DS Forums

 
 

Does anyone else fail to see the "value" of HD?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22-03-2007, 18:35
Kotori
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 373

Hello,

I apologise if this has already been discussed, but I've found very little other doiscussions about it so far. I was wondering if anyone else feels the same as me about HD, that it simply isn't worth it.

I have seen both HD and SD content, and while I don't have HD at home, one of my friends have it. The thing is, while there is a bit of a difference, it's not something I'd consider important or worthwhile. When I come home and return to SD content, I don't miss the HD, nor have I ever, past or future, sat at home wishing "if only what I was watching was in higher resolution". The content is what matters, and if it looks great in SD, I don't mind if it'd look better in HD, as it doesn't really make much difference to the experience.

All my televisions are CRTs, reasonably sized, and whether watching live television or DVDs, I'm completely happy with the quality. You can make out exactly what is happening, all the details are clear, the colours vibrant. Before HD came out, I never wished for greater resolution or quality. With it out, I still don't!

As far as I can see, HD is just a way to get more money and get less content in return, as well as an excuse to strip us of more of our rights. Firstly, there's HDCP, and the requirement that in order to watch protected HD content, you need to have a protected pathway - that is the equipment on both sides is trusted, and won't let you do anything the rich movie studioes don't want you to do. To me, this sets a worrying precedent, especially if HD becomes the norm. Only being able to watch content on certain hardware, the removal of the free market. No more being able to record things on television if they don't want you to, no way to output an HD signal to more than one location, no way to use hardware they don't like (eg. a Linux based PVR system, such as MythTV and accompanying hardware - not blesse by the studios) and copy protection that gets in the way (no ability to backup what you buy, so if anything happens, eg. your HD-DVD gets scratched, you have to go and buy it again). Defective by design comes to mind. The true matter is, none of this benefits the consumer at all! It just makes everything more expensive (hardware and content, to pay for the restrictions) and more restricted (removal of fair use) and taking away control from the user to the megacorporations (more worrying on computers, with trusted computing, you will no longer be in control of your computer). And lets not forget, the technology is getting more restrictive and limiting, and is even auto-updatable and has things like key-revocation (if you own a peice of hardware that is compromised somewhere in the world, they key may be revoked and then you can no longer play your content in case you are abusing it, now they can't guarantee the protected pathway!). I mean, you've got Microsoft telling people that if you want to watch HD content on a PC, you need to upgrade to Vista, upgrade to a 64bit processor and get a new monitor and soundcard and such so they can ensure its all protected and you're not "stealing" it! Despite the fact that all of this protection is quite useless, it still has to be output to our eyes and ears, it can be copied, let alone almost all pirate copies come from stolen original copies of the media without protection (it only takes one person to get a proper copy, and it hits the piracy network and trickles down to the filesharing networks and gets distributed - all the DRM was worthless). If you're interested in this beyond what I can put here, take a look a t defectivebydesign which explains it better than I can.

Originally Posted by defectivebydesign

First, let me list for you some of the things that I like to do, as the chances are you like to do this stuff too:

* I record my favorite shows and watch them later.
* I like to create mix tapes for my friends.
* I want to watch my movies on my PC, TV and portable device.
* I make back-ups of all the music I've downloaded.
* I want to watch the new high definition stuff on my high definition display.
* Sometimes I like to share my videos or DVDs with my friends or family.
* I like privacy, so I don't want anyone snooping what I've watched or read.
* And I want to switch to GNU/Linux and do all this stuff as well.

DRM enables Big Media to stop you from doing this stuff. You see, THEY call it Digital RIGHTS Management - their rights. They want the right to restrict you and your behavior. That's why WE call it Digital Restrictions Management.

In short the Big Media conglomerates have realized that the traditional way of doing things - they sell you stuff and it's yours - isn't as good for them as - they sell you stuff and it's theirs. It's much better for them if they still own the stuff you buy from them.
Second, the cost. HD is incredibly expensive, with high cost hardware, monthly fees, higher media fees (eg. for purchasing HD-DVDs or Blueray movies, and thats with major discounts applied at the moment to lure people into the formnats too). Again, this is partly due to all the copy protection and DRM.

