|
||||||||
HD v SD |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
So, what do you suggest?
That we: [LIST][*]a) move the sofa when viewing HD into the middle of the room, then move it back again for SD [*]b) move the TV when viewing HD into the middle of the room, then move it back again for SD [*]c) sit on the floor in front of the TV when viewing HD [*]d) buy a Sharp LC-80LE646E 80 -inch LCD @ £3,962.50, hire a crane to install it and suffer annoying compression artifacts when viewing SD TV [*]e) Only watch TV in the bedroom, with it hanging over the foot of the bed (the facing wall would be too far). [*]f) leave things as they are and benefit from the other advantages of an HDTV apart from the absolute maximum spatial resolution[/LIST]I chose f). What would you recommend? ![]() The 'problem' is caused by there still being SD channels, in a perfect world all SD channels would be closed, and only HD ones used. In the meantime a 'compromise' distance is probably the best solution. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
Usually I value Nigel's advice but there is something seriously wrong here. Firstly, you will end up the same distance from the screen regardless of whether it is 26" or 65".
![]() On a bigger screen the fine detail will be larger as well, so visible from further away - as viewing distances are directly related to screen size. The newspaper example is to show the exact principle, for those who amazingly don't seem able to cope with such a simple law of physics. |
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scottish Borders
Posts: 11,989
|
Quote:
Or as said previously the distance smooths out the imperfections in SD whilst the brain fills out any missing detail. There really are to many variables to claim we should all be seeing the same thing. 1 in 5 who can't see any difference is a pretty high percentage.
To go back to your example of flowers. Supposing the TV was showing a picture of a flower with an intricate pattern on the petal. In HD the pattern would be clearly visible if you looked at it from close to the screen. In SD the pattern would just be a fuzzy mess, no matter how close to the screen you got. Your brain might be able to smooth the picture out, but it could not fill in the detail. It's a bit like claiming a child's daub is as good as a Picasso, because they look the same from the other side of the gallery. (ETA: Picasso may be bad example, but insert name of artist who paints realistic images) Or a Mazda is as good as a Ferrari, because they look the same from half a mile away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
Your brain can not fill in the detail in an SD image.
To go back to your example of flowers. Supposing the TV was showing a picture of a flower with an intricate pattern on the petal. In HD the pattern would be clearly visible if you looked at it from close to the screen. In SD the pattern would just be a fuzzy mess, no matter how close to the screen you got. Your brain might be able to smooth the picture out, but it could not fill in the detail. It's a bit like claiming a child's daub is as good as a Picasso, because they look the same from the other side of the gallery. (ETA: Picasso may be bad example, but insert name of artist who paints realistic images) Or a Mazda is as good as a Ferrari, because they look the same from half a mile away. ![]() Can't imagine what fine detail would be missing on these images if viewed in SD. |
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,874
|
Quote:
Springwatch micro camera, simply wow!!!
Can't imagine what fine detail would be missing on these images if viewed in SD. |
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 163
|
Quote:
Your brain can not fill in the detail in an SD image.
To go back to your example of flowers. Supposing the TV was showing a picture of a flower with an intricate pattern on the petal. In HD the pattern would be clearly visible if you looked at it from close to the screen. In SD the pattern would just be a fuzzy mess, no matter how close to the screen you got. Your brain might be able to smooth the picture out, but it could not fill in the detail. It's a bit like claiming a child's daub is as good as a Picasso, because they look the same from the other side of the gallery. (ETA: Picasso may be bad example, but insert name of artist who paints realistic images) Or a Mazda is as good as a Ferrari, because they look the same from half a mile away. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Anyone with access to iplayer in HD, compare the HD version (720p25) with the SD (576i) of BBC2's Horizon - Secret Life Of The Cat, whatever distance you watch the TV from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
How did we ever cope before the advent of HD! I don't disagree that an HD picture is superior to SD, but I would suggest that well over 90% of the viewing public do not give a damn about what you are argueing about here. How sad that you (and others) worry so much about all of this.
What HD has done is give the viewer the opportunity to increase the size of TV without losing picture quality. |
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
|
Quote:
So my brain is filling in missing detail of objects I have never seen in real life close up. Ok.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
|
Quote:
Your brain can not fill in the detail in an SD image.
To go back to your example of flowers. Supposing the TV was showing a picture of a flower with an intricate pattern on the petal. In HD the pattern would be clearly visible if you looked at it from close to the screen. In SD the pattern would just be a fuzzy mess, no matter how close to the screen you got. Your brain might be able to smooth the picture out, but it could not fill in the detail. It's a bit like claiming a child's daub is as good as a Picasso, because they look the same from the other side of the gallery. (ETA: Picasso may be bad example, but insert name of artist who paints realistic images) Or a Mazda is as good as a Ferrari, because they look the same from half a mile away. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
|
Quote:
I suppose that argument can be applied to b/w vs colour, mono vs stereo, stereo vs DD/DTS, DD/DTS vs HD audio. They are all technology improvements, some embrace them, others don't.
What HD has done is give the viewer the opportunity to increase the size of TV without losing picture quality. |
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,103
|
Quote:
What would that picture have been like had we kept with analogue?
With our old aerial it would have been a fuzzy mess as we lived in a poor reception area, when we had satellite installed there was a noticeable improvement, but still not a clear as digital. |
|
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,874
|
Quote:
Your brain is filling in missing detail constantly through every waking minute of your day. You should read some of the science journals on the brain and neurology, an amazing organ.
