HD and SD side-by-side

Having dithered for months about demoting my excellent Panasonic Viera
37in SD plasma TV and perfectly good Sky+ SD subscription (which
combination gives me excellent pictures 95% of the time and occasional
posterisation on some scenes, night skies, etc) in favour of HD
everything, I finally bit part of the bullet this week and bought a
Panasonic Viera 42in 1080 HD plasma with built-in FreeSat receiver.

I had read so much about the compromises that an HD TV makes when fed
SD signals (which are still by far the majority of signals available to
view, even with a Sky HD sub), I figured I could set up the new TV to
compare the two before biting the rest of the bullet and upgrading to
SkyHD.

So I took one of my two Sky+ coaxial feeds and plugged it straight into
the new TV; and at the same time, out of interest, I connected my Sky
box to the new TV via a scart lead. I was somewhat bemused by what I
saw.

Firstly, I scrambled through the FreeSat menu looking for some HD
programmes (at 7pm on Tuesday). There was none. Not quite true because
the BBC HD Preview channel was transmitting sample clips of different
types of programme in HD and I could see that a couple of real HD
broadcasts were scheduled for later in the evening. But there was
nothing else HD anywhere to be seen. Perhaps someone would confirm
this. But based on my search, there is only disappointment awaiting
anyone who buys a FreeSat receiver hoping to see HD programmes on their
new HD TV...

What I saw of the BBC HD preview clips was stunning. But there was all
too little of it. Is FreeSat going to offer more than this? As it
stands, it offers no competition at all to SkyHD... assuming that SkyHD
matches the quality of the BBC HD previews I was able to watch.

I then tried to evaluate the HD TV's handling of SD signals. These
channels were variable in quality but they were all a lot less
satisfying on an HD TV. They looked like what they we small images
digitally magnified to fit the larger space. If my SD TV gave me 95%
satisfaction then the HD TV reduced that to 65%. Bad enough to make me
put aside the new TV and keep the old one until more HD content is
available... or shell out for SkyHD with its significantly greater HD
content and leave the TV's built-in FreeSat receiver to die a lonely
death.

Then finally, I thought I would use PiP to compare the two SD pictures
side by side. This reduced the FreeSat SD picture to less than half
screen size and as a consequence it became a lot sharper and a lot more
pleasing -- and it proved that, as connected, the FreeSat SD picture at
that size was a lot more pleasing than the Sky SD picture at the same
size. The Sky picture was dull, the whites of the FreeSat image were
grey in the Sky image and the Sky video was much softer and fuzzier.

I assume that if Sky SD were the only feed, I could compensate for the
brightness and contrast deficiencies by adjusting the TV's picture
controls. But I was concerned about the fuzziness. Hopefully someone
with technical knowledge will explain that the Sky SD picture was bound
to be fuzzy in the setup I have described. But if it were the only
feed, it would still come in via the same scart cable so I can't figure
it out.

Meanwhile, my tests so far absolutely rule out the notion that I could
happily watch current FreeSat content on an HD TV. It seems that I have
two choices:

a) Revert to my Sky SD setup and SD TV, putting the HD TV in another,
secondary room where it could be used as an occasional FreeSat viewer
via another coax feed from my satellite dish

b) Pay up for SkyHD and bring the new TV into service in the living
room where approx 30% of our viewing would be HD and the balance would
hopefully be better than the sample Sky SD feed I saw at PiP size today.

I suppose there's always the third option that I could connect up the
new TV alongside the old one and continue to watch Sky SD happily on
the old screen while switching to the new one for occasional BBC HD
transmissions. But that seems a bit untidy to me.

Stan

Stan The Man wrote:

Firstly, I scrambled through the FreeSat menu looking for some HD
programmes (at 7pm on Tuesday). There was none. Not quite true because
the BBC HD Preview channel was transmitting sample clips of different
types of programme in HD and I could see that a couple of real HD
broadcasts were scheduled for later in the evening. But there was
nothing else HD anywhere to be seen. Perhaps someone would confirm this.
But based on my search, there is only disappointment awaiting anyone who
buys a FreeSat receiver hoping to see HD programmes on their new HD TV...

