Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
dmann

Hd Gear A Waste Of Money!

Recommended Posts

Well I actually own king kong on hd-dvd and own a hd-dvd player and havign watched it at 3.25m on my 1024 line HD 42" HD plasma would have to say you must need to get your eyes tested or surely blind to not see the benefit 1080i HD can bring.

Al ... what Andrew, Owen, meself, and the chart talked about was the benefit (if any) of the extra pixels on 1080 screens over same-sized 768 screens (if watched from say 3m). You're talking about a totally different aspect, which is 1080i HD downscaled to your 42" plasma being better than normal dvd upscaled to same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al ... what Andrew, Owen, meself, and the chart talked about is the benefit (if any) of the extra pixels on 1080 screens over same-sized 768 screens (if watched from say 3m). You're talking about a totally different aspect, which is 1080i HD downscaled to 1024x768 being better than normal dvd upscaled to 1024x768.

actually I'm talking about my 42" HD plasma that has 1024 lines and veiwing from 2.5-3.25m. This thread as far as I know is about HD gear being a waste of money over SD screens of 480 lines. the chart is about at what point 1080 and other formats the benfit becomes evident and at what point eg 4.6m at which point 1080i or 480p on a 42" screen might look equivalnet.

there are guys here eg andrew williams saying the only benfit of a hd plasma over a SD one at 42" is reduced SDE period which is plain rubbish and I have no doubt the guy has never seen a HD plasma with good 1080i source to say anythign like that.

and if you dont believe me this is what felix(who has the same 42" HD panel as me) posted earlier in this thread

Yep I'm sitting at 2.5m with the same display and the difference in PQ between HD and SD source is night and day to my eyes too. In fact I wouldn't want to sit too much closer as I can start to notice the individual pixels at around 1.5-1.8m.

Are your eyes able to completely resolve the full image detail of 1080 lines of vertical resolution on a 42" plasma at reasonable sitting distances? My answer is who cares! HD is a much better picture than SD to me when viewed on this TV. Actually it's hard for me to imagine the image being any crisper, clearer or having more accurate colours, when viewing top notch 1080i material whether it be DTV or HD-DVD. It's almost like looking through a window on the best quality content. I'm stoked I went for a decent 1024x1024 display and it's been a vast improvement over my previous 853x480 plasma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take what alebonau says with a grain of salt people.

See if you can find a 65” 1080p Panasonic Plasma or 60-70” Sony SXRD displaying BluRay content at 3 meters, and compare that with what you see on ANY 40-42” display, and then tell me that the 40-42” is providing a real HD experience. It plainly is not.

A 60-70” 1080 display blows a 40-42” display out of the water at 3 meters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to add my 2 cents.... was going to get the 42pa60 today as every time ive seen it it was on par with the 42pv and px Hdefs...until i saw the cricket today...finally saw a significant difference that would annoy me. fiddling with setting gave no luck, both from same source, component. so yer at around 3 mtres i could definitely tell...first time it was really noticable tho!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Take what alebonau says with a grain of salt people.

See if you can find a 65” 1080p Panasonic Plasma or 60-70” Sony SXRD displaying BluRay content at 3 meters, and compare that with what you see on ANY 40-42” display, and then tell me that the 40-42” is providing a real HD experience. It plainly is not.

A 60-70” 1080 display blows a 40-42” display out of the water at 3 meters.

Yeah, and the rrp of $18999 for the pana 65" did blow me away. Luckily HN had them for only $16999, LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take what alebonau says with a grain of salt people.

See if you can find a 65” 1080p Panasonic Plasma or 60-70” Sony SXRD displaying BluRay content at 3 meters, and compare that with what you see on ANY 40-42” display, and then tell me that the 40-42” is providing a real HD experience. It plainly is not.

A 60-70” 1080 display blows a 40-42” display out of the water at 3 meters.

you been takign too much salt owen. obviously cant even read a graph or understand what people post. read my post before yoru and see if you can make some sense out of it. but given your so far off one end of the spectrum very much doubt you can see the wood for the trees. enjoy your sxrd or any other bifg ass tv you end up buying because theres no doubt you think anythign less is a piece of sh!te. many of us though with our 42" HD panels with hd source will continue to enjoy what we can off HD and yeah much more than we would off a SD panel no mater what you say.

