1024 x 768 pixels. Only a few early Plasmas had 1280 x 720 pixels.

Source

http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/tvs/panaso...view-49261925/

Faust can you please explain your "Emperors New Clothes syndrome" in simple terms for those of us that may not understand (and for those that didn't get read bed time stories) just incase we have misunderstood your point.

Then we (those of us that can see a huge difference) can decide if you are insulting us or not as at the moment I think you are.

p.s 1024 x 768 you really do need to get a new TV. (BTW I was insulting your TV there not you)

I'm more than happy with my HD vision, but can you advise how to calibrate, I'm always interested in tweaking!

But have you considered that's what's right for you obviously isn't right for your relatives. It may be that you can only see the benefit when set up for your requirements not their's and vice versa.

Best advise is to use AVS HD 709.
Use the following link and burn the AVSHD file to a DVD.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/948496/avs...p4-calibration

Why was it 'supposed' to be 720P?, hardly any sets made have been 720 resolution (and P or i doesn't apply) - this set is HD Ready, and like most such sets is 768 pixels resolution (I just googled the specs).

There were a very small number of old Plasma's that had 720 resolution, but it would be pretty rare to come across one (I never have yet).


Watching from too far away for HD to be visible, and for having a TV that does a poor job of displaying HD as well (like my main set as well funnily enough).

While my main set is HD Ready as well, it has 1024 pixel resolution, and doesn't do any better than yours on HD.

[/quote]

As for your other post (about taking out Sky HD), I'm fully with you on that, an excellent cheap way to get a new Sky box, and then cancel the HD after the first year

It would makes sense to me too if I was into Pay TV, but I find there is plenty on Freesat to fill up my 2Tb HDD, mostly HD of course.

Nonsense! SD to HD on a good HD Ready set are as chalk and cheese.

HD Ready on an HD channel is a lot better than anything on an SD channel. Full HD is a bit better than that.

As I have said many times, and as you have acknowledged yourself, HD picture quality is not all about spatial resolution. Far from it.

I in 5 probably !

I would of thought Plazma dithering or fuzzing as the OH calls it would of been extremely noticeable at 3 foot, luckily I've never felt the need to look for artefacts on my Plasma.

A relative of mine got a massive 34" widescreen Panasonic CRT many years ago and managed to watch Sky on it in 'fit the screen' 4:3 for over a year before I came round and changed the settings, they had wondered why everyone looked stretched. It was a very nice TV, even better once it was given the proper 16:9 input it was designed for and watching 16:9 programmes in 16:9 did meet with their requirements.

I find that a lot of people are just hopeless with tech and others just don't care.

I Googled for the make + model of TV + recommended settings and found a few AV forums where owners are willing to suggest settings that work for them, and used those suggestions as a base. There's a bit of variation but not enough to make a difference between blimey and wow.


I almost agree - can certainly see what you're getting at but the reality is that for the in-laws they'd made the new set look like the crap old tv they'd just got rid of as that's what they'd been looking at for 6 years and were used to that. Once I'd showed them the difference - and how BBC1 HD, C4 & ITV1 HD are different channels with different pictures, they got it. It didn't stop my b-i-l from having his own stab at it and ruining it again. My folks simply don't care, are getting on with dodgy eyesight now and CBA to have to switch from BBC1 HD to BBC1 to get the local news, so don't venture up to & beyond 101 on FV.

Whatever the differences in our vision and what we might think of being 'better' settings, a lot of people have no clue at all and will happily watch something that looks as if the screen has a layer of vaseline on it with the colour too far up or down to represent realistic colours. I also get the sense from reading threads like this that a lot of people don't really get HD. It's not about removing all artefacts, or being able to see ultra-fine detail on a daisy. HD's big benefit is that pictures look sharper, brighter without being garish, colours have more depth to them and the fine detail is present. And on sports broadcasts like golf, cricket, rugby, even football the grass doesn't turn to a green mushy soup when the camera pans to follow the action. HD is a bit closer to being lifelike; SD certainly isn't. I'll happily qualify that - some HD channels on Sky are not very good at all, equally BBC4 is sometimes very good - not indistinguishable from HD but very good and close to blurring the distinction between SD & HD. Most SD though isn't good. Some HD is superb.

