Talk:High-definition television/Archive 2

DO NOT EDIT / POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.

Resolutions diagram wrong?

The document "Standard video res.svg" implies that PAL and NTSC standard def have different aspect ratios, a common mistake among people who haven't realised the pixels aren't square in either format. Or am I missing something?

Different standards?

Are there different resolutions with hdtv as with sdtv (PAL/ NTSC), or is there one standard resolution/ refreshrate worldwide? If so, it would be a huge advantage for developers of videogames that do not have consider different resolutions/rfr when porting for another market. Also, regarding movies, there'd be no more PAL-speed up, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.129.179.117 (talk • contribs) .

Unfortunately they've managed to find reasons to grandfather in just about every analog quirk and headache you can think of, and create a huge batch of all new ones. There is still the 50/60 Hz divide, still PAL speedup, US sets don't officially support 25 hz even though half the world's programming runs at that speed. (Whereas the virtually unknown 30p is supported.) 50 hz broadcasters cannot support 24 hz for the same reason it was bad for PAL. New problems: 1080i phase distortion when you convert between 50hz and 60 hz. (A PAL signal can never be fully out of phase with NTSC because the line count is also different, but with 1080i every fifth 50hz field will end up occurring exactly when a 60 hz set is trying to scan the opposite field.) Not to mention the standard anti-standards: 720p vrs 1080i, MPEG 2 vrs h264, QAM vrs ATSC, Blu Ray vrs HD DVD, Component connectors vrs DVI vrs HDMI, and so on, and that is just WITHIN the US. Expect see your local community college offering courses on how to watch TV soon. Or maybe it will all collapse and we will all be watching nothing but iTunes on Macs in ten years. Algr 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the article at all? Anyhow, there’s nothing that would have forbid p24 movies on discs (of any format) for all markets; it’s a little bit more complicated for broadcast. 50-hertz HDTV with 1080 or 720 lines was of course a dumb decision, because the lower refresh rate is now no longer compensated by a higher resolution, but HD-MAC with its up to 1152 lines had already failed, because it came too early (and costly); later HD ready required support for 60 Hz anyway. Christoph Päper 07:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems I've read more then you. Start here: Refresh Rate, "television" chapter. 50 Hz never had anything to do with detail, but was about standards for Alternating current set in the 1890's. 24p yields poor results when shown on a 50 hz set, because the need to insert two extra fields per second produces a visible stutter or lots of lag. Digital transmissions and HD do nothing to fix this, even DVDs have to be sped up 4% when shown on PAL. (While 24-50 hz conversion is done sometimes, most people prefer the speed up.) When 24p is shown in NTSC, 12 extra fields per second are created - this is too fast to be seen. Ironically, 25p also looks fine when converted to 60 hz, so the US could easily have required 25 hz support and created a true universal standard for the first time - they just chose not to.Algr 05:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there, folks, you've both got a point. Algr is right about the origins of frame rate, but so is Christoph, inasmuch as PAL and NTSC use about the same bandwidth and have a similar number of lines per minute, and so one is ahead in frame rate and the other in resolution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the 24p frame rate was only to present film material in its original format, shifting any frame-rate conversion, or lack of it, to the viewer's equipment. While this would mean either speed-up, pulldown, or frame adding if it's being watched on legacy equipment (that supports only 25 or 30 fps), it leaves open the possibility of future sets with a 24 Hz (or 48 or 96) refresh rate, enabling films to be seen much as they were intended to be; whereas if films were already preconverted to legacy systems (as they are on PAL or NTSC DVDs) this would never be an option.

However, broadcast is another issue, as most broadcasters will probably use a fixed frame rate (although there is no good reason to do so if all receivers support multiple frame rates), and there the 3:2 pulldown or the 4% speedup will probably be with us for many years to come. I agree that given the choice, all new programming should be made at 60 fps, simply because it's a higher refresh rate (although probably not high enough, another missed opportunity), but we're going to be watching legacy programming for the rest of time, and no matter how sophisticated the conversion algorithms will be, it will be best to respect the original frame rate and line count if this is practical.

