[Closed] Is HD on tvs supposed to look different?

Purely anecdotally, I'm convinced that this isn't just down to the sets, but that SD broadcasts have actually dropped in quality with the rise of HD. It'd be interesting to see what modern SD streams look like on an old 28" CRT.

If we hit 1 then it usually offers a little prompt saying "Watch in HD?" and if you hit okay it changes to 101.

Kind of academic though as our telly is very rarely off CBeebies HD 🙂

Interesting thread. We went from a 28" CRT to a 42" (Panasonic) plasma, both input from a loft aerial rather than satellite and watched from approx 10 - 12ft away. Both delivered good pictures and distinctly better than friends who had 32" ish flat screens fed by Sky. I don't find the difference between SD and HD mind-blowing though. It's not like I can't tell the difference, it's just that I don't watch BBC SD, for example, wishing I could watch it in HD. Similarly I'm more than happy watching SD movies from iTunes as opposed to paying a bit extra to rent/buy HD.

People do tend to look sweatier/shiner in HD compared to the SD broadcast. Not sure that's a good thing 😆

Interesting that - one of the first things that I noticed when I moved from an old standard def CRT telly to watching the same SD sources on an 36" HD telly was that the MPEG encoding squares were much more obvious without the softening blur of a CRT

Agreed. CRT certainly masked a few issues.

But a good HD source (not all encoding/bit rate is equal) is leagues ahead.

A HD telly is never going to make the best of an SD source, in the same way CRT was fairly flattering.

RE picture quality, most HD content is encoded and broadcast at a variable bitrate, meaning that sometimes the amount of data being transmitted is throttled down depending if the encoder feels it need to send extra data or not. In the old days of early Freeview HD I did some testing on this during Wimbledon week with DVB-T anaylser and found that prior to that BBC 1 HD was being transmitted at around 8-9Mbps but during the tennis it was upped to 12-14Mbps. I'm presuming this was to improve the quality of the image, a ball flying across millions of blades of grass is a tricky thing to capture digitally?
It may have changed in the years I stopped playing around with SMATV systems but you used to have only around 36Mbps of data per MUX (both DVB-T and DVB-S)in the UK, not much space to squeeze in a few HD channels and associated red button data and/or radio channels.

but that SD broadcasts have actually dropped in quality with the rise of HD

As I said SD on freeview was a fair drop compared to a decent UHF feed - I remember flicking between some whitewater canoeing footage on a freeview channel vs the same on the non-freeview channel, on a trinatron CRT (a good, cylindrical one, not the flatscreen ones) and the difference was non-trivial, and perhaps of a similar magnitude to switching between SD and HD.

And I never watch the SD channels as the drop from the HD channels is too much for me.

It definitely does look different - speaking as someone who gets to compare regularly. I have not paid for HD on my own telly so I am not justifying a purchase - but many hotels I stay in have it.

Your telly might be too small or far away to notice though - but that's fine, have your room how you want it! Why not stand a few feet away for a closer look to spot the difference?

As I said SD on freeview was a fair drop compared to a decent UHF feed

Remember there's SD and there's SD. The bit-rate that gets used determines the quality, UP TO a maximum determined by the resolution i.e. the HD/SD bit. ITV in our area looks like crap, whereas BBC looks good, despite both being SD. ITV clearly has a lower bitrate.

many hotels I stay in have it.

Humblebrag HD. 😉

Remember there's SD and there's SD

figured that one out...

I was comparing the same broadcast on the same equivalent channel, both BBC1, or maybe 2. Obviously a few seconds delay between channels.

[quote="molgrips"]but many hotels I stay in have it.Probably good for the many and varied skin tones and close ups seen on hotel TVs.

Makes a big difference in Mrs B's 54" TV we can easily see the difference between 1080 and 720 too. Sports is one thing where SD vs HD really shows.

@cinnamon imho even cheap pc type speakers make a difference (eg £50 ones) plugged into the audio-out. I have an ancient flatscreen tv (10+ yeats) with forward facing speakers and its amazing how much better the sound is than newer (6 years) flatscreen.

Humblebrag HD

Hah.. Holiday Inn Swindon.. don't be jealous...

When we went looking for a new TV a couple of years ago, there was a very noticeable difference in picture quality from brand to brand. The Panasonics and Sonys stood head and shoulders above the Samsungs, LGs etc. We went for a Pana because it had the thinnest edge at the time. Perhaps the difference isn't so great now, or another brand now makes the best picture quality set. Size wise; I really liked the 4K sets, but there was nothing smaller than 60" or so (we went for a 32" set as it's more than adequate and we didn't want a huge screen dominating the room). There is definitely a very noticeable difference between SD and HD broadcasts of the same channel. So maybe certain brands are better for HD viewing than others, I don't know. We're more than happy with ours though.

When we went looking for a new TV a couple of years ago,

Not always a good indication. It's easy to manipulate a TV into looking better or worse than its competition, and they're often set up to look 'better' in a way that would look terrible at home.

