My own take on this is that HD done well can be amazing.
The trouble is a lot of it isn't done so well and is hardly the great leap promised.
I'm just about at the point where I ring up Sky and cancel the lot except for the HD+ functions.
£10 per month instead of £61.
The one thing holding me back is I got the new 1.5tb Amstrad box from them and am contracted until May '11.
But now that BBC1, ITV1 (even if I do have to mess about to get it in the UTV area), ITV2, 3, 4 and Channel 4 and BBC HD are all out there free there's not a lot Sky offer to have me feeling their prices are worth it.
I buy Blu-rays if I'm bothered about a film.
I've been with sky (including via cable in London) for about 20yrs and have watched their costs rocket year on year.
£61mth (£732 a year) is frankly ridiculous just for TV - and shows the BBC TV licence for the excellent value it is.
I've had enough, it's just not worth that much to me.
The HD versions of ITV2, 3 and 4 are NOT free they are subscription only.
for me personally, HD has become the norm so I am not so much impressed at a HD picture, more unimpressed at an SD picture. Maybe I'm a glass half empty person??
The number of people commenting that they can't see any difference between HD and SD demonstrates that perception varies greatly from person to person.
I put the TV on last night just before midnight to catch Big Ben. I didn't bother with the Sky box, just watched on Freeview and left it on when the fireworks started. The picture was clearly SD but ok, though the sound quality was terrible. When I switched to BBC1HD the difference was amazing - clear sound (just the TV speakers) and much better picture definition, not so much a 'wow' factor but more of a 'that's better' I guess because HD is now the norm to me.
I went over to 101 on the Sky box just to compare and that was the same SD picture and 'woolly' sound as on Freeview. I would challenge anyone watching those images to tell me they couldn't tell the difference between SD and HD, both in terms of picture quality and sound.
The number of people commenting that they can't see any difference between HD and SD demonstrates that perception varies greatly from person to person.
I put the TV on last night just before midnight to catch Big Ben. I didn't bother with the Sky box, just watched on Freeview and left it on when the fireworks started. The picture was clearly SD but ok, though the sound quality was terrible. When I switched to BBC1HD the difference was amazing - clear sound (just the TV speakers) and much better picture definition, not so much a 'wow' factor but more of a 'that's better' I guess because HD is now the norm to me.
I went over to 101 on the Sky box just to compare and that was the same SD picture and 'woolly' sound as on Freeview. I would challenge anyone watching those images to tell me they couldn't tell the difference between SD and HD, both in terms of picture quality and sound.
Obviously there must have been a sound fault on the SD channels, there's no appreciable 'quality' difference between the two, and certainly not through TV speakers.
Picture wise, viewed at a correct difference, the difference should be (and is) startling.
I was showing a neighbour the other night the difference between ITV and ITV HD on Freeview (seeing as he was watching ITV) - not that ITV HD is that great, but the difference is still huge.
I constantly get funny looks from friends and family when I refuse to watch a film that's being shown in SD. I want to watch programs and films in the best available format available to me at home. I've got HD, so if the film has been converted to HD that's how I'll watch it. If it hasn't been converted, then I'll wait until it has.
I can see the difference on about 90% of films on my 42inch panasonic plasma, and I am baffled by people who say it looks the same as SD.
I think the average UK punter isn't overly discerning about picture or sound quality, which is why we had fuzzy VHS for a further 2 years after the US had DVD's.
I am 78 and I like to keep abreast of the latest technology even though I am getting rather deaf.
If you have a fairly modern television set whatever the screen size it has a built-in SD to HD upscaling conversion so most of the time you don't see much difference between the two.
Have you ever tried actually trying to do a comparison between say BBC1 and its high definition version?
It's actually impossible because by the time the TV set has hesitated and changed channels the idiots on the mixer desks have completely changed the view. It would appear that showing the same image for more than five seconds is a henious crime these days!
I am 78 and I like to keep abreast of the latest technology even though I am getting rather deaf.
