DSTV HD vs SD comparison pics

ernstn said:
@peterch

I beg to differ, the difference is remarkable. As far as I am concerned the opening of the olympics on SD compared it to the HD version, is miles apart. Never mind the fact that my full TV screen now gets used and the surround sound.
Click to expand...

Look when you sit to far away, SD = HD. Sorry that's just human physiology,
that's why the full benefit of HD is for huge screens (projectors
or still very expensive 50+ inch sets) -- depending on room size.

For example my 42 inch HD plasma is about 4 meters away from where
I usually like to sit. It makes no difference if I take a computer fed
HD signal or SD PAL from DVD at those distances. Yes if I stand closer,
but I don't like standing halfway in the room, you know.
 
PeterCH said:
Look when you sit to far away, SD = HD. Sorry that's just human physiology,
that's why the full benefit of HD is for huge screens (projectors
or still very expensive 50+ inch sets) -- depending on room size.

For example my 42 inch HD plasma is about 4 meters away from where
I usually like to sit. It makes no difference if I take a computer fed
HD signal or SD PAL from DVD at those distances. Yes if I stand closer,
but I don't like standing halfway in the room, you know.
Click to expand...

I think you need better glasses. :D
 
sybawoods said:
It's a 42" Sony Grand Wega, rear projection LCD, native resolution is 720p (1280 x 720)


It's gonna be a long wait. 720p is the international HD broadcasting standard. 1080p is limited to Blu-Ray and HD DVD. The odd pay-per-view broadcaster has experimented with broadcasting one or two shows in 1080p, but the compression and bandwidth required makes it very restrictive.

What's more important is MPEG-2 (old standard) vs MPEG-4 (better). Multichoice has gone MPEG-4, which is very good. Most of the US, which went HD quite early, is still stuck on the old MPEG-2 standard, because of MPEG-2 hardware investment. Sometimes being late in the tech race helps because you can learn from others mistakes ;) .

If you're referring to 1080i, its a non-issue. 1080i is interlaced, and is really not suitable for fast-moving sports broadcasts, causing motion blur. The 1080i vs 720p debate is well documented. Google is your friend.


Spot on.
Click to expand...
How is MPEG4 better than MPEG2?
 
GreenPunkt said:
How is MPEG4 better than MPEG2?
Click to expand...

Short answer: MPEG2 was developed in the early 90's and evolved from the earlier MPEG1 standard. MPEG4 became a standard in 1999. Satellite bandwidth is limited; moving to MPEG4 allows broadcasters to use their bandwidth efficiently, while improving quality. Unfortunately, due to the high penetration of MPEG2 hardware in places like the USA, it has made it hard for broadcasters there to switch to MPEG4. The impact has been that they have to apply high compression to their MPEG2 broadcasts to maximise bandwidth, affecting the quality of the broadcast.

A, perhaps over-simplistic, example - take a movie, compress and encode it in MPEG2, and it will take up a 4Gig DVD. Take the same movie, compress and encode it in MPEG4, and it could fit to a 700 meg CD, with quality equal to the DVD. DivX is probably the most popular example of an MPEG4 codec.

For the long answer, see Tom's hardware .

Disclaimer for the purists: over-simplifying to make the answer short and understandable.
 
PeterCH said:
Look when you sit to far away, SD = HD. Sorry that's just human physiology,
that's why the full benefit of HD is for huge screens (projectors
or still very expensive 50+ inch sets) -- depending on room size.

For example my 42 inch HD plasma is about 4 meters away from where
I usually like to sit. It makes no difference if I take a computer fed
HD signal or SD PAL from DVD at those distances. Yes if I stand closer,
but I don't like standing halfway in the room, you know.
Click to expand...

UnoPanelvan said:
I think you need better glasses. :D
Click to expand...

I don't often agree 100% with pupa, but this time I do. On a 40" LCD at a viewing distance of over 3.5 meters the difference is like night and day comparing the HD signal via HDMI to SD via component. And the difference is far more obvious when compared to the same content broadcast on the other Supersport channels.
 
arf9999 said:
I don't often agree 100% with pupa, but this time I do. On a 40" LCD at a viewing distance of over 3.5 meters the difference is like night and day comparing the HD signal via HDMI to SD via component. And the difference is far more obvious when compared to the same content broadcast on the other Supersport channels.
Click to expand...

http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/

I think either the distance is less or its a psychological effect. Anyway
enjoy it....

