Watching the top 50 goals of the Premiership last night and the difference in quality between the games from the 90's and those from the last ten years was quite marked. Not watching it in HD though, but probably shows what a difference how they record it makes.
Really am sick to death of SKy and others banging on about it every ad break :yawn:
It's OKAY, i'd have it rather than not but it's not like they've invented colour telly, satellite tv or Skyplus - i'll get it when i can be bothered and whilst i don't have it it makes not one jot of difference to my life or viewing pleasure.
Maybe your TV isnt good enough for full viewing pleasure!
I find HD to be very good, but then again I have a high end Toshiba TV.
I notice the sound clarity as well, especially when watching HD music channels or sports.
I have Virgin Media HD and I struggle to see any difference really. Though my husband reckons the football looks fantastic in HD, but to me no difference (Football is still a snoozefest in SD or HD:yawn:)
Have to agree, got a SKY HD box for christmas. The footie is great in HD and i like the sky+ functionality, but who wants to watch EastEnders, Sky news and the rest in HD ?. Unless you're a sports fan i don't think it's worth the effort or the subscription. Just my opinion.
The whole idea is to enhance all viewers experience of PQ. This is becoming the normal standard so, of course, all main genres should benefit.
East Enders HD is not very good. Coronation Street is much better in HD. But that is because the BBC have wrecked the excellent quality they once had for their HD channels by slashing bit rates to the bare minimum they can get away with to save money.
BBC HD when it first started (summer 2006) had some stunning pictures on things as diverse as Planet Earth, Torchwood and the live OB of the Trooping of the Colour or New Years Eve firworks.
These have been decimated with poorer pictures so it is no surprise newcomers who only get free HD are none too thrilled as the awe factor is not there like it once was.
You pay Sky for HD to give them an incentive to keep up standards. Do what the BBC has done (with no fee to stop them) and Sky would be losing HD customers in droves, As it is they are increasing them steadily.
HD is not a step change like it was when we first got colour but it is still an obvious improvement when done well (and that depends on many factors - with things like lack of arty directors and clever use of lighting to add to the various things already mentioned here).
Sadly, it is not often done well especially on free HD TV these days.
I've always wanted the best picture quality i can afford
How half-hearted is that? You should be wanting the best picture quality your eyes can see and willing to spend way beyond what you can afford to get it, even if it means mortgaging the house, wife and kids. :rolleyes:
I just had a quick read through the posts in this thread, and it appears to me that you really do need to be a bit of a technogeek to notice a major 'difference',.
If wanting the best quality available and being able to tell the difference makes me a technogeek so be it.
The difference is far from subtle
FULL HD is still a way off yet, due to our outdated Broadcasting system we won't have full 1080p broadcasts for around another 6 or 7 years! And that's just to get the best out of our current TV's!
.
Changing from 1080i to 1080p will be an invisble change for the majority of viewers with anything less than a huge screen.
You only have to compare current 1080i broadcasts with a 1080p Bluray (which should also be a higher bitrate too) to see the difference is negligible.
I have no idea what overscan is, and would not have any idea whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
I'm fairly tech-savvy, so I imagine it's more likely that people don't turn it off 'cause they don't have a clue what they're doing than because they want to keep the "overscanny" look.
If you don't know there's a problem, you're obviously not going to look for a solution.
Many tv's don't even have the facility to switch overscan off anyway so I wouldn't worry.
Well I got a HD tv in november (a panasonic 32 inch full HD LCD) and I can hardly notice the difference TBH. Im on the lowest hd package on virgin media so I just get the 'free' ones and there is NO WAY I would pay for hd channels like £10.25 a month like sky customers do.
I will say this though I can notice a BIG difference when I play the 360 console on it as its much more sharper and clearer too then my old style widescreen tv.
When I goto a hd channel it says 1080i in the corner but when I use the 360 console it says 1080p in the corner......Whats the difference?
Computer games and graphics will always be the ones that benefit most from HD.
But take a look at some of the numerous computer generated cartoon movies that have been on over Xmas and they should look equally as awesome.
