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 !

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

"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

|
|

"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.

"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

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