High Def is really not THAT good

jaxton

Standard Member
I have built up a pretty expensive new home cinema system and hi-fi over the last couple of years, and I made sure that it was future proof (at least for a few years). But I didn't buy any gear 'because' it was high def. :rolleyes:

I have watched a number of different high def movies etc on different high def hardware, and yeah, OK, there is slightly less jaggedness and a bit more detail. But, come on, its not that big a deal.:rolleyes:
Yeah, its noteceable on a projector screen, but, on a typical size LCD screen at normal viewing distance??:eek:

What amuses me is that they always showcase high def with source material that looks superb anyway. It's usually underwater scenes, coral, skiing, flying, or gliding. Anything with big sea, land or skyscapes, and lots of natural color. And also animations. And off we go always associating high def with this type of material. So, by default, we say 'high def is great'. But come on, these things usually look superb in standard definition!:lesson:

Of all the gear I have built up, I have got the most pleasure from...
1) firstly; good audio equipment. I would place having a great sound system as the top priority, simply because of the degree of pleasure derived from good sounding music and movie sound tracks.:thumbsup:
2) secondly; from being able to project onto a big screen, because sitting down with the family watching a big movie, with big sound, is the best shared home cinema experience you can have.:thumbsup:

Don't get me wrong. High def is good, and it is great that everything is going that way. It adds to the experience with projected large screen viewing.:clap:

But, high def is really not THAT good.:boring:
 

SlinkDaddy

Novice Member
The Liverpool v Sheff Utd game looked miles better on my pioneer when comparing HD to SD. That isn't animated or underwater. I think the diff will be noticed as more things are made in high def.

Its just like when widescreen sets were introduced, there was nothing to watch on them at first but as all off the digital channels began showing more and more in widescreen it added more use/benefit to the format.
 

ixtlan

Novice Member
There's a lot of truth in what you say, but part of the hype is the improvement over standard Sky transmissions.

There is already a massive difference between a DVD and most Sky broadcasts. So when SkyHD goes beyond DVD, it seems like a huge improvement.

So are we being conned... well maybe... but there's no denying the quality will be far better even on a 32" TV. Sure, if the broadcasts were DVD quality, you would not really notice the difference until you were watching a 37-40" or even bigger TV. However the broadcast bitrates are too low... and the concern is the same thing will happen to HD.

Ix
 

bsuttie

Novice Member
How many of the "HD" systems you have seen have been true HD i.e. full 1920 x 1080 resolution?

I am amazed at the number of people who have said that HD isn't that much better than SD, only to discover that they have only seen an "HD Ready" 1024 x 768 plasma.

HD is a huge step up from SD and can, in my opinion only add to the viewing experience.

Brian
 

hottstuff

Banned
I have become accustomed to HD on my display @ 1920 x1080.
But when i watched the Arsenal game on saturday on Setanta Sports , it was terrible , awfull , blurry.Only for it was my team playing i would have switched off.
SD looks like :censored: compared to HD.
Watch HD all day and the next day watch only SD , you will see a big difference.

Also different displays will handle HD better/worse than others , same as SD.
 

soil

Standard Member
iv watched 3 HD films compared 1 to just a normal dvd and the quality was so much nicer, and this was just watching it on my 15" laptop :rolleyes:

i think Hd is realy that good. but everyone can have different opinions.
 

thfccambs

Banned
Im starting to think SKYHD is rubbish compared to what i've seen on BBCHD.The World Cup was outstanding on BBCHD compared to SKYSPORTSHD.Also im not that impressed with SKYMOVIESHD compared to my HDDVD player.:(
Think sky played a blinder by getting all there HD boxs out in time to watch the WC in HD on the BBC,everyone one else raved about how good HD was making more people want it but SKYHD doesn't even come close to BBCHD.:(
 

dickst3

Novice Member
jaxton said:
But come on, these things usually look superb in standard definition!:lesson:
I have to agree with that.
 

hottstuff

Banned
hunts1uk said:
Im starting to think SKYHD is rubbish compared to what i've seen on BBCHD.The World Cup was outstanding on BBCHD compared to SKYSPORTSHD.Also im not that impressed with SKYMOVIESHD compared to my HDDVD player.:(
Think sky played a blinder by getting all there HD boxs out in time to watch the WC in HD on the BBC,everyone one else raved about how good HD was making more people want it but SKYHD doesn't even come close to BBCHD.:(
Whilst i agree that BBCHD was & is superior in the bitrate department , the games on Sky Sports HD are still magnificent compared to SD , its only natural the bitrates go down when the schedule gets bigger.
 

thfccambs

Banned
hottstuff said:
Whilst i agree that BBCHD was & is superior in the bitrate department , the games on Sky Sports HD are still magnificent compared to SD , its only natural the bitrates go down when the schedule gets bigger.
So your saying HD is variable in quality?How can BBCHD films look outstanding and SKYMOVIESHD look just better then SD?Are SKY taking the :censored: out of us HD subscribers?
 

hottstuff

Banned
hunts1uk said:
So your saying HD is variable in quality?How can BBCHD films look outstanding and SKYMOVIESHD look just better then SD?Are SKY taking the :censored:
out of us subscribers?
It's all down to the bitrate.
Higher bitrate = better looking picture.Due to there being less pixellation (artifacts).
The SkyHD channles will have less bitrate as there are more of them.Hence bandwidth becomes a problem.
 

thfccambs

Banned
hottstuff said:
It's all down to the bitrate.
Higher bitrate = better looking picture.Due to there being less pixellation (artifacts).
The SkyHD channles will have less bitrate as there are more of them.Hence bandwidth becomes a problem.

