I've got Sky HD and blu-ray but tbh with most things I can't see much difference between HD and SD - with Sky HD the only things I really notice as much better in HD are live performances on Sky Arts and football, films and TV shows look the same - when my 12 months is up in May Sky HD is going.
I'm not that bothered about HD tbh. The only thing I think it shines on is something like a football match, where the players look more defined or on documentaries like the BBC's nature ones.
Dramas and stuff I couldn't really care less about, and in a lot of cases you'd be hard pressed to tell much difference between HD and SD.
I watched an episode of the Big Bang Theory on CH4 HD and it was awful HD tbh.
In fact if I'm watching ITV1-HD I prefer the upscaled SD stuff as you don't get that awful bright Dog on screen.
CH5 HD is rubbish too. They manage to have two Dog's, both in the 4:3 viewing area. Idiots. :rolleyes:
Again, only the football really benefits from HD on there.
In summary I can take it or leave it, but I certainly wouldn't pay extra for it.
Yes fair play to u i hope im still that tech when i reach 75, my point was the vast majority of people in there 50s or 60s dont have time for HD let alone understand it. I mean if u went out and asked 100 people in there 50s have u got an HDTV what percentage would say yes i would say less than 10 per cent.
Why would people not be interested in HD, surely that why people buy HDTV's for.
I didn't, it was a good 3 years after getting a HD TV before I saw any HD on it, the choice to buy was purely maths based - I could fit a 32" LCD TV in a smaller space than needed for a 28" CRT. Dad wants a HD TV now but he's not bothered about HD he just wants a bigger screen he can hang on the wall.
I can clearly see a difference between HD and SD. When I switch from HD to SD I think 'yuck'.
but.....
my brain compensates. 5 or 10 minutes of SD and I really don't care I'm not watching HD. Even when the difference is noticeable such as when watching football. I'm watching the game not admiring the view.
And so that is the reason I am not prepared to pay 1p extra for HD. For me SD is good enough.
The other half can't even tell the difference anyway, except on 'Strictly'. And that is BBC anyway and hence the HD is 'free'.
I didn't, it was a good 3 years after getting a HD TV before I saw any HD on it, the choice to buy was purely maths based - I could fit a 32" LCD TV in a smaller space than needed for a 28" CRT. Dad wants a HD TV now but he's not bothered about HD he just wants a bigger screen he can hang on the wall.
Good point, I'd certainly say the space save by wall mounting my 42" TV over the space taken up by my old 32" Sony CRT is a far bigger plus point than a HD picture.
My Sony was so big it had its own gravitational pull.
I'd never pay Sky £10 to watch the HD channels as few of them are of interest.
I mostly watch 1-5 anyway so thats all I ever used Sky HD for.
Since using Virgin we do get about 16 HD channels for free but its still only 1-5 I bother with.
I think people prefer higher quality .
However very few are bothered enough to pay extra for them.
Many can't even tell the difference.
And lots don't really give a toss either way
Have to say, if it was not for the football, I would not bother with HD.. So many HD channels with poor picture quality that makes it not really worthwhile... However football is usually stunning, why not that quality for all HD channels...
Given the choice of HD or SD it is HD every time for me, even the upscaled SD looks better. I am puzzled those who say HD takes up too much space as it is never an issue with me. I record everything I can in HD and I have more than enough room on the planner, I am rarely anywhere near approaching the 50% mark.
I do not keep anything that long on there before watching it around 20 programmes at the most. I thought that was what the Sky+ box was designed for, just the storing temporary of programmes and not long term storage, of dozens of programmes.
Watching on a 42 in screen and larger in SD must be an absolute awful picture but then looking ant many peoples TV set ups even in the B & W days and the crappy picture they put up with that is no surprise really.
Most folks dont give a hoot about HD. How many times to you go round to someones house and the aspect ratio is all screwed up? Anyone who cant even get the A/R right isnt going to be over bothered with hidef.
