Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.




6169 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2894

Subscriber

Topic # 214609 20-May-2017 14:15
One person supports this post
Send private message

I often see disparaging comments about obsolete analogue standards, or even the SD channels still common on Sky. People say things like they won’t even look at anything that isn’t at least 1080p. I have given this some thought as it doesn’t reflect my own experience.

 

I want to make clear that I do very much see the difference between composite and HDMI, and certainly between 4K and anything else. I am not disputing that. But I am perplexed by people who insist that the analogue quality that people were perfectly happy with for years has somehow suddenly become unbearable torture to their eyes. I literally don’t see that.

 

Our main TV is a 50-inch Sony with ‘full’ 1080p HD. No doubt advanced videophiles will turn their noses up at that, but for us the quality is pretty good, especially when watching a Blu-Ray or even HD from streams or the UHF box. It is clearly better than the quality we get from our old analogue Sky decoder, but we don’t have a problem with that, either. On the 50 inch, at the distance we view it from, even s-video is pretty acceptable, especially as it goes through our old DVR and gets upscaled to HDMI. We like the convenience of our current set-up more than we miss any quality difference, so we have declined Sky’s invitation to upgrade for the time being. They already get enough money from us.

 

So are we missing something? I have wondered about this and I think I finally understand the difference. First, it has to do with viewing taste. I think the best possible resolution and contrast and refresh rate truly are pretty important when watching blockbuster action films and fast-moving sports. I can certainly see the value of that. But neither of these things reflect our own viewing tastes, which run more to documentaries and art films. So the quality difference doesn’t really affect us that much.

 

The other thing I have realised is that resolution only really matters with very big screens. This thought occurred to me the other day when I happened to be viewing a very low res internet video in a small window. I noticed that the video appeared quite sharp and clear in the small window, but looked truly awful when I blew it up to full screen. This seems pretty obvious, but it isn’t something we normally think about.

 

If I watch an SD broadcast fed via s-video on our 50-inch Sony from our normal viewing position a few meters back, it looks okay. But it wouldn’t if the screen was any bigger. Increasing the size to 65 inches would not add more pixel information, it would just make the existing pixels bigger and fuzzier. It would not be a pleasant viewing experience.

 

What this tells me is that different people see different things according to their needs. Outmoded analogue SD can be a perfectly adequate viewing experience depending on what is being watched and how it is being viewed. For some, it will provide all they require. So don’t write off the old technology yet.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
1413 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 168


  Reply # 1785147 20-May-2017 14:20
5 people support this post
Send private message

Watch some Freeview satellite and you'll understand.



6169 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2894

Subscriber

  Reply # 1785152 20-May-2017 14:27
2 people support this post
Send private message

tchart: Watch some Freeview satellite and you'll understand.

 

I have. It looks fine on my $30 Chinese sat box.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


 
 
 
 


3220 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1021

Subscriber

  Reply # 1785154 20-May-2017 14:32
3 people support this post
Send private message

TV3 plus 1 is one that I notice the most. It is bloody terrible. I think the issue is you know how much better it normally looks. It is just so fuzzy and average it distracts from normal viewing... and I am by no means a "videophile".

 

Partner just takes her glasses off though and says "can't tell the difference"....


Talk DIrtY to me
4057 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2102

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1785163 20-May-2017 15:07
One person supports this post
Send private message

It was probably the same when colour TV was a rarity.


2474 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 558


  Reply # 1785165 20-May-2017 15:11
Send private message

cant watch live sport unless it's in HD, you do really notice on the wide shots, Unwatchable.


3323 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 980


  Reply # 1785185 20-May-2017 16:08
3 people support this post
Send private message

Low-def sources on high-def displays looks pretty bad. 

 

We had an older panny plasma with a resolution of 852x600 (something like that from memory), and it would have a great image when sitting back 3 meters or so, and probably far better than some modern 4k LCD panels due to a far superior contrast ratio and solid blacks as opposed to washed out greys. 

 

I get where you're coming from. 


11505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5211

Trusted

  Reply # 1785187 20-May-2017 16:13
One person supports this post
Send private message

On our Panasonic VT 65" very very important. I long for the day (in vain) that all channels are at least HD and eventually 4K





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


2485 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 446


  Reply # 1785190 20-May-2017 16:22
Send private message

Well certainly some thing higher Def looks more appealing. Cleaner sharper is always more attractive.
That said I use Kodi and find it upscales low definition pretty well.
I suppose the worst things to watch are badly encoded with a lot of blockiness and jolty motion. That would be true whether low or high definition.

