I need to be educated on why HD is better than SD

[datapusher]

This thread is basically... a waste of time. I asked for some enlightenment on the subject and although some chose to help, most were die hard hd fanboys that would rather fling insults than contribute. Save yourself the 5 minutes and read another thread.

[iriseagainsti]

I guess I'm the first to comment here, but if you don't see a reason to upgrade, then don't. Unfortunately, when the inevitable occurs and your current TV goes, you will be forced into the realm of HD.

HDTVs are made for just what they say, High-Definition content. Turning on Jerry Springer or Spongebob is going to look rather worse than you are accustomed to seeing. Watching Discovery HD, 300 on HD DVD/B-R (no reason one was mentioned before the other!), or the Cowboys rough up the Giants in HD is what those tvs are made for -- Not for your standard definition analog broadcasts that will eventually be phased out (which is what your TV was made to display).

Until every channel broadcasts in HD, there will be plenty of stations that disappoint in the picture quality area. It's up to you if you want to sacrifice some channels for some glory. I made that decision already and I would never go back -- and neither would most of the people here on this forum.

As far as the downsides you are mentioning, you seem to be in the minority, as I have never been introduced to, say, a sports simulcast that looked better in SD than it did in HD. But like I said, to each his own.

[greenland]

Watch what you like!. Your life, your choice.

[mantan34]

Wow, I hope your flamesuit is on LOL.

Seriously, I am not nearly as much as a videophile as many of the folks on here. Neither is my wife. But once they got a look at TV shows and sports in HD it was absolutely a no-brainer to make the switch.

My wife LOVED her DirecTV Tivo. But once we got the TV delivered this week she was blown away by how much better the shows looked in HD.

As I imagine a lot of people will say, bad HDTV (which you'll often see in a showroom) seems like it's not that much better.

But if you like what you have, don't change because of everyone else. Quiet as it's kept, the only reason we started to look is because our old big screen TV (and Tivo DVR) were petering out. The Tivo box was quick HD replacement fix. But the TV wasn't worth saving.

The only three things I would say as someone who's not hardcore about their television.

1) HDTV buying is WAY too complicated. Deciding a technology to use, worrying about cables, native modes, calibration and setup, upconversion DVD players and all the other things you have to consider. You read the threads and it seems like EVERY TV has issues that has owners circling with pitchforks and torches. Be prepared to do a lot of research, it is MUCH more complicated than buying (and setting up) a TV should be.

2) Once you start watching HD channels, SD channels and TV look very bland. To the point, we find ourselves watching a mediocre HD program over a good SD program. Fortunately most the primetime shows and sporting events are in HD and (hopefully) many more will be coming via D* in the upcoming weeks.

3) Tivo has it's fans and if you have to switch to something else, be prepared for different functionality. Some things better, a few things worse (she was very dissapointed about the lack of a true dual live buffer) - but definitely different.

Ultimately it's your decision. If you are happy with what you got, why change it? But HDTV definitely provides a different TV watching experience that has made a lot of us happy we switched.

[Davinleeds]

All I can offer is HD is heads above. Trinitrons are nice-SD will look better on it than SD on a (alot) of 1080p flat panels. SD units don't do HD and alot (most) HD unit don't do SD well. So you can't compare. Hard to elaborate over forums, but a friend or co-worker who is into HD can show you directly. For me, there is no return to the SD side.

[ccotenj]

Originally Posted by datapusher

Now as for picture quality, maybe some of you have misread my OP. The HD I have seen are on an HD feed not SD.

What am I doing wrong that these sets don't look like they do for the rest of you?

if you are saying that HD feed on a HD set looks worse to you than SD feed on a SD set, then either:

a) you have "interesting" vision
or
b) you are trolling

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say "a"... but i've never met anyone else like that (and granted, i haven't met everyone in the world)...

[sievers]

problem is no one can really help you, if you don't like it you just don't like it. but no one can empathize with your position because it makes no sense, hd is clearly better. and then you pose the possibility that everyone else is a sheep and you are the only smart one, well if that doesn't get you a cold shoulder in a thread I don't know what will!

[Elemental1]

Buy a nice Pioneer, Panasonic or Samsung plasma and hook it up to an HD source at home.
Then tell us all again that you can't see any improvement over SD on your CRT.

