The term "High Definition" or "HD" is almost being abused as a marketing tactic by electronics companies. Its fairly recent appearance on TV sets and other devices along with the way its all being advertised is rather amusing. Ive observed most of my relatives new hip LCD's which sport a cool looking "HD Ready" logo on the front. If you look into the technicality, most of these new pretty looking TV's are doing a pathetic 1360x768. I'd hate to sound old, but my 2003 Dell does a 1920 x 1200 and that feature was probably in the small print.
The HDTV standards were established long before anyone had an LCD capable of delivering 1920 x 1080p, so I think the comparison is unfair, tongue in cheek or not.;)
Ive observed most of my relatives new hip LCD's which sport a cool looking "HD Ready" logo on the front. If you look into the technicality, most of these new pretty looking TV's are doing a pathetic 1360x768.
You obviously know nothing about it at all, HD Ready is perfectly fine for watching HD programming - Full HD sets give hardly any advantage at all, and cheap Full HD sets give poorer pictures that good quality HD ready ones.
Maybe it's more a case of 'normal' TVs being LOW definition by today's standards. 'Hi-Def' really means 'just starting to catch up with everything else', but that wouldn't make good advertising . . .
Maybe it's more a case of 'normal' TVs being LOW definition by today's standards. 'Hi-Def' really means 'just starting to catch up with everything else', but that wouldn't make good advertising . . .
Not at all, as it is many people (including large numbers on these forums) watch HDTV from much too far away, so get little benefit from it.
So there's little point in higher resolutions, as people aren't prepared to view from the correct distances. Monitors need to be exceptionally high resolution because you view from a very short distance away.
You obviously know nothing about it at all, HD Ready is perfectly fine for watching HD programming - Full HD sets give hardly any advantage at all, and cheap Full HD sets give poorer pictures that good quality HD ready ones.
Seconded I would love to put the poster of this rubbish in front of a line Of TV's showing a good quality HD transmission and ask which were the HD ready and which Full HD.
Blinded by big numbers 720p can easily look better than 1080i even on a 1920 x 1080 display
Not at all, as it is many people (including large numbers on these forums) watch HDTV from much too far away, so get little benefit from it.
Really? How do you know what distance people view from? And do you think 625 lines is/was OK? Any modern device which only claimed a vertical resolution of 625 would be unlikely to succeed.
The term "High Definition" or "HD" is almost being abused as a marketing tactic by electronics companies. Its fairly recent appearance on TV sets and other devices along with the way its all being advertised is rather amusing. Ive observed most of my relatives new hip LCD's which sport a cool looking "HD Ready" logo on the front. If you look into the technicality, most of these new pretty looking TV's are doing a pathetic 1360x768. I'd hate to sound old, but my 2003 Dell does a 1920 x 1200 and that feature was probably in the small print.
That's all fine and dandy but like HDTV's, your 2003 Dell would have needed an HD source. Did it? Even if it did, HD content on a tiny screen is significantly different to screens bigger than 37".
Really? How do you know what distance people view from? And do you think 625 lines is/was OK? Any modern device which only claimed a vertical resolution of 625 would be unlikely to succeed.
Bet you have never seen a 625 line picture, analogue PAL 625 line transmissions only have 576 visible lines hence 576i digital transmission to maintain compatibility with crt displays
... there's little point in higher resolutions, as people aren't prepared to view from the correct distances.
Every distance is correct, TVs are a leisure device and people can do what they like with them. If the optimum distance for artifact-ridden SD TV is 12 feet, viewing in HD at all distances closer than that will be beneficial, even if you can't get 100% of the detail on the very highest quality HD programmes from further away than 5 feet.
Also, many people view HD material normally from "too far" away but occasionally, from closer - close enough to get the benefit. These things alone are enough to justify the cost of an HD TV for most people. Others may get them because they look nice, are big, or just to keep up with the Jones's. These are all valid reasons to buy an HD TV (thankfully for the TV and electronics industries!). When you buy something new, you don't need to get all the benefits to justify the cost, as long as you get some benefit (of which "looking pretty on the wall" can be one, coupled with the impossibility of buying a cheaper SD version).
Monitors need to be exceptionally high resolution because you view from a very short distance away.
I'd say the main reason for needing high resolution and high refresh rate monitors is the need clearly to see detail that you rarely or never need to see on a TV. Fine text, for example - like what you are reading now.
