New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD)
is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

On 04/06/2012 8:55 AM, John Legon wrote:
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD)
is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !



you need new eyes - either that or to stop watching your tv from the
bottom of your garden.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

In article ,
John Legon wrote:
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

No. Their 'new for 2012' range could simply be makers clearing out old
stocks to be sold at discounted prices. Same as any other discounter.

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD)
is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !

It really depends on the individual programme. Something which has been
shot to make use of the extra definition and lack of motion artifacts will
look very different. Much sport is the obvious one. Drama usually doesn't.

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

"John Legon" wrote in message
...
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

Are they sorted by price or popularity, where the cheapest come first?

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with it.
I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD. Sure,
there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the upscaling
and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD) is so good
that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !

I believe it's customary to make a Specsavers reference here.

I can see a noticable difference between BBC1 and 1HD

--
Alex

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

John Legon wrote:

Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD)
is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !

Yes. I watch my 40" TV from a distance of 10' and can barely tell the
difference between SD and HD at that distance. I wouldn't want to watch a
TV any closer because it seems to me that most TV programming is composed
on the assumption that the screen is of restricted size, thus cameras
tends to zoom in on people's heads and upper bodies, which would make them
of overpowering size on a big screen in your sitting room. Also if you
sit close to a large screen, your eyes would have to be making large
tracking movements all the time to take in all the detail, which might be
fine for the occasional visit to the cinema but not for casual viewing of
the TV, at least not for me anyway.

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

Dr Zoidberg wrote:

"John Legon" wrote in message
...
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their
range of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed,
only six have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

Are they sorted by price or popularity, where the cheapest come first?

They weren't sorted by price, but apparently by popularity. Quote:

"Customers who have shown an interest in TVs might like
to see the most popular models from the all-new 2012 range."

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from
HD) is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !

I believe it's customary to make a Specsavers reference here.

I can see a noticable difference between BBC1 and 1HD

As I said, there is a significance difference, but in general it's not
something that compels me to watch in HD rather than SD. To some extent
I was commenting on the fact that upscaled SD on my TV - though not
necessarily on other people's - is much better than I had expected it to
be.

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Legon wrote:
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

No. Their 'new for 2012' range could simply be makers clearing out old
stocks to be sold at discounted prices. Same as any other discounter.

These were supposed to be models that were first put on sale during the
past few months - suggesting to me that manufacturers haven't considered
Freeview HD to be an essential selling point.


I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD)
is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !

It really depends on the individual programme. Something which has been
shot to make use of the extra definition and lack of motion artifacts will
look very different. Much sport is the obvious one. Drama usually doesn't.

I watch mostly documentary material where the extra definition is an
advantage, but the most important factor is whether the programme was
produced in SD or HD, not whether it is broadcast in HD or SD - provided
the bit rate is high enough, that is.

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

"John Legon" wrote in message
...
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with it.
I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD. Sure,
there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the upscaling
and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD) is so good
that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !



According to this newspaper article from Thailand (where they have recently
adopted the DVB-T2 system) the price of a DVB-T2 set-top box is around $25
U.S.. If that's to be believed then obviously the price of chipsets has
plummeted over the last couple of years since I bought my Humax fox T2.

In which case there is absolutely no reason why anything should be
manufactured and sold nowadays without being T2 compatible, unless of course
they have a mountain of old DVB-T chipsets they want to use up.

"Vietnam adopted the DVB-T2 standard last year, while Malaysia, Brunei and
Indonesia are expected to launch digital TV on the same system this year.
The average cost of a DVB-T2 set-top box is US $25 (Bt800)".

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/NBTC-to-meet-govt-on-set-top-box-plans-30182778.html

|
|

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

"John Legon" wrote in message
o.uk...
Dr Zoidberg wrote:

"John Legon" wrote in message
...
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

Are they sorted by price or popularity, where the cheapest come first?

They weren't sorted by price, but apparently by popularity. Quote:

"Customers who have shown an interest in TVs might like
to see the most popular models from the all-new 2012 range."

