HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The difference between no...

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:44 AM

 

The difference between normal and high-definition TV, for the non-technical among us.








65 replies, 5105 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply The difference between normal and high-definition TV, for the non-technical among us. (Original post)
Scuba Sep 2013 OP
Blue_Adept Sep 2013 #1
hobbit709 Sep 2013 #2
Gormy Cuss Sep 2013 #32
madinmaryland Sep 2013 #7
sufrommich Sep 2013 #8
Silent3 Sep 2013 #12
Skittles Sep 2013 #46
seaglass Sep 2013 #13
ananda Sep 2013 #15
Atman Sep 2013 #51
Warren Stupidity Sep 2013 #3
Boom Sound 416 Sep 2013 #4
onehandle Sep 2013 #5
BelgianMadCow Sep 2013 #6
madokie Sep 2013 #10
BelgianMadCow Sep 2013 #14
madokie Sep 2013 #17
BelgianMadCow Sep 2013 #20
sir pball Sep 2013 #26
BelgianMadCow Sep 2013 #25
egduj Sep 2013 #18
BelgianMadCow Sep 2013 #21
sir pball Sep 2013 #27
BelgianMadCow Sep 2013 #28
sir pball Sep 2013 #29
Greybnk48 Sep 2013 #22
krispos42 Sep 2013 #54
madokie Sep 2013 #60
egduj Sep 2013 #11
Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2013 #30
Atman Sep 2013 #52
MattBaggins Sep 2013 #62
Atman Sep 2013 #64
Atman Sep 2013 #65
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #9
safeinOhio Sep 2013 #16
madokie Sep 2013 #19
Greybnk48 Sep 2013 #23
sinkingfeeling Sep 2013 #24
Betty88 Sep 2013 #35
Atman Sep 2013 #53
Diclotican Sep 2013 #31
Scuba Sep 2013 #33
Diclotican Sep 2013 #38
Xyzse Sep 2013 #34
Betty88 Sep 2013 #36
Xyzse Sep 2013 #40
freebrew Sep 2013 #37
Xyzse Sep 2013 #41
Betty88 Sep 2013 #43
Xyzse Sep 2013 #45
Atman Sep 2013 #57
Xyzse Sep 2013 #61
Atman Sep 2013 #55
Xyzse Sep 2013 #63
SheilaT Sep 2013 #39
ryan_cats Sep 2013 #42
hunter Sep 2013 #44
HolyMoley Sep 2013 #47
Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #48
X_Digger Sep 2013 #49
sakabatou Sep 2013 #50
darkangel218 Sep 2013 #56
MADem Sep 2013 #58
xfundy Sep 2013 #59

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:47 AM

1. Ugh

The whole "TV is crap" thing really gets old after awhile.

Sometimes people just want entertainment. And there's a lot of quality entertainment out there. But if you just view the world of TV as bad news channels, reality shows and commercials, you'll miss out. Which is fine. You really don't hear people deriding those that don't watch TV, even if they do often come across as holier than though.

So don't play it the other way as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:50 AM

2. Sturgeon's Law especially applies to TV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:01 AM

32. Thanks for the morning chuckle.



I completely agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:38 AM

7. Thank you!!!!!!'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:39 AM

8. This. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:47 AM

12. Yeah, but where's the smug superiority in admitting that there's good TV?

Not to mention the important street cred of letting everyone know you're NOT going to let yourself get MANIPULATED because TV is nothing but a PLOT to distract you and DUMB YOU DOWN!11!1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:06 AM

46. I'm sure there is some good TV

is it worth the amount of money needed to get it? f*** no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #1)


Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:56 AM

15. Agwee

TV is gweat! I can watch PBS, stream Netflix and Acorn TV, and thus
I get to watch some great shows like Murdoch Mysteries, Foyle's War,
and The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (series), among other great shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:22 AM

51. Most excellent cartoonist Clay Bennett should be credited.

Pisses me off his signature has been removed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:58 AM

3. Except of course that there is more high quality television programming now than ever before.

 

A short list in no particular order.

