HD Television screen sizes.

liam8282

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

It is about the optimum HDTV viewing distance.

Reading the full page it goes on to tell you how these are calculated.

For example the recommendations are different to the optimum ranges, then you have to factor in the human aspect such as poor eyesight, none of which is taken into account in the graph.

I was just trying to show that there is more than the graph available to calculate the viewing distance for HD TV.

Inactive

To be blunt, all of that is a load of old cobblers, I know what I see without any charts and other mumbo jumbo.

I see very little difference between SD and HD.

If I need to sit with my nose pressed up to the TV, then HD is basically a load of carp.

Of course the likes of Sky and Virgin + the TV manufacturers will all try to convince you that it is the best thing since sliced bread, it isn't.

Trying to justify the outlay with charts is pathetic IMO.

I use my eyes to view TV.

liam8282

Inactive wrote: »

To be blunt, all of that is a load of old cobblers, I know what I see without any charts and other mumbo jumbo.

You mean the facts.

Inactive wrote: »

I see very little difference between SD and HD.

Because you don't really use HD for anything!

Inactive wrote: »

If I need to sit with my nose pressed up to the TV, then HD is basically a load of carp.

Sitting with your nose pressed up to the TV, you would probably only see pixels. Not very good for the optimum viewing distances. :rotfl:

Inactive wrote: »

Of course the likes of Sky and Virgin + the TV manufacturers will all try to convince you that it is the best thing since sliced bread, it isn't.

Well you went and bought a HDTV, and a HD source.

Inactive wrote: »

Trying to justify the outlay with charts is pathetic IMO.

tuggy12 posted the chart.

If you are going to give an opinion on a subject, it is probably best to do a bit of research and back up your opinion with a bit of factual knowledge.

Gives your opinion a bit of substance, rather than "I don't like it, therefore it is rubbish".

Inactive wrote: »

I use my eyes to view TV.

Well done. :T

victor2

liam8282 wrote: »

If you are going to give an opinion on a subject, it is probably best to do a bit of research and back up your opinion with a bit of factual knowledge.

While I don't always agree with Inactive, surely an opinion is A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
I researched that definition on the web so it is factual knowledge and must be true.
Just my opinion of course.:)

liam8282

victor2 wrote: »

While I don't always agree with Inactive, surely an opinion is A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
I researched that definition on the web so it is factual knowledge and must be true.
Just my opinion of course.:)

I didn't actually say otherwise? Just that it would be better to back up the opinion with a bit of factual knowledge when trying to advise other people about it.


I just found another interesting link

http://www.primaryresources.co.uk/english/fact1.htm

liam8282

Manchester Utd are the worst team in football.

There is basically no difference between watching Manchester Utd and York City.

They both play football, both wear red, what is the big difference?

So what if Man U are currently at the top of the premier league, and York City are in the blue square premier.

If you ask me it is all just hype and mumbo jumbo.

(this is just my opinion though :rotfl:)

ukcarper

liam8282 wrote: »

It is about the optimum HDTV viewing distance.

Reading the full page it goes on to tell you how these are calculated.

For example the recommendations are different to the optimum ranges, then you have to factor in the human aspect such as poor eyesight, none of which is taken into account in the graph.

I was just trying to show that there is more than the graph available to calculate the viewing distance for HD TV.

Which is as I said about immersion as opposed to the amount of detail you see.

almillar

Sorry about the snooker Inactive, had to make sure you were watching proper HD, and you were, and I also watched some SD coverage when I could've been watching HD. I am a disgrace!
Anyway, we've established that you're quite far away from your 42" screen. I'm not going to tell you to rearrange your living room, or buy a bigger TV, but I respectfully request that you stop telling people that a good SD picture is almost as good as an HD picture, and that HD 'isn't worth it'. That's your opinion, but you need to qualify it with your distance. If I'd seen HD vs SD from across the street in a shop window, I wouldn't have bought it!

tifo

almillar wrote: »

I respectfully request that you stop telling people that a good SD picture is almost as good as an HD picture, and that HD 'isn't worth it'. That's your opinion.

I also think HD isn't as good as it's hyped up to. Maybe by rearranging the furniture you might get a slightly better picture, but viewed from a person's 'normal' distance, i.e. wherever the chair/sofa etc is, there is not much of a difference. Normally, people don't think they'd have to rearrange the furniture (to get an optimal viewing distance) when they get HD. They're told "it will be 4 times better".

HD packages should have the caveat "subject to optimal viewing distance" clearly shown.

From the same distance is HD much better than SD? I don't think so and not worth the extra charges (subscription, equipment or installation, whichever one it is since you have to pay at least one of these).

OK_Sauce

When you are comparing SD with HD you are not comparing like for like, you are comparing an 'upscaled' version of SD and comparing that to HD. If you put a true SD picture on an HD TV it would either look truly awful or very small. The SD version that you see is either the circuitry in your TV or Digibox interpreting the signal and converting it for you. If your TV does it well then the difference between HD and SD would be minimal, especially if your viewing distance is too far away. If your tv does it badly then the difference is more obvious. Don't forget the HD TV channels also carry Dolby Digital 5.1, a vast improvement over Prologic audio. (If you say they're 'about the same' then I give up trying to convince you!!!)