All In Good Fun ([info]blackaces) wrote,
@ 2007-09-17 14:19:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
I am absolutely an HD snob.
I'm sorry. I can't help it. But I am. I simply cannot watch standard definition television anymore.

Just under two years ago, I purchased my first HDTV. It was a Samsung LCD flat-screen, similar to this model here. Shortly after purchasing the television, I hooked up my Sony Receiver to it. To top it off, I upgraded my sat box to make it HD capable. So with 5.1 surround sound and HD programming, I was living the high life.

Over the last year, I have upgraded my receiver, purchased a few more HD channels, and finally upgraded my tv to this one. It's 46 inches of pure bliss. It has 1080P capability, as well as a short refresh time (so moving objects don't blur that much). It's simply an outstanding piece of hardware. Thank you, Korea! Samsung has tried a great deal the last few years to improve their products so they are on the level of Sony. I think Samsung has actually surpassed Sony in terms of quality.

Anyway, back to my story. This past weekend, dad and I watched DirecTV's NFL Superfan. Not only do you get every NFL game playing that day, but you also get every game in High Definition, plus a channel called Red Zone HD. On this channel, it switches between games depending on which team is in the Red Zone. It's a frenzied way to watch football, but it's great how the channel switches back and forth for you. Finally, there is the NFL game mix, that has 8 games on the screen at once (sadly, all SD).

The point of all my ranting is that watching a game in High Definition is unparalleled. The clarity of picture is top notch. You have an excellent view of the game. For instance, I was watching most of the Vikings/Lions game yesterday. (What am I, stupid? I actually watched Lions football?!) It was quite enjoyable to see such a clear picture. It's almost 3-D in a way. I felt like Jon Kitna and Charles Johnson were actually in my living room. The game itself was a mess. The Vikings and Lions had,10 turnovers between them. But it was still a blast to have the option to watch all the games at once. By the way, do you realize that the Lions and Texans are both 2-0? The NFL allows this?

A game or two normally aren't broadcast in HD every Sunday, though. CBS, for example, is the one major network that doesn't send AND HD truck to all of its football games. Fox (I think some of their signals may be upconverted-SD, actually), ABC, and NBC know enough to make everythiNG HD. But CBS still the lone holdout. Why they'd do this, I don't know. They must be really cheap. This meant that yesterdays Browns/Bengals game was still in Standard Def.

You might not have thought so, but this was one hell of a game. Cleveland won the shootout with Cincy (There's a phrase you don't hear too often) 51-45. But what should have been an exciting game to watch was tempered by the fact that the broadcast was SD. Now, to the non-converted, you may think 'Big Deal'.

It really was a big deal. The picture of the game just looked awful. It had a brownish tint to it, and this wasn't a result of the Browns' jerseys. The viewing angle was much narrower, and the players were terribly out-of-focus. It was absolute crap and I don't know how I managed to watch football all those years with SD. Shame on CBS for ruining what was an otherwise great game with a shitty picture. I just cannot watch SD anymore, not that I've been exposed to the HD bug.

Thankfully, the Redskins game tonight will be broadcast in HD. I can't wait to see the veins on Joe Gibbs' face pop out of his forehead when Jason Campbell throws the inevitable interception against a superb Philly defense.



(Post a new comment)

duck, here comes some flung poo
[info]ouij
2007-09-17 08:47 pm UTC (link)
You know what? You're an HD shill. You can't even talk about football any more without going ZOMGZFGAZMZ HDTV. It's unseemly.

I'm content to watch a merely adequate television picture because I can't yet justify the HD set expense. The crossover point is quickly coming up, but considering how little television I watch anyway, I'm much happier getting things like, oh I don't know, books, and listening to my games on the radio.

That's not to say that HDTV isn't technically excellent. It is. But I'm getting sick and tired of this whole "well it doesn't count if it wasn't on HDTV" crap that you're throwing out in your sports posts lately.

From a technical standpoint, you're screwed unless you watch exclusively HD content. LCD displays are at their sharpest at a certain "native" resolution--anything above or below that, quality suffers. In your case, watching a standard 480-line game on a display whose native resolution is somewhere north of 720 lines is all kinds of painful. But viewed on a set whose "native" resolution is standard TV, the game really isn't that bad. I watch an awful lot of games on a very standard, indeed, rather archaic CRT. The absolute resolution is no comparison to a 1080i HD set, but it's actually more watchable than a standard-resolution television set.

It also helps that on standard-def broadcasts the graphics don't require super-high resolutions to be legible/distinguishable.

My biggest complaint in sports broadcasting is that Frank Herzog doesn't do the play-by-play for the Redskins Radio.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Errata
[info]ouij
2007-09-17 08:48 pm UTC (link)
"more watchable than a standard-resolution broadcast viewed on an HDTV set"

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: duck, here comes some flung poo
[info]blackaces
2007-09-17 09:12 pm UTC (link)
Why are you getting personal?

It's unseemly? No. It's my opinion.

Why are you sick and tired of something on my blog? Why is it crap? It's not my problem that you don't have HDTV. That's entirely your business and I made no comment regarding anything about you.

Anywhow, the point remains that SD televisions look like a duck shit all over the screen. That was the point of my post, nothing more, nothing less. Your insecurity with the subject says more about you than me.

Getting personal is unfortunate. There's no need for it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: duck, here comes some flung poo
[info]ouij
2007-09-17 09:20 pm UTC (link)
I'm trying to point out to you that SD pictures on HD sets look like duckshit for sound technical reasons. You can mitigate the duckshitness by watching images encoded at those resolutions on SD displays. Most of the duckshitness comes from trying to push a non-native res on your display.

Given an SD signal, a SD set is more watchable than an HD one because of this. An HD set slays all for HD signals, naturally.

As to my testiness, I plead diminished capacity on account of being up against a filing deadline.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

you're both comparing red apples to green apples
[info]andrewlee
2007-09-17 10:15 pm UTC (link)
I would agree that HD signal is wasted on HD sets of less than 23" size, but for what Blackaces is talking about, for sets over 40", the difference is like looking through a window with the wire screen in your view and then taking away the screen is like the HD image. So this discussion should be about SD vs HD on sets over ~40" in size. If I'm watching something in SD on my 54" HDTV, yes it will look like crap, so I sit 15 feet away from it and it looks like SD would on a 20" SD set.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

also
[info]ouij
2007-09-17 09:36 pm UTC (link)
Even if you turned your HD nose up at CIN/CLE as technically unwatchable, wasn't it still a crazy game? I had to check to see if my folks weren't watching a replay of a college game.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…