Not exactly overwhelmed by HD...

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › Not exactly overwhelmed by HD...

spazz

266 posts

Ultimate Geek

#25340 18-Aug-2008 23:49

I know people keep calling the transition from SD to HD as the same magnitude as black and white to colour, but you know what? I really don't see it. I see enhanced clarity, sure, but nothing that's particularly mind-blowing. Perhaps I'm missing something? I have:

A Sony Bravia V-Series KLV-V32A10, it's about a year old. It's 32" and only 1080i, not 1080p, and has a resolution of 1376 x 768.
Contrast 1300:1
HDMI switcher with PS3 and MySky HDi connected

Is the step up to a 1080p set with a 3000:1 contrast ratio really worth it? (i.e. will it change my picture dramatically?)

Is it possibly worth getting my set professionally calibrated?

At the end of the day I just feel like HD has been a huge anti-climax. Waited so long for HD content and sure, it's more defined, but gosh, it lacks any sort of 'wow' factor! How have you guys found it?

http://walkingisoverrated.com

1 | 2 | 3

534 posts

Ultimate Geek

#157865 19-Aug-2008 00:26

Hi Spazz, I have a 32 LCD too. I thought HD was an appreciable step up even on that. The biggest difference for me was on the projector. Projectors don't suffer from the smearing/ghosting that LCD TVs and even Plasmas suffer from that effectively reduces some of the increased sharpness that HD can give you.

Possibly both Freeview and Sky are a couple of megabits/s short in bandwidth as well but that's how it goes. Feeding the 720p HD Olympics coverage into a 720p native projector really was a treat though.

steve98

1395 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#157889 19-Aug-2008 07:56

spazz:
A Sony Bravia V-Series KLV-V32A10, it's about a year old. It's 32" and only 1080i, not 1080p, and has a resolution of 1376 x 768.

The benefits of HDTV really only become apparent with a 42" or above screen. Anything less than that and it becomes pretty hard for the eye to tell the difference, unless you're sat right up close to it.

Steve

Spyware

3764 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#157924 19-Aug-2008 10:16

What twaddle, its like the difference between night and day on my 32" - Philips 32PF9531. Sky's SD offering (artifacts stand out on nearly all Sky channels on all my TVs) is sickening so there should be a massive visible difference between SD and HD Sky.

EDIT: Using DVB-T H.264 as reference + bluray. Haven't seen HD Sky as yet.

Spark Max Fibre using Mikrotik CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+, CRS125-24G-1S, Unifi UAP, U6-Pro, UAP-AC-M-Pro, Apple TV 4K (2022), Apple TV 4K (2017), iPad Air 1st gen, iPad Air 4th gen, iPhone 13, SkyNZ3151 (the white box). If it doesn't move then it's data cabled.

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#157938 19-Aug-2008 11:22

I output to a 40" Bravia and a 720p projector and it is way better then SD TV. Watching TVNZ Sport Extra vs TV1 for olympics is like the difference between black and white vs colour for sure.

I must admit that the difference is a lot more pronounced at 95" on the projector so maybe 32" just isnt enough - size does matter!

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#157944 19-Aug-2008 11:39

dont forget its not all about resolution, for me the biggest standout is the colour gamut, this is quite significant.

Cyril

clevedon

1059 posts

Uber Geek

#157946 19-Aug-2008 11:49

On our 50PY800 Full HD ( contrast ratio 30,000 : 1 ) we have found it a big step up to the HD channels, in saying that a few of the other channels are looking very improved as well, the crime channel looks very good and watched Dirty Harry - Magnum Force on MGM last night and even that looked very good in a lot of the detail and thats a 1973 movie. Then it is another step up again to PS3 gaming and Bluray in Full HD. So, not overwhelmed but, very happy watching MySky HDi on a 50 inch. Maybe, as said above - size does matter.

stuzzo

534 posts

Ultimate Geek

#157947 19-Aug-2008 11:50

cyril7: dont forget its not all about resolution, for me the biggest standout is the colour gamut, this is quite significant.

Cyril

Can you explain how this works Cyril? I quite often hear comments about better colour Gamut for HD but technically it seems the same ie similar primaries, similar encoding scheme.

Is it simply the greater bandwidth meaning effectively colours are resolved better?

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#157949 19-Aug-2008 12:13

The difference between 601 and 709 is subtle, but does bring about a clearly scence increase in colour depth, although the difference between the PAL colour space, and 601 is much more noticable than 601>709.

Cyril

motogpnz

112 posts

Master Geek

#157955 19-Aug-2008 12:37

spazz: I know people keep calling the transition from SD to HD as the same magnitude as black and white to colour, but you know what? I really don't see it. I see enhanced clarity, sure, but nothing that's particularly mind-blowing. Perhaps I'm missing something? I have:

A Sony Bravia V-Series KLV-V32A10, it's about a year old. It's 32" and only 1080i, not 1080p, and has a resolution of 1376 x 768.
Contrast 1300:1
HDMI switcher with PS3 and MySky HDi connected
Is the step up to a 1080p set with a 3000:1 contrast ratio really worth it? (i.e. will it change my picture dramatically?)

