Not impressed with HD TV

[strollin]

I have been resisting buying an HD TV for my home because when I go to the store and look at the TVs, I see (IMO) very high prices with only a marginal improvement in picture quality over SD TV.

The other day our 18 year old 32" SD TV bit the dust so I gave in and purchased a 40" HD TV. I got our DISH satellite system upgraded to HD and have been watching HD TV for the past few days. The TV is capable of 1080p but the satellite signal is only 1080i.

In my comparison viewing, it appears that there is a fairly noticeable difference in picture quality between SD and HD content on the HD TV. However, when I compare the HD picture quality of the HD TV with SD picture quality of another SD TV, the difference isn't nearly as noticeable.

I also feel that one reason the picture seems better on the HD TV is due to the larger picture size (40" vs 32").

Am I the only one that feels that HD TV isn't a big enough difference in picture quality to warrant the price difference?

 

[mr pc]

I love the HD/Blu-ray ads on DVDs showing the before and after picture qualities. I say to myself - why can't they just do that for the damn dvd?!?

 

[Lee]

One of the big mistake people make when buying a HD TV is they go for the model that is the least expensive which means they are getting only 60 Mhz picture refresh rate. The 120 Mhz refresh rate TV's are far better, and give you a more smoother picture. And, yes they do cost more; in some cases (depending) on size they can be up to a thousand dollars more. My TV is a 52" Phillips with 120 Mhz and I can really tell the difference when I am at my brother's who has the same make and size only it is a 60 Mhz system.

 

[Zepher]

I personally can't stand the 120 and 240hz motion smoothing feature. gives it a weird look and unnatural motion.

The first time I really saw it was when I finished setting up my friends 55" LG LED TV and was checking out some HD on it, saw Coyote Ugly playing and thought that I was watching a TV show version since it didn't look like a movie with the 120hz.

 

[smarteyeball]

On the whole, HD TV's are only as good as the source material.

When fed native HD content - they can look great. Clearly better PQ compared to SD.

But when they're fed non-HD content, or even 'low quality HD' content which on average is largely most of the content that is viewed on TV's - they can look sub-par in comparison to SD CRT TV's whereas the SD CRT sets can handle the low quality material and still manage to make it look pretty good.

This is where the quality of the HD TV itself comes into play as some are more 'tolerant' when displaying SD content. Some sets will make SD content look considerably worse than a SD set, others make it look marginally worse.



Is the price worth the difference? It's personally subjective. For some, yes. Others maybe and the rest, no.

I'm a maybe. When viewing HD content, it's yes. When viewing FTA TV/non-hd content it's no. But the size of the panel does tend to make up for it.


It's the HD hype juggernaut that doesn't really live up to expectations.

 

[MoInSTL]

How far back are you sitting? Too far back and the detail of HD is lost. Too close and the pixels are too big. Have you tried calibrating it?

The formula is (in general) is to multiply the number of feet to the front of the screen by 4. For example, I am 12.5' away. 12.5 X 4=50" TV.

Have you tried 720p instead of 1080i? The 1080p is for Blu Ray and some limited PPV movies.

 

[bigmck]

I have been resisting buying an HD TV for my home because when I go to the store and look at the TVs, I see (IMO) very high prices with only a marginal improvement in picture quality over SD TV.

The other day our 18 year old 32" SD TV bit the dust so I gave in and purchased a 40" HD TV. I got our DISH satellite system upgraded to HD and have been watching HD TV for the past few days. The TV is capable of 1080p but the satellite signal is only 1080i.

In my comparison viewing, it appears that there is a fairly noticeable difference in picture quality between SD and HD content on the HD TV. However, when I compare the HD picture quality of the HD TV with SD picture quality of another SD TV, the difference isn't nearly as noticeable.

I also feel that one reason the picture seems better on the HD TV is due to the larger picture size (40" vs 32").

Am I the only one that feels that HD TV isn't a big enough difference in picture quality to warrant the price difference?

