|
||||||||
HD v SD |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#276 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,663
|
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 change to SD beyond a certain point as some people think it does. 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.
![]() ![]() Have posted i couldnt see difference in SD - HD Just tried the tennis/ serve/ net shots, and it is alot clearer in HD. Viewing distance on either SD or HD Doesnt make any difference to the picture. Dam, grass looks better when they are sat down for a break, doh i think im getting HD bug ![]() Havent spotted it before as didnt have same shot on same program on both channels long enough to spot the difference. Dam, going have to pay sky the extra to turn it on now, thanks guys ![]() Oh and ps, it is a new panny plasma. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#277 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#278 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,981
|
Ok. I just did it properly rather than relying on a sense of "I'm sure it's better".
Normal viewing distance is about 10' or a few feet more at the other end of the settee. Toggling between tennis on SD & HD there's a clear difference, of the nature that I've been trying to get across. Move to the back of the living room and sit in the corner, it turns out to be about 16' from screen to head, roughly. Toggling between the two there's still a clear difference. The detail on the shirt logos is more apparent, the Rolex clock looks sharper, the scoreboard digits are much more clearly defined. Most clearly of all though the motion blur that turns the grass to a green mush on SD isn't present on HD, at 16', 10' or 3'6. Sneer and deny it all you like, but HD is better, and that difference doesn't disappear at the quite small distances (12') that some would have us believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
#279 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 235
|
Quote:
So although you and others appear to be bewildered by the fact that because my TV handles SD very well and therefore the step up to HD isn't as pronounced, you now concede that it may not actually be the case that I need to go to spec savers, rather it may be because we have different TV's?
But it would appear that it upscales and displays SD very well, far better than mine and too a level that you are happy with so I really don't see the problem, enjoy it. But that doesn't mean that SD is comparable to HD on most larger HD ready or Full HD TV's, HD should look a lot better and from any reasonable distance. (not just the silly newspaper test distance) So as HD doesn't shine on your TV it is understandable that SpecSavers might be mentioned or even an upgrade to a more modern TV. |
|
|
|
|
|
#280 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
|
Quote:
Ok. I just did it properly rather than relying on a sense of "I'm sure it's better".
Normal viewing distance is about 10' or a few feet more at the other end of the settee. Toggling between tennis on SD & HD there's a clear difference, of the nature that I've been trying to get across. Move to the back of the living room and sit in the corner, it turns out to be about 16' from screen to head, roughly. Toggling between the two there's still a clear difference. The detail on the shirt logos is more apparent, the Rolex clock looks sharper, the scoreboard digits are much more clearly defined. Most clearly of all though the motion blur that turns the grass to a green mush on SD isn't present on HD, at 16', 10' or 3'6. Sneer and deny it all you like, but HD is better, and that difference doesn't disappear at the quite small distances (12') that some would have us believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
#281 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
|
Quote:
I think this has already been covered, but normally HD downscaled would/should look far better than SD upscaled, but a certain Nigel seems to think your TV can't show HD that well so the difference might be negligible. I have no experience with your TV so I don't know.
But it would appear that it upscales and displays SD very well, far better than mine and too a level that you are happy with so I really don't see the problem, enjoy it. But that doesn't mean that SD is comparable to HD on most larger HD ready or Full HD TV's, HD should look a lot better and from any reasonable distance. (not just the silly newspaper test distance) So as HD doesn't shine on your TV it is understandable that SpecSavers might be mentioned or even an upgrade to a more modern TV. |
|
|
|
|
|
#282 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
So although you and others appear to be bewildered by the fact that because my TV handles SD very well and therefore the step up to HD isn't as pronounced, you now concede that it may not actually be the case that I need to go to spec savers, rather it may be because we have different TV's?
I have seen some setups where the user has compromised their HD viewing simply because of picture settings, some have even been watching through scart. I've seen controls set so high you'd need sunglasses to watch, so it's entirely possible to wreck a HD picture by an incorrectly adjusted TV. So with this on mind it's also entirely possible to have a TV adjusted in such away the differences between SD and HD are closer in appearance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#283 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
|
Quote:
I'm not bewildered that your TV has good scaling, I'm finding it hard to believe the level of detail you say your TV presents when showing SD, your description could be easily taken for HD resolution, which technically speaking is not possible. I too have very good upscaling, but it doesn't give HD presentations.
I have seen some setups where the user has compromised their HD viewing simply because of picture settings, some have even been watching through scart. I've seen controls set so high you'd need sunglasses to watch, so it's entirely possible to wreck a HD picture by an incorrectly adjusted TV. So with this on mind it's also entirely possible to have a TV adjusted in such away the differences between SD and HD are closer in appearance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#284 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,336
|
Quote:
What I say is that because the TV does a good job with SD, taken in conjunction with the distance I view the TV from the difference isn't significant enough for me to go to the bother of selecting the HD variant. Simple as that really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#285 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
|
Quote:
Right, so now we're all agreed that HD offers a better PQ than SD. Finally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#286 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,862
|
Again it's one of those some TVs have better upscaler then others mine is really poor so I can clearly tell the difference on my hd ready screen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#287 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW Wales
Posts: 520
|
An interesting thread.
