What's the point of HDTV?

[superpixel]

At an average UK living room viewing distance of 3m, you need at least a 50" screen for the eye to resolve HD resolution of a still image, let alone a moving one. The extra resolution on your average setup isn't therefore going to offer any advantage..

Sure, the HD demos are impressive, but this tells you nothing without a comparison to SD, something which rarely gets seen. One crude way to do this is to compare the demo on a HD screen to that running on an SD screen, eg a Panasonic 42PWD versus a PHD. Guess what - its near impossible to tell any difference even with the cheap built in scaler of the plasma. Many of those pushing HD will even admit to this....but all this proves is that the extra resolution counts for nothing. You are just enoying the benefits of meticulous production and high bandwidth.

This matters because of television broadcasting and limited bandwidth. Almost all of the extra data in HD is from the resolution, and just a few percent in being progressive rather than interlaced. So why have a very limited number of channels in HD, when you could use the extra bandwidth to have 5 times as many channels that look just as good?!

 

[Peabo]

because technology will never just halt at an agreed standard. You can't stop technology advancing, or else we'd all still be listening to the radio.

 

[gIzzE]

HD looks alot better, it is more than just resolution.

A good example, playback U571 from DVD being upscaled with a decent processor into a Panny PHD screen.
Then playback the D-Theater version from D-VHS into a Panny PWD screen.

Which looks better the 1024x768 screen or the 852x480 screen?

The lower res screen, and not just slightly, it looks loads better.

 

[madshi]

At an average UK living room viewing distance of 3m, you need at least a 50" screen for the eye to resolve HD resolution of a still image, let alone a moving one.

[...]

So why have a very limited number of channels in HD, when you could use the extra bandwidth to have 5 times as many channels that look just as good?!

Because some people want to have home CINEMA, and not home TV. E.g. I'm seriously thinking about going bigger than 50" at my viewing distance of 2.5m.

 

[DanVJ]

At an average UK living room viewing distance of 3m, you need at least a 50" screen for the eye to resolve HD resolution of a still image, let alone a moving one. The extra resolution on your average setup isn't therefore going to offer any advantage..

Well you might not see the difference but obviously other people (like me) do.
Besides, eventually all TVs will be HDTV, and then another standard will come out to replace HDTV.
Technology advances, just because you can't seem to appreciate it, it doesn't mean it has "no point".

 

[MAW]

Next gen is out in Japan, and to say HD is no better is ridiculous. Look at the crap footy on sky, you mean to say you don't expect HD to improve that?

 

[jake52]

High Definition is only relevant for those who want large screens for entertainment and general industrial use or for consumers who want the large (50” +) cinema experience at home. For everyone else it really isn’t necessary, standard definition on a CRT still looks the business and still really can not be beaten.
HD will conquer though, Why? because SD looks crap on flat screen televisions. At the end of the day we all want that flat screen sexy looking TV in the house and there is a definite migration away from the TV set being an actual piece of furniture. So we get the flat screen TV and for the moment justify a mediocre picture due to the flexibility and appeal of the flat screen. HD comes along and the quality we all once took for granted with CRTs is then available on the flat panel, everyone is happy, if a bit lighter in the pocket.

 

[Jim_Fear]

I'd happily buy a plasma than have my skin and eyes melted away from radiation from a CRT

not that CRT's give out THAT much...they also suck up shed loads of electricity too and they have the headache incurring flicker

 

[Deleted member 27989]

I think it is relevant for exactly the reason you have provided. UK living rooms tend to be small, and people with small houses tend to buy these big tellies...So they have to sit closer which means they notice more noice, articifacts and other rubbish...With HDTV at least it's not too bad too sit that close to a big telly...

I think they should be a band on big telly's in small houses ;-)

 

[ppp65]

I think this is a really interesting post actually. How many people who have purchased a PWD8 or PHD8 have actually seen them side by side to compare? Maybe 1 in 50? Food for thought. IMHO a lot of it is in your head, knowing you have the best screen possible over actual picture quality.

 

[azzo]

What's the point of HDTV?

Next gen consoles of course. These will look much better with higher detail textures and less jaggies. Just switch resolutions when playing a PC game to see the difference.
azzo

 

[Nick_UK]

I'd happily buy a plasma than have my skin and eyes melted away from radiation from a CRT

not that CRT's give out THAT much...they also suck up shed loads of electricity too and they have the headache incurring flicker

Ummm..... 2 points .......

The glass on a CRT face is an inch thick. You will get more radiation from a stroll in the park.

CRT lag well behind in the electricity consumption stakes. Many plasma's consume 300 to 400W, and LCD screens about 250W. Although it has to be said that these screens tend to be bigger than the CRT's they replace.

