[Geofbob]

Originally Posted by WATTS

Faust since replied with his own take on it all hence the comments people have made which are relevant to your post mentioning a picture quality issue.

If someobody is having trouble seing any differences (i don't even have to click on the images i can see the difference by a mile in the image roll overs) then there is something wrong!

And Faust forget about specsavers...

I would grab one of these, available in a range of colours but i hear white is the best!

(A) Don't you think we've had enough of the jokes about Specsavers, white sticks etc etc?

(B) If you look at Faust's last post above, you will see that he states that he can see the difference between the two full LOTR images. Initially, he wasn't manipulating the website the way that was intended - not surprising, as the instructions are not too clear.

(C) IMO if you can genuinely see a great improvement in the clarity of the images on the Index page of that website (screenshots attached), when you simply roll over them with your cursor, then you have very exceptional eyesight.

PS It's the one on the left that's supposed to be HD - I think.

[ohhnoo]

Originally Posted by WATTS

Just a simple mistake i guess.

I did ask you the question though as i wanted to get YOUR take on how you thought the differences between HD and SD were. Whether on HDTV vs DVD or SDTV vs HDTV is not important as i was trying to ascertain your general thoughts on the differences in HD & SD in general.

Faust since replied with his own take on it all hence the comments people have made which are relevant to your post mentioning a picture quality issue.

If someobody is having trouble seing any differences (i don't even have to click on the images i can see the difference by a mile in the image roll overs) then there is something wrong!

And Faust forget about specsavers...

I would grab one of these, available in a range of colours but i hear white is the best!

Of course I can see The diifferences and Hd is a better picture sometimes stunning but seems to vary channel to channel and source to source, over the last couple of days I have watched nothing but Sky HD sometimes its very good sometimes its not. I find blueray to be the most consistant source so I guess I think Sky HD should be as good but I'm probably being unrealistic.
As for Sky sd again it seems to vary but is definately worse than my previous thomson Sky+ box and not as good as freeview.

BTW I have not experienced any lip sync issues since I spoke to Sky technical so looks like they might have done something.

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by ohhnoo

Of course I can see The diifferences and Hd is a better picture sometimes stunning but seems to vary channel to channel and source to source, over the last couple of days I have watched nothing but Sky HD sometimes its very good sometimes its not. I find blueray to be the most consistant source so I guess I think Sky HD should be as good but I'm probably being unrealistic.

Yes the source quality is far more critical with HD than it ever was with SD, the production of HD is so much more complex and the options it gives to the director and his/her DP are being provided with things only theatrical productions has access too not so long ago.
Blu-ray given that bandwidth is very rarely an issue and encoding and authoring are not done in real time should be more consistent but just as with broadcast HD the source quality is the key factor. No matter how high the bitrate is a poor master produces a poor disk, a reference master will however will produce a reference disk. The same principle applies with broadcast HD, ZULU a reference title thanks to it's full restoration looks incredible on SKY and Blu-ray.

Broadcast HD will never match Blu-ray overall, the technical and economic limitations of broadcast telly will always compromise the final product, it was the same for SD when compared to DVD.

As for Sky sd again it seems to vary but is definately worse than my previous thomson Sky+ box and not as good as freeview.

BTW I have not experienced any lip sync issues since I spoke to Sky technical so looks like they might have done something.

DTT has always had an edge over Dsat, higher res and bitrates plus a huge amount of integrated tuners with no compromised analogue or even digital link to an external box. The differences between versions of SKY hardware has been an ongoing issue from the launch of the second model of standard digibox, it's very variable and as we've seen there is a very definite split in regards to SD via the SKY+HD perhaps due to the performance of the previous SKY hardware or the type and capability of their TV.

[Faust]

A question I would like a genuine answer to - is HD any better than a good CRT picture. As we all know PQ was compromised with the introduction of Plasma and LCD displays simply by the difference in technology. Are we now back to where we were i.e. is HD PQ displayed on Plasma and LCD t.v.'s equivalent to good quality CRT displays or is HD better?

