HDTV vs SDTV

Jay Gladwell wrote on 11/12/2005, 1:44 PM

Here's an interesting comment I had never heard before regarding the resolution differences between HDTV and SDTV...

Bigger isn't better if you are seated so close to the set that you can see every pixel or line of resolution. Generally, you don't want to sit closer to a 720p HDTV than twice the length of the screen diagonal.

You can read the entire article here.


Comments

farss wrote on 11/12/2005, 2:21 PM
Well to anyone working with moving images that should be a well known fact!
Streaming media at 320x240 can look quite OK at it's native size but try blowing that up onto a TV screen and it looks horrid.
Our projected SD movie looks way better if I adjust the image size smaller, I'm doing this optically so all else is being kept the same. If I make the image size say 4M across rather than 5M across then it looks much better. In the process I'm also making the image brighter which helps no end of course.

All in all though this has nothing to do with SD Vs HD, apart from the fact that if you want a cinema experience in your home then SD is not an option. For ANY image resolution the larger the field of view the more noticeable the limits of the resolution becomes.

But there's another factor that doesn't get enough attention, make the image so it fills a wall of the room and it's a totally different viewing experience to watching the image in a little box in the corner of the room. You can choose to ignore the little box, a whole moving wall demands your attention, somehow I don't think that's how I want to watch the evening news over dinner.
Of course for us as content creators the more resolution we provide the more valuable our work is, one can always down convert.
Bob.
JJKizak wrote on 11/12/2005, 4:33 PM
Jay:
That does not work like you stated for me in any sense. SD plain sucks compared to HD no matter where you view it from.
Reasons:
1. The analog channels are usually re broadcast over the air and the analog resolution is far better than the SD. How do I know? Sony analog set on the left and Sony HDTV on the right looking at the same program simulcast. Analog is better about 50 % of the time, and I don't mean a little bit I mean a lot.
2. Some channels do SD very well. CBS for one, Fox the other, and PBS. ABC, NBC, and UPN are terrible. Spanish channel is excellent. The worst is ABC and it is so far behind it might take years to catch up. If I have to watch something on ABC I will switch to the analog tuner . Remember this is SD not HD. The CBS, FOX, and PBS SD performance is much better than analog. That's the way it is in my area at the present time. Remember that if they are broadcasting an old grainy film on analog you will see an old grainy film on SD also.
I will admit that on CBS the difference between HD and SD is pretty close, but the HD is still sharper. I view about 7 ft away from the 34" widescreen set, that is when I don't fall asleep.



JJK
richard-courtney wrote on 11/12/2005, 5:28 PM
Depending on how the local is converting SD will make some difference
other than obvious minut ghosts (multipath). Most networks
broadcast their feeds using digital satellite so those taking
the bit stream and repeating it will look fantastic. Local news
or ad inserts sometimes show some flaws but still very enjoyable.

None of my locals are HD news but at this time who cares?
In a few years we will see great local programming. Now
if my eyes were good enough to get a sharp focus on my camera!!
Jay Gladwell wrote on 11/12/2005, 6:54 PM

James, it wasn't me saying that, it was Larry Weber, president-elect of the Society for Information Display.


JJKizak wrote on 11/13/2005, 5:51 AM
Jay:
Sorry for the diatrabe. It was a complaint aimed at my local tv stations. Some are just great, others are terrible with the SD transmissions. I have determined that it is very hard to foul up the HD transmissions. One of the factors is they download the stuff from satellite at different data rates to suit their fancy.

JJK
TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/13/2005, 6:36 AM
I belive most digital distributers (including networks) are ripping us off, quality wise. When I worked at a TV station, we had a couple digital recievers. UPN sucked. all their programming looked grainy, but I belive it's because of what they were filming on (it looked grainy even on analog feeds which makes me think it was digital to begin with).

WB was amazing. It looked beautiful. However, lots of non-network digital/analog feeds (which included shows the networks run) didn't look great. I could TELL they were reducing bandwidth to save money. Sometimes it looked like a 320x240 feed blown up. :( Very sad.

That was ~1 1/2 years ago now since I worked there. All my TV channels come in fuzzy so I don't know how well it is now, but let me tell you this... the guys who run the board on my local FOX affiliate are really really bad. I don't think I've ever seen them NOT miss a commercial cue & NOT step on the program. :(