Jump to content


Photo

Any news if Formula1 will broadcast in High Definition in 2007?


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#151 TennisUK

TennisUK
  • Member

  • 1,772 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 29 January 2008 - 20:13

Sky and Virgin both offer HD services now, which will expand from what they offer at the moment. If you are existing virgin customer, it's not difficult to negotiate a free box HD compatible DVR with HDMI for free.

Worked out £1 a month more for us.

I presume Sky have similar customer retention policies.

As for freeview - as another poster pointed out, in 2012, it's a lot more likely it will offer an HD over air service for free, as the bandwidth hungry analogue services will have been switched off. Until then nada. And we also have to hope the UK govt. doesn't just sell off the frequency to the highest bidder, which is perhaps a bit naive...

Advertisement

#152 Kim's a Kimi Fan

Kim's a Kimi Fan
  • Member

  • 96 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 29 January 2008 - 23:20

Originally posted by Gemini
Are you sure it was HD?

I had seen the same 16:9 format used on ORF1 (Austria) or Polsat Sport (Poland). However it's just wide screen not a HD.

And I agree with your opinion on graphics on screen..really annoying

We can watch the races on regular TSN, SpeedTV or TSN-HD and the picture quality is vastly improved on the HD channel. Also, the picture quality for most of the races was much better on TSN-HD than, for instance, on the FOM Season in Review DVD. There is also a noticeable drop off in picture quality for onboard camera shots. The Brazil broadcast was definitely not HD or even properly upscaled because it was by far the worst pictures of the season - just terrible. Some other broadcasts may have been upscaled but there around 4-5 (? - can't remember exactly how many) that were definitely in HD, including the Canadian GP. There was mention on their website (or in the pre-race?) about some of the races that had proper HD cameras for the broadcast and the difference was noticeable. One of the biggest differences is actually with the Ferraris - they look kind of bleah in digital but are gorgeous in HD.

#153 Andy Donovan

Andy Donovan
  • Member

  • 1,015 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 30 January 2008 - 14:50

Originally posted by TennisUK
As for freeview - as another poster pointed out, in 2012, it's a lot more likely it will offer an HD over air service for free, as the bandwidth hungry analogue services will have been switched off. Until then nada. And we also have to hope the UK govt. doesn't just sell off the frequency to the highest bidder, which is perhaps a bit naive...

It's not being 'sold off', it's a 'digital dividend'. I can't find the story, but elsewhere on that site it says they're going to have four HD channels for BBC, ITV, Channel4 and possibly Five, but as you say not until 2012. Ofcom seem pretty intent on selling off everything they can, and I think this is the most the broadcasters can get.

#154 rage2

rage2
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 30 January 2008 - 15:49

Originally posted by Kim's a Kimi Fan
Some other broadcasts may have been upscaled but there around 4-5 (? - can't remember exactly how many) that were definitely in HD, including the Canadian GP. There was mention on their website (or in the pre-race?) about some of the races that had proper HD cameras for the broadcast and the difference was noticeable. One of the biggest differences is actually with the Ferraris - they look kind of bleah in digital but are gorgeous in HD.

None of the races last year were in HD. Some of the races were done with HD cameras, which gave a much sharper picture compared to SD cameras, but not even comparable in quality to HD cameras, production, and output. Every race was upscaled SD widescreen. Races with HD cameras and SD widescreen output upscaled back to HD would look pretty close to HD on smaller TV's.

I watch every race live, and have been paying attention to the day when I get a real HD race.

#155 917k

917k
  • Member

  • 2,570 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 30 January 2008 - 16:00

Originally posted by rage2

None of the races last year were in HD. Some of the races were done with HD cameras, which gave a much sharper picture compared to SD cameras, but not even comparable in quality to HD cameras, production, and output. Every race was upscaled SD widescreen. Races with HD cameras and SD widescreen output upscaled back to HD would look pretty close to HD on smaller TV's.

I watch every race live, and have been paying attention to the day when I get a real HD race.



Correct.

Although the TSN picture is pretty good, HD it is not. Look for the ''jaggies'' present on straight lines or complex patterns.

