Have Sony 32" LCD TV (12 months old) with my new Foxsat HDR contected via HDMI cable been looking at BBC HD but to be honest can't see much difference between standard picture & the HD one! Have both TV & Humax on 1080i but still think the picture is just as good on normal TV - am I doing something wrong or do you need 40"+ to see the improvement?

Hmmmm perhaps a visit to specsavers may be in order.

The difference is like night and day, you should see a stark difference in detail NK. :sleep:

Don't you get lots of nice sharp detail ? This grab is from BBC HD. (Gavin & Stacey)

Gavin & Stacey

http://www.flickr.com/photos/freesat...93025/sizes/o/

BBC HD Grabs

http://www.flickr.com/photos/freesat...7605075260302/

ITV HD Grabs

http://www.flickr.com/photos/freesat...7605079161087/

Luxe TV HD Grabs

http://www.flickr.com/photos/freesat...7605075246190/

I've taken my Sky HD box to a relative's house who has a 32" Sony LCD. The HD picture was excellent.

Make sure you have all the picture enhancements turned off and you're not viewing through SCART in error.

Record the test card on the BBC HD preview and adjust your picture using that.

A lot of BBC programes although in HD are in low resolution HD. Try Luxe TV HD there is usually in true 1060p HD

Most of the HD is probably low resolution HD. The best quality HD is on Luxe but the programes are not upto much

There is no such thing. It's 1080i. No 1080p transmissions exist.

Luxe HD picture quality results from it's high bit rate.

Actually Graham Luxe TV HD has the lowest bitrate.

BBC HD 16.3 Mbits
ITV HD is 10.7 Mbits
Luxe TV HD 10.0 Mbits

Bitrates aren't as important as they used to be.

As Graham mentioned Luxe TV HD is always top quality in the HD dept, so a higher bitrate doesn't always mean better quality HD.
(All down to the encoders in use)

Wouldnt that be SD then

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

Wouldn't the difference between HD and SD also depend on how far away you are sat ? for example, if you are sat 16 feet away from a good 32" TV i am guessing there wouldnt be much difference, if any, between HD and SD.

Which leads me to the question:-
Is there a formula that can be worked out to calculate at what distance HD broadcasts look exactly the same SD broadcasts in relation to the size of the TV and how far away you are (assuming you have perfect vision) ?

Are there any scientists out there ?

Remember that whether or not you can see any difference depends on how far away you are from the screen. If you cannot see any difference when close (i.e. less 3 feet away) then there is something seriously wrong somewhere. On the other hand, if you are sitting 12' away from a 32" screen it is physically impossible for the human eye to be able to resolve the (resolution) difference between HD and SD.

People who have large rooms and sit a good distance from their screens are often disappointed in HD although, in reality, they are already seeing an image that is at least as sharp as HD viewed close to.

Can you get Luxe to sell their encoders to ITV

Yes that would be good Graham, BBC HD as well i think.

(If BBC HD upped to 20 Mbits they could get 2 channels in with Luxe's excellent encoders i think)

It's not that straight forward to calulate. It would be easy if the picture quality were identical and the only difference is in pixel sizes. As it would be if for example if a digital still photograph is printed at say 300dpi and 150dpi. The 150 dpi print will be twice as large and if viewed at twice the distance as the 300dpi it's percieved size would be the same as the closer 300dpi image and both would look pretty well identical.

A HD tv display is not like that let's take for example a full HD display of 1920 x 1080 pixels. Whatever the signal source that's how many pixels you are watching. On my 40" LCD for example the screen is 34.5" wide giving a horizontal picture resolution of 1920/34.5 or about 56 pixels per inch irrespective if the source is SD or HD. Given a SD picture source of 720 x 576 pixels then at some stage the number of pixels in the image has to be increased in a process known as scaling (basically guesswork) to increase the pixel count to 1920 x 1080. All scalers are not created equal, the better one's will allow you stand closer before the artefacts created by scaling become obvious. A full resolution 1920 x 1080 image will obviously not need to be scaled for the full HD set but will require pixels to be removed to display on a screen with a smaller pixel count. (That's why the term upscaler is not really correct they like lifts have to go down as well as up ) but it's not only scaling that introduces picture artefacts on an interlaced signal for example half the picture is only generated at once so a fast moving object will have moved slightly as the 2nd part of the picture is produced giving rise to motion artefacts. Picture artefacts are also introduced as part of the mpeg compression required to transmit the pictures without massive bandwidth requirements. With so many variables it's really only possible to give a broad guide as to viewing distances.

However the next time a BBC HD simulcast is available try the following experiment. Stand as close to the screen as you can without the picture imperfections being obvious. Switch to HD and see how much closer you can stand (of course this will give you a bigger percieved picture) without the picture imperfections being obvious.

I use this chart...

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

My only experience of HD has been 720p through my PC monitors and whilst the picture quality is much better than SD, I don't think I'd fork out more than £300 for a TV to use it. SD doesn't bother me.

I use my eyes, but sometimes the static from the screen hurts my nose.

That's a very short-sighted view .

Yes i think you might be right awo1949.

Well if that is correct, then I am not getting the full benefit from HD, I normally sit 12 feet away from a 42"

I think i need to show the wife this chart as evidence that we need a new 52" tv

I can see the difference but it's rarely enough to make me say "wow". About the only thing I've seen that was a big improvement was Last of the Summer Wine (shame about the stories these days though). Being able to see detail out to the horizon was impressive as was the colour (*). The only problem I had was that sometimes my eyes seemed to be confused about how to focus.

Where you do notice the difference though is after an hour watching HD and switching back to SD. That's when you realise how much better HD is. Would I pay extra for it? Well I paid £70 for a PC card and some software and I don't regret it but that's in part for the geek factor as for the image

I have a 32" Toshiba and typically view from just under two metres away.

(*)Some of the lighter shades look burnt out. At one point June Whitfield's hair looked like it was undergoing a thermo-nuclear reaction! It's the same on SD though and even visible on old material. Must just be the way it's filmed.

Gah! Cleartype or similar abomination detected

Does anyone else see the irony in an article on HD TV using ClearType?

Now pardon me:I need to lie down with a damp cloth over my eyes for ten minutes.

Thanks for your reply - definitely running through HDMI cable but what do you mean by picture enancements? Sorry if that sounds stupid but new to HD.

Would a better HDMI cable help?

Viewing from about 10ft away. Do see a small difference but nothing spectacular!

In the picture menu there are often various 'features' for picture improvement, I don't know off hand what Sony call them.


No


With a 32" you do need to be closer. Not further than about six feet.

I'm surprised nobody has asked the OP if his 32" Sony is a 'Full HD' 1080 line one, or an 'HD Ready' 768 line one?

Surely that would affect the calculations for the ideal viewing distance?

I would expect is 1080i (HD ready) and not full hd (1080p).

I have a 37" Sharp 100hz LCD with a sharp blue ray and will say the pictures are much crisper and detailed. I only bought this recently and was offered the blue ray for £99.
I went for the Humax as I hope more will be transmitted in HD to utilise higher quality of the LCD. To be honest some of what has been transmitted by BBC on HD has been excellent.

On saturday I spent a few minutes watching a Panny freesat HD TV, a 50" plasma. It was tuned to BBC HD preview, I was supprized that the picture varied from good (filmed outside in africa?) to very poor(filmed inside studio with poor lighting) whilst the wildlife scenes where all I would wish for from HD I'm not sure I could live with the quality of the studio scenes. I'm guessing that this is more to do with the quality or technology of the camera's than the broadcasting system or TV?