HD is overrated

[beasty54]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

It's not a pointless comment at all. It's the truth. If (say) a drama has bad acting, a bad story or bad direction, it will have those things regardless of the resolution it's watched at.


Also, before you decided what I think about HD, read the rest of the thread. I said that whether HD adds to the viewing experience or not depends on the type of programme/film. Small character driven dramas don't gain a lot. Large blockbusters with lots of action do.

See http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34799329-post19.html

But surely we all know that if a program is crap its crap regardless of the resolution just like you said above so i just didn't think there was any need to state the obvious, therfor a pointless comment. Its the comments about lost as well, the scenery looks good in HD but it doesn't add to the story??? well of course it doesn't, how could nice looking trees make the story any better??? and again thats pointing out the obvious. If we all took this attitude there would be no pointing in upgrading any equipment especially a new TV we should all just say "well coronation street wont have a better story so we might as well just buy a £100 Bush LCD because picture quality doesn't matter"

[akki007]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

It's not a pointless comment at all. It's the truth. If (say) a drama has bad acting, a bad story or bad direction, it will have those things regardless of the resolution it's watched at.


Also, before you decided what I think about HD, read the rest of the thread. I said that whether HD adds to the viewing experience or not depends on the type of programme/film. Small character driven dramas don't gain a lot. Large blockbusters with lots of action do.

See http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34799329-post19.html

It's all opinion. I hate large blockbusters with lots of action (Aka, leave your brain at the door films) so for me, HD would be no gain as the film would be a barrel of plop anyway. Now something like Darwin's Garden...Yes, HD would be a gain there and oh, is a gain on BBC HD. YAY.

[Ben B]

I'm gonna this thread since there are all these threads that people are talking about HD on.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by beasty54

But surely we all know that if a program is crap its crap regardless of the resolution just like you said above so i just didn't think there was any need to state the obvious, therfor a pointless comment. Its the comments about lost as well, the scenery looks good in HD but it doesn't add to the story??? well of course it doesn't, how could nice looking trees make the story any better??? and again thats pointing out the obvious. If we all took this attitude there would be no pointing in upgrading any equipment especially a new TV we should all just say "well coronation street wont have a better story so we might as well just buy a £100 Bush LCD because picture quality doesn't matter"

It may be obvious, but it's a point frequently missed by HD advocates. So, yes, there is a reason to state it.

You, however, have missed my point. HD *does* add enjoyment to *some* types of entertainment, just not all.

[one2escape]

The HD channels have a noticeable picture difference but the way to describe it is its not as dramatic as increase from vhs to dvd. I still want more though! Btw Blu Ray to be defunct in a couple of years? Digital Distribution is the way its getting pushed!

[moroboshi]

Originally Posted by one2escape

The HD channels have a noticeable picture difference but the way to describe it is its not as dramatic as increase from vhs to dvd. I still want more though! Btw Blu Ray to be defunct in a couple of years? Digital Distribution is the way its getting pushed!

It's actually more dramatic than from VHS to DVD.

VHS resolution - 320x480

DVD resolution - 720x576

BD resolution - 1920x1080

Digital distribution is indeed the way of the future but with the terrible broadband speeds and caps in most countries it will struggle to go mainstream for some time yet.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by moroboshi

It's actually more dramatic than from VHS to DVD.

VHS resolution - 320x480

DVD resolution - 720x576

BD resolution - 1920x1080

Digital distribution is indeed the way of the future but with the terrible broadband speeds and caps in most countries it will struggle to go mainstream for some time yet.

Dramatic is the difference in picture quailty, i hate to admit it but VHS to DVD , compare to DVD to HD was more dramatic, why because it went from analogue to digital, just like tape to cd.

And that is where the big difference lies the conversion to digital.

Do not get me wrong there is a big difference at least in my eyes between sd and hd but there difference between analogue and sd was far greater.

but you are correct the difference in video resolution is greater. (btw some vhs did have greater resolutions)

Originally Posted by moroboshi

It's actually more dramatic than from VHS to DVD.

VHS resolution - 320x480

DVD resolution - 720x576

BD resolution - 1920x1080

Digital distribution is indeed the way of the future but with the terrible broadband speeds and caps in most countries it will struggle to go mainstream for some time yet.

Blu-ray at 1080p is irrelevant to discussion on a forum concerned with fornats available over satellite or cable, how 'dramatic' is the difference at 1080i - or even the 720p many people will have selected???

[moroboshi]

Originally Posted by homealone

Blu-ray at 1080p is irrelevant to discussion on a forum concerned with fornats available over satellite or cable, how 'dramatic' is the difference at 1080i - or even the 720p many people will have selected???

1080i will look the same as 1080p when de-interlaced correctly, which most HDTVs should do.

