HD, not impressed
Discussion
davido140 said:
Help, am I reading that chart incorrectly?
I thought you should sit FURTHER away from larger HD screen, I'm sure I've heard 8ft for 42" here, yet that chart is saying some very close distances.
Confused.....
It is implying that the better the resolution the closer you can sit to a screen.I thought you should sit FURTHER away from larger HD screen, I'm sure I've heard 8ft for 42" here, yet that chart is saying some very close distances.
Confused.....
I try and explain it to myself like this :-
If we think of a picture with 300,000 dots and we sit x feet away, then if we then quadruple the detail of the picture to 1,200,000 dots , we can quadruple the screen area (so double the screen size) and the dots remain the same size so we can still sit x feet away.
But this means if you double your screen size but still watch the same resolution as before you should sit further away.
So the solution is to have two sofas' with with one being further away from the TV for non HD watching
nick s said:
I disagree really.
The difference on my LG 37" LCD tv between say ITV1 & ITV1 HD is absolutely huge!! Looks completely crisp and clear in HD. I am pleased with it!
That's true, but the OP was comparing HD with SD on a CRT. SD on an LCD is a huge step backwards compared to a CRT, so the difference on your LCD is much larger in comparison. The difference on my LG 37" LCD tv between say ITV1 & ITV1 HD is absolutely huge!! Looks completely crisp and clear in HD. I am pleased with it!
I put some pictures to test my eyes resolving power on the 1080p screen I have. I have to sit too close to actually benefit from 1080p over 720p, thus for me, 1080p and Sky HD and all that jazz is a waste of time.
Even my BR disc films are no better than just watching a DVD at the distance I watch telly from.
Only really desirable for a dedicated TV/Hifi kinda room imo, where sitting nearer a big screen seems 'normal'
OR, perfectly fine for people who sit on-top of 50" screens in their little rooms
Dave
Even my BR disc films are no better than just watching a DVD at the distance I watch telly from.
Only really desirable for a dedicated TV/Hifi kinda room imo, where sitting nearer a big screen seems 'normal'
OR, perfectly fine for people who sit on-top of 50" screens in their little rooms
Dave
russ_a said:
IMHO only the computer generated films look any better on blu-ray.
Most SD broadcasts are terrible too. The only real benefit for me was getting rid of the very large box!
The problem with modern sharp TV's is that although digital transmission has helped with the grainy/noise issues, you can get horrible ghosting and compression artefacts.Most SD broadcasts are terrible too. The only real benefit for me was getting rid of the very large box!
Some of the fireworks after the GP in Singapore on Sunday were laugh worthy for their compression fuzziness!
You almost have to buy HD now, just to avoid the fact that SD is compressed so heavily that it looks bad on a half decent TV these days.
Dave
croyde said:
Whale Oil Beef Hooked.
Just amazed that one of their top offerings is not shot in HD. I film a lot of music for the BBC and Channel 4 and I have not seen an old SD camera for a few years.
Spooks will either be shot on HD or 16mm film.Just amazed that one of their top offerings is not shot in HD. I film a lot of music for the BBC and Channel 4 and I have not seen an old SD camera for a few years.
There is no chance whatsoever that it has been shot SD.
None.
Whatsoever.
Anyway, what is this clamour for HD pictures?
In the main, they are over sharp and look hideously soulless and artificial. OK for sports and natural history - terrible for movies in my view.
I quite like a bit of softness, some sparkle here and there. HD just looks too sharp to me.
johnfm said:
croyde said:
Whale Oil Beef Hooked.
Just amazed that one of their top offerings is not shot in HD. I film a lot of music for the BBC and Channel 4 and I have not seen an old SD camera for a few years.
Spooks will either be shot on HD or 16mm film.Just amazed that one of their top offerings is not shot in HD. I film a lot of music for the BBC and Channel 4 and I have not seen an old SD camera for a few years.
There is no chance whatsoever that it has been shot SD.
None.
Whatsoever.
Anyway, what is this clamour for HD pictures?
In the main, they are over sharp and look hideously soulless and artificial. OK for sports and natural history - terrible for movies in my view.
I quite like a bit of softness, some sparkle here and there. HD just looks too sharp to me.
Give me a well shot SD video done really really well any day.
Hmmm
Dave
Was watching Spooks in SD last night on the HD Plasma and I did like the look of it but Strike Back also looked and sounded good in HD but looked bloody awful last week before I got my HD box.
Some of the SD channels are now unwatchable on the Plasma when they were fine on the smaller, older CRT.
Some of the SD channels are now unwatchable on the Plasma when they were fine on the smaller, older CRT.
croyde said:
Was watching Spooks in SD last night on the HD Plasma and I did like the look of it but Strike Back also looked and sounded good in HD but looked bloody awful last week before I got my HD box.
Some of the SD channels are now unwatchable on the Plasma when they were fine on the smaller, older CRT.
Strike back is shot on HD tape.Some of the SD channels are now unwatchable on the Plasma when they were fine on the smaller, older CRT.
There is a real issue with transmission bandwidth. The BBC boffins a while back were basically discouraging productins from shooting drama on film - on the basis that the inherent grain eats bandwidth on transmission as the pictures cannot be compressed enough without making them look rubbish.
HD tape has no grain - so the techie boffins much prefer acquisition on tape to 16mm.
BUT, the DoPs and directors mainly prefer the look and feel of film still - so there is reluctance to change. Ultimately, SKY enforce the use of HD tape filming.
I am sure ITV and BBC will go that way soon. Luckily, many of the cameras (as I understand it) can use the 16mm prime lenses (or at least modified versions thereof) - and as HD camera bodies get better, the DoPs etc are more able to create the look they want on tape.
But I digress.
I just hate uber sharp pictures.
Not a fan of uber sharp also but it was a shock to see how bad SD fares on a 42" Plasma. Not just soft but well out of focus and no detail 
We almost always shoot on HD cameras these days but quite often the DoP likes to stick a filter in to soften the picture. Bloody hard on the long end of a 100-1 lens at 1.4 at dusk
We almost always shoot on HD cameras these days but quite often the DoP likes to stick a filter in to soften the picture. Bloody hard on the long end of a 100-1 lens at 1.4 at dusk
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff