Am I missing something in regard to high definition? We have a Sharp Aquos LC-45G1X LCD TV (True HD 1920 x 1080 – 114cm) & a Toshiba HDD-J35 (twin HD tuner PVR) & for the life of me the difference between SD & HD is so minimal it is undetectable by most.

With the above combination it’s possible to do two side by side pictures, or quickly switch from one to the other (one SD & the other HD). I have asked several friends & relatives to do a comparison & none can really tell the difference!

Fair enough, I can see a miniscule difference but only in the ground textures. Text & other objects look exactly the same, In fact many pick the SD image as the HD since the difference isn’t detectable (except by the watermark)!

This is just my thoughts & findings, others may not concur but for anyone who hasn’t done this comparison I would highly recommend the test before going to HD. I think it’s becoming an urban myth that HD is just so much better, believe me it isn’t! SD with the right programme source is fantastic, so is HD but the difference just isn't there!

BTW the PVR to TV connection is HDMI to DVI-I (why can’t they settle on one standard)! The above combination & setup to my knowledge is the best & I don’t imagine other equipment would make any difference? I’d love to hear what others have found or their thoughts on this?

I posed this question in a newsgroup (aus.tv.digital) & not one person had an opinion four days on? I guess not many people have any thoughts on this?

In Australia the line between what is HD and what is SD is rather blurry in more ways than digital transmission specs. If true HD was being sampled, and you sat relatively close to a 42" or larger screen, then the difference would be quite apparent. I often think the same of a good SD picture through my Toppy and HD plasma, but an infrequent check of a 'near-HD' Ch7/Ch9 test loop does confirm that HD looks better. Regular 'HD' programs are another matter. The fly screen effect is a nuisance, even with good SD screens, when you sit relatively close.

Usenet isn't the haunt of regular technically knowledgeable posters that it used to be. Too much unmoderated drivel, IMHO.

For a start, how do you switch quickly between TRUE SD and TRUE HD? If you really can then you need to have a true 1080 source. My suggestion would be CSI, but its finished this year. The ‘Ring’ films seem to be a great sample of HD as well. My only other suggestion is the morning show with Kerry Anne on 90, (but only the live camera shots).

If you then compare you should see a difference. I’ve seen the ‘full’ Aquos and it does do a very good job. Also make sure the Aquos is in the ‘pixel to pixel’ mode (can’t remember how they describe it) where in 1920 x 1080 the pixels are 1-1 with no rescaling. Beware even if you have a 1080 source the monitor stills needs to be switched to this mode.

Leaving the Aquos aside, its sad to say most people have NOT seen true HD. Once you see a full HD image (1080) on a full HD monitor you will be ‘wowed’. Even the squeezing of HD back to 1440 x 1080 reduces the quality. Then 90% of displays out in the public area are NOT true HD. Thus a false impression is created by the consumer industry. I won’t even start on 576p ^$%#$%^& HD.

come on, let it all out.. it'll make you feel better

Note, in order to view these screenshots properly, you need your desktop size to be 1920x1080 (plug it into the LCD display if you can) or make sure you're viewing them at full size.

Anyway, if you're able to clearly read below the For Lease sign in the Up-converted SD image, or the white sign just above the No Entry sign, then you must have better eyes than me. I can clearly read those signs on the HD one..

HD vs. SD

And this one... if you can clearly read the numbers on the Tram in the following up-converted SD shot, you must have really good eyes...

HD vs. SD

The following is one of my favourites... without looking at the HD one, you wouldn't even know how much detail you were missing out on...

HD vs. SD

I believe the shots above make a fair comparison. The HD images are native HD, from a HD source, broadcast as native HD, whilst the SD images are native SD, from a SD source, broadcast as SD up-converted to HD (by the network).

On my TV, this is how much of a difference I see between an SD source (like a DVD) and a HD source...

DVD vs. HD

Or maybe this'll make a better example

DVD vs. HD

Perhaps tonight, you oughta check out Cast Away or tomorrow, check out Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Both should make great examples of how much better HD is over SD.

Well there are some sight handicapped out there who think 576p is HD????????????

Also the 24p handicapped ones who want 24p as the HD format???????????????????

Please note Wolfe Creek and other Aust films shot on HDCAM are shot at 25p, not 24p. Why, for post production reasons and the DVD can be made straight from the edited master. The film transfer includes a pitch adjusted sound track.

Allbig camera manufactures are working on 1080/50-60p cameras. Face it 24p is too low. The Japs want a 4K resolution camera (double that of 1080/50-60p).

So thats my soap box today - wake up out there you 'p' mode toadies.

Yup indeedy. I think its a shame that most HD out there today is really only 'crap' compared to what it CAN be. Combined as gepm said, with the displays also not being as 'perfect' as they could be means its really losing its oomph dramatically (even still it is capable of making your eyes light up).

eh eh 576p... argh! *runs*

Kogarah, I could try get a screen shot from one of the few highest quality HD Camera's (Thompson Viper i think this one was from) for you to display to see if that gives a bit more distance between your SD comparison if you like? The detail is rather good.

I think also that even at 114cm that its still Standard Definitions domain even. meaning... SD can still look rather nice at that size. Blow it up further into the relm of where HD starts to take over and it helps.

A little exmple of this effect could be likened to a DivX rip of some footage in a resolution of say 480x272. On your Computer monitor displayed and playing at 1:1 it looks fantastic. A quick press of ALT+3 to double the window size and instantly teh quality is dismal! A higher resolution video in that same frame would thrash it

I could offer you a 17.5mbps clip of High Definiton for you to use as a tester on your display to see if there is much difference?

Here here

Although, I thought the Japs were pushing for Super Hi-Vision, otherwise known as Ultra High Definition Video

Resolution: 7,680 × 4,320 pixels.
Frame rate: 60 frame/s.
22.2-channel audio
9 - above ear level
10 - ear level
3 - below ear level
2 - low frequency effects
24gbit/s bandiwdth

heeh I think its a bit unwise in this age of fast technology to take 'baby sidesteps'. I cant', for the life of me, figure out why such small incremental upgrades are taken. Why not give DVD's 15 years (or whatever the case may be) of service and for that time work on a FAR FAR superior product or standard that EASILY beats it in quality and features etc instead of 500 different news releases stating a new device being designed thats expected to be out in 2 years but never gets past vapourware. Or does come to fruition (like HD) but is cought up by to many sub standards (720p, 576p) that only limit its forward motion. Instead we could be focusing on say 1080p72 @ 1:1 PAR on ONE medium (holigraphic storage) that is NOT limited by starved bitrates or the like.

Plus consumers wouldnt get pissed there 6 month old blu-ray drive is useless and outdated. eheh

First - it's always hard to know the level of knowledge of the person you're writing to, so it's possible you have already taken account of the following.

A few things that might affect what you are seeing:

1. The SD you're seeing might be being upscaled (or 'up-pixeled') by the HD STB or TV. My TV does a pretty good job of this so SD looks pretty good, far better than on a SD TV.

2. Make sure the HD you are comparing is 1080i (Nine, Ten), not 576p (Seven, SBS, ABC). That is both a 1080i broadcast and 1080i content. I think the test loops (shown here on WIN and SCT) are 1080i. That's the Australian cities and Canadian footage (rivers, mountains etc).

A side issue - I've found that setting my HD STB to output 720p when watching 576p gives the best picture.

For the record - on the rare occasion there is something that is genuine 1080i, it's spectacular on my TV.