DS Forums

 
 

Anyone impressed with HIgh Def ? i aint


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14-04-2006, 16:49
xjem
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 276

Ive seen HIgh Def demos dozens of times so far, seen endless beyonce concerts in high def playing in dixons day in day out, seen the new sky hi def demo in certain stores at the mo, ive also seen high def x box 360 games........and you know what, i aint impressed, i know most tvs are set up so badly in these stores that it doesnt help........but the pic ive seen of high def is no better, and in some cases worse than the pic i get from my 32" phillips CRT when watching a dvd, all this " 4 times better than dvd quality" is garbage surely ?
xjem is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 14-04-2006, 18:30
Astaroth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,421
Guess you must have seen some poorly setup systems though I have to say a Sky HD set up I saw was fairly poor but someone of the HD setups in hifi stores have been absolutally outstanding and certainly beat any CRT I have ever seen.
Astaroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-2006, 19:14
late8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,052
It is a fact that High Definition is better, especially when you see it on a proper setup. BUT --- "This High Definition Age" thing is extremely over rated. "The Biggest thing since Colour" - erm no, the biggest thing since colour would be 3D television - which isn't out yet, not more lines on a screen.
For the everyday person, with a decent 28" - 32" TV, High Definition wont look much different, especially viewing a screen from your sofa. Its more for those people who have a stupidly over sized chavy TV in their 3 by 6 ft room - where you will see normal quality up close.
late8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-2006, 19:22
Dr. Robotnik
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: South East England
Posts: 978
Originally Posted by late8
It is a fact that High Definition is better, especially when you see it on a proper setup. BUT --- "This High Definition Age" thing is extremely over rated. "The Biggest thing since Colour" - erm no, the biggest thing since colour would be 3D television - which isn't out yet, not more lines on a screen.
For the everyday person, with a decent 28" - 32" TV, High Definition wont look much different, especially viewing a screen from your sofa. Its more for those people who have a stupidly over sized chavy TV in their 3 by 6 ft room - where you will see normal quality up close.
Yeah I do think its overhyped as well, plus its waaaay to expensive for most people.
Dr. Robotnik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-2006, 19:49
Paul21
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 194
I work in the broadcast industry and I've seen 1080i video from a professional hard disk server being displayed on a high quality 1080i CRT and I was very impressed. A reduced resolution flat screen that's been set up by a chimp in Dixons isn't going to look anywhere near as good.
Paul21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-2006, 19:59
Paul21
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by late8
I
For the everyday person, with a decent 28" - 32" TV, High Definition wont look much different, especially viewing a screen from your sofa. Its more for those people who have a stupidly over sized chavy TV in their 3 by 6 ft room - where you will see normal quality up close.
I saw it on a 21" screen and there was a huge improvement over SD. I'm not sure how they are going to sell this to the general public though. most consumers couldn't care less about quality and have their t.v.s set up wrongly anyway.
Paul21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-2006, 20:04
late8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,052
I think HD will kick off, but extremely slowly, A lot slower than colour TV ever did. Its the Expense, the hassle the constant confusion and change that the everyday person will just not bother with! - I'm still wondering if i should buy a new LCD Tv or not!

+ Didnt HD start in America because they has a smaller resolution and inferior picture quality to Europe anyway?
late8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-2006, 23:29
fordp
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by late8
I think HD will kick off, but extremely slowly, A lot slower than colour TV ever did. Its the Expense, the hassle the constant confusion and change that the everyday person will just not bother with! - I'm still wondering if i should buy a new LCD Tv or not!

+ Didnt HD start in America because they has a smaller resolution and inferior picture quality to Europe anyway?
HD is cheaper in real terms than Colour TV was, for the set at least.

I think it is true that it is not as big a step as colour was.
fordp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2006, 05:14
raymogy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Grimsby, N.E.Lincs
Posts: 3,949
after viewing tv on my laptop, think it is a load of cra-, cause as soon as you move to the wrong position , you cant see nothing apart from a dark screen so i guess a lcd tv would be the same only difference being the refresh rate.

At least with my 28 inch crt , i can see from most locations including kitchen and dinning room, (yes open plan)
raymogy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2006, 06:48
Stig
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sandy Heath, Beds. UK
Posts: 10,385
Originally Posted by raymogy
after viewing tv on my laptop, think it is a load of cra-, cause as soon as you move to the wrong position , you cant see nothing apart from a dark screen so i guess a lcd tv would be the same only difference being the refresh rate.
Actually, no. They have got the viewing angle sorted now. On my 3-year old laptop you do see big changes to the screen brightness and colour when you don't look straight at it. However, with my new LCD TV you can view the picture at any angle (up to 170° actually) and there is just a subtle colour change at the extreme angles.