[6volt]

Actually, there is a really good argument for HD not having any value: If you like to watch a nice, small picture, from a great distance, you won't see any difference between SD and HD.

The whole point of HD is to allow really, really big TV's. Without HD, they would look worse than the 19" RCA color sets everyone grew up with.

Here is a reason YOU (datapusher) need HD:

You are very happy with your Sony Trini 36" SD, right?

Well, if you decide you want a 72" TV, if you stay with SD, it will look like crap compared to your 36".

On the other hand if you goto 1080i/p, you will have the same absolute resolution that your 36" had - so you will be happy with that picture.

Oh, and yes, early BR is hideous - compression tradeoffs were made by drunken monkeys. Remember the very first CD's and especially the very first CD remasters of popular albums? TOTAL NIGHTMARES!!! But everything is fine now.

I saw a prototype HD maybe 10 years ago which stopped me dead in my tracks - I didn't move for THIRTY MINUTES!!!!!!

It will do the same to you whenever you see it too. Its just that it may be some time before that actually happens.

Of course, regarding HD bandwidth. CD was great, then SACD was manna from heaven. So what is our bread and butter today? MP3's which are pure excrement compared to the lowly CD which started it all.

The same could happen to HD. MPAA paranoia could take us anywhere. Cost of Bandwidth will definitely drive resolution downward. And finally, if the viewing public doesn't really care what they are watching, HD will take a hit, resolution wise.

So given the tendencies of our current society, the outlook for HD is truly indeterminate at this time.
_____________________________

BTW, here is a real trolling comment: I would sacrifice HD back to SD if I could only get my DD 5.1 in SD. As far as I'm concerned DD has made the biggest impact on viewing experience. Uncompressed, full bandwith HD might be as important but I don't think we'll ever get that in this market. So as things stand right now, DD audio is far more important that HD in my book. And for years, there has been no way to record DD except for DVHS. But DVHS is another story for another time...

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by datapusher

Well I've read the forum. I joined over a year ago. Yeah, i don't post much, but I read a lot. I'm definately not trolling. I started this post to get some input from people, not to be insulted.

And yes, when i go to Best Buy or Circuit City and I see their TVs on the HD feed they have there, but probably split 50 times, it looks like crap. I stand in awe when people say ooh and awe at the demo unit. I ask myself, are they blind, do they not see all those artifacts around the words on the screen? How is that impressive. I want to oooh and I want to awe like everyone else.

When I was at my friends house, his hd cable on his hd lcd, it looked like ****. yes, the colors were vibrant, but when they would zoom out, you couldn't make out the players faces. just a blurry mess.

Seriously, I would liken the HD I have seen to a web video.

It was my hope that there would be some inteligent discussion on the question and maybe guide me to a tv appropriate for me.

I have an opportunity to spend a little cash and also replace my Mother's old big screen at the same time. Obviously HD is better, or so many people wouldn't be blowing big dollars on it (unless they are all sheeple), so there must be something I am not seeing or experiencing. Is it so hard to not be suspect of that?

Thanks to mantan iriseagainst and davinleeds for your help.

I look forward to more helpfull posts. I tell ya what, I'm going to walk over to Best Buy right now and have a look around. I'll be back to see if there is anymore discussion.

It sounds like you've seen bad sources if you're comparing HD to some web video. Just watch some NFL stuff OTA or a good primetime show like The Unit in HD. If that's not impressive, I don't know what to tell you. I wasn't convinced after a year of seeing HD on my friend's DLP setup from DISH. But then the time came to get my own set, and I went LCD with HD from Verizon FIOS. I didn't expect much, but I ended up getting a serious wow. I'm watching Texas vs Rice on FSN HD right now and there is no way you can tell me that SD looks anywhere close to this clarity, sharpness and vibrant colors. There is no way you could tell me that anything on Discovery channel looks anywhere close to DiscHDT. Even my father with bad vision can tell without his glasses.

[datapusher]

Hey someone attacks me, I lash out. I have been completely respectfull and polite in my posts.

Moving on. I am standing in Best Buy right now. here are my observations. The first ones I see are thed 1000 lcds from LG, Philips and Best Buy's house brand Insignia. They are horrid. So grainy. Plus this demo video with the devil wears prada is so blown out that it loolks like they ran a mosaic filterf in PS because you can barely make out gtheir faces. Do people actually buy these after seeing this.