Make sure you are actually watching the HD channel and make sure the broadcast is HD because not everything on the HD channels is and the BBC don't help by keeping the BBC1HD logo up on screen all the time even when the programme is not HD
I wonder how many people who moan about HD think they are watching in HD just because they bought an 'HD Ready' tv.
Sadly this is true.
I daresay the same numpties who used to watch composite instead of RGB and stretch 4:3 images to fill their 16:9 screens instead of setting the box correctly are the same people who think an HD Ready tv gives them instant access to HD images even though they have no actual HD source.
Do you have your HD box connected by an HDMI lead?
Do you have the picture output set to 1080 or AUTO?
Are you actually watching an HD broadcast rather than an sd broadcast on an HD channel?
1080i and 1080p are only transmission systems and provided the source material is good ie; HD video cameras, 35mm film or Super 16mm then the picture should be good. But if you had to watch old Dr Who recorded on 405 line tape or 16mm film series then I think the upscaling would blow a gasket.
My complaint is with the BBC pushing DAB radio. The wrong system nobody else uses. that will have to change in a few years to DMB or similar
I think HD is good, I definitely can tell the difference but I do agree with OP (at least partially) and i can understand why some would be hesitant to invest money into it. After all watching in HD doesn't improve the plot or the result of whatever you may be watching.
You pay Sky for HD to give them an incentive to keep up standards. Do what the BBC has done (with no fee to stop them) and Sky would be losing HD customers in droves, As it is they are increasing them steadily.
I wouldn't be so fast to sing Sky's praises on HD quality. They're squeezing more and more HD channels on each transponder thus reducing bandwidth available to each. Considering each 29500 transponder can handle 44Mbps some of them are packing 5 channels each.
I think HD is good, I definitely can tell the difference but I do agree with OP (at least partially) and i can understand why some would be hesitant to invest money into it. After all watching in HD doesn't improve the plot or the result of whatever you may be watching.
I wouldn't be so fast to sing Sky's praises on HD quality. They're squeezing more and more HD channels on each transponder thus reducing bandwidth available to each. Considering each 29500 transponder can handle 44Mbps some of them are packing 5 channels each.
Equivalent to one Bluray then.
Its a while since I last viewed Sky's HD movie channels and I have to say they were very disappointing and certainly not good enough to warrant the extra cost over the regular movies sub.
I found most other HD channels at the time to be much better so I stuck with the free HD channels although the V+ does a better job with sd so I use that all the time now
I love HD, it's great but the results you get really matter on what TV model you have and if it's calibrated (most aren't!).
My mother has a 32inch TV and gets a few free HD channels, I can't really notice much of a difference switching between SD and HD channels. However on my TV the difference is massive, plus HD channels can transmit 5.1 which is adds to the package!
My eyesight isn't the best in the world and the only difference I can see is that programmes on the HD channels seem to have the brightness turned up a bit compared to the normal channels. I don't like the sound on the HD channels, though (especially BBC HD). The voices sound really quiet and the music sounds really loud. I leave the HD to the husband now and just watch normal myself.
Yes, it is to those who tend to do things like hook up a composite feed dvd player and wonder why their "HD" looks so soft. There are always folks who can't be bothered to rtfm or do basic research but will screech about things regardless. Like folks that bitch about windows while running no anti virus and clicking on every malware pop up around.
Sadly this is true.
I daresay the same numpties who used to watch composite instead of RGB and stretch 4:3 images to fill their 16:9 screens instead of setting the box correctly are the same people who think an HD Ready tv gives them instant access to HD images even though they have no actual HD source.
So true. HD is only 2 megapixels of image. SD is a third of a megapixel. Spread that over 40+ inches and you will see no detail from SD. If you are watching a 19" at 10 feet then there is no arguing with that.
same here, i'm not upgrading to blu-ray either for the forseeable future, in a few years time it'll all be superceded by the next big thing anyway, meanwhile my current setup works fine so im happy.
