Advantages of HD plasma and STB

[Ext User(Mike)]

I have plasma with SD 800 x 400 resolution. If I sit back about 3-4 metres
away, the picture is smooth, the pixels blend and are not visible and I use
SD STB, it seems that most of the digital transmissions are in SD anyhow,
and that is what Foxtel/Optus is transmitted in.

So what are the real advantages of buying a high definition plasma or LCD.
Apart from the fact that you can get closer to the screen before the pixels
become apparent, do they actually give a better picture if viewed from about
4 metres compared with SD TV

Same for HD STB, is the extra expense worth it, are the so called HD
transmissions actually better to watch using HD TV and STB or is it really
much the same as SD TV and STB. I see lots of technical figures being
quoted about the differences, but for the average punter who just sits down
and watches, are they going to really see much in it to justify laying out
the extra money to go HD.

The reason I ask is that I do not see much difference in quality between SD
and HD TV's on display, quite often the brand of the TV seems to be the
deciding factor, whether it is SD or HD TV. The other reason is according
to much of what I read on this newsgroup, there is hardly any true HD TV
being broadcast anyway.

So is it worth the extra money to go HD rather than SD, what are the real
visible benefits to justify the extra expense, apart from being able sitting
close to the TV. I do feel that a SD TV seems to give a really good
picture with DVD, better than HD TVs, I believe the native resolution of DVD
has something to do with that.

[Ext User(Ben Thomas)]

Mike wrote:
> I have plasma with SD 800 x 400 resolution. If I sit back about 3-4 metres
> away, the picture is smooth, the pixels blend and are not visible and I use
> SD STB, it seems that most of the digital transmissions are in SD anyhow,
> and that is what Foxtel/Optus is transmitted in.
>
> So what are the real advantages of buying a high definition plasma or LCD.
> Apart from the fact that you can get closer to the screen before the pixels
> become apparent, do they actually give a better picture if viewed from about
> 4 metres compared with SD TV
>
> Same for HD STB, is the extra expense worth it, are the so called HD
> transmissions actually better to watch using HD TV and STB or is it really
> much the same as SD TV and STB. I see lots of technical figures being
> quoted about the differences, but for the average punter who just sits down
> and watches, are they going to really see much in it to justify laying out
> the extra money to go HD.
>
> The reason I ask is that I do not see much difference in quality between SD
> and HD TV's on display, quite often the brand of the TV seems to be the
> deciding factor, whether it is SD or HD TV. The other reason is according
> to much of what I read on this newsgroup, there is hardly any true HD TV
> being broadcast anyway.
>
> So is it worth the extra money to go HD rather than SD, what are the real
> visible benefits to justify the extra expense, apart from being able sitting
> close to the TV. I do feel that a SD TV seems to give a really good
> picture with DVD, better than HD TVs, I believe the native resolution of DVD
> has something to do with that.
>
>
>

It's rare to see TVs set up correctly in stores, let alone an SD and HD
set from the same manufacturer side-by-side so you can actually see if
there's a noticable difference.

You can probably see that if you go to a more high-end hi-fi shop, but
don't bother trying to compare sets in somewhere like Hardly Normal.

--
Ben Thomas, Melbourne, Australia

"Red Bull tastes like canned carbonated concentrated evil."

[Ext User(Moriarty)]

Mike wrote:

<snip>

> So is it worth the extra money to go HD rather than SD, what are the real
> visible benefits to justify the extra expense, apart from being able sitting
> close to the TV. I do feel that a SD TV seems to give a really good
> picture with DVD, better than HD TVs, I believe the native resolution of DVD
> has something to do with that.

When I went digital three years ago, the only thing that disappointed
me was HD when compared to SD. The visual improvement it gave to me,
using a Toshiba HD S23a STB (then the best around), was negligible. In
one case ABC-HD was often inferior to ABC-SD.

For the rest, yes HD was often better than SD, but only for talking
head shows. Rove, News, current affairs etc. And who really cares
about the quality of those?

Sound was another matter of course. When they broadcast 5.1 sound on
the HD channels, it was waaaay better than the 2.0 available on SD.
However this happened so rarely it didn't make much difference. I
remember when Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was being broadcast in 5.1,
it was stunning and I found myself flicking back and forth between SD
and HD to enjoy the difference. But as I said it rarely happened.

I've since traded in the HD STB for a SD Topfield PVR and have no
regrets.

-Moriarty

[Ext User(Al Foyle)]

Ben Thomas wrote:

> It's rare to see TVs set up correctly in stores, let alone an SD and HD
> set from the same manufacturer side-by-side so you can actually see if
> there's a noticable difference.

In the local Kmart the other day. They had rearranged their video/audio
section with one wall full of plasma or LCD screens.

The pictures that they were displaying were terrible. It really was an
indictment on the cockhead who either manages the store or that
particular section.

I should be a tad more charitable, though, given that it's a religious
holiday period for some. Perhaps they'd just set it up and had yet to
get the TV antenna guys in to hook them up properly.

But then they've always had shit reception for their TV displays...

> You can probably see that if you go to a more high-end hi-fi shop, but
> don't bother trying to compare sets in somewhere like Hardly Normal.

Actually, our local HN doesn't do a bad job of it. Sure, if they're
trying to flog $6,000 TVs, then they'd have to spend the dough to
install a decent antenna network so that the products can entice us
plebs to part with such obscene amounts of money for something that most
of us would only use a few hours a night.