Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Chorus NTL??
-
19-11-2008 12:54pm#1Are they ever going to provide the HD broadcasts. I was on with sales today and they knew nothing about it.
I have a HD telly but the picture quality from the digital cable is poor with a shadow that moves up the screen. It is not there with a DVD so its the signal or could it be the scart lead quality
0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I think we are 100% agreed on SCART cables Zilog.
BUT:
It's proven true for over 80% of eye sight and typical rooms. HD was invented for large screens. 37" 16:9 is not a large screen. Ask any American.
On a 32" 768line TV at normal viewing distance any difference is absolutely marginal. Up scalling SD DVD on a 42" compared with plain SD DVD on 42" gives more visual difference.
Read up on the rational of why HD was developed. It wasn't for people with sharp eyes in their twenties in a bed sit sitting 1m away from the TV.
For some people (maybe < 15%) there might be some value to a 32" 768 line TV.
I'm old enough to remember 405 line TV. There is little difference on a 14" TV at normal viewing distance. However on 21" its noticable.
On a 37" TV in a small room you will notice 480 line (NTSC) compared to 576 lines (PAL), but much further increase is beyond the visual acuity of most people. You don't keep getting a sharper and sharper picture as you increase resolution for same size screen and distance.
Secondly all current BDs and HD broadcasts here are 1080 line. Some 720 (most cheaper HD Ready are 768) or 786 sets do 1080i to 768p conversion for display by simply regarding the image as 1920 x 540 progressive and resampling to the 1366 x 768.
SD is resampled to 1366 x768 from 544, 704 or 720 x 576. This is poorer than resampling to 1080 lines, ( 1152 lines on a 1920 x1200 monitor).
*************
However apart from possibly marginal value of 768 line 37" TV for actual HD TV, it's excellent for PC, XBox, PS3 gaming
Also unless you have a lot of HD Movies (BD aka BluRay) it the main content. 0 -
-
Any American would also have a house about twice the size as ours. Before widescreen TVs became popular here, I remember very few people having anything bigger than a 21". I wouldn't think any tests done in the US would be too relevant here (if that's what you are refering to).It's proven true for over 80% of eye sight and typical rooms. HD was invented for large screens. 37" 16:9 is not a large screen. Ask any American.
As the owner of such a TV I have to disagree, at least up to about 3 metres (and there's not really anywhere to sit further away than that in my house). Then again it is a very subjective thing. I've worked in IT desktop support, where some people were more than happy with their 17" CRT monitors at 800x600, at 60Hz, completely out of focus, and other things that would drive me insane.On a 32" 768line TV at normal viewing distance any difference is absolutely marginal.
Not sure what you mean there by "plain SD" on a 42". Unless it's an old 480 line plasma or a rear projection CRT, the TV would still have to interpolate it, but using analogue RGB SCART instead of HDMI means you would be adding needless conversion and probably some amount of loss in quality. Though the TV's built-in scaler is probably crap compared to the likes of a PS3. Maybe that is what you mean?Up scalling SD DVD on a 42" compared with plain SD DVD on 42" gives more visual difference.
I understand that, but I think many people would also see a difference between 576i and 720p or 1080i/p downscaled to 768p in the same circumstances. Maybe not as many people, but still.On a 37" TV in a small room you will notice 480 line (NTSC) compared to 576 lines (PAL), but much further increase is beyond the visual acuity of most people. You don't keep getting a sharper and sharper picture as you increase resolution for same size screen and distance.
I'm aware of this too, and I agree 540p is certainly not HD! Computer LCD monitors seem to be particularly bad at handling interlaced video - my friend uses one (1680x1050 22" I think) for his PS3 - 1080i looks like 540p but 1080p is fine (though there's some noticeable horizontal banding, don't know why they make these 1050 instead of 1080Some 720 (most cheaper HD Ready are 768) or 786 sets do 1080i to 768p conversion for display by simply regarding the image as 1920 x 540 progressive and resampling to the 1366 x 768.).
I must admit I've only seen a couple of films in HD, and everything else has been from a PC or PS3. I guess the difference is more noticeable in those circumstances (reading small text, etc.). Also, there is the benefit from oversampling when viewing 1080p on a 768 line set - looks much clearer than 720p from my experience. You'd have to wait for 4K HD video to get any oversampling on a 1080p TVHowever apart from possibly marginal value of 768 line 37" TV for actual HD TV, it's excellent for PC, XBox, PS3 gaming Also unless you have a lot of HD Movies (BD aka BluRay) it the main content.
0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement