Is HD TV picture quality worth paying for?

bikey2009

When I got my LCD tv last summer I was recomended to get a HD service to "let me have the best TV experience" available.

But, when I watch programmes that have been recorded using HD cameras and broadcast on the digital channels the picture is so bloody good I'm glad I didn't sign up to SKY HD. (Dr Who is a good example).

I'm watching the Moto GP on BBC 2 at the moment, the detail, and definition,even with the speed of the bikes is brilliant :?

rick_chasey

HD is really very good.


The best way I can describe it is that it genuinely looks like you're seeing it with your own eyes, rather than on TV.

fungus_the_muffin_man

We got sky hd a few months ago. The difference is amazing. The picture quality between eurosports and eurosports hd when watching the cycling for instance is very noticable. The same goes for anything when you can compare the 2 at the same time. It really does improve the viewing experience IMO

bikey2009

Can you watch the moto gp on normal tv at the moment?

It loooks bloody OK to me ?

is the quality comparable?
Thanks.

bikey2009

I can clearly see the individual pebbles on the run off area.

Pokerface

HD is better for some shows than others. Sometimes the show in standard def looks so good that it's hard to appreciate the HD equivalent.

But usually the difference is remarkable.

bikey2009

Pokerface wrote:

HD is better for some shows than others. Sometimes the show in standard def looks so good that it's hard to appreciate the HD equivalent.

But usually the difference is remarkable.

That's what I'm struggling with, most stuff looks good on digital, even a lot of the old black and white movies look astounding :?

Pokerface

It was worth the extra £5 a month.

beverick

No, basically.

The quality also varies greatly depending on the compression ratio on transmission and the original recording/capture quality (as well as the capabilities of your TV of course!).

Some of the sports coverage is better in HD but, in general, it's difficult to tell whether you're on HD or 'normal' TV.

Sky sports HD coveage is noticably better than the 'normal' coverage but the only difference in ITV's coverage of the FA cup semi-finals this weekend was the HD logo in the top right hand corner - which is strange because Sky, BBC and ITV's football coverage is supplied by the same people.

Oh, and Sky's HD boxes are flaky in the extreme. We had five before we got one that "worked" (and I use that term advisedly). We have to reset our Thomson box (ie turn it off and on) at least once a week. Common problems are the box freezing or turning itself off (and refusing to turn on again), losing sync between picture and sound and either delayed response to the handset or not responding at all. It won't show Sky Text and hung every time we tried ITV's text service (before it was canned).

We were on holiday last week and got back to find that the box had only recorded half of what we'd programmed. nb, anything 'important' goes on the VHS or gets watched on iplayer.

Bob

SteveR_100Milers

Freeview HD - just need to buy a new TV with a built in tuner in about 12 months time...

Bunneh

My Father has a medium sized Samsung HD TV and I was over there at the weekend watching the semi finals. On normal none HD pictures it's blocky, I find the image from an old TV much better in that respect - however if it's an HD signal you do notice the quality. Personally I won't be bothering for a while, prices need to go down some more maybe then I'll get one.

Pokerface

I'm moving and switching to Virgin (and their HD service) in a week. Will be interesting to see if their equipment woks any better.

Nuggs

HD is awesome for sports and movies. Well worth the extra money.

Squillinossett

I would say it really depends on your TV.

If I was running anything smaller than 42" I wouldnt bother.

I currently run a 46" LED, with Sky HD, and both sports and Discovery channels look amazing.

It would look better on a screen >50" but unfortunately our room is not big enough for a bigger TV to look acceptable for SD broadcasts.

Also sky does nto stream HD sound.

beverick

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Freeview HD - just need to buy a new TV with a built in tuner in about 12 months time...

Sony and Panasonic sets are on the market now - or are available for pre-order (but only in larger set sizes - 32" and over). Humax do a set top box, our local Curry's had them in stock yesterday but at £170 they're a bit OTT on price.

Pokerface wrote:

I'm moving and switching to Virgin (and their HD service) in a week. Will be interesting to see if their equipment woks any better.