Breaking bad
Dexter
Game of thrones
Ray Donovan
Boardwalk empire
Mad men
Foyles War
Downton Abbey
The killing
Portlandia
The newsroom
Treme
Orange is the new black
Arrested Development
....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:15 AM

4. Actually they have different aspect ratios

 

So their's that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:35 AM

5. And then there's 4K...



Minus the watermark, natch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:35 AM

6. and anyone sitting a normal distance from a normal size screen will NOT see the diff 1080/720p

Last edited Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:38 AM - Edit history (2)

HD is a way of selling more cheap electronics we don't need.

So those of you that like to game sitting one meter away from your 50 inch screen - yes, you'll notice HD. Everybody else: waste of money.

On edit: the point I wanted to make, is that paying for Full HD (1080p) is likely not worth it compared to buying a HD-ready (720p) TV.
I didn't mean to say 720p isn't better than the old TVs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:44 AM

10. Bull

big difference between a regular tv and a high def tv when watching a football game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #10)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:56 AM

14. you're sitting how far from which size screen?

it's not bull. It's science. There are limits to the resolution of our eyes.

For example, see this link (I delved into this a while ago, but can't find the best link atm) http://www.avforums.com/forums/plasma-tvs/672607-50-full-hd-vs-hd-ready-do-you-see-difference-10ft.html
66% of AV fanatics say they can't see the difference at 10 ft on a 50 inch screen. Internet poll of course, but also check the debate.

I'm not saying you can't see the difference on your screen. Just that at the distances that are advised (like, sit on sofa & watch TV at 3,5 metres), you don't see it, unless you go to gigantic screens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:09 AM

17. 12-14 feet from a 47 inch depending on where I sit

big difference between it and the regular tv in my computer room where I sit about 10 ft from a 32 inch

Plasma is not high definition if you ask me. Lcd now on the other hand is quiet different. Led is even more so.
Plasma is only a tad better than our old projection tv, long way from an Lcd or Led

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:16 AM

20. I should find the formula

here's a good part that explains what I'm on about:

To fully understand the implications of high resolution and high definition vs size, we must first understand something called acuity of vision. The Dictionary of Visual Science defines visual acuity as "acuteness or clearness of vision, especially form vision, which is dependent on the sharpness of the retinal focus within the eye, the sensitivity of the nervous elements, and the interpretative faculty of the brain." What this means is our eyes have a resolution limit. Increased image resolution is simply an technical exercise, beyond our ability to see it, and does not play any part in improving the viewing experience. Our visual acuity is unambiguous and relatively simple to measure.

The most common vision measuring tool is called the Snellen chart. An optometrist will ask you to read from a chart standing 20 feet (or six meters) away from it. The smallets number you can read defines your acuity of vision. This is expressed as a fraction. A normal vision is supposed to be 20/20. 20/10 means that a subject can read, from a distance of twenty feet, the line that a subject with "normal" vision could only read from ten feet. 20/10 vision is therefore twice as good as 20/20. In comparison, 20/40 is twice as bad.

Coming to video display, the human eye‚€™s resolution (acuity) is directly proportional to the size of the elements of the image and inversely proportional to distance from the elements. This relationship is best expressed in degrees.

In simple terms, we can see things that exist within a known angle with the apex being our nose. If you stare straight ahead, you will have a stereoscopic field of view of about 100 degrees, or about 50 degress to the left and right of your nose. We also have a lower limit to our field of view. Scientists express this as an angle as well, but it is less than a degree, and is expressed differently, For angles smaller than 1 degree we use arcminutes and arcseconds as a measurement. An arcminute is equal to one sixtieth (1/60) of one degree. "Normal" visual acuity is considered to be the ability to recognize an optotype (letter on the Snellen chart) when it goes down to 5 minutes of arc. Taking this to displays, the average person cannot see more than two pixels separated by less than 2 arcminutes of angle.