BTW- does anyone here know why most of CBC's HNIC feed [purported to be in HD] is not? Some of the iso. cameras are HD but the main centre ice camera isn't. This is astounding to think that something as revered as HNIC isn't fully HD ,especially with the revenues it must pull in.
Just as stupid, TSN and Sportsnet broadcast their hockey games in full HD.

Is CBC too cheap and why don't the viewers demand it?

#156 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,210 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 30 January 2008 - 16:16

Originally posted by dutra


WHAT! :eek:

Here in Brazil, these setup box with HD are costing less then 100 dollars.


Does your box also include a HDD recorder?

#157 dutra

dutra
  • Member

  • 1,054 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 30 January 2008 - 19:26

Originally posted by Clatter


Does your box also include a HDD recorder?


Not the 80 dollars one but even with HDD you can find it for 150, 160 dollars. The setup box are made here in Brazil with our own tecnology and almost tax free because here the free tv is the most popular. Pay TV is only in 15% of the houses around here. So with this huge potential market (100 milions of boxes in 6 years) was possible to make the price lower and still have a good profit. But the implemention of the digital TV here will be completely finalyzed in all the 5.500 cities only in 2014.

#158 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,210 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 31 January 2008 - 12:48

Originally posted by dutra


Not the 80 dollars one but even with HDD you can find it for 150, 160 dollars. The setup box are made here in Brazil with our own tecnology and almost tax free because here the free tv is the most popular. Pay TV is only in 15% of the houses around here. So with this huge potential market (100 milions of boxes in 6 years) was possible to make the price lower and still have a good profit. But the implemention of the digital TV here will be completely finalyzed in all the 5.500 cities only in 2014.


The HD box here incudes a HDD recorder and twin tuner, so reasonably well specced. We probably do pay over the odds, but then I payed over £300 for my first sat dish and reciever when they first became available, and they are virtually free now. The price will come down, just depends on whether you want to be an early adopter or willing to wait a while. Personally I don't think there is enough being broadcast to warrent the expence. If they didnt compress the SD broadcast so much, there would be no real need for HD.

#159 Kim's a Kimi Fan

Kim's a Kimi Fan
  • Member

  • 96 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 31 January 2008 - 21:20

Originally posted by 917k
Correct.

Although the TSN picture is pretty good, HD it is not. Look for the ''jaggies'' present on straight lines or complex patterns.

Maybe it's your cable provider but there were 4-5 races this past season on TSN-HD that other than onboard shots, had no jaggies on a 60" widescreen and were noticeably higher quality than the other ones. Also, we record all the races on our HDPVR and those same races took way more hard drive space (~3 times as much) than the others so there was definitely more information being transmitted.

Advertisement

#160 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 31 January 2008 - 21:39

Originally posted by dutra


WHAT! :eek:

Here in Brazil, these setup box with HD are costing less then 100 dollars.


Do you know if globo is to broadcast HD? Would make me consider buying the LCD TV and the setop box.

#161 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,067 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 31 January 2008 - 21:46

David Progue's New York times article on TVs in the USA:


Clearing Up Some of the Confusion Over HDTV
By DAVID POGUE
According to the Consumer Electronics Association, this Sunday’s Super Bowl will inspire the sales of 2.4 million high-definition TV sets. That’s a lot of plasma. (And L.C.D., and projection sets.)

In my weekly CNBC/Times video today, I pulled what I thought would be a brilliant stunt: I’d interview a TV salesman at Best Buy, firing a lot of typical confused-consumer questions at him. Then, during playback of that interview, I’d keep pausing the tape to correct him or interject little asides.

Well, the “correcting him” bit didn’t work at all. Steve at the Best Buy in Norwalk, Conn., was amazing, easily one of the most fluent HDTV experts I’d ever met. He was unstumpable.

So here’s a paraphrased version of what I learned or confirmed from him. If you’re among the HDTV shoppers who have yet to buy your set for the big game, maybe the advice here will help you out.

Q: Is there a lot of consumer confusion about HDTV?