Is it possibly worth getting my set professionally calibrated?

At the end of the day I just feel like HD has been a huge anti-climax. Waited so long for HD content and sure, it's more defined, but gosh, it lacks any sort of 'wow' factor! How have you guys found it?

Firstly, are you sure that your V32A is true 1080HD? This requires a 1920x1080 display and yours is 1366x768, just like my 32U300A. Although mine accepts 1080p/i signals it downscales to 720p. Unless your tv has a TrueHD logo then it probably isn't.

Secondly, those on the forum with Freeview HD and Sky HD have pointed out that the Freeview is a significantly better quality picture and Sky is compressing to save bandwidth.

Thirdly, there seems to be a huge variation in what Sky calls HD in their synopsis. I'm sure much of the so called HD content was probably SD upscaled at source before being delivered to Sky. I too am a bit disappointed in some of the stuff that is being advertised as HD, but when you see the genuine stuff you may be happier. Like Cyril says it gives a depth that is almost 3D-like. Wait for the cricket on Friday night and see what you think. BSkyB seem to have the very best gear and know how to use it.

I've noticed one advantage of the HD feed is that SD content over the HD channels is significantly better thanks to a much higher bitrate and superior codec.

AncestralGeek

91 posts

Master Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#157963 19-Aug-2008 13:01

There is enough difference between the HD and SD channels on Sky HD to make the change to HD worthwhile for me; even allowing for the odd hic-up with recording. What puzzles me though is the flesh colour of the characters in NCIS on TV3; very blotchy red at times. When I get a chance I intend to watch an older episode from one of the SD channels. It is only that show which appears to have that problem.

Anyone else noticed this.

testastretta

4 posts

Wannabe Geek

#158066 19-Aug-2008 17:47

For me on my Full HD 46in Samsung the difference between SD Sky Sport and HD Sky Sport is huge.The colours and clarity make for a much improved picture.The movies however are not as impressive.There is still quite a big step up to the quality of HD DVD/BluRay.

datahawk

251 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#158237 20-Aug-2008 09:26

AncestralGeek:
There is enough difference between the HD and SD channels on Sky HD to make the change to HD worthwhile for me; even allowing for the odd hic-up with recording. What puzzles me though is the flesh colour of the characters in NCIS on TV3; very blotchy red at times. When I get a chance I intend to watch an older episode from one of the SD channels. It is only that show which appears to have that problem.

Anyone else noticed this.

Yes. NCIS is a great show but it is known that they use lense filters for some reason.

I did a bit of searching on this show because of a couple of episodes where they were clearly using a 'soft' filter or SD camera on some shots and nice HD clear shots on others. I thought maybe they were using a HD and SD camera. However, other HD devotees on the net mentioned that they deliberately use filters. Maybe it's part of the 'older' cast contracts - i.e. No HD close ups on me or I quit :-)

datahawk

251 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#158246 20-Aug-2008 09:40

spazz: I know people keep calling the transition from SD to HD as the same magnitude as black and white to colour, but you know what? I really don't see it. I see enhanced clarity, sure, but nothing that's particularly mind-blowing. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Yes, as already mentioned, projector users are so happy that HD has arrived. I have a Panasonic PTAE-1000 1080p and my theatre screen is approx 140 inches. SD at this size is just plain bad. HD is a huge leap and is a pleasure to watch at this size.

I am a little disappointed with sky's HD delivery. It is not as good as UHF Freeview TV3 1080i and is clearly 'softer' but still way better than what we had.

Spyware

3764 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#158263 20-Aug-2008 10:20

datahawk:

I did a bit of searching on this show because of a couple of episodes where they were clearly using a 'soft' filter or SD camera on some shots and nice HD clear shots on others. I thought maybe they were using a HD and SD camera. However, other HD devotees on the net mentioned that they deliberately use filters. Maybe it's part of the 'older' cast contracts - i.e. No HD close ups on me or I quit :-)

NCIS is shot on 35 mm film, so the idea of using SD or HD digital video cameras is erroneous. The film is telecined into 1080p24 etc. No major US programs are shot with video cameras. Video cameras are generally only used for news and studio based shows, e.g., Ellen in 4:3 SD or Rove 16:9 HD (not US but proves my point).

motogpnz

112 posts

Master Geek

#158340 20-Aug-2008 13:57

Spyware:
NCIS is shot on 35 mm film, so the idea of using SD or HD digital video cameras is erroneous. The film is telecined into 1080p24 etc. No major US programs are shot with video cameras. Video cameras are generally only used for news and studio based shows, e.g., Ellen in 4:3 SD or Rove 16:9 HD (not US but proves my point).

That explains a lot. Surely programmes shot in native 1080 HD will be better than film. Haven't seen a movie or US drama yet that matches Rove or the cricket for image sharpness.

1 | 2 | 3