A 42 inch screen is the minimum size, where the pixels are seperated by 2 arcminutes of angle, if you sit some 6 feet away from it. In smaller screens, the pixels are closer. Though they can also display images with 1080p resolutions, the eye will not be able to appreciate that as compared to say 720p even if you sit very near the screen. Both will look the same.

Last comment in this thread: http://www.hifivision.com/television/1604-whats-difference-between-hd-ready-full-hd.html

By the way, plasma is just a technology, and you can have a HD ready or full HD plasma.

Anyway, to each his own, and if you're happy, you're happy. I just question the everlasting tech drive for "more" when we don't use or need it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #20)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:33 AM

26. It's twice the diagonal screen size

E.g. for a 50" screen, the "ideal" viewing distance is 100". If you sit 14 feet from the telly (first, you make enough to afford such a huge house, you can afford a bigger screen), your ideal screen size is 84 inches. Or a projector..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:30 AM

25. Using a site that wants to sell HDTVs, but which uses the formula, you need 720p

The HDTV resolution that best matches your goal is 720p.

The optimum viewing distance for you is 9 feet.

The maximum recommend viewing distance is 18.2 feet.


So I hope you didn't shell out for full HD.

http://www.hdhes.com/tv/hdtvviewdistance.aspx
I chose "I just want a HDTV", 13 feet and 47 inch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:11 AM

18. That link you're referring to is comparing 720p with 1080p.

Which are two different forms of HD, but HD nonetheless. But at 10' away on a 50' screen, it is debatable if you can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. But both are far, far superior to normal TV - at 3, 10 or 50 feet away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to egduj (Reply #18)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:20 AM

21. Yes, and that is the choice consumers are making now. Full HD or HD-ready

what I contend is that unless you kick on it, Full HD is not worth the steep premium.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:37 AM

27. "HD-Ready" is not 720.

It was (don't know if there are still any products on the market) a term that basically meant the physical display panel was capable of displaying 1280x720 or 1920x1080 pixels, but there was no tuner or image processing hardware onboard to generate that picture "inside" the TV - it had to be connected to an external box that was feeding it the final, ready-to-display signal. Long story short, it just mean "computer monitor" instead of "TV".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_ready

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #27)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:40 AM

28. thanks for the clarification

over here, 720p and Hd-ready were used interchangeably when I was shopping a new big tv for my dad, a couple years ago. Adapted my "OP" in this thread to reflect what I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #28)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:45 AM

29. I think "HD Ready" is a 720 panel and "HD Ready 1080" is a 1080 panel

And neither of them are worth squat as more than big expensive monitors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #10)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:20 AM

22. I can now see if I'm on HD or regular right away,

football games or other. It might be that once you see the difference in clarity you can't "unsee" it. But I agree with madokie. Big difference in picture quality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:43 AM

54. It's a big difference...

...but if you get used to it, just try switching back to standard-def.

My parents have their TV hooked up to the cable box with both an HDMI cable and a regular coaxial one; I think it was so Dad could still tape things on the VCR and play back videocassettes.

Anyway, simply changing the input from HDMI to coax lets you see the difference immediately, and on the same program.

There's definitely a jump in clarity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #54)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 01:51 AM

60. Just going from one room to the other I can see that

let alone the fact that many channels are broadcast in both regular and hd and I can see the difference switching from one to the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:46 AM

11. Sorry, but that is simply not true,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:49 AM

30. 720P is not HD-Ready...

 

It's still HD. There's a HUGE difference between 1280x720 and 1920x1080.

HD-Ready refers to a TV that has HD capabilities, but needs an external HD source to display these signals (ie, does NOT have an HD tuner built in).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_ready



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #6)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:32 AM

52. Total nonsense.

I have a "small" hi def tv, a mere 46". Considered almost a portable by today's standards. It is 1080p. I also have a tiny 26" 720p tv in the bedroom. The difference is, well...big.