Our telly is still cross wired with rf aerial cables - nothing wrong at all with the pic quality as far as Im concerned. I was in a pub the other afternoon that was showing the football on ESPN HD. First time Ive really had a chance to have a good look at a football game in HD - and to be blunt I wasnt particularly impressed - there certainly wasnt the "wow thats a fabulous picture" feeling
Very true......In my younger days I collected rentals for a TV company and was astonished at the rubbishy pictures that customers actually praised and thought was great......In its day......I am going a long way back in time. I think the public are not quite that bad now as HD sales have been healthy in recent months
I am also astonished truly astonished by some of the conclusions on this thread that HD is only "slightly" better than SD........Somethings wrong something seriously wrong if the difference is not completely apparent.......
It must be down to equipment and the settings of.......I have just aquired a new Panasonic LED to replace a Toshiba that has now been relegated to the kitchen........Not only is HD immensly different to SD its also better than the HD on the Toshiba......
That may well be but you cannot dismiss the psychological sunk investment effect. Unless and until you do blind testing with the viewers and set ups discussed it is all up for argument.
Did u see Zulu on C4HD today now that is quality HD i remeber seeing it on Sky a while back on the picture was spot on. Think i will have to get the Bluray.
There must something wrong with your setup if you can only see a minor difference.
I am with you on this, I have just purchased a full HD tv 42 inch and the picture is stunning.
I do not yet subscribe to HD as I only have two packages and would only get HD for those, but I realy enjoy the free HD channels,I will subscribe later in the year.
Only thing is if I want to watch local news in HD, then I have to switch to SD, not complaining though, I am well delighted with HD.
Hope you all have a great new year.
Cheers Brian.
Definitely something wrong if people can only see a minor difference. Either the TV is pants, it's connected with scart, or you are sitting too far away or something. Or maybe you're using 720 rather than 1080. Either way, I have a 46" top end sony and the quality on some shows is outstanding. Almost photo realistic as if you are actually there in the room. Switch to SD and it's perfectly watchable but obviously far fuzzier.
Not everything is like this. It depends on the camera's used and the bandwidth of the channel, and a lot of directors deliberately "fuzz" the image as well for artistic reasons. Ashes to Ashes was a good example of that as it was made to look '80s. X-factor on ITV-HD and The Apprentice on BBC1-HD are good examples to look at. On my TV these both look picture perfect, every little detail perfectly visible. If you switch to SD it looks hugely worse.
It does annoy me that it costs me an extra £10/month for this, but I do happily pay it as the difference is so massive in my opinion that it would be more annoying to not have the HD and know what I was missing.
It wasn't always like this, before my current sony TV I had a toshiba which cost half as much and only did 720. I was saying the same thing, SD looks pretty much the same as HD. Then thankfully that TV broke and forced me to get a new one. The quality difference on the new one was huge. I put it down to going from 37" 720 to 46" 1080, but I think it was probably just the fact it was a cheaper TV with an inferior panel or something.
Definitely something wrong if people can only see a minor difference. Either the TV is pants, it's connected with scart, or you are sitting too far away or something.
Not true, I've been to enough people's houses that are perfectly set up and they have lovely TVs. I can notice a big difference switching rom SD to HD, but it's not a big enough difference to make them turn over to an HD channel. There's also people that don't care if it's a massive difference they just want to watch TV and will do so by the easiest means and if that means typing in 101 (which they know) for BBC1 instead of 143, they will!
I think it's fair to say that there is NO right answer, it's really each to their own.
For me personally I see a huge difference between SD and HD and would always plump for the HD alternative, in actual fact I am one of those sad people that look at the HD listings first and foremost, if there's nothing there I want to watch I would take a look at the SD listings. I would have thought slightly techie geeks would agree with me on this. I think the argument for quality difference between 720p, 1080i, 1080p is much more valid than SD v HD as I think you would need supervision to be able to tell the difference between those on a standard sized TV.
The rest of my family are not bothered by HD, they can quite easily live with SD and don't see a big enough difference to warrant an extra £10. Again, that is not a wrong view, just their OWN view. My mum loves gardening and grows certain flowers and different types / colour flowers have a massive impact on how a garden looks. For me, a flower is a flower, you can plant the whole garden with the same colour flower and I wouldn't be the slightest bit bothered. It's the same point I'm trying to make here, for those that are bothered about the quality and understand it, then HD is a significant difference, for those who aren't bothered they will see it as a waste of money and wonder what all the fuss is about.
