Thats the problem (or not) SD is very good on most new tvs, as ive said, my panny plasma is great on SD so when i switch to HD cant see any diffrence.
But go to a mates who has a second had lg, the SD is rubbish, but HD is great. So that generates they can call round mine and think my SD is HD.

Anyone who knows anything about quality would know I was referring to the Kuro range, pretty sure you would've known this because it isn't that long we were in the same discussion, my claim has not changed since then.

If you have not got access to one how can you possibly label all HD ready plasma TV's as being useless at HD.

Pioneer were priced out of the market, same as Fujitsu, folk weren't prepared to pay the price for ultra high end equipment.

I'm just watching Wimbledon, switched between SD/HD and the difference is obvious. On SD the net is just a blur, on HD every bit of the net is visible, even the strings on their rackets are clearly visible. I honestly don't know what you look at when judging pq.

I can only ever see a very slight difference between SD & HD tv ... and usually see no difference at all ... perhaps this is because I'm over 40?

This is a Forum, not a personal discussion, you need to be clear in what you post - and not wildly inaccurate and completely misleading.

I've no idea if we've discussed this before, as I pay no attention to posters names - like I dais, it's not a personal discussion.


Because the HD Ready Plasma technology is the limiting factor, I've seen most makes (including Pioneer) and all have been crap on HD (the absolute worst two were Pioneers - but to be fair, may have been NTSC only 480 pixel screens).


Fujitsu wasn't anything very great, not from those I've seen - they also have absolutely appalling service (or complete lack of).


The net on tennis (depending on the range of the shot of course) would be an excellent example, are you watching on an HD ready plasma?.

Only if you have a Labrador and a white stick

But how far away are you watching from, and what size screen - also LCD or Plasma?.

So if I had said Pioneer Kuro your view would have been completely different.

I assumed because you are in the trade there was no need to describe the make, model, as I said, anyone in the industry would recognise their quality and know it would be the Pioneer Kuro that was being referred to, why would anyone refer to a sub HD resolution display as being reference quality.



No idea where you are seeing all these TV's, I'm assuming they are around customers homes? Not the best way to get a true impression of what a set is capable of especially when you see/hear how some of them are setup.


Yes, a seven year, six month old LG HD ready plasma - 1366x768 and is isf calibrated.

The camera shot would be the one taken when the player is serving ie. Longest shot.

I've never heard any great claims about Pioneer being 'wonderful' in the trade at all - only on DS


But it's how almost all sets are used, and settings are a personal item, which is why they are there.


If I get round to it I'll try it on my Freeview HD box (I don't watch tennis).

The net is a wash from critics that hailed it to be the best TV ever. It was also compared to a Sony $25k professional monitor.




Precisely, that's why you can't make an accurate judgement on that particular display because the settings could be all over the place giving a false impression on how the set performs.


I'll be interested to hear of your findings.

The BBC are filming Wimbledon in 4k, just a shame we can't see it. No doubt this will start many new debates when 4k arrives.

I think you will find it is UHD 1 not 4k

This thread is so funny.

But I kid you not, I've seen people watching BBC HD on a Sky HD box that is connected by SCART (I can only imagine that at the time of installation, the TV it was connected to did not have HDMI or component).

Then the TV was upgraded and still connected by SCART.

I noticed this lack of HD and they were convinced they were watching HD because of the DOG. It was only a 26" LCD, and I don't know why they bought that.

But, even I could tell the difference once I fitted an HDMI lead, and the owners were forced to admit it was a better picture. (I used ITV and ITV HD to illustrate side by side).

I flicked between 4Music on Freeview and Sky 1HD to really prove the difference between an awful picture and one suited to the display. I then explained that no end of HDMI cables could make Freeview soup any better.

That did puzzle them!

Thought UHD 1 was 4k, it offers two resolutions 3840 x 2160 or 4096 x 2160.

References on the net are referring to it as 4k.

I'd be interested to know what the difference is.

I think you missed the point of what I was trying to achieve i.e. I was studying the picture to ascertain the differences in detail between the HD and SD picture. Flowers are a great subject matter for such comparisons. I wasn't sitting at that distance just so I could enjoy the programme in HD.

