Yes the huge resolution (but not only )benefit of HD is lost on small screens watched from way back. thats like buying a 16MP FF dslr and only getting 4x6 prints to stick on the fridge. Thats not what HD was develeped for. It was developed so you could watch a large screen image, even fairly close and still not have to see all the artifacts that old analog video formats have like scanning lines, blurry edges, video noise, etc. Even that said, you can seldom match the color of an analog set to match that of an HD set for all scenes because the color scheme for analog tv is not as good. The most obvious flaw is what I call poor "color contrast" with the old analog sets compared to HD( I am sure its got a real term but I dont know it off hand). With analog video, the parts of the image with the deepest color saturation are just not as saturated as they should be and the parts of the image with the least color saturation are too saturated, hence the term poor color contrast. The color is kinda all the same saturation level, like a muddy gray BW print would look like if the paper was fogged a little. This really screws up the flesh tone color compared to the realistic flesh tones of HD. Everybody sorta looks like they have just used some bad suntan creme on analog once you get used to the accurate color of HD on a good HD set.
The point of all that is that you cant fix the color by using a small set or standing further back. Its worse from any distance or on any size screen compared to good HD color reproduction. And this color accuracy difference I am reffering to here is much more of a problem with analog tuned broadcasts than what you see in a store display because that is usually always a direct input to the tv via a DVD or downconverted HD signal which looks better than what you would get on a typical analog cable or analog antenna system tuned channel. Both the color accuracy and the resolution get worse on an analog set with a tuned analog channel compared to a direct feed. With HD, it doesnt matter, the direct feed is nearly the same as a broadcast becuase the tuner ( OTA or digital) doesnt degrade the digital broadcast signal like the way an analog transmission and tuner degrades an analog broadcast signal. jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of graywolf Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:28 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The cause of the controversy HO! HO! HO! Merry Christmas, Eveyone! Actually the picture is pretty good, Cotty, now that I have it adjusted. One of the things that has not been thought of is that a 27in analog TV viewed from across the room has pretty good resolution. Viewed up close the new HD stuff is better, but from across the room? I do not believe anyone can see the difference on a 27-32 inch job. At least, standing back 10-12 feet from the display sets at Wal-Mart, I can not. Cotty wrote: > On 19/12/06, graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/TV.html > > The picture's terrible! That looks like a National Geographic > documentary about some guy shooting living rooms, but the contrast is > so bad on the screen it's difficult to tell. I reckon you need a new > TV Graywolf. Apparently the HDTV system is much better anf comes > highly recommended, and if you don't agree you're WRONG WRONG WRONG! > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