Third, you're getting less value for money. HD by its very nature reequires more space and bandwidth, but in all honesty, is it worth it? The more people want and demand HD, in the end, you could be losing out. Consider the people asking for HD on Freeview at the moment when slightly more of the incredibly in high demand spectrum becomes released. Would you prefer to have 3 HD channels, or 12 SD channels of new content? As I gather, cable is starting to reach capacity at current, if they start adding HD channels, theres going to be little room for any other channels, is this a good thing? I know I'd much prefer to have more choice and good quality programming, than less choice but in "higher" quality (which for the most part isn't overly noticable and adds very little).

At the moment, from most of what I've experienced, HD mainly is a boasting issue - a way for people to justify the costs that they are paying, at least from some of the people I've observed. "We have HD, you don't!" or one of the crazes everyone has to get because it's "cool", and the terms sheep come to mind, or the recipients of marketting and advertising convincing it is the best thing since sliced bread (eg. people that want to listen to music on the go purchasing an ipod when other music players may be better to their needs because that's what other people have and the advertising has told them to do, they don't realise there are other choices), or just having no choice but to go HD because of it becoming more difficult to get SD television sets and such anymore.

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, with HD you have a whole lot of negatives. You've got the copy protection, which is going to get worse and worse as time progresses, losing your rights, and having to accept it. You've got the costs involved, having to purchase expensive hardware, expensive media and expensive content, some of which is to pay for the copy protection which doesn't help at all. There's also the fact that on the whole it doesn't really offer much of value compared to SD. Was anyone really 5 or so years ago sitting watching their SD CRT television and getting angry about the quality or resolution, or did you enjoy television just as much then as you do now?

I'd be happy to be proved wrong, and welcome discussion, but as far as I am concerned, I simply fail to see any value to HD at all. Does anyone else agree, or am I alone in this viewpoint?

Thankyou for reading
Kotori is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 22-03-2007, 19:01
StereRowe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Leicester
Posts: 1,273
I largely agree!

I've heard people compare the 'leap' in quality with that of B&W to colour and VHS to DVD. Nonsense!

Perhaps my 15 year-old Sony Trinitron has spoiled me but the 'improvement' in resolution is not worth anything like the money/subscription etc they ask for.

Perhaps when the costs tumble - which they will - AND if you like large screen TVs then it would be worth venturing into the HD world, but only then.

StereRowe

Last edited by StereRowe : 22-03-2007 at 19:02.
StereRowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 19:03
Jarrak
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075
You are entitled to your view and since broadcast HD is not designed to replace broadcast SD then we are all getting a choice and can choose to spend the money on HD hardware/sources or not while SD viewers also benefit from higher HD production values at no extra cost to them.

Last edited by Jarrak : 22-03-2007 at 19:06.
Jarrak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 19:05
Jarrak
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075
Originally Posted by StereRowe

Perhaps when the costs tumble - which they will - AND if you like large screen TVs then it would be worth venturing into the HD world, but only then.

StereRowe




Exactly, like all new technology the early years cost a small fortune just as colour, VHS and DVD did in their time and eventually HD kit will drop in price and for the mainstream market make a viable option.

Until then HD is a niche product and shouldn't be judged as anything else.
Jarrak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 19:33
Kotori
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 373
Originally Posted by StereRowe
I largely agree!

I've heard people compare the 'leap' in quality with that of B&W to colour and VHS to DVD. Nonsense!

Perhaps my 15 year-old Sony Trinitron has spoiled me but the 'improvement' in resolution is not worth anything like the money/subscription etc they ask for.

Perhaps when the costs tumble - which they will - AND if you like large screen TVs then it would be worth venturing into the HD world, but only then.

StereRowe
I've heard people refer to it like this too, and as far as I see, it's completely different with HDTV. When television was black and white, people wanted it in colour. When colour television came, it was a big hit, because it was providing a better experience, in that more could be portrayed than before. More was being provided, it was added value ,and it was what people wanted.

