HDTV a damp squib?

[Dr Lobster*]

i went into a smaller local electrical retailer today and on display was a sony hi def bravia tv, with a sky hd digibox plugged straight into it - no splitter, no sharing, straight into the back of the tv (the shop is too small anyway)

it was showing some sort of promotion channel, i was able to turn it over to sky one hd, artsworld hd, and sky movies 9hd (or whichever one it was), and when you flipped straight back to sd sky one, movies etc, it was pretty hard to tell them apart.

the picture still suffered from banding and artefacts during fast movement.

although on paper hd is far superior (1080p being over double the resolution than sd) in real terms, it seems that once its compressed and decoded by a sky box, it becomes blurred and fuzzy and not greatly improved.

don't get me wrong, it was perceivably sharper in places, but it didn't have the wow factor i initially felt when i saw the specially crafted demos in stores like comet etc.

i guess the transition is inevitable, but i really can't see the point right now, and certainly not for a £10 a month on top of my normal subscription.

[rts]

Really does depend on the programmes. Simpsons/Futurama are badly cropped and quality even worse in my opinion, but for treats such as Planet Earth, Robin Hood, you really cannot beat it.

Your absolutely right, somethings are very difficult to tell apart, but with some programmes the difference is actually amazing. I did a test with Strictly Come Dancing the other week, and you really could not beat HD.

The only problem is that John Prescott's face is a little too detailed for my liking.

[marksi]

They never demonstrate these things with a good old SD-fed CRT beside them, do they?

[peterrocket]

What get's me is the currys in town demonstrating HD tv's through a crap split signal and then claiming the picture quality is HD when in fact, it's quite clearly not.

[Stuart*]

Do we really need to see the blocked pores or moles on John Prescott's fat face, or the blades of grass on a football pitch. Personally I think not.

HD may be the future but is it really worth it? I don't wish to appear a Luddite, but it's an unnecessary step which isn't required for normal day-to-day viewing. (Abit like getting a 4x4 just to drive 3 miles to work each day when you live in an urban conurbation)

[Lee]

Seeing HD demonstrated was a bit of a disappointment, it was clearer but certainly not impressive or worth the hype.

You cannot beat a good fifty-incher, though! There's no need for HD as long as I have my big fat love bunny of a telly.