Technology

I'm glad you've asked this - only an hour or so ago I was wondering about it, too, Granger. (Actually, dumbo that I am, I thought I already had it... no, the tv is just 'ready', but not active.) So will be most interested in anyone's thoughts.
 
I can never understand why people spend hundreds of pounds on TV's and players (be they DVD or Blue Ray or whatever the fuck) when one or two years down the line they are obsolete and out of date.

My last two TV's cost £50 and were hand me downs. My DVD player is a Playstation 2 I've had ten years, my washing machine is a dozen years old and my fridge freezer is ten years old at least.

Technology is balls, because you're always playing catch-up.
 
Computers are the one exception because it's an active appliance and so needs to be good. The difference in quality between a £100 tele and a £500 one isn't that great. Not like the diff between a £300 comp and one worth £800.
 
In my opinion HD isn't that much different and I could certainly live without it.

Most of the time I'm not aware of any difference but when it comes to live outdoor stuff, golf is the one that comes to mind, there does seem to be more 'texture' to the pictures. Hope that makes sense.
 
The grass looks a little clearer when I've watched footie at my brothers. For me it's all bollocks and an example of people being taken in by adverts. And won't 3D make it obsolete in the next few years anyway?
 
I would say go for it - we have the HD subscription package and we now watch any channel that is shown on HD in preference to the "standard" version. It does make a difference if you watch it all the time - the pictures are sharper and clearer.

Whats the point of upgrading if you dont use the upgrade? I do draw the line at 3d though - thats total bollocks - watching tv with glasses over my glasses?!

(Plus you get to watch your bets lose in better quality :) )
 
Switching to HD was well worth the extra £10.25 a month as far as I'm concerned and I disagree with the people who say it makes little difference. It makes a HUGE difference, particularly for outdoor sports like golf, tennis, and cricket where the effect can be quite stunning. You only have to switch between the HD and non-HD channel to see it. Racing on C4 benefits from it as well and I read that RUK are to introduce an HD channel from next year. Bring it on!

I'm normally a sceptic when it comes to the supposed benefits of new technology, but I just can't get enough of HD TV. I've had it for 6 months now and I'm still saying "wow, look at that!" nearly every time I watch it.
 
Michael, you're eyes are probably a lot younger than mine and you are more able to detect that difference.

Euron, you seem to be really serious about your music, do you still use that Dansette?;)
 
Colin, you may not have a plasma-screen TV which is what you really need to get the most from HD. Agree with the comments about 3-d though, will never bother with that.
 
HD does look a lot better..but ITV is apparently crap.

the main issue i have..and this WILL affect everyone in the future who watches HD broadcasts..is the reduction in bandwith as more channels are HD.

when standard digital TV first came out it was heralded as teh bees knees..which..when on a decent bandwith the picture is great.

what happened with digital TV is that there are too many channels so each channel has less bandwith..on many stations the pictures are worse than VHS.

HD and standard def TV are both superb..at the correct bandwith...but many people will get short changed shortly due to the massive bandwith needed for HD..which will get compressed.

If you watch standard digital on the beeb when they cover say the changing of the guard..royal wedding..the picture is superb..not HD..but bloody good. So standard def is already good..but we hardly ever see what it is truly capable of.

I am a techno person re hifi equpiment and Video etc..but i haven't made the jump to HD purely due to the fact that in a couple of years they will have squashed the quality out of HD like they have with standard def..its all about bandwith...too many shit stations taking valuable bandwith..Murdoch is not prepared to spend money on extra bandwith...so HD will very soon not look much better than standard def when the extra stations kick in.
 
