HD or HD ready?

almillar

The way I understand it, the only TVs as of today that can call themselves HD are the Panasonic Freesat TVs. These have freesat HD tuners built in, which means that they need no set top boxes to give you HD, it's all built in. HD ready means the TV will give that same HD picture, but you need to plug something in - SkyHD, Freesat, Blu-Ray player, PC etc.
For a TV to display the 'HD Ready' logo it must display at least 720 lines vertically and have at least 1 HDMI port. That's all. There is 720 and 1080, and 'i' and 'p', with 1080p often being referred to as 'Full HD'.
HTH

moonrakerz

macman wrote: »

I recently went looking for a new 32in TV, and though maybe my eyes aren't as sharp as they once were, at normal TV viewing distances (i.e. not for gaming), I could not distinguish between the 2 after doing quite a bit of 'in-shop' testing.

Full HD must be viewed from a closer distance than SD or even "HD ready", so your comparison wasn't really valid. If you sit back from an HD picture it is too far for your eyes to actually pick out the improved definition.

It is exactly the same as printing something "best quality" on a printer, then trying to see if it is better quality than "fast quality" from the other side of the room !

The optimum distance for HD is between 1.5 and 2 times the screen size.

Idiophreak

moonrakerz wrote: »

Full HD must be viewed from a closer distance than SD or even "HD ready", so your comparison wasn't really valid. If you sit back from an HD picture it is too far for your eyes to actually pick out the improved definition.

...which is exactly why that comparison was *very* valid.

Most people, when buying a TV, will be most interested in what it looks like from normal viewing distance, not from close up.

Your analogy about printers isn't really the right one - as, in order to make them look the same, you have to move the poorer print, not keep it in the same position.

A better analogy would be a new printer that printed in more detail, but you could only notice the difference if you held the photo an inch from your face - how many people would be interested in this? Not many - as you just don't hold photos that close that often.

So if someone sits 6' from the screen and, sitting 6' from the screen, they can see no improvement between a HD ready set and a full HD set, there's absolutely !!!!!! all point in buying the full HD.

macman

I take your point about the actual resolution against the perceived resolution, but most of us are not going to sit that close in the typical living room. I reckon my viewing distance is just under 3 times the screen size. To achieve 1.5 or 2 times I would need about a 42in TV.
In fact, sitting up close on mine (which is an LCD) is not pleasant, as the 'smearing' effect is very visible-but at my normal viewing distance it is not apparent.

moonrakerz

Idiophreak wrote: »

...which is exactly why that comparison was *very* valid.

Most people, when buying a TV, will be most interested in what it looks like from normal viewing distance, not from close up.

In that case there is absolutely NO point in buying an HD set of any kind.

You are missing the point, the "normal" viewing distance for HD is not the same as for SD.
You had to sit further back from a CRT TV so as not to see what an awful picture it really was - with LCD or Plasma you sit closer to actually see the definition. My printer analogy was totally correct - except that you twisted it to its extreme to imply that you had to sit one inch from the TV !

See:
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
http://www!!!!et.com/hdtv-viewing-distance/
http://www.avforums.com/forums/high-definition-tv-hardware/312431-optimum-screen-size-viewing-distance.html
http://www.hdtvorg.co.uk/guide/hdtv/buy_guide_size.htm
http://www.jakeludington.com/ask_jake (According to Hitachi, you should sit 3.3 times the height of the screen for a "smooth, seamless picture." Their quick-and-dirty in store measurement is to double the diagonal for a rough estimate of distance.")

....there are hundreds more saying the same ! or to be exact, 2,680,000 !

Idiophreak wrote: »

So if someone sits 6' from the screen and, sitting 6' from the screen, they can see no improvement between a HD ready set and a full HD set, there's absolutely !!!!!! all point in buying the full HD.

Yes and No ! Depends what you are watching, if you are watching broadcast HD of any sort you probably be pushed to see a difference, even fairly close up.
If you use it for blu-ray and gaming - you certainly will see a difference, or should do if your eyesight is up to scratch.
Plus - you are , to some extent, future proofing.