I was aware of that, so insisted each one be put into 'standard' mode. Regardless, the Panas and Sonys were superior quality.

Some neighbours have the Samsung equivalent we were looking at. It isn't as good a picture as ours.

Went to Sevenoaks to make my last TV decision - the manager at Weybridge had spent some time setting all the sets up to the best picture he could.

Very close run thing between the Triluminous Sony I ended up with and one of the decent Panasonic plasma.

In the end I thought of potential image burn and bought the Sony, but still toying with trying a plasma.

And it just reinforced my poor opinion of Samsungs...

but many hotels I stay in have it.

i watched an episode of peaky blinders in a hotel, the tv was a new samsung thing about 40in the feed was some kind of satellite as they had tv for lots of countries (was in Basel)

it looked terrible, couldn’t work out what was going on as it wasn’t super saturated killing the subtle grading of the uk broadcast but looked very odd, mentioned it to the DOP the next day (was on a film/video shoot) and he said it’s all down to the upscaling in the tv messing with the out of focus areas. it did look like a rubbish 80’s beta cam ccd video capture. it totally killed the focus fall off and the subtle colour gradations of what i see on my mid range sony HD thats not got colour/contrast turned up to the max.

i have a reasonable understanding of colour LUT’s etc so tend to notice if anything is amiss (my girlfriend has banned me from pointing at the telly and shouting ‘Teal plus Orange!’) i still see most people’s tellys as having obnoxious looking pictures, a lot of it is to do with the motion flow stuff (films at 24fps dont really work well) poor processing and all the adjustments cranked up to 100.

OP - not read any replies but we just got a small tv for the kitchen (22 inch) and bought an amplified indoor aerial and there is a massive difference between standard def. and HD on BBC1

My wife can't tell the difference between 16x9 and 4x3 stretched/compressed. HD is wasted on her too.

I can easily tell, 40in cheap telly at about 6-10 ft away. I need to get the amp set up - she has a PA but she's lost the cables (And, recently, our son decided he is most interested in the several different coloured knobs on the front, so these are now elsewhere)

(my girlfriend has banned me from pointing at the telly and shouting ‘Teal plus Orange!’)

You and me both.

i have a reasonable understanding of colour LUT’s

I don't, and your post has mostly lost me, but I do occasionally stay in a hotel where some setting on the TV makes films look like cheap home movies. The result totally destroys the atmosphere of the film, and the actors delivery looks hilariously out of context. Everything looks like some people down the pub doing a hammed up pisstake. Amazing how much difference some colour settings can make!

[i]It's connected via hdmi cable, but looking at that chart, I'm sitting about 12 feet away from our 24" telly, [/i]

So you've a TV the size of my desk monitor and you're watching it from the other side of the room...

Can you even see any detail on it, like can you make out the ball in tennis (or even football), or an actors face?

have a reasonable understanding of colour LUT’s etc so tend to notice if anything is amiss

What LUTs are they, I know of no current consumer grade TVs that support LUTs.

I could be behind consumer stuff but I work in the industry where Look up tables are often applied.

That chart is distance vs. screen size BS. All it does is give you an indication of perceived screen size equivalency. If you have adequate resolution there are no disadvantages from a viewing point of view to having as big a telly as you can possible afford/fit into your house.

Obviously if you're not into watching telly or films then you'll be happy with a small screen neatly tucked away in the corner and that's fair enough.

What LUTs are they, I know of no current consumer grade TVs that support LUTs.

If you have adequate resolution there are no disadvantages from a viewing point of view to having as big a telly as you can possible afford/fit into your house.

I would disagree generally - too big a screen means your eyes have to move too much. I don't sit near the front in the cinema for the same reason.

Plus you have the rest of the room to consider - wouldn't want a telly to dominate.

May I suggest the OP switch between the football matches on ITV and ITV4 to see how different HD and SD can be!

I would disagree generally - too big a screen means your eyes have to move too much

what do you do outside in the real world then, wear blinkers ?

When I worked at BBC research dept for my first job they were working on HD tv back then - 1989 probably.

1250 lines of progressive analog I think, it tool four digital recording machines (based on betamax machines ?) to record the picture.

4 times the information of PAL - PAL back then which was better than freeview PAL...

Bl88dy lovely, saw it projected onto a screen and you couldn't see any lines, and on a huge trinatron monitor. Part of the Eureka project - HD mac. Was going to use the BSB satellites, but then they went bust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD-MAC ]

No there aren't. but I'm taking about knowing what happens to an image that's made 'safe' for broadcast and then shifted in gamut/colour etc at the end of the chain (consumer) including the fact that rec709 clips the blacks and whites instead of being 0-255 (think it's 16-235)

Depends what your talking about; stuff shot on regualr HD based cameras will not be shooting anything useful outside of that range. So the clipping is largely unseen data.

If shot on a camera that exceeds Rec709 (I.e film cameras that shoot in raw, log etc) are effectively remapped to our broadcasting standard BT709. So assuming calibrated well, will be okay.