OK, let's take a walk. I see a sharp aquos 32" lcd. It is grainy standing close but looks rather good from about 7' back. The only problem is that it is on a loop of MI3 DVD menu so I can't really say much. Although this is the best I Have seen frm HD so far. The type on the dvd menu is crisp and clean. However at IU it is way to small.

On to the next sextion. This is all 32" 720p LCDs from Sony, Panasonic and Samsung. They are showing a demo disk on 2 and Dinosaurs on the otherf 2. Not impressed. Many artifacts on fast motion and also suffer from graniness.

If I look above me, there is a 52' 1080p Sony LCD mounted on the wall for almost 4k. It is showing the discovery channel HD channel. It is so bad that you can't read the word 'theater' in it's logo. Rfight next to it there is a soccer match on an enourmouse Pioneer. There are artifacts all around every player. Thagt would drive me insain. I switched the Pioneer to optimum during the tennis channel demo. It looks better. I wish I could see this setting for the soccer match. I can offer no info on what kind this pioneer is since someone removed the placard. Now it is showing a demo of Bourne Supremacy. It's pretty grainy. It seams to be having trouble tracking the fast car chase scene.

I will wait for this best buy segment to end and then start my mission again.

[Isochroma]

Your question is close but not quite on the mark, datapusher. It's not so much about better, as it is about necessary. Your 36" CRT is probably being watched from a distance where it won't matter if it was HD or SD.

HD is necessary when you watch a bigger screen at the same distance, or the same-size screen with higher resolution at a closer distance, because SD will look like crap on a big high-res display. All HD does for its wider FOV is maintain the same resolution per horizontal viewing degree in both the source and display, that SD has at typical viewing distance.

What that means is HD (720p, 1080p) let you have a bigger display and wider field of view without running into either display resolution limitation (SDE, visible pixels or graininess) or signal resolution limitation (blur, unsharpness) or both.

HD is for you if you want to sit up close to a larger display, or further away from an even bigger one and still maintain the perception of 'sharpness' that you currently enjoy from your 36" CRT. If this is not your desire, then an SD display and/or signal will be cheaper.

[tombaker]

don't argue with happiness....if you are happy good....you are done

The major networks all broadcast in HD.....and hopefully soon all the other cable channels will be in HD too.

Look at the Sony 40S3000 for SD quality......its pretty good....not as good as you older CRT....but pretty good.

and the longer you can wait the better the technology will be....LCDs are just about mature, they are close to the point where improvement will be trivials

[snookalo]

I'm sensing some serious denial here. It's kinda like my wife when I find a better way to do something. She's been doing it this way for years and totally believes it's the best, and then my smart arse steps in and gives her a better way. There is no way that she's listening to that. Let's just say a 1080P LCD for example. Anti-glare screen, super bright, awesome when showing 1080 content, 16x9 aspect ratio, great for widescreen movies, sports will look great, video game also. It's all about the content. If you put good stuff into one of these you'll get a great picture. If you put crap that's been super compressed or split 100 ways you'll lose some. The sony will look great if all you watch is shows that are only currently in SD. If you watch a lot of hunting shows as my dad does, why the crap would you want one? If you watch sports, movies, or many primetime shows, one of these will improve your viewing greatly. If you sit in a room with any type of sunlight, then one of these should be great for getting rid of the glare you get off of your glass screen. Either way, HD is heads and shoulders above SD. If, however all you watch is SD content then you have no reason to upgrade. Watch a Blue-Ray, watch an HD-DVD, that's the real sweet-spot of HD content. It's the good stuff that makes your mouth drop.

[doctorxring]

Maybe I'm echoing a number of comments here, but
I did not know how good my new plasma TV
really was until

I got it HOME

and hooked it up to a good feed. Nice surprise,
I must say.



dxr

[mantan34]

Originally Posted by snookalo

I'm sensing some serious denial here. It's kinda like my wife when I find a better way to do something. She's been doing it this way for years and totally believes it's the best, and then my smart arse steps in and gives her a better way. There is no way that she's listening to that. Let's just say a 1080P LCD for example. Anti-glare screen, super bright, awesome when showing 1080 content, 16x9 aspect ratio, great for widescreen movies, sports will look great, video game also. It's all about the content. If you put good stuff into one of these you'll get a great picture. If you put crap that's been super compressed or split 100 ways you'll lose some. The sony will look great if all you watch is shows that are only currently in SD. If you watch a lot of hunting shows as my dad does, why the crap would you want one? If you watch sports, movies, or many primetime shows, one of these will improve your viewing greatly. If you sit in a room with any type of sunlight, then one of these should be great for getting rid of the glare you get off of your glass screen. Either way, HD is heads and shoulders above SD. If, however all you watch is SD content then you have no reason to upgrade. Watch a Blue-Ray, watch an HD-DVD, that's the real sweet-spot of HD content. It's the good stuff that makes your mouth drop.

