Question of the week: has HDTV lived up to your expectations?

[Bluecube]

My TV is only 720p but I've seen plenty of 1080p demo material playing in the shops and I still think it's a bit so what? As I said, it's good on big TVs (45"+) but wasted on anything less.

[andytw]

For me HD has been great for sport, films and the (mainly) American programming shown on Sky One HD.

However after you have had Sky HD for 6 months you have seen most of what is available on the other HD channels before. There seems to be only a small amount of new HD programming each week (aside from sport/films).

The situation isn't helped by BBC HD still being in "preview" status which means 4-5 hours of actual programs each evening with loads of preview material for the rest of the day.

Also while Channel 4 HD shows the same programs as SD Channel 4, many appear to be upscaled from SD rather than true HD.

Even on my HD Ready 37" screen the better HD material looks superb compared to my old CRT, I just wish there was more of it to watch.

[Biscuit]

iv seen and played HD material on many different monitors and projectors and i have to say anyone who claims its barely different or not worth it either hasnt seen it or is just being awkward. The image is not just 'sharper' the colours/greyscale are much better defined, the pixels are square (which means unlike standard def the widescreen res is real widescreen not streched sd), progressive scanning alows for a greater variety in production style.

If people actually take the time to consciencly think about what they are looking at on the screen and actually appreciate it instead of blowing it off as 'another fad' i think you might realize how much the entire viewing experience changes.

Programs are actualy being made differently now that so much more can be captured. Producers, drectors, camera operators, vision engineers, set designers, actors and ESPECIALLY make up artists are all having to learn new techniques to both cope with and utilize HD at its full capability.

Find someone who has a HUGE HDTV or projecter preferably, walk up to the screen and look at the image. Backgrounds have now become extremely explorable; the added detail means that you can see every blade of grass with a complete range of greens wheras before it was just a big green mush. Anyone who has watched HD lost will know what i mean here!

Anyone who hasnt got or experienced a HD tele you think you havent benefitted from the technology at all... WRONG! HD production then watched on SD televisions looks better than a traditional SD production.

The whole thing about HD is that is better quality images... so if you buy a cheap HD set then the chances are its going to have costs cut and lose out on some of the experience that is HD. This is why i havent yet bought a TV set; i dont have the money for a good quality 1080p television. Im also in question about LCD, whilst the technology has come in leaps and bounds its still not anywhere near as good as CRT in respects of image quality and contrast ratio. I think for an actual televsion i may wait around for OLED and stick to having full HD on my PC.

[Bluecube]

iv seen and played HD material on many different monitors and projectors and i have to say anyone who claims its barely different or not worth it either hasnt seen it or is just being awkward. The image is not just 'sharper' the colours/greyscale are much better defined, the pixels are square (which means unlike standard def the widescreen res is real widescreen not streched sd), progressive scanning alows for a greater variety in production style.

That's your opinion which you're perfectly entitled to. I still stand by my view that there's naff all difference unless you have a large TV. On a 32" TV sitting at a decent distance (c. 8 feet) there's not enough difference between HD and SD to get excited about.

[Biscuit]

That's your opinion which you're perfectly entitled to. I still stand by my view that there's naff all difference unless you have a large TV. On a 32" TV sitting at a decent distance (c. 8 feet) there's not enough difference between HD and SD to get excited about.

You can hardly say naff all difference if you honestly cant notice any difference then you need your eyes checking tbh. I agree on screens 32 or less the experience doesnt change a great deal but when the size of a FULL HD image is 4 times that of SD... using the same principle as buiying a cheapo TV being a bit pointless, you kind of eliminate the whole point in it being HD if dont buy something above 32

[bigblue]

I'm very impressed with HD. Some sources are better than others though, but I'd hate to be without it now.

I have a lot of free time just now, and I really rate SkyHD. It seems to be a love/hate thing with SkyHD, but even with the lower quality in comparison to Blu-Ray, it's great value for money in my eyes. High def sport almost every day, a range of movies every day, and all the other stuff such as Discovery (and OCC ). For £10 extra per month? Great value in my eyes. Blu-Ray is obviously capable of far better quality, but at a higher price. But with a decent disc, and a decent display, I don't know how people could debate the quality difference between SD/HD.

I think there's an awful lot of confusion surrounding HD in general though. A lot of the time people don't have a clue what they're watching, so you end up with people getting the wrong end of the stick. There's a lot of negativity from people who seem to think that upscaled SD is HD, or that anything shown on a HDTV is HD. A lot of peoples experience of HD is walking into Comet, seeing an distributed SD feed shown on a 1080 LCD, and presuming that's 'FullHD'. Or playing the PS3, hooked up via the supplied composite lead, and thinking they're playing in HD.

Also, a lot of folk who watch it on PC monitors get poor quality, either because their monitor is scaling poorly, or stretching stuff out of the correct aspect ratio.

Another important thing is distance to screen. People often sit too far away to get any real benefit, then complain that they don't see much improvement in PQ. I appreciate viewing distances are often difficult to change, due to home layout etc. but it's a little unfair to criticise something when you're not really giving it a fair chance. People seem to think they need to sit at the same distance as they used to with SD, and that's really not the case. If you have to sit that far away, fair enough, but if you don't, get closer!