And been able to read down an eye-chart does not warrant whether or not you can distinguish detail in images. I've spent enough years in eye hospitals to know |
|
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scottish Borders
Posts: 11,989
|
Quote:
Your brain is filling in missing detail constantly through every waking minute of your day. You should read some of the science journals on the brain and neurology, an amazing organ.
As far as I'm concerned, the closer a TV picture comes to displaying reality the better, and that means the higher the definition the better. It should be as close to looking out of a window as possible. Whether the TV buying public will buy into that, I don't know? But the demand might be driven by the gaming market in the first instance? |
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
What would that picture have been like had we kept with analogue?
![]() If we had stuck with the original 5/6 frequencies used for PAL analogue, we would have the same 5/6 channels one per carrier and just up to 6 analogue PAL channels. The picture quality would depend on the signal quality at your location and HD would be impossible, unless you stick to one channel per carrier and use lossy mpeg compression (digital TV) If you happen to have a near perfect analogue signal (most of us do not) then given a good display and signal then the picture detall will be better than digital for 576i (PAL 625) content, HD and more than one channel per carrier would not work. |
|
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17
|
For me the question is “Is HD “THAT” much better”. I readily agree that it is better and on some shows that makes a significant difference, on some it makes no difference at all to my viewing enjoyment. I have had Freesat HD pretty much since it was launched and was initially very impressed. However even assuming I had a basic Sky subs would I pay the extra £5 or £10 month to get extra HD – definitely not. If the source material is of high enough quality then for me SD is usually “good enough” and if the source material is of poor quality HD isn’t going to improve it.
When all new programmes are made and transmitted in HD (just as happened with colour over what 10 years) I will not complain, but I won’t pay a premium to be an early adopter. What HD would allow me to do is to sit further away from a bigger set – but that is not a requirement. And as a PS despite having the ability to record in HD I never do - I value the disk space higher than the improved quality. |
|
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: too close to Hell, Londonistan
Posts: 4,567
|
SD broadcast quality now is rank bad in the UK( most of Germany's FTA stuff on satellite is much better and acceptable) , it wouldn't be so bad if it where still DVD quality, most of it is now SUB SD (less than 704x576 ) which i find clearly visible even on decent old CRT TV's, apart from the main channels.
Even on my 22" portable ( that's not even full HD) I find HD channels ( even on a decent box) are the only way to get even acceptable picture quality, even DVD vs Blu-ray of the same movie is night and day from 6ft away on that tv still. Does help having decent eyesight. |
|
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 158
|
Quote:
SD broadcast quality now is rank bad in the UK...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,336
|
Quote:
Absolutley spot on analysis. For the vast majority of users what matters is programme content - I know that is all that matters in our household. Goodness knows how some folk would have coped with a 12" monochrome TV complete with a magnifiying lens strapped to the front. That is the type of TV I grew up with - not that we had TV until I was around seven or eight years old.
![]() Just the same as the CRT v LCD TV debate etc |
|
|
|
|
|
#95 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
|
Quote:
And it all becomes clear. These tech arguments are almost always split by age. The young embrace change and technological advancements, the old generally don't.
Just the same as the CRT v LCD TV debate etc |
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
|
Quote:
In that case there is something wrong with your dish/LNB/TV installation. On my Humax 1000S + Panasonic 42" 1080P the SD picture quality is excellent on the material transmitted by the mainstream channels. Certainly good enough that I am not interested in getting into the SD vs HD argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,289
|
Quote:
And it all becomes clear. These tech arguments are almost always split by age. The young embrace change and technological advancements, the old generally don't.
Just the same as the CRT v LCD TV debate etc Denon 5.1 AV system (170W/channel), Denon DVD Player, Sony BD Player, Humax Foxsat-hdr,HDR-1000s, HD Fox T2, HDR FOX T2, Topfield PVR in the study. Several free to air satellite boxes, 4 PC's, Asus HD Tablet, Nikon DSLR, Sony HD camcorder 4 TV's (all lcd). Panasonic TZ40 compact camera and a portable 1080P media player. What modern tech have I missed out by being old ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
And it all becomes clear. These tech arguments are almost always split by age. The young embrace change and technological advancements, the old generally don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,919
|
Quote:
Similar set up to my own with the same results. I think the answer is clear don't you? All everyone needs is a Panasonic TV and a satellite decoder and the HD argument is redundant.
![]() To reiterate, just because you can't see it, or not see it enough for it to be worth changing channel for, doesn't mean the difference isn't there in absolute terms. We're just back to seating distance and individual variations in perceptions of/reactions to picture quality. And your set isn't similar to Pollensa1946's. Yours is 720, which is what makes it easier for it to upscale SD well. It also means it can't give the last once of detail that 1080 can deliver because it gets downscaled so the difference, while still very clear to my eyes, is less than it is with a 1080 set. I have a Panasonic 1080 TV, a (mini) video processor and a satellite decoder and, unlike for Pollensa1946, I find the difference is obvious in most cases. Even more so when the source is SD to start with, which upscales much worse than HD originated material. |
|
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,862
|
Here's my experiences I have a 28 inch hd ready samsung tv I can tell clearly the difference between sd and HD, the up scaling on this tv is pretty poor so you can tell the difference between 544x576, 704x576 and 1920x1080i now I also have a 22 inch LG 3d monitor on this telly the up scaling is much better and even I have been fooled! but when this has happened I was watching a 720x576 channel, so I am gonna say it all depends on your upscaler, some are better then others.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:47.





