assumptions of everything I've read about information theory, but you can't discount testimony. The fact that you are more or less indifferent to (presumably bigger) high end displays adds weight to this idea. Anyway, it's clearly not a crime--but it doesn't mean everyone who finds otherwise is wrong.
I have always said this Panny TV does a great job with SD which more than satisfies our needs. Content is king in our household, and perhaps it is that being brought up on early TV's makes you happy with SD. The last survey I saw said 1 in 5 can't see any difference.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 10:43
janet owen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Gwynfryn,Wrexham 1350ASL
Posts: 1,904
Interesting arguments for and against, I have a pana 32 inch,it has dual tuners,in my opinion HD is sharper on this set.

However I bought a labgear HD receiver & use it on multi sat,to my surprise this cheap Labgear receiver (32) gives even sharper HD pics than the two year old Panasonic tuner

However now I would not pay 600 for the same Pana,and could live happily with SD on satellite & terrestrial.
janet owen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 12:43
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 37,475
I have always said this Panny TV does a great job with SD which more than satisfies our needs. Content is king in our household, and perhaps it is that being brought up on early TV's makes you happy with SD. The last survey I saw said 1 in 5 can't see any difference.
Probably, because just like you, they view from too far away to be able to see HD?.

In order to get decent benefit from HD you have to view from too close for SD viewing - "ye canna change the laws of Physics Jim".
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 18:38
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,132
Probably, because just like you, they view from too far away to be able to see HD?.

In order to get decent benefit from HD you have to view from too close for SD viewing - "ye canna change the laws of Physics Jim".
Which is what I have always said. Point is what if anything am I missing then as the distance improves the view for SD?
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 20:46
misar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 249
In order to get decent benefit from HD you have to view from too close for SD viewing.
That is the point of this entire debate. A high proportion of my viewing is not up to HD quality (often even on an HD channel) so I sit at a distance where I can enjoy all the programmes w/o being disturbed by artifacts. Perhaps it is because I grew up watching small, fuzzy, B&W TV screens but to me almost everything on my 42" Panasonic plasma looks great.

Why would I bother to move the furniture each time I watch a good quality HD broadcast? Even more to the point, who would want to sit at the "right" distance for top quality HD and spend their days moaning about the atrocious quality of everything else? The second one is a rhetorical question because I already know the answer - one of the videophiles who frequent these forums.
misar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 00:12
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,132
That is the point of this entire debate. A high proportion of my viewing is not up to HD quality (often even on an HD channel) so I sit at a distance where I can enjoy all the programmes w/o being disturbed by artifacts. Perhaps it is because I grew up watching small, fuzzy, B&W TV screens but to me almost everything on my 42" Panasonic plasma looks great.

Why would I bother to move the furniture each time I watch a good quality HD broadcast? Even more to the point, who would want to sit at the "right" distance for top quality HD and spend their days moaning about the atrocious quality of everything else? The second one is a rhetorical question because I already know the answer - one of the videophiles who frequent these forums.
Good grief, I had to look twice in order to make sure I hadn't written this post as it is so near my own views.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 09:10
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 37,475
Which is what I have always said. Point is what if anything am I missing then as the distance improves the view for SD?
You're obviously missing HD, as you're much to far away to see it.

As long as you're happy, that's all that matters - but why post nonsense that HD is no better than SD?, the reason for that is simply your incorrect usage of it (or 'perhaps' your TV as well).

I've not posted my 'famous' newspaper test recently

Hang a sheet of a newspaper over the front of your TV, then go and try and read it from your normal viewing position.

You will (presumably?) be able to read the headlines - that's SD. Can you read the body print of the articles - no of course you can't - you're too far away. Move closer until you can read the body print - THAT'S HD.

So by viewing your TV in HD from much too far a distance all you see is the headlines, you're missing all the information in the article.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 19:23
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,132
You're obviously missing HD, as you're much to far away to see it.

As long as you're happy, that's all that matters - but why post nonsense that HD is no better than SD?, the reason for that is simply your incorrect usage of it (or 'perhaps' your TV as well).

I've not posted my 'famous' newspaper test recently

Hang a sheet of a newspaper over the front of your TV, then go and try and read it from your normal viewing position.

You will (presumably?) be able to read the headlines - that's SD. Can you read the body print of the articles - no of course you can't - you're too far away. Move closer until you can read the body print - THAT'S HD.



So by viewing your TV in HD from much too far a distance all you see is the headlines, you're missing all the information in the article.
Ok well let's tease that out a little. I love gardening and gardening programmes. Now take a flower like a daisy. If I move up close viewing SD then I start to lose detail due to artefacts. Move away and I see a beautiful flower, petal perfect, exactly how I see it viewed much closer in HD. Therefore the test is a draw. Now I have seen some research that suggests the mind fills in any missing detail and that due to life experience an older person does this better than a younger person does.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 19:46
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 19,829
You're obviously missing HD, as you're much to far away to see it.

As long as you're happy, that's all that matters - but why post nonsense that HD is no better than SD?, the reason for that is simply your incorrect usage of it (or 'perhaps' your TV as well).

I've not posted my 'famous' newspaper test recently

Hang a sheet of a newspaper over the front of your TV, then go and try and read it from your normal viewing position.

You will (presumably?) be able to read the headlines - that's SD. Can you read the body print of the articles - no of course you can't - you're too far away. Move closer until you can read the body print - THAT'S HD.

So by viewing your TV in HD from much too far a distance all you see is the headlines, you're missing all the information in the article.
So, what do you suggest?

