HDTV

[The Wanderer]

The thread about digital tv has prompted me to ask for views and opinions about HDTV.

I was in a store recently and asked if they could demonstrate HD alongside standard TV.

Apart from the fact that (a) they only had a single TV connected to a satellite receiver, (b) could only demonstrate by switching between channels, and (c) the time lag between terrestrial and satellite broadcasts made side-by-side comparisons more or less impossible, I really couldn't see any significant difference between the two.

Taking into account that one is likely to be sitting a few feet away under normal cicumstances, is there really any benefit with HDTV, or is it a bit like the myth of super high fidelity sound reproduction?[1]

[1] It may be quantifiable in an anechoic room, but in a normal living room, with carpet, furniture, soft furnishings.........?

[Andrew Gabriel]

I took the view that I wasn't going to pay anything extra for it, i.e. it has no value to me. Therefore, I got quite a good deal on a flat screen TV because it _wasn't_ HD ready a couple of years ago.

OTOH, I'm not an avid film/DVD viewer, and I'm normally sitting about

5m from the screen, which is already a bit too small for that distance. YMMV

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The answer is it depends on the source. Just because something is transmitted on an HD service doesn't mean it is of the highest quality. Drama in particular may not give big differences - the cameras are usually 'softened' electronically even for SD, since warts and all on closeups may not be what's desired.

Sport can look *a lot* sharper. Wimbledon was a prime example - the cameras would have been at their best for such an event too - and on the crowd shots you would have easily recognised someone several rows back over SD. Antiques Roadshow is also a good showcase for the medium. But note not every camera in use will always be HD, especially on the footie.

Even with poor acoustics decent sound should be better than poor. But of course to get the full benefit of what it can do decent acoustics are needed - especially for a good soundstage in stereo.

So for HD you'll need a larger than previous set - or sit closer to it.

One nice feature, though, regardless of screen size, is movement artifacts are less.

[The Medway Handyman]

No value to me either. I think the main value is for people who want to say "Look, I've got HDTV".

[Mike Dodd]

I have HD (both BluRay and Sky-HD, played on a 1080p 40" Sony LCD), so I guess you know what side of the fence I sit.

Yes, the picture quality IS better, as is the sound. You have to decide whether you can justify the cost against the gain. We're Dual-Income, No Kids, so I'm pretty easy-going with gadgets.

One benefit with Sky-HD is that, at least at the moment, the HD channels seem to escape the horrendous compression applied to some SD channels - not itself a good justification for HD, but a benefit, non-the-less. I can, and do, notice the difference between HD and SD and always watch (& record) HD for preference, but unless you get used to it then it's understandable to question the merit of HD considering the costs. At the time that we went HD, the costs to us for Sky increased by ~£14/mo and I ended up with a "special" birthday present in the form of the BR player. Careful shopping allows you to get a limited number of BR disks for a couple of pounds more than the DVD equivalents, although the choice of BR content is still very limited. Sport looks pretty good on HD, shame I don't watch it.

Talking about "normal living rooms" - we sit ~13ft from a 40" screen and can easily distiguish between SD and HD.

So, to answer your question - there IS benefit in terms of PQ and SQ, but you have to be able to justify the relatively high cost at this time to use HD. It worked for our situation (hell, I've even started replacing some treasured DVDs with BRs - and believe me the remastered Blade Runner is amazing to watch).

[John Rumm]

Two things to bear in mind, firstly its not uncommon for shops to make a complete balls up of HDTV feeds and end up showing SD while claiming its HD (usually by something simple like using SCART rather than HDMI leads, or not reconfiguring the Bluray/HD sat box to tell it the screen is HD capable - much the same as the aspect ratio often looks wrong because they have not told it that the ecreen is 16:9 either). Obviously it can be hard to see much difference here[1]. Secondly, the bigger the screen, the more noticeable the difference. SD on a 50" display looks really quite ropey for example.

Many people also sit somewhat further from the screen than is advised if you want to get a cinema like experience. Again this reduces the impact of the HD display.