A: Oh, man, you have no idea. People come in here absolutely clueless. Or furious, because they bought an HDTV set, got it home, and discovered that the picture doesn’t look anything like it did here in the store. Because they don’t realize they need a high-def *signal* to feed that set. For example, they need to replace their cable boxes with digital ones, or put a high-def antenna on the roof.

[D.P. adds: According to a study by the Leichtman Research Group, 50 percent of HDTV owners aren’t actually watching any high-def shows on them... but 25 percent of them *think* they are.]

Q: Isn’t it true, in fact, that standard-def broadcasts actually look *worse* on a high-def TV?

A: Unfortunately, yes.

Q: Don’t you guys deliberately put the store-display screens in “torch mode,” cranking the brightness and contrast all the way up to catch shoppers’ eyes?

A: We don’t adjust the sets to look that way; that’s the way most sets come from the factory. It actually makes the set look a lot worse than it will when you get it home and get it properly calibrated.

Q: Oh, you have to pay someone to come over and tweak the set?

A: You really should. We offer that service as part of installation.

[D.P. adds: How did I know he was going to say that?]

Q: O.K., here we go. One-word answer: plasma or LCD?

A: They both offer an amazing picture these days. In the better sets, the traditional flaws of plasma (like burn-in) and LCD (limited viewing angle, not very deep blacks, weak fast motion) have been largely eliminated.

The plasma screens still have glossy surfaces, though, and LCD sets are still brighter. So as a rough guideline, plasma has truer color and does better in darker rooms, and LCD has more vivid color and does better in bright rooms. (LCD is also lighter and more energy-efficient, but usually costs more for the same-size set.)

Q: OK, how about this one: 720p or 1080p?

A: These are measurements of how many fine lines make up the picture.

You’d think that 1080p is obviously better than 720p. Trouble is, you won’t get a 1080p image unless you feed it a 1080p signal — and that’s hard to come by. There’s no such thing as a 1080p TV broadcast (cable, satellite, anything), and won’t be for years. Even most games, like Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, generally send out 720p (or less).

So the *only* way to get a 1080p picture on a 1080p set is to buy a high-def DVD player (Blu-ray or HD DVD). That’s the only way. *** Xbox????

[D.P. adds: Even then, you won’t see any difference between 720p and 1080p unless you sit closer than 10 feet from the TV and it’s bigger than 55 inches or so.

And even then, you’re not getting any additional sharpness or detail. Instead, as CNET notes, you’re just gaining the ability to move closer without seeing individual pixels: “In other words, you can sit closer to a 1080p television and not notice any pixel structure, such as stair-stepping along diagonal lines, or the screen door effect (where you can actually see the space between the pixels).”]

Q: But a 1080p set costs a lot more than an identical 720p set, doesn’t it?

A: Yeah.

[D.P. adds: At this point, he showed me two plasmas, same brand, same size, same model line, mounted one above the other: one 720p, the other 1080p. The fancier set cost $2,000 more — and the image quality was pixel-for-pixel identical.]

Q: What’s the best-selling size?

A: It used to be 42 inches. Nowadays, 50-inchers are more common, and even larger, because prices have dropped so much.

Q: Is a bigger screen always better?

A: Depends on whether you ask the husband or the wife.

If you sit 8 to 10 feet back, a 50- or 60-incher is not too big. But you don’t want to overpower the room. If the screen dominates the room, it almost discourages relaxing, because it just towers over the space.

Q: What about rear-projection sets?

A: They’re great. And they’re often overlooked, because flat panels are all the rage. But the truth is, once you mount a flat-panel TV, it’s just as thick as today’s rear-projection sets (several inches from the wall).

Meanwhile, the quality of the rear-projection sets is amazing; it’s been improving every year. The downside is that you can’t sit as far off-angle as you can with a flat panel. But rear-projection sets offer the biggest size at the best price. And they weigh almost nothing. One person can lift one.

[DP adds: Except you do have to replace the bulb every few years, which can cost several hundred dollars.]

Q: How come you guys don’t have the remote controls on display?