You obviously know nothing about it at all, HD Ready is perfectly fine for watching HD programming - Full HD sets give hardly any advantage at all, and cheap Full HD sets give poorer pictures that good quality HD ready ones.
You got the wrong idea, I own a 32 inch 1360x768 set (would i put a small laptop in front of my sofa?) I am trying to point out that high definition has been around for a long time (though obviously not in generous affordable screen sizes).
Your debate is entirely different to my point.
I couldnt give a rats ass about High Definition TV
Really? How do you know what distance people view from? And do you think 625 lines is/was OK? Any modern device which only claimed a vertical resolution of 625 would be unlikely to succeed.
Because it's discussed here often, and I've seen thousands of TV's in peoples homes.
Nothing wrong with 625 lines, as long as it's viewed from the correct distance - even 405 lines was perfectly fine, and again viewed from further away, or a smaller screen. Almost all programmes are still only 576 lines, and American ones only 480.
Viewing distance, screen size, and screen resolution are directly related.
Nothing too shocking about that, TV sets have always lagged behind when it comes to resolution.
Old CRT computer monitors have been capable of displaying "HD resolutions" for a long long time, whilst most of the CRT televisions were still stuck at a low resolution, hence they are crap for PC usage!
But of course, a HD capable TV was never necessary prior to the introduction of HDTV broadcasts & content released via Blu-Ray etc. So, a 10-year old computer display may be able to do HD just as good as a modern HD TV set, but you wouldn't have been watching HD TV or movies 10 years ago!
Nothing too shocking about that, TV sets have always lagged behind when it comes to resolution.
Old CRT computer monitors have been capable of displaying "HD resolutions" for a long long time, whilst most of the CRT televisions were still stuck at a low resolution, hence they are crap for PC usage!
But of course, a HD capable TV was never necessary prior to the introduction of HDTV broadcasts & content released via Blu-Ray etc. So, a 10-year old computer display may be able to do HD just as good as a modern HD TV set, but you wouldn't have been watching HD TV or movies 10 years ago!
Never seen a monitor that was any good as a HD TV display. They are designed to view from a close distance and more importantly near enough directly on axis, try watching from an acute angle. May be fine for viewing directly from the front, pretty useless in the average lounge.
Old CRT computer monitors have been capable of displaying "HD resolutions" for a long long time, whilst most of the CRT televisions were still stuck at a low resolution, hence they are crap for PC usage!
HD CRT monitors were crap for TV though, due to a lack of brightness. The way CRT's work is with a shadowmask, and the extra 'mask' and smaller 'holes' mean they aren't as bright as a TV type CRT.
For watching normal SD TV there's no advantage of having any higher resolution display anyway, it's only an advantage is you have a suitable resolution source.
Bet you have never seen a 625 line picture, analogue PAL 625 line transmissions only have 576 visible lines hence 576i digital transmission to maintain compatibility with crt displays
Agreed, doesn't that emphasise the point that until very recently TV has been low resolution? btw my father was a BBC engineer and I've seen broadcast tv on BBC CRT monitors, which showed all the lines including the bits at the top and bottom of the screen that are never normally seen on domestic TVs. This wasn't a direct feed, but the broadcast received by an aerial and demodulated so what people were actually receiving could be checked. The picture quality was better than any normal TV I've seen since!
Never seen a monitor that was any good as a HD TV display. They are designed to view from a close distance and more importantly near enough directly on axis, try watching from an acute angle. May be fine for viewing directly from the front, pretty useless in the average lounge.
Depends on what panel is in them.
I've got a 24" 1920x1200 monitor with a PVA panel, and the viewing angle is every bit as good as a TV.
Also the HD channels tend to look crisper on it, than they do on my 40" TV. Partly because of the smaller size, and partly because there is no TV processing in it, 'improving' the picture.
The downside, is that the SD channels don't look as good, for a similar reason.
But I happily used it as the TV in my bedroom for 2 years.
I'm really not trying to accuse you of exaggerating, but I'd be interested to know how you've seen thousands of TVs in people's homes.