I usually watch my 42" LCD Panasonic from around 8ft. Somehow I'm just not comfortable viewing any closer. The improvement that HD brings is still very obvious on most types of programme. Mind you, even at 12ft away the difference is clear to see. But I do have (with specs) perfect vision. Some people are not fussy though. At a friend's house last night, we were watching BBC 1 rather than the HD version. But as he views via scart I guess any improvement would be marginal. |
|
|
|
|
|
#288 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,981
|
I recorded Seasick Steve at Glastonburyy on BBC4 earlier this evening and watched it a short while go. PQ was excellent but tbh it could have been shot on a 1978 hand-held with comet tails and smears for all I care, SSS is brilliant in any definition, H, S or Crap.
By coincidence soon after my recording finished BBC2HD showed a clip from the same set. Whoah - qu'elle difference sur la mere. <<? Me neither. HD wins, again. Even when the content should override the quality, when presented with the same thing in two defs there's a clear winner. |
|
|
|
|
|
#289 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,537
|
I listened to SSS on BBC4 and on the clip on BBC2HD. As is my want for music I switched the AV amp to 5 channel stereo so sound-wise no difference. PQ difference not noticable. Saw the stray threads on the patch on his jeans just as clearly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#290 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
|
Quote:
An interesting thread.
I usually watch my 42" LCD Panasonic from around 8ft. Somehow I'm just not comfortable viewing any closer. The improvement that HD brings is still very obvious on most types of programme. Mind you, even at 12ft away the difference is clear to see. But I do have (with specs) perfect vision. Some people are not fussy though. At a friend's house last night, we were watching BBC 1 rather than the HD version. But as he views via scart I guess any improvement would be marginal. |
|
|
|
|
|
#291 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
|
Quote:
I recorded Seasick Steve at Glastonburyy on BBC4 earlier this evening and watched it a short while go. PQ was excellent but tbh it could have been shot on a 1978 hand-held with comet tails and smears for all I care, SSS is brilliant in any definition, H, S or Crap.
By coincidence soon after my recording finished BBC2HD showed a clip from the same set. Whoah - qu'elle difference sur la mere. <<? Me neither. HD wins, again. Even when the content should override the quality, when presented with the same thing in two defs there's a clear winner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#292 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW Wales
Posts: 520
|
Quote:
Two different technologies though. We have two LCD TV's besides the Plasma and the picture delivery is a totally different experience.
Off topic, the 5.1 sound on Wimbledon programmes is lovely. It really does feel like sitting with spectators all around you. |
|
|
|
|
|
#293 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
|
Quote:
Indeed so - but I wasn't comparing LCD with Plasma. Just HD with SD on my particular TV.
Off topic, the 5.1 sound on Wimbledon programmes is lovely. It really does feel like sitting with spectators all around you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#294 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,663
|
Quote:
Wasting licence fee payers money on an elitist sport then shoving it down the viewers throats and basically scrapping the schedules? I don't think so.
![]() With things like iplayer, catchup, red button etc it should mainly be on those, we arnt all intrested in tennis ![]() Maybe the bbc should get ther own sports channel, after all they have a dedicated news channel
|
|
|
|
|
|
#295 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
|
Quote:
Agree.
With things like iplayer, catchup, red button etc it should mainly be on those, we arnt all intrested in tennis ![]() Maybe the bbc should get ther own sports channel, after all they have a dedicated news channel ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#296 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: With the Sunshine Band
Posts: 151
|
Quote:
Wasting licence fee payers money on an elitist sport then shoving it down the viewers throats and basically scrapping the schedules? I don't think so.
![]() While I hate tennis, I personally very much enjoyed watching the F1 qualifying and Moto GP live today and all in HD (not that you care) and all while others were watching various tennis matches. I think the BBC deserve a medal! |
|
|
|
|
|
#297 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 8,954
|
Quote:
Wasting licence fee payers money on an elitist sport then shoving it down the viewers throats and basically scrapping the schedules? I don't think so.
![]() Instead of all the faffing around, why didnt they just leave the tennis on BBC 2 all along. And just to keep this post on topic, the tennis did look much better on HD than it did on SD
|
|
|
|
|
|
#298 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 235
|
Quote:
The BBC should scrap Wimbledon. Just like it did with Prem football, cricket, rugby, F1 and all the other elitist sports. Then we can all enjoy moaning about how good things used to be.
While I hate tennis, I personally very much enjoyed watching the F1 qualifying and Moto GP live today and all in HD (not that you care) and all while others were watching various tennis matches. I think the BBC deserve a medal! We've had a busy day watching the BBC in HD too, recorded all the Moto GP on Red Button HD this morning. Watched the important bits of F1 qualifing, then watched the Laura Robson match (not normally a tennis fan but don't mind supporting Brits at Wimbledon). Finally got round to watching the MotoGP race with our Cal and now I'm watching a load of geriatrics at Glastonbury. |
|
|
|
|
|
#299 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
|
Quote:
Some people just aren't happy unless they're moaning.
We've had a busy day watching the BBC in HD too, recorded all the Moto GP on Red Button HD this morning. Watched the important bits of F1 qualifing, then watched the Laura Robson match (not normally a tennis fan but don't mind supporting Brits at Wimbledon). Finally got round to watching the MotoGP race with our Cal and now I'm watching a load of geriatrics at Glastonbury. |
|
|
|
|
|
#300 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,537
|
Quote:
Finally got round to watching the MotoGP race with our Cal
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:05.





