Hd Gear A Waste Of Money!

[hoody1]

you know what people - I think we have debated this to the Nth degree - maybe time to put it to bed?

friends of mine have bought a 42" samsung plasma (SD) and simply plugged in the aerial (fta) and are stoked (no stb, nothing else)...

horses for courses?

personally I believe HD is better hence my research and purchase of px600a

at the end of the day - the OP was certainly dismissive and generalised in its content.

sad to see tensions get the best of some posters????

[Omega1503559526]

I actually think introducing a pc to scale downscale and upscale for a comaprison of this sort is invalid.

whats more important is actually the comparison done using equipment you'd usewhich can be done easily in a shop without a pc. just put hd content(be it hi-def disc or fta or a xbox 360 what ever your choice) through a SD panel and a HD one, watch from your viewing distance and decide for your self its really as simple as that. No need to introduce any other variables pc's and what not.

to be more specific putting a hd-dvd disc with 1080i content through a HD panel and then the same material through a SD panel at your viewing distance will soon give you your answer as to which provides the benfit your looking for.

Anyways as mentioned before, deciding which display to choose doesnt just come down to screen resolution or size. There are plenty other differences and hence the value of actually checking out the displays for your self with the material and kind of equipment you intend watching with.

The problem with that is that you are relying on the two different sets being completely identical except for the fact that one is HD and one is SD...i.e. that the resolution is the only variable.

They are also going to have to be on the exact same settings.

Its going to come down which variable you think more likley to remain constant....PC or the variances between the Sets themselves (variance between HD and SD models).

Personally id prefer the PC as the constant (or more constant variable at least), because i know that I have overseen the conversion process and it is more within my control than the manufacturers say-so that the models are otherwise identical.

[BribieG]

Got out of work early last night and was having a couple of pints of Old Speckled Hen at the Elephant and Wheelbarrow (Fortitude Valley, Brisbane) while I was waiting for the train.

On opposite walls of the pub were two forty-something screens, both showing video clips from some source. One of them was a pana plasma SD, the other was a BENQ lcd, which really surprised me to see such a thing in a pub.

Nobody was watching them.

[byron1503559589]

I ended up with a Pana 42" PV60. I did some more looking at the large pixel size on the SD plasma's is very noticeable at <3 metres. The Medium Definition (1024x768) on the PV is a lot better.

On a related note we also have an older Sony 76cm widescreen CRT (not 100% certain of the model, but it's low end), and I must say at our viewing distance in our holiday caravan of ~1.5m the pixels are noticable but at least as good as the new PV60 at 2.7m.

I also had a close look at some of the new Sony Full HD panels (X series IIRC) at DJ's where I bought the plasma and the image on them was stunning and it was only a composite feed. Very impressive. Most other LCD's looked bad!

B

[smithcorp]

I've read through this thread and the HD vs SD question is doing my head in! I am close to buying an HD LCD TV in 32 inch (Pana 600), but I'm questioning whether I need HD capability, when I can save more than $500 and get an SD TV.

I have a smallish lounge room, so would be viewing from about 2m away, and 32 inch is about right we reckon - no chance we'd go bigger.

We have Optus digital cable and a DVD player - we watch FTA through the cable. We don't play console games at all.

Given this, is there any point in going for the HD option do you reckon? Any advice would be appreciated.

smith

[50mxe20]

Given this, is there any point in going for the HD option do you reckon? Any advice would be appreciated.

smith

I would get the HD but that is only my humble opinion.

[smithcorp]

I would get the HD but that is only my humble opinion.

Thanks for the reply - but do you think it would be worth the extra for me, given my viewing distance, viewing through Optus cable and not playing console games? Do you reckon I'd notice the difference, or would I not be utilising the HD benefits?

cheers

smith

[Nevyn72]

Thanks for the reply - but do you think it would be worth the extra for me, given my viewing distance, viewing through Optus cable and not playing console games? Do you reckon I'd notice the difference, or would I not be utilising the HD benefits?

cheers

smith

Given you are looking at a 32" LCD you have no option.

They only make them in HD!

(well the most common is 1366x768 resolution which is considered HD)

[Doug1503559538]

The fact that there are 182 replies means that this topic has really hit a raw nerve with some spendthrifts !!!!

[smithcorp]

Given you are looking at a 32" LCD you have no option.

They only make them in HD!

(well the most common is 1366x768 resolution which is considered HD)

I suppose I mean with a built-in HD receiver. I believe I can get an SD fitted LCD for well south of $1500, so the $300-$500 saving is appealing.

