# Does anyone else feel this way about HD? :P



## ADF (Jan 13, 2007)

So I hear a group of kids wowing in front of a HDTV, they were going on about how it is much better than SDTVs and how they wanted one. When they left I decided to check this thing out, it was the biggest TV in the shop with a huge HD ready sticker on it so it wasn't hard to miss.

So I am looking at this thing and I am wondering what all the excitement was about. Yeah it was better quality than a SDTV, a little grainy though. I looked at the price tag and it was going for over a grand O.=.O the image was good but it wasn't THAT good.

After looking around in other shops a bit more I realised it wasn't just this TV, they were all not that impressive. It was at this point that I figured out what the problem was, I had been seeing HD quality content on my PC for so long by the time it hit retail it had already become common to me :lol:

Anyone else experience this? We were all seeing HD quality movie trailers, video clips and above HD game resolutions before HDTVs hit the general  public so they don't seem as spectacular as everyone else seems to think.


----------



## DavidN (Jan 13, 2007)

It depends on the actual resolution of the high-definition signal, though - there are a couple of different ones, and the lowest of them isn't really spectacular compared to that of a standard monitor. I'm not about to spend thousands on a new television (partly because I don't have them, but that's not the point) but I think it's definitely time standard TV got a resolution upgrade.


----------



## Aikon (Jan 13, 2007)

I don't know that much HDTV other than reading up on it, but as for it being grainy / fuzzy it sounds more like an issue with either the cabling, any switches or hubs involved, or the programming itself.Â Â A pure digital signal eliminates the fuzzies, so it's not the actual signal causing it.Â Â 

The problem with HDTV is the programming, or lack thereof.Â Â I don't think I need to elaborate, there just isn't anything good to watch in Hi-Def. (except football )


----------



## nobuyuki (Jan 13, 2007)

if you REALLY want to see how awesome HDTV is, try connecting a media center PC to it through both composite cabling and DVI in 1080p mode.  Then flip between the two from your desktop.  HUGE difference.  we're talking like the difference between running in 640x480 (standard low-def resolution!) vs. 1920x1080 (high end HD resolution).  If you can't fathom the difference yourself (you can try altering your monitor's resolution for a good comparison on a smaller screen), look at this diagram.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Common_Video_Resolutions.svg

edit:  most computer LCD monitors have a native resolution of 1280x1024.  This is a 5:4 aspect ratio.  Most low def TV's (and most CRT monitors) have a 4:3 aspect ratio -- I think this is a scam to get us to buy both TV's and monitors but I digress!  By comparison, your standard monitor circa 2004 would have a resolution of 1024x768, which is HELLA close to the HD resolution 720p.  (it's slightly superior to 720p in vertical but slightly inferior to 720p horizontally if you're using a 16:9 widescreen!)


----------



## SageHusky (Jan 13, 2007)

if you look back at older TV's with a standard cable connection per say 46" TV.
Put t side to side with a 1080i 46" HDTV with an HD signal, it's a major difference.
640x480 (normal) compared to 1280x960(720p?) and upwards to 1680x1050 (1080i) resolution capabilities
on large 32" screens and up if you're close yeah of course it would look pixely. Still nice at a reasonale distance

no I wouldn't go out myself and buy something like this, I can't afford it. but most TV's cap out at 30fps standard PAL whereas HDTV looks so much smoother being capped at 100fps(or 60 I can't remember)

yes i'm used to 60-180fps on my gaming with 1600*1200 resolution but others who don't do gaming and atch games at a more smooth transition of frames makes it smoother and it's just a new experience.
go back to a normal TV after it is like playing Quake at 640*480 again after playing Quake2 at 1600*1200(yes Q1 was better but that's not the point)

edit:
ADF- it's common that TV's in shops are run off splitters and loose some quality when the signal splits compared to run directly from a digital signal like Aikon said


----------



## S.A.F.I (Apr 8, 2019)

(I’m just going to resurrect this ancient thread)
meanwhile in 2019:
I mean do we really need 8k? like 4k is good enough right? and it’s just so expensive too...  I just don’t understand why anyone would ever buy this...


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 8, 2019)

S.A.F.I said:


> (I’m just going to resurrect this ancient thread)
> meanwhile in 2019:
> I mean do we really need 8k? like 4k is good enough right? and it’s just so expensive too...  I just don’t understand why anyone would ever buy this...


Weirdly conservative  take for AI, honestly


----------



## S.A.F.I (Apr 8, 2019)

Touché


----------



## rekcerW (Apr 9, 2019)

Wait, we're talking 1080p in the era of 4k and even 8k OLED/QLED stuff? 1080i? Did we go back in time? IPS for responsiveness depending on the display, no burn-in or fuck all, but not everything is independently lit to create these 'amazing blacks' they pan on about... There's a shit-pile of display options available today... omfg this post was in 2007, nvm. We actually did go back in time, shit.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Apr 9, 2019)

Ahh, but the 65" touchscreen with QLED tech.  now that's some good stuff to make art on.

