- This topic has 36 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Owen Smith – 4 minutes ago »
I was told at my most recent eye test that at the standard test distance, only 3% of the population can read the bottom line of the test chart. I’m in that 3%. But it seems likely to me that larger lines higher up would be HD equivalent, otherwise only 3% of the population would benefit from HD. My mum and dad can both see the difference with HD now, but neither of them can read the bottom two lines on the eye test chart at the standard test distance.
I was referring to the actual resolution of the image not it’s size. The TV image is created by rectangular pixels, it’s possible to resolve these by magnifying the image to reveal the jagged edge down to the pixel size or simply look closely at a thin straight line object. The eye test image has a much higher resolution than any bitmapped display (monochrome printers can use much higher dot densities than the usual ones our colour printers can manage). To reveal the actual dots that create the image you would have to massively magnify the image way beyond the capability of our unaided vision to detect. A HD TV has a much lower resolution than even a cheap digital camera can manage.
If the test chart was printed using the same pixel sizes as a HD TV uses it would be a valid comparison.
Try printing a 40″ print from a digital camera and viewing it from the same distance as you would look at a photograph.
Well teded clearly knows better than the rest of us mugs.
I can’t believe I’ve been conning myself all these years watching HD in 1080p when it’s just the same quality as SD at 576i. Don’t I feel stupid now.
For the polite Mr Thompson,
Exactly.
It is the size of the screen and the viewing distance that determines what the human eye can see with regard to 720 and 1080.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with my set up or my eyes
I would also add that many programmes are broadcast on HD channels that were never recorded with HD equipment, therefore can never be true HD.
I remember when HD first came out and people rushed to buy a new tv, only to find there was no HD being broadcast and then when it was, there built in Freeview tuner was not HD.
It’s all a big con and a lot of spend your money hype.
I see there’s no helping some people. Plenty of stuff is made in HD now.
teded – 42 minutes ago »
For the polite Mr Thompson,
Exactly.
It is the size of the screen and the viewing distance that determines what the human eye can see with regard to 720 and 1080.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with my set up or my eyes
I would also add that many programmes are broadcast on HD channels that were never recorded with HD equipment, therefore can never be true HD.
I remember when HD first came out and people rushed to buy a new tv, only to find there was no HD being broadcast and then when it was, there built in Freeview tuner was not HD.
It’s all a big con and a lot of spend your money hype.
Very little content is upscaled HD (all new BBC content is recorded in HD). If you look at the Radio Times genuine HD programmes are indicated by the (HD) indicator.
No broadcaster has ever used 720p50 in the UK except for IP delivered content like the HD iplayer HD service. If you can’t see the difference between iplayer HD and the same content in HQ SD there is truly something wrong.
HD (1080i50) content was only available for a long time on the BBC-HD experimental satellite service from 28.2E. The first Terrestrial HD service was an experimental DVB-T service (1080i50) from Crystal Palace using a low power transmission in May 2006. Anyone in range with a DVB-T HD tuner TV could view these.
The full Freeview-HD service requires a device capable of DVB-T2 which is why many with HD TV’s could not watch Freeview-HD.
Every programme on BBC1 HD is in HD this evening with the exception of the late evening film The 51st State at 11:25.
The Freetime epg will offer the programme in HD if booked from BBC SD (It won’t if the content is SD upscaled at source).
In fact the original HD test satellite transmissions were truly stunning as they originally used a very high bitrate in excess of 20Mbps.
You would have to be seriously challenged in the eyesight department to not instantly see the difference.
I sit about 4M from a 40″ FULL-HD TV, I can easily see the difference between SD upscaled and true HD.
My parents sit about 3m from a 32″ Full HD TV, and the difference from SD is easily visible. Upstairs they sit (or rather lie in bed) about 2.5m from a 24″ Full HD TV, and the difference from SD is still visible though I’ll admit it’s no longer “easily” at this distance from a TV that size.
Even upscaled SD can look better on HD channels due to the low bit rates used by some SD channels. BBC1 and BBC2 are OK in SD, but ITV1 is often appalling. I remember watching a Ray Mears programme where they kept showing his camp fire at night and during the day some babbling water in a stream with the sun glinting off it. Both of these shots looked absolutely terrible as they were a mass of square blocks. A couple of years later this programme was repeated and by then Freeview HD was broadcasting, and the uspcaled SD version on ITV1 HD looked so much better.
teded – 2 hours ago » …It’s all a big con and a lot of spend your money hype.
This, SD vs HD, is HD better or no better, has been debated at exhaustive length on just about every TV forum there is. The overwhelming opinion has been that it can clearly be seen to be better.
teded – 1 hour ago »
It’s all a big con and a lot of spend your money hype.
OP- if you’ve now decided that you don’t want to bother with HD after all, but you do still want online content, you might want to have a look at the Roku boxes (https://www.roku.com/uk/choose-your-roku).
The non-HD versions (Roku 1 and 2) don’t cost a lot and they would give you access to all the main catchup players, Youtube, Netflix, NowTV, etc. Or the cut-down Sky Roku, which is ridiculously cheap, has far fewer apps but does have catchup, Youtube, and of course NowTV.
You could then buy a cheap but reliable SD PVR, with no IP capability, to do your time-shifting.
So let me get this right.. You have gone from hating humax because the quality of hd was bad from your box to all hd is bad and just a con? Wtf?
While the bbc one national news is on, go to channel 1, then flick to channel 101. Keep repeating until you realize there is a difference in quality.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well said Chris.
The OP might as well hate all HD box manufacturers. Every box has its good and bad points. Obviously, visual equipment need to have good picture quality. One man’s meat is another man’s poison.
All I can reiterate is that if you can’t tell the difference between SD & HD, there is something wrong somewhere. Whether it is faulty kit or just equipment that is not set up optimally.
I think the the OP should come clean and tell us the make model and size of the TV he is basing his postings on.
My guess is it’s a Vestel or rebadged equivalent and not from a quality TV maker like Panasonic or Sony.
If so I agree with him the picture quality for SD or HD is dire
And likely connected using a SCART lead?
gomezz – 8 minutes ago »
And likely connected using a SCART lead?
Probably a cheap nasty SCART lead that only connects Composite Video (plus audio).
OK, enough is enough.
As Pollensa says,SD vs HD has been debated plenty.
Many don’t see the huge difference in quality, which has nothing to do with having crap equipment set up wrong or crap eyesight and defective brains, which some here rudely imply.
I shall leave all you “special” memebers to be special with each other xxx
gomezz – 12 hours ago »
And likely connected using a SCART lead?
And I never got an answer to this question which is relevant as the SCART connection can grab the attention of the TV even if the box is also connected using HDMI so the viewer may think they are watching HD when they are actually watching it downscaled to SD.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.