Sky HD dissapointing.

[stockyvillage]

[QUOTE=Faust;9049409]My daughter has HD and we were housing sitting for a couple of weeks after Christmas. They both work in IT her hubby on the AV side of things so they have everything setup perfectly - nice big Panny Plasma to go with Sky HD.

To be honest and I have said this before, viewing from the requisite 10 feet away both the wife and I found it difficult to see the difference between SD and HD channels. I would say the HD was a little sharper and perhaps a tad more vibrant but that's about it. I could see more of a difference if I moved in closer but what's the point of that - ten feet is fine and from that distance SD looks pretty good in any event - it certainly does on my Panny Plasma and the same applies to my daughters.

I have actually considered getting HD but only for the box - i.e. I have been offered the £49 deal plus first three months free which makes the whole deal appox £138 for the year. The box is worth that as I would then drop the sub after 12 months and just use the box as ordinary Sky+. My present Sky+ box is 5 years old now so can't have a lot of mileage left in it, though it has been very reliable.

It's possible that it may be an age thing as my daughter always maintains she can tell the difference, but hey what the heck if my eyes are dimming with age then I'm saving myself a tenner a month [/Q

BOGOF at specsavers.Pay them a visit

[stockyvillage]

No surprises here… the colour gamut of the Panasonic TH42PZ80 was almost identical to those on the PX80 and PZ85, with an oversaturated and bluish green primary point and slightly oversaturated reds. The [Colour] control in the [Picture] submenu was of little use as it affected both colour saturation and intensity in no uncertain terms, whereas [Tint] was greyed out unless presented with an NTSC video signal (the UK uses PAL system).read this link>>>>>Panasonic TH42PZ80 / TH42PZ80B Review: 42" Viera Plasma HDTV

[Faust]

Originally Posted by WATTS

Have a look here:

Fellowship of the Ring - HD vs DVD

and:

Artículos - ZONADVD.com

Take a look at some of the comparison shots of SD vs HD in those links above then post back here what you think of the quality differences.

It may be that your not as fussed as others are with the differences in SD vs HD.

Personally i can see the difference, its great and some channels look really good like BBC HD / nature / discovery stuff etc.

However i will admit there is a slight difference in quality compared to the bitrate that sky used to transmit HD channels on.

Oh dear! I have followed the links and it just gets worse - I can see the picture alters as you hover the mouse over the shots but if one is HD and the other SD then it confirms what I have said all along. Yes I can see the pictures change but which on is HD and which is SD - well I haven't the foggiest. The wife simply said "what am I supposed to be looking for" I can see one picture is lighter than the other but that's it I'm afraid

[WATTS]

Originally Posted by Faust

Oh dear! I have followed the links and it just gets worse - I can see the picture alters as you hover the mouse over the shots but if one is HD and the other SD then it confirms what I have said all along. Yes I can see the pictures change but which on is HD and which is SD - well I haven't the foggiest. The wife simply said "what am I supposed to be looking for" I can see one picture is lighter than the other but that's it I'm afraid

hmm well i can totally tell the difference in those links, only other thing i can suggest is....

[stevelup]

You can't be serious surely?

That link is a brilliant demonstration of the difference between SD and HD.

Either

a) (and I don't mean to offend) you are both as blind as bats
or
b) You are using an LCD monitor on your PC and you don't have the PC outputting the native resolution of your monitor.

Honestly, the improvement on every one of those images is like night and day...

[Rizob]

Originally Posted by Faust

Oh dear! I have followed the links and it just gets worse - I can see the picture alters as you hover the mouse over the shots but if one is HD and the other SD then it confirms what I have said all along. Yes I can see the pictures change but which on is HD and which is SD - well I haven't the foggiest. The wife simply said "what am I supposed to be looking for" I can see one picture is lighter than the other but that's it I'm afraid

In the Lord of the Rings link, did you actually click on the images to get the full resolution comparison rather than just mousing over the small listed images?

[anfukf]

I think you are putting too much faith in specsavers if you think they can correct vision that bad.

[Badger0-0]

Originally Posted by Faust

Oh dear! I have followed the links and it just gets worse - I can see the picture alters as you hover the mouse over the shots but if one is HD and the other SD then it confirms what I have said all along. Yes I can see the pictures change but which on is HD and which is SD - well I haven't the foggiest. The wife simply said "what am I supposed to be looking for" I can see one picture is lighter than the other but that's it I'm afraid

You seriously can't see that in the first link, when you mouse over, that the map has much more detail and definition? Look at the lettering, it's miles sharper.

On the second pic, look at the brickwork on the bridge and the wickerwork on the side of the carriage. Or the chimney tops.

If you can't see the difference in those, there's something wrong, as I really should be wearing glasses (late 40's) and as said, it's night and day, imo.

[stockyvillage]

Originally Posted by WATTS

hmm well i can totally tell the difference in those links, only other thing i can suggest is....

That advert was too large for my eyes.....lol

[MrFreakSir]

I am absolutely gobsmacked that anyone at all cannot tell the difference in those comparisons. I showed my colleague in work and his inmediate reaction was that he prefered the DVD shots , but then when i told him to look closer he could immediatly see the difference is staggering.

[loz]

Originally Posted by stevelup

You can't be serious surely?

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

You seriously can't see that in the first link

Originally Posted by MrFreakSir

I am absolutely gobsmacked that anyone at all cannot tell the difference in those comparisons.

If you look back through mister Faust's posts you will see he has routinely posted along the lines of "I can't see any difference between HD and SD" over many years and across many different forums.

Either he genuinely has an eyesight or equipment problem, or its just trolling.

[HDCriticalFan]

There is certainly a marked difference in favour of HD - even in the smalled "DVD resolution" comparison.

But - is it just me - I think that the aspect ratio changes slightly when you flip between the two. How can that be ?

I don't mean 4:3 v 16:9, I mean that if you flick back and forth the height of the images vary slightly whilst the width remains the same. Shome mishtake shurely !





Regards

[daintydinah]

I watched Zulu in HD at the weekend and was amazed at the quality. For a movie that is 45(?) years old the colours were fantastic and the picture clear as a bell

[stevelup]

Originally Posted by HDCriticalFan

But - is it just me - I think that the aspect ratio changes slightly when you flip between the two. How can that be ?

Have another look - there is a grey line at the bottom of the SD ones which is effectively compressing them slightly in the horizontal dimension.

I think it's just the way they have been captured.

Steve

[Jez1]

How can you seriously not see the difference between the two? Those comparisons really are "Night and Day" examples.

Specsavers required, imo.