Now, technically there is no difference between a 1080i and a 720p. The "I" stands for "interpolated." IOW, it fakes it, taking a 720p signal and duplicating every other line of resolution. But a true 1080p ("progressive" scan) tv has twice the detail, twice the resolution, of a 720p tv. Watch a BluRay movie on both (provided the disc is also true hi-def) and you'll see the glaring difference. Maybe your eyes are just fuzzy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:25 AM

62. No Belgian is right

It will depend on distance and viewing angle. At proper distances normal humans can not discern the difference. Perhaps you are just convincing yourself that the second TV is so much better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattBaggins (Reply #62)

Thu Sep 19, 2013, 07:25 AM

64. No, 1080p has twice the resolution of 720p.

There is no discussion. You CAN see the difference. There are twice as many scan lines (almost) and twice the resolution. There is no difference between a 1080i and a 720p. The 1080i (I standing for "interpolated" just duplicates every other scan line, so it is just displaying a 720p picture larger. But a true 1080p display actually does have twice the resolution. Now, that doesn't mean your cable company is actually sending you 1080p content. Most likely they are not, it takes up too much bandwidth. Even the so-called hi-def channels are just 1080i, not true progressive scan. But when you watch a 1080p Blu Ray movie, especially if it displayed at a high refresh rate (120hz), the difference is very noticeable. The reason smaller TVs tend to be 720p is because they don't need the extra resolution. They're often used as bedroom TVs, as mine is, viewed fairly close. I also have a 22" Samsung tv which I use as a computer monitor for my Mac. It is a true 1080p. We used to use it for a TV. The picture quality compared to the 720p 26" TV is dramatically better. Just to be clear, the "big" TV is an LED 120hz Samsung, so that helps account for the better picture quality. But to say the eye can't tell the difference is just ridiculous. Maybe your eyes can't, but mine sure do!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattBaggins (Reply #62)

Thu Sep 19, 2013, 07:39 AM

65. BTW, Belgian's reference speaks of a specific screen size.

42".

Many home theater tv's are considerably larger, which is why I pointed out the smaller 26" TV with only 729p resolution. It is an older LCD, not an LED. It is hooked up to standard cable (not HD, and a Blu Ray player. The standard cable looks okay, but no comparison to the HD on the larger LED with hi-def cable. The 22" Samsung used as a computer monitor (I'm a graphic designer) is razor sharp, blows away the 720p TV. Point being, again, it's just nonsense to claim there is no difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:41 AM

9. I like

News
Sports
Mad Men
Sopranos reruns

Some HBO documentaries

That's about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:57 AM

16. I gotta laugh.

Grew up with grainy black and white TV. Poor reception, had to wiggle the rabbit ears and tin foil, just to get anything. As an old fart with poor vision, I can't tell the difference between the 2 and would never pay more for HD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #16)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:13 AM

19. I grew up in the same time frame

and I can't see too well anymore either but I can damn sure tell the difference between an old cathode ray tv and an lcd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #16)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:24 AM

23. Same age group here, rabbit ears, 3-4 channels tops,

coat hangers and foil. I fricking LOVE HD! Crystal clear and beautiful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:30 AM

24. I rarely ever use my HD channels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #24)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:16 AM

35. I love my HD channels, and sound is just as important for me to enjoy a show.

It would be nice if the cable company could program the box to choose between regular feed and the HD feed so when you pick channel 2, lets say, it goes to 702 automatically (that's where my HD is)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:42 AM

53. I never use the standard channels.

Not only is the picture smaller, clipped from side to side, the sound is inferior. I live the old "get off my lawn!" crowd, somehow taking pride in the old crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:57 AM

31. Scuba

Scuba

It all depend of what you are looking at - when you are looking at the TV - That be normal TV, or High Def TV... After all - you can always shut off the TV, and read a good book instead... Or you can use - if you have one of the more fancy TVs out there you tube to have tonnes of educational programs to look at (BBC have a lot of educational programs spanning from spiders to the universe).... So you are in no need of looking at garbage when you have the TV on really...

