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.

Comments

  1. 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

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

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 recent 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 ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope