Say what? Digital TV was a huge step backwards from analogue if you had decent analogue reception. Digital is horrid, overcompressed and prone to breaking up into square blocks on any fast-moving picture with lots of detail - running water, smoke etc.
HDTV I can take or leave. I saw a demonstration at work a few years ago and it wasn’t all that much better than a decent PAL picture. I can see why Americans would go wild for it, as standard NTSC pictures really do suck a large amount of ass, but for Brits who are used to relatively decent TV picture quality anyway, it’s not a massive improvement.
60i x 480 lines looks bad when converted to 50i x 576, and vice versa (less so these days with improved technology), so Americans probably think the same about our TV.
In fact, 60 x 480 is exactly the same as 50 x 576. Same number of picture lines per second, similar bandwidth used. Maybe NTSC at 60 fields per second is better for fast moving stuff while PAL @ 50fps is better for detail?
No, sorry, one of these days I’ll look at the DVD of ‘Six Feet Under’, but I can’t remember when I last saw something on TV that made me want to sit still for long enough to get into the story. ‘Slings and Arrows’, maybe?
Bruce Springsteen’s math was off, but ‘57 channels and nothing’s on’ was the most accurate description of television since Frank Zappa wrote ‘The Slime’. I’m glad if you enjoy it, but it’s not to my taste at all.
If you’re not impressed with HD, my guess is that you’re watching a set that’s either too small for the viewing distance (meaning you can’t resolve the detail), or someone has plugged in the wrong inputs and you’re not actually seeing HD, or the set hasn’t been properly calibrated or something.
HDTV at normal viewing distances (say, 10 feet) has to be BIG to get the full effect. My suggestion - if you want to see HD in its glory, don’t go to Best Buy and look at the sets they have set up - find a home theater store where they have a demo theater with an HD projector, and ask for a demonstration of a Blu-ray disc in HD.
I’ve been watching HD on my 102" screen for a couple of years, and I’m still occasionally stunned when an especially beautiful show is broadcast. The first time I loaded ‘Planet Earth’, my jaw just dropped. Amazing. Standard Definition is almost unwatcheable in comparison - in fact, I almost never watch SD anymore. If a program isn’t available in HD, I skip it.
I can only assume that Australian digital TV is a lot better than what you’re seeing in the UK. It’s a seriously nice picture, and much better than what I was getting on analogue.
Now, I’m not saying that there isn’t a demonstrable improvement with HD, but to me it’s an unnecessary one. I don’t need that much resolution to enjoy a TV show or DVD. Standard Definition is good enough for me right now, and I don’t believe I’m missing out on anything important.
My wife and I were watching an HD presentation on the Impressionists recently and it may have been the most vivid colors, hues, shading and detail I’ve ever witnessed outside the Louve, Tate or Met. It was absolutely intoxicating and we sat mesmerized as the show progressed. Admittedly, as the Renoirs, Degas and Matisse flowed by I was tempted to nibble on my wife’s ear but when the VanGoghs came on I was darn near tempted to bite the dang thing right off.
When it’s set up correctly, when everything’s working in harmony, it is, in a word, breathtaking. You may not need it for the 5:00 News but nowadays that’s hardly all that’s available.
One of the best things about viewing paintings in HD is that the resolution is high enough that you can see the brush strokes and the thickness of the paint. For some artists, not being able to see that means you’re not really seeing the painting at all.
I’m an American who has PAL equipment (VHS and DVD) and have some demo material in NTSC, PAL and HD and on my system, PAL does look better than NTSC, but still many times worse than HD. Actually PAL has problems that I have a difficult time getting past - lower frame-rate and 24 fps films being played at 25 fps and all the music either being sped up 1/25th of a second or being shifted sharp.
To repeat what others have said, if you didn’t see the difference - a considerable difference - it was the fault of the demo equipment or the person doing the demo.