Jump to content
Square Wheels Cycling

Do you ever watch


Recommended Posts



7 minutes ago, Prophet Zacharia said:

Non-High Definition television on your HD TV and wonder "How did we watch TV this way?"

Oh man did I post about this when I was stuck in CO?  Watching football on an analogue channel in the hospital really made me appreciate my current set up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looked better on the old TVs.

Digital media is not without it's own problems, and you get used to them, the same way you got used to low def TV.

Did you ever see what the old standard could look like? Sony made a few TVs that cost several hundred bucks, and really showed what could be done, and it was impressive.

The thing that bugs me is frame rate. It's something old tv, new tv and movies all have in common. They ought to be twice as fast as they are. But people don't understand, so there isn't a demand, and it would be as dramatic a transition as going to digital was. One of the reasons fights (and a lot of scenes that require speed) are so lame is that the camera can't keep up. They typically max out at 25, the eye wants 38, but having a 'cushion' by taking it to 50 or 60 is better. Gamers try to get 100 fps, or even more.  For passive media (not games) 50 fps is fine, although the silky motion you start to get at 75, or higher, is sweet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some occasional kids shows that I've watched with my son that were from before HD. 

I think what jarred me the most was watching commercials on regular tv. I couldn't stand it...I had to leave. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, late said:

The thing that bugs me is frame rate. It's something old tv, new tv and movies all have in common. They ought to be twice as fast as they are.

Wasn't there a certain movie that was filmed specifically in a high frame rate like this? 

Ah yes! The Hobbit movies.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but can't say that  I have the latest, greatest HD UHD blah blah blah TV. It does look better than the old cathode ray TV by a long shot, and movies and TV shows from the era are notably degraded  (and square). The best TV I have is a 48" Panasonic Plasma.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Tizeye said:

No, but can't say that  I have the latest, greatest HD UHD blah blah blah TV. It does look better than the old cathode ray TV by a long shot, and movies and TV shows from the era are notably degraded  (and square). The best TV I have is a 48" Panasonic Plasma.

Those old plasmas were the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wilbur said:

My eyes are not high definition at the moment.  It doesn't matter what broadcasters do.  :)

That’s not especially comforting. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wilbur said:

My eyes are not high definition at the moment.  It doesn't matter what broadcasters do.  :)

I thought I might join in with this sentiment but my eyes still aren't that bad.  Both the images I see on the new HD TV's are crystal sharp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think either of my tvs are HD, certainly not the highest level definition.  But given the junky tv I usually watch, it hardly matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prophet Zacharia said:

Non-High Definition television on your HD TV and wonder "How did we watch TV this way?"

I often wonder what my father, who passed away in 1992, would think of the 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080 pixel definition on Fox or CBS respectively, for football games. etc. in vivid color on my 55" inch TV.  When I bought my first house, I bought a 35" old-style-analog TV and it blew my dad's socks off.  Every time my aunt, his sister, and my uncle visited from Altoona, PA, I had to rent a VHS movie so the extended family could all get together at my house for steamed crabs or shrimp and a movie on my "huge" 35" TV!

Because of growing up with lower definition, I think it bothers me much less than it does the younger people in my family. I quit cable TV and replaced it with Amazon Instant Video, which comes free with Amazon Prime ($119/yr).  I also get 48 hi-def or sharp 480p channels through broadcast TV and a $35.99 thin-film room antenna, but I don't get Monday Night Football (Amazon has Thurs. Nite).

So I get what seems to vary between a roughly 720 x 480 and a 360 x 240 pixel version that streams for free through an Internet betting site that I won't mention because I'm not sure it's legal. I can see the game ok: all the uniform numbers, the ball movement, etc., but the players faces and the grass aren't hi-def by any means. Nevertheless, I enjoy watching it.  I also sometimes stream old rock videos from YouTube that are sometimes low definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2Far said:

That’s not especially comforting. 