Same with DVDs, people were annoyed at VHS in always having to fast forward or rewind slowly to get to the points they want (indexing was designed to help this, but it was still a pain), plus the fact not being digital made it difficult to integrate with computer systems (unlike a DVD, you can pop into a computer and download to a file, and vice versa). DVD added more value and added things that people wanted.

Has HD done the same? Well, I'm not convinced. Has it added value in the same way DVDs or colour television has? Not really, the quality is slightly better, but there's nothing new or additional. Is it better value? Not really, especially with all the copy protection and associated costs - getting less for more. Is it what people wanted? Before HD came out and became "the emperors new clothes", waws it really something lots of people honestly wanted and were talking about? I'd never really heard anyone say anything about it or having a need which HD was to fulfill until it came out, but again, I could be mistaken.

-----------------------

Also, just saw this in another post, seems maybe I'm not alone

Originally Posted by warthog2k

HDTV = marketing ploy = emperor's new clothes.

It doesn't make watching En-ger-lund playing footy any more bearable, it doesn't improve your sex life nor will it make your child a genius.

Most HDTVs I've seen seem to make all non-HD content (i.e. almost everything) look even worse than on a low end standard def CRT. Half the HD content out there was upscaled from standard def too so doesn't look all that sexy either.
Which raises an interesting point. Can anyone that watches HD frequently honestly say they enjoy watching television more than before gteting HD, does it make watching things a better experience than before - I've watched it occasionally, and found it doesn't really improve the experience, but that's just me, and I don't watch it frequently, so I'm interested in other views.

---


Exactly, like all new technology the early years cost a small fortune just as colour, VHS and DVD did in their time and eventually HD kit will drop in price and for the mainstream market make a viable option.

Until then HD is a niche product and shouldn't be judged as anything else.
I guess it's inevitable and is coming, although the switch to digital television hasn't exactly happened, even with a significant amount of time since its introduction, and I think any switch to HD will take much, much longer, unless its forced upon people (no more SD televisions, although televisions themselves last for years - most in my house are 7-15 years old and all still work perfectly). When it does come, will it be a good thing, or will it simply be something we're forced into, just the next step which most people don't think about or care about?
Kotori is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 19:38
TommyW
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Kotori
No more being able to record things on television if they don't want you to, no way to output an HD signal to more than one location,
The way I understand HDCP is, it is applied to two pieces of equipment, a handshake is needed, it will then allow you to view/record the content, it won't let you copy the content.

1st generation Sky HD boxes will allow you to feed two HDTV's from it's HDMI and component outputs.

V+ allows only one HD display to be connected.

Originally Posted by Kotori
Second, the cost. HD is incredibly expensive, with high cost hardware, monthly fees, higher media fees (eg. for purchasing HD-DVDs or Blueray movies, and thats with major discounts applied at the moment to lure people into the formnats too).
You can apply this for all new technology. Colour TV's £600 - VCRs £1000 - DVD player - £800 - Plasma £12000. Costs do come down, DVD player £20, Plasma £799. It depends when you want to opt for that particular technology/product, and how desperate you want it.

HD is relatively cheap compared to VCR when this was first introduced. You were regarded as well of with a colour TV and VCR. Technology seems to go mass market very quickly today. Sky HD £150, HD DVD £280 And a 42" HD ready display is now cheaper than a 32" CRT widescreen of 8yrs ago. What would be the 1970s price equivalent.
Originally Posted by Kotori
Third, you're getting less value for money. HD by its very nature reequires more space and bandwidth, but in all honesty, is it worth it? The more people want and demand HD, in the end, you could be losing out. Consider the people asking for HD on Freeview at the moment when slightly more of the incredibly in high demand spectrum becomes released. Would you prefer to have 3 HD channels, or 12 SD channels of new content?
Personally I would prefer 3 quality HD channels, far too many SD channels full of crap now basically. There's not enough decent content to go round the channels we have now, so quality over quantity.
Originally Posted by Kotori
At the moment, from most of what I've experienced, HD mainly is a boasting issue - a way for people to justify the costs that they are paying, at least from some of the people I've observed. "We have HD, you don't!" or one of the crazes everyone has to get because it's "cool", and the terms sheep come to mind,
I'm very passionate about my hobby, I love discussing it with friends and family, I hope I don't come across as boasting. I don't think cost comes into it really, it's aimed at the mainstream/high st shoppers, I wouldn't say it was a select product.
Originally Posted by Kotori
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, with HD you have a whole lot of negatives. You've got the copy protection, which is going to get worse and worse as time progresses, losing your rights, and having to accept it. You've got the costs involved, having to purchase expensive hardware, expensive media and expensive content, some of which is to pay for the copy protection which doesn't help at all. There's also the fact that on the whole it doesn't really offer much of value compared to SD. Was anyone really 5 or so years ago sitting watching their SD CRT television and getting angry about the quality or resolution, or did you enjoy television just as much then as you do now?
All positives here. Couldn't care less about HDCP, it makes no difference to my viewing. So long as I can view and record via my PVR (Sky HD) I will be happy. HD cost me £299 and an extra £10 month, I regard that as good value for money.

