Berberis Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Sky seem to be reducing the quality of the SD channels to make HD look better. A lot of the improvement comes from less compression rather the higher resolution. The pixelation on most SD channels on Sky is terrible now, this is nothing to do with HD or SD just how much bandwidth is used. I can see a noticeable difference in HD transmissions but the effect is enhanced by the reduced bit rates on the SD channels. From experience, pixilation of Sky channels is caused by the TV more than the signal. I certainly have not noticed any pixilation watching Sky on my 42" LCD, however when I had a rather rubbish 42" Plasma sometime ago, the corruption of the image was noticeable. You may want to check some of the settings to make sure your TV is receiving the signal correctly. Making sure the output on your sky box is set to RGB for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BandApart Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 sounds silly but most people have not very good eyesight, there is a vast difference in hd, i wouldnt be without it, its double the clarity, think its better if you watch through sky though not freeview, theres around 35 hd channels on sky inc itv1, bbc but you have to look to see that the programme they are transmitting is in hd, sometimes there not, also ive found most people dont reset there tvs to hd and there pic quality, sky say there will be around 150 channels by the end of the year, my gripe is with the bbc, very slow with the technology, (how much for a licence) no f1, all day just preview on there hd channel! I will say though that picture quality does depend on the size of screen a 28" screen with digital would be pretty sharpe anyway, when you get up to 50" screen the difference in hd and normal tv is quite significant. ive a 47" lcd and the difference is amazing Absolutely spot on post, if I don't wear my glasses then they are both blurred with my glasses HD is vastly superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Blu-Ray is 1080 lines, where are you getting 1020 from? It's a digitial format not analogue. In fact all your resolutions are wrong. DVD to Blu-Ray is also 4x the pixels not double. Sorry I forgot to answer this in my previous response. The lines are the traditional "TV lines per picture height" measurement used for analogue TV's pre-digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 Within the next few years I'd expect to see prices for what are currently top of the range HDTV's (but not 3D ready) dropping fast as stockists seek to get rid. I'm counting on it Come on people 3D is the future....go get your shiny new TVs and get rid of the old ones... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greengeek Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 It's a significant difference, especially watching movies. However, it's down to how the TV processes the information. If I watch moving water on my Sony 32" in SD, it goes really pixellated. In HD it doesn't. Gaming looks 1000X better in HD than SD. And to top it all, 3D is a fad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidgeon Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 3D is a load of ******. You have to buy a huge screen and sit 5 feet away to get the effect. If you want to see footballs in 3D then goto a football match and support your struggling local team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 I'm in support of the 'depends on your eyesight, screen size and viewing distance in equal measure' position. 3D doesn't work one bit for me (cinema, IMAX or otherwise, TV etc.), due to my eyesight. I missed the VHS-to-DVD transition, having been priviledged enough to enjoy Laserdiscs on a 37" 4:3 CRT (and occasionally through a RGB projector) since the late 80s. Still have them and the Pioneer player, and not getting parted for love or money. IMHO, the viewing distance (relative to screen size: from eyes to screen) and TV position (relative to eyesight level: middle or so of screen level with eyes) is what matters most to appreciate image quality, irrespective of whether it's SD or HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny5 Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 It's not just the detail its the extra colours that HD supports. Something like Avatar or UP is staggering on HD. The HD channels on satellite tend to be upscaled SD and so are not always great, but genuine HD is vastly superior to SD. If you think it isn't you need an eye test, a decent tv or need to learn what an HDMI cable is:D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 It's not just the detail its the extra colours that HD supports.And can I ask, besides RGB, what these might be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted June 2, 2010 Share Posted June 2, 2010 HD is very over rated. Good marketing to take in the gullible. You clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about, the difference is immediately noticable, unless you're blind. If you genuinely can't tell the difference between a picture with over 4 times the resolution, then your eye's are obviously defective. Get yourself off the the opticians, it sounds like you're in desperate need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.