I was a little shocked I passed my FAA/TC medical a few weeks ago to tell the truth.  A good concussion and probably years of radiation has brought on very aggressive cataracts.  They will be fixed next month. :)  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maddmaxx said:

I thought I might join in with this sentiment but my eyes still aren't that bad.  Both the images I see on the new HD TV's are crystal sharp.

My mother has macular degeneration and she sees better than I do. :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olas Nah said:

Wasn't there a certain movie that was filmed specifically in a high frame rate like this? 

Ah yes! The Hobbit movies.... 

If I remember, people were feeling a bit queasy after the high frame rate viewings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wilbur said:

I was a little shocked I passed my FAA/TC medical a few weeks ago to tell the truth.  A good concussion and probably years of radiation has brought on very aggressive cataracts.  They will be fixed next month. :)  

Much as it's a pain to go through the procedure you will like your new vision.  Will you be getting single focus replacement lenses or the newer variable.  I ask because I have single focus (box camera) and I wonder if you will still be able to focus on the instruments as well as the horizon.  After telling me that most people loved not having to wear glasses after the operation I sort of shocked them by ordering a set of progressive glasses with a 0 correction distance lense with my now necessary near vision correction in the lower portion of the lens.  Wearing them didn't matter to me as I've worn glasses virtually all of my life and had to wear safety glasses at work anyway.

I wonder if you can get progressive in those inscrutable silvered aviator lenses that hide the pilots eyes...............:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

I wonder if you can get progressive in those inscrutable silvered aviator lenses that hide the pilots eyes...............:lol:

Yes. With very strong correction powers you start running into more limitations on frame style, but otherwise you can get anything you want in a progressive sunglass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Much as it's a pain to go through the procedure you will like your new vision.  Will you be getting single focus replacement lenses or the newer variable.  I ask because I have single focus (box camera) and I wonder if you will still be able to focus on the instruments as well as the horizon.  After telling me that most people loved not having to wear glasses after the operation I sort of shocked them by ordering a set of progressive glasses with a 0 correction distance lense with my now necessary near vision correction in the lower portion of the lens.  Wearing them didn't matter to me as I've worn glasses virtually all of my life and had to wear safety glasses at work anyway.

I wonder if you can get progressive in those inscrutable silvered aviator lenses that hide the pilots eyes...............:lol:

I am going single focus as it is recommended by both aviation authorities.  They claim people have issues with halo and color deficiency with adjustable focus lenses.  Neither of those are good.   I have zero correction required in one eye and a very slight astigmatism in the other.  The flight instruments will be readable without corrective lenses as is distance.  Up close reading will require some correction but not much.   I have had 20/15 vision my entire life so losing that has been a lousy experience, especially at the speed it has progressed.  I was diagnosed with cataracts just 4 months ago.  I am looking forward to getting this done and can accept wearing readers.  

  • Like 1
  • Awesome 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maddmaxx said:

Much as it's a pain to go through the procedure you will like your new vision.  Will you be getting single focus replacement lenses or the newer variable.  I ask because I have single focus (box camera) and I wonder if you will still be able to focus on the instruments as well as the horizon.  After telling me that most people loved not having to wear glasses after the operation I sort of shocked them by ordering a set of progressive glasses with a 0 correction distance lense with my now necessary near vision correction in the lower portion of the lens.  Wearing them didn't matter to me as I've worn glasses virtually all of my life and had to wear safety glasses at work anyway.

I wonder if you can get progressive in those inscrutable silvered aviator lenses that hide the pilots eyes...............:lol:

 

1 hour ago, wilbur said:

I am going single focus as it is recommended by both aviation authorities.  They claim people have issues with halo and color deficiency with adjustable focus lenses.  Neither of those are good.   I have zero correction required in one eye and a very slight astigmatism in the other.  The flight instruments will be readable without corrective lenses as is distance.  Up close reading will require some correction but not much.   I have had 20/15 vision my entire life so losing that has been a lousy experience, especially at the speed it has progressed.  I was diagnosed with cataracts just 4 months ago.  I am looking forward to getting this done and can accept wearing readers.  

