High Definition Television

starbelgrade

I was in a mate's house over the Christmas & he was boasting about his new HD Sky box and how brilliant everything looked on it. I was staying the night so ended up watching quite a bit of HD TV... to me, it looked bloody awful - admittedly, the football looked good, but it made everything look hyper-real and over digitalised. It even made The Bourne Identity look like a dodgy made for TV movie.

But the worst was an ad I saw for new HD versions of classic 60s movies... here, you had glorious films that were painstakingly shot on real film absolutely destroyed by some idiot who thought that digitising some of the most beautiful photography in cinematic history was a good idea.

I nearly put my foot through the high definition screen and by the time I went to bed, my head hurt & my heart had sunk... all I wanted to know was why... why? Why?!?!!!

So, what's your opinion on HD, or have you even seen any HD TV yet? I have and the future looks grim.

Chuck Stone

I think it's pretty cool myself.

It's fantastic for nature programs.

Creamy Goodness

Rocky_Dennis

I'm still watching bog 1, 2, 3 and 4, never mind a HD TV. My television works fine and dandy so I wouldn't waste money on a TV that will probably be half the price next year.

El Weirdo

It's great. Especially if you have a big screen - you can really see the difference.

starbelgrade

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think it's pretty cool myself.

It's fantastic for nature programs.

I'd say it'd work well for the likes of those, but most of the stuff I saw looked worse than standard definition. I suppose it'd be cool enough if you could switch from one to the other with the remote.

The King of Moo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think it's pretty cool myself.

It's fantastic for nature programs.

This for me is the best thing about it.

Watching films I've seen before in standard definition just feels weird though. Everyone seems to move too fast in some indefinable way, and it looks too clean.
It's not too bad with new films though.

The worst thing about HD for me though, is how used to it you get. Now it looks normal to me, and standard definition tv just looks like a muddy mess.
Though a bigger TV would help.

senorwipesalot

I added it to my sky package and cancelled it the next day.
The difference in picture quality didnt justify another 15 euro pm.
Cant see this 3D load of cobblers taking off either.
Although the PS3 is excellent on hdtv.

bertie4evr

starbelgrade wrote: »

But the worst was an ad I saw for new HD versions of classic 60s movies... here, you had glorious films that were painstakingly shot on real film absolutely destroyed by some idiot who thought that digitising some of the most beautiful photography in cinematic history was a good idea.

Do you watch all your films with a projector?

Minstrel27

starbelgrade wrote: »

But the worst was an ad I saw for new HD versions of classic 60s movies... here, you had glorious films that were painstakingly shot on real film absolutely destroyed by some idiot who thought that digitising some of the most beautiful photography in cinematic history was a good idea.

What's wrong with older films being shown in 1080p? I have Ben Hur on Blu-Ray and it looks and sounds phenomenol.

What classic 60's movies did you watch?

Ghandee

Boobs like great on it though.

Tbf

FatherLen

i love hd.


there i said it.

amacachi

I heard they've got the internet on computers now.

crosstownk

HDTV is excellent. Sky HD, Apple TV, PS3 - all in HD. HD makes Battlefield 3 so much better!

My name is URL

It adds a whole new level to porn. You can see the sperm swimming atop the girl's face after he blows his load.

The David Attenborough commentary on the Blu-Ray brings it all to life.

krudler

starbelgrade wrote: »

I was in a mate's house over the Christmas & he was boasting about his new HD Sky box and how brilliant everything looked on it. I was staying the night so ended up watching quite a bit of HD TV... to me, it looked bloody awful - admittedly, the football looked good, but it made everything look hyper-real and over digitalised. It even made The Bourne Identity look like a dodgy made for TV movie.

But the worst was an ad I saw for new HD versions of classic 60s movies... here, you had glorious films that were painstakingly shot on real film absolutely destroyed by some idiot who thought that digitising some of the most beautiful photography in cinematic history was a good idea.

I nearly put my foot through the high definition screen and by the time I went to bed, my head hurt & my heart had sunk... all I wanted to know was why... why? Why?!?!!!