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD)
is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !

I believe it's customary to make a Specsavers reference here.

I can see a noticable difference between BBC1 and 1HD

As I said, there is a significance difference, but in general it's not
something that compels me to watch in HD rather than SD. To some extent I
was commenting on the fact that upscaled SD on my TV - though not
necessarily on other people's - is much better than I had expected it to
be.


Depends where you watch from.

our 42" HD from 3-4m is vastly better in HD than SD, but from our dining
table (~8m) you can't tell the difference.

The same applies to monitors - I have used 21" 1600x1200 monitors since
~1995 , initially at 60Hz , now at 85Hz - these are miles better than lower
resolution close up. Finances permitting I intend to shift to 2560x1440
soon.

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

"the dog from that film you saw" wrote in
message ...
On 04/06/2012 8:55 AM, John Legon wrote:
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD)
is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !



you need new eyes - either that or to stop watching your tv from the
bottom of your garden.


Sigh - same old bull****.
Distance from the TV is crucial and across the average suburban living room
there isn't much percievable difference.
And yes, I have my eyes tested every year and can read the bottom line of
the test chart.

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

In article ,
David WE Roberts wrote:
Distance from the TV is crucial and across the average suburban living
room there isn't much percievable difference.

You've missed out the size of the screen. That plus the distance from it
determines if HD is worthwhile - resolution wise. The reduced motion
artifacts are far more noticeable.

--
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

John Legon wrote:
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their
range of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed,
only six have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from
HD) is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of
bandwidth !

My nearest Morrisons is flogging an otherwise bargain 40" sans Freeview HD
as being "Full HD" when of course it should be "HD Ready".

I could also tell instantly it was displaying an upscaled SD picture.

(kim)

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

In article ,
"kim" wrote:

My nearest Morrisons is flogging an otherwise bargain 40" sans Freeview HD
as being "Full HD" when of course it should be "HD Ready".


Marketing terms. It is Full HD (the resolution it can display) and also
HD Ready (ready to display an external HD input). What it isn't - and it
doesn't claim to be - is Freeview HD.

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:18:07 +0100, "kim" wrote:

John Legon wrote:
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their
range of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed,
only six have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from
HD) is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of
bandwidth !

My nearest Morrisons is flogging an otherwise bargain 40" sans Freeview HD
as being "Full HD" when of course it should be "HD Ready".

I could also tell instantly it was displaying an upscaled SD picture.

(kim)

This can be very confusing.

I have two TVs from the same maker. One is described as Full HD, the
other HD Ready. Neither has a built-in HD tuner. The descriptions refer
to the panels. Both accept HD input via HDMI. The Full HD set has a
1080-line panel. The HD Ready set has a 768-line panel. The Full HD set
upscales SD input to fit the panel. The HD Ready set downscales HD input
and upscales SD input to fit the panel.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

"John Legon" wrote in message
o.uk...
Dr Zoidberg wrote:

"John Legon" wrote in message
...
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

Are they sorted by price or popularity, where the cheapest come first?

They weren't sorted by price, but apparently by popularity. Quote:

"Customers who have shown an interest in TVs might like
to see the most popular models from the all-new 2012 range."

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD)
is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !

I believe it's customary to make a Specsavers reference here.

I can see a noticable difference between BBC1 and 1HD

As I said, there is a significance difference, but in general it's not
something that compels me to watch in HD rather than SD. To some extent I
was commenting on the fact that upscaled SD on my TV - though not
necessarily on other people's - is much better than I had expected it to
be.

Upscaled SD is rarely any different from SD.

Upscaling is nothing more than stretching the picture to cover all the
pixels.
If they were doing any edge sharpening etc in addition then surely they'd
mention it.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:45:06 +0100, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

Upscaled SD is rarely any different from SD.

Indeed so, and it still suffers from the bit rate starvation
of many SD tv stations, especially those on the SDN multiplex.

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

John Legon wrote:
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD)
is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !
Funnily enough I'm off to the opticians later this week as well.