The only trouble is that Sky won't let Virgin broadcast their sports or movie chanels in HD so you only get about half a dozen HD chanels with Virgin. It's definately not worth the extra money for that.

Bob

Ho hum

I was watching The Masters over the weekend on BBC HD and the picture quality was jaw-droppingly good.

Even my son, who says he can't normally see a difference, could see a difference.

Lost in HD is pretty good as well. I am pleased that I will be able to see the last season in HD

Pokerface

beverick wrote:

The only trouble is that Sky won't let Virgin broadcast their sports or movie chanels in HD so you only get about half a dozen HD chanels with Virgin. It's definitely not worth the extra money for that.

Bob

Not a problem as I don't get sports or movies

wicked

Those that say they cannot see much difference I just cannot understand as the difference is remarkable. The cycling for instance on ES HD is much better even when not broadcast in HD as the picture is upscaled, PR yesterday was amazing in HD. As I speak the tour of turkey is now on in HD too :roll: Why bloody turkey!

I watched that documentary the other day about the volcano with the never before species of wildlife on BBC HD and the scenary was so clear it was a joy to watch.

I am now gutted if I cannot find anything to watch in HD and have watch "normal" resolution. It's like the differnce between VHS and DVD.

daviesee

I don't have HD but there are a couple of things to watch out for that I am aware of.

Freeview HD sounds good in principle but only if you have a dish. A standard ariel will not work for HD.

Your TV may not be able to give you the best results. You need a full HD TV 1080p minimum.
There will be Ultra HD soon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision.
So HD is old hat already :shock: Oh, and 3D TV as well......

HD ready just means it will show HD programmes, not that you are really getting HD.

SteveR_100Milers

daviesee wrote:

I don't have HD but there are a couple of things to watch out for that I am aware of.

Freeview HD sounds good in principle but only if you have a dish. A standard ariel will not work for HD.
Your TV may not be able to give you the best results. You need a full HD TV 1080p minimum.
There will be Ultra HD soon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision.
So HD is old hat already :shock: Oh, and 3D TV as well......

HD ready just means it will show HD programmes, not that you are really getting HD.

Didn't know this - but then at £170 for a set top box forget it for a while. I nearly invested in a Humax box, but even at £80 I couldnt see the point for a handful of programmes. Eventually all TVs will have a HD tuner built in and the picture from my Sammy is perfectly adequate for 99% of the time.

bikey2009

Ho hum wrote:

I was watching The Masters over the weekend on BBC HD and the picture quality was jaw-droppingly good.

I watched it on normal digital TV last night and was impressed with the picture quality, maybe I'm in a good area for digital broadcast strength.

I was going to get a SKY + plus box this month but when I phoned Sky they told me that they are only doing HD boxes now, I know the HD boxes have SKY+ recording abilities as well but I'm still not sure if the extra monthly fee is worth it. (£10 a month plus extra for the movies and sports channels to get all the benefits comes to about £20 a month more).

rick_chasey

bikey2009 wrote:

Ho hum wrote:

I was watching The Masters over the weekend on BBC HD and the picture quality was jaw-droppingly good.

I watched it on normal digital TV last night and was impressed with the picture quality, maybe I'm in a good area for digital broadcast strength.

I was going to get a SKY + plus box this month but when I phoned Sky they told me that they are only doing HD boxes now, I know the HD boxes have SKY+ recording abilities as well but I'm still not sure if the extra monthly fee is worth it. (£10 a month plus extra for the movies and sports channels to get all the benefits comes to about £20 a month more).

How much time do you spend watching TV?

I'm imagine if you considered the cost per minute used, compared to your cycling, the TV probably comes out much cheaper, even with the extras.

RichN95.

Ho hum wrote:

I was watching The Masters over the weekend on BBC HD and the picture quality was jaw-droppingly good.

Even my son, who says he can't normally see a difference, could see a difference.

+1 for the Masters. I've had HD for a few months now and that's the best demonstration of it I've seen.

