|
||||||||
HD v SD |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#251 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 235
|
Quote:
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.
Having a good TV, a higher pixel count and a HD source doesn't mean you have to sit closer, it means you can sit closer, the picture quality doesn't miraculously change to SD beyond a certain point as some people think it does. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#252 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
Hd to me is simply better picture quality all round not just more detail, yes I can see the squares of the net on centre court on a service from 14ft on a 50" 1080p plasma, but that really doesn't matter as its the overall effect that makes it HD not just a little extra detail here and there. SD is slightly fuzzy from any distance and I have to just imagine the net.
Having a good TV, a higher pixel count and a HD source doesn't mean you have to sit closer, it means you can sit closer, the picture quality doesn't miraculously revert to SD beyond a certain point as some people think it does. ![]() So HD IS more detail, that's what it's all about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#253 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 235
|
Quote:
Perhaps you should consider what the initials actually stand for? - I'll give you a clue, the D is DEFINITION!!
![]() So HD IS more detail, that's what it's all about. Anyway as I said I can see more detail with HD from SD Viewing distances and beyond, I don't have to take the TV off the wall kneel down next to it and watch it with a magnifying glass. Quote:
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)....... |
|
|
|
|
|
#254 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
So the only thing that interests you about HD is more detail and not the overall picture quality !
Quote:
Anyway as I said I can see more detail with HD from SD Viewing distances and beyond
|
|
|
|
|
|
#255 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 235
|
Quote:
That's what HD is - the overall picture 'quality' is no different apart from the increased resolution and greater bandwidth used accordingly..
All I can say is thank god I never owned one of these amazing HD ready plasmas where SD looks HD and HD doesn't provide any useful improvement over SD. These TV's obviously have the 'potential' to damage their owners eyesight or their appreciation of good HD picture unless they are sat right next to it, probably because they are totally obsessed with seeing every minute detail. |
|
|
|
|
|
#256 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
All I can say is thank god I never owned one of these amazing HD ready plasmas where SD looks HD and HD doesn't provide any useful improvement over SD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#257 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
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' ![]() ![]() So basically you are saying, anyone sitting at SD viewing distances will not be able to tell a difference between SD/HD - really. I would have say, you won't be able to resolve all the extra detail, but you should notice a difference, which if i'm not mistaken has been said all along, to resolve all detail you need to be sat much closer, distance = screen size x 2x image height. I have a 32" full HD LCD in the conservatory and I can tell the difference sat at the table which is outside HD viewing distances - I will add, if it is SD upscaled from source, ie. SD programme on a HD channel, it is more difficult. Same goes for the 50" HD ready display in the cinema room, a difference can be seen. Why would SD have a greater bandwidth on a decent HDTV?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#258 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 235
|
Quote:
Looks like you've never read much of this thread?, that has NEVER been suggested - in fact quite the opposite.
Also the post at the top of age 10 I totally agree with having once owned a HD ready LG 42" LCD and again it is inferred that the SD picture quality on a plasma can look HD to some. "they can call round mine and think my SD is HD." Quote:
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.
(This goes for my eyesight and my TV only). |
|
|
|
|
|
#259 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,981
|
This has got silly.
If I see stuff on SD (wife doesn't care for it or bother finding it) I can see straightaway that it's SD not HD, except for some programmes - The One Show being a good example of soft HD not looking very good. Like the tennis last night - I walk in with a cup of tea in each hand, glance at the tv and see that it's SD. Flick to 142 and bosh - nice picture. The fine detail of Laura Robson's VPL might lose a bit of definition (if not my interest) if I sit at the far end of the room - guestimate about 14', but the overall PQ is distinctly better on HD. I really don't see how anyone can argue the contrary. Panasonic 42" Plasma with built in Freeview + Freesat HD but tend to watch via the Sky box these days, connected with HDMI. Honestly - this argument is getting daft. HD is better than SD. The detail lessens with distance but the sharpness & better colour, contrast & brightness (like I said 5 pages ago bright without being garish) still comes across clearly and instantly. SD just looks wrong compared to HD. |
|
|
|
|
|
#260 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
You are welcome to believe the "accepted wisdom" or even Nigel, all I can say is that from 12ft my 50" my TV still looks huge the HD PQ is a massive improvement over SD and I can see all the detail I want. Getting closer doesn't really improve the overall effect or detail that much, which is why I only bother for certain content with 5.1 sound. (This goes for my eyesight and my TV only). |
|
|
|
|
|
#261 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 235
|
Quote:
This has got silly.