Diclotican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Diclotican (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:03 AM

33. I love my LCD HD TV for its crystal clear pic. The quality of content is another issue....

 

Then there's this ...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #33)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:33 AM

38. Scuba

Scuba

I agree - my TV experience was changed forever when I got my LG LCD HD TV in the house.. I even have a home cinema system with Blu ray - who really made the experience of looking at movies a whole different than before... Amazing what technology can do if used properly I was after a Phillip LCD HD TV at first, but I got sold on the LG one - and have not regretting getting that.. Before that I had a old style TV, Not exactly HD at all - but it did its job - but wear and tear over many years was starting to getting to it in the end... Finally I gave it to a nabour who had no TV at all - mostly because the TV was in the way - but also because he was in need of a TV better than he had.. And he was happy about it - and I was happy getting rid of it..

But nothing beats a great book, where you have to imagine the scenes - and maybe also get new knowledge about the world around you - I'm not sure how many books I really have - but I think I have, for the moment over 1000 books in the house (who I own myself) And I doubt that will be less over the next 40-50 years either... Great books is worth their weight in gold if you ask me...

Diclotican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:14 AM

34. I seem to remember normal channels being much better than it is now.

I feel like they have degraded the signal so that the difference is far more apparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xyzse (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:26 AM

36. Want to see some nasty video?

take an old VHS tape of anything you recorded years ago and play that on a nice new 1080 TV it will look like blobs moving around. The signal is not degraded its just that the old images were recorded in 480 (could be wrong but I think it was about that) and now you are watching them on 1080.

Think of this you cant watch color on an old black and white, you can see it but it will be BW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Betty88 (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 11:02 AM

40. That's true.

I guess backward compatibility is an issue.

Black and White TVs did not have the capability of displaying anything more than black and white. That is the opposite of being able to see an older signal properly on newer technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xyzse (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:31 AM

37. Noticed that too.

It really was noticeable when the cable and satellite companies started offering HD for more $$.
Funny though, the commercials ALL seem to be in HD as well as Full-volume.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freebrew (Reply #37)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 11:03 AM

41. Yeah... I do notice that too

They make the picture of SD smaller as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xyzse (Reply #41)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 11:21 AM

43. I think this is a matter of keeping the orignal aspect ratios

Check out your remote, see if it has something that says "wide" or "Format" You can play with this it will reformat the image to fill the screen, or letterbox it, you may have several choices depending on the TV. I don't like to use this button because it usually ends up distorting the image in one way or another.

Also this can be a sign that the show has not made the change over to HD format. Or if its an old show they will play it in its original format then go to commercial which is probably formatted for new TV's so it fills the screen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Betty88 (Reply #43)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 11:39 AM

45. Nah, it's the difference between an HD channel and a non-HD channel

At least that is what I have seen thus far.

Although as per mentioned by another, as soon as it goes to commercials it goes in to a much better quality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xyzse (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:51 AM

57. You're just wrong.

The difference in picture size is no big conspiracy. They are just different picture sizes. Standard def programs have a different aspect ratio, 4:6, as opposed to wide-screen hi def. There is no tv "death panel" out there conspiring to make your tv picture smaller so you'll go buy a bigger tv. This thread has some of the craziest shit I've ever heard! There should be a TV Dungeon on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #57)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:08 AM

61. You may be right

However, I do have a decent TV that is just a little over a year old that recieves both HD and SD channels.
The aspect ratio is different, but still, it may be a trick of memory but I remember SD channels being better than they are in regards to quality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xyzse (Reply #34)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:44 AM

55. That's crazy talk.

Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #55)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:32 AM

63. And yes

It is an impression.
I can be honestly mistaken, but that is how I see and remember it.

I unfortunately can not offer proof because I am going by hazy memory.
Though yes, actual HD from BluRay has mindblowing sharpness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:43 AM

39. I have been without a TV for five years now.

 

And when I last had one, it was a regular, not HD TV.

So whenever I am somewhere that has HD I really notice the difference.

Whether or not what's on is crap is a totally separate issue.

What I like best about no TV is being almost totally cut off from commercial advertizing. Especially political advertizing during an election year.