I'd better get Eurosport HD on Virgin in my area by the Tour de France as that's the event HD was made for.

cougie

Paris Roubaix was excellent in HD yesterday. At the start of the season the cycling that they had on really didnt look HD - upscaled or something ?

Attenboroughs nature progs are awesome in HD as is the Brian Cox Solar System thing.

Most programmes you dont really need HD though.

xRichx

I love the difference... After having standard digital on my 40" samsung I thought it looked great in general. Since moving to Sky+ HD it's astonshing the amount of extra detail you get!
I think it does depend on the size of the screen tho!

Sports and movies are among where you notice it most, but like cougie has said, the Wonders of the Solar system and programs like that I'm blown away with it.

antlaff

bikey2009 wrote:

When I got my LCD tv last summer I was recomended to get a HD service to "let me have the best TV experience" available.

But, when I watch programmes that have been recorded using HD cameras and broadcast on the digital channels the picture is so bloody good I'm glad I didn't sign up to SKY HD. (Dr Who is a good example).

I'm watching the Moto GP on BBC 2 at the moment, the detail, and definition,even with the speed of the bikes is brilliant :?

one of the best HD channels is Eurosport HD - the quality of the picture for the TDF last year was amazing - well worth the extra monthly payment. You can also get ITV HD from Sky box - the quality is brilliant for the champions league - even better now with UTD out.

Stuey01

IMO HD is only worth it if you like sport. I like sport and whoah is it worth it! I hate watching sport on standard def now, it is so much better on HD.

mcj78

I'm still happy with my Sony 32" 100hz triniton cathode-ray monster, last time my mates came round to watch the boxing or whatever a couple of them thought it was HD as it was a better quality of picture than their fancy HD setups at home, result. Then I dusted it yesterday & it looked 10x better again :shock:

How does it work anyway? Is it that there's always the same number of pixels displayed on "normal" broadcasts, so if your screen is bigger, unless you have HD or upscaling or whatever, you're getting the same number of pixels only they're covering a larger area - which is why my mates 50" plasma looks like lego in action?

Bring back black & white! (but not for snooker)

macboy

Agree with Stuey01 that if you love sport its probably worth it. We had HD from launch near enough but cancelled it after the end of the first year because we don't have sport or movies and it isn't worth 10/month when you look at how little is on in HD that is a must see and you get BBCHD and Channel4 HD even without the subscription. I'd watch it if it was free but for £120/year we rent four Blu-Ray's a month and that feels like money better spent if we are going to sit and watch something for an evening.

stigofthedump

Davidsee wrote:
I don't have HD but there are a couple of things to watch out for that I am aware of.

Freeview HD sounds good in principle but only if you have a dish. A standard ariel will not work for HD.

Your TV may not be able to give you the best results. You need a full HD TV 1080p minimum. There will be Ultra HD soon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision.
So HD is old hat already Oh, and 3D TV as well......

HD ready just means it will show HD programmes, not that you are really getting HD.

I was told (in John Lewis) that no one broadcasts on full 1080 HD at present and there are no plans to in the foreseeable future. You can only use full HD with Bluray players and some games systems.

oldwelshman

daviesee wrote:

I don't have HD but there are a couple of things to watch out for that I am aware of.

Freeview HD sounds good in principle but only if you have a dish. A standard ariel will not work for HD.

Your TV may not be able to give you the best results. You need a full HD TV 1080p minimum.
There will be Ultra HD soon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision.
So HD is old hat already :shock: Oh, and 3D TV as well......

HD ready just means it will show HD programmes, not that you are really getting HD.

1080 is true hd but lower resolution is also decent.
Forget 3d tv way too expensive and nothing to be broadcats for ages so whats the point of buying a 3d tv for £8k with nothing to watch?
Ulra HD will not be significantly better than hd, same as cameras with higher pixels, above 3meg pixels cannot see the difference, 6mpixels only good for cropping, the human eye has it'slimitations also.
3d will be good though eventually but by then my eyesight will be fooked probably