No chance. That amount of data is incredible, and the standard is far off. You will wait until you are old and gray, or dead. Japan has played around with early HD since the 70's, none of it took off. It is 40 years later and you are still getting around to joining HD. So in another 40 years you think you'll get around to joining ultra HD? lol, by then you'll probably be griping about not being able to see the difference...which might be the truth because you might have poor vision by that age.;)
I know what the spec sheets say but super 8 is barely good enough for sd let alone HD.
And the 16mm films out there on Bluray show very little improvement over the dvd's.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Evil Dead being just 2 examples.
Modern super 16 material may be able to improve on sd but compared to things sourced from 35mm and modern hd formats its sadly lacking so not surprising that the BBC refuse to put any 16mm material on BBC HD.
They reasoned that the HD remastering for Pride & Prejudice simply did not deliver good enough results and that was going back to the original 16mm elements.
Life On Mars was a con anyway as it was only the sd master upscaled
BBC excuses. http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews41/the_texas_chain_saw_massacre_blu-ray.htm
While not the best of bluray, it is certainly still far above dvd quality. The BBC are simply trying to cut costs, not willing to pay for transfer/restoration costs. Or are simply using it as a convenient way to wait until bluray is more prevalent so they can release to a more lucrative market.
Merlin is certainly on Super 16mm film as I think is Dr WHO but not having HD, I will not pay the extra. What are they like?? They are very good in SD.
I wouldn't be so fast to sing Sky's praises on HD quality. They're squeezing more and more HD channels on each transponder thus reducing bandwidth available to each. Considering each 29500 transponder can handle 44Mbps some of them are packing 5 channels each.
Not singing Sky's praises. Just noting that they stand to lose theiur £10 pm income if they let standards drop too far. The BBC have no such financial incentive.
As will Sky once the HD sub is removed as it eventually will be once enough people have 3 D TVs and they can get away with charging extra for that.
No chance. That amount of data is incredible, and the standard is far off. You will wait until you are old and gray, or dead. Japan has played around with early HD since the 70's, none of it took off. It is 40 years later and you are still getting around to joining HD. So in another 40 years you think you'll get around to joining ultra HD? lol, by then you'll probably be griping about not being able to see the difference...which might be the truth because you might have poor vision by that age.;)
I'm not "griping" about anything. I'm perfectly happy with my current set-up so can't see the point of upgrading yet. I've not said anything about "not being able to see any difference" either.
Comments
There's no way I would pay £7 to Virgin for HD channels and not get three out of five of the Sky Sports channels and less movie channels too.
Maybe your TV isnt good enough for full viewing pleasure!
I find HD to be very good, but then again I have a high end Toshiba TV.
I notice the sound clarity as well, especially when watching HD music channels or sports.
Have to agree, got a SKY HD box for christmas. The footie is great in HD and i like the sky+ functionality, but who wants to watch EastEnders, Sky news and the rest in HD ?. Unless you're a sports fan i don't think it's worth the effort or the subscription. Just my opinion.
p.s. a belated merry christmas
HD was not invented for TV geek footy fans?
The whole idea is to enhance all viewers experience of PQ. This is becoming the normal standard so, of course, all main genres should benefit.
East Enders HD is not very good. Coronation Street is much better in HD. But that is because the BBC have wrecked the excellent quality they once had for their HD channels by slashing bit rates to the bare minimum they can get away with to save money.
BBC HD when it first started (summer 2006) had some stunning pictures on things as diverse as Planet Earth, Torchwood and the live OB of the Trooping of the Colour or New Years Eve firworks.
These have been decimated with poorer pictures so it is no surprise newcomers who only get free HD are none too thrilled as the awe factor is not there like it once was.
You pay Sky for HD to give them an incentive to keep up standards. Do what the BBC has done (with no fee to stop them) and Sky would be losing HD customers in droves, As it is they are increasing them steadily.
HD is not a step change like it was when we first got colour but it is still an obvious improvement when done well (and that depends on many factors - with things like lack of arty directors and clever use of lighting to add to the various things already mentioned here).
Sadly, it is not often done well especially on free HD TV these days.
3D is overrated - my uncle has a 3D TV and its so annoyibg to watch things. Everythings blurred and it makes me feel nauseous.
Several friends of mine, definitely.
