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".
Presumably you've since realised how silly that comment was?
On a bigger screen the fine detail will be larger as well, so visible from further away - as viewing distances are directly related to screen size.
The newspaper example is to show the exact principle, for those who amazingly don't seem able to cope with such a simple law of physics.
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.
Your brain can not fill in the detail in an SD image.
To go back to your example of flowers.
Supposing the TV was showing a picture of a flower with an intricate pattern on the petal.
In HD the pattern would be clearly visible if you looked at it from close to the screen. In SD the pattern would just be a fuzzy mess, no matter how close to the screen you got.
Your brain might be able to smooth the picture out, but it could not fill in the detail.
It's a bit like claiming a child's daub is as good as a Picasso, because they look the same from the other side of the gallery. (ETA: Picasso may be bad example, but insert name of artist who paints realistic images)
Or a Mazda is as good as a Ferrari, because they look the same from half a mile away.
Your brain can not fill in the detail in an SD image.
To go back to your example of flowers.
Supposing the TV was showing a picture of a flower with an intricate pattern on the petal.
In HD the pattern would be clearly visible if you looked at it from close to the screen. In SD the pattern would just be a fuzzy mess, no matter how close to the screen you got.
Your brain might be able to smooth the picture out, but it could not fill in the detail.
It's a bit like claiming a child's daub is as good as a Picasso, because they look the same from the other side of the gallery. (ETA: Picasso may be bad example, but insert name of artist who paints realistic images)
Or a Mazda is as good as a Ferrari, because they look the same from half a mile away.
Springwatch micro camera, simply wow!!!
Can't imagine what fine detail would be missing on these images if viewed in SD.
Your brain can not fill in the detail in an SD image.
To go back to your example of flowers.
Supposing the TV was showing a picture of a flower with an intricate pattern on the petal.
In HD the pattern would be clearly visible if you looked at it from close to the screen. In SD the pattern would just be a fuzzy mess, no matter how close to the screen you got.
Your brain might be able to smooth the picture out, but it could not fill in the detail.
It's a bit like claiming a child's daub is as good as a Picasso, because they look the same from the other side of the gallery. (ETA: Picasso may be bad example, but insert name of artist who paints realistic images)
Or a Mazda is as good as a Ferrari, because they look the same from half a mile away.
How did we ever cope before the advent of HD! I don't disagree that an HD picture is superior to SD, but I would suggest that well over 90% of the viewing public do not give a damn about what you are argueing about here. How sad that you (and others) worry so much about all of this.
Anyone with access to iplayer in HD, compare the HD version (720p25) with the SD (576i) of BBC2's Horizon - Secret Life Of The Cat, whatever distance you watch the TV from.
How did we ever cope before the advent of HD! I don't disagree that an HD picture is superior to SD, but I would suggest that well over 90% of the viewing public do not give a damn about what you are argueing about here. How sad that you (and others) worry so much about all of this.
I suppose that argument can be applied to b/w vs colour, mono vs stereo, stereo vs DD/DTS, DD/DTS vs HD audio. They are all technology improvements, some embrace them, others don't.
What HD has done is give the viewer the opportunity to increase the size of TV without losing picture quality.
Your brain can not fill in the detail in an SD image.
To go back to your example of flowers.
Supposing the TV was showing a picture of a flower with an intricate pattern on the petal.
In HD the pattern would be clearly visible if you looked at it from close to the screen. In SD the pattern would just be a fuzzy mess, no matter how close to the screen you got.
Your brain might be able to smooth the picture out, but it could not fill in the detail.
It's a bit like claiming a child's daub is as good as a Picasso, because they look the same from the other side of the gallery. (ETA: Picasso may be bad example, but insert name of artist who paints realistic images)
Or a Mazda is as good as a Ferrari, because they look the same from half a mile away.
Your brain is filling in missing detail constantly through every waking minute of your day. You should read some of the science journals on the brain and neurology, an amazing organ.
I suppose that argument can be applied to b/w vs colour, mono vs stereo, stereo vs DD/DTS, DD/DTS vs HD audio. They are all technology improvements, some embrace them, others don't.