So, what's your opinion on HD, or have you even seen any HD TV yet? I have and the future looks grim.

movies shot in the 60's were shot on much, much higher resolution than what a 1080p tv can show you, a 70mm film like Lawrence of Arabia would have a 3 or 4k resolution iirc as opposed to 1080p. older movies can look absolutely phenomenal in HD, The Searchers is one of the best looking blu rays you can get, same as Alien, puts modern movies to shame.

did your friend have it on factory settings? hate that, fake everything turned on, its like when you go into Harvey Normans and they have everything on default, the tv would sell itself if you optimised it.

the searchers screenshot (not even in 1080p): http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=231&position=4

TheZohanS

HDTV + WD TV Live + HD movie downloads....(arrrrr me mateys) look really good in HD, I downloaded a 50GB HD file of Avatar, it's amazing.

Ghandee

My name is URL wrote: »

It adds a whole new level to porn. You can see the sperm swimming atop the girl's face after he blows his load.

The David Attenborough commentary on the Blu-Ray brings it all to life.

Makes him sound real camp in this documentary though.

bertie4evr

starbelgrade wrote: »

Because they were shot on 35mm film, which cinematically is far more aesthetically pleasing than digital.

Surely you've watched DVD's of those films or seen them on TV.

starbelgrade

krudler wrote: »

movies shot in the 60's were shot on much, much higher resolution than what a 1080p tv can show you, a 70mm film like Lawrence of Arabia would have a 3 or 4k resolution iirc as opposed to 1080p. older movies can look absolutely phenomenal in HD, The Searchers is one of the best looking blu rays you can get, same as Alien, puts modern movies to shame.

did your friend have it on factory settings? hate that, fake everything turned on, its like when you go into Harvey Normans and they have everything on default, the tv would sell itself if you optimised it.

the searchers screenshot (not even in 1080p): http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=231&position=4

That screenshot looks amazing. The dipstick probably did have it on Harvey Norman settings.

krudler

I do prefer the look of actual film to digital myself, it has a depth that digital doesnt imo, which looks very flat, works well for some movies but I much prefer how older films look. something like Blade Runner will look amazing forever, because its so well shot, whereas the cgi laden digital movies being made now wont.

Sierra 117

I love HD.

krudler

starbelgrade wrote: »

That screenshot looks amazing. The dipstick probably did have it on Harvey Norman settings.

if he has any Pixar movies they usually come with a THX optimiser, its a series of audio and visual test cards to make sure the picture is just right, like adjusting the contrast so you cant see particular parts of an image etc, its worth running one to get everything the way it should be, and tweaking it for personal preference.
factory settings on tv are sh1te, and I cant stand those fake blur free image things, it makes every single frame look overdone and digital, thats probably why the Bourne movie looked crap a they have good transfers on blu-ray, movies are meant to have motion blur, when they mask it over it looks too artificial, loads of tvs have these fake blur removing effects, they look horrible though as your eye can tell straight away when something doesnt move right.

look at Blade Runner and Alien, they look staggeringly good for movies made in the late 70s and early 80s:

http://images.static-bluray.com/reviews/130_5_large.jpg

http://images2.static-bluray.com/reviews/130_4_large.jpg

http://images.static-bluray.com/reviews/3441_1_large.jpg

http://images4.static-bluray.com/reviews/3441_6_large.jpg

TeddyTedson

HDTV was only really introduced because with the introduction of wide screen "flat TVs", larger and larger screens began to hit the market, so a higher resolution was needed to keep the quality just as good as what we're used to on the old standard 14" screen.
Every station will eventually be broadcasting in 720p as a minimum so you'll get used to it.
3D though, what a gimmick. I don't think that will ever take off. Even though they're developing televisions that can display 3D without the need for glasses I just don't see them catching on.

krudler

TeddyTedson wrote: »

HDTV was only really introduced because with the introduction of wide screen "flat TVs", larger and larger screens began to hit the market, so a higher resolution was needed to keep the quality just as good as what we're used to on the old standard 14" screen.
Every station will eventually be broadcasting in 720p as a minimum so you'll get used to it.
3D though, what a gimmick. I don't think that will ever take off. Even though they're developing televisions that can display 3D without the need for glasses I just don't see them catching on.

3D has its place, Avatar looked incredible, but it needs to be shot in 3D, not altered post production like Clash of The Titans or most movies coming out as 3D rereleases. hell one of the best 3D movies was Jackass, as it was shot that way and used the format brilliantly, its a gimmick, but one that got a LOT of people going back to the cinema for Avatar, as it was the only way to see it like it was intended. the movie itself may be have been average at best, but it look fcuking jaw dropping.

IMAX though, thats something we need in this country, I'm going to London for The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX, and it'll be worth it.

starbelgrade

TeddyTedson wrote: »

3D though, what a gimmick. I don't think that will ever take off. Even though they're developing televisions that can display 3D without the need for glasses I just don't see them catching on.

Every 15 years or so, they wheel out some new crappy version of 3D & it inevitably never works beyond the gimmick factor. Personally, it gives me a headache.

we'llallhavetea_old

haven't even seen anything in hd
tis a sheltered life i lead begorra!

minidazzler

It takes getting used to.

Biggins

Have a large HD LED (Even sharper!) TV and I have to say I love it.

Watching films on it - especially ones involving nature is unreal.
Add to that, watching concerts or shows is fantastic. As mine has also got 5.1 surround sound, the experience is even better.
'Apocalypse Now' in HD and 5.1 sound is an experience to live through. Simply fantastic.
Same goes for the likes of Lord Of The Rings and Saving Private Ryan, just to name two more.

I have Sky but do not pay for their HD service - I feel its a rip-off.

I also have a computer attached to my large HD screen.
Playing games on that is just as excellent.

---

The quality of what you see as HD, relies on the make of the TV manufacturer's also.
I have seen poor HD on crappy makes of TV also.
The "HD Ready" one's are just a joke a lot of the time!

Also VERY important is the quality of your HDMI cabling!

cloud493

HD tv is brilliant. Its really got me into games, like console gaming, since the TV I used to play was so small I couldn't be bothered most of the time, and stuff looks so amazing. Its an entirely new experience.

RichieC

seen it and I'm like... yea... grand.

hardly blew my socks off.

o1s1n

HD can feck off - 4:3 scanline CRT in RGB for the win!

rednik

On a proper set up, sport, documentaries and films are superb. I had my projector calibrated several months ago and I watched and chatted away to the guy who did it. I couldn't believe how far the projector was off from the factory settings. Everything set up in shops is set up so falsely to attract punters but when you see it done right it is truly brilliant.

matchthis

Got a large 3d led Samsung recently and new I would like it, but was fairly blown away. I find the animated movies better in 3d. The dark night was like watching the movie for the first time. The make up on the joker, all that fine detail I missed the first time. Had to watch batman begins after it, even herself agreed and that is saying something.

Gaming in full hd is also a huge step up as I can make out targets that are far away. 3d gaming does take some getting used too

HD is brilliant if done properly. That is, if the TV is calibrated properly (no picture optimisations enabled, sharpness off, brightness and contrast set correctly) and the source material is using a decent enough bit rate for it (Sky usually do, the BBC do not). Blu-ray can look fantastic.

dubtom

Only got a HD tv at christmas. According to the sales man the only real HD is blueray,sky or whoever don't have the bandwidth to broadcast full HD, though I must admit to being impressed with the picture quality on a mates who has a HD service,although I did think the close up of faces had a strange effect on them,too sharp or something, I'm not sure what it was really,they looked too clear if that makes sense. It is something I consider paying for though,if only for nature programs etc.

Super-Rush

HD was the only way to watch Frozen Planet.

Saying that, you should try watching Corrie on ITV HD.

Seeing everyone of Deidre Barlow's wrinkles in stunning HD is truely a sight to behold.

namloc1980

Sport and documentaries are pretty spectacular in HD. Anyone I know who watched BBC's Frozen Planet in HD was simply blown away!

If I have to watch a match in standard definition it just looks like a big out of focus mess.

mickdw

I wouldnt pay for hd pack but its reasonably good. very noticeable when moving back to standard def. SD in annoying to watch after it.

krudler

o1s1n wrote: »

HD can feck off - 4:3 scanline CRT in RGB for the win!

retro gaming should be in no other form

dubtom

dubtom wrote: »

Only got a HD tv at christmas. According to the sales man the only real HD is blueray,sky or whoever don't have the bandwidth to broadcast full HD, though I must admit to being impressed with the picture quality on a mates who has a HD service,although I did think the close up of faces had a strange effect on them,too sharp or something, I'm not sure what it was really,they looked too clear if that makes sense. It is something I consider paying for though,if only for nature programs etc.

Mostly true, Blu-ray can use anything up to 40Mb/s for the video. Broadcast HD started out around half that, but the BBC are only using about 9-12Mb/s now. RTÉ Two HD is about the same. Sky still use higher rates than that as far as I know.

steve9859

Great for nature, animation, sport and games.