That we:
[LIST][*]a) move the sofa when viewing HD into the middle of the room, then move it back again for SD
[*]b) move the TV when viewing HD into the middle of the room, then move it back again for SD
[*]c) sit on the floor in front of the TV when viewing HD
[*]d) buy a Sharp LC-80LE646E 80 -inch LCD @ 3,962.50, hire a crane to install it and suffer annoying compression artifacts when viewing SD TV
[*]e) Only watch TV in the bedroom, with it hanging over the foot of the bed (the facing wall would be too far).
[*]f) leave things as they are and benefit from the other advantages of an HDTV apart from the absolute maximum spatial resolution[/LIST]I chose f). What would you recommend?
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 20:06
misar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 249
I've not posted my 'famous' newspaper test recently

Hang a sheet of a newspaper over the front of your TV, then go and try and read it from your normal viewing position.

You will (presumably?) be able to read the headlines - that's SD. Can you read the body print of the articles - no of course you can't - you're too far away. Move closer until you can read the body print - THAT'S HD.

So by viewing your TV in HD from much too far a distance all you see is the headlines, you're missing all the information in the article.
Usually I value Nigel's advice but there is something seriously wrong here. Firstly, you will end up the same distance from the screen regardless of whether it is 26" or 65". That is clearly nonsense. Second, I tried the test anyway.

I just compared BBC2 on Freesat, Antiques Road Trip on channels 102 and 109. At Nigel's recommended HD distance they still look the same as I flick from one to the other and both make uncomfortable viewing. Back at my normal viewing distance they both look fine.

Now the videophiles will be quick to blame the BBC once again, with vitriolic comments about low bandwidths, etc. The explanation is probably that much of the programme was recorded in SD, leading to my observations. In fact it just proves my point. The economics of broadcasting ensure that the majority of programmes will not be up to full HD quality for a long time. While we await the great day, most viewers sit a sensible distance from the screen, stop fretting about HD, and watch whatever takes their fancy in comfort.
misar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 20:33
IQ1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 228

But...fed an HD signal it takes off and I'm almost at a loss as to why you can see little difference at 12 feet (or indeed at any distance!). If vision problems are eliminated as you say then it seems to come down to something with the way individual brains process information.

I can see a distinct difference between SD & HD at any distance with my Panasonic plasma, but then my eyesight isn't 20/20 it's actually better.
IQ1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 20:37
IQ1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 228
So, what do you suggest?

That we:
[LIST][*]a) move the sofa when viewing HD into the middle of the room, then move it back again for SD
[*]b) move the TV when viewing HD into the middle of the room, then move it back again for SD
[*]c) sit on the floor in front of the TV when viewing HD
[*]d) buy a Sharp LC-80LE646E 80 -inch LCD @ 3,962.50, hire a crane to install it and suffer annoying compression artifacts when viewing SD TV
[*]e) Only watch TV in the bedroom, with it hanging over the foot of the bed (the facing wall would be too far).
[*]f) leave things as they are and benefit from the other advantages of an HDTV apart from the absolute maximum spatial resolution[/LIST]I chose f). What would you recommend?
I choose...

g) sit a sensible distance from the TV and watch HD programmes when they are available and SD when they are not.

I do actually do "a" but only when I've got a "good" HD film to watch channel 4HD/ or another source, my surround speakers are set up for slightly closer to the TV and I can also then reach the beer and munches on the coffee table.
IQ1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 22:54
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,132
I choose...

g) sit a sensible distance from the TV and watch HD programmes when they are available and SD when they are not.

I do actually do "a" but only when I've got a "good" HD film to watch channel 4HD/ or another source, my surround speakers are set up for slightly closer to the TV and I can also then reach the beer and munches on the coffee table.
Could you really be bothered? Do they have different actors, plots and endings in HD or are they the same as their SD equivalents?
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 23:38
IQ1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 228
Could you really be bothered? Do they have different actors, plots and endings in HD or are they the same as their SD equivalents?
To what part of my post are you referring too old chap. If the first part, i.e. watching/recording in HD when available then I think it is pretty obvious, after all I did buy a 50" full HD TV (not a CRT) and I can see the difference. (Nothing wrong with CRT's they are great with SD.)

If you refer to the second part, movies that are letterbox (that's the black bars at the top and bottom) will reduce the size of the screen and I personally find it a more immersive experience having more of the screen in my field of vision, add to that 5.1 DD (which I get with some HD films) it ends up pretty much like being at the cinema (but without the annoying general public being present)

Plus I actually don't find it that hard to move my chair a few feet occasionally . But I suppose if selecting record in HD with a remote control is too strenuous for your good self then I can understand why you would find it bothersome.
IQ1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2013, 06:43
gamercraig
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,874
Ok well let's tease that out a little. I love gardening and gardening programmes. Now take a flower like a daisy. If I move up close viewing SD then I start to lose detail due to artefacts. Move away and I see a beautiful flower, petal perfect, exactly how I see it viewed much closer in HD. Therefore the test is a draw. Now I have seen some research that suggests the mind fills in any missing detail and that due to life experience an older person does this better than a younger person does.
Nature objects in HD are a world apart from SD. You can dress it up how you want, but for some reason you ARE not seeing a difference that you should
gamercraig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2013, 08:04
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,132
Nature objects in HD are a world apart from SD. You can dress it up how you want, but for some reason you ARE not seeing a difference that you should
Or as said previously the distance smooths out the imperfections in SD whilst the brain fills out any missing detail. There really are to many variables to claim we should all be seeing the same thing. 1 in 5 who can't see any difference is a pretty high percentage.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2013, 08:31
gamercraig
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,874
So my brain is filling in missing detail of objects I have never seen in real life close up. Ok.....
gamercraig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2013, 08:40
tonyk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Costa Blanca
Posts: 327
HD is essential if you watch sport as i do via a projector onto a 10ft screen. SD looks absolutely terrible.
tonyk is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:55.