Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!

"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 24/03/2010 13:30, MartinR wrote:

I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more
important to them

Yup. And the color of the car.

And they choose a new tyre because they like the tread pattern.

--
Max Demian

On 24 Mar, 16:28, "Max Demian" wrote:
"Adrian C" wrote in message

...

On 24/03/2010 13:30, MartinR wrote:

I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more
important to them

Yup. And the color of the car.

And they choose a new tyre because they like the tread pattern.


No, the tyre shop sees them coming from ****ing miles away on their
GullibleWoman radar, giving them plenty of time to dig out the most
expensive tyres in the place.

--
Halmyre

On Mar 24, 1:30*pm, MartinR wrote:

I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more
important to them - maybe that's a good thing. *
MR

Yes, I'm a male and that's certainly my view, Eastenders is just as
tedious with three times as many pixels as before...
Having said that, a few months back I decided to switch the Digibox to
RGB, having used it on composite for 9 years or so. To me the
difference seems obvious on reasonable quality source material ( sky
arts 1 for example) but neither of my teenaged daughters or wife even
noticed. They're also quite happy to watch everything in
stretchyvision with all those short fat people etc.

On 24/03/2010 13:30, MartinR wrote:
Apart from the fact that this NG is nearly exclusively male, the
females in my family (I am in a minority of 1) seem to fail to
appreciate the joys of high-definition television.

I will happily put on the far superior picture of Channel Four HD (we
have Virgin Media), but the Mrs and daughters then complain about the
lack of subtitles on HD and ask to turn to the SD equivalent. They
seem to fail to notice the difference between HD and SD, they say
things such as "why do we need HD, we already have had to go
digital!".

Bizarrely, they point out what they deem to be the problems with HD.
"You can see all the wrinkles on people's faces. You can see
individual clumps of grass on HDTV football matches - that's
horrible!".

I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more
important to them - maybe that's a good thing. They will happily
watch something resembling a YouTube video as long as it's one of
those bloody property programmes or anything with Gok Wan in it.

MR



Even the content does not matter as long as it's either pink, has some
hunk (in their opinion) or has some fluffy cute animal/kid in it.
Dave
--
Blow my nose to email me

On 24 Mar, 13:30, MartinR wrote:
Apart from the fact that this NG is nearly exclusively male, the
females in my family (I am in a minority of 1) seem to fail to
appreciate the joys of high-definition television.

I will happily put on the far superior picture of Channel Four HD (we
have Virgin Media), but the Mrs and daughters then complain about the
lack of subtitles on HD and ask to turn to the SD equivalent.

Worth turning off thanks to their retarded logo.

On 24 Mar, 18:07, Mike Henry wrote:
In ,

MartinR wrote:
Bizarrely, they point out what they deem to be the problems with HD.
"You can see all the wrinkles on people's faces. You can see
individual clumps of grass on HDTV football matches - that's
horrible!".

The sad result of a decade of parsimonious bitrates on SD.

Which is why, no doubt, they're reducing the HD bitrate in spades too.
They really haven't got a clue.

"MartinR" wrote in message
...
Apart from the fact that this NG is nearly exclusively male, the
females in my family (I am in a minority of 1) seem to fail to
appreciate the joys of high-definition television.

I will happily put on the far superior picture of Channel Four HD (we
have Virgin Media), but the Mrs and daughters then complain about the
lack of subtitles on HD and ask to turn to the SD equivalent. They
seem to fail to notice the difference between HD and SD, they say
things such as "why do we need HD, we already have had to go
digital!".

Bizarrely, they point out what they deem to be the problems with HD.
"You can see all the wrinkles on people's faces. You can see
individual clumps of grass on HDTV football matches - that's
horrible!".

I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more
important to them - maybe that's a good thing. They will happily
watch something resembling a YouTube video as long as it's one of
those bloody property programmes or anything with Gok Wan in it.


My better half can tell the difference between HD and SD. I was a bit
skeptical when we installed HD but it really does make a difference.

Martin.R wrote:

Apart from the fact that this NG is nearly exclusively male, the
females in my family (I am in a minority of 1) seem to fail to
appreciate the joys of high-definition television.

I will happily put on the far superior picture of Channel Four HD (we
have Virgin Media), but the Mrs and daughters then complain about the
lack of subtitles on HD and ask to turn to the SD equivalent. They
seem to fail to notice the difference between HD and SD, they say
things such as "why do we need HD, we already have had to go
digital!".

If I might be permitted by this newsgroup to make a slightly technical
point, might I suggest that you are not watching anything in SD on your
television, but upscaled SD, so the qualitative difference is less?

And do any of your HD channels have an on-screen logo telling you that
it's in HD, while the upscaled SD version is clean & uncluttered?


Fliss

--
She said: I sneak in the salmon under my sweater.
He said: Good. That way we don't have to pay for
that overpriced movie fish.

Brian Gaff wrote:

The thing is though, unless the picture is really awful, if the program
does not demand hd, and you get into it, then nobody I know notices if
its hd or not, no matter what gender they are.

Every TV has a magic button which improves quality. It's the OFF button.


Its a bit like hi fi etc, if the sound is reasonable and you like the
music, who cares, whereas the hi fi buff nver listens to the music,
he/she compares it with some mythical realness to see if its been altered.

When I was younger, I inadvertently annoyed a wealthy friend by noticing
a problem with his over-priced hi-fi which he could not hear. It was like
having a bad table at a jazz club, sitting very close to the bassist.


Now pictures of course, should be hi fi, as it were, as they are not
affected by the room, only the electronics they are processed through.
I remember when I was being told about my eyesight, they showed us the
quality of the image most retinas see, its crap. The brain is what
constructs the image, constantly aiming the macular at the bit where the
action is, as its there where the definition is not bad. The rest is
total rubbish and jiggling about all the time.

True, there are even holes you're programmed not to notice. The vertebrate
eye is so badly constructed that it's proof against Intelligent Design.


Fliss

--
She said: His house was on a bluff over a lake. I always loved
the view, sunlight over water - my favourite spot.
He said: Yes, magical. Too bad you nuked it.

"Felicity S." [email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected]

If I might be permitted by this newsgroup to make a slightly technical
point, might I suggest that you are not watching anything in SD on your
television, but upscaled SD, so the qualitative difference is less?

I'm no expert, but I imagine it must depend a lot on what is meant by
"upscaling", anyway.

For instance, I imagine the SD picture could be resized, with no other
processing, to fill the 1920 x 1080 screen. On a better telly there might
be all sorts of additional processing (sharpening, etc) to fool the eye into
thinking it's looking at a higher-def picture than it really is.

Perhaps it all depends on the telly.

SteveT