Yeah, and the rrp of $18999 for the pana 65" did blow me away. Luckily HN had them for only $16999, LOL.

yeah exactly a real sensible comparison isnt it ! :blink:

a under $3k display vs a $19k one !

to add my 2 cents.... was going to get the 42pa60 today as every time ive seen it it was on par with the 42pv and px Hdefs...until i saw the cricket today...finally saw a significant difference that would annoy me. fiddling with setting gave no luck, both from same source, component. so yer at around 3 mtres i could definitely tell...first time it was really noticable tho!

well good on you for checkign it out. If you can do check out either panel with some good HD. One of the hi-def disc plaeyrs would be ideal if not try catch soem fta HD thats broadcast in the mornings etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not the 42” size that’s the problem mate, it’s the 3.25 meter viewing distance that makes me giggle.

If you think your getting value out of 1080 on a 42” at 3 meters plus, all I can say is best of luck to you mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That graph posted suggests that on a 42" display it's impossible to distinguish between 480 and 720 at 3.9m !

It also suggests that you need to sit at 2m to even begin to see a difference between 720 and 1080.

Pretty sure I'm reading the graph correctly and it suggests that at 3m, a 42" 720 line display is barely worth it and a 42" 1080 line display is a waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


That graph posted suggests that on a 42" display it's impossible to distinguish between 480 and 720 at 3.9m !

It also suggests that you need to sit at 2m to even begin to see a difference between 720 and 1080.

Pretty sure I'm reading the graph correctly and it suggests that at 3m, a 42" 720 line display is barely worth it and a 42" 1080 line display is a waste.

it actually says at 4.6m that 1080i, 720p and 480p that Hd is equivalent on a 42" screen. obviously you need to go back to school on reading graphs or the graph is hogwash !.

It’s not the 42” size that’s the problem mate, it’s the 3.25 meter viewing distance that makes me giggle.

If you think your getting value out of 1080 on a 42” at 3 meters plus, all I can say is best of luck to you mate.

yes I know owen you keep playign the mine is bigger than yours pissing contest you seem pretty good at that.

in the mean time yep I will keep enjoying HD vai my tosh hd-dvd and from fta on my 42" 1024 line Hd plasma at the 2.5 -3.25m distances we veiw it at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in the mean time yep I will keep enjoying HD via my tosh hd-dvd and from fta on my 42" 1024 line Hd plasma at the 2.5 -3.25m distances we view it at.

At about 2.5m you're almost getting a full 720 line experience. Meanwhile at 2.5m, a 60" display can resolve 1920x1080 quite comfortably.

Your interpretation of the graph is interesting. You're right in that it says that at 4.6m it's impossible to tell the difference between any format on a 42", however it also says that the benefit of 720 over 480 doesn't become noticeable until 3.9m. I'm not too sure how they make that distinction since it sounds like the same thing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, I pretty much regret posting the link to the graph. Something that should have offered a degree of clarity to the arguments, is now being used as a beating stick. Al, for whatever reason, you only seem capable (or interested) in seeing the top left hand corner of the graph.

FWIW, the key part of the graph is the 4 lines showing the size to distance relationship for 480p, 720p, 1080p and 1440p. The shaded areas are representative only, and there really shouldn't be a gap between the shaded areas and the 4 plot lines. e.g. The 480/720/1080/1440p equivalent shaded area (at the top left) should extend all the way down to the 480p plot line. Or, to put it another way, a HD screen is wasted for any size-distance combination that would be located on or above the 480p line. You need to be below it.

As a further reference, try the graph here:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hitech/11...resolution.html

This graph agrees with the first one posted.

Al, I seek peace and understanding. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al, I seek peace and understanding. :D

Appears little chance of it on this topic at this time. :blink:

Guess all the Xmas 'cheer' is gone? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


At this point, I pretty much regret posting the link to the graph. Something that should have offered a degree of clarity to the arguments, is now being used as a beating stick. Al, for whatever reason, you only seem capable (or interested) in seeing the top left hand corner of the graph.