[derek500]

Originally Posted by Faust

A question I would like a genuine answer to - is HD any better than a good CRT picture. As we all know PQ was compromised with the introduction of Plasma and LCD displays simply by the difference in technology. Are we now back to where we were i.e. is HD PQ displayed on Plasma and LCD t.v.'s equivalent to good quality CRT displays or is HD better?

Yes. Much, much better.

[James Baker]

Originally Posted by Faust

A question I would like a genuine answer to - is HD any better than a good CRT picture. As we all know PQ was compromised with the introduction of Plasma and LCD displays simply by the difference in technology. Are we now back to where we were i.e. is HD PQ displayed on Plasma and LCD t.v.'s equivalent to good quality CRT displays or is HD better?

You are joking I take it...Your saying the PQ on a decent plasma is a compromise over a CRT???? LCDs picture is not quite as good as a decent CRT but a decent Plasma blows any CRT picture away!

Seriously Faust I would stop posting as you clearly either dont understand what makes a decent picture or you do actually have a problem with your eyesight

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by Faust

A question I would like a genuine answer to - is HD any better than a good CRT picture. As we all know PQ was compromised with the introduction of Plasma and LCD displays simply by the difference in technology. Are we now back to where we were i.e. is HD PQ displayed on Plasma and LCD t.v.'s equivalent to good quality CRT displays or is HD better?

Ok this is my experience.

I have a 46" Pana Plasma with HD from Dsat, Blu, HD DVD and via the PC and I also have a 28" widescreen CRT that is fed from Freeview and DVD.
Now without any question the viewing experience of the much larger plasma with HD source material blows the CRT with SD out of the water however I have no problem at all watching the CRT which is more forgiving with lower quality source material.

A CRT with DVD can look great especially if you get one with no geometry or convergence issues both of which cropped up as screen sizes increased and of course having full control of the digital processing gimmicks. However it's no secret the CRT is limited in screen size and yes larger flat panels have issues with low quality UK SD sources (CRT isn't prefect in that regard either) and in effect HD becomes the defacto minimum for a good picture.

So in that respect I can understand why the question is asked, HD sources are required to maximise the performance of a HD display just as a good SD source maximises the CRT tech but HD hits the best that SD can do and goes way beyond.
The questions then becomes is what HD offers worth the money required and while I think millions don't need to replace a perfectly good CRT and DVD/SD source when replacing a broken TV or simply upgrading for another reason then if it's a HD display you should get a HD source otherwise it's trade off between PQ and screen size/footprint/weight and good ol' aesthetics.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by Baldybouncer

You are joking I take it...Your saying the PQ on a decent plasma is a compromise over a CRT???? LCDs picture is not quite as good as a decent CRT but a decent Plasma blows any CRT picture away!

Seriously Faust I would stop posting as you clearly either dont understand what makes a decent picture or you do actually have a problem with your eyesight

Thank you for you rude response - In my experience if one has to resort to rudeness then you have a weak argument.

SD PQ has been something of a step back when compared to a good CRT display due to limitations in Plasma LCD technology - fact. My question was this - does HD cancel out the limitations of SD PQ when compared to CRT or is it better.

[GasDad]

Originally Posted by Faust

SD PQ has been something of a step back when compared to a good CRT display due to limitations in Plasma LCD technology - fact. My question was this - does HD cancel out the limitations of SD PQ when compared to CRT or is it better.

You are semi correct in that SD PQ on most LCD panels has been a step backwards. The same however does not apply to most Plasmas. (They are separate types of display).

However, HD at its best (on Sky or Blu Ray) can be absolutely gobsmacking.

Put it this way, I was watching Zulu my kids walked in and just stopped and gawped.

We are not talking about the same quality of picture you can get with a perfect analogue signal on a quality CRT. But something much much better.

Sure not every programme is a 'Zulu' (or a Planet Earth / Return of The King / World Cup Final etc etc), but even average HD is substantially better than an excellent DVD.