What HD has done is give the viewer the opportunity to increase the size of TV without losing picture quality.
What would that picture have been like had we kept with analogue?
What would that picture have been like had we kept with analogue?
TV or satellite?
With our old aerial it would have been a fuzzy mess as we lived in a poor reception area, when we had satellite installed there was a noticeable improvement, but still not a clear as digital.
Your brain is filling in missing detail constantly through every waking minute of your day. You should read some of the science journals on the brain and neurology, an amazing organ.
Ok then, so following your logic, why did we not see initial black and white brodcasts in full-colour ultra-definition to indistinguish it from real life?
And been able to read down an eye-chart does not warrant whether or not you can distinguish detail in images. I've spent enough years in eye hospitals to know
Your brain is filling in missing detail constantly through every waking minute of your day. You should read some of the science journals on the brain and neurology, an amazing organ.
Your brain is inventing detail, but if you can't see what is supposed to be there then that invention may not bear any resemblance to reality.
As far as I'm concerned, the closer a TV picture comes to displaying reality the better, and that means the higher the definition the better. It should be as close to looking out of a window as possible.
Whether the TV buying public will buy into that, I don't know? But the demand might be driven by the gaming market in the first instance?
What would that picture have been like had we kept with analogue?
Not a sensible question :eek:
If we had stuck with the original 5/6 frequencies used for PAL analogue, we would have the same 5/6 channels one per carrier and just up to 6 analogue PAL channels. The picture quality would depend on the signal quality at your location and HD would be impossible, unless you stick to one channel per carrier and use lossy mpeg compression (digital TV)
If you happen to have a near perfect analogue signal (most of us do not) then given a good display and signal then the picture detall will be better than digital for 576i (PAL 625) content,
HD and more than one channel per carrier would not work.
For me the question is “Is HD “THAT” much better”. I readily agree that it is better and on some shows that makes a significant difference, on some it makes no difference at all to my viewing enjoyment. I have had Freesat HD pretty much since it was launched and was initially very impressed. However even assuming I had a basic Sky subs would I pay the extra £5 or £10 month to get extra HD – definitely not. If the source material is of high enough quality then for me SD is usually “good enough” and if the source material is of poor quality HD isn’t going to improve it.
When all new programmes are made and transmitted in HD (just as happened with colour over what 10 years) I will not complain, but I won’t pay a premium to be an early adopter.
What HD would allow me to do is to sit further away from a bigger set – but that is not a requirement.
And as a PS despite having the ability to record in HD I never do - I value the disk space higher than the improved quality.
SD broadcast quality now is rank bad in the UK( most of Germany's FTA stuff on satellite is much better and acceptable) , it wouldn't be so bad if it where still DVD quality, most of it is now SUB SD (less than 704x576 ) which i find clearly visible even on decent old CRT TV's, apart from the main channels.
Even on my 22" portable ( that's not even full HD) I find HD channels ( even on a decent box) are the only way to get even acceptable picture quality, even DVD vs Blu-ray of the same movie is night and day from 6ft away on that tv still. Does help having decent eyesight.
In that case there is something wrong with your dish/LNB/TV installation. On my Humax 1000S + Panasonic 42" 1080P the SD picture quality is excellent on the material transmitted by the mainstream channels. Certainly good enough that I am not interested in getting into the SD vs HD argument.
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.
And it all becomes clear. These tech arguments are almost always split by age. The young embrace change and technological advancements, the old generally don't.
And it all becomes clear. These tech arguments are almost always split by age. The young embrace change and technological advancements, the old generally don't.
Just the same as the CRT v LCD TV debate etc
Have you thought that argument through? Let's look at in in more detail - I have a large panel plasma TV 5.1 sound system, DVDR, Freesat Freetime PVR, iMac, Lappy, smartphone etc. etc. now what were you saying about embracing change young un?:rolleyes:
In that case there is something wrong with your dish/LNB/TV installation. On my Humax 1000S + Panasonic 42" 1080P the SD picture quality is excellent on the material transmitted by the mainstream channels. Certainly good enough that I am not interested in getting into the SD vs HD argument.