FWIW, the key part of the graph is the 4 lines showing the size to distance relationship for 480p, 720p, 1080p and 1440p. The shaded areas are representative only, and there really shouldn't be a gap between the shaded areas and the 4 plot lines. e.g. The 480/720/1080/1440p equivalent shaded area (at the top left) should extend all the way down to the 480p plot line. Or, to put it another way, a HD screen is wasted for any size-distance combination that would be located on or above the 480p line. You need to be below it.

As a further reference, try the graph here:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hitech/11...resolution.html

This graph agrees with the first one posted.

Al, I seek peace and understanding. :blink:

rather than repeat myself yet again to you and andrew, maybe go back and re-read my previous responses. vision is not like a brick wall you dont suddenly get to a point and all comes visible and appears. its gradual. And certainly thats what the graphs show (the shaded areas). there is benfit to be had from certain distances and full benfit had at a point.

given the raphs you've posted certainly benfit is to be had with a 42" HD screen at the 2.5-3.25m distances I'm viewing at. but anyways its not liek I need the graphs to prove that to anyone as the benfits there to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your problem is that you are not making a fair comparison between resolutions.

You just cant compare BluRay with DVD and say 1080 is MUCH better the 576 on your screen at your viewing distance. Of course BluRay will be better, DVD is by no means a measure of 576 performance.

If you used a HTPC you could rescale 1080 down to any lower resolution and back up to you native display res to really compare what effect changing JUST resolution has.

Comparing a HD TV channel with an SD channel or BluRay with DVD is a ridicules and misleading evaluation method.

You MUST always use the same HD source, recalled down to evaluate differences in resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your problem is that you are not making a fair comparison between resolutions.

You just cant compare BluRay with DVD and say 1080 is MUCH better the 576 on your screen at your viewing distance. Of course BluRay will be better, DVD is by no means a measure of 576 performance.

If you used a HTPC you could rescale 1080 down to any lower resolution and back up to you native display res to really compare what effect changing JUST resolution has.

Comparing a HD TV channel with an SD channel or BluRay with DVD is a ridicules and misleading evaluation method.

You MUST always use the same HD source, recalled down to evaluate differences in resolution.

did anyone say anythign about comparing DVD and blu-ray. jees make your own comparisons if you will but dont start telling people what comparisons theyre talking about when theyre not.

and no I'm not going to be using any computer scaler for any comparisons that would only introduce a variable into the equation thats not part of my normal viewing.

the graph says theres benifit to usign a 42" HD plasma at my viewing distance 2.5m-3.25m and I can and have seen the benefit of HD material via fta, the xbox 360 and now via my tosh hd-dvd and will continue ot seeing the benefit and none of your pissing contest mine is biger than yours comments will change any of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rather than repeat myself yet again to you and andrew, maybe go back and re-read my previous responses. vision is not like a brick wall you dont suddenly get to a point and all comes visible and appears. its gradual. And certainly thats what the graphs show (the shaded areas). there is benfit to be had from certain distances and full benfit had at a point.

given the raphs you've posted certainly benfit is to be had with a 42" HD screen at the 2.5-3.25m distances I'm viewing at. but anyways its not liek I need the graphs to prove that to anyone as the benfits there to be seen.

I am well aware of the gradual trailing away, and really don't know how you figured that I thought otherwise. Incidentally, my statement about the 480p plot line is correct, and does not suggest a brick wall like effect.

Yes you are dead correct that a 42" HD screen offers a benefit over an SD screen at 2.5 - 3.25m. At no point have I disputed this.

However, to re-iterate my earlier point to malewis, a 50" screen viewed at 3m places the user pretty much bang on the 720p line. Consequently, a 1080p HD screen would offer no benefit over a 720p or 768p HD screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I am well aware of the gradual trailing away, and really don't know how you figured that I thought otherwise. Incidentally, my statement about the 480p plot line is correct, and does not suggest a brick wall like effect.

Yes you are dead correct that a 42" HD screen offers a benefit over an SD screen at 2.5 - 3.25m. At no point have I disputed this.

