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 change to SD beyond a certain point as some people think it does.

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.

So the only thing that interests you about HD is more detail and not the overall picture quality !

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.


Are you sure you haven't got a white stick and a labrador ?

That's what HD is - the overall picture 'quality' is no different apart from the increased resolution and greater bandwidth used accordingly..


Do you wear your underpants on the outside?, and have a strange symbol on your chest?

Does the above statement make any sense to anybody, "the overall picture 'quality' is no different".

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.

Looks like you've never read much of this thread?, that has NEVER been suggested - in fact quite the opposite.

Surely you are seeing SD upscaled to the TV's native resolution, not SD resolution, if it was SD resolution you'd be seeing a little picture in the middle of the screen - the difference would be obvious to everyone which was SD if they did that.

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?

It has been inferred as certain individuals and their wives have stated that they can't see a difference/noticeable improvement between their SD picture and HD on other newerTV's.

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."


You are welcome to believe the "accepted wisdom" or even Nigel, all I can say is that from 12ft my 50" 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).

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 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.

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.

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)

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.

That might be true if some HD programmes look worse than SD ones. No one has suggested that. It seems plain stupid to not simply select the HD version of the channel every time

You don't get the SD option for NHKWorld TV on a HD Freesat box anyway

Wouldn't that depend on the viewer and what programmes they watch, more importantly how they source their viewing.

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.

12 feet is well over the minimum SD viewing distance for a 50 inch TV, you need to be considerably closer to see HD.

Is it a bird, is it a plane - guess I'll have to get closer to tell the difference.

Well done on completely ignoring the last half dozen posts. detail? PQ? No? At 12' it completely disappears? Come round to my house and tell me that.

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.

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.

In your enthusiasm to make a facetious post you failed to assimilate what I'd written. Try again - I've highlighted the bits in bold for you...

Clearly just mixing up a few words that appeared in a paragraph helps you to dismiss my point, but it doesn't stand scrutiny.

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.

Interesting as according to Nigel I shouldnt be able to see HD detail at 12ft on my slightly larger 1080p TV.

This might come as a shock to you but I do have a large (Full) High Definition TV, now Nigel seems to be overly obsessed with viewing distances and you seem to think SD should look as good as HD as you cant see any difference on your TV. (You do make lovely couple . )

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.

Yep not a problem in our household we can usually tell the difference instantly (14' whatever), obviously not all HD is equal as you pointed out earlier, but generally it is instantly obvious if a HD programme I normally watch is on the TV in SD, not that it ever would be of course.