It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess ... still I'm baffled why anyone would invest in a big flat screen and then put up with smearovision.
Though this thread has explained why BBC HD is substandard compared to Sky's offerings, I'm enjoying "Toast" in HD as we speak.
Gee, I wonder why that is?
:rolleyes:
If wanting the best quality available and being able to tell the difference makes me a technogeek so be it.
The difference is far from subtle
Changing from 1080i to 1080p will be an invisble change for the majority of viewers with anything less than a huge screen.
You only have to compare current 1080i broadcasts with a 1080p Bluray (which should also be a higher bitrate too) to see the difference is negligible.
Many tv's don't even have the facility to switch overscan off anyway so I wouldn't worry.
Computer games and graphics will always be the ones that benefit most from HD.
But take a look at some of the numerous computer generated cartoon movies that have been on over Xmas and they should look equally as awesome.
Make sure you are actually watching the HD channel and make sure the broadcast is HD because not everything on the HD channels is and the BBC don't help by keeping the BBC1HD logo up on screen all the time even when the programme is not HD
Sadly this is true.
I daresay the same numpties who used to watch composite instead of RGB and stretch 4:3 images to fill their 16:9 screens instead of setting the box correctly are the same people who think an HD Ready tv gives them instant access to HD images even though they have no actual HD source.
Do you have your HD box connected by an HDMI lead?
Do you have the picture output set to 1080 or AUTO?
Are you actually watching an HD broadcast rather than an sd broadcast on an HD channel?
My complaint is with the BBC pushing DAB radio. The wrong system nobody else uses. that will have to change in a few years to DMB or similar
I wouldn't be so fast to sing Sky's praises on HD quality. They're squeezing more and more HD channels on each transponder thus reducing bandwidth available to each. Considering each 29500 transponder can handle 44Mbps some of them are packing 5 channels each.
Should we still be viewing in B&W 4:3 mono then?
Equivalent to one Bluray then.
Its a while since I last viewed Sky's HD movie channels and I have to say they were very disappointing and certainly not good enough to warrant the extra cost over the regular movies sub.
I found most other HD channels at the time to be much better so I stuck with the free HD channels although the V+ does a better job with sd so I use that all the time now
My mother has a 32inch TV and gets a few free HD channels, I can't really notice much of a difference switching between SD and HD channels. However on my TV the difference is massive, plus HD channels can transmit 5.1 which is adds to the package!
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/screenshots/toy-story-3?movieid=15770
Either you have it set up wrong, or have a dodgy or tiny tv.
5-6x the resolution is readily noticable, especially on bluray.
Yes, it is to those who tend to do things like hook up a composite feed dvd player and wonder why their "HD" looks so soft. There are always folks who can't be bothered to rtfm or do basic research but will screech about things regardless. Like folks that bitch about windows while running no anti virus and clicking on every malware pop up around.
So true. HD is only 2 megapixels of image. SD is a third of a megapixel. Spread that over 40+ inches and you will see no detail from SD. If you are watching a 19" at 10 feet then there is no arguing with that.
No chance. That amount of data is incredible, and the standard is far off. You will wait until you are old and gray, or dead. Japan has played around with early HD since the 70's, none of it took off. It is 40 years later and you are still getting around to joining HD. So in another 40 years you think you'll get around to joining ultra HD? lol, by then you'll probably be griping about not being able to see the difference...which might be the truth because you might have poor vision by that age.;)
BBC excuses.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews41/the_texas_chain_saw_massacre_blu-ray.htm
While not the best of bluray, it is certainly still far above dvd quality. The BBC are simply trying to cut costs, not willing to pay for transfer/restoration costs. Or are simply using it as a convenient way to wait until bluray is more prevalent so they can release to a more lucrative market.
Not singing Sky's praises. Just noting that they stand to lose theiur £10 pm income if they let standards drop too far. The BBC have no such financial incentive.
As will Sky once the HD sub is removed as it eventually will be once enough people have 3 D TVs and they can get away with charging extra for that.
I'm not "griping" about anything. I'm perfectly happy with my current set-up so can't see the point of upgrading yet. I've not said anything about "not being able to see any difference" either.