Quantcast

Is the HD Reay logo simply not an issue for some?

Scapegoat

Well-known Member
Faust said:
Yes yes I hear what you say, but you are clearly not reading what my position is - I have seen Hi Def and yes it is very good indeed. However, there is no way on this Gods Earth that I am willing to pay anymore to Sky by way of subscriptions than I do now. If or when Hi Def becomes part of the normal Sky subscription package then fine, or when it becomes FTA even better. In the meantime I am blissfully happy with the picture Sky beams into my home at present, and if it never altered from its present state then that would suit me just fine. Why do some people find that so hard to accept? Please moderate the Hi Def evangelical fervour, this is "just telly" we are talking about, not the conversion of Paul on the Road to Damascus. Given my position am I likely to get a better picture from the PE50 or the PV500, and if the answer is the 500 is it £1000 better than the PE50. Please confine your responses to the topic
If you are happy that you will not be bothered to upgrade to HD in the timescales you will own the new TV, then don't bother with the HD ready cost. When you want to go to HD then buy a new TV then (they'll have improved further by then). Its a simple decision, why pay more for something you won't use? I didn't buy an IDTV because it costs more and I have Sky+ so will never use it.

However I think that if you upgrade from a CRT (32" or less) to a 37" flat panel screen now, you will actually feel like you have taken a backwards step. Expanding a SD image to that size IMO looks poor in comparison to a decent 32" CRT, and therefore you pay a price for the increased size. That might make you consider HD earlier than you thought.

I was all set to by an LCD for the lounge now, but decided that it was not worth it until HD was available. So the CRT will do until I get HD and then buy a set then (that will either be cheaper than now and/or better spec'ed).
 

richard plumb

Distinguished Member
does the analogue nature of CRTs help? eg when scanning a horizontal line, presumably there is some 'lag' when transitioning between significant colour/brightness differences, creating a ramp between them, helping to mask edges?



BTW, interesting about the colour resolution. How is it defined for HD? is the horizontal colour resolution still halved?
 

Stephen Neal

Well-known Member
richard plumb said:
does the analogue nature of CRTs help? eg when scanning a horizontal line, presumably there is some 'lag' when transitioning between significant colour/brightness differences, creating a ramp between them, helping to mask edges?
Yes - I believe it does. Analogue CRT displays don't have a pixel based structure, and they gracefully roll-off at high resolutions, rather than having a "brick wall" style of cut-off.

BTW, interesting about the colour resolution. How is it defined for HD? is the horizontal colour resolution still halved?
Most HD production (apart from very high-end stuff) is 4:2:2 which means that each line has full luma bandwith, with the chroma (which our eyes aren't as sensitive to) sub-sampled to half of this, but there are both red and blue colour difference signals for every line (so the vertical chroma and resolutions are the same).

For broadcast, and domestic pre-recorded recorders, 4:2:0 is used, where the vertical chroma information is also sub-sampled, and each line contains either red OR blue colour difference signals, but not both.

(DVCam and miniDV in 625/50 regions use 4:2:0 system this as well - miniDV in 525/60 and DVC Pro use 4:1:1 sampling, where the vertical resolution is not subsampled, but the horizontal resolution is 1/4 that of the luminance rather than 1/2)

4:4:4 IS used for high-end camera recording, and telecine transfer, where the highest quality colour correction is required, which benefits from full bandwith chroma.
 

Faust

Well-known Member
richard plumb said:
Faust,

I understand your comments, but you *are* in the High Definition TV section.... Perhaps your search for the ideal TV would be better in the 'Low Definition TV' section? :p

Or at least the plasma TVs. You really can't blame people for being up on HD here, can you?


I still think HD is the way to go. How long do you expect to keep this next set? 5 years? 7 years? It is likely that HD programming (broadcast satellite, cable, bluray, HDDVD, PS3, Xbox 360, PC) will pick up significantly IMO over the next two-3 years.

It *is* a tricky balancing act. Have 2-3 great years of SD then 2-3 years of watching downsampled HD, or have 2-3 years of OK SD then 2-3 great years of HD.

As usual, it comes down to money. If you think you'd be happy with watching HD on an SD set for a few years, then save the money and buy a good SD set (eg the PE50 mentioned). If you think the idea of HD coming into your house but being shown on a 'low res' screen would annoy you into prematurely buying a HD set in a few years, then an extra few hundred now could pay off in the long term.
If I could be sure of receiving as good a picture on a 37" Panel be it Plasma or LCD, then it would not bother me if I never have HD - truly. I am more than impressed with my present Sky PQ. All these people that go on about blocky pictures on Sky or Freeview, I can honestly say I don't know what they are talking about as I have never seen a broadcast on any Sky channel that hasn't been 101% acceptable to either me or the rest of my family. We are forever commenting on how good the PQ is, so until HD comes as part of the package i.e. no extra cost, then I never intend to buy into it. Given that statement, should I go for LCD as in the Sharp PE50 or the Panasonic TH37PE50?
 