Or view it because I can only draw stick figures


----------



## S.A.F.I (Apr 9, 2019)

rekcerW said:


> Wait, we're talking 1080p in the era of 4k and even 8k OLED/QLED stuff? 1080i? Did we go back in time? IPS for responsiveness depending on the display, no burn-in or fuck all, but not everything is independently lit to create these 'amazing blacks' they pan on about... There's a shit-pile of display options available today... omfg this post was in 2007, nvm. We actually did go back in time, shit.


 that was my whole point...  it’s funny hearing people talking about how we don’t really need 8K...  and then you go back and listen to people talking about but do we really need HD...  Evolution is inevitable people...


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 9, 2019)

S.A.F.I said:


> that was my whole point...  it’s funny hearing people talking about how we don’t really need 8K...  and then you go back and listen to people talking about but do we really need HD...  Evolution is inevitable people...


HD offered an objective difference in the form of widescreen support, though, which allowed for easier translation of movies to TV format and just capturing new stuff with more room on the screen at the same time. 4K and 8K, on the other side, are pleasant, but rather superficial advancements - good to have, but doesn't revolutionize the viewing experience, and hardly worth having for the money it costs now.


----------



## S.A.F.I (Apr 9, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> HD offered an objective difference in the form of widescreen support, though, which allowed for easier translation of movies to TV format and just capturing new stuff with more room on the screen at the same time. 4K and 8K, on the other side, are pleasant, but rather superficial advancements - good to have, but doesn't revolutionize the viewing experience, and hardly worth having for the money it costs now.


if that were true why even switch to 4k?
4k to 8k is only an increase in the number of pixels and the same can be said for the 1080 to 4k switch and if we look at 16k then we are even looking at the same growth of pixels

I’m no expert in these kinda things and i’m not going to pretend like I am... so I’m sure there something I missed  i’m sure there something I missed... but eather way the principal remains...  even if it’s not exactly applicable in this specific situation... 
mostly it’s just amusing to look back at this.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Apr 9, 2019)

4k and 8k were the non-glasses answer to any angle viewing and 3d  using led


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 9, 2019)

And now 12 years later we all wonder how we could live without a high definition TV. Funny that.


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 9, 2019)

S.A.F.I said:


> if that were true why even switch to 4k?
> 4k to 8k is only an increase in the number of pixels and the same can be said for the 1080 to 4k switch and if we look at 16k then we are even looking at the same growth of pixels
> 
> I’m no expert in these kinda things and i’m not going to pretend like I am... so I’m sure there something I missed  i’m sure there something I missed... but eather way the principal remains...  even if it’s not exactly applicable in this specific situation...
> mostly it’s just amusing to look back at this.


Because it still looks better (if only somewhat), and since technology is getting cheaper, it's a good thing for the industry to start gradual adoption of more advanced stuff. 4K is impractical now due to the price, but it'll eventually replace ordinary HD due to being as price-efficient as HD is now.

As of why they're sold now? Welp. Some people just like to be cutting edge and all c:


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Apr 9, 2019)

S.A.F.I said:


> (I’m just going to resurrect this ancient thread)
> meanwhile in 2019:
> I mean do we really need 8k? like 4k is good enough right? and it’s just so expensive too...  I just don’t understand why anyone would ever buy this...


I'm not bothering with 8k personally.
4k is the max I'll bother with my monitors or TV.

Even then I don't feel like getting 4k anytime soon...

Also I like how this feels pretty much like how the thread was about people seeing HD TV as 'too much' yet here we are with 8k.
The future is now, the future is pixels.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Apr 9, 2019)

Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> Also I like how this feels pretty much like how the thread was about people seeing HD TV as 'too much' yet here we are with 8k.
> The future is now, the future is pixels.



Threads like this are cyber time capsules.

In 2 or 3 centuries, imagine someone pulling this thread from the furthest reaches and trying to make sense of it.  we might as well be cavemen putting handprints on the wall so later people know of our existance.


----------



## FormerUser (Apr 15, 2019)

I think HD is the typical "norm" for most content consumers.
As a creator of digital media, I do look at 4K, 8K and even 16K for output and what can be done with it.
Personally I consider 1080p to be the defacto for HD and 4K to be the optimum for YT based on compression losses (even then a 4K on YT TV is about 1080p)
With almost no 8K screens public, the standard is being slowly adopted into YT.

For me HD is nothing spectacular unless you use it to define the texture/quality of something, a closeup of animal fur, an eye, a landscape. Something definitive qualities that is not all CGI and guff.


----------