I'm saddened to see that many US sets do not support 50 Hz (and mystified, too, as this would not be a difficult option to add), although it follows the sad practice already in place with television equipment (most US DVD players, VCRs, and TVs are strictly NTSC-only, whereas in the ROW all DVD players support both PAL and NTSC, most PAL VCRs have NTSC playback, and many PAL TVs also support native NTSC).  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 08:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

JFTR, I was not replying to Algr, but to the anonymous user. That could have been seen by the level of indentation before someone misleadingly increased it. There doesn’t seem to be much where I would disagree with Algr and ProhibitOnions – not enough to continue the discussion at least. Christoph Päper 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about shifting it, but even without the indentation I thought you were talking to me. Either way, I had to make the correction. 50 hz was certainly not a "dumb decision". Due to the technical limits of the time, neither the US nor Europe had any choice but to synchronize their TVs to line current. Europe got the better end of this deal because not only did they get sharper pictures, but it is much easier to make their video cameras look like film. Hollywood positively hates the look of 60hz or 50 hz, see high motion as to why. But they too could easily shift to 25 hz in movie theaters, and preserve 24 hz for old movies. Algr 16:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn’t say 50 Hz (black and white) television was a dumb decision, but that 1080i50 was. It should rather have been either 1152i50 (keeping the difference and advantage) or 1080i60 (losing the difference and advantage). It comes as no big surprise that displays with 768 instead of 720 horizontal pixels prevail, because 768 is 4/3 times the traditional PAL/SECAM resolution (576 lines), and 720 was chosen by ATSC, because it has the same changeover-friendly ratio to NTSC (480 lines). Converting 576i50 to/from 1152i50 would be quite easy, but 576i50 to/from 1080i50 is hardly easier than 1080i60 (plus the p24 speed-up issue). I assume the reason for all this was that back in the 1990s the demise of CRT wasn’t forseen and the introduction of HD in Europe was expected to happen earlier. Christoph Päper 06:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If Europe started producing 60 hz programming, it wouldn't look as good on 50 hz sets, which is what the vast majority of viewers will still be watching for some time. And existing 50 hz programming would look worse on the new 60 hz sets. So ultimately, they'd be degrading their own program's quality in order to make American programs look better. Hardly a big sell. If 50 hz itself were a problem, why go to 60 hz, which is still too slow for CRT computer monitors? They'd do better to go to 75 hz or higher. (Of course non-CRT displays have made that less important, but this decision was made in the '90s.) Algr 16:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The obvious solution is for use to save our money and wait until the next-next generation of television comes out with its 4HDTV resolution (2160 by 3840, 150p), which will comfortably display all previous HDTV standards at a fixed multiple of their pixel and frame count, and PAL, SECAM, 405, and 819 at enough of a multiple that it won't matter. At 600p it will also show 24fps film at its correct playback speed. Might be a while, though...  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 17:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Or maybe it will all collapse and we will all be watching nothing but iTunes on Macs in ten years." - I won't... I'd rather not spend £3000 for a computer worth £500. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20.133.0.1 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Recommended decoder? -- Technical details

"Some broadcasters also plan to use MPEG-4. Some German broadcasters already use MPEG-4 together with DVB-S2 (ProSieben, Sat1 and Three Premiere Channels). The recommended receiver is Humax PR-HD 1000, but others are announced as well as PCI cards."

-This seems dated and/or a sneaky advertisement. Can anyone confirm that these broadcasters indeed recommend this specific receiver?

At least Premiere in Germany at the moment recommends the Pace DS810 (see premiere.de). And, Philips DSR 9005 claims to be "Premiere certified" too. But, there shouldn't be any specific manufacturer/model mentioned in an article at all, in my opinion (unless there's a good reason for it).

NPOV dispute: Hong Kong Section

"...there are political and business considerations. The mainland Chinese government will likely want to be able to jam TV signals from Hong Kong, so that Chinese citizens near the border cannot receive uncensored content from Hong Kong. Currently, analog TV signals from Hong Kong are delayed a few seconds before being relayed inland, such that content on banned topics such as Falun Gong and the Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 can be blocked."

