HD Television

[denis567]

Not sure if I should have posted this in TV & Media or not.
Am I alone in thinking that we are being kidded about the benefits of HD.
Where I live we have a very strong signal on Freeview, and to me the picture looks perfect. So if I get a perfect picture now, how can it be better with HD?. I have heard that the picture is crisper and sharper, but I must say that I am less than impressed with demonstration models in TV shops

[ChuckFickens]

with a decent, proper, (1080p) HD tv, a decent HD video source and all connected properly then the difference is shocking!

most people fall down on at least one of the above 3 points and then it just doesn't work.

[Sonyme]

I have Sky HD in lounge and HD ready tv in dining room without Sky and there is a difference, but the problem is with Sky who are shouting about how many HD channels they have - but for more than half the time they are transmitting non Hd programes. I remember seeing a black and white film being transmitted on HD channel. A lot of the programes on Military Hd History Hd etc are repeatts of programes made before HD cameras were about.

[ll_billym]

'HD' , as a total package is vastly superior to the current/last generation technology it but despite being available for a few years now the technology still costs too much for most consumers, studios and broadcasters.

The problem is that a television, a video recording and a TV channel can all be called HD because they meet certain criteria but they are not fully utilising the power of the technology.

So I agree with you that currently it is hard to see, or afford, the benifits of HD but in a few years time you will wonder how you ever used to watch what you are watching tonight.