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.

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)

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.

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)

"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.

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.

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

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

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

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.