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

In article [email protected],
Felicity S. [email protected] wrote:

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?

Upscaling in the television can't introduce any detail that isn't
there in the signal. And SD broadcasts, whether analogue or digital,
don't by any means fully use the SD resolution of the television - an
HD broadcast scaled down and displayed on an SD screen ought to look
much better than an SD broadcast.

So there's no reason in principle why it should be anything but
bigger. But in practice the quality of SD display on HD televisions
has improved a lot in the last few years, and may well now be better
than an old SD television.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

The message [email protected]
from "Felicity S." [email protected] contains these words:

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.

That's a false argument to use against the creationists' theory of
"Intelligent Design". The function of the vertebrate eye is radically
different to that of a camera (movie or still). The retina represents an
outpost of the brain which, after all, has to process the information in
order to achieve the sense we call 'vision'.

Evolution has come up with a superbly optimised solution to the problem
of sensing, without generating processing overload, an environment which
contains both hazards and rewards. Being able to rapidly respond to
threats and rewards was a major survival factor in our evolutionary
history.

The eye, taken in isolation, might seem to be a very poor device
compared to a camera but its extremely low resolution peripheral field
of vision is excellent at detecting changes (ie movement) which is all
that is required when the brain has immediate and full control over its
direction of gaze and also, most importantly, all that is required to
detect threats from predators or the detection of prey in order to
handle the challenges of staying alive long enough to procreate.

If the designers of roving robotic machines wish to endow them with a
sense of vision, they could hardly do better than to emulate the
vertebrate eye and the associated processing algorithms. A really savvy
creationist could then use your argument that the eye is a poor camera
as an argument for "Intelligent Design" by a 'Creator' with the
consumate patience to get it 'just right'.

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
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 have to disagree. Pictures are affected very much by the brightness
and colour of anything that surrounds them within the field of view, and
by the general ambient brightness and colour of the light in the room,
not to mention objects which may be seen reflected in them if they have
shiny surfaces. Why do you think cinemas are always dark?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:04:06 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
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 have to disagree. Why do you think cinemas are always dark?

Snogging, and stuff.

Paul D.Smith wrote:
...snip...

I sometimes remember happily watching programmes on a 12inch B&W
portable. You become far more discerning as to what is a good
program, and what is simply eye-candy.

Up until about 5 years ago I had an ancient B&W set that gave an
excellent picture and was perfectly watchable.
Plus a really good B&W film watched on a colour set is fine, you
forget it's B&W if there's a good plot with excellent acting.
And would Laurel & Hardy have been any funnier in colour?
It would have looked downright weird if you ask me.
--
Col

And all the stars that never were
Are parking cars and pumping gas.

Felicity S. wrote:
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.

Turning the radio on has much the same effect.
--
Col

And all the stars that never were
Are parking cars and pumping gas.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
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 have to disagree. Pictures are affected very much by the brightness
and colour of anything that surrounds them within the field of view,
and by the general ambient brightness and colour of the light in the
room, not to mention objects which may be seen reflected in them if
they have shiny surfaces. Why do you think cinemas are always dark?

And why watching TV oudoors on a sunny day is pointless.
--
Col

And all the stars that never were
Are parking cars and pumping gas.

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
In article [email protected],
Felicity S. [email protected] wrote:

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?

Upscaling in the television can't introduce any detail that isn't
there in the signal. And SD broadcasts, whether analogue or digital,
don't by any means fully use the SD resolution of the television - an
HD broadcast scaled down and displayed on an SD screen ought to look
much better than an SD broadcast.

So there's no reason in principle why it should be anything but
bigger. But in practice the quality of SD display on HD televisions
has improved a lot in the last few years, and may well now be better
than an old SD television.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

This debate is valid but pointless because you are all comparing different
things in different ways.

Firstly a sky box will upscale. That is how mine is set. All pictures come
out at 1080.
So the tv has no processing to do for SD as it is not SD.
My TV is connected by HDMI so the picture is digital.
My TV is quite a good one.

when we first got our HD TV we used a normal dig box and the RF connection.
The picture was SD and the box was SD and the picture was good. The same
system on our old TV was not as good a picture. So the new TV was an
improvement.

Then i got the HD box and the HDMI connection. The picture on all channels
was SOOOOOO much better. and HD was WOW. 2 years on if i put the TV in RF
analogue mode and look at the results, it looks so bad it makes you wonder
how you ever put up with it, and that was the better picture on the NEW TV!

It all depends on what you expect and what you consider normal.

I use the RF analogue and the HDMI on a HD channel to demonstrate HD TV.
Everyone can see the difference and if they have not got HD then the person
is more than likely to be using RF on their own TV at home so the
comparison is valid. remember most people cannot tell the difference between
scart and RF

My son felt he was bashing his head with his wife as no matter what he did
she could not see the improvement on HD. She insisted it looked nice but
could not really tell the difference or was bothered about it. Time passed
and one day she said 'What's wrong with the TV' it turned out to be nothing
was wrong but they were on a SD channel and now she could see not the HD
improvement but the lack of quality on SD and she did not like it.

Women are different, but not a lot.

Gary

"Johnny B Good" wrote in message
.. .
The message [email protected]
from "Felicity S." [email protected] contains these words:
Brian Gaff wrote:
[...]

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.

That's a false argument to use against the creationists' theory of
"Intelligent Design". The function of the vertebrate eye is radically
different to that of a camera (movie or still). The retina represents an
outpost of the brain which, after all, has to process the information in
order to achieve the sense we call 'vision'.

Only a deranged Designer would wire up the retina so that the nerve fibres
block the light path.
[...]

If the designers of roving robotic machines wish to endow them with a
sense of vision, they could hardly do better than to emulate the
vertebrate eye and the associated processing algorithms.

Optically a cephalopod eye would be a better bet. Or an insect.

A really savvy
creationist could then use your argument that the eye is a poor camera
as an argument for "Intelligent Design" by a 'Creator' with the
consumate patience to get it 'just right'.

Except He cocked the vertebrate eye up because He was spending all his time
creating millions of different beatle species.

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:47:00 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote:


Only a deranged Designer would wire up the retina so that the nerve fibres
block the light path.

"Look here friend. The design was fine when it left my office. It is not
my fault that the production team screwed up. The fault was not detected
at an early enough stage to do anything about it. Recalling units and
replacing the eyes was just not feasible from an engineering point of
view. The alternative was a mass extinction and a restart. As the
affected units were managing adequately with the faulty eyes it was
decided to take no action.

Best regards, The Designer"


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)