I got my HDTV in 2003. It is a 65 inch. At the time there weren't that many shows in HD, but the big screen was nice. I have the Dish Network and just about all the shows are in HD now, it is really great. The picture just seems to "jump out at me". I have found the show that demonstates HD the best in "CSI: Miami". There are always so many bright colors on the show, it looks just great in HD. In answer to your question, HD is definately worth it. Things are so much brighter and clearer. You had mentioned 1080P and 1080I. Mine is 1080I because that was all there was when I bought it. As far as I can tell, the picture is about as good as it gets. You should be able to tell a noticeable difference in HD and SD.

 

[Woz]

My ten year old son commented one day that DVDs looked better on the Sony 13 inch SD CRT than they do on the Panasonic 58 inch HD plasma. It's true. When blown up to 58 inches, every flaw in the DVD picture is magnified. It's like digital zoom on cameras.

Playing DVDs through a PS3 improves their picture quality considerably. The upscaling on the PS3 works great, but it's not up to the quality of blu-ray.

For the majority of television shows, HD vs SD makes little difference to me. Sporting events, on the other hand, really show off the HDTVs. Watch one football game in HD, and you'll never want to watch in SD again.

 

[tw33k]

I watch HD TV on my PC and it's great quality.

 

[smarteyeball]

I watch HD TV on my PC and it's great quality.

FTA channels? The smaller screen hides a lot of sins of our so called 'HD channels'

Channel BT HD rips do look good though

 

[pparks1]

The big problem is that these new TV's are all fixed pixel displays. Meaning that a 1080p tv ALWAYS shows exactly 1920 x 1080 pixels. So, when you feel this TV a signal from a DVD...it's getting a 480p image. And then has to take the 480 lines of native resolution and double it to get to 960....and then has to increase it even more to get it to 1080. Of course, when this happens, quality diminishes. Contrasting this to old style CRT's.....they didn't degrade the image as they create the image based on what resolution they are provided and don't have to manipulate it.

So, as you have noticed, when you feed a 1920 x 1080 tv a standard definition signal...it just doesn't look very good. And unfortunately, there is nothing you are going to do to improve it. The picture is only going to be as good as the input signal that you are providing to it. If you want a great picture, you have to provide a great input.

I purchased my first HDTV in 2003. it was a Sony Grand Wega Rear Projection LCD at 50 inches. And it was $3200 back then. It experienced some problems and it was cheaper in 2007 to replace it with a 50" Panasonic Plasma then it was to fix it....as the 720p plasma was only $999. I've also got a 32" Vizio 720p LCD in my bedroom. I guess I'm in the camp that the better picture is worth it. I just try to avoid watching standard def programming these days.

 

[strollin]

After living with HD a few more days I have realized that the number one thing that is definitely much better on HD than SD is any text displayed on the screen, much sharper detail. The video is OK, slightly better than SD, but I find text is much easier to read.

I'm still not certain that the cost is worth it but I'm certainly glad I didn't pay thousands of $$$ for my TV.

Don't get me started on the utterly ridiculous prices charged for an HDMI cable!

 

[Trucidation]

I only replaced my aging TV for a HD one when I got my PS3. I don't care for watching TV shows (not big on push entertainment), let alone the ungodly expense involved in getting HD. I do admit the view is better... but so what? As smarteyeball mentioned, if the source isn't HD then you're not getting much out of it.

 

[theski232]

hdtv's do increase the quality somewhat of sd channels but you need hd channels to get the best out of your tv. If I may suggest a tv for anyone it would be the Samsung Series 8

 

[armyslowrdr]

I have a 42" Philips and couldn't be happier.
Just compare a network channel in standard def then switch to the channel carrying the same programming in hi-def and tell me that it is not night and day different.
I do hope you are running sound through a high quality 5.1 or better receiver or separates and 5.1 or better speaker channels also.

