drsmith Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Perhaps FTA TV is what Owen is referring to as "recompressed rubbish on the torrents".
Skiller Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Umm... doesn't HD-Ready mean it's an HD panel that doesn't have an HD-Tuner in-built but will accept HD inputs. So far this has been the case with the HDTVs I've looked at. True and Full HD are exactly the same thing AFAIK, 1920x1080 resolution capable of 1080p.
50mxe20 Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Umm... doesn't HD-Ready mean it's an HD panel that doesn't have an HD-Tuner in-built but will accept HD inputs. So far this has been the case with the HDTVs I've looked at. True and Full HD are exactly the same thing AFAIK, 1920x1080 resolution capable of 1080p. No. "HD ready" can mean anything. consummers baffled by HD might be worth a read.
Owen Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Info on Usenet here: http://www.newsgroupservers.net/ HD content should normally be in transport stream format (.ts). If it has some other file extension like .avi or .wmv it has almost certainly been recompressed Another good indication is file size. Good quality HD files are big and a non animated movie should be between 10 and 25Gig depending on quality and length. Most content on the “torrents” has been recompressed to smaller file size and lower quality, where as most of the content on usenet has not.
Mining Man Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Just a couple of thoughts (and on-topic, too!!): DISCLAIMER: Firstly, my thoughts are based on an understanding that some time in the future, we will only have DTV broadcasts. And that there will be no compulsion on broadcasters to show the same programming on HD as they do SD. Now if this is wrong, then ignore the rest. Oh, and for the purpose of this post, all references to HD refer to 1080i DTV broadcasts only. The term "HD Ready", refers to any display that can accept and display an HD signal. From a marketing perspective, it is correctly applied to those panels with SD resolution, that have the ability to deal with the HD signal. (To be honest, I've never seen a panel with HD resolution marketed as "HD Ready", and at any rate, that's just plain dumb.) I believe the term "HD Ready" was coined to market SD panels as future proof, given that at some point in time, networks will have the ability to broadcast different material on the SD and HD channels. Contrary to most others, I reckon it was a poorly implemented, yet very good idea. Back when the entry price for plasma was over $5k, and the jump to HD was a further $3k, this "HD Ready" feature was a likely consideration. Unfortunately, those employed to sell TVs are also burdened with the responsibility of educating the public about what "HD Ready" actually means. They don't get paid for it, so generally, they do a lousy job.
mjs Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Any set with 768 vertical lines or more (e.g. 1024x768 resolution) is basic HD.Any set with 1080 vertical lines or more is True HD. And finally even the humble DVD comes at 576 vertical lines which is beyond the normal Standard Definition resolution of 480 lines. These all exist today, right now, and can be obtained for free or at reasonable prices where relevant. And they will only get cheaper. the "lines" are horizontal perhaps ".. a vertical resolution of 768 horizontal lines .... " etc
Mining Man Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Cheers Lyle. (Had to resist the temptation to point out the flaw in the argument that an SD plasma costs $2000 less than an HD one, because you have to have a PVR with HD???? )
PanaSung Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Cheers Lyle. (Had to resist the temptation to point out the flaw in the argument that an SD plasma costs $2000 less than an HD one, because you have to have a PVR with HD???? ) Love to hear it......don't worry, I'm not gonna blush Of course, you've already misunderstood what I wrote, so it may not be worth reading your earth shattering analysis.
PanaSung Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Cheers Lyle. (Had to resist the temptation to point out the flaw in the argument that an SD plasma costs $2000 less than an HD one, because you have to have a PVR with HD???? ) http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4140/dscf0007xb7.jpg AND NOW AND FOREVER, REMEMBER WHO YOU'RE MESSING WITH BUCKO AHAHAHAHAHAHAA
Mining Man Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 Love to hear it......don't worry, I'm not gonna blush Of course, you've already misunderstood what I wrote, so it may not be worth reading your earth shattering analysis. Mate, just like everyone else in here, very little if anything of what I write is 1) worth reading, or 2) earth shattering. It's just that unlike you, I already know it. So you can cut the attitude. The thread title itself will draw an audience seeking specific knowledge. I stand by my first post. What have you contributed on this matter?
AndrewW Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 The thread title itself will draw an audience seeking specific knowledge. I stand by my first post. What have you contributed on this matter? And unlike some, you managed to stay on topic. Which is a breath of fresh air in this place. Andrew.
MikeAusDTV Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 The analogue TV we've had for decades is 625 lines with 576 lines viewable, so SD (Standard Definition) is clearly 576 lines. HD is 720 display lines. Full HD is 1080 display lines. Don't let i(interlaced) and p(progressive) confuse you - it has no impact on the resolution of the displayed image (or definition). A progressive display is just updated twice as fast as an interlaced display, therefore can display motion much better. On static images, i and p will look identical. Mike
PersianImmortal Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 The analogue TV we've had for decades is 625 lines with 576 lines viewable, so SD (Standard Definition) is clearly 576 lines. Except that most SD plasmas are actually often 480 lines because they use the US NTSC standard. Oh and yes, I should have said lines of vertical resolution, not vertical lines, in my previous post .The thing is, 'HD Ready' is often used by salesmen to sell low-resolution non-HD sets to people who believe they are buying a "High Definition" TV. That's why I recommended getting the spec sheet for the set and doing some research. Ignore the HD Ready terminology as it adds no value at all. Any TV currently being sold aside from some CRTs should be able to display an HD signal, even if it is by downscaling it to SD (and thereby defeating much of the benefit of HD). We've done the SD vs. HD argument to death, particularly in an infamous 30-page thread which argued whether SD is pretty much the same as HD. Rather than dragging that whole thing up again, I'd suggest if you want to compare SD vs. HD for yourself, go to a store and see the difference, making sure both sets are being fed with an HD image (e.g. the HD loop from an HDSTB, or an HDDVD/Blu-Ray disc).