A: We don’t like to put them on display, because every time I turn around, somebody’s turned a bunch of the TVs off.

Q: So of all the sets here, which is the very best one to buy for the Super Bowl?

A: Well, all of them will give you an absolutely great picture. But there’s one thing that none of these sets can do: they can’t make the Giants look good.

[D.P. adds: I’m not touching that one. Happy ’Bowling!]



#162 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 31 January 2008 - 21:58

Originally posted by 917k



Correct.

Although the TSN picture is pretty good, HD it is not. Look for the ''jaggies'' present on straight lines or complex patterns.

BTW- does anyone here know why most of CBC's HNIC feed [purported to be in HD] is not? Some of the iso. cameras are HD but the main centre ice camera isn't. This is astounding to think that something as revered as HNIC isn't fully HD ,especially with the revenues it must pull in.
Just as stupid, TSN and Sportsnet broadcast their hockey games in full HD.

Is CBC too cheap and why don't the viewers demand it?


Moire or jagging of near sqare lines will happen at any resolution you shoot at. The way to avoid it is adding a bit blur to the image, AKA filtering.

#163 dutra

dutra
  • Member

  • 1,054 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 31 January 2008 - 23:01

Originally posted by saudoso


Do you know if globo is to broadcast HD? Would make me consider buying the LCD TV and the setop box.


Probably not in 2008. Maybe some tests in the second semester in São Paulo, Belo Horizonte and Rio de Janeiro but not in a regular schedule. What I heard is that in 2009 all the F1 coverage in Globo TV will be available in HD.


But in fact there is no need of rush. For about two years it won't be that different see TV in SD or HD here in Brazil. The biggest step foward here is make the reception of the signal in the open free TV easier and possible in mobile phones and small receptors without no adittional cost. In Europe, for example, you have to pay to watch TV on the mobile phone.

#164 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 01 February 2008 - 02:54

It's ridiculous. NASCAR has been in HD for how long now....?

Surely there's enough people with consumer HD cameras going to the races; I know the Dave Matthews fans have managed to put together/compile a number of fan-shot shows, it'd be neat if F1 fans could manage to do the same.

/ or if Bernie would just GET ON WITH HD ALREADY

#165 Andy Donovan

Andy Donovan
  • Member

  • 1,015 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 02 February 2008 - 17:46

More UK-related news:

Ofcom's HDTV plans "jeopardise" Freeview
Ofcom are quite rightly taking a battering for their half-arsed attempts to set out a plan for terrestrial HD, when all they really want to do is sell off the spectrum to the highest bidder.

#166 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 02 February 2008 - 18:30

Originally posted by dutra


Probably not in 2008. Maybe some tests in the second semester in São Paulo, Belo Horizonte and Rio de Janeiro but not in a regular schedule. What I heard is that in 2009 all the F1 coverage in Globo TV will be available in HD.


But in fact there is no need of rush. For about two years it won't be that different see TV in SD or HD here in Brazil. The biggest step foward here is make the reception of the signal in the open free TV easier and possible in mobile phones and small receptors without no adittional cost. In Europe, for example, you have to pay to watch TV on the mobile phone.


They are doing the carnival HD, I hope F1 is getting the same treatment. Let's see.

One thing is sure, I'll get a USB receptor and record everything in the computer, HD or not.

#167 dutra

dutra
  • Member

  • 1,054 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 03 February 2008 - 00:26

Originally posted by saudoso


They are doing the carnival HD, I hope F1 is getting the same treatment. Let's see.

One thing is sure, I'll get a USB receptor and record everything in the computer, HD or not.


The problem would be the contract betwen Globo and FOM. Originally for this year the broadcast should be in SD and HD just in tests, because the HD signal is more expensive. But that could be changed with a new negociation. To me seems a bit unlike.

#168 jb_128

jb_128
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 February 2008 - 20:32

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
David Progue's New York times article on TVs in the USA:
You’d think that 1080p is obviously better than 720p. Trouble is, you won’t get a 1080p image unless you feed it a 1080p signal — and that’s hard to come by.