HD has made a massive difference here. We have always had large screen TV's and a projector, Picture quality on SD was dreadful. Viewing on anything more than a 32" - 36" TV PQ suffered. Not anymore with HD, it is absolutely gobsmaking.

I couldn't wait for HD to arrive, now its here I'm loving it, I'm enjoying it more now than ever.

Last edited by TommyW : 22-03-2007 at 20:00.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 19:57
Kotori
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 373
Thanks a lot for your post and differing opinion,

I can understand more why HD is good for you, especially if you use large televisions. I've heard that with a large CRT television, the SD quality is fine, but with large LCD or Plasma screens, the lower resolution is worse because they are designed to show higher resolution. 640x480 on a CRT computer monitor looks perfect, but 640x480 on an LCD monitor is appaling because of the stretching and being the non-native resolution. Do you think the point still stands for the normal sized televisions, however, or is this really a benefit only to those with large non-CRT televisions (a minority?)?

As for your points about HDCP, it is of course of no benefit to you, but its the opposite. It does increase the cost, but it also places restrictions. While I accept your view that you obviously don't want to do anything not allowed by HDCP currently, and thus don't consider it a pain, what about in the future? And while you can still record perhaps to a limited device, where you have no real access to the recordings, this is only when they let you. On Virgin's V+ service, there are certain things you can only watch, not record, enforced with HDCP, and I'm sure this will become the norm. Channels that are non-recordable, programmes that are non-recordable, films that are non-recordable - why wouldn't they - they want you to go out and purchase them on HD-DVD at much higher prices, and again, completely restricted. Furthermore, being restricted into hardware where you have no real access to the recordings is a big burden for those that like to do things like take their recordings and put them on their portable video player (eg. iPod, PSP etc.) or put them onto DVD or share with family or even view around the house (e.g. all have DVD players but only one HD television). I personally like to record television programmes to computer, so I can record them, re-encode them archive them and have a massive store available to me. I won't be able to do this with HD. As far as I can tell, there don't seem to be any HD (trusted) recorders (apart from built-in like Sky+/V+ with it built in, both of which are restricted).

Thus, the only benefit I can see is those with expensive and large non-CRT television systems which dont handle stretching well getting a better resolution. The amount of negatives would seem quite excessive, and I'm not even sure that benefit applies to anything outside a niche.
Kotori is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 20:04
dd68
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Posts: 16,810
I don't think its a great selling point--seeing all the TV stars looking as rough as hell!
dd68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 20:31
TommyW
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Kotori

I can understand more why HD is good for you, especially if you use large televisions. I've heard that with a large CRT television, the SD quality is fine, but with large LCD or Plasma screens, the lower resolution is worse because they are designed to show higher resolution. 640x480 on a CRT computer monitor looks perfect, but 640x480 on an LCD monitor is appaling because of the stretching and being the non-native resolution. Do you think the point still stands for the normal sized televisions, however, or is this really a benefit only to those with large non-CRT televisions (a minority?)?
There has been differing opinions on the SD picture quality on HD ready displays. Some say they are worse/good/better than their previous CRT TV. I would say they are very acceptable on both my 50" 100" screens. I put this down to the new decoding of the Sky HD box. Upon reading various posts, I would say it was the owners of LCD that were initially reporting poor results, plasma owners seemed happier.