3.5m is 11 ' and 5.79 " according to
http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/meters-to-feet.htm
and if you look at the diagram, that is just above
where the 720p resolution becomes noticeable.

Arguably people's eyes may be different but that is 'just
start to be noticeable', and the human brain works on
a logarithmic scale so I think either you miscalculated your
room or screen size OR you're just psychologically
believing what you want. If that makes you happy, sure :).

To me I would say maybe you can tell some difference if you
connect both at the same time, side by side. Remember
also component is an analog signal while HDMI is fully digital
which means less conversion and less quality degradation
either way. So you're biased against SD that way too.

Remember hardware manufacturers want you to buy the
higher resolution more expensive items. IMO its too
early to convert as the slight benefit (see that chart),
if any at all, is not worth shelling out R20.000-30.000
for a decent HDTV in 40inches and up. Yes there
are cheaper HDTV's but their contrast and colour
saturation is usually never as good as the more expensive
brand name sets and when you're spending R10K or
more, you don't really want to know that a R13K set
looks much better (contrast etc).

Still guys don't let me spoil your enjoyment! Have fun! :)
 
Last edited:
The HD DSTV feed should be a lot better... Surely the fact that the HD image is progressive scan should probably make a big difference? And the fact that the image is compressed with MPEG-4 might make a difference.

I do agree with PeterCH though...
If you have an HD DSTV setup, and feed that signal to an HD plasma or SD plasma via HDMI, then I think the picture will look almost identical at viewing distances of > 3m for a 42" screen.

That HD signal does allow you to have a nice big 50"+ screen at short viewing distances though :D
 
PeterCH said:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/

Well then all these guys also need glasses. :)

Eh?

There are benefits, but at closer distances then you think, and if you
really want the benefit get a 1080p projector with good lenses or a >50inch set.
Click to expand...
Couple of points here:

PeterCH, no matter what fancy charts tell you, I'm sure you'll agree that there is no better experience than your own real life one. A picture tells a thousand words. You'll be hard-pressed to find any credible source that the upgrade from SD television broadcast to HD has a negligible benefit, even when viewing distance is taken into account. The leap is actually quite massive.

The debate about an improved viewing experience relative to viewing distance, when it comes to HD, really applies to 720p vs 1080p. And here, also based on my real life experience, the benefits of 1080p really only become perceptible on 50"+ screens, and at relatively close viewing distances.

The pics in my first post really flatter the SD broadcast pictures in a number of ways. Remember that I took the HD feed and displayed it at SD. However,

- normal SD feed is normally at 4:3 - my SD example was displayed at 16:9
- normal SD feed is in MPEG2 - my SD example was based on the MPEG 4 HD source

To really show the comparison, I was able to capture some pics of a SD broadcast this morning, which was simulcast on HD. All pics were taken about 4.5m from a 42" screen, and cropped to size. Hopefully they do a better job of showing the difference.

SD
2758795991_916c57497c_o.jpg


HD
2759636416_08ed75422d_o.jpg


SD
2758795177_98ec8a4075_o.jpg


HD
2759635578_dfbdd88d5e_o.jpg


SD
2758795383_6662494306_o.jpg


HD
2759636174_5af6b53bb6_o.jpg


If I was to do a similar comparison, from the same viewing distance, of 720p vs 1080p, then I agree, the benefit would be negligible, unless the pics was really taken up close. However, the leap from a standard SD broadcast to a 720HD one is massive, no matter how far back I push my chair :D .

Note the added real estate on your screen with an HD broadcast (widescreen vs 4:3) - you're actually seeing a lot *more* picture, besides it also being of higher quality.
 
I got my hd decoder last week thursday, and even my wife whom is a sceptic in these regards watched on friday with amazement.

I can't wait for the 24th when they will start broadcasting other shows, and the 29th the will broadcast moonlight in HD woohoo!!!!!!!!!

Now I just need a *cough* legal *cough* way to get these shows of the hard drive on and on to the pc
 
I think that we need to differentiate between an HD source (such as HD DSTV) and HD displays. As I said before HD DSTV has several advantages with regards to picture quality, even if you ignore the increase in pixels - it is progressive scan and MPEG4 (which I hoe shows less compression artifacts!)