[PersianImmortal]

The fact that there are 182 replies means that this topic has really hit a raw nerve with some spendthrifts !!!!

Trolling often does that yes.

[Brazzwald]

I suppose I mean with a built-in HD receiver. I believe I can get an SD fitted LCD for well south of $1500, so the $300-$500 saving is appealing.

I thought most intergrated LCD's in 32" were with HD Tuners. I'm not aware of any with SD Tuners in built.

Brazzwald

[smithcorp]

I thought most intergrated LCD's in 32" were with HD Tuners. I'm not aware of any with SD Tuners in built.

Brazzwald

Now I'm really confused!

Take the two Panasonic LCDs being talked about on these forums - the 60 and the 600. Isn't the main difference between the models that the 600 has an inbuilt HD tuner and the 60 is "HD-ready" and requires a STB? Or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

[Anton-P.]

Take the two Panasonic LCDs being talked about on these forums - the 60 and the 600. Isn't the main difference between the models that the 600 has an inbuilt HD tuner and the 60 is "HD-ready" and requires a STB? Or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

The 60s and 600s in discussion here referred mostly to 42" & 50" plasma, whereas you mentioned a 32" LCD.

Note that the 600 has a built-in tuner plus other higher specs as well over the 60 (like speakers, card reader, aesthetics ...) hence $500-$700 higher.

[50mxe20]

Take the two Panasonic LCDs being talked about on these forums - the 60 and the 600. Isn't the main difference between the models that the 600 has an inbuilt HD tuner and the 60 is "HD-ready" and requires a STB? Or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

My read is that you have this correct.

The point being made is that it does not have a SD tuner "built-in".

So yes you need a STB.

http://panasonic.com.au/products/category.cfm?objectID=47

[smithcorp]

My read is that have this correct.

The point being made is that it does not have a SD tuner "built-in".

So yes you need a STB.

http://panasonic.com.au/products/category.cfm?objectID=47

Thanks for clearing that up. At the moment, I'm about to wander up to Bing Lee and see if they'll price-match or better the $1899 DSE is asking for the TX-32LXD600A.

cheers

smith

[Doug1503559538]

Trolling often does that yes.

The topic is "HD Gear a waste of money"

What on earth has trolling got to do with it ?????

It just sounds like more and more consumers are realising that the extra expense of HD equipment is often wasted giving no material increase in picture quality.

I'll state what I have stated many times before, that the difference on my HD plasma between HD and SD is so minute (and not at all detectable at normal viewing distances) that HD is just a waste of money for me.

In fact I have never seen a set-up where HD is appreciably better than SD.

This is not trolling but just stating facts from my experience.

I have not seen the new 1080p displays yet - but will post my comments when I do.

[PersianImmortal]

Take the time to read the responses in this thread and you'll see that

( a ) several people have stated that they can indeed see the difference between SD and HD

and

( b ) it depends on a range of factors, including the input components used and the source video

The topic of this thread is stated as a fact, even when it is not a proven fact that 'HD gear is a waste of money'. That's a lot like stating that a Ferrari is a waste of money - not a fact, but an opinion.

Once again, if you can't tell the difference between an SD and HD panel, or you sit a fair way away from the screen, then congratulations and I hope you enjoy your SD panel. I most definitely could see the difference while I was out researching and comparing panels, so I bought HD. To this day I've had a great deal of enjoyment from the set, and when I see SD panels in stores I can still very clearly see the difference. So my facts and your facts appear to be in conflict, hence they are called opinions.

In terms of actual objective facts - as I noted, people with SD panels have to increase the sharpness on their sets to get a similar crispness from the panel, which can lead to additional noise and ghosting. Normal DVDs are 576 line output in Australia (PAL), but SD panels are 480 line devices, so how can 576 lines fit into 480 without some form of data/image quality loss? And this is without even getting into an overly technical discussion or talking about future developments, I'm talking about drawbacks to SD right now.

I could go on, but as you can see the facts and some peoples' experiences tend to make it very clear that HD gear is in fact not a waste of money, and the entire topic seems devised to make people who can't (or don't want to) afford HD gear feel better about themselves.

[50mxe20]

I could go on, but as you can see the facts and some peoples' experiences tend to make it very clear that HD gear is in fact not a waste of money, and the entire topic seems devised to make people who can't (or don't want to) afford HD gear feel better about themselves.

Very succinctly put. I think there is a lot of truth in what you say.

