HD tv

[mangaman]

Personally - I can't tell the difference.

I've got a 66cm Sonia Bravia - and blu-ray and DVDs look much the same.

A friend with a projector and a huge screen has HD and the difference is huge. But so is the picture - I only would watch big sports events there for example.

His wife hates it - and prefers a normal TV for normal programmes, and I agree.

Of all the changes in TV land, HD excites me the least. Sky plus was the biggest leap forward for me in my viewing pleasure.

 

[marinyork]

I've got a 66cm Sonia Bravia - and blu-ray and DVDs look much the same.

A lot of people claim not to be able to tell the difference on 26". I had a 26" and it's not as in your face different as 32" or above, but I can still see it. A lot of people say they only start to see the difference at 32" and some even at 37". On a 26" rubbish SD is pretty apparent imho.

Tivo popularising the PVR and Sky hijacking it in this country was certainly a big leap forward, but then so was digital.

 

[mangaman]

A lot of people claim not to be able to tell the difference on 26". I had a 26" and it's not as in your face different as 32" or above, but I can still see it. A lot of people say they only start to see the difference at 32" and some even at 37". On a 26" rubbish SD is pretty apparent imho.

Tivo popularising the PVR and Sky hijacking it in this country was certainly a big leap forward, but then so was digital.

I agree about Tivo and digital - they really changed my watching experience.

HD still seems a lot of money for a small increment in viewing pleasure.

 

[marinyork]

I agree about Tivo and digital - they really changed my watching experience.

HD still seems a lot of money for a small increment in viewing pleasure.

Well Sky's vision is a lot of money, however I'm very much keen for most of the freeview channels to be HD the next few years and available satellite fta (yeah right). Sky have a different view of this. The hardware, blu-ray players are still a lot. Discs, not really. Suppose the STBs are a lot of money too really. I regard it as a one off expensive cost as I don't really expect people to go mad replacing tvs for it, just whenever they naturally replace their tv (or slightly sooner). If you're keen on your sound then HD offers quite substantial improvements. Really with some of the STBs like for freesat and freeview it's not so much the cost of the box, but the small quantity of HD material I think is the problem moneywise.

 

[montage]

Absolutely huge difference....but I find with some movies, such as Lord of the Rings, HD makes you very much aware that the film has been filmed...whereas before, with SD, you were captured in the moment. Getting used to it now, it is like watching a moving photo.
Blu ray is something else.

 

[Cardiac]

Does this help...?

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

For smaller screens, HD is more about marketing than improving the viewing experience. For larger screens (32 inches and above) the differences between SD and HD are generally more apparent.

I have a 37" Panasonic, but only capable of displaying 720p natively (1080i is downscaled). For me, HD on that TV is a substantial improvement over SD.

 

[User482]

I'm amazed that people can't tell the difference. We have a fairly low spec, 5 year old 32" TV, and SD vs HD is immediately apparent. I can however appreciate that the difference might not bother you.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

the one irritation having gone from a ropy on-its-way-out crt telly to a 1081p led telly is that when something's broadcast at a fairly low res or with a lot of artefacts, it's a bit too obvious…

 

[Rezillo]

Several things can be responsible for seeing no difference:

1. The box/tv has been incorrectly set up so even when viewing an HD channel, you're seeing it in SD.

2. Watching a programme on an HD channel that isn't shot in HD in the first place.

3. (surprising common) Slight shortsightedness that makes middle distance vision just blurred enough to not spot a difference - it's a condition that is very easy to get used to without realising something's wrong.

4. The director of the film or programme being watched has deliberately chosen an artistic effect that removes definition.

5. The HD channel is being broadcast at a bit rate that is not sufficient for a high quality picture.

There are probably more factors on top of these. The market for broadcast HD would take a big knock if people realised just what a good quality SD broadcast can look like and what the broadcasters do to SD picture quality to squeeze the maximim number of channels into the available bandwidth.

John

 

[alecstilleyedye]

i'd certainly check point 1 there, been there done that. also check blu ray players aren't set to display cinema 24fps

 

[Iaing]

I have a Panasonic 37” Plasma TV which is just fine on SD most of the time. But for some reason sports programmes - football and cricket, do not watch any other – are dismal. It is not the speed of the action, the players could be standing still for all the good it does but the whole picture is rubbish.



I bought a Philips DTR5520 for last year’s football World Cup and the difference was astounding! At last I could watch football properly. Pity the World Cup football was so poor.



I have Freeview only so the cricket highlights on Channel 5 still look dreadful.



Some programmes seem to me to have exactly the same picture whether watched through SD or HD, but on some there really is a big difference. It is only on sports programmes where the difference is colossal.



Iain