My guess is that this is down to him being either
(a) a burglar,
(b) a devastatingly attractive gigolo paid silly money by countless bored wives of very rich men while they're out during the day or
(c) a television service engineer
Er, come to think of it, it's probably (c) since his profile says this (I guessed that one right, do I win a prize? :cool:)
Though there might be some (b) in there as well, if the 1970s sex comedy "Confessions of a Television Service Engineer" is anything to go by.
pocatello
Posts: 8,813 
sad but true.
Comments
I'll get me coat
John
You obviously know nothing about it at all, HD Ready is perfectly fine for watching HD programming - Full HD sets give hardly any advantage at all, and cheap Full HD sets give poorer pictures that good quality HD ready ones.
Not at all, as it is many people (including large numbers on these forums) watch HDTV from much too far away, so get little benefit from it.
So there's little point in higher resolutions, as people aren't prepared to view from the correct distances. Monitors need to be exceptionally high resolution because you view from a very short distance away.
Seconded I would love to put the poster of this rubbish in front of a line Of TV's showing a good quality HD transmission and ask which were the HD ready and which Full HD.
Blinded by big numbers 720p can easily look better than 1080i even on a 1920 x 1080 display
John
That's all fine and dandy but like HDTV's, your 2003 Dell would have needed an HD source. Did it? Even if it did, HD content on a tiny screen is significantly different to screens bigger than 37".
Bet you have never seen a 625 line picture, analogue PAL 625 line transmissions only have 576 visible lines hence 576i digital transmission to maintain compatibility with crt displays
Also, many people view HD material normally from "too far" away but occasionally, from closer - close enough to get the benefit. These things alone are enough to justify the cost of an HD TV for most people. Others may get them because they look nice, are big, or just to keep up with the Jones's. These are all valid reasons to buy an HD TV (thankfully for the TV and electronics industries!). When you buy something new, you don't need to get all the benefits to justify the cost, as long as you get some benefit (of which "looking pretty on the wall" can be one, coupled with the impossibility of buying a cheaper SD version).
I'd say the main reason for needing high resolution and high refresh rate monitors is the need clearly to see detail that you rarely or never need to see on a TV. Fine text, for example - like what you are reading now.
Your debate is entirely different to my point.
I couldnt give a rats ass about High Definition TV
Because it's discussed here often, and I've seen thousands of TV's in peoples homes.
Nothing wrong with 625 lines, as long as it's viewed from the correct distance - even 405 lines was perfectly fine, and again viewed from further away, or a smaller screen. Almost all programmes are still only 576 lines, and American ones only 480.
Viewing distance, screen size, and screen resolution are directly related.
http://carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator
You will need excel to open it.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
Old CRT computer monitors have been capable of displaying "HD resolutions" for a long long time, whilst most of the CRT televisions were still stuck at a low resolution, hence they are crap for PC usage!
But of course, a HD capable TV was never necessary prior to the introduction of HDTV broadcasts & content released via Blu-Ray etc. So, a 10-year old computer display may be able to do HD just as good as a modern HD TV set, but you wouldn't have been watching HD TV or movies 10 years ago!
Never seen a monitor that was any good as a HD TV display. They are designed to view from a close distance and more importantly near enough directly on axis, try watching from an acute angle. May be fine for viewing directly from the front, pretty useless in the average lounge.
HD CRT monitors were crap for TV though, due to a lack of brightness. The way CRT's work is with a shadowmask, and the extra 'mask' and smaller 'holes' mean they aren't as bright as a TV type CRT.
For watching normal SD TV there's no advantage of having any higher resolution display anyway, it's only an advantage is you have a suitable resolution source.
Depends on what panel is in them.
I've got a 24" 1920x1200 monitor with a PVA panel, and the viewing angle is every bit as good as a TV.
Also the HD channels tend to look crisper on it, than they do on my 40" TV. Partly because of the smaller size, and partly because there is no TV processing in it, 'improving' the picture.
The downside, is that the SD channels don't look as good, for a similar reason.
But I happily used it as the TV in my bedroom for 2 years.
My guess is that this is down to him being either
(a) a burglar,
(b) a devastatingly attractive gigolo paid silly money by countless bored wives of very rich men while they're out during the day or
(c) a television service engineer
Er, come to think of it, it's probably (c) since his profile says this (I guessed that one right, do I win a prize? :cool:)
Though there might be some (b) in there as well, if the 1970s sex comedy "Confessions of a Television Service Engineer" is anything to go by.
Thank god I have retired.................