-Although China does jam TV signals from Hong Kong to prevent some baaned topics to be on the air, I think this paragraph is unneccsary for the topic of HDTV.

"By the same token, Hong Kong broadcasters are keen to use whichever standard China adopts, since doing so would allow them to transmit into the lucrative Southern China market and would lessen the need for costly format conversion."

-This paragraph shows the real situation in Hong Kong, if the citizens in China really wanted to watch unjammed Hong Kong signals, they may buy them a own set of reciever.

Archive

Previous Discussions discussions can be found in the Talk Archive 1

2 comments

1. please note that ATSC specs call for DD for the audio encoding. now DD does NOT say how many channels SHOULD be present. just how the audio is encoded into the stream. you can have a one channel DD stream. 5.1 is just what everyone knows about. of course a program can be upconverted by a provider as an HD stream while just including 2 channels of audio. and that is a common use for many older films and programs (including tv programs) from our pasts.

2. under the non engineering section, again ATSC specs call for 16x9 ratio for all HD programs. if a program is HD, then it must be in that ratio. the entry says "MOST HD and film programs..."

1366 x 768

I wonder if somebody would consider covering the 1366 x 768 resolution? As most HDTVs in UK (and possibly the rest of Europe) seem to have a native resolution of 1366 x 768. For instance, is it known whether HDTV movies authored for this region will be native 1366 x 768, or will the TVs have to upscale from 720p to 768p? Thanks, TimTim 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

768p is not part of any HDTV standard, so yes, all tv sets will upscale (720p) or downscale (1080i/p) content to the native resolution of these displays. I don't know the details about why this bizarre resolution (1366x768) is being used by most tv manufacturers. Some people say it's just to build computer & tv displays simultaneously (1366 is 1.78 times 768). Thewikipedian 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 768 is the XGA resolution. But this is strange to me because many of these plasma displays suffer from burn in and should not be used as PC displays. Also, 768 hurts the quality of 720p images because adding just 48 more lines is very difficult to do well. Large changes are easier then small ones in this case, so this is very sub-optimal for 720p. Algr 05:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It’s indeed all but optimal for HDTV, but who in Europe has it these days already anyway? For PAL-SDTV, 576i and 576p, 768 lines are at least as well suited as 720 ones, because 720/576 = 5/4 and 768/576 = 4/3. (The ease of conversion from or to 576 and especially 480 lines was the reason for the HD resolutions of 720 and 1080 lines in the first place.) If I’d buy a WXGA display (which I won’t anytime soon), I would assure that it has an unstretched 720p mode and compare prices with regards to the resulting diagonal, which is ca. 88% of the physical one.

The ease of fabrication theory has a flaw: There are a lot of displays with 1280 pixels in either direction being produced, too. It’s not just plasmas, though. Christoph Päper 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Some information about 1366 x 768 would be appreciated, I have recently brought a JVC LCD TV with this resolution and would like to know as much about this as I can.

There is a clear and fact-based discussion on this issue at [1], talking about WXGA, display manufacturig and overscan, to name a few points around 1366 x 768.

Unfortunately, that guy is wrong about HD having a blanking interval with data hidden in it. We have a better discussion of wny HD sets overscan here. Algr 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This 1366x786 resolution isn't just native (no pun intended :) ) to Europe—a lot of the US market HDTVs appear to have this resolution as well. What's also quite odd, IMO, is that this article makes no mention of this whatsoever. It seems noteworthy to me, especially considering the ramifications this ought to have for HDTV image quality (because of native resolution)—the supposed raison d'être for HDTVs in the first place. This article, without mentioning this, seems rather lacking if it's as common as Sony's US HDTV Flat Panel 32" to 40" page (to name one) suggests. 8 of the 12 HDTVs there are 1366x768, and Sony's not an obscure or cheap brand. RobertM525 01:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Still nothing? No one has any sources talking about this? The article still doesn't mention it once. RobertM525 18:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is an important point: that many television sets are being sold that aren't really proper HDTV. I suspect that in the future people will become much pickier about having the right pixel count once they start noticing the problems interpolation causes, such as crawling edges along straight lines. However, at the moment, most people use these TVs to watch SDTV sources, and the technology really isn't that good yet, so it's not yet enough of an issue. I've seen people choose a 768-line set over a 720-line one because of its "higer resolution".  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