The sunlit room thing was the biggest wow for our new set. The room has a LOT of natural light (including skylights). So even with the blinds closed, there was a lot of reflection/glare off our old set. And the way our living room is set up, many of the seats are off to one sideset.

Our new LCD set looked fantastic while watching college football games this afternoon. No glare at all and a big bright picture you could see from anywhere in the room. AMAZING!

[Jungle Monkey]

Maybe you just need to see some of these TV's running a Blu-ray or HDDVD movie and then you will see what they are capable of.

[brentsg]

It sounds like you are seeing questionable feeds, TVs setup to be "dynamic" and not natural. Overprocessing, when they turn on all the bells and whistles to make it appear sharper only tends to cause noise and artifacts. For some reason they like to do this for retail.

Lastly, it sounds like you are standing too close for the size TVs you are looking at. If you stood at a similar distance (proportionally) to your TV at home then you would be looking at scanlines.

[Elemental1]

I do understand some of what this guy is saying though. Some of these LCD Tv's just look noisy and bad up close.
So much for 1080p on those things.

[brentsg]

Originally Posted by datapusher

I'm judging these sets off of where I would be viewing them at home. Anywhere from 6' +. Still look the same.

As for seeing what they are capable of by watching an HD DVD or Blue Ray, I want to see what every day viewing will be like. Apparently DirecTV is rolling out a bunch of HD channels in the near future. So I want to see what every day viewing will be like. Hopefully better than I'm seeing at best buy and the like.

What are some options I can put in for average evryday viewing on these demo sets to see what they sould look like. Not the sales version.

I dunno man, I reread what you initially wrote and I'm hung up on you liking DirecTV SD. You are complaining about motion artifacts, artifacts around players, and the like... That is the definition of overcompressed DirecTV. It's just absolutely awful in that regard. I've had it for like 10+ years and it's just about as bad as it's ever been right now. That alone tells me that your current TV is incapable or you'd be hating that at home.

Anyways, OTA programming varies by channel but I'd say in general it's closer to the HD disk formats than it is to the generally awful retail feeds. Nobody knows what D* will do with their new capacity this year, but if they don't fix the current "HD lite" situation then I can't see paying for their HD service again (I dropped their HD). If you weren't aware, they broadcast approximately 1/2 of 1080i. That also could be what you are seeing in stores.

[sievers]

Originally Posted by datapusher

station ids are un readable

I don't get it, you mean truly un-readable? This just doesn't add up. I think you've mentioned this a few times. Either you are greatly exaggerating, or you happen to be at a best buy with a terrible feed, or you need your eyes checked. Hate to say it but those are the only explanations. As was mentioned direct tv is is known to compress and have the very issues you describe seeing on those hd setups but not your own sd setup.

[badmeng]

Playing Xbox 360 on a HD set is beautiful. I could never go back to a crt set. Also you need to see a HDDVD or Blue Ray movie hooked up to one of these panels. Use or ask for the remote on the tv to adjust the picture. You should see a difference.

[Peter_Klim]

You're just looking to upgrade the picture right? And not to upgrage in screen size nor save space?

If so, I'd recommend you getting a CRT. But of course wide screen and HD... like the Sony 34". I think because you are standing so close to the larger ones is why you are seeing such a lousy pics (why may be why you prefered the 32 sharp over the 42 panasonic).

I love my CRT Sony 30" HD and cringe knowing that one day when it dies there will no longer be any CRT (hopefully by then Plasma/LCDs will improve).

[Jigen]

Sounds like your local store people don't know how to hook up their sets.

HD will ALWAYS be sharper than SD, as long as stuff is set up right and you're displaying HD content. Even a crappy HDTV will look sharper than the best SDTV, once again, unless it's hooked up wrong.