 

[apollodominion]

HDTV is only PAL 60HZ 720p in most cases up from PAL 50HZ 576i and the FPS for most shows are 29-35FPS i have a HDTV Samsung 55-inch UN55C7000 3D LED HDTV 240Hz refresh rate and i use it on my PC (media room for PC and Consoles) Austar HDTV Satleite and PC media with PowerDVD 10 MK2 for movies

 

[DarkDavil]

I have been resisting buying an HD TV for my home because when I go to the store and look at the TVs, I see (IMO) very high prices with only a marginal improvement in picture quality over SD TV.

The other day our 18 year old 32" SD TV bit the dust so I gave in and purchased a 40" HD TV. I got our DISH satellite system upgraded to HD and have been watching HD TV for the past few days. The TV is capable of 1080p but the satellite signal is only 1080i.

In my comparison viewing, it appears that there is a fairly noticeable difference in picture quality between SD and HD content on the HD TV. However, when I compare the HD picture quality of the HD TV with SD picture quality of another SD TV, the difference isn't nearly as noticeable.

I also feel that one reason the picture seems better on the HD TV is due to the larger picture size (40" vs 32").

Am I the only one that feels that HD TV isn't a big enough difference in picture quality to warrant the price difference?

I also get my cable/satellite from DISH. They don't actually offer FULL HD unless it's from one of those movie channels (like Starz and etc.). I've never actually purchased the pack for the movie channels, but when we got it for free, I would record a bunch of them, and the quality and sound was incredible! I also recommend popping in some Blu-Rays, or you can hook up your PC to your TV with a HDMI cable, and also enjoy full 1080p hd

 

[strollin]

I have a 42" Philips and couldn't be happier.
Just compare a network channel in standard def then switch to the channel carrying the same programming in hi-def and tell me that it is not night and day different.
I do hope you are running sound through a high quality 5.1 or better receiver or separates and 5.1 or better speaker channels also.

Therein lies the problem. There ISN'T a night/day difference, in my estimation there's maybe about 20% better picture which is my complaint. It just seems like a whole bunch of effort/cost to get such a marginal improvement in picure quality.

Nope, no external sound system, just what's built-in to the TV. We had a 5.1 surround sound system a few years back and it crapped out within the warranty period. We felt it wasn't worth the effort to get it fixed under the warranty so we never bothered with it.

So much of this is hype as far as I'm concerned. If watching a movie or TV show, once you get absorbed in the story, things like picture quality and sound fade into the background and become unimportant.

 

[Wishmaster]

It all depends on the TV I think.

Plasma have a much better picture quality IMHO than LCD or LED TVs.

Seems flesh tones for example are reproduced much more accurately.


I have a 46" Panasonic LCD that looks pretty good, and a 60" LG Infinia Class Plasma.

Although the LCD Panasonic has a beautiful picture (to me), when looking at them side by side, the LCD seems to have a orange/reddish tint to flesh tones.
Never noticed it before until compared.

But the Plasma is also a THX certified , so that may have something to with it i don't know.

Also, I noticed when looking at them in the sore, thery actually look much better once you get them home.
Also bigger :-/ The 60" didnt seem that big in the store, but once set up at home seemed huge.

I can tell a big difference between SD and HD (as in Cable Broadcast HD)
Although the difference is nothing like BluRay. Bluray looks amazing, and is no mistaking it as HD.

 

[bigmck]

I also get my cable/satellite from DISH. They don't actually offer FULL HD unless it's from one of those movie channels (like Starz and etc.). I've never actually purchased the pack for the movie channels, but when we got it for free, I would record a bunch of them, and the quality and sound was incredible! I also recommend popping in some Blu-Rays, or you can hook up your PC to your TV with a HDMI cable, and also enjoy full 1080p hd

We have Dish Network also. We do not get any of the Premium Movie Channels. Just the package that they call the "250" and the HD package. All channels except maybe ten are in HD. Like you say, HD is as different as night and day. When there is a closeup of an actor, you can actually see the pores in their skin. It has that much detail.