HD TV

[r.bartlett]

My brother keeps going on about it - me and my mum can't see any difference.................................

I know - make that call to Specsavers..................

Sadly I agree, my Uncle has a pioneer 50" which I had ISF'ed for him and the guy also set up the new SKY HD.

Sad to say as we all stood there trying to see any real difference he very soon cancelled the subscription.

Plus the amount of programs it's it's very much over rated..

I will stick to my SD Panasonic

Cheers

Richard

 

[ninebob]

Interesting topic for me!

I've had a 28" widescreen "old-style" telly for 6 years, which I'm now selling and it's been fab, I currently don't have any HD sources (sky etc) so haven't yet had my eyes opened to HD. However, the telly I'm now watching is a 15" LCD, in my view the picture quality is miles and miles short of what I'm used to.

I no longer need anything as big as I had (small room), but I think a HD 26" LCD is the way to go, with a Virgin Media HD subscription..... advice?

 

[gcol]

I no longer need anything as big as I had (small room), but I think a HD 26" LCD is the way to go, with a Virgin Media HD subscription..... advice?

I suggest you'd be wasting your money playing HD material on a 26" TV. The benefits of HD are more noticeable on larger screens.

 

[blondini]

My brother keeps going on about it - me and my mum can't see any difference.................................

I know - make that call to Specsavers..................

Sadly I agree, my Uncle has a pioneer 50" which I had ISF'ed for him and the guy also set up the new SKY HD.

Sad to say as we all stood there trying to see any real difference he very soon cancelled the subscription.

Plus the amount of programs it's it's very much over rated..

I will stick to my SD Panasonic

Cheers

Richard

Now then. There's either something not right there or you're all blind as bats.

When I got Sky HD Mrs Blondini was singularly unimpressed, and just like Alison she couldn't see what all the fuss was about. Turned out she literally couldn't see properly and she only realised this when she tried on someones specs.

 

[hairyben]

3) Virgin HD - woefully under-channelled at the mo, but with cable carrying far greater bandwidth they will potentially carry the most HD material once it takes off.


I'm on Virgin V+. Having had Sky I prefer it to Sky+ because the user interface works better and the on-demand stuff is lightyears ahead of the few hours of telly Sky liked to drop on the hard-disk overnight.

V+ can be buggy. Sky interface is clunkier but I gather more reliable. Cable is an inherently better system but virgin don't actually have any plans to roll out HD channels soon- there are several they could air tomorrow like Ch4 and eurosport.

The premium channels carried by virgin and the price sky can charge were set by the regulator, and as HD has gone big since the last review virgin won't carry anything untill the regulator's next review which could be years away from what I gather.

 

[Bilioustrumpstaine]

HD is fantastic, the picture quality is superb. Perhaps it wasn't set up right.

We got a guy in to sort out our TV and get the easiest set up and he rejigged the TV so it would give the best picture.

Some programmes seem to have a higher spec of HD than others but all are noticeably better.

We have Sky+ and a Toshiba TV that is 1080p

 

[r.bartlett]

The guy is a professional ISF'er who is a regular poster on avforum.com laptop out for 3 hours adjusting this and that...

I honestly thought it would transform the TV but sadly it made Little difference..

The TV was the top of the range Pioneer plasma at 3.5k BTW.
I certainly wouldn't bother again after seeing this -nor would I bother with HD either

Just our personal experience

Cheers

Richard

 

[Soggy_weetabix]

Have HD

The Rugby was fantastic, and eventually Mrs Weetabix walked in and quote "jesus, we have a good picture dont we?"

Once I put the non HD version on she had "seen the light".

Now, after 1 bleedin year Mrs W loves it. To quote "Put another HD chanel on, I'm getting me mate to watch this"

Dave

 

[TonyWarrington]

I honestly thought it would transform the TV but sadly it made Little difference..

The TV was the top of the range Pioneer plasma at 3.5k BTW.
I certainly wouldn't bother again after seeing this -nor would I bother with HD either

Just our personal experience

Cheers

Richard

Glad that its not just me (and my eyes ). HD has proved a little disappointing - yes you can see a difference but not the large difference hoped for. Certainly the case when viewed from a normal distance to screen I cannot see any great improvement.

I think that Richard may have hit the nail on the head - we have a Pioneer too which has an excellent SD picture. Perhaps others are not so good with SD hence being able to see a more marked difference when viewing HD

 

[homertimpson]

Watch any Premiership game on SkyHD - then switch over and watch football on Setanta

No, it's not a snowstorm or your tv that's out of synch - that's the difference of HD.

Setanta Sports football picture quality is simply free advertising for Sky.


Homer

 

[tnarg999]

I agree with Homertimpson, I have Setanta on Terrestrial, it is truly shocking quality, plus they don't have a clue where to place the cameras.

The sooner we get a HD Sport alternative to Sky the better.

 

[vokera80e]

it's mainly football in HD...my freesat HD box as a dedicated HD channel for bbc. all others i.e. 3.4.5. tells you to press the red button on your remote to view if it's in HD.ch5 as just come on freesat now..and also you've got to set up your tv properly.i.e. colours/brightness/contrast....