Well if everyone is willing to club together to buy me a 2013 new Panasonic Plasma to give me that immersive HD experience then I am willing to swallow my pride and accept. Oh! a new table to sit it on would be nice too.

Why do you say the above which I have noticed you mention a few times now? Is it due to a technical reason or is it simply a personal opinion.

You may be saying that in jest but it's a sad fact for us all that our near sightedness declines at a decent rate post 40, with virtually no exceptions. That's what the missus tells me and she's an optician!

Could explain much in this thread.

Hmm! That's a most interesting reply. Exactly what is meant by near sightedness?

"Nearsightedness (myopia) is a common vision condition in which you can see objects near to you clearly, but objects farther away are blurry.

The degree of your nearsightedness affects your ability to focus on distant objects. People with severe nearsightedness can see clearly only objects just a few inches away, while those with mild nearsightedness may clearly see objects up to several yards away.

Nearsightedness may develop gradually or rapidly, often worsening during childhood and adolescence. Nearsightedness tends to run in families.

A basic eye exam can confirm nearsightedness. You can easily correct the condition with eyeglasses or contact lenses. Another treatment option for nearsightedness is surgery."

Presumably it's a technical limitation of Plasma, due to the way they work? - their picture is a lot 'softer', and this is what makes SD look good (as it softens the artefacts), but unfortunately it also softens HD, destroying the resolution that IS HD.

Switching mine between BBC1 on Sky via RGB SCART and BBC1 HD on Freeview HD via HDMI produces no worthwhile improvement - to the extent that I never bother watching HD on it. I've never seen an HD Ready Plasma yet which looks worthwhile on HD, including brand new Panasonic and Samsung ones.

Re: the Plasma vs LCD debate. I've had both technologies in 1080p on my wall recently from Samsung and LG and there are pros and cons for both and I like them both. If you want to watch TV from close up I would suggest that a LCD is better.

Eventually I went for a Panasonic Plasma because I couldn't get a LCD without annoying backlighting (technically edgelighting) problems, which I can see on a lot of LCD's now, most people don't notice them or it doesn't bother them which is fair enough.

Modern Plasma tech has its faults too, no TV is perfect, at the moment I find Plasma's faults less annoying. The PQ on both techs was very good apart from a Samsung plasma which had been set to the wrong panel type in the factory, I only found that out after I had sent it back.


As was said earlier if you're happy and get enjoyment from your equipment it doesn't matter what others think.

Here is an interesting article which seems to contain lots of tit-bits to feed both sides of the discussion on here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06..._eyes_have_it/

Oddly in that article I can't seem to find any mention of what I think is the main benefit of HD. i.e. Larger TV's that it is possible to sit closer to if that's what the viewer wants.

Regarding frame rate, I think Panasonic's IFC does a wonderful job with motion on my plasma. For example Earth Flight had a panning shot of an eagle flying over a some ice that had broken up in to lots of smaller pieces, if I turned off Intelligent Frame Creation this became a blurred mess, with it on it was smooth and crisp. Whether this was natural who knows but it certainly looked very good with my eyes and I know which one I prefer.

The HD tennis looks perfect on my TV too, every bit of detail is visible from 7 to 14ft (net too on a service), the motion of the players looks natural, no blurring, colours are vibrant, image is sharp, I could actually be there watching it in the sun.

Which is what I have said many times i.e. my Panny produces a softish picture, is good with SD and the fact that I sit where I do means seeing much of a difference between HD and SD is always going to be a struggle.

Which is what I've said all along - but even with an LCD set, you still wouldn't get much benefit from HD at your viewing distance.

Accepted - though we have a number of posters who claim it's still night and day at 12 feet and over. It's such assertions that I have a difficulty with as it flies in the face of most accepted wisdom relating to HD.

As do I, it's a totally ludicrous suggestion

From SD viewing distances you can only see SD resolution (which is the reason for minimum SD viewing distances), although on a decent HD TV it's a better quality SD picture, because of the greater bandwidth used. But it's certainly not 'night and day'