HD Television screen sizes.

ukcarper

Miss read moon's post 720p is not sd but then that's not what he said. broadcast hd is 1080i.

Inactive

moonrakerz wrote: »

So to see all these extra pixels clearly you need to sit a lot closer.

The other reasons why - "I cant tell the difference between SD & HD" include:

1. Having a Scart lead connecting your HD STB/Sat Rx to the TV.
2. Not actually having an HD TV.
3. Not actually having an HD STB/Sat Rx
4. Watching (eg) BBC on Ch 1 instead of Ch 50 (Freeview Ch nos)

AND - still the most common - sitting too far away !

If you don't want (or can't) sit closer to your TV - (Quote: I certainly don't want to sit that close to my TV) fine, but don't say that HD TV is no good based on your personal circumstances.

1) Connection via HDMI Cable.
2) HD TV.
3) Humax HD Satellite Receiver.
4) Watching HD on correct channel.

So HD is only suitable for people that are happy to rearrange their living rooms, shame nobody tells you that when you buy the kit.

It is fairly useless then IMO.

Inactive

liam8282 wrote: »

When you went to buy your tv, you will have picked a suitable size to fit your room, yes?

Just say you didn't go buy a 19" for your main tv did you?

So, because you have bought a tv which you won't see any benefit of HD from, because you sit too far away from it, is nothing to do with HD vs SD.



But sitting double the distance away, and not watching exactly any high end HD stuff from what I can make out.


.

Nope, I purchased a 42" HD TV.

I thought that the stuff on BBC HD was supposed to be " high end ".. I don't watch stuff just to try to see the difference between SD and HD like some people, it would seem.

If it is necessary to rearrange my living room in order to see any benefit from HD, then HD has failed miserably, and is, as I suspected all along just hype.

OK_Sauce

Inactive wrote: »

If it is necessary to rearrange my living room in order to see any benefit from HD, then HD has failed miserably, and is, as I suspected all along just hype.

Inactive wrote: »

So HD is only suitable for people that are happy to rearrange their living rooms, shame nobody tells you that when you buy the kit.

It is fairly useless then IMO.

When I buy any kit, albeit a tv, a fridge, a car, I would always check it's suitability for my needs. I wouldn't buy a Nissan Micra if I had 4 kids. Likewise I wouldn't buy a 42 inch tv for my living room if I sat more than 10 feet away. There's plenty of places where HD TV can be demonstrated. Pop into your local Sony or Panasonic Centre where demonstration sets are set up properly. Heck, take a tape measure with you to obtain your actual viewing distances, compare the different tv sizes on display, decide which is the perfect size. This is exactly what I did. If you truly can only see marginal differences between HD and SD then at least you would have found that out before you bought a tv and succumbed into the whole "HD has failed miserably" scenario.

victor2

At the end of the day, if you have to switch between HD and SD broadcasts to see any difference, it's of little benefit. That's exactly what I did with Wimbledon and to be fair, I could see more detail in the crowd in HD. But I soon lost interest in the crowd and it really didn't matter if I watched the rest in HD or SD. I don't have or want a 50" TV I can sit 10 feet away from either. I just want to sit down and watch TV.
Now that HD is pretty commonplace, we are being bombarded with 3D TV. As they get rid of the stupid glasses you have to wear and accept that only people with normal stereo vision (i.e. 2 normally functioning eyes) will be able to appreciate it, which is the majority, so fair enough, where is the material going to come from? Even Blu-ray isn't very well established yet.

OK_Sauce

I agree with you about 3D tv. Time will tell as to whether or not, that it is destined to be a niche market. I personally have no desire to watch tv at home with a pair of 3D glasses. Is it really 3D anyway or is it just infinite planes of 2D?

I appreciate that some people may not want a 50" tv in their lounge, that is their choice and the full benefit of HD TV may never be achieved. At the end of the day we all have to make our own choices. If you want to achieve the full experience then the equipment is there, available to purchase, if you want to. No one is forcing anyone to buy an HD TV or and HD box, be it Sky, Virgin, Freeview, etc.

brewerdave

OK_Sauce wrote: »

I appreciate that some people may not want a 50" tv in their lounge, that is their choice and the full benefit of HD TV may never be achieved. At the end of the day we all have to make our own choices. If you want to achieve the full experience then the equipment is there, available to purchase, if you want to. No one is forcing anyone to buy an HD TV or and HD box, be it Sky, Virgin, Freeview, etc.

Looking at the graph earlier in the thread, my living room requires a ~ 70" screen to see the benefits of 1080p - don't think the OH would sanction the cost!:eek: I'm therefore "happy" with 37"!!!

liam8282

brewerdave wrote: »

Looking at the graph earlier in the thread, my living room requires a ~ 70" screen to see the benefits of 1080p - don't think the OH would sanction the cost!:eek: I'm therefore "happy" with 37"!!!

The graph posted earlier is only one of a number of ways of calculating HDTV viewing distances.

As I posted (before the graph) there are other ways which would suggest for a 37" tv, you sit upto 10ft away, which IMO is reasonable.

The graph posted, is the most extreme, sit as close as you can, measurements, to get THX quality, basically a HD cinema experience in your living room.

This link has quite a few different calculations, so you can judge for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

liam8282

Inactive wrote: »

Nope, I purchased a 42" HD TV.

I thought that the stuff on BBC HD was supposed to be " high end ".. I don't watch stuff just to try to see the difference between SD and HD like some people, it would seem.

If it is necessary to rearrange my living room in order to see any benefit from HD, then HD has failed miserably, and is, as I suspected all along just hype.

"Generally, with printed graphics when the resolution of an image is increased, the image is cleaner, crisper and more detailed.[12] The caveat is, the image will not appear cleaner, crisper and more detailed, if the increase in resolution and the accompanying detail exceeds the visual system of the observer. If you exceed the viewer’s visual system, there will be no perceived gain in image quality."

Taken from the previous link I posted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum...ewing_distance

ukcarper

liam8282 wrote: »

The graph posted earlier is only one of a number of ways of calculating HDTV viewing distances.

As I posted (before the graph) there are other ways which would suggest for a 37" tv, you sit upto 10ft away, which IMO is reasonable.

The graph posted, is the most extreme, sit as close as you can, measurements, to get THX quality, basically a HD cinema experience in your living room.

This link has quite a few different calculations, so you can judge for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

I think that the two things are different the wiki post is about immersion which is not the same as the eyes ability to see detail.