If I see stuff on SD (wife doesn't care for it or bother finding it) I can see straightaway that it's SD not HD, except for some programmes - The One Show being a good example of soft HD not looking very good. Like the tennis last night - I walk in with a cup of tea in each hand, glance at the tv and see that it's SD. Flick to 142 and bosh - nice picture. The fine detail of Laura Robson's VPL might lose a bit of definition (if not my interest) if I sit at the far end of the room - guestimate about 14', but the overall PQ is distinctly better on HD. I really don't see how anyone can argue the contrary. Panasonic 42" Plasma with built in Freeview + Freesat HD but tend to watch via the Sky box these days, connected with HDMI. Honestly - this argument is getting daft. HD is better than SD. The detail lessens with distance but the sharpness & better colour, contrast & brightness (like I said 5 pages ago bright without being garish) still comes across clearly and instantly. SD just looks wrong compared to HD. I watched (12ft) the first episode of Wild Shepherdess with Kate Humble last night in Afghanistan.(HD of course) Amazing, beautiful, great PQ, really well filmed and the content was far more entertaining than I thought it would be, Kate was great as usual and so were the local women. For me it would of been a completely different experience watching it in slightly fuzzy dull boring SD. |
|
|
|
|
|
#262 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 235
|
Quote:
I would say the OP had their TV and 12ft seating distance in mind when they posted - seated 12ft from your 50" screen would of course give different results.
Anyway it is clearly an S on my chest not a just a strange symbol. (shows how bad some people's eyesight is)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#263 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 158
|
Quote:
...The One Show being a good example of soft HD not looking very good...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#264 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
That about sums up this thread. HD is better than SD but there are not enough pgms that truly exploit it for the average viewer to care to look for it.
![]() You don't get the SD option for NHKWorld TV on a HD Freesat box anyway |
|
|
|
|
|
#265 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
That about sums up this thread. HD is better than SD but there are not enough pgms that truly exploit it for the average viewer to care to look for it.
I realise we are in a Freesat forum so I have just scanned the four main HD channels which would most likely appeal to the average viewer, apart from Spending Review, Heir Hunters on BBC2HD and the main/local news on some channels, everything else is in HD. |
|
|
|
|
|
#266 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
|
Quote:
Well Faust might of but Nigel Goodwin seems to think I should be wearing underpants on the outside with a strange symbol on my chest as my vision is extraordinary. Surely he knows that TV's come in different sizes and I think I've mentioned the size of my TV enough as it is clearly relevant to this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#267 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
Well Faust might of but Nigel Goodwin seems to think I should be wearing underpants on the outside with a strange symbol on my chest as my vision is extraordinary. Surely he knows that TV's come in different sizes and I think I've mentioned the size of my TV enough as it is clearly relevant to this discussion.
Anyway it is clearly an S on my chest not a just a strange symbol. (shows how bad some people's eyesight is) ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#268 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,981
|
Quote:
12 feet is well over the minimum SD viewing distance for a 50 inch TV, you need to be considerably closer to see HD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#269 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
|
Quote:
This has got silly.
If I see stuff on SD (wife doesn't care for it or bother finding it) I can see straightaway that it's SD not HD, except for some programmes - The One Show being a good example of soft HD not looking very good. Like the tennis last night - I walk in with a cup of tea in each hand, glance at the tv and see that it's SD. Flick to 142 and bosh - nice picture. The fine detail of Laura Robson's VPL might lose a bit of definition (if not my interest) if I sit at the far end of the room - guestimate about 14', but the overall PQ is distinctly better on HD. I really don't see how anyone can argue the contrary. Panasonic 42" Plasma with built in Freeview + Freesat HD but tend to watch via the Sky box these days, connected with HDMI. Honestly - this argument is getting daft. HD is better than SD. The detail lessens with distance but the sharpness & better colour, contrast & brightness (like I said 5 pages ago bright without being garish) still comes across clearly and instantly. SD just looks wrong compared to HD. I'm afraid you've stretched credibility to the limit with 14' and you can still tell it's HD in an instant. |
|
|
|
|
|
#270 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
|
Quote:
I totally agree with what you say above and what you said 5 pages back.