[Imprint]

I could go on, but as you can see the facts and some peoples' experiences tend to make it very clear that HD gear is in fact not a waste of money, and the entire topic seems devised to make people who can't (or don't want to) afford HD gear feel better about themselves.

Well said, and to the original poster. To each their own, but don't try and sway others who haven't made up their mind in what they want yet (hd/sd plasma/lcd) simply because you're justifying your choice.

You've left out many important points that relate to the pros and cons of each variant.

For example, I wouldn't consider SD at all and consider it a waste of money, this is based on my current situation SD doesn't cut the mustard for next gen gaming consoles, anyone wasting money on an SD tv that plans on ever owning an xbox360 for example will lose that 'perfect vision' within weeks from squinting.

The end decision is your own, so instead of coming here to puff out your chest and reassure yourself you purchase was the right one, lets try and keep it a little more open.

[merovingian]

seriously though we still dont know the origins of these graphs. what percentile was used to develop it ?. What are their basis ? I think theyre just a guide 'a rule of thumb'.

This is the Carlton Bale article from which the original graph was lifted:

http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

So, it is apparently based on 20/20 vision, meaning the ability to read the 8-th line on a Snellen chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity). So this means the ability to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc. Using this as a base point, it would obviously be possible to calculate pixel sizes (based on screen size and resolution), and determine the maximum viewing distance at which the pixels should be fully resolvable.

I haven't verified the graph mathematically, but it agrees with the other one that I posted from Sound & Vision magazine, and both of those graphs agree with the calculator here:

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/vie...calculator.html

So these three sources are either all repeating an error, or they are all correct. All correct is probably more likely. Anyway, I agree they are only a guide.

[merovingian]

I'll state what I have stated many times before, that the difference on my HD plasma between HD and SD is so minute (and not at all detectable at normal viewing distances) that HD is just a waste of money for me.

In fact I have never seen a set-up where HD is appreciably better than SD.

Others are doing the right thing and trying to again make the case about the relationship between screen size, resolution and viewing distance. I'll try to make it simpler: where are you Doug? If by some chance you're in Perth, get yourself down to Sony Central and take a look at Bravia X LCDs or the SXRD rear projection screens. Get the sales assistant to switch between HD and SD. If you're not impressed by HD at that moment, then you might as well just give up on this whole TV caper.

[thiskl]

The topic is "HD Gear a waste of money"

What on earth has trolling got to do with it ?????

It just sounds like more and more consumers are realising that the extra expense of HD equipment is often wasted giving no material increase in picture quality.

I'll state what I have stated many times before, that the difference on my HD plasma between HD and SD is so minute (and not at all detectable at normal viewing distances) that HD is just a waste of money for me.

In fact I have never seen a set-up where HD is appreciably better than SD.

This is not trolling but just stating facts from my experience.

I have not seen the new 1080p displays yet - but will post my comments when I do.

What was the source material/device?

[thiskl]

Others are doing the right thing and trying to again make the case about the relationship between screen size, resolution and viewing distance.

Could the screen-door effect be a useful counterpoint for discussing this relationship?

For example; having a display too large, with a resolution too low for your viewing distance.

[PersianImmortal]

Something else I might add in terms of practical differences - while experimenting with calibrating my HD Pana, switching the 'Color Matrix' setting from SD to HD made a significant improvement in image quality, by reducing oversaturation and removing colour banding/gradations. Discussion is here.

I don't believe SD components are capable of using the HD Color Matrix, since even on the HD pana it requires an HD resolution (i.e. a progressive DVD source or HDSTB) before this setting can be changed to the HD value. The difference is quite noticeable though.

So once again, forgetting marginal technical issues, there are noticeable practical benefits of having an HD Plasma and using HD source components.

Again, this is ignoring the fact that HDDVD/Blu-Ray players are coming out right now as well as game consoles which are capable of producing very clear, crisp "HD" from current DVDs on existing HD sets (not true 1080P HD, but 720P), which is not possible on SD sets. I also doubt anyone can honestly state that a console game displayed at 480P can possible be as detailed as the same game at 720P. That's like saying that running a PC game on your computer at 640x480 is better than running it at 1024x768.

Of course if you're going to sit 5+ meters away from the set and watch it with a Clint Eastwood-like squint then obviously you won't notice the difference. But many people sit quite a bit closer and can tell the difference between 480 lines and 768 lines of display resolution with the appropriate source - which is becoming much more common now. And that's not even talking about the ultra high-end 1080P HD sets, but the common x768 sets.