If you have a fairly modern television set whatever the screen size it has a built-in SD to HD upscaling conversion so most of the time you don't see much difference between the two.
Upscaling doesn't make SD in to HD, all it does it make it fill the screen - it's still just an SD image.
Have you ever tried actually trying to do a comparison between say BBC1 and its high definition version?
It's actually impossible because by the time the TV set has hesitated and changed channels the idiots on the mixer desks have completely changed the view. It would appear that showing the same image for more than five seconds is a henious crime these days!
It's not impossible with two identical sets side by side which I have done many, many times. But even on the same set, with a decent set and viewing from the correct distance, it's blindingly obvious if it's HD or not.
If you can't tell much difference, it's very likely because you're too far from the TV - how far do you view from?.
If you can get the chance, check out the HD version of Robin Hood on Sky Classics HD. OK, it's not widescreen. It was released in 1937, but looks like it was filmed last week.
If you can get the chance, check out the HD version of Robin Hood on Sky Classics HD. OK, it's not widescreen. It was released in 1937, but looks like it was filmed last week.
That's because most film is of a higher resolution than 1080p HD TV offers and has been for many many decades.
How exactly have you paid for Sky 1 HD and the other subscription HD channels?
In case you hadn't noticed they are separated on the EPG. That means they are different channels.
In case you hadn't noticed the HD channels show exactly the same content as the SD channels, so if you subscribe you are paying twice to see the same program in HD.
In case you hadn't noticed the HD channels show exactly the same content as the SD channels, so if you subscribe you are paying twice to see the same program in HD.
No, hadn't noticed because I generally only watch the HD channel. So I can't be paying twice, just paying extra to get a better service.
Using your analogy is like saying people that pay extra to travel first class on trains & planes are paying twice for the same journey.
I don't think that it is an age thing when it comes to watching in HD. My parents are in their early 60's and they watch all the HD channels, and can see a difference between SD and HD. The only reason I can suggest is that people tune in to channels 101, 103 etc is because of the habit of doing so for so many years. My in-laws do not have Sky HD but have cable (not HD), and they never have their TV set to show in widescreen, so all the programs they watch are not in the correct ratio. My boyfriend and I (I am female) always advise them how to watch properly, but when we visit again, their tv is set to 4:3. Just can't understand some people.
We've got a Virgin Media V+ HD subscription, but my mum always insists that everything is watched in SD. On my V+ HD upstairs, I'll happily watch and record anything in HD when its available in HD. My Dad refuses to watch the majority of things in HD because "they are too quiet". In fact, when my mum got a new Samsung 42inch plasma back in April, she had the box connected via HD, but had the display settings set to "RGB". When I set it "HDMI 1080 wide", a day later, it would be set back to "RGB" one again. I have since set it back to "HDMI 1080 wide", and my mum has kept it at that.
However, over christmas, any christmas movies that have been shown on Channel 4, if they were available in HD, he would always watch them in HD.
I think the average UK punter isn't overly discerning about picture or sound quality, which is why we had fuzzy VHS for a further 2 years after the US had DVD's.
DVD was available in the UK not that long after it launched in the US but the takeup was slow so it was relaunched .
I had a dvd player in early 1998.
The last UK VHS to be classified was 2008.
Upscaling doesn't make SD in to HD, all it does it make it fill the screen - it's still just an SD image.
That's a highly misleading comment, I'm surprised at you. As you well know, most upscaled material that is broadcast on an HD channel is as near as makes no difference DVD quality. DVD quality video is far better than the best SD channels in the UK, and is an order of magnitude better than the poorer SD channels. Resolution isn't the be all and end all of picture quality, or having a good viewing experience; far from it.
That's a highly misleading comment, I'm surprised at you. As you well know, most upscaled material that is broadcast on an HD channel is as near as makes no difference DVD quality. DVD quality video is far better than the best SD channels in the UK, and is an order of magnitude better than the poorer SD channels. Resolution isn't the be all and end all of picture quality, or having a good viewing experience; far from it.
It's an entirely accurate statement - DVD is just SD as well - it bears no resemblance to HD.
