[ian watson]

Hi.

I was looking at the HD demos running in Currys yesterday. They had a few screens all 1366 x 768 with the screen sizes of 32", 37", and 42" showing the same programme. All looked great, but I'm wondering if we will really notice much of a difference with HD compared to SD on 32" and smaller screens?

I have a Hitachi 32LD7200 (32") and I sit 7 feet away. At this distance it seems ideal for SD, but for HD such as Sky will it be to far away to see the extra detail? In Currys close viewing was comfortable with HD, but I have the feeling that at home HD may be wasted if the screen is to far away.

Anyone have any ideas on this?


Regards,
Ian Watson

[Stephen Neal]

Originally Posted by ian watson

Hi.

I was looking at the HD demos running in Currys yesterday. They had a few screens all 1366 x 768 with the screen sizes of 32", 37", and 42" showing the same programme. All looked great, but I'm wondering if we will really notice much of a difference with HD compared to SD on 32" and smaller screens?

I have a Hitachi 32LD7200 (32") and I sit 7 feet away. At this distance it seems ideal for SD, but for HD such as Sky will it be to far away to see the extra detail? In Currys close viewing was comfortable with HD, but I have the feeling that at home HD may be wasted if the screen is to far away.

Anyone have any ideas on this?


Regards,
Ian Watson

You are close to the truth. For HD to be obviously an improvement for smaller screen sizes you may well have to sit closer - even if you have perfect eyesight - to notice the resolution difference. The accepted wisdom - though not all agree - is that at an average viewing distance, 720p only really begins to look better than 576i (*) at a screen diagonal of greater than 28".

The latest research seems to point to 1080p looking better when you get above 42" - some say over 50".

However in all cases, if you sit closer than average you'll notice extra resolution on a smaller screen, and if you sit further away you may not notice the improvement unless you have a larger screen.

(*) However this was comparing good 720p with good 576i. If the HD broadcasts are significantly cleaner and less artefacty than the SD broadcasts, it may well be that although you don't see the full benefit of the HD resolution improvement, you may well notice the reduction in compression artefacts when compared to the pretty poor SD broadcasts we currently have on most channels.

[ian watson]

Originally Posted by Stephen Neal

However in all cases, if you sit closer than average you'll notice extra resolution on a smaller screen, and if you sit further away you may not notice the improvement unless you have a larger screen.

I have a feeling that people with a smaller TV are going to be a little disappointed with HD after seeing the demos in the shops on larger screens. Has HD arrived before the cost of larger screens has dropped to a level people can afford? I suppose there are lots of people with 32" screens who have replaced their slightly smaller screen CRT's.

We were told by our parents "don't sit to close or you will get square eyes"! The only real reason not to sit close to then TV was because the resolution was low. Now that's changing with HD we are going to be told "sit closer or you will miss things".

Ian

[Stephen Neal]

Originally Posted by ian watson

I have a feeling that people with a smaller TV are going to be a little disappointed with HD after seeing the demos in the shops on larger screens. Has HD arrived before the cost of larger screens has dropped to a level people can afford? I suppose there are lots of people with 32" screens who have replaced their slightly smaller screen CRT's.

We were told by our parents "don't sit to close or you will get square eyes"! The only real reason not to sit close to then TV was because the resolution was low. Now that's changing with HD we are going to be told "sit closer or you will miss things".

Ian

In the UK there were very few 16:9 CRTs sold with diagonals larger than 32" - so effectively 32 was the largest set most people considered buying. (There have been a few 36" CRT sets - but they weren't widespread) For most people the depth and weight of a 32" set meant it dominated their living room - and they couldn't consider a larger display (if it were a CRT).

Larger displays historically required projection - either front or rear - and weren't really practical as living-room TVs for regular viewing.

However the arrival of LCD and Plasma displays (and better RPTVs using DLP to a degree), which allowed far larger screen diagonals, with far less bulk, has allowed people to consider buying larger displays than previously. (Even if they do still weigh a tonne!)