?

good afternoon, would like to know if the projector Sanyo Z4 supports technology HDTV. e which its loss of quality?

to answer in the email hugo_balieiro@hotmail.com debtor

The Sanyo Z4 would certainly support this, I have a friend who has a Z3 and this has HDMI and this does 720p and 1080i, the Z4 probably doesn't do 1080p though, but you could find this out very easily. One good site is projectorcentral.com

previous talk archived

I created an archive of older discussions. I also split some sections (pre-recorded media and compression) of HDTV into separate wikis, as the main page was getting too long (>40 KB).Thewikipedian 18:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bitrate

I think this article could do with some discussion about what bitrates and bandwidth are generally used for HD broadcasts and storage on media - I couldn't find anything significant on the subject anyway. Or is it discussed in other articles? --Zilog Jones 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Diagram mistake - VGA is 640x480 =

In the first comparison of resolutions diagram "Standard resolutions" 720 x 480 DV NTSC/VGA, but VGA is 640 x 480. The later diagram "Digital video resolutions" below Exernal Links correctly shows VGA as 640 x 480. I don't know how to edit the .svg diagram.

PAL resolution

There seems to be a little confusion about PAL and NTSC resolutions; I think that section could probably do with a little clarification, especially as there appear to be several NTSC and PAL resolutions. (See [2]]) TimTim 19:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold. --WikiCats 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of confused and incomplete information on that page. What they call the "Preferred Format" is almost unknown in real usage. The "D-1 NTSC Square Pix" lists a resolution that would never happen in NTSC - the only time you would ever use 720 x 540 is for images that originate on a computer that can't handle rectangular pixels, and you want to match the D1 horizontal resolution. Then it wouldn't matter if you were going to NTSC, or PAL. Algr 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Effect of HDTV on availability of older TV productions

There needs to be a section discussing the long-term impact that HDTV may (or likely will) have on non-HD television productions. (Basically, as I understand it, pretty well everything produced before the late 1990s). The original Star Trek series, for example, in order to be released in HDTV has had to undergo major alterations, with new special effects and even music replacing what was originally made in the 1960s (this is going over like a lead balloon with a lot of people, while the younger folks who just don't care are jumping for joy). The implications are clear that many classic shows of the past, from I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, The Twilight Zone, Doctor Who, and many others may either have to disappear or be greatly altered in order to be viewable in the HDTV format. Unfortunately all I know I what I'm reading about Trek; for me to add such material to the article would be uncited and probably considered POV. Has anyone come across any articles or other discussion about what HDTV is going to do to 50-60 years of television history? Or like the TOS fans who seem attracted by the newest shiny thing, are people just going to not care? 23skidoo 13:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there was no technical NEED to add FX and music to Star Trek TOS. This was probably just copying Star Wars Special Edition. (Spock shot first!- ;) I've seen HD Net's showings of Hogan's Heros and Speed Racer in HD, and both were surprisingly good - particularly the 16:9 framing looked like it had always been intended to be seen that way. Ironically, shows from the 1960s and 1970s may fare better in HD then shows in the 1980s, because older shows were usually completed on 35mm film, whereas they started editing on NTSC video in the '80s. Of course shows SHOT on video like Dr Who will have to wait for super-CGI of the future that can add detail to an existing shot. (It would be something like colorization.) Algr 18:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a terrible idea to crop old television shows to fill the screen of a 16:9 HDTV. It would be better to letterbox them. Then again, I think switching to 16:9 after all this time is a bad idea to begin with. Why couldn't they have developed HDTV to a 4:3 aspect ratio for backward compatibility? Personally, I hope the technology never gets off the ground, and we stick with standard TV for some time to come.

