[Viper1]

I've had mixed success with my digital switch over thus far. And, in the light of my most recent experience I'm wondering if this digital thing is more like the time when we were promised cheaper fuel if we all changed to natural gas.

On the plus side I've been delighted with the increase in screen size and the quality of these larger images via digital freeview. I've also been pleased with the opportunity it's afforded me to free-up useful floorspace in my living room.

In fact, I was so impressed with the initial results that I forked out for a PS3 to play a proper HD film last Christmas. 'Planet Earth' was my choice and the picture results were impressive.

But after watching my second HD film (Casino Royale) I'm less enthusiastic. (That's right, I've only bought two HD films in 12 months- but dozens of dvd's). Sure I've read much of the HD hype like everyone else, but try as I might, I could not identify any noticeable improvement in the picture quality of the HD Bond film when compared with the DVD. And the rest of my family audience agreed. Some even highlighted the fact that the HD version was noticeably smaller (but this may be because I overlooked something in setting it up).

I don't have any surround sound nor a sat set up. I was hoping, even counting on the fact, that both HD films would help strengthen the argument to buy a surround sound system in the new year. A purchase that would make a noticeable improvement to our viewing pleasure and encourage us to buy HD films in the future. That was my plan at least.

Sound wise before the Bond HD film I had been thinking of a Yamaha DSP-AX763 amplifier and Q Acoustics 1010i spkrs or the smaller KEF 1005.2's. But after watching, I fail to see how the apparently negligible improvement of showing an HD film can warrant the expense of surround sound and satelite tv. Certainly, the visual experience doesn't do it justice enough for me to warrant the extra expense.

Have others experienced the HD phenomena as I have? Because I've found myself go from 'enthusiastic supporter' of large screen tv to a 'part sceptic' as far as HD film is concerned.

I remain unconvinced. But at the same time I want to be!

Is the surround sound experience SO good that it justifies its expense when the visual improvement appears so negligible? Please tell me.

Leastways, before I shell out for any surround sound system (much less a sat system as well), I feel I need to take my Bond film to a retailer where I can 'savour' the full HD experience in order to be convinced enough to buy.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Well, fairly obviously, surround sound won't alter the picture quality at all

What type of set (and size) do you have?, is it connected via HDMI?, and how far do you sit from it?.

[njp]

You don't say what size screen you have. I use a PS3 via a projector to view BD on a 100" screen (I still have a CRT for normal TV viewing!).

Even at that size, the difference isn't vast (not like going from VHS to DVD), though it is certainly (in my view) worth having. I have to say that I've been impressed with the quality of the upscaling of SD DVDs via the PS3, so that may account for some of your disappointment - though I also wonder about the size discrepancy you claim to have seen. That needs to be explained.

As far as surround sound is concerned - this is definitely worth having, and was even before the advent of HD sources. I don't yet have an HDMI-capable amplifier, so I still use the optical output from the PS3 to carry the digital sound (DD 5.1 or DTS).

I'll upgrade the amplifier when I finally get around to upgrading the TV. The sound should then be even better.

[paulr2006]

In my opinion the HD sound experience really makes the HD formats come alive. I have an Onkyo 875 in 7.1 using Kef 3005 speakers with Kef iQ5's for the front pair. If you get a good HD sound track of which there are to many to mention the exeprience is phenominal, especialy on the DTS HD MA tracks which I prefer over Tru HD (which is also great).

I personaly find the difference in PQ from BD is very significant, and have not purchased a DVD in the last 12 months, I have though purchased 60 HD DVD & 40 BD discs the vast majority of which offer superb detail. Obviously some are better transferes than others but on the whole they are all an improvement. I used to have a Denon 1930 Upscaling DVD player & whilst not the dearest at the time (£240) did not come close to HD/BD quality.

[fugitive]

I agree with the OP

First we had to go widescreen, then we were told to go digital, then we had to have lcd or plasma tvs, now we have to have hd - someone making a lot of money out of us!

You got just as good a pic with a CRT and VHs as you do with LCD and an SD set top box.

Ive bought - and sent back a leas t6 LCD tv's beacuse of the crap pic quality compared to my old CRT

[clockworks999]

I think it depends on what aspects of picture and sound quality you are sensitive to. Some people can't stand motion blur, others don't notice missing detail, some are immune to pixellation/posterisation.
Some people really notice poor lip sync, some have the sound turned down so low they can hardly hear it.

The thing that really bugged me with larger CRTs was the apallingly bad geometry (poor verticals) and the shading at each side of widescreen broadcasts. A decent panel TV doesn't suffer from either of these defects.
I also feel that audio is just as important as the picture with most programmes.

[RobAnt]

What I think is happening, Viper 1, is that you are experiencing the improved picture you get on standard DVDs which are being upscaled.