Starburst

Novice Member
Faust said:
All these people that go on about blocky pictures on Sky or Freeview, I can honestly say I don't know what they are talking about as I have never seen a broadcast on any Sky channel that hasn't been 101% acceptable to either me or the rest of my family.



Profiler on Scifi (7pm screening).
My god it's awful at times both on my CRT and certainly on the LCD.
The blocking and pixillation during fast movement and certain effects (strobes, smoke etc) is truely a digital nightmare:)

No surprise since it oftens only requires 3% of a 40gig hard drive, 1.2 gig for an hour show is SVCD quality!
 

Faust

Well-known Member
Starburst said:
Profiler on Scifi (7pm screening).
My god it's awful at times both on my CRT and certainly on the LCD.
The blocking and pixillation during fast movement and certain effects (strobes, smoke etc) is truely a digital nightmare:)

No surprise since it oftens only requires 3% of a 40gig hard drive, 1.2 gig for an hour show is SVCD quality!
Not something I have ever watched. To be honest most of my viewing tends to be the normal five channels, plus Sky 1, Discovery type programmes, and the odd Sky Movie. I think a lot of you are probably younger than I and have been spoilt by colour television and todays technology. I grew up in an era of an 18" black and white t.v. and three channels. Perhaps now you can understand why I think Sky Digital broadcasts are the best thing since sliced bread.
 

richard plumb

Distinguished Member
Faust said:
Given that statement, should I go for LCD as in the Sharp PE50 or the Panasonic TH37PE50?

then go plasma. IMO plasmas give a great TV image, and are also good with DVDs.

I chose LCD as I wanted higher resolution for games and HD
 

Starburst

Novice Member
Faust said:
I grew up in an era of an 18" black and white t.v. and three channels. Perhaps now you can understand why I think Sky Digital broadcasts are the best thing since sliced bread.



I remember three channels but colour telly was around when I became aware of the square thing in the corner of the room although I do remember the wooden tops with spotty dog:)
 

blakey1

Novice Member
Faust said:
If I could be sure of receiving as good a picture on a 37" Panel be it Plasma or LCD, then it would not bother me if I never have HD - truly. I am more than impressed with my present Sky PQ. All these people that go on about blocky pictures on Sky or Freeview, I can honestly say I don't know what they are talking about as I have never seen a broadcast on any Sky channel that hasn't been 101% acceptable to either me or the rest of my family. We are forever commenting on how good the PQ is, so until HD comes as part of the package i.e. no extra cost, then I never intend to buy into it. Given that statement, should I go for LCD as in the Sharp PE50 or the Panasonic TH37PE50?
I'm planning on Buying the Sharp 37P50E. I saw it showing some football on Sky Sports in John Lewis and it was excellent. All the owners on this forum have suggested the picture quality is excellent to. I understand you will be able to get SKY HD on this set in the future and that it is unlikely to seem any different from a true HD set to the average viewer.
 

Faust

Well-known Member
I would have bought the Sharp myself were it not for its looks. I just cannot live with that huge expanse of speaker at the bottom, it simply ruins the looks and makes the Sharp look clumsy
 

Starburst

Novice Member
blakey1 said:
I understand you will be able to get SKY HD on this set in the future and that it is unlikely to seem any different from a true HD set to the average viewer.



You are correct the panel will accept a HD signal but I would question the value of the investment in HD hardware/content when you only have a display capable of 960x540 well below even the baseline HD resolution.

The reason Sharp produced this panel was to minimise the issues created when scaling a PAL source to the native res of a panel, since it's closer to 720*576 the picture should look better than the common 852*480 res.
Feeding a HD source you will be losing the benefit this panel has over other non HD panels.
 

blakey1

Novice Member
Starburst said:
You are correct the panel will accept a HD signal but I would question the value of the investment in HD hardware/content when you only have a display capable of 960x540 well below even the baseline HD resolution.

The reason Sharp produced this panel was to minimise the issues created when scaling a PAL source to the native res of a panel, since it's closer to 720*576 the picture should look better than the common 852*480 res.
Feeding a HD source you will be losing the benefit this panel has over other non HD panels.
I do not know much about HD and resolutions and therefore do not doubt that it is likely that the SHarp will show a poorer HD picture than a true HD panel. The people who have seen the Sharp up against a true HD Set have suggested the difference is only noticeable from a few feet and therefore I cant really comment until a time comes when you can walk into a shop and watch Sky's HD service on 2 TV's side by Side. My point about the Sharp and HD was that if a time comes when Sky decide their services will only go out to HD users then the Sharp will be at least compatible if nothing else. Also it would seem based on people who have seen its HD content that the average Armchair viewer will struggle to tell the difference between it and a True HD set.

Back to the original point, I do not think a HD ready TV is important to a lot of people because hardly anyone has seen any real HD material. Therefore how can anyone know which the best HD tv to buy when it has not been tested against any SKY HD content. We all know how most LCD's, Plasmas show a nice DVD picture but a poor Sky picture. Who's to say that SKY's HD service will be any different. It seems that the people who went to the ideal Homes were not impressed. IS HD going to be as great as some think?
 
Top Bottom