 

[madshi]

CRT lag well behind in the electricity consumption stakes. Many plasma's consume 300 to 400W, and LCD screens about 250W. Although it has to be said that these screens tend to be bigger than the CRT's they replace.

Current Panasonic and Pioneer plasmas have surprisingly low power consumption. From what I've heard in the US forum they are equal to LCD screens in real life measurements per screen area inch². And they're (together with LCD) even better than CRTs per screen area. CRTs are only good with power consumption, because they are so much smaller...

You shouldn't just take the "maximum power consumption" numbers from the manuals and compare them. You'll get maximum power consumption with plasma only in extreme torch mode with full white screen all the time. With a home cinema setting and normal movie/TV material people measured < 200W average power consumption for Panasonic plasmas. And Pioneer plasmas are supposed to consume even less...

 

[JUS]

I've posted this before...

BBC R&D did research on 2.7 m viewing distance vs screen size vs resolution. Their findings were as follows...

<32" 480p is fine.
>=32" < 52" then 720p
>=52" then 1080i/p

So if you go for a 32" - 50" screen the best resolution would be 720p and you probably wouldn't notice a difference if you went to 1080.

I did watch a number of demos side by side. It was really difficult to see the difference between 720 & 1080 on a 42" screen even on a static image..you really had to look closely. The difference between 480 & 720 is huge. There is no way I would by a low res screen. Especially as SKY HD is only a few months away and I have a xbox which outputs 720 & 1080. I'll also buy a HD-DVD / Blue ray when they get going.

Buy a low res if you don't have the money (0% interest should help) or you intend to upgrade in the next year or two.

I intent to get rid of my PJ and 28" loewe and replace them with a 50" screen. 42" just too small

Jus

 

[MAT365]

where did you see the 1080 42 plasma ?
I wasn't aware anyone was selling a commercially viable panel.

 

[gIzzE]

I've posted this before...

BBC R&D did research on 2.7 m viewing distance vs screen size vs resolution. Their findings were as follows...

<32" 480p is fine.
>=32" < 52" then 720p
>=52" then 1080i/p

So if you go for a 32" - 50" screen the best resolution would be 720p and you probably wouldn't notice a difference if you went to 1080.

I did watch a number of demos side by side. It was really difficult to see the difference between 720 & 1080 on a 42" screen even on a static image..you really had to look closely. The difference between 480 & 720 is huge. There is no way I would by a low res screen. Especially as SKY HD is only a few months away and I have a xbox which outputs 720 & 1080. I'll also buy a HD-DVD / Blue ray when they get going.

Buy a low res if you don't have the money (0% interest should help) or you intend to upgrade in the next year or two.

I intent to get rid of my PJ and 28" loewe and replace them with a 50" screen. 42" just too small

Jus

I bet all that would still be valid if you went into a scaler and output everything at 480p. It is the formats that are considerably better. Progressive is a bit better than interlaced, 720p is a huge step up, not just resolution but everything else that goes with it, and the same with 1080i.

 

[MAT365]

yep recon you are right there, but I think that is due to the increase in bandwidth for the HD transmissions. Sky if they wanted could achieve the same by increasing the transmission bandwith on the SD transmission's getting rid of these ridiculous artifacts on the football.

 

[gIzzE]

Tottally agree.
If you suddenly gave DVD or sky 12mbit a second I think most people would be happy.

 

[Mr.D]

I actually agree with the original poster.
I don't find hidef particulary impressive on screen sizes below about 42".

The point made by gizlaroc about hidef looking better downsampled on an SD screen compared with sd upsampled to a higher defintion screen is somewhat irrelevant. All this shows up is the inadequacies of the scaling in the hd panels.

It would be better to look at an sd and hd version of the same material on the sd panel and see if there is a percieveable difference.

I have compared hidef on sd panels and its advantages over decent sd material are minimal . You can point out as many artifacts from the downscaling as advantages.

Hidef has a tendancy to show up compression artifacts much more readily than sd ( I've yet to see broadcast hidef material that doesn't exhibit fairly obvious compression artifacts whilst I see a lot of sd materiial that has almost imperceptable artifacts).

Hidef really comes into its own with large screen sizes but I'm still a bit dismayed that there is no real improvement over sd video in internsity range or colourspace ( minimal improvement..I'd actually say its just a slightly different gammut rather than an improvement). Hidef still has those flat featureless blacks and somewhat harsh whites that hallmark video. Its literally just "big" video. There's more to a good image than resolution.

Uptake of hidef in the states is no where near as succesful as some people suggest and the quality is somewhat variable.