I watched (12ft) the first episode of Wild Shepherdess with Kate Humble last night in Afghanistan.(HD of course) Amazing, beautiful, great PQ, really well filmed and the content was far more entertaining than I thought it would be, Kate was great as usual and so were the local women. For me it would of been a completely different experience watching it in slightly fuzzy dull boring SD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#271 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,981
|
Quote:
Quite frankly you're a blooming marvel. The world collectively has spent billions of pounds on optical telescopes when they could have simply hired you. I mean seriously do we need Hubble?
I'm afraid you've stretched credibility to the limit with 14' and you can still tell it's HD in an instant. Quote:
This has got silly.
If I see stuff on SD (wife doesn't care for it or bother finding it) I can see straightaway that it's SD not HD, except for some programmes - The One Show being a good example of soft HD not looking very good. Like the tennis last night - I walk in with a cup of tea in each hand, glance at the tv and see that it's SD. Flick to 142 and bosh - nice picture. The fine detail of Laura Robson's VPL might lose a bit of definition (if not my interest) if I sit at the far end of the room - guestimate about 14', but the overall PQ is distinctly better on HD. I really don't see how anyone can argue the contrary. Panasonic 42" Plasma with built in Freeview + Freesat HD but tend to watch via the Sky box these days, connected with HDMI. Honestly - this argument is getting daft. HD is better than SD. The detail lessens with distance but the sharpness & better colour, contrast & brightness (like I said 5 pages ago bright without being garish) still comes across clearly and instantly. SD just looks wrong compared to HD. |
|
|
|
|
|
#272 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
|
I am watching tennis in SD as I write and I can clearly see the net in good detail both on the serves and the ground shots. Nice clean squares. So what is this problem we are talking about with SD? If I can see that level of detail in SD and I genuinely can at 12' then I consider that to be a win win. For those who can't and need HD to see the same I say get your TV calibrated or get an new TV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#273 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 235
|
Quote:
I am watching tennis in SD as I write and I can clearly see the net in good detail both on the serves and the ground shots. Nice clean squares. So what is this problem we are talking about with SD? If I can see that level of detail in SD and I genuinely can at 12' then I consider that to be a win win. For those who can't and need HD to see the same I say get your TV calibrated or get an new TV.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#274 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 235
|
Quote:
Slightly fuzzy dull and boring SD. I'm fast coming to the conlusion that there is something badly wrong with many posters set ups and that's the reason they bang on about the quality of HD so much - i.e. it's simply a tidied up picture that many of us are enjoying in SD in any event. Many posters have said just how good their SD PQ is so I can only assume for those that aren't seeing that they either need to go to spec savers or get a decent TV.
![]() . )My plasma displays a 16:9 TV picture which is about four times the size of what I could see on my old SD CRT which had a lot less resolution, but you seem to think SD should look as good as HD on it, why ? SD should look better on your TV as less upscaling is needed and decent 720p source upscales very well on my 1080p TV, unfortunately and not that surprisingly broadcast SD does not look that great*, oddly enough I never expected it to. (*your great and my great might be vastly different of course, going by your previous posts regarding past TV's) Luckily this isn't a problem for me as we hardly ever watch SD, I only watch a 2-3 hours of TV on the evening and sport at the weekend (if there is any on) and there is plenty of quality HD programmes on for us to watch/record more than we can find the time for actually. I hope the above helps as you seem to be a little confused because you are very happy with SD and very happy with HD, please try to understand that you and I don't have the same TV's. Also if it gives you some piece of mind (which you obviously need) I'm happy to admit that I only pretend that my HD picture quality is outstanding. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
|
|
#275 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 235
|
Quote:
Quite frankly you're a blooming marvel. The world collectively has spent billions of pounds on optical telescopes when they could have simply hired you. I mean seriously do we need Hubble?
I'm afraid you've stretched credibility to the limit with 14' and you can still tell it's HD in an instant.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:06.