I must confess I thought the same as you, until I took the plunge and went HD.
I now have a 42" 1080 Panasonic TV. From my old seating position, the other side of the room the picture quality is much better than before (8 yr old CRT), but you do not get the benefit of HD at all. Get closer to the set and the quality of the picture is breathtaking - there is no other word for it !
My son has used his PS3 (I think!) on it, the quality of the picture is almost 3D.

Do you have HD ?: if so, move your chair closer; if you don't, you really are literally speaking from a position of ignorance (the correct meaning of the word !:D)

Inactive

The day that I move my chair to watch TV to see a better picture will be the day I sling it on the skip, it is in the corner, I am a good 10/12 foot away from it, and that is how it is staying.;)

Idiophreak

moonrakerz wrote: »

Do you have HD ?: if so, move your chair closer; if you don't, you really are literally speaking from a position of ignorance (the correct meaning of the word !:D)

Yus, have just got a HD ready set after weighing everything up.

I *just don't want* to sit closer to the TV most of the time, I might shuffle closer for gaming, but not much.

Similarly, I *don't want* to substantially increase screen size.

Yes, I appreciate that by taking this stubborn stance, I may not be getting the most from the new-fangled screen, but like I give a hoot!

I *do* benefit from having HD ready, though - upscaled DVDs and 360 games look *visibly* better than the CRT from where I'm sat. The thing also takes up a lot less space...

What you're missing, I think, is actually quoted from your first link:

"if you are serious about properly setting up your viewing room, you will definitely benefit from 1080p" - guess what? I'm not serious about it. I, like a lot of people, just want a new TV to stick where the old one went....

And as for the rest...I'm absolutely not going to have the size of TV I buy dictated to me by some website. I'll look at the telly, look at the room, look at the picture and be done with it. I don't need ratios, formulae and the like to work out what looks good in my room...

aliEnRIK

thescouselander wrote: »

Prices have come down a lot and there are plenty of respectable 1080p sets around for a good bit under £1k.

There will always be the cheapo brands that push a higher resolution as a selling point at the expense of other aspects but I would expect a 1080 TV from a good manufacturer will mostly look better than the 720 equivalent.

I didnt say you couldnt get a decent 1080 for less than 1k. Simply that 1k and above they tend to be pretty damned good.
My Pioneer 42" plasma is 768 pixels but still tends to blow 'most' 1080P screens away for quality
In fact the ONLY 1080P screen ive seen better than mine is Pioneers 500a (Which looks incredible once properly set up)

My mate has a panasonic 768 ~ which many people (rightfully so) say is the dogs chods for the price. His jaw dropped when he saw mine running though.

The problem with all this is people are WAY too into the number of pixels as opposed to ~
(for example)
Scaling software
Deinterlacer software
Calibration
Deep Blacks
Colour Balance
Screen response
Screen flicker
Mains conditioning
etc etc etc

Pioneer looked at the WHOLE picture when making their tvs. And are still widely regarded as the best tvs money can buy (Though Sony are majorly catching up at the high end of the scale)

roddydogs

You only get 1080 if your set is "Full HD" , not just "HD" even then it might be 1080i, not 1080p, as some sets were made 1080i only and can still be described as "Full HD"

thescouselander

aliEnRIK wrote: »

I didnt say you couldnt get a decent 1080 for less than 1k. Simply that 1k and above they tend to be pretty damned good.
My Pioneer 42" plasma is 768 pixels but still tends to blow 'most' 1080P screens away for quality
In fact the ONLY 1080P screen ive seen better than mine is Pioneers 500a (Which looks incredible once properly set up)

My mate has a panasonic 768 ~ which many people (rightfully so) say is the dogs chods for the price. His jaw dropped when he saw mine running though.

The problem with all this is people are WAY too into the number of pixels as opposed to ~
(for example)
Scaling software
Deinterlacer software
Calibration
Deep Blacks
Colour Balance
Screen response
Screen flicker
Mains conditioning
etc etc etc

Pioneer looked at the WHOLE picture when making their tvs. And are still widely regarded as the best tvs money can buy (Though Sony are majorly catching up at the high end of the scale)

Not any more (or not for much longer at least), Pioneer are pulling out of TV production - pity really, as you say, they were good tellys.