I'm going to buy a 50 inch TV soon and would mainly use it for gaming or for Netflix. But I would also like to watch every seven or so is enough SD or do you see that it is very blurred?
Flat screen TVs that can only display SD have an unbearably poor picture. Tube TVs were better there in the world.
With the size of the TV, you have pixel squish, which is like an analog picture, and if you have cable TV, it will get worse.
I have a 55 inch FHD television that used to be connected to the cable network. As is well known, the private broadcast in SD. And I have never heard any complaints about the picture quality from my children (I only watch TV very rarely, and then mostly on my PC).
Nope. As long as the picture is digital, the scaling up of most televisions is ok. It doesn't look great, but it is sufficient.
You misunderstood the questioner. It is a question of whether he should pay for the private channels of the private sector for expensive money or whether it is also possible. Own experience: It is also possible.
When I have a choice, I always choose the better option.
Here it would be the HD television.
I can imagine that similar to analog television and analog radio, SD television will be switched off soon after a certain transition period.
The reason lies in the saving of technology and additional costs etc. The transmission technology can also be saved etc.
In any case, with HD technology you are not only on the safe side but also have a better picture.
This is just as nonsense as your indication that the private deliver via satellite and cable only in SD!
An SD picture on a 50 inch Full HD TV is awful, most of them can't scale up there, only UHD TVs can do that with the HD channels, on which an SD picture is just as awful.
Where do you want to get an SD TV from today? I take it hard, you mean TV reception?
Well, anything can be scaled up. But SD on UHD actually looks worse than on native FullHD.
I watch a high-quality 49 "UHD SD transmitter myself and have to say that it is still OK. But I'm not very close either.
Nausea causes me not the SD image, but the thought of paying for HD!
That's the way it is. You then pay to be able to see advertisements in HD. Really great!
I didn't just say, but also and especially if you also want to have free reception, that's just true. You have to pay for advertising in HD.
Yes, but that also depends on the quality of the device, with cheap UHD TV it doesn't even work particularly well with the HD channels, and no Full HD TV can extrapolate an SD picture in reasonable picture quality, that looks on all TVs very modest in size.
You wrote that in your comment
"The private deliver only via SD and cable in SD, the device must then scale up."
that is completely wrong and there was no mention of advertising and payment in your comment, and instead of the SD resolution 720 × 576 with HD you get the resolution 1920x1080i via satellite and cable, and you pay for it and not for the advertising whether that's justified that's a very different question
Yeah, that's right, I didn't once mention the word "free of charge", sorry!
Nah, you once wrote complete nonsense!
If you add the words "without additional costs" to my "nonsense" it is true. But I don't feel like the discussion anymore. If you want to pay extra for advertising in HD, you are free to do so.
You write nonsense and are still offended when you are advised that you have left out the essentials and nobody who does not know whether and what you have left out, and again, you pay for a significantly better image resolution and not for advertising
"It is a question of whether he should pay for the private channels of the private sector for expensive money or whether it is possible"
Where is that, so you can also see?