The whole 720/1080 thing is a bit silly too. There's people all over the web boasting about only watching 1080, and how much better it is than 720, when chances are they're watching 720 (or lower) upscaled. Just because the TV OSD says 1080p, that doesn't mean it is native 1080p! Even with a 40" TV, most folk wouldn't notice the difference between 720/1080. I have a 55" TV, and from beyond 8ft it's nigh-on impossible to see the difference, so I don't know how folk supposedly do it on a 37" screen from 10ft!

Anyway, sorry for rambling! I love HD, and I'm looking forward to the future of HDTV, 4k2k, Hi-Vision and beyond

[Betty_Swallocks]

I've seen them in the shops and yes, the picture quality is lovely but to be honest I'm reluctant to shell out for an HD TV when my 32" CRT still has years of life left in it. It's not as if there's much worth watching on TV anyway let alone broadcast in HD.

We've just got rid of our Sky subscription because with the full (non HD) package we were struggling to find anything that we wanted to watch.

I can now only watch full 1080p programmes (via Popcorn Hour media tank) If I find myself round at someone else's house and they try to make me watch lo def (720 downwards) I become nauseous and have to leave.

You poor thing. How would you have coped in the days of 405 lines black and white?

I can remember (only just) BBC2 starting up. I was about 4. We couldn't get it for ages because you had to upgrade to a 625 lines TV and they were really expensive.

As for colour TV. Wow! We, like a lot of other families, finally got colour TV when Princess Anne got married. You had to have a colour TV for a Royal Wedding.

So the hardship of you having to slum it with a mere 720p just doesn't bring a tear to my eye somehow.

[Steve]

That's your opinion which you're perfectly entitled to. I still stand by my view that there's naff all difference unless you have a large TV. On a 32" TV sitting at a decent distance (c. 8 feet) there's not enough difference between HD and SD to get excited about.

Perhaps when comparing progressive DVD or analogue TV to HD, but broadcast DVB SDTV is dire in comparison to HD content.

[Bluecube]

Perhaps when comparing progressive DVD or analogue TV to HD, but broadcast DVB SDTV is dire in comparison to HD content.

Yes, I'll go with that. But some SDTV channels (esp on Sky) are dire in comparison to a Youtube video let along HD

[Biscuit]

Yes, I'll go with that. But some SDTV channels (esp on Sky) are dire in comparison to a Youtube video let along HD

This is true, the amount of compression that is put on everything is completely absurd and quite sickening

[TheBloodyNine]

HD has completly lived up to my expectations, its not a noticable improvment over SD in an everyday situation.

Sure if you stick HD and SD side by side HD will look a little better, but in real life no one actually cares if Eastenders is slightly more detailed.

Plus if stuff is recoreded in HD and broadcast in SD everyone gets a weird hazy glow, kinda like a soft focus effect, or maybe thats just me being picky

[Biscuit]

Sure if you stick HD and SD side by side HD will look a little better, but in real life no one actually cares if Eastenders is slightly more detailed.

Thats a very good point, HD only really shines through on specific kinds of show. Action/thriller type shows like lost, heroes and prison break. These all have interesting and sometimes quite unusual scenarios where the extra resolution and colour actually make a difference. Simple things like a soap opera would probably be damaged by HD as the set is vry similar day in day out which would reveal how crappy some of it is.

Sport can benefit massively from HD however the cameras used usually have a much more limited focul range (mainly because the focus is so much more importaint) so to tackle the lesser of two evil in this genre 720p is more practical.

[Steve B]

I've had an HDTV since october of last year. Granted it's not a 1080 set, but i've never watched an HD broadcast on it.

I use it to play my 360 and watch DVDs.

[nichomach]

Whilst I don't currently use an HD player, I do have a V+ box and a 40" 1080p Samsung. As far as watching HD content, if I watch a movie on Movies on Demand, and it's available in HD, I'll choose the HD version, simply because it's there, and there is a marginal improvement. That said, I don't feel that having watched HD content in any way "spoils" SD. The V+ box does a good job of upscaling, as does my DVD player, and so far that's been good enough. I probably will get an HD player at some point, but it's not that high up on my to-do list.

[bigblue]

HD has completly lived up to my expectations, its not a noticable improvment over SD in an everyday situation.

Sure if you stick HD and SD side by side HD will look a little better, but in real life no one actually cares if Eastenders is slightly more detailed.

I'd have to disagree a little there. On most large screen sets, it is a noticeable improvement, to my eyes anyway. I'm sure it's not much different on a 32" set, or if you sit a fair distance away. But on big sets, there's a clear difference.

I agree that very few people give a hoot about Eastenders, but I do give a hoot about sports and movies, and they're far superior in HD

Plus if stuff is recoreded in HD and broadcast in SD everyone gets a weird hazy glow, kinda like a soft focus effect, or maybe thats just me being picky

Nah, I think that's just you being picky An awful lot of broadcast shows are shot in HD, and transmitted in SD. Probably more than most folk realise. A lot of very run of the mill things are shot in HD.

On a few AVForums, the Formula 1 coverage has been mentioned as a great example of SD capability. But it's shot in HD, has been for a while now

[Sybarite]

Sticking to an old CRT as I have, I simply wish the freeview signal was a little better on some of the less mainstream chanels (I've been known to watch ITV4 ) before Freesat and HD was tinkered with.