Superb post too totally agree with you.

I wouldn't disagree with some of what you say. On the sports issue regarding panning etc. etc. you are almost certainly correct. However, I don't watch sports on TV so not an issue in our house. Again I too have noticed that BBC 4 does produce some very good quality broadcasts. I also agree about the audio aspects too. However, given the limitations of my TV and the distance I view it at then the distance does tend to cancel out any benefit on PQ I might gain. But as said again and again SD does improve with distance.

Take it one step further - you say you can see the benefit from HD and I have no doubt you clearly believe you can. Now I say I cannot derive much of a benefit from HD which I too believe. Now does that make either of us right or either of us wrong? You believe you can and I believe I can't and that is the only thing that actually matters i.e. personal belief. What every one else thinks isn't important.

I'm not sure without reading all of the thread again what our chum Mr Faust has said represents a complete volte face, or is an acceptance that HD does differ significantly from SD for some. Maybe it's a halfway house. Who knows?

I think you were saying that there's very little difference between HD and SD, certainly not on your TV at your normal viewing distance and not enough to justify the hype, cost and general clamour for HD that some [of us] exhibit. And now you accept that there may be some difference but your particular setup either doesn't show that difference, or you personally don't see it. Either way there can be no real argument that a properly configured full HD set fed with a decent HD source is head & shoulders above an SD feed displayed on an 'HD Ready' tv. It doesn't really matter how you dress it up, good HD is way better than most SD, BBC4 excepted maybe.

If that is the case, I don't really see what there is to debate.

To put this whole debate in context. The only real way for me to see any difference in the two mediums is for me to select part of the picture with plenty of detail then toggle quickly between Freeview SD and Freesat HD or select Freesat 101 and 108 and examine that part of the picture. If as an example I came into our lounge with the TV on I wouldn't be able to tell if the feeds was from 101 or 108 and that is the absolute truth.

The wife can't see any difference at all. I'm not much better when I see the latest TV's in stores if I'm being honest.

I'd suggest you look at your settings then, maybe. A good picture needs a black base to build on, so the black levels need to be good. A washed out nearly black won't provide that base. White levels are the same, with contrast & brightness adjusted as necessary so that the shades of white grey & black on the testcard are correct. A good base is the BBC HD Testcard and the accompanying guide on Andy Quested's BBC Blog on how to set your tv to display tones correctly. Once that's done colour is largely personal taste, but we all know what skin, sky and grass looks like so adjust to your own preferences. Test cards aren't just for wondering what became of the clown & who won the noughts & crosses.

I wouldn't use display TVs in shops as a guide. Electrical stores are notorious for having appallingly bad set-ups, in fact I'm surprised anyone buys a TV from some outlets judging by how little they know about getting the picture right. Out of the box settings might work; my Panasonic didn't neither did the in-laws' Sony. You sound as though the full glory of a well set up HD set has never made itself known to you. That's a shame as - like we keep seeing - when it's done properly it's night & day. Not to worry though - 4K is on its way so we'll have something else to argue about.

Panning shorts aren't solely reserved for sports, in other genres they maybe slower but they can still be plenty fast enough to cause blurring depending on the source and quality of the TV displaying it.



I'm surprised you would say that given your keen interest in science, obviously SD TV's have an optimum viewing distance, it does not improve with distance.

Unsightly things do generally improve with distance.

Can anybody explain why Faust's post above puts this whole debate in context, I thought this was an across the board HD vs SD debate, not just limited to the OP's TV or Faust's HD Ready Plasma viewed by him in his lounge, with his lighting, from his sofa etc.

As far as I'm concerned HD should look appreciatively better than SD on most 'HD Ready' TV's (it certainly did on my LG 42" LCD) and it does help if the viewer watches from an appropriate distance and has it set up reasonably well.

Saying that possibly an early plasma like Faust's can't display HD at all well but it does reasonable job with SD, so I'm more than happy to believe Faust when he says he can't see much if any difference between SD & HD on it.

Technology moves on and why should we upgrade our tech if it does what we want it to, I still have a Dumb Phone I make and receive phone calls on it, yes I know that Smart Phones are a lot better and far more interesting but at the moment I don't need one.

So as Faust is more than happy with his TV, its SD picture and the content maybe he should just watch it and not be so bothered that he personally can't see the "difference" and others can.

Mines just the same, as are all HD Ready Plasma's I've been able to test (including new Panasonic and Samsung ones). I have a £30 Tesco Freeview HD box (which is excellent value), but watching BBC1 HD or BBC1 SD via it I couldn't tell you which was which apart from any logos or OSD.

The HD version is 'slightly' better, but not enough to be able to tell without direct comparison - but with an HD Ready LCD TV connected instead it's WOW!!, what an amazing HD picture.

Would I consider upgrading my Plasma for an LCD? - no, simply because there are far too few HD channels. If all (or at least most) channels were in HD I'd happily do it, but not when most viewing is still SD anyway.

Note what you say re: my Panasonic, plus what you say re: LCD. We also have a 32 inch Sony Bravia HD Ready TV with Freeview HD - viewing distance 7 feet. Still hit and miss whether I can see a difference and the wife can't see any difference.

7 feet is an SD viewing distance for a 32 inch set, the whole point of viewing from that distance is so you can't see fine detail (so you can't see the lines on a CRT or the artefacts on a digital transmission).

For HD you need to be viewing from a MINIMUM of about 5 feet for a 32 inch, and closer would be better.

As I said before, try the newspaper test - that's an excellent example of the difference between HD and SD, and shows exactly why you need to be considerably closer.

Even the cheap crappy make LCD's (Bush, Goodmans etc.) look absolutely stunning on HD.

I have a 32 inch Bravia, viewing distance 8 feet, and it's become a running joke in our house that I'll come in and mock the missus for watching the SD channel when I'm shelling out for HD.

I can tell in an instant whether it's HD or SD. It's not night and day but the difference is pretty obvious. And this is a 5 year old TV that was hardly expensive in the first place (but I do ensure the settings are correct).

I find this thread fairly preposterous. It's not like religion where each side can bang on in the absence of any proof. The proof in this instance is there on your bleeding TV screen and there should be no conjecture.

It's difficult to tell the difference. I refer you to my post...

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...&postcount=147

...this is serious stuff!

With one liners like this have you ever thought of writing comedy.

I'd say they were average at best, contrast/motion resolution/shadow detail/grey scale are poor, colours look unnatural, sometimes looking washed out or over saturated, nothing surprising when you factor in the price when considering their picture quality, that's been my experience with bargain basement brands.

Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes a stunning picture, some like highly bright colours and a brightness that screams at them where nothing else is important, others attempt to get all parameters as close to perfect for a natural looking image.

If someone knows their viewing can be improved by making certain adjustments, but is perfectly happy watching without making them, then no amount of persuasion is going to make them change their viewing habits.

Well all I can say is I'm a medical marvel, forget colour blindness, I have HD blindness. As for it being akin to night and day, it must be perpetual night in our household.

There again it could just be that all of you are very suggestible subjects and being told you should see a difference you can then see said suggestion. Plenty of evidence for this phenomenon. Can you prove a negative?

Only skimmed through this thread, but agree with Faust..



And i and several friends and relatives are happy with there tvs, they have often said they cant notice any difference.

Oh and my Panasonic plasma is only a year old.

Only exception is a relaive thats got a second hand led tv, thats only time we can spot a difference.
The SD is a stunning picture on my panny plasma