Resolution isn't the 'be all and end all', but it's what HD is - and DVD (and all SD) does'nt have it.
That's because most film is of a higher resolution than 1080p HD TV offers and has been for many many decades.
It'll look even better at the cinema.
I know that it's filmed in a higher resolution. I was mentioning it to compare it to the SD broadcast. People who can't see the difference between SD and HD should give this movie a look.
Comments
The HD versions of ITV2, 3 and 4 are NOT free they are subscription only.
(But still, that's hardly a deal-breaker, eh?)
Well lots of UK stuff is in HD now.
I put the TV on last night just before midnight to catch Big Ben. I didn't bother with the Sky box, just watched on Freeview and left it on when the fireworks started. The picture was clearly SD but ok, though the sound quality was terrible. When I switched to BBC1HD the difference was amazing - clear sound (just the TV speakers) and much better picture definition, not so much a 'wow' factor but more of a 'that's better' I guess because HD is now the norm to me.
I went over to 101 on the Sky box just to compare and that was the same SD picture and 'woolly' sound as on Freeview. I would challenge anyone watching those images to tell me they couldn't tell the difference between SD and HD, both in terms of picture quality and sound.
Obviously there must have been a sound fault on the SD channels, there's no appreciable 'quality' difference between the two, and certainly not through TV speakers.
Picture wise, viewed at a correct difference, the difference should be (and is) startling.
I was showing a neighbour the other night the difference between ITV and ITV HD on Freeview (seeing as he was watching ITV) - not that ITV HD is that great, but the difference is still huge.
I can see the difference on about 90% of films on my 42inch panasonic plasma, and I am baffled by people who say it looks the same as SD.
I think the average UK punter isn't overly discerning about picture or sound quality, which is why we had fuzzy VHS for a further 2 years after the US had DVD's.
If you have a fairly modern television set whatever the screen size it has a built-in SD to HD upscaling conversion so most of the time you don't see much difference between the two.
Have you ever tried actually trying to do a comparison between say BBC1 and its high definition version?
It's actually impossible because by the time the TV set has hesitated and changed channels the idiots on the mixer desks have completely changed the view. It would appear that showing the same image for more than five seconds is a henious crime these days!
Upscaling doesn't make SD in to HD, all it does it make it fill the screen - it's still just an SD image.
It's not impossible with two identical sets side by side
If you can't tell much difference, it's very likely because you're too far from the TV - how far do you view from?.
That's because most film is of a higher resolution than 1080p HD TV offers and has been for many many decades.
It'll look even better at the cinema.
So why are you wasting your money on Sky Movies?
In case you hadn't noticed the HD channels show exactly the same content as the SD channels, so if you subscribe you are paying twice to see the same program in HD.
But it's not "exactly the same" though - it's HD (rather than SD).
Er, paying more to see the same programme in HD.
That's the deal. I'm OK with it
But a better quality SD picture due to the higher but rates,
Using your analogy is like saying people that pay extra to travel first class on trains & planes are paying twice for the same journey.
However, over christmas, any christmas movies that have been shown on Channel 4, if they were available in HD, he would always watch them in HD.
Perhaps you should read all the posts?, it referred to the upscaler inside the TV - so no higher data rates.
I fully agree that watching SD programmes on the HD channels is well worth it, due to the higher data rates (more so than the upscaling at source).
.....because the Blu-ray library is still quite small?
(IIRC they have around 1500 or so out nowm this compares with DVDs ovwer 100,000)
As I said, the content is exactly the same.
DVD was available in the UK not that long after it launched in the US but the takeup was slow so it was relaunched .
I had a dvd player in early 1998.
The last UK VHS to be classified was 2008.
It's an entirely accurate statement - DVD is just SD as well - it bears no resemblance to HD.
Resolution isn't the 'be all and end all', but it's what HD is - and DVD (and all SD) does'nt have it.
I know that it's filmed in a higher resolution. I was mentioning it to compare it to the SD broadcast. People who can't see the difference between SD and HD should give this movie a look.