The age old HDMI quality myth...

When I went with my parents to buy a new telly the other month they tried to sell us a £100 HDMI cable, after me telling them no they wouldn't even let me buy a £5 HDMI cable, so I took my custom elsewhere.

The funny thing is, people must be buying them if they've got the nerve to try and sell them for £100.
 
mrk said:
What is "VHS"?!
Click to expand...

Didn't know they'd got that cheap which shows how out of touch I am. However, if it's greater than £0 it's still a cost, though I certainly wouldn't object if someone gave me one. Email in trust. :p

Given how much I've spent on VHS and DVD over the years and how much I actually watch them (I wouldn't be surprised if I still had 100 unopened VHS tapes), it's time to cut my losses. If there's a good enough reason for me to upgrade, then I will, but I haven't found one yet.

Shame really, as I also have a Pioneer plasma TV that cost me £3000 doing not much more than nothing. That too was a ridiculous waste of money as I'm perfectly happy watching Freeview on my 19in LCD (which cost me £179). That was a few years ago when I spent money like it didn't matter. I know better now (though I still spend too much).
 
Last edited:
Berserker said:
Didn't know they'd got that cheap which shows how out of touch I am. However, if it's greater than £0 it's still a cost, though I certainly wouldn't object if someone gave me one. Email in trust. :p

Given how much I've spent on VHS and DVD over the years and how much I actually watch them (I wouldn't be surprised if I still had 100 unopened VHS tapes), it's time to cut my losses. If there's a good enough reason for me to upgrade, then I will, but I haven't found one yet.
Click to expand...

the cases are blue. a bit see through too.

the shizzle.
 
Tell that to someone who isn't colourblind. :p



Actually, I'm nowhere near that colourblind, but the put-down sounded good when I wrote it. :)
 
jaybee said:
Sorry but I don't see where my statement is "wrong". It typically is indeed easier to see the quality difference on larger screens. I did not mention anything specific to do with pixels/distance or deny that you couldn't see the difference on smaller screens. Just easier on larger ones generally.
Click to expand...

so if i sat 10metres away form a 50" screen, i'd see more detail than i would at half a foot from a 24" screen? thats a bit silly but it fits the example - it really does not matter how big the screen is. The reason why people say it's easier to see it on bigger screens is because they sit there and replace their 32" with a 40". now they're sitting the same distance from a screen thats 8" bigger - of course it's easier to see lol. However, if they had sit closer to that 32" screen......then they would have seen the same increase in definition ;)

kylew said:
This isn't really THAT hard to understand is it?
Click to expand...

yeah, you'd think so.

it is not the tv size, its the relative size of the pixels as they appear to you. are you lot just assuming you see more detail on a big screen, because that isnt true.

you have 2,073,600 pixels, yes? will a 20" 1080p monitor fail to render all those pixels? nope. take a 65" 1080p screen - same amount of pixels. There is a certain distance where the pixels on each screen will appear to be exact *as you see it* so which one is going to show you more details? in a perfect world, 20/20 vision....neither of them.

where i sit, in relation to my 50" screen and my 24" monitor, means that the screen appear roughly the same size to me. my 24" DGM reveals just as much "detail" as my 50" except where a plasma will obviously win over a budget LCD- black details and so on, but thats not a function of screen size at all.

...The point is kyle, screen size is not important.

Screen sizes are generally "relative" to how far back you're viewing it.
Click to expand...

of course it isnt, screen size is fixed, unless you cheat and use a projector :p. how big it appears to you is what's important and that's what i said, which you argued with:confused:
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
so if i sat 10metres away form a 50" screen, i'd see more detail than i would at half a foot from a 24" screen? thats a bit silly but it fits the example - it really does not matter how big the screen is. The reason why people say it's easier to see it on bigger screens is because they sit there and replace their 32" with a 40". now they're sitting the same distance from a screen thats 8" bigger - of course it's easier to see lol. However, if they had sit closer to that 32" screen......then they would have seen the same increase in definition ;)



yeah, you'd think so.

it is not the tv size, its the relative size of the pixels as they appear to you. are you lot just assuming you see more detail on a big screen, because that isnt true.

you have 2,073,600 pixels, yes? will a 20" 1080p monitor fail to render all those pixels? nope. take a 65" 1080p screen - same amount of pixels. There is a certain distance where the pixels on each screen will appear to be exact *as you see it* so which one is going to show you more details? in a perfect world, 20/20 vision....neither of them.

where i sit, in relation to my 50" screen and my 24" monitor, means that the screen appear roughly the same size to me. my 24" DGM reveals just as much "detail" as my 50" except where a plasma will obviously win over a budget LCD- black details and so on, but thats not a function of screen size at all.