The photos posted in this thread make HD look great though! HD DSTV is definitely something I'd like to get. I would be interested in seeing DSTV HD connected to a good quality SD plasma screen via HDMI, to compare to a similar HD plasma - at typical viewing distances. The previous tests in this post use a mix of HDMI and component which may contribute to the difference in picture quality as well.

I think what Peter is saying is that a 720p plasma may not give much advantage to a 480p plasma if typical viewing distances are taken into account.
 
@PeterCH
What is the resolution of your plasma display?
 
greg_SA said:
The previous tests in this post use a mix of HDMI and component which may contribute to the difference in picture quality as well.
Click to expand...
Hi greg_SA
Just to be clear - the 2nd series of pics I posted were all taken via HDMI on the same display. All I did was switch to different recordings - one of an SD broadcast, and one of an HD broadcast.

I do agree though that it may be useful to conduct a test on a display optimized for 480p, vs a similar display optimized for 720p, to get an accurate idea of difference.

Ultimately though, the point I was hoping to illustrate is that - particularly when it comes to somewhat subjective issues like "picture quality" and so forth, often real-world, practical experience is more powerful than theoretical, paper-based assessments. I dabble in photography, and you'll be amazed how one person views a picture as over-saturated, while another sees the same pic as dull and washed out. It's even more true when it comes to viewing things like television displays.

One final point, which I hope didn't get lost in the pictures, is the advantage of true widescreen in HD, vs SD 4:3, where the edges are typically trimmed off. I'm currently watching some of the soccer in HD, and it's amazing how much more of the game you get to see (players making runs on the edge of the screen etc). These would typically be missed in 4:3 SD broadcast, and really affects the overall immersion of the experience. If you look at the 2nd series of pics I posted, you'll notice how much action is trimmed from the SD broadcast. No matter how good an SD / 480p panel one has, and even if it succeeds in stretching the pic to fit a widescreen with minimal distortion, it can never substitute for the actual missing aspects of the broadcast.
 
I think the fact that HD is 16:9 vs SD which is 4:3 is quite an important point which people seem to miss.

All those issues about viewing distance and screen size and so on is probably true and will impact on your viewing experience.

But a big thing in my view is the 16:9 vs 4:3 issue.
 
sybawoods said:
Hi greg_SA
Just to be clear - the 2nd series of pics I posted were all taken via HDMI on the same display. All I did was switch to different recordings - one of an SD broadcast, and one of an HD broadcast.

I do agree though that it may be useful to conduct a test on a display optimized for 480p, vs a similar display optimized for 720p, to get an accurate idea of difference.

Ultimately though, the point I was hoping to illustrate is that - particularly when it comes to somewhat subjective issues like "picture quality" and so forth, often real-world, practical experience is more powerful than theoretical, paper-based assessments. I dabble in photography, and you'll be amazed how one person views a picture as over-saturated, while another sees the same pic as dull and washed out. It's even more true when it comes to viewing things like television displays.

One final point, which I hope didn't get lost in the pictures, is the advantage of true widescreen in HD, vs SD 4:3, where the edges are typically trimmed off. I'm currently watching some of the soccer in HD, and it's amazing how much more of the game you get to see (players making runs on the edge of the screen etc). These would typically be missed in 4:3 SD broadcast, and really affects the overall immersion of the experience. If you look at the 2nd series of pics I posted, you'll notice how much action is trimmed from the SD broadcast. No matter how good an SD / 480p panel one has, and even if it succeeds in stretching the pic to fit a widescreen with minimal distortion, it can never substitute for the actual missing aspects of the broadcast.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that the HD signal that is broadcast will have a much better picture :) The 16:9 is a huge advantage! :D

What I'd like to see is an HD broadcast on a HD screen and and HD broadcast on and SD screen (down-scaled by the TV - ie. the SD TV accepts the 720p signal via HDMI). I have read on the UK AV forums that may people are very happy with their SD plasma screens for viewing HD broadcasts.
 
@Greg: I'm pretty sure most SD panel users would be very impressed with the HD channel. I have a 106 inch screen and when I view the normal SD broadcasts it suffers terribly from artifacts ect. When viewing the HD channel via component, which is then 576i, it looks the same as a dvd. Not amazing but not terrible. A huge improvement over the SD broadcast though. When I switch it to the HDMI output, 720p signal, it's as if someone has taken a cloth and wiped a layer of dust off the image. Everything just gets crisp and sharp, as can be seen from the screen shots that sybawoods attached.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X