However, to re-iterate my earlier point to malewis, a 50" screen viewed at 3m places the user pretty much bang on the 720p line. Consequently, a 1080p HD screen would offer no benefit over a 720p or 768p HD screen.

thanks merovingian, atleast someone acknowledged my point !

hehe hate to break it to you ! 3m is 9.842 feet or under the 10feet from which for a 50" HD plasma 1080p would start to provide benfit... :blink:

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'.

and hence I suggested an actual comparison and for him to check otu for himself. Would be a much better idea by anyone considering to thenwork out if its a display that would proivide them the benfit theyre looking for. especially since as mentioned its not only screen size and resolution that are the important aspects in picking a screen thats right for you and your needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why this point keeps getting argued over and over - aside from making people who buy SD gear feel superior or happy with their choice. The truth is that if money were no object, why would you buy a display with lower resolution?

There is a difference between HD and SD, especially since SD in Australia is not even the correct resolution for our PAL DVDs (480 instead of 576 lines). So you're not even seeing the entire resolution possible from existing DVDs, much less HD media!

Those of you bought SD Plasmas, that's fine, enjoy them as they are great for the money. But if you want to enjoy your plasma even more consider the fact that HDDVD/Blu-Ray players - and existing high-end DVD players - can upscale the image from a regular DVD. When you play DVDs at 720P or see HDTV at 720P on an HD set (which usually has 768 or higher lines) compared to the same image downscaled to 480 lines on an SD set you will understand and see the difference. And no, you don't need to be sitting a meter away from the set.

Also I've noticed that people with SD Plasmas have to turn up the Sharpness on their sets a fair bit more to get the same sort of crispness - and this in turn increases the amount of noise and ghosting because that's what increasing sharpness usually does.

So in terms of SD vs HD, we're not talking about 5 years into the future, we're talking right now, and if you're not aware or don't care about the difference, then as they say, ignorance is bliss. But if you want better image quality, HD sets provide it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comparing a HD TV channel with an SD channel or BluRay with DVD is a ridicules and misleading evaluation method.

This sounds like a gross generalisation to me. Can I ask you to clarify the point you're trying to make here?

I would think when demonstrating the differences between available detail, this is entirely a valid evaluation method. Especially given the original topic of this thread.

You MUST always use the same HD source, recalled down to evaluate differences in resolution.

Surely scaling down will lose detail. Couldn't this be just as misleading a method as those you've already dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This sounds like a gross generalisation to me. Can I ask you to clarify the point you're trying to make here?

I would think when demonstrating the differences between available detail, this is entirely a valid evaluation method. Especially given the original topic of this thread.

Surely scaling down will lose detail. Couldn't this be just as misleading a method as those you've already dismissed.

Well from one aspect at least, the Blu-Ray or HD-DVD source is going to generally be of a much higher bitrate than a DVD, so its not just the different resolutions you are comparing...but also the compression methods (if thats an issue), bitrates, and other factors.

In such a test one may be unwittingly declaring 20mbs to be superior to 5mbps, rather than the 1080 vs 576 that they are supposed to be comparing. Not saying this has happened with anyones tests, just a possibility that i know has arisen with my showing of HD stuff to people.

A lower bitrate WMV-HD video from the MS website compared to some of the BBC 20mbps stuff produced a "wow, weren't those first ones HD?" response from some viewers (despite saying 'wow' when they first saw the WMV's hehe).

There is a visible difference between high and low bitrate HD videos that are both in 1080, so it would be best to keep this factor out of the equation as much as possible.

Downscaling has the potential to introduce its own set of problems i suppose, but I wouldnt think it would make as big a difference as sources with sometimes wildly different bitrates.

Im not sure if the same is true of HD and SD broadcasts (but i assume it is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, just went through all the replies. Most of them sound like dogey salesmen trying to part you from as much of your hard earned as possible! The sad TRUTH is that the only reason to buy a HD screen and any other HD equipment is if you have to sit so close to the screen that you can't even see the whole image.

I know it is easy to get caught up in the whole HD hype but you are only throwing away money. Then I suppose you have to try to justify it to yourself and everyone else. Cheers and Merry Christmas to all. :D

Thought I would go back and look at the posts in this topic by the topic starter.Only found 2 and this was the second.I thought this worthwhile due to the high number of replies and some of the flame contained within them.

I have sat 2.5-3m from the sony x 1080p series 46 inch lcd and it is mind blowing.Defineately can SEE the difference between that and sd as well as the whole screen.(black levels not quite as good but niiicccceeee....).

I am not connected with retailing of any thing.

I would have thought your post was about you trying to justify your sd purchase amongst the hd owners.And happy new year to you :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<snip>...

Im not sure if the same is true of HD and SD broadcasts (but i assume it is).

Thanks Omega

I think that's why I initially took issue with Owen's statement.

I was working from the assumption that a station broadcasting an HD stream (let's not get into semantics - I mean HD), would simply be downscaling that content on their equivalent SD stream. Furthermore, on "capable hardware" the difference would be noticable.

This would negate the OP's argument.

With regard to viewing distance making the differences less->not noticable. I suspect that having detail on the screen and not being consciously aware of it, is somehow different to it not being there at all. Obviously there must be limits to the effectiveness of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This sounds like a gross generalisation to me. Can I ask you to clarify the point you're trying to make here?

I would think when demonstrating the differences between available detail, this is entirely a valid evaluation method. Especially given the original topic of this thread.

Surely scaling down will lose detail. Couldn't this be just as misleading a method as those you've already dismissed.

HD video is better in many ways, not just resolution, so it is unfair and invalid to compare an SD source with a HD source and assume that the difference you see is due to resolution alone.

For example, a person who stands in a shop, 4 meters away form a 42” HD TV connected to a HD STB, and flips between a 1080i HD TV broadcast with the same content transmitted on the SD channel and then declares that he can clearly see the difference between 576 and 1080 resolution is not making a valid comparison.

The HD feed will always look better then the SD feed, even on an SD TV.

Comparing a movie on DVD to the same title on a BluRay player is equally invalid. You are comparing apples with oranges.

To make any comparison valid, the exact same source must be used in the comparison, and preferable the same display.

Probably the only easy way to do this properly is with a PC.

A PC can be configured to play a high quality 1080 test video and output it at 1080 to the HD display or alternatively, down scale the 1080 video to 480 or 576, and then back up to 1080 before outputting it at 1080.

The process of down scaling to 480 or 576 removes all visible detail above that resolution, so when we scale back up to 1080, we still only have 480 or 576 visible resolution contained in 1080 video.

What is significant however is that scaled version will have full 480 or 576 visible resolution, as well as maintain the same colour, noise, compression artefacts etc as the original 1080 video. Only the resolution has changed nothing else.

Now we can play the original 1080 video and the scaled version out to the HD display and see what affect changing JUST the visible resolution has.

Since the output to the display is 1080 in both cases, the TV will do the same scaling, processing etc to both versions, thus keeping our comparison as fair as is possible.

Now if we compare the original 1080 version with the 480 or 576 resolution limited version on a 42” screen at 4 meters, it’s going to take exception visual acuity on the part of the viewer to see any difference between then.

I have done this type of comparison on various screen sized and viewing distances over the years, and my findings very closely match the more conservative predictions of the various viewing distance calculators.

As I mentioned before, a group of AVS members did some side by side comparisons with a pair of fully calibrated current model Pioneer 50” Plasma’s. One 768p model and the other a new 1080p model.

1080 HDDVD source was used as a source and the findings where as expected.

At 6’ (a little under 2 meters) the difference in resolution between the 768p and 1080p models was only just detectable.

However at 7’ (a little over 2 meters) know one in the group could see any difference in visible resolution between them.

Again this concurs with the conservative end of the viewing distance chart posted earlier, which predicts that 1080 resolution cant be resolved at much over 6’ (about 2 meters) on a 50” display.

The idea that a display smaller then 50” is going to provide anything even close to 1080 visible resolution at 3 meters or more is fascial.

A 50” screen is only providing about 768 visible resolution at 2 meters and a 42” proportionally less.

At 3 meters a 42” screen is providing little more then SD visible resolution to the average viewer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually think introducing a pc to scale downscale and upscale for a comaprison of this sort is invalid.

In your opinion.

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.

That I agree with.

Most of todays HD Plasmas are just better displays then the older SD models, and look better regardless of their resolution.

They have better colour, better blacks, better processing, they are just better all round.

These advantages are useful at any viewing distance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Classifieds Statistics


    Currently Active Ads

    Total Sales (Since 2018)

    Total Sales Value (Last 14 Days)

    Total Ads Value (Since March 2020)
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...