Go back and read my post and tell me where it says that I can't tell the difference between SD and HD. I was commenting simply on this assertion...

Ah, OK:


So it seems I've misinterpreted the bit in bold, for which apologies. I hope you can see it could bear that interpretation though, especially when it was followed by this post


...when in the past Faust has said he can see no difference *at all* between SD and HD, so I think this helped me draw the wrong conclusion.

Smart phone, and games console.

Not a pensioner yet, but been an early adopter for most AV/tech stuff over the past 30yrs, so I wouldn't necessarily agree with those of advanced age not embracing new tech.

The only argument about HD that there should be is whether it is worth paying an extra premium for.

That it is superior to SD is not even open to question, and the only the deluded or belligerent could argue with this.

No smart phone but I have PS3 and Nintendo Wii. Grandson who spends a lot of time here has a hi-tech bedroom created by yours truly has a Xbox360. Also a Core I5 PC with Windows 7 64 bit and a high end graphics card built by myself and my son, plus 5.1 surround sound, He has 32" Sony smart TV at the end of his bed. Pretty well all of it is networked by cat5 cabling (self installed). I installed both my dish and a Televes DAT75 on a 20ft mast. He can stream content from my Foxsat-HDR and HDR-FOX T2 (including HD recordings)

This thread has concentrated on the whether HD video is worthwhile and ignored the other difference. The audio is way superior, whether in 2.0 or 5.1.

Good audio is more important than the visuals in the overall experience. Anyone using a thin TV as the audio source is missing out big time.

A thunderstorm on a LCD TV sounds like a damp squid

How many of the can't tell the difference brigade have a reasonable sound system. I suspect none of them

Ooh, critically discuss!

I can't agree with that outright, but you may be onto something Graham. My amp (not as flash as yours, but an Onkyo 875--handy enough) is on all the time so the videoprocessor can do its job, and I've noticed TV seems a lot less 'present' in other people's houses with their tinny speakers. Hmmm...

I agree I love having my surround system cranked up with a good HD film, 65% max normally any higher and we would end up with hearing damage, nothing like feeling a movie as well as seeing it. (I had already mention 5.1 with some HD programmes in post #71.)

I presume the "difference brigade" wouldn't be able to hear any difference though.

I just wish the programme makers and broadcasters paid more attention to the audio rather than as an afterthought as often appears to be the case. A common fault appears on live sports where the sound engineer seems to be someone brought up in the cloth-eared MP3 generation and doesn't know what good really sounds like.

I am with graham in the sense that I tend to notice poor audio more than I do poor video detracting from my enjoyment of a programme.

No I haven't said that either. I too can see some difference, depending on distance from source.

I carried out a small experiment last night. I recorded the SD and HD versions of Gardeners World, (a) because I love it and always record it and (b) because it's a good source with which to make a comparison.

Sitting on a chair approximately 3 feet from the 42" Plasma - SD source, then of course I could see artefacts, especially on the close ups of the Iris sibirica. Viewing same recording exactly same material in HD the picture was very good indeed, lots of detail and exactly what I would expect to see.

However, sitting so close was really uncomfortable, whatever the transmission source. Move back to my normal viewing distance of twelve feet and the two mediums have balanced each other out and for me at least I find it difficult to see much of a difference.

I never have and never would argue there isn't a difference as there is clearly more detail in the transmission. My argument is that with a good TV and a fair sitting distance HD loses it's impact.

I will agree with Graham about audio though. 5.1 from a Blu-Ray disc is something special. Try Master and Commander - When the cannon balls whistled through the air I thought the mast had spilt behind our sofa. I was ready to duck and man the lifeboat.

Only an idiot would sit and watch HD TV on a 42" 720p Plasma from "approximately 3 feet" away, what on earth were you thinking.
Believe it or not with good eyesight and a good TV you can appreciate the superior image quality of HD from any distance, 8 feet would of been a lot better.

My enthusiasm rubbed off on my son, they have HD and 5.1 surround, my Grandson seems to be following us both as they have a TV, sky HD, Xbox in their bedroom, they also have an ipod touch and they are only eight.

My in laws are in their late 60's/70's and they have a 42" HDTV in the main room, 26" LCD in the dinning room and a 19" LCD in the bedroom, they own two laptops and both enjoy using the internet.

My Granddaughter even has a toy mobile, she's only 10 months, and to damn cute for her own good.

I think it's safe to say those who embrace technology can be any age - it can just be a little harder to understand the older you get.

I should expand on my post to explain my comment on...


...IMHO the quality of content in many TV progs, as distinct from PQ or AQ, is so awful that it's hardly worth the effort to find an HD offering, and certainly not worth the energy to argue about it. I'm always pleasantly surprised when I do find an HD prog that is actually worth the watching for its content alone. These days I scan the ST TV section and plan all my recordings for the week ahead and then watch when I have the time (except when my 1000S goes t**s up and I lose all my recordings, as it has done twice).

