High Def - can you tell the difference?

[CharlesF]

Sorry that is complete rubbish. HDMI signal is digital, therefore is 1's and 0's. So what goes in one end comes out the same the other. It will be the same signal through a 99p cable as through a £30 cable. If you spend that amount of money on a cable, it's not for the signal/Picture, it's for better components.

There are a million internet discussion and tests you can find about HDMI cables. And if I remember correctly The Gadget Show did a test between cheap and expensive cables and found no difference what so ever.

Sorry, but you're wrong. It's a digital signal, so you don't get the loss you do with analogue.

Don't fall for the marketing.

Okay, I'm no expert, does that apply to SCART as well? I had a lousy picture with my scart that came with the original NTL box, bought another cheap one at Tesco, same thing. My neighbour, who sells high end audio and home cinemas, gave me a quality SCART which made all the difference. I will ask about the HDMI

 

[ianrauk]

Exactly, as per my post #44

Sorry, but you're wrong. It's a digital signal, so you don't get the loss you do with analogue.

Don't fall for the marketing.

 

[ianrauk]

Yes a there is a difference between cheap and expensive scart leads as it's an analogue signal. So a better quality lead will result in a better picture.

Okay, I'm no expert, does that apply to SCART as well? I had a lousy picture with my scart that came with the original NTL box, bought another cheap one at Tesco, same thing. My neighbour, who sells high end audio and home cinemas, gave me a quality SCART which made all the difference. I will ask about the HDMI

 

[CharlesF]

I will have to expand my reference material, at least I only read it and still have the cheapo cable, been thinking about getting and expensive on tho'. So you have saved me money!

 

[joebingo]

To be fair that sounds more like they have a crap TV and crap reception.

I have a 32" Hi-Def CRT TV. That's right, an HD CRT TV. It's got an HDMI port and everything. Contrast is amazing. Detail and geometry are, however, crap.

I've got one of these (Samsung one, yeah?). I wish they'd not used a slim tube as they are notoriously bad for geometry and detail/colour fringing in the corners. Centre of the screen is amazing though, the downfalls I've got used to and barely notice any more.

As has been said, those big budget cables are a complete rip off (or do you think that we use $400 cables to make these programs?), a well looked after cheap but good quality cable will last you for life, copper wire is copper wire when all is said and done. For a scart lead, I wouldn't spend more than a fiver.

 

[Jmetz]

I work in the field, and there is a difference, no arguments, not a single person given the same two shows side by side in SD and HD could argue that there wasnt a difference, provided they are telling the truth.

However, having said that, at home you dont have another TV in SD/HD to compare to, so whether or not there is a benefit comes down to how much you scrutinise images or how much of a techgeek you are

 

[Jmetz]

Yeah alright you have me there, for this 4 week period you can compare, but generally, its not possible. However im definately pro HD, 3D on the other hand....

 

[ColinJ]

About 15 years ago, virtually every street in Hebden Bridge was dug up to have new plastic gas mains laid. The road works went on for many weeks. After about 2 months of that I said to my then girlfriend "I wonder how much longer these roadworks are going to go on for?"She looked at me and asked "What roadworks?" She was completely oblivious to the whole thing.

She is equally oblivious to TV picture or sound quality, but she can spot a pretty flower from 20 yards away! I suppose it depends what interests you.

 

[Crankarm]

cranky you old luddite, the difference between the two formats is quite adequately displayed watching pro cycling. when cycling over the alps the vistas are stunning in high def, switch to standard and the difference is stark.

And proud .

 

[Jezston]

I've got one of these (Samsung one, yeah?). I wish they'd not used a slim tube as they are notoriously bad for geometry and detail/colour fringing in the corners. Centre of the screen is amazing though, the downfalls I've got used to and barely notice any more.

It is indeed one of the Samsungs. Don't mind the slightly distorted geometry, you only really notice it with things like the ticker-tape display on news shows, and I only watch SD TV and play games on it anyway. If it was deeper I don't think it would fit in my flat!

I'm still pretty happy with it. After mulling for ages over which 32" LCD I would get, almost settling on a £399 Sony model, I saw the Samsung on ebay, 5 mins down the road, £50. One of the best decisions I've ever made!

 

[rh100]

Okay, I'm no expert, does that apply to SCART as well? I had a lousy picture with my scart that came with the original NTL box, bought another cheap one at Tesco, same thing. My neighbour, who sells high end audio and home cinemas, gave me a quality SCART which made all the difference. I will ask about the HDMI

Yes, cheap SCART cables are awfull. They are analogue, not digital, I think it's to do with the screening, more expensive cables have individually screened cables I think, so they are more meaty looking. I personally think around the £20 mark would give you a reasonable scart cable, but as with HIFI there are several opinions.

Also, SCART can carry different signals on the pins, and not all cables are fully wired. It can carry a bog standard composite signal, and RGB signal and I think SVHS aswell.

I agree about digital signals (of any type), they either work or they don't, I suppose you could get lost data over the link but that would be quite apparent wouldn't it? Like with dropped frames on a poor digital tv aerial link?

I haven't gone HD yet, not too bothered about TV but would like hidef movies and also for the XBOX and PC games. So might get one now the prices seem to be lower. Does anyone know about half HD and full HD? As in 720 and 1080p, I understand that 1080 gives more pixels, but how are the channels broadcast, and more importantly does bluray use full HD. Also, what does the progressive part in 1080p mean?

 

[Davidc]

I've been changing over to Freesat (and not the sky version) and need one more box. I haven't decided yet whether it's worth buying a HD one at £90 rather than another SD one at £30.

There's no doubt the pictures in HD are better, the Blueray ones are stunning, but the broadcast TV content is now so unwatchably poor that I'm not convinced I'd use it enough. Is it worth the extra £60 for a few hours of sport each year? The prospect of Wimbledon next week, cycling, 6 nations in the New Year and World Cup Rugby next year may sway me though. The soccer world cup complete with non-stop buzzing certainly won't, SD and a mute button for that.

As for Sky (and all the fuss about it being taken over), they've only broadcast 30 minutes of TV I've thought worth watching since 1989, and I got a friend to video that for me - so I certainly won't be paying them for HD! It costs me a lot less to hire movies on Blueray from Blockbuster, or buy them at HMV.

 

[marinyork]

I haven't gone HD yet, not too bothered about TV but would like hidef movies and also for the XBOX and PC games. So might get one now the prices seem to be lower. Does anyone know about half HD and full HD? As in 720 and 1080p, I understand that 1080 gives more pixels, but how are the channels broadcast, and more importantly does bluray use full HD. Also, what does the progressive part in 1080p mean?

There are several modes including some non-standard ones and even a few fiddles with non-square pixels. The ones you're most likely to encounter are 720p, 1080i and 1080p. European tv prefers 1080i on the whole, some networks in the US prefer 720p and pretty much only movies on blu-ray are 1080p. I can think of at least one HD movie off the top of my head on blu-ray that was done in 1080i though.

For XBOX very few games at all are 1080, they were on the whole 720p but both Sony and Microsoft relaxed standards and quite a lot of games aren't quite at that resolution.

Blu-ray movies are as cheap as DVDs were about 5 years ago on-line, but not in the shops, they are pretty cheap now. The players have come down about 30% in price the last two years only, so are still more than a lot of people are willing to pay. A lot of the players being sold today on-line and in shops are the old clunky models that are a year or two old too.