Try going to Currys for a demo
Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2006, 08:38
James Clayton
Banned User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 799
It's hard to get a good idea of what it's like until you get to explore it at home. I have a Telewest TV Drive and a new LCD high definition TV, at home you can see it without all the bright shop lights, some of the content running through the teleport HD section is very impressive. So sharp and clear, so much depth and contrast of colour. I'm very impressed with HD I just wish the broadcasters would hurry and show some HD content !
James Clayton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2006, 10:32
pioneer_dtr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,493
youre forgetting how much compression there will need to be on HD to fit all those extra pixels into the limited bandwidth. For a still picture it may well be good, for footie or F1
pioneer_dtr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2006, 14:05
late8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,052
True, for HD to Kick off and be impressive as it says, it needs to be available to all (Like Colour TV was) ie: FREE!. I think the price of Sky HD at the mo is a rip, however yes it will come down, in an ideal world the BBC should broadcast HD on Free to view television, across all platforms!.
late8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2006, 14:42
<Finch>
Banned User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,587
I have yet to see a good demo, the Sky 'Experience' was very pixellated in Comet - but wait until a friend/pub has it, and you'll see it at its best (assuming they can set it up correctly).
<Finch> is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2006, 15:29
Milky Joe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 0.3 units from doom
Posts: 17,447
Yes, i have to admit i wasnt that impressed either. So many people were saying it'll blow your eyes out (not literally ) but all it looks like to me is a large pc monitor...which we've been used to for years. I assume i just havent seen one correctly set up yet..but i have seen them in so many shops now i find it hard to believe that all of them were incorrectly set up

I still maintain that my 3 year old panasonic 28" widescreen CRT has the best picture ive seen, everything looks great on it
Milky Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2006, 15:58
xjem
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 276
I agree, it cant be badly set up EVEYWHERE...im not talking about 1 or 2 shops, ive been in branches of dixons, currys, comet, martin dawes and they all look bad, i remember hearing that for some odd reason some shops make pics look bad on purpose for some reason, i always assume that on normal tv when there are 30 tvs connected that its just a bad aerial making the pic look so awfull, but ive also seen tvs playing a dvd direct from a dvd player and the pic was still dreadfull, i know some have good pictures, a friend of mine has a Panasonic 42" and it has a great picture.
I have the same view of the X bOX 360, people keep sayin how incredibly more advanced it is and what a giant leap forward it is from the last xbox.............and i dont care how many nerds tell me about its pixels and polygons and 3 processors or whatever, it looks marginally better than the games on the original x box to me...
xjem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2006, 17:52
David (2)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: S.West England.
Posts: 18,037
From the demos I have seen running in shops, HD is better, but how much better depends on your point of view.

If you get a good DVD (SD quality) on a new LCD, it can look very close to HD quality in some examples. I think the real advantage is on larger screens (over 32") where things like Freeview,Cable, and Sky, and even DVD to a lesser extent tend look not quite as pin sharp or contain visible blocky effects. The HD demos on 42" sets dont suffer from this drop in quality - they actualy look better.

Not seen a demo running on anything less than a 36" screen so far. Smaller than that, current SD pictures look quite good - certainly useable. And this is the point, a lot of people I have spoken to admit HD is sharper, but they are quite happy with their current SD pictures and are in no hurry to upgrade.

Dave
David (2) is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2006, 18:18
volvofan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 105
Hello,not sure if this is right thread,but here goes.I was in PC World with my dad who bought a new PC,while he was dealing with that I had a look at and adjusted settings on various LCD/Plasma tv and drew the following points.1:Whatever the store feed to all their tv's its really poor quality,what are they thinking?,2:No off air tv/digital tv aerials so no idea of real world picture quality,surely not asking to much?.The best picture on any screen they had was on a Panasonic 32inch LCD(LXD60),the worst a Samsung 40inch LCD(not sure which),so am I right in thinking that if all screens recieve the same awful signal then if it looks better it is better?.Panasonic 42PX60 Plasma big dissapointment although maybe being to harsh did not seem markedly if at all better than my existing PE50 any ideas why?
volvofan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2006, 18:35
iain
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 62,990
the demo they have playing on panasonic viera (?) set in out waitrose is stunning - if broadcast stuff is as good as that, then yes - can't wait - although can't see us getting a new set until at least 2008. the trusty sony wega may be 8/9 years old, but there's still life in it yet. sadly

Iain
iain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2006, 19:50
JethroUK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Loughboro', Leicester (ex NTL)
Posts: 5,953
Originally Posted by xjem
....but the pic ive seen of high def is no better than the pic i get from my 32" phillips CRT
you're lucky - i haven't seen one to touch my Philips 32" crt

the best i seen so far was an LG 42" i'm tempted with - nearly as good as my TV

i think the HD rush is the biggest hype since wide screen TV's, and i said that to the sales man today - 'if it takes as long to get HD off the ground as widescreen broadcast i'll be long dead before i can use it' - just a quick scan over his 100 or so widescreen TV's, i pointed out that not one of them was showing a widescreen picture