However bit-rates are important too, as are codecs, and here BD is *massively* ahead of broadcast HD. (particularly Virgin with their reliance on the ancient MPEG 2 codec)

Originally Posted by moroboshi

1080i will look the same as 1080p when de-interlaced correctly, which most HDTVs should do.

However bit-rates are important too, as are codecs, and here BD is *massively* ahead of broadcast HD. (particularly Virgin with their reliance on the ancient MPEG 2 codec)

nothing you have posted here appears to negate my point that blu-ray is not relevant in a discussion about TV broadcasting.

[rogerdraig]

Blueray is significant when saying HD tv is over rated as imho it isnt really HD any how Blueray at 1080p is

[OLD BOY]

I'm not sure what we are trying to achieve on this thread. Clearly there are those who want more HD and those who couldn't care less.

For me, my TV screen is so large that if I don't watch in HD, I tend to get pixellation, particularly when there is a lot of movement in the picture. This does not happen in HD, so it suits me to have it.

HD is not so important on relatively small screens, but it still makes a difference. But if it makes no difference to the individual whether they look out of a dirty window or a nice sparkly clean one, then it's obvious that HD is not going to be an issue for them. Some of us go for quality, others just go for cheapest.

No-one is forcing anyone to take HD if it is on offer, so why are so many making an issue of this? What advocates of HD want is the choice - why would some people wish to deny us this choice?

Quite apart from my preference to have more HD channels, I am concerned that if VM don't keep up (let alone ahead of) the game, they will continue to lose out to Sky, their profits will be down and this will affect the prices we pay and the range of services (and channels) available to us.

The voting seems to be in favour of HD. The majority should prevail.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by moroboshi

1080i will look the same as 1080p when de-interlaced correctly, which most HDTVs should do.

No, it won't.

You can not get rid of interlacing artifacts as i isn't just a p frame split into two, it's two fields are taken at two different times, so unless nothing has changed between the two fields being taken (extremely unlikely) you'll never reach the same quality as a p frame.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by moroboshi

1080i will look the same as 1080p when de-interlaced correctly, which most HDTVs should do.

However bit-rates are important too, as are codecs, and here BD is *massively* ahead of broadcast HD. (particularly Virgin with their reliance on the ancient MPEG 2 codec)

I love ot see one of those tellys, why because deinterlacing will not look the same as progressive, if it did you would not have two different formats with different quailties.

Mpeg2 is just as good a encoer as Mpeg4, the only really difference is the size of the files. This is not a true example jsut a guess, Mopeg2 10Mb/s Mpeg4 2Mb/s for the same quailty.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I'm not sure what we are trying to achieve on this thread. Clearly there are those who want more HD and those who couldn't care less.

For me, my TV screen is so large that if I don't watch in HD, I tend to get pixellation, particularly when there is a lot of movement in the picture. This does not happen in HD, so it suits me to have it.

HD is not so important on relatively small screens, but it still makes a difference. But if it makes no difference to the individual whether they look out of a dirty window or a nice sparkly clean one, then it's obvious that HD is not going to be an issue for them. Some of us go for quality, others just go for cheapest.

No-one is forcing anyone to take HD if it is on offer, so why are so many making an issue of this? What advocates of HD want is the choice - why would some people wish to deny us this choice?

Quite apart from my preference to have more HD channels, I am concerned that if VM don't keep up (let alone ahead of) the game, they will continue to lose out to Sky, their profits will be down and this will affect the prices we pay and the range of services (and channels) available to us.

The voting seems to be in favour of HD. The majority should prevail.

not against choice at all but its still overrated lol

what i mean by that answer is that the HD offered by any company isnt the all sing and dancing thing its often made out to be ( yes i know they dont explicitly make the claims i am about to describe but many see it that way )

when i talk to friends and often their parents as they all seem to make a bee line for me they are of the opinion that HD from sky or virgin will take full advantage of the 1080p tv they are about to buy (which is what they are normaly asking advice on which one) and often when i say are you going to get a blueray player they say no and i have to tell them that then they really dont need that 1080p tv as they dont need they often are convinced still that they do to get HD

which is why i say overrated as i see it Sky and virgin are overselling the benefits the Tv manufacturers are being economical with information on what their 1080p is needed for and blueray should come up with a better description than Full Hd to describe what it is


as to content more will come at the moment i think its more an issue of space on what ever platform on when more will be HD perhaps if they all worried less about copying and put huge hds in the pvrs and ways to archive then they could free up loads of space by letting people get the content thats taking up space that repeated and repeated and repeated ..... and let them record it and keep it for as long as they wish ( you know the channels and i dont mean sky 1 lol leave my simpsons alone me )

and then some more HD would be a lot easier to put on