Similar set up to my own with the same results. I think the answer is clear don't you? All everyone needs is a Panasonic TV and a satellite decoder and the HD argument is redundant.
And it all becomes clear. These tech arguments are almost always split by age. The young embrace change and technological advancements, the old generally don't.
Just the same as the CRT v LCD TV debate etc
This pensioner has
Denon 5.1 AV system (170W/channel), Denon DVD Player, Sony BD Player, Humax Foxsat-hdr,HDR-1000s, HD Fox T2, HDR FOX T2, Topfield PVR in the study. Several free to air satellite boxes, 4 PC's, Asus HD Tablet, Nikon DSLR, Sony HD camcorder 4 TV's (all lcd). Panasonic TZ40 compact camera and a portable 1080P media player.
And it all becomes clear. These tech arguments are almost always split by age. The young embrace change and technological advancements, the old generally don't.
While that 'might' generally be true to some extent, it isn't here - you don't get a fair selection of the general public on here, only the more technologically minded ones (young or old).
Similar set up to my own with the same results. I think the answer is clear don't you? All everyone needs is a Panasonic TV and a satellite decoder and the HD argument is redundant.
Oh dear, here we are again. HD is redundant.
To reiterate, just because you can't see it, or not see it enough for it to be worth changing channel for, doesn't mean the difference isn't there in absolute terms. We're just back to seating distance and individual variations in perceptions of/reactions to picture quality.
And your set isn't similar to Pollensa1946's. Yours is 720, which is what makes it easier for it to upscale SD well. It also means it can't give the last once of detail that 1080 can deliver because it gets downscaled so the difference, while still very clear to my eyes, is less than it is with a 1080 set.
I have a Panasonic 1080 TV, a (mini) video processor and a satellite decoder and, unlike for Pollensa1946, I find the difference is obvious in most cases. Even more so when the source is SD to start with, which upscales much worse than HD originated material.
Here's my experiences I have a 28 inch hd ready samsung tv I can tell clearly the difference between sd and HD, the up scaling on this tv is pretty poor so you can tell the difference between 544x576, 704x576 and 1920x1080i now I also have a 22 inch LG 3d monitor on this telly the up scaling is much better and even I have been fooled! but when this has happened I was watching a 720x576 channel, so I am gonna say it all depends on your upscaler, some are better then others.
Comments
Presumably you've since realised how silly that comment was?
On a bigger screen the fine detail will be larger as well, so visible from further away - as viewing distances are directly related to screen size.
The newspaper example is to show the exact principle, for those who amazingly don't seem able to cope with such a simple law of physics.
Your brain can not fill in the detail in an SD image.
To go back to your example of flowers.
Supposing the TV was showing a picture of a flower with an intricate pattern on the petal.
In HD the pattern would be clearly visible if you looked at it from close to the screen. In SD the pattern would just be a fuzzy mess, no matter how close to the screen you got.
Your brain might be able to smooth the picture out, but it could not fill in the detail.
It's a bit like claiming a child's daub is as good as a Picasso, because they look the same from the other side of the gallery. (ETA: Picasso may be bad example, but insert name of artist who paints realistic images)
Or a Mazda is as good as a Ferrari, because they look the same from half a mile away.
Springwatch micro camera, simply wow!!!
Can't imagine what fine detail would be missing on these images if viewed in SD.
Why nothing of course because your brain would fill in the detail :rolleyes:
How did we ever cope before the advent of HD! I don't disagree that an HD picture is superior to SD, but I would suggest that well over 90% of the viewing public do not give a damn about what you are argueing about here. How sad that you (and others) worry so much about all of this.
I suppose that argument can be applied to b/w vs colour, mono vs stereo, stereo vs DD/DTS, DD/DTS vs HD audio. They are all technology improvements, some embrace them, others don't.
What HD has done is give the viewer the opportunity to increase the size of TV without losing picture quality.
Obviously science is not your subject.