HD really does shine the larger the screen. I can see a difference between the two screens I have. The 50" looks very nice, play the same content on the 100" and it blows you away.

Originally Posted by Kotori
As for your points about HDCP, it is of course of no benefit to you, but its the opposite. It does increase the cost, but it also places restrictions. While I accept your view that you obviously don't want to do anything not allowed by HDCP currently, and thus don't consider it a pain, what about in the future? And while you can still record perhaps to a limited device, where you have no real access to the recordings, this is only when they let you. On Virgin's V+ service, there are certain things you can only watch, not record, enforced with HDCP, and I'm sure this will become the norm. Channels that are non-recordable, programmes that are non-recordable, films that are non-recordable - why wouldn't they - they want you to go out and purchase them on HD-DVD at much higher prices, and again, completely restricted. Furthermore, being restricted into hardware where you have no real access to the recordings is a big burden for those that like to do things like take their recordings and put them on their portable video player (eg. iPod, PSP etc.) or put them onto DVD or share with family or even view around the house (e.g. all have DVD players but only one HD television). I personally like to record television programmes to computer, so I can record them, re-encode them archive them and have a massive store available to me. I won't be able to do this with HD. As far as I can tell, there don't seem to be any HD (trusted) recorders (apart from built-in like Sky+/V+ with it built in, both of which are restricted).
I have no idea what costs are involved when applying HDCP to a display or HD DVD player, isn't it just a chip/piece of software? Isn't the licence paid by the manufacturer, then probably a couple of quid passed on to the price of the product? Were there extra costs to the consumer when macrovision was implemented on VCRs?

V+ and HDCP - Virgin Media have been placing a flag on all HDCP content that is being passed through their component connection. This is now only viewable via HDMI. AFAIK, The content in question was being viewed via their VOD, not a live broadcast, there is no recording facility on VOD.

I can't see the recording facility being disabled for certain content in the future, it's to prevent copying. The hardware that is out at present Sky/V+ does not and will not allow the copying of it's HD content directly off the hard drive. They seem to be very secure at the moment.

You can copy off the hard drive now, but it is only output as SD.

Last edited by TommyW : 22-03-2007 at 20:32.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 22:39
nadiasantos
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,104
Its been noted in magazines that 42" is ideally the minimum size screen required to actually see the HD imporovement.

Great selling point.

Not only do you need to spend at least a grand on an HD tv you need one bigger than youi have now otherwise its wasted.

As an earlier post said,SD stuff on HDTV's is a step back from CRT quality.

HD is simply a marketing ploy at the moment.
Until prices drop drastically on everything from tv's to Sky boxes to HD disc players its going nowhere,especially as most will still spend the majority of their time watching SD.

Once BBC/ITV/C4/C5 have full HD services then perhaps the system will go somewhere
nadiasantos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 22:52
Jarrak
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075
Originally Posted by nadiasantos
Its been noted in magazines that 42" is ideally the minimum size screen required to actually see the HD imporovement.

Great selling point.


It's rather a stupid statement isn't it?


I notice HD on my PC screen which is only 19" and have been watching beautiful HD on my 32" LCD for over two years, yes HD supports and even encourages larger screens but viewing distance plays an important part as well.
Jarrak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 22:59
nadiasantos
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,104
Originally Posted by Jarrak
It's rather a stupid statement isn't it?


I notice HD on my PC screen which is only 19" and have been watching beautiful HD on my 32" LCD for over two years, yes HD supports and even encourages larger screens but viewing distance plays an important part as well.
Not really considering the post above mine clearly shows the user sees a marked difference on a 100" compared to a 50".
Neither are mainstream screen sizes.

Home Cinema Choice made the intial comment.

TBH I think the reason why you and lots of other rave about HD pictures on your LCD is because you spend so much time having to put up with the junk that is SD on an LCD.