Last edited:
There is a huge difference between SD and HD in terms of picture quality. If you can't notice it, check tv settings and all connectors

3D is a no go. Maybe in years to come i'll be proved wrong but the thoughts of wearing glasses to watch tv is pointless.
 
granger said:
There is a huge difference between SD and HD in terms of picture quality. If you can't notice it, check tv settings and all connectors

3D is a no go. Maybe in years to come i'll be proved wrong but the thoughts of wearing glasses to watch tv is pointless.
Click to expand...

like i said..to me there is a massive difference between HD and SD..but thats because most SD is overly reduced bandwith.

i would say that top notch both types..are excellent...and yes HD is better...but wait until the bandwith drops..reduced bandwith can reduce very good quality SD down to VHS quality..it can do the same with HD as well

whilst its new they will make sure the bandwith is up..once everyone is on board there will be multiple channels..with degraded HD on each..they ruined SD in the same way..shopping channel shite and +1 channels no fooker wants cluttering up the schedules..there is only so much bandwith..Murdoch has refused to increase it..cost..so each new HD channel will eat into the bandwith of the others

you can prove this...just record 10 minutes of the beeb news...or something you know will be there in the future..a soap lol....stick it on a DVD..then compare it to a broadcast in 18 months time.

you can soon see how good HD is by going on youtube pull a HD video up set it to 720p or 1080p ..then change the resoultion at the bottom right to 360p..its night and day difference for clarity
 
Last edited:
Gareth Flynn said:
HD is new?
Click to expand...

to many who haven't got it is..not new as in just come out no

digital TV took a while to get many on board..lots of people had sky and took time to go digital.

like i said..they are now running down SD as crap..HD is a lot better..but at its best SD can still be impressive

the HD i've seen looks fantastic..but it looks even better on a split screen with an SD picture thats little better than VHS ..a ploy done to sell HD
 
granger said:
Is the 1080p you can get on youtube now as good as sky sports hd coverage EC1?
Click to expand...

I think it is Granger...i've not used much HD content re broadcast but would imagine there is compression as with SD..SD tv pictures are compressed to MPEG2 for broadcasting..as they are massive files anyway..HD is mega massive:)

you could download some sky sports HD off youtube and then compare it to the broadcast stuff to see.

I've downloaded some stuff off Youtube thats been took off of a HD signal and put it through my plasma..it looks really good

some of the HD stuff that comes off HD camcorders is absolutely brilliant
 
Last edited:
here is a recent forum post about HD

Over the past month or so, the compression artefacts on the HD channels are getting worse. At least once per evening I see a stripe of mosaic as compression is overwhelmed by the detail in the pics.

This seemed to coincide with the launch of the new HD sports channel. Too much being forced down the pipe?

In addition, I see a more and more SD upscaled content. Grey's anatomy on Monday 25th April, for instance, was definitely not HD. Flipping between 101 and 170, showed zero difference in quality except for the Mnet logos.

so you not only have the problem of squeezing more channels in..you have them upscaling SD to HD..which isn't HD at all..SD probably looks better before its upscaled

so yes..HD is superb..but will only stay that way whilst the bandwith is large enough..once that reduces you will get movement artefacts like you do now with SD..upscaling SD to HD is a right con imo
 
All depends what your money is worth to you right? Oviously. Hi Fi costs a lot and you can play good stuff or medium or rubbish. Most tv is not up to medium standards. I'm talking about content. My taste. Your mileage may vary. (American saying)
 
I think most people want HD for their own HD filming and playing other HD content..the broadcast bit is cream on the cake

if they don't flood it with loads of channels then broadcast HD should stay good..but we all know that they have to have loads of shite channels eating away at the bandwith.

My son got SKY digital TV about 1999 ..at that time i was watching a decent analogue signal. I went down to his house expecting to be blown away..i started watching it and couldn't believe how shit the picture was on most channels..movement atefacts smudging the picture on sport or any sudden movement..blockiness in the picture....never had taht on analogue...analogiue pissed all over it imo.

I tried a freeview box a few years ago..and was amazed at how good the picture was compared with Sky Digital..freeview had far less channels..and it showed.

like i said..to see how good SD can be..watch when the beeb do a big outside broadcast..proms..royal event etc..really good.

basically SD has been ruined over the years..and they will do the same with broadcast HD
 
Last edited:
Back
Top