So like i said are sky taking the :censored: ?How comes the BBC can get it right and sky can't?If the football was the quality of what we see in the WC and there films where the quality of enemy of the state i would be more then happy with SKYHD.

Your saying the bitrates the problem as sky have more channels?So as sky bring out more HD channels there going to getting worse?:confused:
 

hottstuff

Banned
hunts1uk said:
So like i said are sky taking the :censored: ?How comes the BBC can get it right and sky can't?If the football was the quality of what we see in the WC and there films where the quality of enemy of the state i would be more then happy with SKYHD.

Your saying the bitrates the problem as sky have more channels?So as sky bring out more HD channels there going to getting worse?:confused:
BBCHD won't always be as good either.reason bbc get it right at the moment is because the HD channel has beein showing a 10 min loop of HD material since launch day and programs scattered here and there.
The WC in HD was a selling point for HD , now this will change for all the HD channels as they try to keep the bandwidth down.
 

andrewfee

Novice Member
hottstuff said:
It's all down to the bitrate.
Higher bitrate = better looking picture.Due to there being less pixellation (artifacts).
The SkyHD channles will have less bitrate as there are more of them.Hence bandwidth becomes a problem.
It's not just bitrate though - the source counts for a lot too. On Freeview, most BBC channels are higher bitrate than anything else, for example, but they have loads of mosquito noise and despite being almost double the bitrate of other channels at times, usually end up looking worse.

Most people consider five to be one of the best looking channels on Freeview when showing things like CSI, and it's only around 2mbps! (bbc averages 4 iirc)

As for HD... when done well, it can look fantastic, but most people sit too far from their TV to see the full benefit, or don't have "Full HD" screens to see all the detail. I'm perfectly happy with the top-tier of DVD quality though, and won't be buying HD for some time. It makes a bigger difference to gaming, especially PC gaming though, but it's still not essential. When playing my Xbox 360 on my new 480p projector, it looks better than any of the 720p LCDs I've had so far. (7 or so bought over the last year)
 

chambeaj

Well-known Member
andrewfee said:
It's not just bitrate though - the source counts for a lot too. On Freeview, most BBC channels are higher bitrate than anything else, for example, but they have loads of mosquito noise and despite being almost double the bitrate of other channels at times, usually end up looking worse.

Most people consider five to be one of the best looking channels on Freeview when showing things like CSI, and it's only around 2mbps! (bbc averages 4 iirc)

As for HD... when done well, it can look fantastic, but most people sit too far from their TV to see the full benefit, or don't have "Full HD" screens to see all the detail. I'm perfectly happy with the top-tier of DVD quality though, and won't be buying HD for some time. It makes a bigger difference to gaming, especially PC gaming though, but it's still not essential. When playing my Xbox 360 on my new 480p projector, it looks better than any of the 720p LCDs I've had so far. (7 or so bought over the last year)

Five for me in the last year :rotfl:

Still think plasma produces the best overall picture. Problem is noisy fans, green flashes (green phosphur lag) and image retention.

All in all flat panel TVs are cr*p imho I frankly wish we could still buy top end CRT sets because I've had my fill of all the faults I found so far on LCDs/Plasmas.

Both the latest SONYs and Philips LCDs have design faults/bug. Its disgraceful what the manufacturers are getting away with these days imho
 

Hugh Grant Fake

Standard Member
jaxton said:
What amuses me is that they always showcase high def with source material that looks superb anyway. It's usually underwater scenes, coral, skiing, flying, or gliding. Anything with big sea, land or skyscapes, and lots of natural color. And also animations. And off we go always associating high def with this type of material. So, by default, we say 'high def is great'. But come on, these things usually look superb in standard definition!
I feel a bit thick now. I was sucked in completely by an LG demo running on HD-DVD. I couldn't help being 'wowed' by the clarity & colour depth. Shame no one has the guts to show the same demo in SD and HD next to each other:rolleyes:

*edit* They were showing ducks swimming on water & underwater coral.
 

jaxton

Standard Member
Hugh Grant Fake said:
I feel a bit thick now. I was sucked in completely by an LG demo running on HD-DVD. I couldn't help being 'wowed' by the clarity & colour depth. Shame no one has the guts to show the same demo in SD and HD next to each other:rolleyes:

*edit* They were showing ducks swimming on water & underwater coral.
yeah, I was nearly sucked in by the LG demo too !
 
But, high def is really not THAT good.
I agree and disagree.

I disagree overall but I agree that High Def is technically not as much better as we think. By that, I mean that most SD material does not use standard def resolution well at all. A lot of factors make Standard Def look worse than it should - overfiltering, edge enhancement etc.

In real world terms however, most HD stuff is really good and looks way better than most of the badly done SD stuff.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest threads

Top Bottom