HD Television screen sizes.

Inactive

liam8282 wrote: »

I posted a more likely everyday viewing calculator earlier in this thread, if you are sitting about double the recommended distance, then no your set up isn't right.

10ft for a 42" screen is hardly having your nose pressed up to the screen.

My TV does not rule my lifestyle, I sit where I sit, if I sat at 10 foot I would be sitting in the middle of the room, I do not watch Coronation Street or Eastenders, nor football for that matter.

I do watch snooker, again I can see no significant difference from SD to HD.

Inactive

OK_Sauce wrote: »

. When I first had my tv delivered there was so much artificial processing switched on (why DO they ship them like that?) that there was no discernable difference between SD and HD. Once I'd switched all of the 'picture enhancements' off well...couldn't believe the difference!

Please don't suggest there is NO difference between SD and HD because that's very misleading.

So did I switch off all of the " picture enhancements " in fact I went over to AV Forums to check which settings others with my make/model of TV were using.

I am not saying that there is " no " difference, I am saying that the difference isn't significant.

almillar

AHA!! So Inactive, where exactly are you getting this snooker in HD? I haven't seen any.

tifo, you mean HD isn't worth it on SKY. Not everyone gets gouged £10 every month for the pleasure! You also grossly misunderstand HD. Let's say you've a 40 inch, 1080 TV. You're watching SD TV on it. That's 570 (ish) vertical pixels of information, 'blown up' onto 1080 vertical pixels. Now switch to an HD channel, you're watching 1080 pixels of information, straight onto 1080 pixels.

Inactive

almillar wrote: »

tifo, you mean HD isn't worth it on SKY. Not everyone gets gouged £10 every month for the pleasure! You also grossly misunderstand HD. Let's say you've a 40 inch, 1080 TV. You're watching SD TV on it. That's 570 (ish) vertical pixels of information, 'blown up' onto 1080 vertical pixels. Now switch to an HD channel, you're watching 1080 pixels of information, straight onto 1080 pixels.

But they are only numbers, I only see what I see.

I don't doubt the numbers, however if I cannot see any significant difference on my TV, then they mean nothing.

Black and White to colour, obviously a huge difference.

405 lines to 625 lines a big difference.

VHS to DVD a huge difference.

SD to HD a minimal difference.

To be absolutely brutal, the SD picture quality on my old CRT TV was better than the HD on this or other similar Plasma / LCDs, albeit the screen size was smaller.

almillar

And the snooker?
I don't understand how you could see the difference between 405 lines to 625, but not 625 to 1080. You're right about CRTs though, there's ONE advantage of flatscreens over them, the space used up. Flatscreens came in at the same time as HD, but as anyone with a CRT computer monitor can tell you, they're more than capable of HD, far better colour and blacks than LCDs, and far better sound than any flatscreen.
Seriously though, go get Blue Planet on Blu-Ray, THEN tell me there's no difference!

cgk1

To be absolutely brutal, the SD picture quality on my old CRT TV was better than the HD on this or other similar Plasma / LCDs, albeit the screen size was smaller.

I can't take you seriously.

almillar

cgk1, another gross misunderstanding, you've answered your own question. How is 625 lines 'zoomed in' at, say, 42 inches going to look better than 625 lines, the same amount of information, at 32 inches. Have you seen that episode of Father Ted with Dougal and the cows?!
As for HD, there are a lot of rubbish LCD TVs out there, with crap colour, black levels, viewing angles, processors, scalers, deinterlacers, don't mistake *HD* with *LCD* or PLASMA. Are you sure you've set it up correctly, are you sure you're actually watching HD, not just upscaled SD? Etc...

Kurtis_Blue

cgk1 wrote: »

To be absolutely brutal, the SD picture quality on my old CRT TV was better than the HD on this or other similar Plasma / LCDs, albeit the screen size was smaller.

I can't take you seriously.

Well the point is quite simple, the picture quality is measurable and it is better on HD, the resolution is far greater and carries more information you see far more detail, this is not perceptive this is technical fact.

To say other wise is arguing that 5 is greater than 10.

Your perception of it is some how not correct, this may be an issue with your TV or your eyes, or your definition of picture quality some how differs from the norm, maybe your colour or saturation settings are wrong play around with settings.

cgk1

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Well the point is quite simple, the picture quality is measurable and it is better on HD, the resolution is far greater and carries more information you see far more detail, this is not perceptive this is technical fact.

To say other wise is arguing that 5 is greater than 10.

Your perception of it is some how not correct, this may be an issue with your TV or your eyes, or your definition of picture quality some how differs from the norm, maybe your colour or saturation settings are wrong play around with settings.

Em.. I'm quoting someone.

Kurtis_Blue

cgk1 wrote: »

Em.. I'm quoting someone.

Well you are now you've edited it but statement still stands.