HDTV - is it all a con?

I've heard it's a con, the programs shown have to be actually filmed in HD
to be able to show in HD. How many news programs or sports programs are
actually filmed in HD ?

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

"Peter Boon" wrote in message
...
Thanks for all the advice and feedback. I've checked the Sky HD+picture
settings and its set to 1080i as I would have expected. I'm going to
detach the Scart lead to see if this makes a difference and also check out
any other tweaks in the instruction book or on message boards.

Peter


"Peter Boon" wrote in message
...
In January I purchased a 32'' TV from the Panasonic Viera range and loved
the picture quality and sound. Just a few days ago I up-graded from Sky+
to Sky HD+ from a Samsung box and I really don't know why I bothered.
Despite buying well reviewed HDMI connections I have gained nothing in
picture quality.

Firstly HD seems to have introduced some picture distortion whereby
forms, faces and figures are slightly elongated. Some well-known
newsreaders look as if they have been on a severe diet; people's heads
look too large for their slimmed down bodies and faces in close-up are
cropped. I have checked the images against a small portable Freeview TV
and the differences are quite marked. I have the screen on Auto but it
does not produce the same picture view I had with just Sky+. Other views
such as 14:9 or zoom options produce more distortion. Perhaps it's just
me but is there some technical explanation?

The HD Channels are a bit of a disappointment. The images though clearly
defined look flat and two-dimensional; a bit like the animations in
recent cartoon films like Toy Story.

Perhaps I just need to "adjust" but I'm seriously thinking of going back
to Sky+. I would be interested in anyone else's views and explanations.

Thanks

Peter

Joan Archer wrote:
I've heard it's a con, the programs shown have to be actually filmed
in HD to be able to show in HD. How many news programs or sports
programs are actually filmed in HD ?

You clearly know as much about HD as you do about posting to usenet, ie.
nothing.
--
There is no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

Well, she seems to know more than you, and wasn't unnecessarily
abusive either. It is true that for material to be HD it either needs
to be photographed or digitised (from analogue) in HD, otherwise it's
just upscaled SD, which by general agreement here looks pretty
terrible.

I dare say if I had more cash, I'd buy HD, but at the current low
level of HD output, I'm not worrying about having to wait.

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:10:59 -0000, "Adrian" wrote:

Joan Archer wrote:
I've heard it's a con, the programs shown have to be actually filmed
in HD to be able to show in HD. How many news programs or sports
programs are actually filmed in HD ?

You clearly know as much about HD as you do about posting to usenet, ie.
nothing.

"Joan Archer" wrote in message
...
I've heard it's a con, the programs shown have to be actually filmed in HD
to be able to show in HD. How many news programs or sports programs are
actually filmed in HD ?



they are not filmed at all - they use video - HD video at that.



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

So how come you didn't explain it to me then ?

--
Joan Archer
http://www.freewebs.com/crossstitcher
http://lachsoft.com/photogallery

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Joan Archer wrote:
I've heard it's a con, the programs shown have to be actually filmed
in HD to be able to show in HD. How many news programs or sports
programs are actually filmed in HD ?

You clearly know as much about HD as you do about posting to usenet, ie.
nothing.
--
There is no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

Bigguy wrote:
Peter Boon wrote:
In January I purchased a 32'' TV from the Panasonic Viera range and
loved the picture quality and sound. Just a few days ago I up-graded
from Sky+ to Sky HD+ from a Samsung box and I really don't know why I
bothered. Despite buying well reviewed HDMI connections I have gained
nothing in picture quality.

Firstly HD seems to have introduced some picture distortion whereby
forms, faces and figures are slightly elongated. Some well-known
newsreaders look as if they have been on a severe diet; people's heads
look too large for their slimmed down bodies and faces in close-up are
cropped. I have checked the images against a small portable Freeview
TV and the differences are quite marked. I have the screen on Auto but
it does not produce the same picture view I had with just Sky+. Other
views such as 14:9 or zoom options produce more distortion. Perhaps
it's just me but is there some technical explanation?

The HD Channels are a bit of a disappointment. The images though
clearly defined look flat and two-dimensional; a bit like the
animations in recent cartoon films like Toy Story.

Perhaps I just need to "adjust" but I'm seriously thinking of going
back to Sky+. I would be interested in anyone else's views and
explanations.

Thanks

Peter
Is this 32" Viera a full HD1080 screen?
If it's HD720 it will not do justice to decent HD material.
On a good HD1080 screen good Blu-Ray material is pretty impressive and
clearly superior to SD.
Sky HD/Freesat HD material is 'variable'; some is upscaled from an SD
source, some channels are low bandwidth/high compression.
Try a few Blu-Ray discs if you can.

The truth is that most TV programmes are crap and will not be improved
by HD.

I have found that HD (BR) movies on my 40" Bravia HD1080 telly are more
like cinema than TV and are more involving emotionally; much more impact.

Guy

I was relatively impressed with my 40" Sony Bravia LCD too, looks good
on SDTV aswell as full HD, but I have to say while I can see the
difference from the viewing chair between SD and HD I don't really
notice it when I m watching a film (eg blue ray). Maybe I am
emotionally challenged.

The big disadvantage is that now any poorly transmitted SDTV programs
are much more apparent.

The audio is also a con, 7 channels of double resolution of stuff you
cannot hear, nevermind that they are all new standards that my old
equipment can't manage, Dolby Digital was fine! I'd have to spend about
£3K to get an equivalent to the kit I have now because half the blue
rays are DTS. I've already proven to myself that HD audio is a total
waste of time, what matters more is the quality of the analogue
processing. My £1500 CD player sounds infinitely superior to my £200
DVD-Audio DVD player.

Most people don't notice differences in detail, but they will notice
artefacts. If the picture is free from blocks, lumps, shadows, and
general extra stuff that shouldn't be there we are happy to watch VHS
which is less than half the horizontal resolution of SDTV. Ahh remember
the days you could fast forward ANY part of a film or trailers you
wanted, and when you pressed 'play', that's what it did!

--
Tony