Hi Def well encoded always wins for me.




Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - A. H. Weiler

4167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 657

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1785198 20-May-2017 16:38
2 people support this post
Send private message

For me it depends on the size of the screen.  I have a 43" 4K TV in the bedroom.  Wouldn't have bothered with 4K only it was a cheap deal on an LG smart TV so it was worth it.  

 

Anyway, SD looks OK on it.  You can tell it's not the native resolution, it looks somewhat fuzzy/blurry because it's being stretched the fill the display.  On an even bigger TV (had a 55" 1080p in the lounge until recently) it looks atrocious to my eye.  Certain sources are better than others - e.g a well compressed mp4 or DVD is much better than Freeview or SD streaming for me.

 

HD is very important to me.  I won't buy SD on DVD anymore.  I only buy Blu-ray.  And I can see that fading away soon too as 4K streaming gets more common.  I won't be buying 4K Blu-ray unless it becomes cheaper and more pervasive.  I can't see that happening for a lot of years though.  


2333 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 985


  Reply # 1785461 21-May-2017 13:37
One person supports this post
Send private message

My eyesight is pretty terrible, so not as important for me as for some other folk I suspect.

 

For movies, it does make a bit of a difference. Plus, with Blu Rays, it isn't just the 1080 picture, the sound quality is also a lot better. For TV dramas etc, the difference is pretty negligible. A few minutes into the show, if it's good, I'm not even noticing. If it's not good, I have probably given up on it. Plus, a lot of the stuff I like to watch (eg old English comedies) isn't even available in HD. It wasn't shot that way.


3779 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1870

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1785466 21-May-2017 13:46
Send private message

JimmyH:

 

My eyesight is pretty terrible, so not as important for me as for some other folk I suspect.

 

<snip>

 

 

Beg to differ. smile

 

I have a slowly progressive eye complaint (with a long medical name), with increasingly blurred vision in both eyes.

 

I spend a lot of time in front of monitors.

 

I find it much easier to read from a large (32") 2k or 4k screen than from a standard "high definition" one.





Sideface


889 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 383

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1785485 21-May-2017 14:28
6 people support this post
Send private message

Simple answer for me is that if you CAN have it look better, why not have it look better? 






26 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 7


  Reply # 1785488 21-May-2017 14:40
7 people support this post
Send private message

In general, I find that I notice the quality of the picture for about the first 3 minutes of watching something. After that, it's not an issue.

 

It's the quality of the content that really matters rather than the quality of the picture.

 

I'd always choose to watch good content in SD rather than poor content in HD.


1491 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 505

Subscriber

  Reply # 1785498 21-May-2017 15:17
One person supports this post
Send private message

For me good quality sound trumps picture quality.
Being surrounded by 360 degree sounds puts me into the scene more.

First noticed this in early 90s when I borrowed lots of speakers and a 14 inch telly from flat mates to my Sony pro logic amp. @talkiet

4167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 657

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1785500 21-May-2017 15:24
One person supports this post
Send private message

afe66: For me good quality sound trumps picture quality.

 

Why not both? :)


 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

$3.74 million for new electric vehicles in New Zealand
Posted 17-Jan-2018 11:27


Nova 2i: Value, not excitement from Huawei
Posted 17-Jan-2018 09:02


Less news in Facebook News Feed revamp
Posted 15-Jan-2018 13:15


Australian Government contract awarded to Datacom Connect
Posted 11-Jan-2018 08:37


Why New Zealand needs a chief technology officer
Posted 6-Jan-2018 13:59


Amazon release Silk Browser and Firefox for Fire TV
Posted 21-Dec-2017 13:42


New Chief Technology Officer role created
Posted 19-Dec-2017 22:18


All I want for Christmas is a new EV
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:54


How clever is this: AI will create 2.3 million jobs by 2020
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:52


NOW to deploy SD-WAN to regional councils
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:46


Mobile market competition issues ComCom should watch
Posted 18-Dec-2017 10:52


New Zealand government to create digital advisory group
Posted 16-Dec-2017 08:47


Australia datum changes means whole country moving 1.8 metres north-east
Posted 16-Dec-2017 08:39


UAV Traffic Management Trial launching today in New Zealand
Posted 12-Dec-2017 16:06


UFB connections pass 460,000
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:26



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.