Trying connecting a standard DVD to the SCART socket, and then you'll see a much greater differential.

In my view, one of the big advantages of using a modern TV via the HDMI socket is this much improved standard DVD picture brought about by upscaling. And upscaling has the effect of making the difference between standard DVD and HD/BluRay DVD seem much smaller.

[Viper1]

Thanks for the replies everyone. For the techies among you, I have a 50" Panasonic plasma and HDMI connections.
RobAnt has highlighted my own suspicions of my system regarding the televisual results of upscaling. Certainly those who have a surround system appear delighted with the results.

But until I hear a proper setup I'm afraid I remain unconvinced of the sound benefits vs the costs. And the 'costs' for me are not simply financial. My 30ft living room already contains two large speakers that reach above the door handles (Quad Electrostatics with Naim amplification for the techies) and the very idea of adding 5 more speakers and a chunky subwoofer does make me wonder about what our communal family space might be turning in to. . . . .

[Gazzy3d]

I have found that searching for tv setup's as in colour, contrast, gamma etc makes such a big difference and is well worth doing so, in most cases your settings for your tv are same for dvd and I have found that your settings for normal tv looks crap while watching a dvd so tweaking the gamma, contrast makes a big difference. On my samsung i have standard setup colours while watching tv and in dvd mode I set it to dynamic with contrast much higher. Also HDMI cables are the main thing to improve picture, I have replaced all my (exspensive) scart leads with £15 HDMI cables and WOW.

[bobcar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viper1

Thanks for the replies everyone. For the techies among you, I have a 50" Panasonic plasma and HDMI connections.
.

The screen size is only one aspect of this, equally important is your viewing distance - it;s the ratio of the two that counts.

How far do you sit from your TV?

[paulr2006]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazzy3d

I have found that searching for tv setup's as in colour, contrast, gamma etc makes such a big difference and is well worth doing so, in most cases your settings for your tv are same for dvd and I have found that your settings for normal tv looks crap while watching a dvd so tweaking the gamma, contrast makes a big difference. On my samsung i have standard setup colours while watching tv and in dvd mode I set it to dynamic with contrast much higher. Also HDMI cables are the main thing to improve picture, I have replaced all my (exspensive) scart leads with £15 HDMI cables and WOW.

Whilst I agree with tweaking your settings I dont know how anyone could view a Samsung set on Dynamic it is so unreal & vivid & only really designed to attract your attention in a brightly lit sales shop! also a £2, £15 & £200 HDMI lead will all give you the same picture quality as confirmed on this forum many times.

[Gazzy3d]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulr2006

Whilst I agree with tweaking your settings I dont know how anyone could view a Samsung set on Dynamic it is so unreal & vivid & only really designed to attract your attention in a brightly lit sales shop! also a £2, £15 & £200 HDMI lead will all give you the same picture quality as confirmed on this forum many times.

For me I have it set on dynamic, on cool 2 and contrast at about 45-50 and it looks VERY life like, but on every tv I know it is different and on another I know it would not look the same. I can never understand people buying HDMI CABLES AT £50+ I got my three 6 months ago off ebay £28 thats with P&P

[Deacon1972]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viper1

Thanks for the replies everyone. For the techies among you, I have a 50" Panasonic plasma and HDMI connections.
RobAnt has highlighted my own suspicions of my system regarding the televisual results of upscaling. Certainly those who have a surround system appear delighted with the results.

But until I hear a proper setup I'm afraid I remain unconvinced of the sound benefits vs the costs. And the 'costs' for me are not simply financial. My 30ft living room already contains two large speakers that reach above the door handles (Quad Electrostatics with Naim amplification for the techies) and the very idea of adding 5 more speakers and a chunky subwoofer does make me wonder about what our communal family space might be turning in to. . . . .

If you are serious about surround sound and listening to the full experience it can offer I can an only recommend you go for a demo, but try and go to a dedicated home cinema outlet, not one of the high street stores.

Surround sound done properly will drag you into the movie and completes the experience.

The room doesn't necessarily need to be filled with large speakers, there are some very good lifestyle systems about that use very discrete speakers, Kef and Anthony Gallos are two manufacturers that use such speakers.

The systems are not cheap but they do deliver.

http://www2.kef.com/GB/SurroundSound/KHT

http://www.anthonygallo.co.uk/

[walde1s]

I have just replaced my very old CRT television with a Panasonic 42" plasma with integrated Freesat receiver. Comparing the SD picture quality, from the internal Freeview digital tuner or from a Freeviw PVR (over Scart RGB), with the HD picture quality from the internal Freesat I cannot see any appreciable difference. I have always been led to believe that HD was so much better than SD but so far, in my limited experience, it certainly isn't.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by walde1s

I have just replaced my very old CRT television with a Panasonic 42" plasma with integrated Freesat receiver. Comparing the SD picture quality, from the internal Freeview digital tuner or from a Freeviw PVR (over Scart RGB), with the HD picture quality from the internal Freesat I cannot see any appreciable difference. I have always been led to believe that HD was so much better than SD but so far, in my limited experience, it certainly isn't.