The demos I've seen have never blown me away with their improvement the same way I marvelled at the difference betwen VHS and DVD
nadiasantos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 23:17
Jarrak
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075
Originally Posted by nadiasantos
Not really considering the post above mine clearly shows the user sees a marked difference on a 100" compared to a 50".
Neither are mainstream screen sizes.

Home Cinema Choice made the intial comment.




Exactly, by making out that you have to have a large screen size kinda limits the potential market and certainly puts off potential buyers who would see viable HD at lower screen sizes costing much less.



TBH I think the reason why you and lots of other rave about HD pictures on your LCD is because you spend so much time having to put up with the junk that is SD on an LCD.


I consider only 1 in 10 SD channels to be "junk" on my LCD and even on my 50hz 28" CRT using Freeview via RGB scart shows disgraceful compression issues on the likes of the ITV channels and E4 and awful live footy on ITV1 and even BBC1 isn't that good so perhaps 1 in 5 SD channels are poor
There is certainly a point to be made the HD looks more impressive because of the p**s poor SD pictures the UK has but it's certainly not just a LCD issue.

However I did by the LCD for HD viewing and people certainly have to consider that SD still accounts for the vast majority of channels when considering a purchase, there is a far greater percentage of lemons in the LCD market than there has ever been in the CRT market.


The demos I've seen have never blown me away with their improvement the same way I marvelled at the difference betwen VHS and DVD


Yeah I can understand that, the move from VHS to DVD was a quantum leap in audio and video quality plus the joy of a single 5" disc. The move from good SD to HD has less of an impact which is why it will be a niche product for many years but if you can see HD and not be impressed then you ain't seeing a good demo
Jarrak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 23:29
nadiasantos
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,104
Originally Posted by Jarrak
Exactly, by making out that you have to have a large screen size kinda limits the potential market and certainly puts off potential buyers who would see viable HD at lower screen sizes costing much less.







I consider only 1 in 10 SD channels to be "junk" on my LCD and even on my 50hz 28" CRT using Freeview via RGB scart shows disgraceful compression issues on the likes of the ITV channels and E4 and awful live footy on ITV1 and even BBC1 isn't that good so perhaps 1 in 5 SD channels are poor
There is certainly a point to be made the HD looks more impressive because of the p**s poor SD pictures the UK has but it's certainly not just a LCD issue.

However I did by the LCD for HD viewing and people certainly have to consider that SD still accounts for the vast majority of channels when considering a purchase, there is a far greater percentage of lemons in the LCD market than there has ever been in the CRT market.






Yeah I can understand that, the move from VHS to DVD was a quantum leap in audio and video quality plus the joy of a single 5" disc. The move from good SD to HD has less of an impact which is why it will be a niche product for many years but if you can see HD and not be impressed then you ain't seeing a good demo

Who's making out they have a large screen size?

HCC were the first ones I saw who made the comment that standard size screens (up to 32") would not immediately blow you away with the quality improvement,but I can say its a comment that keeps appearing all over the place.
nadiasantos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-2007, 23:37
gomezz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,597
Originally Posted by Kotori
I apologise if this has already been discussed, but I've found very little other doiscussions about it so far.
I can only suggest you have not looked very hard then. There are a number of threads doing this topic to death.
gomezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2007, 02:02
Kotori
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 373
The move from good SD to HD has less of an impact which is why it will be a niche product for many years but if you can see HD and not be impressed then you ain't seeing a good demo
I think HD is impressive insofar as its different to what nonHD users are used to, and seeing HD for the first time has a certain new factor "That looks better than what I'm used to". The problem is, as I see it, that it soon wears off and when you get engrossed in a program, you realise it doesn't really seem to matter. Once you've got it, I would imagine you soon begin to take it for granted, and if you don't have it, you take not having it for granted. In other words, it doesn't seem to be a substantial enough difference to justify any significant switch, compared to the wanting of colour television or the wanting of DVD.