No right or wrong answer, just how you personally view things.
i think the vast majority of parents in there mid 50s or 60s couldnt care less, ive had SkyHD since the start got my parents an HD Box last week because the Sky+ packed in again i show them the difference between SD and HD and whilst my dad noticed it my mother didnt. HD is marketed at a younger Audiance what with Bluray and 3D Gaming now. And to experience True HD you have to get Bluray SkyHD is very good too.
I am aged 77 and have just upgraded to 1.5 Tb drive to record more HD progs. I only watch SD when I have no choice.
Try going into a TV store and buying anything but HD ready or full HD tv,see what the alternatives are
Yeah your right, but still surprised just how many people are not that bothered by HD. When most people upgrade their TV from CRT to a LCD they will be shocked by how poor the picture is on SD compared to their old CRT, that should make them want HD if nothing else. But the PQ on SKYHD is not as good as it used to be, just look at how bad E4HD looks now especially the US shows. Its only when you feed your TV a good quality Blue ray that you realise just how poor the PQ is on SKYHD.
i guess it begs the question then when will Sky ever broadcast in 1080p then but im guessing maybe never if only all HD Channels could broadcast at Bluray quality we wouldnt be complaining. But i agree with geordielady to get the best out of your HDTV feed it a good bluray and see the results for yourself. Best one ive seen is Bladerunner.
Comments
Dramas and stuff I couldn't really care less about, and in a lot of cases you'd be hard pressed to tell much difference between HD and SD.
I watched an episode of the Big Bang Theory on CH4 HD and it was awful HD tbh.
In fact if I'm watching ITV1-HD I prefer the upscaled SD stuff as you don't get that awful bright Dog on screen.
CH5 HD is rubbish too. They manage to have two Dog's, both in the 4:3 viewing area. Idiots. :rolleyes:
Again, only the football really benefits from HD on there.
In summary I can take it or leave it, but I certainly wouldn't pay extra for it.
I know a lot of the HD PQ on BBCHD and E4HD is dreadful but I watch almost everything in HD now and would not change that.
Surprised so many dont appear bothered.
Try going into a TV store and buying anything but HD ready or full HD tv,see what the alternatives are
I didn't, it was a good 3 years after getting a HD TV before I saw any HD on it, the choice to buy was purely maths based - I could fit a 32" LCD TV in a smaller space than needed for a 28" CRT. Dad wants a HD TV now but he's not bothered about HD he just wants a bigger screen he can hang on the wall.
but.....
my brain compensates. 5 or 10 minutes of SD and I really don't care I'm not watching HD. Even when the difference is noticeable such as when watching football. I'm watching the game not admiring the view.
And so that is the reason I am not prepared to pay 1p extra for HD. For me SD is good enough.
The other half can't even tell the difference anyway, except on 'Strictly'. And that is BBC anyway and hence the HD is 'free'.
Good point, I'd certainly say the space save by wall mounting my 42" TV over the space taken up by my old 32" Sony CRT is a far bigger plus point than a HD picture.
My Sony was so big it had its own gravitational pull.
I just say a note on facebook for.........
"Free to a good home ,A 32 inch TV with a fat arse "
Not being "bombastic"...just stating a fact.
I mostly watch 1-5 anyway so thats all I ever used Sky HD for.
Since using Virgin we do get about 16 HD channels for free but its still only 1-5 I bother with.
I think people prefer higher quality .
However very few are bothered enough to pay extra for them.
Many can't even tell the difference.
And lots don't really give a toss either way
The HD hype probably influences many too but when they get it, they are underwhelmed. However, they still like having the large flat screen TVs.
Incidentally, it also means that for most people, the differences between full HD 1920 x 1080 and HD ready, even 1024 x 720/768, are irrelevant.
I do not keep anything that long on there before watching it around 20 programmes at the most. I thought that was what the Sky+ box was designed for, just the storing temporary of programmes and not long term storage, of dozens of programmes.
Watching on a 42 in screen and larger in SD must be an absolute awful picture but then looking ant many peoples TV set ups even in the B & W days and the crappy picture they put up with that is no surprise really.