...The point is kyle, screen size is not important.



of course it isnt, screen size is fixed, unless you cheat and use a projector :p. how big it appears to you is what's important and that's what i said, which you argued with:confused:
Click to expand...


You are repeating the same boring dribble that essentially the difference exists on all size screens, of which nobody is suggesting it doesn't.
 
jaybee said:
You are repeating the same boring dribble that essentially the difference exists on all size screens, of which nobody is suggesting it doesn't.
Click to expand...

the size of the screen itself makes no difference. not some difference, not easier with bigger screens.
NONE.
you suggested bigger screens made a bigger difference remember.

....and if you bothered to read that boring technical dribble then you'd understand and if you find it boring...then perhaps you are reading the wrong thread entirely?
 
Last edited:
I paid 10 for mine, felt ripped off. ok it is a bit better, it is braided and has a gold connector. supprisingly however it doesn't look any different.
 
£10 is a fine price to pay, i wouldnt feel ripped off personally. ok, you could have got something cheaper but the real bargain bucket leads are almost universally poorly built :)
 
jaybee said:
Perhaps I should revise my "summary" to write an essay to make it pass the strict OCUK regulations? I was just trying to summarize that generally it is easier to see the difference on a larger screen. Would you deny that? Show me where I said DVD is not better than blu-ray on a smaller screen?
Click to expand...

Missed this, I would say it depends entirely where you're sitting. If you're sat with your face 10 inches from a 24" PC screen, You're going to see the HD pretties. If you're sat over the other side of the room, You would not see it in all it's clarity.

If you're sat 10 inches from a 32" HD screen, You'll see the HD pretties and probably burn your eyes. But if you're sat over the other side of the room, You'll still be able to see the HD prettiness.

40+ Same as above

50+ same as above

a Bajillion inch same as above

So to summarize, It is easier to see things that are bigger rather than smaller, when you're further away :p
 
Last edited:
stockhausen said:
Based on the standard of English demonstrated by this post, I'm guessing that you weren't actually able to read and comprehend the comments to which you refer
Click to expand...

If you are trying to say that my standard of spelling is terrible because i may have missed out a couple of apostrophes (regardless of that fact no word is spelt incorrectly) then you really have just shown, that you are indeed wrong about the DVD vs Blu-ray quality argument. It also leads me to believe that you make a habit of starting arguments, just to demonstrate your godlike spelling skills, and attempt to put people down if they have inferior grammar.

2d9sig1.jpg


Good job.
 
was in a shop today and my god, some of the bluray sets looked amazing playing monsters vs aliens, some of them looked pretty shoddy in comparison, still clearer than a dvd but nowhere near the decent bluray setups.
 
peetee said:
was in a shop today and my god, some of the bluray sets looked amazing playing monsters vs aliens, some of them looked pretty shoddy in comparison, still clearer than a dvd but nowhere near the decent bluray setups.
Click to expand...

The Samsung LED sets really do look fantastic. They might not scale as well as Kuros for SD stuff but they are quickly catching up.
 
the best panels were the new really really thin ones, think they were samsung.

You shouldnt be aloud to drive or walk the street alone if you cant tell the difference between those babys.
 
stockhausen said:
That is a matter of opinion. Using a Sony BluRay player and a good quality 40" Sony TV, I can't say that I or about a dozen people who have watched it can notice a significant difference between DVD & BluRay.

What I KNOW for a fact is that:
  • HDMI, BluRay players and BluRay disks emerged onto the marketplace some time after DVDs
  • BluRay disks cost more than the same film on DVD
  • BluRay & HDMI is currently harder to pirate than DVD
Some gullible saps can be conned into replacing / upgrading their systems - more fool them ;)
Click to expand...

Your setup is obviously not calibrated correctly or you are trolling(On past evidence a distinct possibility) just to be contrary, or you need to get your eyesight tested.

While I am running a Panasonic rather than a Sony TV, I do use a Sony Blu-Ray player, the picture and sound are both vastly improved over my Pioneer DVD player.

You do seem to be down on absolutely everything though, maybe you should seek a medical opinion on the reasons for that.
 
I have a Sony 40" Bravia TV with PS3, 360, PC, so plenty of SD and HD inputs and I can tell if I sit within a few metres, after that I cannot tell much but I am blind, with my glasses on it does make a difference right up to the other side of my room. And with screen sizes only set to go up it is hardly a bad thing to increase the resolution. 1080p isn't exactly uber high res anyway and blurays can be picked up cheaply, bit silly to spend so much on a TV and then not have one if you ask me.

But then people with large DVD collections do seem to be biased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom