Jump to content

SD, HD , Ultra HD


billy2shots
 Share

Recommended Posts

With the recent introduction of Ultra HD I can't help feel sceptical. 

I'm not technology minded at all but with my aging eyes I'm sure it's all a fiddle. When HD started to roll out I'm almost positive standard definition was toned down some how to make it look like HD was some magic creation.

i have just watched a 'sky' advert asking punters for £12 a month to buy Ultra HD. Am I naive in thinking normal HD is going to take a hit in quality to push the virtues of ultra HD?  

I realise I'm rambling and I'm naturally a sceptical person but something is screaming 'the emperor's new clothes ' to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't disagree more, UHD looks simply stunning on a decent TV, HDR/Dolby Vision (and BBC's upcoming HLG) even better although the difference between UHD and HDR/DV is less than the difference between HD and UHD, the key being having a TV that does it justice, OLED has now matured and definitely does that.

 

Mrs T was sceptical, thought spending nearly £3k on a TV was a waste of money but even she says the picture in UHD and HDR/DV is stunning and that 'normal' HD now looks rubbish.

 

Thing is though, common consensus seems to be that UHD is only of benefit on screen sizes 55" and over, anything bigger than that in an average sized lounge will look pretty daft, so I think UHD will be the end of the definition race save for specialist applications, HDR/DV/HLG is where technology is moving now, once those standards are more widespread we'll see what the next generation of tech brings but I think it will be along similar lines giving wider dynamic ranges of colours and contrasts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy I agree with your conspiracy about SD. I watched a match on my old plasma (we brought it across from old house and put it in front room) and it looks terrible. No way we used to watch matches like that before .

 

and the split screen between hd/ultra looks same as the SD/hd demos 

that being said if I was buying a new tv now I probably would.....

Edited by Waylander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is, SD looks awful on a large screen, so you probably aren't comparing it fairly to today's significantly larger screens, my nan (before she passed away) still had an old 27" Sony Trinitron CRT TV, and SD content looked exactly the same as it always had, perfectly acceptable, watch the same content on a 40+" Plasma/LCD/ETC and it looks awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obviously subjective.  We have a 42" (I think) Samsung and it looks fine on SD.  Yes, it's better on HD, especially any nature stuff (watched Down the Mighty River with Steve Backshall last night and last Sunday on BBC2 HD and the image quality was amazing).

One of the biggest issues with streaming HD movies is that they're compressed so much that a lot of the quality gets ripped out of them anyway.  SD movies aren't compressed as much when they're streamed.  No, it's not the same, but I'm not fussed.

For me, if you can live with the quality, then it's no problem.

Anyway, what's this I hear about colour TVs - apparently they're new and all that..? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a 50inch crt at work until last month and only got rid because I was given a new LCD one. 

What people forget is motion lag and black quality. You can have the best picture quality in the world but if it can't handle moving objects or dark film scenes then it's still disappointing. 

Plasma and CRT would always be my preferred sets due to my viewing habits. 

No, not football in the dark. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you sit far away from the TV then you can get away with SD ish. 

Get 50"+ and don't sit that far away and it can look terrible. My 6 year old noticed how bad the Rugby looked the other day in SD having just watched it in HD. 4K again if you aren't that close or if the TV isn't 65"+ then its hard to tell. 

Its often the fact that the 4k panels are just so much better throw HD at them and they look great, 4k and it can be hard to tell its the improvement in the panel that is better not just the fact the resolution has gone up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, billy2shots said:

I had a 50inch crt at work until last month and only got rid because I was given a new LCD one. 

What people forget is motion lag and black quality. You can have the best picture quality in the world but if it can't handle moving objects or dark film scenes then it's still disappointing. 

Plasma and CRT would always be my preferred sets due to my viewing habits. 

No, not football in the dark. 

You need to look at OLED, you'll never go back to anything else, makes plasma look awful, infinite contrast ratio, nothing does black like OLED, if I'm watching something in a pitch black room and the screen goes black, the TV literally dissapears, if you're watching a film with black bars at the top and bottom of the screen you can't see the bars in a dark room.

 

Try that with a plasma or LED TV and you'll quickly notice that black is actually grey and the room is being lit up by what you thought was a black screen, the OLED emits no light whatsoever on a dark screen.

 

Now that every single manufacturer has ditched 3D, I think they'll all be pushing OLED tech very soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Just redid my office workstation with a trio of BenQ 32" 4K monitors. A little overwhelming initially going from a 30" 2560x1600 main and 2 x 1920x1200 24" displays, but the extra work space and display quality is well worth it. 100% sRGB colour gamut is nice for photo and video editing, and much easier on the eyes than the older panels. 

Oh, and i can use them for this too:

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...