ITV HD broadcasts are as an interactive service. A 'Red Dot' prompt appears on
Ch 103 when an ITV-1 programme is available in HD, and pressing Red should
take you to the HD version. However, the only regular HD broadcast from ITV is
the diabolical Thursday night series, 'Harley Street'. Also be aware that
owing to politics between ITV Ltd and STV and UTV, no ITV HD programming is
available to Freesat receivers on Scottish or NI postcodes.

What I saw of the BBC HD preview clips was stunning. But there was all
too little of it. Is FreeSat going to offer more than this? As it
stands, it offers no competition at all to SkyHD... assuming that SkyHD
matches the quality of the BBC HD previews I was able to watch.

From this Friday, for two weeks BBC HD would seem to go 24/7 primarily with
Olympic coverage. Whether that momentum will be continued after the games
remains to be seen.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In article ,
Stan The Man wrote:
I then tried to evaluate the HD TV's handling of SD signals. These
channels were variable in quality but they were all a lot less
satisfying on an HD TV. They looked like what they we small images
digitally magnified to fit the larger space. If my SD TV gave me 95%
satisfaction then the HD TV reduced that to 65%. Bad enough to make me
put aside the new TV and keep the old one until more HD content is
available... or shell out for SkyHD with its significantly greater HD
content and leave the TV's built-in FreeSat receiver to die a lonely
death.

Sounds like something is making a poor job of upscaling.

Ignoring the test broadcasts much of the BBC HD output looks little
different to SD on my set. A prime example was Miss Potter on Sunday. It
looked fine - but then so does much decent SD. The only thing I've really
watched that was *obviously* HD was Wimbledon. Bonekickers also doesn't
really do the format justice.

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Sounds like something is making a poor job of upscaling.

Ignoring the test broadcasts much of the BBC HD output looks little
different to SD on my set. A prime example was Miss Potter on Sunday. It
looked fine - but then so does much decent SD. The only thing I've really
watched that was *obviously* HD was Wimbledon. Bonekickers also doesn't
really do the format justice.

I agree. A lot of drama on BBC HD suffers the same treatment as on SD.
Softened up images, gamma buggered around with, and field skipped. The best HD
I've seen so far is good old bog standard 1080 50i sport. It'll be interesting
to see the quality of pictures from the Olympics next week.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Sounds like something is making a poor job of upscaling.

Ignoring the test broadcasts much of the BBC HD output looks little
different to SD on my set. A prime example was Miss Potter on Sunday. It
looked fine - but then so does much decent SD. The only thing I've really
watched that was *obviously* HD was Wimbledon. Bonekickers also doesn't
really do the format justice.

I agree. A lot of drama on BBC HD suffers the same treatment as on SD.
Softened up images, gamma buggered around with, and field skipped. The
best HD I've seen so far is good old bog standard 1080 50i sport. It'll be
interesting to see the quality of pictures from the Olympics next week.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

I have previously made side-by-side comparisons using a Panasonic 42" non
freesat TV. I think it would be worth Stan checking again by swapping over
the left and right screens and noting any changes. My own trials showed that
the left hand half pictures always seemed to be of better quality than those
on the right. This is presumably the result of unequal processing of the
split screen by the TV.
I found it difficult to make valid comparisons without making several swap
overs and subjectively " averaging" the results.

Richard H

On 2008-08-06 00:48:08 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Stan The Man wrote:
I then tried to evaluate the HD TV's handling of SD signals. These
channels were variable in quality but they were all a lot less
satisfying on an HD TV. They looked like what they we small images
digitally magnified to fit the larger space. If my SD TV gave me 95%
satisfaction then the HD TV reduced that to 65%. Bad enough to make me
put aside the new TV and keep the old one until more HD content is
available... or shell out for SkyHD with its significantly greater HD
content and leave the TV's built-in FreeSat receiver to die a lonely
death.

Sounds like something is making a poor job of upscaling.