Very true......In my younger days I collected rentals for a TV company and was astonished at the rubbishy pictures that customers actually praised and thought was great......In its day......I am going a long way back in time. I think the public are not quite that bad now as HD sales have been healthy in recent months
I am also astonished truly astonished by some of the conclusions on this thread that HD is only "slightly" better than SD........Somethings wrong something seriously wrong if the difference is not completely apparent.......
It must be down to equipment and the settings of.......I have just aquired a new Panasonic LED to replace a Toshiba that has now been relegated to the kitchen........Not only is HD immensly different to SD its also better than the HD on the Toshiba......
I am with you on this, I have just purchased a full HD tv 42 inch and the picture is stunning.
I do not yet subscribe to HD as I only have two packages and would only get HD for those, but I realy enjoy the free HD channels,I will subscribe later in the year.
Only thing is if I want to watch local news in HD, then I have to switch to SD, not complaining though, I am well delighted with HD.
Hope you all have a great new year.
Cheers Brian.
Not everything is like this. It depends on the camera's used and the bandwidth of the channel, and a lot of directors deliberately "fuzz" the image as well for artistic reasons. Ashes to Ashes was a good example of that as it was made to look '80s. X-factor on ITV-HD and The Apprentice on BBC1-HD are good examples to look at. On my TV these both look picture perfect, every little detail perfectly visible. If you switch to SD it looks hugely worse.
It does annoy me that it costs me an extra £10/month for this, but I do happily pay it as the difference is so massive in my opinion that it would be more annoying to not have the HD and know what I was missing.
It wasn't always like this, before my current sony TV I had a toshiba which cost half as much and only did 720. I was saying the same thing, SD looks pretty much the same as HD. Then thankfully that TV broke and forced me to get a new one. The quality difference on the new one was huge. I put it down to going from 37" 720 to 46" 1080, but I think it was probably just the fact it was a cheaper TV with an inferior panel or something.
Not true, I've been to enough people's houses that are perfectly set up and they have lovely TVs. I can notice a big difference switching rom SD to HD, but it's not a big enough difference to make them turn over to an HD channel. There's also people that don't care if it's a massive difference they just want to watch TV and will do so by the easiest means and if that means typing in 101 (which they know) for BBC1 instead of 143, they will!
It's all they sell now, my 91 year old nan has one and doesn't have a clue what HD is. She's got Freeview.
I must admit I have seen some HD on others tvs and thought how poor - but th`t must be a tv quality issue as they have noted how much better on mine!
I think it's fair to say that there is NO right answer, it's really each to their own.
For me personally I see a huge difference between SD and HD and would always plump for the HD alternative, in actual fact I am one of those sad people that look at the HD listings first and foremost, if there's nothing there I want to watch I would take a look at the SD listings. I would have thought slightly techie geeks would agree with me on this. I think the argument for quality difference between 720p, 1080i, 1080p is much more valid than SD v HD as I think you would need supervision to be able to tell the difference between those on a standard sized TV.
The rest of my family are not bothered by HD, they can quite easily live with SD and don't see a big enough difference to warrant an extra £10. Again, that is not a wrong view, just their OWN view. My mum loves gardening and grows certain flowers and different types / colour flowers have a massive impact on how a garden looks. For me, a flower is a flower, you can plant the whole garden with the same colour flower and I wouldn't be the slightest bit bothered. It's the same point I'm trying to make here, for those that are bothered about the quality and understand it, then HD is a significant difference, for those who aren't bothered they will see it as a waste of money and wonder what all the fuss is about.
No right or wrong answer, just how you personally view things.
I am aged 77 and have just upgraded to 1.5 Tb drive to record more HD progs. I only watch SD when I have no choice.
Yeah your right, but still surprised just how many people are not that bothered by HD. When most people upgrade their TV from CRT to a LCD they will be shocked by how poor the picture is on SD compared to their old CRT, that should make them want HD if nothing else. But the PQ on SKYHD is not as good as it used to be, just look at how bad E4HD looks now especially the US shows. Its only when you feed your TV a good quality Blue ray that you realise just how poor the PQ is on SKYHD.