Aren't you changing your tune?



'difficult to see much of a difference' and 'cannot tell the difference' are different things! You made both of these comments in relation to your normal viewing distance.

You are working on the assumption that she who must be obeyed would let me re-jig "her lounge" to accomodate said distance. Believe me it's not going to happen, so twelve feet it is, which is where I came in on this argument i.e. SD looks more than acceptable from that distance.

The 3 feet distance was simply so I could compare the artefacts with SD against an HD source. Of course I wouldn't sit at that distance through choice.

Could I recommend Hebrides Islands on the Edge as a feast for the eyes and the soul. Only available on Scottish TV and iPlayer.

I also said it does depend on what the source is, and said so in this thread. Please don't cherry pick. It's a fine line between cannot and can see "some" difference.

I said you had said you couldn't see any difference (implicitly, at your normal viewing distance) and I gave some quotes to prove it. I only did this because you disavowed any such statement and I don't like false accusations.

Your skepticism seems total most of the time. Comparing HD to the Emperor's new clothes obviously implies it's a complete illusion. You said that people who claim to be able to see more detail than you are imagining it, that the human eye can (in a total failure to grasp the technicalities) fill in missing detail, and that one person who claimed better ability to see pixels than you was a salesperson's wet dream. With the odd rolleyes thrown in as well. Seems pretty clear.

But you aren't consistent. You've also said


and


Oh. And


though


...with this latter claim striking me as bizarre: while it has its faults, BBC HD is remarkably consistent across most (I agree not all) dramas, which I presume is what you had in mind with foreign imports.

So...it's actually very difficult to know just what you are claiming, and I'm about to give up.

Episode 1 of the much vaunted White Queen is transmitted in 2.0 stereo. The excellent Tudors was 5.1 and superb audio.

You can chew your gums on this issue all you want but my stance is and always has been the same i.e. the further away you sit from the source the less benefit you will get from selecting HD. You will benefit from the audio if you have a proper sound system. Add to this that some quality brand TV's do a very good job with SD, especially the five main terrestrial channels, which is 95% of my viewing. My own view is that Plasma does a better job with SD than LCD (I have both technologies). Furthermore, most SD broadcasts will look more than acceptable viewed from the distance my sofa is located from the TV i.e. 12 feet.

Hopefully you will no longer be confused. :yawn:

You'd have done much better to watch Professor Iain Stuart on BBC 2.

No chance - better half is a massive fan of the novels.

A normal human eye should be able to see some difference between pristine SD and pristine HD 14.5 feet from your screen. Broadcast SD is far from pristine, making the difference more obvious. You might not care about it, but the difference should be easily visible at 12 feet.

You'd need to be 8 feet away to fully appreciate your 720p display. 3 feet away is insane - the faults of 1080p would be clearly visible at this distance (if your TV displayed it)!

A normal person would be impressed by how much better 720p is than SD when sitting 12 feet away from a 60" display. Any smaller display at that distance and it starts to lose its impact - but you'd have to go below 36" before SD could be considered good enough to dump HD.


If this isn't your experience, it's either a problem with your eyes, your TV, some setting/connection is wrong, or you don't care.

However, a couple of lines difference in visual acuity as measured on a typical eye chart equates with needing a foot larger or smaller TV (or sitting several feet closer or further way) to make the difference invisible vs obvious - so you can easily think you have "normal" eyesight, but "need" a TV twice the size as someone else who also thinks they are "normal".

Cheers,
David.

Iain Stuart repeated tonight BBC 2, 23.30. Novels, Tudor's more like soft porn.

Well there are varying measurements for this depending on what calculator/expert you read. The consensus appears to be 5.5 feet to make it immersive with 8.5 being the outer limit. To sit where I sit i.e. 12 feet the recommendation is at least 60". The general consensus again being I will not be getting any benefit from HD with a 42" set at 12 feet. Therefore I appear to be at one with the experts.


It is true I really don't care. My optician has recently given me a clean bill of health. TV as said before professionally calibrated plus a reasonable quality Plasma. You also appear fond of using the term "normal". All the reading suggests there is no such thing as normal when it comes to how we view and perceive our world so I think we can discount that reference also.

Because both HD and SD look about the same from 12 feet - for me, doesn't make me normal or abnormal or the PQ good or bad. Does it make my HD picture bad that viewed at distance HD and SD look almost the same or does it mean I have a very good SD picture? It could simply mean I need a 60" TV, though I have to say I won't be getting one any time soon.

Many of these things are subjective and cannot be easily quantified.