[choddo2006]

Originally Posted by Faust

A question I would like a genuine answer to - is HD any better than a good CRT picture. As we all know PQ was compromised with the introduction of Plasma and LCD displays simply by the difference in technology. Are we now back to where we were i.e. is HD PQ displayed on Plasma and LCD t.v.'s equivalent to good quality CRT displays or is HD better?

Hang on just a second, I don't agree that PQ was compromised with the introduction of plasma. You needed (need) good processing to get an SD 576i picture to look right on a 768p HD display and all too many TVs don't provide it, but even on those that don't, the colours are better, the geometry is far better, you can eliminate overscan and there was no/little flicker.

I won't comment on LCDs.

The biggest problem was the increase in size showing up the compression artefacts that had been introduced with digital TV.

HD is far better than a good CRT picture.

[choddo2006]

Originally Posted by Geofbob

(A) Don't you think we've had enough of the jokes about Specsavers, white sticks etc etc?

(B) If you look at Faust's last post above, you will see that he states that he can see the difference between the two full LOTR images. Initially, he wasn't manipulating the website the way that was intended - not surprising, as the instructions are not too clear.

(C) IMO if you can genuinely see a great improvement in the clarity of the images on the Index page of that website (screenshots attached), when you simply roll over them with your cursor, then you have very exceptional eyesight.

PS It's the one on the left that's supposed to be HD - I think.

As I sit here with my slightly smudged specs on, it's so obviously the one on the left, it's far more detailed. The other one is very fuzzy and has halos from the scaling that was done.

[mickey]

so obviously the one on the left is hd even with the thumbnails

[loz]

Originally Posted by Faust

SD PQ has been something of a step back when compared to a good CRT display due to limitations in Plasma LCD technology - fact. My question was this - does HD cancel out the limitations of SD PQ when compared to CRT or is it better.

And yet the same mr Faust had this to say about CRT vs Plasma...

http://www.avforums.com/forums/plasm...ml#post5273527

I resisted getting a nice big shiny Plasma for years as I thought that nothing could beat my Panasonic CRT. However, three years on and I'm having second thoughts about CRT. We still have the CRT in another room linked to Sky. Anyway to cut a long story short I was relegated to watching the CRT the other night as the wife had a few friends round and I couldn't watch the Plasma for all the gassing. After only a few minutes I started picking holes in the PQ on the CRT. I had forgotten all about the poor geometry of a CRT the broken Sky programme banner etc. plus the picture appeared softer and less vibrant than my Panny PX60. I decided on reflection that perhaps CRT wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Do any others feel the same or is it just me?

[James Baker]

Originally Posted by Faust

Thank you for you rude response - In my experience if one has to resort to rudeness then you have a weak argument.

SD PQ has been something of a step back when compared to a good CRT display due to limitations in Plasma LCD technology - fact. My question was this - does HD cancel out the limitations of SD PQ when compared to CRT or is it better.

As has been said before a CRT just hides the problems with an SD picture thats all. The fact is a decent plasma shows the picture for what it is 'warts and all'

[RebelKC]

Originally Posted by GasDad

You are semi correct in that SD PQ on most LCD panels has been a step backwards. The same however does not apply to most Plasmas. (They are separate types of display).

However, HD at its best (on Sky or Blu Ray) can be absolutely gobsmacking.

Put it this way, I was watching Zulu my kids walked in and just stopped and gawped.

We are not talking about the same quality of picture you can get with a perfect analogue signal on a quality CRT. But something much much better.

Sure not every programme is a 'Zulu' (or a Planet Earth / Return of The King / World Cup Final etc etc), but even average HD is substantially better than an excellent DVD.

I've already commented on the quality of this film in HD .... it honestly blew me away too and I have been recommending it to mates who are just getting their HD boxes as an excellent film to try out. Also watched The Mummy last night and that was pretty special too

[Faust]

Originally Posted by loz

And yet the same mr Faust had this to say about CRT vs Plasma...

http://www.avforums.com/forums/plasm...ml#post5273527

I was talking about my CRT whereas in this thread I have said "a good quaility CRT" Please, if you are going to quote me then try not to misquote as (a) it does me a diservice and (b) it's just plain tiresome

[Faust]

I would also add this - my main t.v. is a Panny Plasma and we also have a Sony LCD which is a big improvement on early LCD. I think the SD PQ on my Panny is very very good, when viewed from around 10 feet, however, move close in and you can see the mush, something that was never visible on CRT.