Your brain is filling in missing detail constantly through every waking minute of your day. You should read some of the science journals on the brain and neurology, an amazing organ.
What would that picture have been like had we kept with analogue?
With our old aerial it would have been a fuzzy mess as we lived in a poor reception area, when we had satellite installed there was a noticeable improvement, but still not a clear as digital.
Ok then, so following your logic, why did we not see initial black and white brodcasts in full-colour ultra-definition to indistinguish it from real life?
And been able to read down an eye-chart does not warrant whether or not you can distinguish detail in images. I've spent enough years in eye hospitals to know
Your brain is inventing detail, but if you can't see what is supposed to be there then that invention may not bear any resemblance to reality.
As far as I'm concerned, the closer a TV picture comes to displaying reality the better, and that means the higher the definition the better. It should be as close to looking out of a window as possible.
Whether the TV buying public will buy into that, I don't know? But the demand might be driven by the gaming market in the first instance?
Not a sensible question :eek:
If we had stuck with the original 5/6 frequencies used for PAL analogue, we would have the same 5/6 channels one per carrier and just up to 6 analogue PAL channels. The picture quality would depend on the signal quality at your location and HD would be impossible, unless you stick to one channel per carrier and use lossy mpeg compression (digital TV)
If you happen to have a near perfect analogue signal (most of us do not) then given a good display and signal then the picture detall will be better than digital for 576i (PAL 625) content,
HD and more than one channel per carrier would not work.
When all new programmes are made and transmitted in HD (just as happened with colour over what 10 years) I will not complain, but I won’t pay a premium to be an early adopter.
What HD would allow me to do is to sit further away from a bigger set – but that is not a requirement.
And as a PS despite having the ability to record in HD I never do - I value the disk space higher than the improved quality.
Even on my 22" portable ( that's not even full HD) I find HD channels ( even on a decent box) are the only way to get even acceptable picture quality, even DVD vs Blu-ray of the same movie is night and day from 6ft away on that tv still. Does help having decent eyesight.
And it all becomes clear. These tech arguments are almost always split by age. The young embrace change and technological advancements, the old generally don't.
Just the same as the CRT v LCD TV debate etc
Have you thought that argument through? Let's look at in in more detail - I have a large panel plasma TV 5.1 sound system, DVDR, Freesat Freetime PVR, iMac, Lappy, smartphone etc. etc. now what were you saying about embracing change young un?:rolleyes:
Similar set up to my own with the same results. I think the answer is clear don't you? All everyone needs is a Panasonic TV and a satellite decoder and the HD argument is redundant.
This pensioner has
Denon 5.1 AV system (170W/channel), Denon DVD Player, Sony BD Player, Humax Foxsat-hdr,HDR-1000s, HD Fox T2, HDR FOX T2, Topfield PVR in the study. Several free to air satellite boxes, 4 PC's, Asus HD Tablet, Nikon DSLR, Sony HD camcorder 4 TV's (all lcd). Panasonic TZ40 compact camera and a portable 1080P media player.
What modern tech have I missed out by being old ?
While that 'might' generally be true to some extent, it isn't here - you don't get a fair selection of the general public on here, only the more technologically minded ones (young or old).
Oh dear, here we are again. HD is redundant.
To reiterate, just because you can't see it, or not see it enough for it to be worth changing channel for, doesn't mean the difference isn't there in absolute terms. We're just back to seating distance and individual variations in perceptions of/reactions to picture quality.
And your set isn't similar to Pollensa1946's. Yours is 720, which is what makes it easier for it to upscale SD well. It also means it can't give the last once of detail that 1080 can deliver because it gets downscaled so the difference, while still very clear to my eyes, is less than it is with a 1080 set.
I have a Panasonic 1080 TV, a (mini) video processor and a satellite decoder and, unlike for Pollensa1946, I find the difference is obvious in most cases. Even more so when the source is SD to start with, which upscales much worse than HD originated material.
Go back and read my post and tell me where it says that I can't tell the difference between SD and HD. I was commenting simply on this assertion...