A better question would be "Why did they settle on a 4:3 aspect ratio in the first place? Human vision is not 4:3!". The answer to that is doubtless because "that's the shape the film cells were"... but why were they that shape?!

Way back when widescreen broadcasting started (TVs started coming out in 1992, and Channel4 were broadcasting some PALPlus around 10 years ago in the UK) I just wish they'd agreed on a full 2.35:1. I'm sick of explaining to people why their widescreen TVs still have borders when showing some DVDs! I don't want to have to build a mega home cinema with anamorphic lens to do the 2.35:1 properly! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.138.193 (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Contemporary systems

The contemporary systems sections has been merged with List of digital television deployments by country. High-definition television in Europe will be merged with Digital television in Europe, but it still needs some cleanup, as HDTV and digital SDTV are really messed up Thewikipedian 10:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Advantages in non-engineering terms

I don't really see how point #1 can be considered an advantage. Things like pixellation (which I see all the time on digital cable) and still pictures is in many respects worse than snowy or lined images. I suggest moving this point elsewhere in the article as it kinda shoots the topic in the foot where it is now. 23skidoo 19:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean, I was thinking it could be added to the "Comparison to SDTV" maybe something after the picture comparison like:

In addition to the improved picture quallity, although most newer TVs are also compatible with digital broadcasting, all commercial HD is digital, so the signal will either deliver an excellent picture, a picture with noticeable pixelation, a series of still pictures, or no picture at all. The system cannot produce a snowy or washed out image from a weak signal, effects from signal interference, such as herringbone patterns, or vertical rolling.

Maybe not the best place but I'd like it kept somewhere in the article becuase I think it's worth mentioning. - Doc711 15:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Edited to show the disadvantages of this, as well as the advantages.

720p and 1080i

If you have a 720p screen, will video recorded as 1080i still appear the same as on a 1080i screen? (Besides interlacing and progressive things... I mean the actual picture quality. Regardless of the correct answer, this should be metioned in the article. aido2002 20:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Letterboxing

The article states "In addition, the technical standards for broadcasting HDTV are also able to handle 16:9 aspect ratio pictures without using letterboxing, thus further increasing the effective resolution for such content". This seems to imply that SDTV feeds only support widescreen through letterboxing, as opposed to anamorphic display. This is incorrect - digital SDTV widescreen broadcasting is usually anamorphic in the UK at least, with letterboxing extremely uncommon. Cpc464 09:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And to extend your point further, ANALOGUE anamporhpic 16:9 broadcasts have been available in the UK since the late 90s. Channel 4 broadcast films in PalPLUS for ages. Portugal have been doing it even longer, I understand.

Most of the "new" 4:3 broadcasting the UK is, and has been since around 1999, from the US. Virtually everything produced in the UK and all the imported Aussie shows I've seen have been in 16:9 since then. At first it seemed to be mainly the big-budget US shows that are in 16:9 (Enterprise, Lost... Joey...), but it does seem to be changing. Why Simpsons is still produced in "ye Olde Square Screen" I don't know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20.133.0.1 (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Who here has HDTV?

Just a nice converstaiton about HDTV usage by Wikipedia members. I have good news and bad news. Good: I have HDTV. Bad: I only have 720P.--BigMac1212 16:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody put the...

HDTV history and old models?

Agreed. There's very little history about HDTV in this article. I, for one, would love to read about the lack of consumer responce over the years, and the many times HDTV has failed to live up to predictions about when it would "Take over". I heard that it would take over in a certain future year, with years as early as 1996 being mentioned.

I would also like to see more on the disadvantages of HDTV over standard television, and what types of HDTV sets are available(specifically, are there CRT HDTV sets? I can't find any info on that one way or another)

External Links

Hi,

I am dismayed to see that vandalism repair has resulted in collateral damage in the External Links section of this page. I posted a link to http://www.hdtvexpert.co.uk in good faith, as this is a good source of reference for the consumer in the UK HDTV market (this really is a new and emerging market, as HD broadcast and other media is still in its infancy here). I can vouch that this site does not carry any pop-up, pop-under or other browser-unfriendly/hi-jacking script. The content is maintained frequently as a source of news etc. for consumers in the United Kingdom.