Oh, and I can watch whatever shows I want via the internets. Many are simply available at the source network, others on Netflix. As for breaking news, such as yesterday's little incident at the Washington Navy Yard, local stations go to live streaming.

I do listen to a fair amount of public radio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 11:06 AM

42. OK, that is pretty funny there.

OK, that is pretty funny there; clever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Sep 17, 2013, 11:33 AM

44. We have a high definition television, but no satellite or cable.

We use it to watch DVDs mostly.

It plays old videocassettes amazingly well too. We have an old 4-head VCR that was top-of-the line when it was made. I bought it for ten dollars at a thrift store. Between the VCR and whatever modern signal processing magic is going on within the television, movies look about as good as they are going to get on that medium. This means we can buy tapes or DVDs at thrift stores. My wife sometimes likes to buy DVDs of movies she especially enjoyed, and we do a lot of trading within our family

I don't watch broadcast television any more even though we can recieve most of the major networks and sub-networks. I've lost any tolerance I once had for advertising.

Television has got to be just about the worst way possible to keep up with the "news." The presentation of television news is very manipulative, the perspective is controlled, and the coverage is very, very shallow. It really can't be any other way, it's the nature of the medium. A story I can read in a few minutes in a newspaper or on the internet would take up too much time to cover fully on television.

My disillusionment with television news began long ago. During Reagan's second term he was visiting our city and I ended up with an invitation to the event. What I saw in person was a confused old man being led about by his handlers. There was a nervous unspoken awareness of this among those in attendance, and yes, even a gentleness. Nobody was going to nail the old dude with a hard hitting question. Reagan did perk up a few times, remembered his lines, and turned on his so-called "charm."

Guess what was on the television news that night...

Yep, Reagan looking strong and "presidential." I found that very alarming.

And it goes the other way too. Television news can make someone look weaker, or more threatening. They can make a dark skinned person darker, a light skinned person pallid and gray.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:14 AM

47. tag for later reading

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:15 AM

48. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Scuba.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:18 AM

49. I honestly can't tell the difference when I watch TV.

I'm an avid reader, and I can easily suspend my disbelief for a good story. Maybe the same phenomenon applies to TV.

I don't watch sports, so that might be part of it, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:18 AM

50. If only we had progressive TV.

We only have interlaced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:48 AM

56. Anyone elses eyes hurt when looking at the first pic?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 12:52 AM

58. I like TV. I don't have HD tv, but I have cable and get a load of channels.

Sure, some suck, but there's this thing they give you when you get cable that is called a remote. You pick it up and you manipulate the buttons on it and you can swap out the crap show for something better.

It works great! I can usually find something decent to watch--funny, educational, uplifting, clever...

Or even just stupid, if that's my mood. Sometimes, there's nothing wrong with vegging out and watching something with absolutely no redeeming social value. The world doesn't end if you're watching AIRPLANE for the tenth time, because one of the younger members of your family have never seen it, or you're on your third round of A Christmas Story on Dec 25th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Wed Sep 18, 2013, 01:27 AM

59. I was involved in the transition from broadcast to HTDV.

Stuff I saw then, displayed on state of the art monitors, was amazing. The switch was actually supposed to happen in 2002 (I think). But it was delayed several years, cuz I dunno why. Still, a lot of equipment sold today as "state of the art" is nowhere near it.

Importantly, though, you don't need cable to watch HDTV; your antenna can bring it in from broadcast channels, if you have a tv capable of processing those signals.

I cut the cable, cuz no money, and have a little digital antenna, too far away from the window to bring in much more than PBS, but that's ok, really, cuz most stuff on tv is dreck.

I love to follow some of the shows on cable, like Breaking Bad, and Bill Maher, but do so online. Though the synopses have few visuals, the blogs, writeups, etc. function as books used to do, and let me see the whole story as I read it after watching the 2-minute video.I may get some details wrong in my 'theater of the mind,' but I catch the gist.

Do I prefer it? No, of course not, but that's reality today, and the best I can do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread