idun Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 We haven't got HD. When we update our system we will have HD, but frankly that is the least of things I want from the update.We have a really good clear picture and good sound on what used to be considered a 'normal' sized screen, we have a Sony tv.I have friends with huge screens and everything, they can record satellite, stop/start ...... just everything, but I haven't stood back in amazement at their tv with a perfect picture, being picture perfect. And I know these friends, they will use HD if it is available.So what is HD about. Maybe I need to have young eyes to appreciate the difference and there is little chance of getting them![blink] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nectarine Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I can't give the technical explanation but we have an HD TV and there are some channels like BBC1 which are on channel 101 but are HD-quality on channel 110 (I think, or somewhere around there). changing from ordinary to HD with the remote definitely shows a sharper and crisper image. We have a big TV, really I think it's better for the much larger tellies of 55 inches plus. On a smaller one you really wouldn't see the difference. But the difference is there ... really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 55" or bigger[:-))] I shall ask no more, as I know I shall never have a tv that big.[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonzjob Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 You have to have 55" or bigger if you want to watch it from the bottom of yer garden Idun [blink]HD = high definition, which means that you can see the sweat being thrown off tennis players as they rush around the court and see the sweat and dribble running off the bikers chins on le Tour in the Alps. Especially lifelike if you have a HUGE haunted fish tank [:-))]Ours is a 32", or 80 milithingies if you are that way inclined, and it sits in a nice cherry wood cabinet which hides it almost all of the day. That's way big enough to see for us and bigger than anything else we have ever had. HD? Yes it is much clearer, even on our over sized postage stamp size screen [8-|] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lehaut Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 If you have to ask, you don't need it!Do you have 5.1? To some people (me included) HD, an HD projector and surround sound make the watching of movies complete, the sound is just as important as the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted July 25, 2015 Author Share Posted July 25, 2015 Our biggest tv is 32" and quite big enough for me. I don't need to see the sweat, or anything else that close up. And I rarely watch films, in fact the last time I went to the cinema was to watch Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. And in general the sort of film I watch doesn't need such close ups. In fact there are few films that I fancy watching, think that the last one on tv was The Guard, and that was ages ago. M. Idun quite likes action films on tv sometimes, but then he falls asleep half way through anyway, because he knows that they are a bit of nonsense. We watch ski sunday sometimes and a bit of rugby, but no other sports. In general, we don't watch things where people get physically overactive and sweaty!I had just wondered why HD, but apparently some people like to see things in precise detail, or just have the latest thing. Funny old world isn't it, one friend with a very big tv loves her 'pad' and watches lots of stuff on there. I haven't got a 'pad' yet, although realise that I should get one.........and like my PC with it's 18" screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonzjob Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 On a slightly more serious note, the nature type programmes are great in HD and not a drop of sweat in sight. I'm always fascinated when the pre HD stuff comes up on HD channels? It was the same when I only had a B&W fish tank. A mate of mine said that it was probably the last one in existence, but, I told him, I only ever watch the colour programmes on it! He confuses easily [6] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin963 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 How much of a difference one sees when comparing HD and SD depends on a lot of factors, including how far away you sit from the screen.For my own experience, from the very first day I saw a non cathode ray tube TV I was shocked and appalled by how badly they seemed to make existing transmissions look. All of them appeared to draw a very thin veil of net curtaining across the picture, and some of them seemed particularly bad in producing "chattering" backgrounds.I therefore stuck to CRTs for as long as I could, but once HD channels became available I was more than happy to change over as in some cases the picture quality can be breathtakingly good. But I am still shocked by the lamentable quality on some SD channels - France 3 is particularly awful, which is a great pity as they have some good programmes. In addition, apart from the size of the screen and how far you sit from it, some TVs seem to produce less awful SD pictures than others. Our two Samsungs are the best of the bunch, whereas I find our LG TV makes SD look bad whatever settings I try on it.Our neighbours in Devon have a (now quite elderly) 26 inch Sony TV, and from where they habitually watch it it is quite true that distinguishing HD from SD is difficult, partly because they aren't right up near it and partly because this particular Sony handles SD signals in an exemplary manner.The silly part is that a lot of the problems of poor SD quality are down to the broadcasters and the fact that they're trying to squeeze too many channels onto each multiplex (DTT/TNT) or transponder (DSat). And the worry from that is that once we've all gone HD (which we will (*)) the same old cramming too many channels into not enough space will foul the HD nest.