----

TBH I think the reason why you and lots of other rave about HD pictures on your LCD is because you spend so much time having to put up with the junk that is SD on an LCD.
I think there may be quite a bit of truth to this, from experience. Seeing SD programs on a big HD television is worse, the artefacts are a lot clearer, it looks slightly stretched and blurry and unclear, compared to HD. However, with smaller or non-flat screens, this isn't really a problem. On the other hand, the way the market is going - most people going flat screens now because CRTs are old and take up more space or aren't as aesthetic - it looks like there may be little choice. But if you want better picture quality, perhaps it is easier and cheaper to get a good CRT (which are much cheaper than flatscreens).

Considering the fact that HD is much more demanding in regards to requirements, it still seems like a downgrade to me. You are getting less for more. When technology improves, perhaps this will change, but at the moment, it still feels like HD lacks much value for the average consumer over SD

----

Originally Posted by gomezz
I can only suggest you have not looked very hard then. There are a number of threads doing this topic to death.
I did searches on both HD and HDTV and read through the returned subjects but didn't see anything covering this particular angle. If I missed something, as I said I apologise, but if you could put me in the right direction having read such threads on what to search for, then I would welcome and appreciate it. I did my best to try to write a worthwhile post, trying to make sure it was well written and well researched. I apologise if you find it to be redundant and useless, I tried to ensure that was not the case, but I apologise if it was.
Kotori is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2007, 02:08
Jarrak
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075
Originally Posted by nadiasantos
Who's making out they have a large screen size?

HCC were the first ones I saw who made the comment that standard size screens (up to 32") would not immediately blow you away with the quality improvement,but I can say its a comment that keeps appearing all over the place.



I must have misunderstood the quote you supplied which stated 42" as the viable starting point for HD from a magazine which I then mocked since it has no relevance in the real world of variable room sizes and viewer demands.
Jarrak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2007, 12:17
TommyW
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by nadiasantos
Not really considering the post above mine clearly shows the user sees a marked difference on a 100" compared to a 50".
Neither are mainstream screen sizes.

Home Cinema Choice made the intial comment.
There is a marked difference, not in picture quality, purely because of the impact of HD on a 100" screen.

The difference is simply HD has the resolution to be projected to very large screen sizes without loss of detail like SD. Yes, HD does benefit those with big screens, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will not look good on a 32" display.

You have to consider the viewing distance. Viewing HD on a 32" screen at 13' would not be rewarding, simply because the screen is to small to display the detail at that distance. Cut the viewing distance down and all it becomes obvious.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2007, 17:14
David (2)
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: S.West England.
Posts: 18,037
in the OP, it says that SD is being used on a CRT. Thats why you dont see any problems with it. Its the same for me by the way. Couple of Sony CRTs in the house + 14inch Panny all with their own Freeview box. Nothing wrong with the picture 99% of the time. But put the same SD signal on a HD-Ready LCD tv and there's a drop in quality straight away. Some cope with this mixture better than others, and with all LCD tv's, you need to view them from further away. But with a HD signal on a HD Ready LCD, the picture is greatly improved, but thats compared with SD on HD LCD......its not that great a leap over SD on a CRT, although the size of that difference also changes depending on the content provider, and the make/model of LCD. The only 2 "stunning" HD displays I have seen is a front projection system (using SkyHD), and a 37inch Sharp (full HD) LCD with SkyHD feed. Now, if I could have that Sharp, plus the 5 main tv channels in HighDef free to air on satellite (using a non-sky branded box, like the Humax), then I would be very tempted, but at the moment the price is too high, and only the BBC have a free demo HD channel on satellite, while CH4 and CH5 are SD only and still require a Sky box with Sky freetoview card - at the moment.

VHS - DVD: Upgrade = 8/10

SD on CRT - SD on HD-Ready LCD: Some upgrade for people who had a very bad crt, or about the same, or a worse picture - depending on what you had before and which LCD you bought).

SD on CRT - HD on most HD Ready LCDs: Upgrade = 5/10

SD on CRT - Sharp Full HD 37inch LCD with HD feed: Upgrade = 8/10


So like others have said, in most cases changing from SD on a good crt to High def on a HD Ready LCD is not a big a leap as the move from vhs to dvd a few years ago. But the exception to that is there in the form of that Sharp LCD (and the front projection system), they are similar to my mind to that vhs/dvd change over - and thats what I want.