Could you please re-instate this link, or at least provide me with an explanation as to why you think this does not make a useful contribution to your visitors.

Kind regards,

Tim

It was not collateral damage - I knowingly removed it. This site is commercial in nature with prominent advertising banners whose addition to WP serves only to drive visitors to the site. Please see WP:SPAM and WP:EL for information on link spam. In lieu of your suggested link, I've added a link to the official UK government HDTV site. Thanks. Leuko 01:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the link to the official UK government site http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk/, Leuko. However this is a general Digital TV site, not an HDTV site. A quick browse through this site, followed by use of the site's search facility only returns one reference to HDTV - in a jargon buster page http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk/jargon/jargon_ah.html.

To quote the entire HDTV-related entry on this page:

"HDTV (High Definition Television) Mode of transmission that provides much higher definition pictures. See [HDTV]"

I'm sorry but I don't find this information particularly enlightening. It is hardly the sum-total of knowledge about HDTV in the UK and there is no link provided on the page to any further pertinent information.

I am new to Wikipedia, so I have thoroughly reviewed the two links you posted above and cannot see how linking to http://www.hdtvexpert.co.uk has contravened the advice contained in either of them. Whilst I agree that the site does carry advertising, could I please re-iterate that it is a useful source of independent, up-to-date (at least, at the time when I used it) and relevant information for me, a UK HDTV consumer. From my perspective as a UK citizen, this information was valuable when taking the plunge to invest in an HDTV system - the very reason why I was researching on Wikipedia in the first place. HdTvExpert certainly augments the information available on Wikipedia.

I feel so strongly about this, I have been in touch with the site's owners. They are unwilling to remove advertising at present as they say this offsets the site's maintenance costs. That is their decision. However this in my mind does not detract from the usefulness of the information and advice available on their site (particularly when compared to the one-liner on the site you linked to).

Once again I will ask why you feel this link is inappropriate. Surely, if Wikipedia is to be a source that is useful to people, it should openly link to further information that helps people make their minds up about their choices in life.

Tim

If you're interested in helping improve the article, improve the article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Finlay, I thought I was improving the article by including the link in the first place - hence I made the contribution. However now the page is locked to editing and I found the explanation to why was rather lame.

Tim

Error in the Table of terrestrial HDTV transmission systems

There are two errors in the aforementioned table in the column DVB-T! In the row outer interleaver: according to the DVB-T standard a convolutional interleaver (interleaver depth I=12, number of shift registers M=17 and register depth j=one symbol or one byte) is used for outer interleaving, not a block interlever. In the row inner interleaver: inner interleaver consists of two levels: bitwise interleaver in the first level and symbolinterleaver in the second. So there are no use of any frequency functions or so on. nmo83.135.4.183 16:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the inner symbol interleaver operates on the symbols carried by data carriers, thus it is a frequency interleaver. --Cantalamessa 13:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-HD DVD

I'm looking for an HD solution to tide me over while the DVD format wars are fought.

Perhaps this article could comment on which current HD format looks best when watching non-HD DVDs?

Thanks!

Well I have an HD set that does 720p and upconverts (or something) to 1080i. DVD movies in general look just mediocre. DVDs that are "enhanced for HD TVs" look a bit better, and usually are in 16:9 format. But when comparing a DVD movie to an HD channel that happens to be showing the same movie, the difference is very clear. For example I had watched most of Gus's "Last Days" movie in HD on HBO, but missed part of it, so I decided to rent it a few days later. When I finally got around to watching it, by chance HBO HD was showing it again, so I switched back and forth between the two, and although the DVD was "enhanced for HD TVs," the quailty was much better on the HBO broadcast. So I guess my answer is, if you don't have an HD set, and aren't ready to jump on the Blu-ray or HD DVD bandwagon yet, don't worry, because the quality of a DVD on an HD set isn't as great as some might think.24.22.56.137 04:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Jordan

Linkspam reversions

There are a couple of botched rvs on this page because I got confused about what user added what and removed what. Please disregard and excuse my foolishness. — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 15:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

HD on a Personal Computer

Two questions:

First, I have a friend who claims that personal computers have been displaying "HD quality" for 10 plus years now. But I don't think he's correct on that one. He refers to the resolution 1280x720, and says that since computers have been able to support this resolution for years, that proves that they have been able to display HD for years now. That's really his only talking point, and when I bring up 720p or 1080i, that's when the conversation gets confusing, mostly cause both of us have limited knowledge about how you can compare a TVs resolution and/or encoding.