(*) France swaps to HD only (technically speaking it's a move from MPEG 2 to MPEG 4, but HD will pretty much happen at the same time) in April 2016. On TNTsat the change is already available (from 1st July, if you have a TNTsat HD box) and the remaining SD channels that are on the new MPEG 4 carriers do look quite a bit better).This dimunition in HD quality has already happened at the BBC, where the original bit rates used on the HD channel have been halved in the last five years. Some relief has been had by using more sophisticated coders but there are many with better eyes than mine who bewail the drop in quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted July 25, 2015 Author Share Posted July 25, 2015 With our tv, I must say I am fine. When we get around to upgrading our stuff we will have HD, because we will, but whether I'll watch it, I have no idea. And for our first 6 years in France we had a B&W tv, it was fine. I still love, adore stuff in B&W, films but especially photos, which in general I find rather under rated by most. I suppose I am just rather a simple soul, with fairly simple tastes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 It has always been my experience that the size of a TV screen is in inverse proportion to the size of the room that houses it, I live in a small flat and have a 21" screen but I feel really sorry for you lot, you must live in some terribly small places [:D]The second rule is that when there is a small house with a larger than 40" TV screen there must be at least one pit bull terrier per TV in the dwelling.My TV's are HD ready which I found to my dissapointment meant that they didnt show HD transmissions in HD without a seperate decoder, nonetheless the picture quality is much better than I had before.Now that I have a Skybox I can Watch the HD channels and I cannot see the slightest difference from switching from the SD one to the Hd one.Maybe if I had a 55" screen but I dont want a pit bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonzjob Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 "Our two Samsungs are the best of the bunch, whereas I find our LG TV makes SD look bad whatever settings I try on it."Good grief Martin, do you have a haunted fish tank in the loo too? One in our house is almost one too many at times and the comparisons we have are probably years apart thank christ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vette Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 For those of you wanting technical info', here is a link to a TV viewing distance calculator; http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Article/How-Far-Should-I-Sit.phpI found this useful as I have a cinema room, lucky me!As for HD, it's definitely better on larger TV's. Surround sound is a must for watching action movies in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patf Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 We don't watch TV much, we have a 36 by 20 inch screen. We got HD at one time but for various reasons didn't think it was an improvement. Also I found the programme pages very difficult to read - pale blue on a grey background.I think there was a problem with getting a picture when they moved the satellite last year. Husband used to be a TV engineer so I leave it up to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin963 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 [quote user="Jonzjob"]"Our two Samsungs are the best of the bunch, whereas I find our LG TV makes SD look bad whatever settings I try on it."Good grief Martin, do you have a haunted fish tank in the loo too? [/quote]Deployed across two houses (one in France and one in Britain).I agree it did sound a bit OTT! (although I do have a TV in the office, which I see makes THREE Samsungs!). Do like to be able to watch French TV in more than one room in each house..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mint Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 [quote user="Chancer"]It has always been my experience that the size of a TV screen is in inverse proportion to the size of the room that houses it, I live in a small flat and have a 21" screen but I feel really sorry for you lot, you must live in some terribly small places [:D]The second rule is that when there is a small house with a larger than 40" TV screen there must be at least one pit bull terrier per TV in the dwelling.My TV's are HD ready which I found to my dissapointment meant that they didnt show HD transmissions in HD without a seperate decoder, nonetheless the picture quality is much better than I had before.Now that I have a Skybox I can Watch the HD channels and I cannot see the slightest difference from switching from the SD one to the Hd one.Maybe if I had a 55" screen but I dont want a pit bull.[/quote]How your post has given me the giggles!I agree entirely except for one thing: we also had a 21 inch but we upgraded to a 28 because, guess what, with failing eyesight, I could no longer read most things on screen, not the breaking news bits they now put on the bottom of the screen and not any translations into another language.When and if we do get an Italian opera for example, I like reading the French subtitles! Not that I know more than a smattering of Italian but I do know most of the popular operas and so subtitles are more than sufficient.BTW, I would HATE subtitles at an opera live..........most of the enjoyment derives from it being sung in the intended language[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodle Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 and your post has made me giggle! Surely with failing eyesight it's quality not quantity that's important! (that said mine's got a 40"! big grin!) Mrs KG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now