Mining Man Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 ~The thing is, 'HD Ready' is often used by salesmen to sell low-resolution non-HD sets to people who believe they are buying a "High Definition" TV ... Any TV currently being sold aside from some CRTs should be able to display an HD signal, even if it is by downscaling it to SD (and thereby defeating much of the benefit of HD). ~ Notwithstanding this tactic by salespeople, no doubt the "HD Ready" label is less relevant now, because as you correctly say, almost all flatscreens will process an HD signal, regardless of display resolution. But as per my first post, the "HD Ready" label was relevant at a time when there was the potential for an SD plasma purchaser to miss out on HD channel exclusive programming. Unfortunately, it was just abused. ~We've done the SD vs. HD argument to death, particularly in an infamous 30-page thread which argued whether SD is pretty much the same as HD. Rather than dragging that whole thing up again, I'd suggest if you want to compare SD vs. HD for yourself, go to a store and see the difference, making sure both sets are being fed with an HD image (e.g. the HD loop from an HDSTB, or an HDDVD/Blu-Ray disc). Good advice. Although, as Owen often points out, it won't be the resolution difference that you detect from typical viewing distances, but other factors, including image processing.
PersianImmortal Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 That's right, and also there is the unfortunate aspect that some sets use godawful factory defaults which really look nothing like a natural picture, nor indicate how good they could be if properly adjusted. But on balance if the store is using a proper HD source, via DVI/HDMI cable to each set, then there's more of a chance of seeing the HD difference if any.
Zacspeed Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 This may have been convered but all along Ive been keen to get a 42 inch Plasma, but now im leaning at getting a 50 inch for my lounge/theatre. As far as I know on a 42 inch its pointless getting Full HD (1080p) as the extra quality cant really be seen on a screen of that size. So my question is if I get a 50 inch, under what circumstances would I notice the difference of a 1080i screen over a 1080p. Would it really be noticeable? and what distances etc. Ideally a 1080p 50 inch would be the best even if its for wank factor as the difference may be subtle. But the cost far out weights the plus's so far.
AndrewW Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 under what circumstances would I notice the difference of a 1080i screen over a 1080p. Would it really be noticeable? I would argue that you would never see a difference, unless the tv has a really crap de-interlacer. See my previous posts on this. Andrew.
Mining Man Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 This may have been convered but all along Ive been keen to get a 42 inch Plasma, but now im leaning at getting a 50 inch for my lounge/theatre.As far as I know on a 42 inch its pointless getting Full HD (1080p) as the extra quality cant really be seen on a screen of that size. So my question is if I get a 50 inch, under what circumstances would I notice the difference of a 1080i screen over a 1080p. Would it really be noticeable? and what distances etc. Ideally a 1080p 50 inch would be the best even if its for wank factor as the difference may be subtle. But the cost far out weights the plus's so far. Not sure that a 1080 line 42" plasma even exists. (40" LCD is another matter) There is a 42" Panasonic that claims "Full HD" status because it can process an incoming 1080p signal. But it still only has 768 lines to play with. (At any rate, you can always change the output of your 1080p source to 1080i or 720p to suit any of today's 42" displays...) As for the 50" models: anything with 1080 lines is 1080p. Forget all this "i" and "p" garbage. It's the number of lines you're interested in. And yes, you're probably right. At most of the distances talked of in here for the average living room, 1080p on a 50" display is wank. Nothing more, nothing less.
AndrewW Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 As for the 50" models: anything with 1080 lines is 1080p. Forget all this "i" and "p" garbage. But that's the problem, and the whole point of this thread. In the wonderful world of marketing, there is a difference. There are definitely 1080 res panels that will only accept a 1080i signal, and most salesmen would tell you that it would be inferior to a 1080 res panel that accepts a 1080p signal. Most salesmen would also be talking out their arses. Andrew.
Anton-P. Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 under what circumstances would I notice the difference of a 1080i screen over a 1080p. In your understanding, what exactly is a 1080i screen?
Skiller Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 under what circumstances would I notice the difference of a 1080i screen over a 1080p. Would it really be noticeable? I would argue that you would never see a difference, unless the tv has a really crap de-interlacer. See my previous posts on this. Andrew. When playing games it can be quite noticable depending on how well the de-interlacing performs, at the very least it will introduce a few ms of visual lag and worst case you will end up with wobbly walls, jittering or a general lack of detail with large horizontal movements all of which would be combined with the lag. But for normal TV viewing AndrewWilcockson is right and it's not going to be that noticable if at all .
AndrewW Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 When playing games it can be quite noticable depending on how well the de-interlacing performs, at the very least it will introduce a few ms of visual lag and worst case you will end up with wobbly walls, jittering or a general lack of detail with large horizontal movements all of which would be combined with the lag. Possibly. I have an AWA 32" LCD. Not the world's greatest TV by any stretch, but a bargain for what I paid for it. With my xbox 360 connected, I do not notice any of the things you mention when feeding it either 720p or 1080i. Andrew.
hired goon Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 G'day, At most of the distances talked of in here for the average living room, 1080p on a 50" display is wank. Nothing more, nothing less. I recently bought a 50" TV with 720p, and I sit around 2.5m from the screen. So, for example, a 1080p source broadcast at 1080i and scaled down to 720p would be indistinguishable at that distance to a panel that is natively 1080p? Coz my plan was to get a 1080p 50" panel in a year or so (if they exist and get cheaper), but maybe that's not such a good idea...? --Geoff
Recommended Posts