[1] There may actually be some difference in that the HD source locally downconverted to SD may appear better than the broadcast SD

[Dave Plowman (News)]

My next door neighbour never saw the point of colour TV either. Until the rental company couldn't repair his B&W set and gave him a colour one for the same price. I explained to him that he could turn the colour off if he preferred B&W but oddly he never did...

[tony sayer]

In article , The Wanderer scribeth thus

They were demonstrating the right thing, not analogue -v- SD TV seeing that most TV shop droids are totally clueless...

Richer sounds are a much better place to go ,....

Mines fine:)) You need a little reverb..

>

[tony sayer]

In article , Dave Plowman (News) scribeth thus

Thats how we used to shift colour tellys in the early/mid seventies, just "accidentally" leave them a colour loaner one, the old monochrome never went back;!...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Exposed wood floors really mess up the stereo image, though, compared to carpet. As does a hard surface behind the speakers. Of course all these things are speaker dependent as well as others.

[dennis]

All I can say is that there was something wrong.. maybe it wasn't a HD program, or it wasn't a HD TV or you need specs. There is a big difference between SD and HD here. You may decide its not worth the bit of extra expense but there is a difference.

[Archie]

I only get BBC HD as part of my cable package and some programs are transmitted simultaniously on both on BBC HD and BBC1 so comparison is easy. Some of the HD programs are stunning IMHO. I had been resisting moving from my CRT tele to an LCD flat screen version and I am very pleased now I have made the change. I have always believed that the analog signal picture quality was superior to digital and the move to digital was a big con. HD has changed my mind.

Archie

[Graham.]

I'm sure we did that too when I was in the rentals game, but I can't for the life of me remember how we got round the fact the subscriber would not have the appropriate licence. Perhaps we just didn't consider it to be our problem.

[BigGirlsBlouse]

The difference between standard and high definition is awesome... I have a panasonic full HD plasma and my HD source is a humax dual receiver with hard drive recorder. It is immediately obvious. I have taken my digital video recorder across to my neighbour because he wanted to see what the difference was... he's 84.. to quote his words " the colours are so vibrant and the detail is incredible"

[BigGirlsBlouse]

I ommitted to say that the Humax receiver is freesat

[Dave Liquorice]

Find a store with a clue, most High Street places don't have any. There is a significant and very noticeable difference between SD and HD.

No one has mentioned the marketing bullshit that surrounds HD. "HD Ready" is a marketing term for a limited and basic technical spec. It would be advisable to find a "Full HD" (though it appears there is also a "HD Ready

1080p" logo as well) set that can display 1080p on a screen of 1920 x 1080 pixels.

Wether the premium cost for a deceny HD setup is up to you, your viewing habits and your sources of viewing. If you like movies and buy/rent fairly regulary then it's probably worth the investment in a good screen sound system and bluray player. If you only watch the news and "gold" stuff then there is little point as that is all SD.

[The Natural Philosopher]

My mother said 'I wont pay for colour' so we bought her an ex rental 10 year old colour set..for less than 6 months B&W rental..set rental went out with valves really.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

My other next door neighbour - the one referred to earlier died of old age some time ago - still rents both TV and video. I've told her she's wasting money (in the politest possible way) but she is adamant it suits her. The set is an early 28" widescreen CRT Sony. She'd be better off renting her vacuum cleaner judging by the number of new Dysons she buys. ;-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

My DLP rear projector only does 720p? but the difference on good HD stuff is still very noticeable.

Just to emphasise that if you connect an HD source via SCART you won't get HD - it has to be connected via components or digital. Dunno why.

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

My opinion is that, while most of the viewing freely available is SD, HDTV is an irrelevance *for me*. This is also because all HDTV panels I have seen are poor on Freeview SD.

I don't know about high fidelity, but my cheap, old, Pioneer receiver with 5[1] old bookcase speakers blows my once expensive TV's sound-system out of the water on DVDs and makes a very good improvement on Freeview as well.

Kostas

[1] Because of the characteristics of the speakers, I don't need a subwoofer, so I have 5.0.