Huh? Aren't most broadcasts in the US 1080i? Or is he not getting that a progressive display will always deinterlace 1080i to 1080p?

#169 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,067 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 06 February 2008 - 00:53

Originally posted by jb_128


Huh? Aren't most broadcasts in the US 1080i? Or is he not getting that a progressive display will always deinterlace 1080i to 1080p?


I think he is. Read the article. There is a difference though between non interlaced and interlaced. Blue Ray is non interlaced.

#170 jb_128

jb_128
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 06 February 2008 - 06:13

To play a 1080i signal on a 1080 screen the signal needs to be deinterlaced. To play it on a 720 screen it needs to be deinterlaced and scaled down so 1080 is clearly better. In fact if the TV has a decent deinterlacer then for film-type content 1080i and 1080p are identical. And for video-type content I don't think that even Blu-Ray is 1080p as it would need double the frame rate.

#171 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,067 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 06 February 2008 - 06:41

Originally posted by jb_128
And for video-type content I don't think that even Blu-Ray is 1080p as it would need double the frame rate.

Ooh I did not know the frame rate for Blue-Ray.

Thanks for the rest of the information.

#172 rye&ginger

rye&ginger
  • Member

  • 231 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 11 February 2008 - 01:37

Originally posted by 917k



Correct.

Although the TSN picture is pretty good, HD it is not. Look for the ''jaggies'' present on straight lines or complex patterns.

BTW- does anyone here know why most of CBC's HNIC feed [purported to be in HD] is not? Some of the iso. cameras are HD but the main centre ice camera isn't. This is astounding to think that something as revered as HNIC isn't fully HD ,especially with the revenues it must pull in.
Just as stupid, TSN and Sportsnet broadcast their hockey games in full HD.

Is CBC too cheap and why don't the viewers demand it?


TSN is upconverting a wide screen SD feed. It looks much better than past few years but its not HD, yes. I hope HD comes soon to F1, but it doesnt seem like it will in 2008.

CBC HNIC is usually all HD. There are some games, due to unavailable HD production trucks, that are not HD. Most often the West/later game. IVe never seen the main camera view not being HD while the iso. cameras are HD. Its the reverse case more often, such as the in net cam not being HD. TSN has HD in net cams, sponsored by Sharp if I recall. Pehaps that is why its a bit better.

Where do you live? Ottawa gets the shaft for HD. Toronto games are always HD, along with the West/later game most of the time.

Also make sure your TV and HD box are set up properlly, that is the cause of most problems. digitalhome.ca is a good forum to discuss HD and other tech related to Canada, BTW. Come there to make sure you have it sorted.

#173 jondoe955

jondoe955
  • Member

  • 498 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 11 February 2008 - 03:20

I don't think we can EVER look down at a race series that uses carburetors as long as F1 is broadcast in SDef. What crap!

#174 Mark A

Mark A
  • Member

  • 1,119 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 11 February 2008 - 08:19

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
David Progue's New York times article on TVs in the USA:

You’d think that 1080p is obviously better than 720p. Trouble is, you won’t get a 1080p image unless you feed it a 1080p signal — and that’s hard to come by. There’s no such thing as a 1080p TV broadcast (cable, satellite, anything), and won’t be for years. Even most games, like Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, generally send out 720p (or less).





That bit is wrong. My PS3 sends out a 1080p signal (although it does depend on the game).

#175 simpson

simpson
  • Member

  • 162 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 11 February 2008 - 18:01

Hell. I don't think that F1 can even synchronize sound and on-board video. Or is that a function of our program providers - Speed and TSN (which shows the ITV coverage).

I kept wondering why these top drivers in the world seemed to be starting to accelerate a second after the apex, but realized that the sound simply lagged. That was very disappointing to me for a high tech sport.

#176 Milt

Milt
  • Member

  • 1,723 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 11 February 2008 - 22:41

Originally posted by simpson
Hell. I don't think that F1 can even synchronize sound and on-board video. Or is that a function of our program providers - Speed and TSN (which shows the ITV coverage).

I kept wondering why these top drivers in the world seemed to be starting to accelerate a second after the apex, but realized that the sound simply lagged. That was very disappointing to me for a high tech sport.