I think the whole HD <-> Screen Size <-> Screen Technology <-> Bulk equation is linked to be honest.

If we were still CRT only, HD would be a more difficult sell, because HD CRTs would be smaller than HD LCDs and certainly Plasmas. However part of the drive for HD will be people buying larger flat panels, seeing how awful low bit-rate SD looks, and then going for HD when they see it looks better.

I think part of the SD / HD demos that could be improved is if the SD were not a down-conversion of the high bit-rate HD (as it often is in some stores) but a 2.5Mbs overly compressed SD MPEG2 feed...

Originally Posted by ian watson

Hi.

I was looking at the HD demos running in Currys yesterday. They had a few screens all 1366 x 768 with the screen sizes of 32", 37", and 42" showing the same programme. All looked great, but I'm wondering if we will really notice much of a difference with HD compared to SD on 32" and smaller screens?

I have a Hitachi 32LD7200 (32") and I sit 7 feet away. At this distance it seems ideal for SD, but for HD such as Sky will it be to far away to see the extra detail? In Currys close viewing was comfortable with HD, but I have the feeling that at home HD may be wasted if the screen is to far away.

Anyone have any ideas on this?


Regards,
Ian Watson

The best way to see how much of a difference it makes is to hook up your PC or laptop to the LCD's PC input and play some demos. Apple's trailers are best but you need Quicktime Pro to see the trailers full screen.

[Lin3ar]

This is a difficult question to answer.Sitting too close to big screen showing SD will result in a very poor picture whilst a HD picture will look superb.However, here's the problem.When Sky HD is eventually released, only a small proportion of channels/programs will be in HD.
My thoughts on this is to have a 32" LCD which will look good with both SD and HD from my viewing position of about 8 or 9 feet.
Eventually, when HD is the norm, I will buy a bigger panel(by then everything will cost a lot less, I hope)

Haven't told the missus this strategy yet though

[Lin3ar]

The only way I can test the 'sit too far away and not be able to see the difference between SD an HD' theory is to use my X-Box 360.
I can see a massive difference between the HD component picture and the SD RGB picture on my 32" LCD.
Hopefully it will be the same when HD broadcasts start.

[Stephen Neal]

Originally Posted by Lin3ar

The only way I can test the 'sit too far away and not be able to see the difference between SD an HD' theory is to use my X-Box 360.
I can see a massive difference between the HD component picture and the SD RGB picture on my 32" LCD.
Hopefully it will be the same when HD broadcasts start.

Is this watching HD video streamed from Media Center - or gaming imagery? If the latter - then this isn't quite the same thing - as the contents of games emphasize the resolution improvements of HD significantly more than real-world HD material will to a degree.

[Lin3ar]

Originally Posted by Stephen Neal

Is this watching HD video streamed from Media Center - or gaming imagery? If the latter - then this isn't quite the same thing - as the contents of games emphasize the resolution improvements of HD significantly more than real-world HD material will to a degree.

It was gaming imagery

[Stephen Neal]

Originally Posted by Lin3ar

It was gaming imagery

Thought so. Computer generated material is much more "resolution revealing" in many ways - as it is rendered at a very specific resolution. (I think most 360 stuff is internally rendered at 1280x720 and then scaled to other resolutions by the output stages, rather than being natively rendered in other resolutions) This means the content is VERY pixel-based, with diagonal lines with clean sharp edges etc. Even with anti-aliasing applied, the material is much more "pixelly".

Real world HD is a different kettle of fish. Film scanners and video cameras work by capturing a real world optical scene - which contains detail at a resolution MUCH higher than that they are scanning with - meaning the real-world samples are much less sharply defined, in a way, as they are just a sub-sampled version of reality (whereas gaming imagery is generated much more closely at the resolution of the display)

This is what makes real world material look more real than even the best gaming graphics - though it is less of a difference than it once was.

This doesn't mean HD won't look fantastic - just that the difference between SD and HD versions of the same material may be less obvious than with gaming.