[loz]

Originally Posted by Faust

I was talking about my CRT whereas in this thread I have said "a good quaility CRT" Please, if you are going to quote me then try not to misquote as (a) it does me a diservice and (b) it's just plain tiresome

So a good quality CRT is not the trinitron or Panny you own?
http://www.avforums.com/forums/plasm...ml#post5286473

my own personal opinion having owned a Trinitron and still own a Panny CRT - give me gorgeous Plasma any day of the week

That and several similar posts you have made. Including a whole thread you started arguing that Plasma was better than CRT

[Faust]

Originally Posted by loz

So a good quality CRT is not the trinitron or Panny you own?
http://www.avforums.com/forums/plasm...ml#post5286473


That and several similar posts you have made. Including a whole thread you started arguing that Plasma was better than CRT

My Panny CRT was just a bog standard 50Hz jobby, I'm quite sure there are or were much better CRT displays than that. I think my Panny Plasma is great, much better than my CRT on a number of fronts. My query is/was given that Plasma and LCD does not deal with SD as well as CRT is HD better than or just simply equal to a good CRT display for PQ and on that one point only? Thank goodness posters like Starburst can see the point I was trying to make.

Come on Loz keep up and stop going off script

[GasDad]

Originally Posted by Faust

My Panny CRT was just a bog standard 50Hz jobby, I'm quite sure there are or were much better CRT displays than that. I think my Panny Plasma is great, much better than my CRT on a number of fronts. My query is/was given that Plasma and LCD does not deal with SD as well as CRT is HD better than or just simply equal to a good CRT display for PQ and on that one point only? Thank goodness posters like Starburst can see the point I was trying to make.

We all know and have explained that HD is way better than good SD or CRT.

However, given your earlier posts in this thread, we are not sure you'll be able to see it.

[avdl1999]

Hi, new kid in town!

As a new SkyHD customer (9/3) thus far i've been very impressed. The service to date has been flawless and a real pleasure to use. Why on earth I never tried Sky before is just beyond me........(ex-Telewest/Virgin.)

The Amstrad STB supplied seems to be of a good build quality. The HD content is excellent and when compared to Virgin V+ HD (two channels broadcast @ 720p is shocking given the infrastructure they have) it's a world apart!!

As for the original poster, I reckon you're a tad difficult to please. Give it a chance mate. The service being provided to you is the best that is available at present.

As was previously pointed out, 15-20 HD channels for £9.75 a month is just mental mental chicken oriental!!

Cheers

Andy

[swaz]

I would agree with Andy, having sky hd installed since Tuesday I am really impressed with it all. Also got an amstrad box which has been faultless, great picture on all channels (esp hd) and almost slient. Having built htpc's, I think the pvr side to sky + is top notch, best I have ever used. Overall 10 out of 10!

[choddo2006]

Originally Posted by Faust

My Panny CRT was just a bog standard 50Hz jobby, I'm quite sure there are or were much better CRT displays than that. I think my Panny Plasma is great, much better than my CRT on a number of fronts. My query is/was given that Plasma and LCD does not deal with SD as well as CRT is HD better than or just simply equal to a good CRT display for PQ and on that one point only? Thank goodness posters like Starburst can see the point I was trying to make.

Just how good was any CRT (outside of a studio monitor) ? I had a Sony KV32FQ75 which was regarded as very good as home TVs go.

There is NO comparison with HD on the plasma. It is leagues ahead. Even if you ignore the screen size issue. I just cannot understand why you're even asking the question. Oh... hang on though, maybe I can since you couldn't see any difference in those HD/SD comparison shots. Night and Day my friend.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by GasDad

We all know and have explained that HD is way better than good SD or CRT.

However, given your earlier posts in this thread, we are not sure you'll be able to see it.