Ignoring the test broadcasts much of the BBC HD output looks little
different to SD on my set. A prime example was Miss Potter on Sunday. It
looked fine - but then so does much decent SD. The only thing I've really
watched that was *obviously* HD was Wimbledon. Bonekickers also doesn't
really do the format justice.

The Wimbledon preview clips I saw last night were astoundingly good and
I can't wait to see more sport in HD. Desperate to immerse myself in HD
last night , I even sat through an hour of a very old man singing
really badly, just so that I could study his face in close-up to look
for any signs of the reduced colour palette posterisation which still
occasionally ruins a digital SD transmission. There was none. The
images were perfect. I watched Bonekickers too which had never appealed
before -- but when the pictures are so pure, almost any old rubbish
becomes watchable.

Stan

In article ,
Hawkins wrote:
I have previously made side-by-side comparisons using a Panasonic 42"
non freesat TV. I think it would be worth Stan checking again by
swapping over the left and right screens and noting any changes. My own
trials showed that the left hand half pictures always seemed to be of
better quality than those on the right. This is presumably the result
of unequal processing of the split screen by the TV.

I really don't think this will give any sort of valid comparison. For it
to do justice to an HD picture even the basics like number of pixels of
the display would have to be double what's actually needed.

--
*Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill.

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

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Sounds like something is making a poor job of upscaling.

Ignoring the test broadcasts much of the BBC HD output looks little
different to SD on my set. A prime example was Miss Potter on Sunday.
It looked fine - but then so does much decent SD. The only thing I've
really watched that was *obviously* HD was Wimbledon. Bonekickers also
doesn't really do the format justice.

I agree. A lot of drama on BBC HD suffers the same treatment as on SD.
Softened up images, gamma buggered around with, and field skipped.

Yup. It would never do to have 'unmessed' with pictures on drama - the
public simply wouldn't accept it. ;-)

The best HD I've seen so far is good old bog standard 1080 50i sport.
It'll be interesting to see the quality of pictures from the Olympics
next week.

Sadly I don't much like sport. But I'll be having a look from the
technical point of view.

--
*What are the pink bits in my tyres? Cyclists & Joggers*

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

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Stan The Man wrote:

Firstly, I scrambled through the FreeSat menu looking for some HD
programmes (at 7pm on Tuesday). There was none. Not quite true because
the BBC HD Preview channel was transmitting sample clips of different
types of programme in HD and I could see that a couple of real HD
broadcasts were scheduled for later in the evening. But there was nothing
else HD anywhere to be seen. Perhaps someone would confirm this. But
based on my search, there is only disappointment awaiting anyone who buys
a FreeSat receiver hoping to see HD programmes on their new HD TV...

ITV HD broadcasts are as an interactive service. A 'Red Dot' prompt
appears on Ch 103 when an ITV-1 programme is available in HD, and pressing
Red should take you to the HD version. However, the only regular HD
broadcast from ITV is the diabolical Thursday night series, 'Harley
Street'. Also be aware that owing to politics between ITV Ltd and STV and
UTV, no ITV HD programming is available to Freesat receivers on Scottish
or NI postcodes.

One can easily work around that!


What I saw of the BBC HD preview clips was stunning. But there was all
too little of it. Is FreeSat going to offer more than this? As it stands,
it offers no competition at all to SkyHD... assuming that SkyHD matches
the quality of the BBC HD previews I was able to watch.

From this Friday, for two weeks BBC HD would seem to go 24/7 primarily
with Olympic coverage. Whether that momentum will be continued after the
games remains to be seen.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
Having dithered for months about demoting my excellent Panasonic Viera
37in SD plasma TV and perfectly good Sky+ SD subscription (which
combination gives me excellent pictures 95% of the time and occasional
posterisation on some scenes, night skies, etc) in favour of HD
everything, I finally bit part of the bullet this week and bought a
Panasonic Viera 42in 1080 HD plasma with built-in FreeSat receiver.


You don't need to have SD and 1080 HD side by side to be able to tell that
the latter is vastly superior visually.

You can save yourself a lot of time [and money!] by working on the
assumption that anything from $ky is a rip off.