Reply to post: Re: Sky and UHD

Budget UHD TVs arrive – but were the 4Kasts worth listening to?

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: Sky and UHD

> HD was pretty much a waste of time for any sensibly sized TV. HD is a little sharper

I did a back-to-back comparison of Earth's Natural Wonders broadcast on BBC SD & HD (1080p), watching from ~9' on a 49" screen, and it's not even remotely close - there was significantly more detail on the HD broadcast.

> UHD will surely be a big hit with the mugs who think their TV needs to be the size of a wall

I recently replaced my (ancient) 32" CRT TV. Given that any LCD TV was going to be further away (i.e. against the wall, rather than having a 2' deep cabinet), it would have taken a ~42" TV to occupy the same field of view when sat at the same point. I originally thought that a ~40" TV was too big and a ~50" TV was silly. I was not right.

Ultimately, the TV industry is pushing 4K - with the exception of Sony, all of the major manufacturer's 1080p units have a noticably worse image (when displaying 1080p content) than their 4K units (IMO & IME).

> I'm sure the SD Freeview signals will look great when blown up to 50 or more inches

It doesn't. Watching from ~9', some channels look "OK", but some look utterly awful. DVDs fairs a bit better, although they still look a tad soft, especially when compared with Blu-Rays.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020