Well I think I've already admitted to that in as much as I can see the difference in the screen shots (once I wasn't just hovering over them) and I can see some difference when I watch HD at my daughters. However, I can't see a great deal of difference from 10 feet away though I can close up, though who watches a 42" Plasma from 3 feet? I think some people spend their time admiring the detail rather than the content and for me at least I'm happy with content. I suppose it must come from growing up watching a 12" black and white t.v. with a magnifying screen attached - like the ones on display in the science museum.

[loz]

Originally Posted by Faust

My Panny CRT was just a bog standard 50Hz jobby, I'm quite sure there are or were much better CRT displays than that. I think my Panny Plasma is great, much better than my CRT on a number of fronts. My query is/was given that Plasma and LCD does not deal with SD as well as CRT is HD better than or just simply equal to a good CRT display for PQ and on that one point only?

But according to you plasma does handle SD well. So I have no idea what you are going on about

...For that reason and that reason alone I'm not interested in Hi Def as I'm more than satisfied with SD on a Plasma. I have listened to what many others have said regarding CRT and I used to be one of the Plasma detractors. However, a point does not improve for keep repeating it, so for the last time my own personal opinion having owned a Trinitron and still own a Panny CRT - give me gorgeous Plasma any day of the week

For the last time? Seems to me you are so keen on starting yet another of your CRT vs Plasma, SD vs HD arguements you are even willing to contradict yourself

[wednesday83]

Give me sd on my old 32" crt anyday. Obvious statment I know but I guess lcd / plasma are made for hd where crts made for HD. Just a shame that LCDs/plasmas cant compete against crts for SD.

[6022tivo]

Originally Posted by wednesday83

Give me sd on my old 32" crt anyday. Obvious statment I know but I guess lcd / plasma are made for hd where crts made for HD. Just a shame that LCDs/plasmas cant compete against crts for SD.

Depends on the quality of the Plasma/LCD tv..
My pio did a great job with SD on my standard Virgin box.
But I do agree with you in general.

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by 6022tivo

Depends on the quality of the Plasma/LCD tv..
My pio did a great job with SD on my standard Virgin box.
But I do agree with you in general.

It's basically a combination of poor unregulated SD and low quality scaling chipsets in fixed pixel flat panels, improve either one and SD becomes perfectly watchable on a large flat panel.
The quality of VM's "terrestrial" digital channels has been reported to be pretty good (they may get the raw feed and compress themselves rather than simply port a DTT/Dsat broadcast) and the scaler in the V+ is also spoken well of. That two aspects could allow an average flat panel scaler to become irrelevant and paired with a decent TV (like a Pio) then SD is more than acceptable.



If you do your homework and perhaps not buy simply on price then there are good quality SD handling flat panels and at this time Dsat in many cases is the only third on the list in terms of SD broadcast quality.
The lack of regulation in digital PQ was a huge mistake.

[ohhnoo]

Originally Posted by avdl1999

Hi, new kid in town!

As for the original poster, I reckon you're a tad difficult to please. Give it a chance mate. The service being provided to you is the best that is available at present.

How can you comment on something you have not experienced yourself, Sky technical agree that I shouldn't be experiencing variable picture and sound quality and are currently seeking a solution. They have promised me a phone call to see if my problems are resolved once the new firmware is uploaded.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by loz

But according to you plasma does handle SD well. So I have no idea what you are going on about



For the last time? Seems to me you are so keen on starting yet another of your CRT vs Plasma, SD vs HD arguements you are even willing to contradict yourself

I haven't said my Panny Plasma isn't a cracking good SD picture because it clearly is. However, I do recognise that when you move in close the picture goes mushy (not an issue from 10 feet away) this phenomenon is not present with CRT.

Therefore should HD be a paid for service if it's simply restoring the status quo, if it's an improvement and I measure that only in picture clarity not geometry or size then fair enough as that was my only enquiry.

I don't know loz there's none as blind as them that don't want to see or those that don't want to hear - keep up laddie!

At the end of the day I don't subscribe to either sports or movies so I doubt that I would get much benefit from HD in any event.