If you can't read station logos then something is seriously wrong at your local store.

I have the next gen consoles too, HD makes a big difference in a lot of games. Some games, like Dead Rising, you can't even read the text of unless you got HD or an especially good SDTV (in which case the HDTV will be clearer, and easier to read).

Image quality is different from resolution, but all these sets should have a sharper image, if you can't read the station logos, they probably have everything split through RF cables or something horrible like that, because I have a 30 year old CRT SDTV that I can read station logos just fine on...

[brentsg]

Originally Posted by datapusher

As for directv's picture and artifacts, at 96+ signal strength, I very rarely have that problem. I'm a little bit of a perfectionist when it comes to how something looks. Maybe that's why I have such an issue with HD. But I'm coming around slowly.

You don't get it. DirecTV has been out of bandwidth for a while, so they continue to crank up the compression on their broadcasts to squeeze in more channels. Go over compress a *.jpg file and see what happens. That's what they've been doing for a while now.

You could have 100% signal strength, you will only see what they broadcast. If you don't see compression and motion artifacts on your current setup then either you are too far back to notice it, or the TV is concealing them.

[Rammitinski]

Originally Posted by datapusher

Where can I see an HD feed that is more like what the rest of you see.

Get an antenna. Most of my OTA HD looks great on my display.

[Star56]

Sigh...it is every week now. it appears in various forums...the same innane question.

Okay ...lets be clear....HD material....everything from leno to Letterman to the Superbowl to Blu ray to HD DVD to the BIG TEN HD network to Discovery HD...

all of it is FAR FAR FAR FAR superior to anything...yes anything in SD. It is not even close. Not even up for debate.

Now every week a person (or troll) shows up and says something like " I don't see any difference...blah blah blah....

This is the same exact thing as joining an astrophysics forum and saying " I don't believe the earth is round...it is flat". It is simply absurd, silly and ridiculous to say the SD looks like HD or even worse to say that SD is better than HD and that we have all been duped.

SO...you are either a troll, blind or a fool. There are no other options. It is not possible to miss the difference. It is like the flat earth claims...just plain silly.

So fly away back to your 480i set and delude yourself into thinking that this is as good as it gets while the rest of us watch 1080 on large projection screens.

Geesh....these jokers are turning up weekly and Avsers take them seriously. Try the flat earth thing on some astronomy forums and see if they attempt to explain to the idiot why he is wrong.

[ccotenj]

Originally Posted by Star56

SO...you are either a troll, blind or a fool. There are no other options. It is not possible to miss the difference. It is like the flat earth claims...just plain silly.

i gave him the benefit of the doubt at the beginning and said "blind"... now i believe it's either the first or the last (and by the classic "troll-like" wording of his posts, i'm betting on the first)...

to the op... look... if you really "aren't seeing it", there's nothing more that any of us can tell you... to eliminate the possibility of "bad feed", go to a "real" a/v shop and check them out there... if you still "don't see it", then just move on... it's not like any of us can help you to "see differently"...

[praniln]

Last night I decided to hook up a OTA antenna and watch the Sunday night game in HD. The picture quality was amazing. When I switched back to my dish without HD the picture quality difference was night and day. Everyone that was over noticed it as well.

The OP should try this as well to see if he can notice the difference and base his decision off that.

[brentsg]

OTA is not only free, but it also lacks the compression that you see with paid services. Sure, you won't get the cable channels but the major networks look awesome. I think I got everything installed for OTA ~$150, and that was fairly high.

When I watch DirecTV sports I see the compression artifacts something awful when they show the whole field on football. I see artifacts crawling all around the players and in the grass.

1) Don't discount viewing distance. You need to be a certain distance back from each size/resolution to not see picture structure. This is no different than SD, except you see pixel stuff instead of scanlines.

2) Source is king. A high quality display reveals all the source defects. A miscalibrated display will also enhance source defects.

3) Retail outlets are all about brightness, it's like the polar opposite of picture quality. They put it on dynamic, crank the sharpening and other awful "image enhancement" features. Keep in mind most of the artificial processing they enable will enhance source noise as it artificially sharpens the primary source.

There's never really a way to know if someone is trolling or posting for "real" when you get an OP like this that's way out there. Please remember that you also accused everyone else of being duped, so you offended people right off the bat.