Skip to main content

Is HD just hype?

These days, most new TVs sold are 'HD ready'. This means they can display high definition, and have suitable sockets to take an HD feed. And high definition ought to be good, because it promises up to five times the picture quality. Having an HD ready set doesn't mean that the picture you see will be high definition - you need an HD source as well. This could be a Blu-Ray player (that's just an HD version of a DVD player), a Sky HD box (around 30 HD channels), a Virgin HD box (BBC iPlayer in HD) or Freesat (2 HD channels).

But is it all worth it? Does having all that extra detail make a huge difference to the picture? I'm yet to be convinced. There are two reasons for my doubts. One is that, a few years ago, I went to Sky's launch for HD. It was impressive, but something they never did was have HD and an ordinary Sky box side by side on the same type of screen to compare them. That made me suspicious. If it was so good, a side by side comparison should really demonstrate its worth. Without that, it was tempting to think 'maybe we can't see much of the benefit.'

Similarly, when I go around a TV store, I don't find myself thinking 'Oh, those are obviously HD pictures.' This amazing extra clarity doesn't jump out at you.

Now, I could be wrong. I am happy to be convinced. But I am waiting for the evidence. Someone persuade me! As the poster on X-Files said, I want to believe.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Ms A2 July 2009 at 10:49

    Sadly, I can't persuade you. We have a HD TV, a blu ray player and virgin HD TV. I believe there is a difference but it's not enough for me see anything significant between the two picture. Both me and my husband have come down on the side of 'not that impressed' I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more