Crap for movies. I don't want my movies to look real - like a bunch of actors on a set. I want them to look like movies!

gizmo

Biggins wrote: »

Also VERY important is the quality of your HDMI cabling!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc

One of the many many articles on why can be found here.

(Unless you were kidding in which case I'd recommend adding a disclaimer so people don't go out and buy Monster cables or other such rubbish. )

Amber Lamps

I agree with the OP. I've had blu-ray for a couple of years and have loved it, the clarity is amazing.But over the christmas in different houses watching HD Tv I really didn't like it. As someone said everything seems to move fast in an indefinable way. Anyone I mentioned it to said they didn't know what I was on about. Whatever about nature programs and stuff it only seems to happen with tv shows and movies shown in HD. Tried to change the ratio a couple of times but they weren't my TV's and could have had a better shot at it given time, and anyway like I said no one else could see what I was on about and thought I was going mad.

InTheTrees

We got a HDtv about two years ago and dont watch low res tv anymore.

We get about fifty HD channels here in the US as opposed to about 200 non-HD.

Tea_Bag

Biggins wrote: »

Also VERY important is the quality of your HDMI cabling!

Biggins, this is the first time i think you've ever been completely wrong.

HDMI cables are all identical under ~10m long. i paid €1.50 for mine, and my friend paid €49.99.

we both get our 1010000111100 at the other end. if you need scientific proof ill link you to some articles when I'm not on my mobile.

Amber Lamps

Amber Lamps wrote: »

As someone said everything seems to move fast in an indefinable way. Anyone I mentioned it to said they didn't know what I was on about.

Could it be that they have 100Hz or higher TVs? I remember thinking this when seeing a Sony 100Hz TV in action.

Johro

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'd say it'd work well for the likes of those, but most of the stuff I saw looked worse than standard definition. I suppose it'd be cool enough if you could switch from one to the other with the remote.

Yeah I have the old standard definition telly with a twenty-something inch screen and it does me fine, in fact the picture is clearer and sharper than most LCD or LED tv's I've seen, and that includes HDTV. I've looked at different tv's a while ago when I considered buying a flatscreen, but when in the shop I noticed that with a lot of them, if you're not right in front of the tv and looking at it sideways on you'll see f#ck-all, it's like when you have your laptop screen at the wrong angle and it just looks vague and dark. I also found that especially on the bigger screens the pixels are exaggerated and it looks grainy to me, though I believe that's not as bad on the plasma screens. Overall though, you'd have to spend a fair bit (big plasma screen and HD box) to get the real benefit, and I don't consider it a massive improvement over what I have already.
The only thing that made me consider a flat screen (and if you were buying one you might as well buy HD) anyway was the fact that just about everything is shown in widescreen format these days and because of that subtitles and film credits and such tend to run off the screen sometimes, which does annoy the hell out of me. But for now, this old philips is grand.
Also, people get all over excited about their super duper HD 3D widescreen plasma whatever the f#ck setup, but we're still watching shite programs.
It's HD crap, but still crap.:D

byte

It's also worth noting that on some of the HD channels on Sky, not all programming is HD.

There is an option somewhere in Settings menu, where you can choose to Highlight all HD programmes, so that, when browsing the EPG, the HD progs are yellow, SD are white. Dave HD, BBC One HD, ITV1 HD are some that spring to mind with some non-HD programmes.

Voodoomelon

OP, you're mixing up high definition imagery with a badly set up TV.
HD refers to the resolution of the image, nothing more. Its typically the TVs settings that create the effect of which you speak.

For 1080p, things like Motion effects and refresh rate on the TV can create a fake "soap opera" or "camcorder" effect. It may be necessary to fiddle with your settings, literally for each HD piece you're watching, or have pre-set templates you can apply.

These effects are less noticeable with 720p and often retains the "film" like qualities of movies. Most people can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 anyways, that is on an average sized screen.

Biggins

Tea_Bag wrote: »

Biggins, this is the first time i think you've ever been completely wrong.

HDMI cables are all identical under ~10m long. i paid €1.50 for mine, and my friend paid €49.99.

we both get our 1010000111100 at the other end. if you need scientific proof ill link you to some articles when I'm not on my mobile.

I'll take your word of it.
All I can say is that I've seen HDTV's connected up to exact same HD disk players, laid out beside each other in a shop display. the monitors were also the same.
The only difference between the player and the HD TV's was the quality in HDMI cabling.
It was a set-up to demonstrate how important cabling was - and the difference was very clear.