We own and work with Red Dragons and Epics, it can be demonstrated how much better things are relatively easily providing your source is up to scratch and your display chain is calibrated.

All thing she equal, HD wasses on SD, and 4/5/6K urinates on HD.

That's how it should be, don't let anyone tell you anything else or get down to Red Europe at Pinewood and watch their 4K demo. It's mind blowing.

If you've ever been to an IMax cinema then you are only just filling your field of vision with a 30ft or more screen. You're never going to fit a telly big enough in your home to mean you're having to scan across it. I'm sitting about 3m away from a 65" telly in my home and though it is big it's nowhere near filling my field of vision. It could ealisy take a screen twice the size given adequte resolution.

Like I said - if TV is not that important to you that you don't want it to dominate then fine - just get a small set in the corner and all this debate is really irrelevant.

If you've ever been to an IMax cinema then you are only just filling your field of vision

...and as molgrips says, you then have to move your eyes a lot to watch. Some people like that, some people don't. Sitting in an iMax cinema (or sitting very close to a huge TV) is like going to the opticians for one of those peripheral vision tests 😆

I would love to see a really good home cinema setup with a good 4k TV, but chances of having one in our house are slim to none.

what do you do outside in the real world then, wear blinkers ?

The real world is not composed like a film or TV show! 🙄

TV makes a massive difference. Some Samsungs almost look unnatural showing HD. My Panasonic is great, but a lot more subtle.

...and as molgrips says, you then have to move your eyes a lot to watch

another problem with these snazzy cinemas with the big seats is, because the seats are so big, the popcorn holder and drinks holders are too far away and it's a real ball-ache to having to reach that far for the snacks 🙂

At home I can just rest one of those special trays on the sofa arm and dip my face straight into the goodies bowl - I don't even have to use my arms !

2.5m from back of sofa to 50" Plasma here. Nowhere near large enough that you have move your head of even your eyes. Slightly regret not pushing to 55 or 60" now.

Some Samsungs almost look unnatural showing HD.

I've noticed that with a few Samsung sets - they give a weird 'viewmaster' false 3D effect that makes everything look overlit and a bit like an 80's daytime soap. I've always assumed it's a combination of edge enhancement/sharpness and a bit of over saturation. It's not normally socially acceptable to fiddle with the picture settings at someone else's house though. (same friend used to stretch and fill 4:3 content and had a 6th 'rear surround' speaker that was actually connected to one of the front audio channels)

[img] [/img]

Watch Wimbledon, You should be able to make our faces in the crowd and see the shape of the ball, not just a yellow blur. Also the sound will be more immersive.

I've noticed that with a few Samsung sets - they give a weird 'viewmaster' false 3D effect that makes everything look overlit and a bit like an 80's daytime soap. I've always assumed it's a combination of edge enhancement/sharpness and a bit of over saturation.

It's a dynamic contrast setting (I think from memory) that just about anyone who knows how to set up a Samsung TV agrees should be turned off.

I have it on a 10yr old set, I know it looks crap, ergo it's turned off - Samsungs give some of the best pictures out there if you aren't a bufoon/research setting them up properly.

The real world is not composed like a film or TV show!

yes, it's a lot wider and fills your whole field of view, so you have to move your eyes and/or head around to notice things like cars approaching your road from the side, and other hazards.

Just like you would at an iMax cinema that filled your field of view.

Maybe you have some defect with your vision - you should go see the optician. Try doing some of those Bates style exercises to keep your eye muscles in decent shape so you don't object to using them like humans have evolved to be able to do.

Samsungs give some of the best pictures out there if you aren't a bufoon/research setting them up properly.

they seem to always mess up with skin tones in my opinion - I have yet to see one that I have been impressed with that hasn't benefitted from being fed a very high quality source (and so every other make of TV also looks impressive) and lots where they make a big mess of processing a non-perfect source.

And whenever I have seen a TV set in a hotel, which are never set up well and very rarely fed a decent source, it is always the Panasonics that seem to make the best of the situation, whereas the Samsungs really screw it up.

Check your settings.

I had switch my Virgin box to 1080p but really 1080i.

Watching footy in 1080i and sound is better too.

HD ready 720p or full HD 1080p? Check your TV specs.

Watched latest Star Wars on Bluray 1080p on my 60" was awesome. Need a better sound bar though.

I don't accept the thing about moving your eyes around the screen. You move your eyes around anyway no matter how big or small the screen. You can only focus on one spot at any time so you are moving your eyes to focus on different areas of the screen. IMax is awesome - big TV's are awesome....but only if you're into the whole home cinema/movie watching.

Any TV you have to 'set up properly' isn't the best TV around. I've had 3 panasonic now, i've done nothing to them apart from take them out of the box, plug them in, switch them on, make sure none of the silly 'TV enhancement features' are turned on and they work.

I have thought about getting my main TV calibrated, but the picture is so good i'm not sure how much of an improvement i'll see.