Secondly, since certain companies are now selling "HD" computer monitors (Apple comes to mind), what does that exactly mean? Of course my friend the computer guy would say it's just a gimick, since computers have been able to do HD for years... So what is the difference between a normal LCD computer monitor compared to an "HD" model?24.22.56.137 04:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Jordan

HDTV is a television resolution and standard, not computer video. HD monitors are simply capable of showing HDTV, so far's I know. E.g. HDMI input, etc. HTH. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 13:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true that some computer resolutions can show HDTV in native resolution. However, as these often have a different frame rate from the standard being displayed, the images end up being interpolated to match, and image quality suffers, particularly with motion (watch the credits roll on a TV show; they can be illegible if the frame rate doesn't match). This is an issue watching DVDs on a computer as well.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 14:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you go by the numbers, then SXGA is certainly "HD", and XGA might just barely make it over the bar. However the "TV" part of HDTV is another story, since it has only been recently that you had PCs that could actually keep live action video (as opposed to videogame) images moving at HD resolution. My Mac G4 can do it, but only with HDV, not with the H264 formats that people are actually putting on the web. Apple seems to be defining "HD" as meaning "at least 1920x1080 resolution", which is far more strict then the TV industry is defining it. I've seem some "HD" sets where you couldn't distinguish 480p from 1080i. Algr 07:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Source?

I think this page needs a source for the 10% penetration number given in the article intro. Theflyingorc 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing - we should remove it until sourced per WP:V/WP:NOR. Leuko 02:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused

So let me get this straightened out, because the article doesn't come out and say it. Or if it does it's somewhere amongst the technical information and I just didn't catch it. Anyway if I purchase an HD television set will normal television (4:3 ratio) appear correctly proportioned, or will it be zoomed in with the tops cut off, or will it be squeezed into the HD television proportions? Natjo1986 06:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the functionality on the tv unit, not the HDTV specification. Mine has several zoom modes, incl. zooming in, and widescreen (anamorphic conversion) stretch. Since different DVDs have different ways of addressing (some are "enhanced" for 16x9 tvs, i.e. anamorphic, others are just letterboxed) any TV I've seen and played with had options to accomodate all types of media. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for clearing that up. I was sort of wondering if upgrading would be even worth the price of an HD television. See the thing is I live in a apartment that doesn't allow satellites for HD satellite television, and currently my cable company doesn't offer any kind of HD programming. My cable company though supposedly is going to be upgrading, but they are a locally owned and operated gig so there just adding channels so HD has to be at least 1-3 years away. I also live in between two metropolitan areas that offer HD over the air programming, but I live to far from either of them to receive it. I have a rear projection television that is 6 years old so within 3 years I will have to absolutely upgrade because the television will probably be kaput by then.

The HD scam

HD is nothing more then a marketing term for a digital signal. It's meant to limit the customer and make them think they are getting something better when there not. The term should be done away with as it's directly related to DRM restrictions. Please state a dissension in the article. DRM has brought nothing but confusion to the marketplace as it's not creating mass confusion wind anger over the DRM imposed in Microsoft Windows products.

History of HDTV

Enough about the science! What about a simple history charting its invention and proliferation? its early introduction? what was the first show ever broadcast in (what's currently known as) hdtv? early reluctance to buy the sets? the requirement to buy those stupid hdtv receiver boxes? which started broadcasting hdtv first: nbc or abc? when the switch was or wasn't made from 720 to 1080? i don't know any of these answers. Youdontsmellbad 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)