That is simple high-school physics.
In air, at sea level, sound travels 1130 feet in a second.
In that same second, light travels 186,000 miles.

You could possibly ask Speed and TSN to delay the the visual images by a second or so (depending on how far the camera was from the car), so that the the sound would "synchronize"

EDIT: Whoops! I just noticed that you were refering to 'on-board' footage.

#177 tidytracks

tidytracks
  • Member

  • 1,569 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 14 March 2008 - 03:35

Interesting piece on FOM's TV service and their use of High Def technology in the new GPWeek mag - http://www.gpweek.com

#178 MichaelJP

MichaelJP
  • Member

  • 849 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 14 March 2008 - 10:35

Originally posted by tidytracks
Interesting piece on FOM's TV service and their use of High Def technology in the new GPWeek mag - http://www.gpweek.com


Gosh, if you read that article it all sounds very exciting, you might even be under the impression that F1 TV broadcasts had made it to the 21st century!

16:9 no less, on-board cameras, wow...

#179 Hacklerf

Hacklerf
  • Member

  • 2,332 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 14 March 2008 - 10:45

Yea for sure, without a 1080p signal going into it, you'll see no difference in quality on a 720p vs. a 1080p set.


I was reading an article and cut this

"Another issue is overall quality, even if you do go with 1080p. Very few TV viewers can tell the difference between a 720p, a 1080i, and a 1080p signal. While you'll see more differences between 720p and 1080p on a paused picture, virtually all TV watching is done with moving images, where ultrafine detail often goes unnoticed. You might try this for yourself at a TV showroom. See if you can tell the difference between a 720p and 1080p image side by side when standing 12 feet away from the set. If you're getting a smaller TV, you may never be able to notice any difference at all if you sit at a standard viewing distance. Your eyes simply won't be able to see the detail."

"Finally, there's the issue that 1080p is probably not the end of the line for video resolution. Already people are talking about 2160p, "super high-definition," "ultra HD," and other next-gen formats. It's really an inevitability that one or more of them will someday come to pass. 1080p could eventually look like junk in comparison to them... provided, of course, you're sitting 3 inches from the screen.

I know there's a lot of conflicting advice here, so I want to leave you with a bottom line: Choose the size set that will work in your home and has the connectors you need, then buy the best TV (the one that looks best to you) you can afford now, whether it's 1080p or not. Being happy with the picture you see is a lot more important than whether it has some mysterious specs under the hood which don't really mean anything in the end."

DO YOU NEED 1080p?

Good news: Here's a handy chart that lets you determine the optimal resolution for your TV based on how far you sit from the sit, and how big the screen is (or would be). Take a look at the graphic to get started. If you're confused, here's how to interpret it. Posted Image

Start by figuring out your typical seating distance from the TV. You'll want to be as accurate as possible. A foot can make a big difference. This is your viewing distance, noted on the vertical axis. Now just follow along the horizontal axis to find the screen size of your TV, or the TV(s) you're considering purchasing. Find where these two variables meet and you'll land in a colored range. Use the legend to determine the resolution of a TV at that combination of size and distance that you'll be able to make out.

You might be surprised: If you sit a normal distance from your TV, (say, 10 to 15 feet) you'll need a fairly large set before even basic HDTV quality starts to become noticeable. At 15 feet away, you need a 45-inch set to see any of the benefit of 720p and nearly an 80-inch set for 1080p to make a difference. I don't know about you, but an 80-inch plasma isn't currently in my budget.

Advertisement

#180 MichaelJP

MichaelJP
  • Member

  • 849 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 14 March 2008 - 12:21

A good graph, but what is doesn't take into account is people's perceptions. Some people are more sensitive to poor images than others, quite often from experience of seeing something better; after all, no one really moaned about TV resolution when colour superceded black & white.

Also, HD really comes into its own when displaying text and mixed graphics. I have a Mac Mini connected to my 1920x1080 panel, and it's great to have the live ITV feed in a window (through a USB freeview stick) and the live timing in another window.