Dave

Last edited by David (2) : 23-03-2007 at 17:28.
David (2) is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2007, 18:44
Osamede
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by Kotori
I've heard that with a large CRT television, the SD quality is fine, but with large LCD or Plasma screens, the lower resolution is worse because they are designed to show higher resolution. 640x480 on a CRT computer monitor looks perfect, but 640x480 on an LCD monitor is appaling because of the stretching and being the non-native resolution.
If you go in a store and look at a broadcast TV on one of the latest HD-ready (ie minimum 720 pixels) widescreen LCD/Plasma, this becomes very obvious, I think. Its not very good.

So if you get any of this hardware, it is actually a downgrade unless you spend big money for a sky or cable TV HD package, 50-quid-a-pop digital connector cables etc.

In others words it clearly set up to drain your pocket. No way of avoiding that conclusion.
Osamede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2007, 18:58
TommyW
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Osamede

So if you get any of this hardware, it is actually a downgrade unless you spend big money for a sky or cable TV HD package, 50-quid-a-pop digital connector cables etc.

In others words it clearly set up to drain your pocket. No way of avoiding that conclusion.
LOL - Big money - £50 a pop.

The HD package is £10 per month on Sky - Certain content on V+ is PPV majority is free - Cables are free.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2007, 19:03
Osamede
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by TommyW
LOL - Big money - £50 a pop.

The HD package is £10 per month on Sky - Certain content on V+ is PPV majority is free - Cables are free.
Digital cables are not free. They cost money - a lot more money than a component cable or SCART.
Osamede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2007, 19:08
TommyW
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Osamede
Digital cables are not free. They cost money - a lot more money than a component cable or SCART.
Yes they are, if you go with Sky/VM they come with the box. And no they don't. You can pick up a HDMI for as little as £2-99.

Last edited by TommyW : 23-03-2007 at 19:32.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2007, 19:09
Kotori
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 373
The thing is, where does it stop? You have an SD television, and with SD content it looks fine. You then buy an LCD HD television, same size, but higher resolution, and because of that, SD content looks bad, and you need HD to make it look acceptable. What happens if an HD television with double the resolution comes out? HD will look bad compared to "Super-HD" with the correct resolution. Apart from some circumsntaces where you need a bigger television, do you really need to do this upgrade, which as Osamede said above:

So if you get any of this hardware, it is actually a downgrade unless you spend big money for a sky or cable TV HD package, 50-quid-a-pop digital connector cables etc.
I have two portable video players. A GP2x and a creative zen vision, the former with a 320x240 resolution and the latter a 640x480 resolution, same size screen. 320x240 videos look great on the gp2x, yet look quite bad on the creative zen vision with the higher resolution. While higher resolution content looks better on the creative zen vision, it looks nearly as good on the gp2x when downscaled to 320x240. Therefore, is it worth paying for higher resolution when it comes to media for the same size screen when its just making you need higher resolution input to look reasonable, when it could look just as reasonable for cheaper and with lower resolutoin? Applying to TVs, for the average consumer purchasing a standard size TV and for which a CRT would be accetapble, is it worth purchasing an LCD with a fixed high resolution which makes lower resolution content look worse?
Kotori is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2007, 22:02
nadiasantos
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,104
Originally Posted by TommyW
There is a marked difference, not in picture quality, purely because of the impact of HD on a 100" screen.

The difference is simply HD has the resolution to be projected to very large screen sizes without loss of detail like SD. Yes, HD does benefit those with big screens, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will not look good on a 32" display.

You have to consider the viewing distance. Viewing HD on a 32" screen at 13' would not be rewarding, simply because the screen is to small to display the detail at that distance. Cut the viewing distance down and all it becomes obvious.
I agree on the latter point.

But this is my bone of contention-the crap quality of SD on a flat panel.

I admit that SD on a flat panel can look clear and colourful from a much further distance than on a CRT,but many people with normal viewing distances and small sets are closeup to see how bad SD is on a flat panel while HD looks good.

Basically ,the viewing distance for good SD on a flat panel is far enough away to make it impossible to see the HD improvement.
nadiasantos is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:55.