resolution of Sky SD TV picture

brewerdave

moonrakerz wrote: »

d) The most common one - sitting too far away from an HD picture.

You mean sitting on the floor about 1 metre away from a 32" screen rather than in a comfortable armchair 3 metres away???:rotfl:
I've seen SKY HD on screens up to 37" and stand by my assertion thats its a total waste of money.
Maybe if I was one of you rich so and sos with a 60" screen then maybe I might see a difference!

moonrakerz

brewerdave wrote: »

You mean sitting on the floor about 1 metre away from a 32" screen rather than in a comfortable armchair 3 metres away???:rotfl:
I've seen SKY HD on screens up to 37" and stand by my assertion thats its a total waste of money.
Maybe if I was one of you rich so and sos with a 60" screen then maybe I might see a difference!

The answer to your (shortsighted!) question is:- YES

I have a 42" TV and my HD picture is very good - if you can't see any difference, then you have my sympathy, you are missing out on a lot !
Surprisingly, when you get to really large TVs (60"?) the HD picture does start to decline in quality - I won't try and explain why, it will be like Concorde, WAY above your head :rotfl:

Harrowing_2

Concorde is grounded:o

Inactive

The real reason/s that many on here can see a real difference between SD and HD is simple;

1). They have poor quality TV's that cannot produce a good SD picture.

2). They sit with their noses pressed up to the screen.

I sit well back from my TV, the difference between HD and SD is minimal.;)

Harrowing_2

Inactive wrote: »

The real reason/s that many on here can see a real difference between SD and HD is simple;

1). They have poor quality TV's that cannot produce a good SD picture.

2). They sit with their noses pressed up to the screen.

I sit well back from my TV, the difference between HD and SD is minimal.;)

This site shows the difference, much as it appears for me anyways...move the mouse to see
http://www.freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=hd.Main&PHPSESSID=3d2u6t3a86391ogu4a24eh5su3

Anyway, new technology of today is the standard for tomorrow, so debates will be over on 5 years when HD becomes de-facto.

Inactive

Harrowing wrote: »

Anyway, new technology of today is the standard for tomorrow, so debates will be over on 5 years when HD becomes de-facto.

It will never become " de - facto _ there simply isn't enough bandwidth available on some platforms, nor programmes made to that quality, can you imagine watching Aurthur Daley in HD..:rotfl:

In any case, Murdoch would not be able to squeeze the [STRIKE]mugs[/STRIKE] customers out of their easily wasted money.

brewerdave

Inactive wrote: »

The real reason/s that many on here can see a real difference between SD and HD is simple;

1). They have poor quality TV's that cannot produce a good SD picture.

2). They sit with their noses pressed up to the screen.

I sit well back from my TV, the difference between HD and SD is minimal.;)

Thanks Inactive, nice to know I'm not the only one!!!:T