Interested discussion, gentlemen! Thanks for sharing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wilbur said:

I am going single focus as it is recommended by both aviation authorities.  They claim people have issues with halo and color deficiency with adjustable focus lenses.  Neither of those are good.   I have zero correction required in one eye and a very slight astigmatism in the other.  The flight instruments will be readable without corrective lenses as is distance.  Up close reading will require some correction but not much.   I have had 20/15 vision my entire life so losing that has been a lousy experience, especially at the speed it has progressed.  I was diagnosed with cataracts just 4 months ago.  I am looking forward to getting this done and can accept wearing readers.  

This is good to hear.   At the time I had mine done my good eye was 20/400 so the corrections were huge.  It was to the point that I couldn't read my watch within arms length.  That was what made it necessary for me to continue wearing glasses.  I too was advised to stay with single focus.  IMO you will have a much easier time adjusting than I did due to starting with very bad eyesight up front.

My remaining problems are not really associated with the new lenses.  It's the rest of the eye that's been damaged.

Enjoy yours.  You will be amazed at how much you have been loosing to the cataracts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jdc2000 said:

There is nothing I can receive in my area that is even close to HD quality

 

Your avatar looks like a Babylon 5 ship; which we're currently watching.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Prophet Zacharia said:

Non-High Definition television on your HD TV and wonder "How did we watch TV this way?"

Yep. Literally almost every day.  Well, I watch it and then think "Man, things are so much better now" more than wondering how we watched it. 

A lot of older shows are obviously still in syndication, so it is easy to see how things have improved since the turn of the century.  Luckily, many movies can be remastered since film is essentially whatever definition they can squeeze out of it, but most TV shows will be stuck in the resolution they used back in the day :(

I do wonder, though, whether we will look at the 1080 to 4k to .... as similar leaps as 480 to 1080? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, late said:

Your avatar looks like a Babylon 5 ship; which we're currently watching.

The old graphics of Babylon 5 (especially season 1) do not look very good on a modern HD television.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

The old graphics of Babylon 5 (especially season 1) do not look very good on a modern HD television.

My dvd player has the best video chip ever made. It looks good on a HD TV. It prob wouldn't look great on a 4K TV, which I assume is what you meant.

I had wanted to get a 2K tv. For most people, that would actually be a better choice than 4K, but they pretty much stopped making them.

In it's first year, the show struggled along with 3rd rate writers and graphics. So you have to just wade through it to get to the rest of the series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, late said:

Your avatar looks like a Babylon 5 ship; which we're currently watching.

It is a White Star.  Babylon 5 was an excellent series.

32 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

The old graphics of Babylon 5 (especially season 1) do not look very good on a modern HD television.

They did the best with the budget and technology available.  Better yet, they did not rely on CGI to attract viewers, they used good stories and actors.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 4K TV, but all of the broadcast and cable content available, even that labeled "HD" isn't.  It is no better that than the old analog TV broadcasts.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jdc2000 said:

I have a 4K TV, but all of the broadcast and cable content available, even that labeled "HD" isn't.  It is no better that than the old analog TV broadcasts.

 

????

I don't think there is ANY cable content in UHD/4k. There is tons in HD (1080) - on both cable and broadcast.  In fact, most broadcast is actually sharper HD than cable.  A few Netflix and/or Amazon shows can/do stream in 4k, but that also can be throttled depending upon bandwidth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No HD here.  For example, the football games that are supposed to be in HD have barely readable graphics.  Loads of breakup and artifacts as well, and this is on cable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Xfinity transmits low and High def.  I'll walk in the room and see some fuzzy weird aspect ratio picture, hit the switch to HD and ask my wife how can she watch that crap?

We just cut the cord.  All Hulu.  The Hockey games aren't quite as crisp, but it's not over $100 a month difference

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...