fanatics aside - it will be 10 years minimum before joe public will be able to watch coro in HD - by which time, the 'HD ready' that Currys insist he buy today will be long obsolete
JethroUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2006, 02:18
FINGERS20
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Angus, Scotland
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by xjem
Ive seen HIgh Def demos dozens of times so far, seen endless beyonce concerts in high def playing in dixons day in day out, seen the new sky hi def demo in certain stores at the mo, ive also seen high def x box 360 games........and you know what, i aint impressed, i know most tvs are set up so badly in these stores that it doesnt help........but the pic ive seen of high def is no better, and in some cases worse than the pic i get from my 32" phillips CRT when watching a dvd, all this " 4 times better than dvd quality" is garbage surely ?
You can only expect to get a proper HD demo from a qualified, uderstanding dealer. Preferably one with whom you have built up a rapport over the years. (helps if you have already spent several thousands of pounds in his shop!). I was shown HD demo played to three different TV's at the same time via a disc in a PC. There was a very good section of a chap fly-fishing in a glacier fed river in USA. Absolutely knock out. Also showed how poor JVC offering was at certain types of scenes i.e strong highlights. I suggest you go to a good dealer. Whilst there I was shown a dealers demo disc played through a normal DVD to show me the difference between a good plasma screen and a bad one. The disc contained animations of the "Intel "blue men against a grey background. Pioneer was streets ahead of Marantz screen (basically a re-worked Panasonic) I would go so far as to say that the DVD was almost unwatchable on the Marantz screen. You will not get his sort of treatment in your local Currys!
FINGERS20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2006, 11:58
DemonLemon
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by JethroUK
fanatics aside - it will be 10 years minimum before joe public will be able to watch coro in HD - by which time, the 'HD ready' that Currys insist he buy today will be long obsolete
Well I don't know about ITV, but certainly the BBC has made a huge commitment to HDTV, and has been making some programmes in HD before they are actually able to transmit them in HD. Of course, making programmes in HD when they can't yet transmit them isn't a waste of money. When day 1 of HD tranmission arrives, they can't then say "let's buy some HD cameras and set the studios up for HD." They need to replace old equipment with HD stuff when it comes up for renewal. I can't see it taking 10 years. Once the equipment is bought to record Last of the Summer Wine, then it can be used for other programmes in that part of the UK. EastEnders is probably the tipping point, and I know they did upgrade their production facilities about three years ago, so may not quite be ready to do it again. But I would guess that within another three years, they might upgrade to HD. (BTW, I'm not sure if the EastEnders upgraded facilities are capable of HD, even though they don't yet use it for that. Does anyone know?)
DemonLemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2006, 20:34
unheardof
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: South Wales
Posts: 445
I think HD's biggest stumbling block if the fact that bar the improved resolution (Which some people can't even see) it doesn't really offer anything more to the viewing experience.
I mean can you honestly tell me that you enjoy a film/program more because its a bit clearer? If i use a big widescreen CRT and a surround sound system, is my enjoyment of a film impaired because i can't see the pores on an actors face or the dust particles settling after an explosion? HD is going to have a tough time establishing itself.


HD broadcasting in the US brought in 5.1 DD, a MASSIVE improvement in picture quality over NTSC and widescreen. The same was replicated in Japan. Imagine going from 4:3 SD Stereo NTSC broadcasts to 16:9 720p/1080i 5.1 DD broadcasts. Its a HUGE leap and it's no wonder that HD has taken off. And with almost all the US broadcasters throwing their weight behind it (FTA AND PAY), it had little chance of failing. The price of HD TV's has fallen massively over there as take up has increased ($400 for a 27" HDTV!)


However in Europe and the UK we already have a higher quality broadcasting system (Pal/Secam) than NTSC, we already have digital widescreen broadcasting. A high bitrate PAL broadcast can look superb (Tuesday CSI Five on Sky) Hell we even have 5.1 DD on certain channels. SD Freeview/cable and satellite has millions of viewers/subscribers and hundreds of channels to choose from.

Unluckily HD is being introduced into the UK primarily as a premium service (Extra subscription) by SKY / Telewest and due to the lack of bandwidth its likely it will be restricted to satellite / cable for the next 5 years. Not a good start is it?

The majority of HD content will come from the US for the forseeable future. Sky will show some of their content in HD (sports/films/tv shows) and uprate the rest. Yet despite the supposed hype only the BBC has any real plans to start broadcasting in HD this year. ITV/C4 and Five, who don't forget produce and show a lot of popular shows are still testing the waters. Few other UK broadcasters have any plans.


It will be YEARS before HD takes off. Probably 8-10 years at best.
unheardof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2006, 21:08
Rusty Nail
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 27
So, am I wasting my time and money upgrading my trusty old 32" Panasonic widescreen (Excellent picture in my view) to a 43" Pioneer HDMI setup, only choosing HDMI to futureproof my set and to get the TV on the wall away from little fingers?
What should a man do??
Rusty Nail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2006, 22:15
DemonLemon
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 870
UNHEARDOF

That's a good post. I don't know why Sky are introducing HD as a premium service. It's not like you'd expect HD to cost that much more. Especially if the programmes are sourced from the USA and Hollywood (As so many of Sky's programmes seem to be .)

Remember when digital television was introduced? Well many people looked on it as a rip-off. Not so much because of the cost of the equipment, but because it seemed you couldn't get it without subscription. Certainly it seemed that way with Ondigital, and of course Sky too. When Freeview was introduced, it went down a storm. I don't see any reason for a premium cost for HD content, only for the equipment required.
DemonLemon is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:06.