Hidef in the Uk is going to have a very slow uptake. 90% of people out there have little interest in it and decent normal living room hidef displays are very thin on the ground and very expensive ( the sub 1k lcds are without exception rubbish).

The only time we'll have widespread hidef take up will be when its become the mundane standard and people replace their standard displays with hidef ones for no unusual additional outlay. It will not be percieved as an upgrade beyond any other "new" TV they've bought.

Hidef will not be percieved as a prestige desirable feature to the extent that dvd was.

 

[gIzzE]

The point made by gizlaroc about hidef looking better downsampled on an SD screen compared with sd upsampled to a higher defintion screen is somewhat irrelevant. All this shows up is the inadequacies of the scaling in the hd panels.

It would be better to look at an sd and hd version of the same material on the sd panel and see if there is a percieveable difference.

Why is it irrelevent? I am trying to make the point that there is more to HD than just resolution. And I was not using the scaling in the panels I was using a Crystalio with 1:1 mapping.

The difference between say i-robot on dvd and d-theater on an SD screen is quite noticeable, same with U-571, X-men, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, in fact I have yet to see a dvd come close to D-Theater. And so far all the off air stuff has been better too. I am sure when HD takes off we will see loads more artifacts as time goes on and they try and save bandwidth, but for now it is a big jump on any screen imho.

 

[Rahmorak]

Well.. at 12'-13' watching on a 50" I can see a HUGE difference between SD and HD. Watching the 720p Alexander trailer is jaw-dropping, the detail on the face (pores/facial hair etc.) is crystal clear. I believe I can also see an improvement over 720p when feeding 1080p material albeit the difference is pretty small (when feeding it to the panels native res of 1366x768)

One thing to bear in mind is that it is not just the vertical resolution but also the horizontal resolution that makes a big differnce. Current SD broadcast/DVD material is a 4:3 interlaced format (anamorphic is just a means of maximising the benefits of 4:3) whereas HD is a progressive 16:9 format.

OK, PAL50 is 720x576 of which an SD panel will only see 720x480 (and of that you really only get half the resolution in each field to make 25 frames per second). So, HD material will see the following benefits (compared to de-interlaced PAL material):

SD vs HD = % gain in resolution
horiz: 720 vs 1280 = +78%
vert: 480 vs 720 = +50%
'pixels': 345600 vs 921600 = 160% gain

That is a huge step up in resolution, and so far everyone I have shown the 720p material has been blown away, even compared to high bitrate DVDs. Heck I can see a big difference between PAL and NTSC material where the difference is even smaller.

R.

 

[JUS]

where did you see the 1080 42 plasma ?
I wasn't aware anyone was selling a commercially viable panel.

BBC R&D open day.

 

[Member 55145]

Funny thing really, im a audio/visual technician, and when i look at this 17" LCD monitor infront of me now at 1280x1024 it appears to be much more pleasing to the eye than my 1024x768 CRT monitor at home, and that is better looking than my 29" widescreen CRT TV at home, thing is i sit closer to the higher resolution screens and farther from my TV and still get much better viewing from the higher resolution screens.

i dunno, maybe your eyesight is crap, but i can tell the difference between a 50hz feed and a 60hz feed and i can DEFINATELY tell the difference between NTSC/PAL/RGB and id much rather sit infront of a 1080p native panel at home than a 29"CRT.... i guess ignorance is bliss but whatever suits you is fine by you, il just bust my wallet and enjoy the fruits of my xbox 360 while your playing on your spectrum with its AMAZING 16 colours! (Was it even that high?)

 

[Mr.D]

Why is it irrelevent? I am trying to make the point that there is more to HD than just resolution. And I was not using the scaling in the panels I was using a Crystalio with 1:1 mapping.

Because you are comparing two different scaling scenarios ( upscaling and downscaling) and two different end resolutions on two different panels.

Far better to compare a good sd source and a good hidef source of the same ,material on the same panel through the same scaling pipeline.

The hidef panel is going to look better with hidef material compared with sd material because of the differences in scaling involved to meet the panel res , but : (as I've already said) an sd panel fed sd material is likely going to look better than a hidef panel fed a scaled sd source at screen sizes approaching 42". Scaling is a compromise remember. Its something we do because its necessary ...not because its necessarily a benefit.

Putting sd material through a hidef plasma compromises the sd material regardless so its no wonder that hidef material looks significantly better on a hidef panel , but its not a transparent appraisal of the benefits of hidef over standard at these smaller screen sizes.

At normal viewing distances sd material on an sd panel usually looks as sharp if not sharper than the same sd material on an HD panel the same size.

 

[Mr.D]

Funny thing really, im a audio/visual technician,

Really wow I'm impressed ...see me see how impressed I am?