HD is MASSIVELY better, make sure you're watching an HD programme, and how far away are you watching from?.

Certainly in my experience Plasma's aren't as good as LCD on HD, but the difference should still be blindingly obvious.

[RobAnt]

It can vary wildly from one Blu-Ray disk to another. I've seen a few that I might just as well have watched on standard DVD in the blu-ray player, which would upscale them.

But there are some truly fantastic blu-ray titles out there. I hired The Forbidden Kingdom yesterday, and the picture quality and detail was absolutely fantastic.

I hired the Sweeney Todd musical yesterday too, and the picture qualiity was as bad as Johnny Depp's singing. It may have been the Tim Burton style that didn't work so well on blu-ray.

[walde1s]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

HD is MASSIVELY better, make sure you're watching an HD programme, and how far away are you watching from?.

Certainly in my experience Plasma's aren't as good as LCD on HD, but the difference should still be blindingly obvious.

I know it's an HD programme because it's from the BBC HD Freesat channel (108) and has the HD Dog in the corner of the screen.

We are watching from ~3m away from the TV.

I can swap directly from Freesat BBC1 SD (channel 101) to Freesat BBC HD (channel 108) but still can't see much, if any, difference between the two.

[Scorpio]

try watching Strictly Come dancing tonight and change between the HD and SD channels - certainly my Sky HD picture is miles better than the SD one.

Any program with movement, colour or both (dancing or sport) will show you what HD is all about.

Sky Sports premiership football is literally in a different league that ITV's disgraceful presentation of Euro matches.

Rgds,
Scorp

[Deacon1972]

Quote:

Originally Posted by walde1s

I know it's an HD programme because it's from the BBC HD Freesat channel (108) and has the HD Dog in the corner of the screen.

We are watching from ~3m away from the TV.

I can swap directly from Freesat BBC1 SD (channel 101) to Freesat BBC HD (channel 108) but still can't see much, if any, difference between the two.

Personally I think you are sitting too far away, you should be around 2m at most. I sit at around 3m for my 50" and 84" screens.

How have you calibrated the set, have you used a test disc or the test card that is available on Sky Arts HD, or are you using factory settings?

[OranguMaTang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

HD is MASSIVELY better, make sure you're watching an HD programme, and how far away are you watching from?.

Certainly in my experience Plasma's aren't as good as LCD on HD, but the difference should still be blindingly obvious.

Based on which sets? Which lcd's kick the the panasonic/pioneer plasma's into touch on HD material?

[OranguMaTang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by walde1s

I know it's an HD programme because it's from the BBC HD Freesat channel (108) and has the HD Dog in the corner of the screen.

We are watching from ~3m away from the TV.

I can swap directly from Freesat BBC1 SD (channel 101) to Freesat BBC HD (channel 108) but still can't see much, if any, difference between the two.

You should easily see the difference at that viewing distance, I sit 9ft from a 37inch and quality HD broadcasts are miles ahead of SD, even the missus was forced to agree

Use Cinema picture mode with the colour temp set to Warm.

[Chorley Matt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OranguMaTang

Use Cinema picture mode with the colour temp set to Warm.

Would that be on a Panasonic plasma by any chance? They are the ideal settings to start from when calibrating those screens.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

Personally I think you are sitting too far away, you should be around 2m at most. I sit at around 3m for my 50" and 84" screens.

I would agree, you want to be no more than twice the screen size away for HD, and preferably closer.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OranguMaTang

Based on which sets? Which lcd's kick the the panasonic/pioneer plasma's into touch on HD material?

Sony, Sharp, Toshiba, Sansung - any decent set, and many cheap ones as well (it's usually SD cheap sets are crap on).

I'll ask again, as no one has EVER offered an alternative solution to mine - why are Plasma sets usually 'better' on SD than LCD?.

[ntlhellworld]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Sony, Sharp, Toshiba, Sansung - any decent set, and many cheap ones as well (it's usually SD cheap sets are crap on).

I'll ask again, as no one has EVER offered an alternative solution to mine - why are Plasma sets usually 'better' on SD than LCD?.

Perhaps what you think is a "decent high def LCD" is actually a heavily artificially sharpened mess with terrible grayscale reproduction and actually looks god-awful.

You did ask for a alternative explination

-Chris