Bill

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

Dr Zoidberg wrote:

"John Legon" wrote in message
...
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their
range of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed,
only six have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

Are they sorted by price or popularity, where the cheapest come first?

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from
HD) is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !

I believe it's customary to make a Specsavers reference here.

I can see a noticable difference between BBC1 and 1HD

I recently installed a 21" Sony HD set for an 89 year old lady and she
marvelled at the quality of the HD picture. I switched to SD several
times and she always spotted it.

Bill

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

David WE Roberts wrote:

you need new eyes - either that or to stop watching your tv from the
bottom of your garden.


Sigh - same old bull****.
Distance from the TV is crucial and across the average suburban living
room there isn't much percievable difference.

I must have supernatural eyes then. From twelve feet the difference on a
40" screen is massive.

Bill

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
"John Legon" wrote in message
o.uk...
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
"John Legon" wrote in message
...
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?
Are they sorted by price or popularity, where the cheapest come first?
They weren't sorted by price, but apparently by popularity. Quote:

"Customers who have shown an interest in TVs might like
to see the most popular models from the all-new 2012 range."
I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD)
is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !
I believe it's customary to make a Specsavers reference here.

I can see a noticable difference between BBC1 and 1HD
As I said, there is a significance difference, but in general it's not
something that compels me to watch in HD rather than SD. To some extent I
was commenting on the fact that upscaled SD on my TV - though not
necessarily on other people's - is much better than I had expected it to
be.

Upscaled SD is rarely any different from SD.

Upscaling is nothing more than stretching the picture to cover all the
pixels.
If they were doing any edge sharpening etc in addition then surely they'd
mention it.

They do mention it, with phrases such as "advanced picture enhancement
algorithms". It's obvious that the picture I see on my HD TV isn't
simply SD upscaled by stretching the pixels, but involves a great deal
of image processing to bring out detail, enhance edges, remove jaggies
and noise, and generally produce a picture that looks much better than
ordinary SD.

So perhaps the debate isn't about the difference between SD and HD as
such, but whether a given TV uses image processing to enhance an SD
picture to the extent that the difference between SD and HD is not as
noticeable as one might expect.

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

Having said that, someone I know was quite disappointed by hd on his LG so
called hd tv. He said that the slightly less definition looked better to him
than the weird churning effects on grass and some water scenes in HD. I
guess the eyes must pick up on an natural effects but can tolerate blurring
as normal.
I of course would not care either way!

Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"the dog from that film you saw" wrote in
message ...
On 04/06/2012 8:55 AM, John Legon wrote:
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD)
is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !



you need new eyes - either that or to stop watching your tv from the
bottom of your garden.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

In message , Bill Wright
writes
David WE Roberts wrote:

you need new eyes - either that or to stop watching your tv from the
bottom of your garden.
Sigh - same old bull****.
Distance from the TV is crucial and across the average suburban
living room there isn't much percievable difference.

I must have supernatural eyes then. From twelve feet the difference on
a 40" screen is massive.

Bill

Me too, on a 42" from 15ft.
--
Ian

New HD TVs with no Freeview HD
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Dr Zoidberg wrote:

"John Legon" wrote in message
...
Have just received an email from Amazon drawing attention to their range
of "New for 2012" HD TVs. Out of the first 24 models listed, only six
have Freeview HD. That seems surprising - or is it?

Are they sorted by price or popularity, where the cheapest come first?

I recently bought a 40" TV without Freeview HD and I'm very happy with
it. I have HD on satellite but seldom make a point of watching in HD.
Sure, there's a significant difference, but it seems to me that the
upscaling and image processing of SD material (when downscaled from HD)
is so good that HD could almost be considered a waste of bandwidth !

I believe it's customary to make a Specsavers reference here.

I can see a noticable difference between BBC1 and 1HD

I recently installed a 21" Sony HD set for an 89 year old lady and she
marvelled at the quality of the HD picture. I switched to SD several times
and she always spotted it.

What resolution HD?

And what viewing distance?

--
Max Demian