|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the High-definition television article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 stiff language
- 2 yeah vs nah
- 3 lack of notoriety
- 4 cut-off section
- 5 commercial
- 6 standard / ptent
- 7 SD
- 8 Archives
- 9 Requested move
- 10 Should there be a listing of TV networks which broadcast in HD?
- 11 1080iN
- 12 Photo?
- 13 Plea to merge 9 overlapping articles
- 14 Refresh rates
- 15 What is the difference between HDTV and DVB-T2 ?
- 16 Countries
- 17 Deinterlacing issues
- 18 High-definition display resolutions
- 19 Why a history lesson first?
- 20 Lead section ideas
yeah vs nah
Is there any statistical-research on the emergence via consummer support of the Digital HDTV vs analog TV ? What about India's government reactions on the "HDTV is an expensive revolution in the market" ?PaulPeter184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
We definately should include some kind of evaluation of HD if suitable sources are available. I personally doubt that most people can really tell the difference most of the time, especially between "HD Ready" and "Full HD" and I am sure off the top of my head that there must be other Notable critics of the effort involved to make this industry-led change.
lack of notoriety
Wouldn't wikipedia.org have any succes in the field of consumer electronics & home appliances. I mean the article on howto use the 1080p TV set in discussion lacks. Step by step instructions for Grundig 129kW LCD would be interesting to me, too you know.PaulPeter220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
inthe type of media section, the article has big lacks. Not anywheere in the seection the reader is informed of the ANALOG VS DIGITAL differences for it. Does Jimmy need to know what he already knoes, or should he look up on wikipedia to find a meaning of his old floppy disks Sony left off on him ?PaulPeter18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
A "CableCard" written as shown in the article, relates to a product of a company. By writting Cable-card word in a single word, plus different caps, you are doing either: hidden commercial for someone, or the auter is unnaware of small caps & spaces. I think both are ruled out by Wikipedia.org If you are kind and look up, there has to be a single specific symbol near the word, a symbol-round. Shoulld author know he's infringment some laws, or does Jimmy Wales' picture conjure ?PaulPeter22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
standard / ptent
What country has addopted the 'hdtv standards is nowhere in this article. I propose for deletion because the standard involved is between companies, IN THE UNITED STATES. Has little to nothing to do with E.U.PaulPeter126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
|This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:|
- Talk Archive 1 (Fox HDTV program listing ... Ads on external links)
- Talk Archive 2 (Resolutions diagram wrong? ... History of HDTV)
- Talk Archive 3
Should there be a listing of TV networks which broadcast in HD?
Should there be a listing of networks that are offered in the HD format? I think that people would like to know which networks offer the HD option and which ones don't. I am positive that there are a lot of happy people now that Turner Classic Movies has started airing their broadcasts in HD, as of October 2009. I wonder how many people would get HD if they knew their favorite network was available in HD, as well as standard transmission? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk
- There is a listing in the article: High-definition television in the United States. This has a listing of the broadcast and cable television networks that offer a high-definition option to their viewers in most parts of the USA.Thank you for the listing of the networks that broadcast in high-definition in addition to their standard transmission programs.184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk
- Unfortunately, the position is vastly complicated because the two sides of the Atlantic use the notation in different ways. In America there is a tendency to quote the field rate for the interlaced formats whereas in Europe the tendency is to use the frame rate (or is it the other way around?). For progressive, they are the same thing. Any progressive system that operates at 24, 25 or 30 frames would be very flickery indeed, though modern LCD and plasma displays over come this. Consumer camcorders are often advertised as having a 25p (or 24p or 30p in the US) mode. But in reality this really refers to the mode in which the sensor is read. The output remains an interlaced video signal but the image in each half of the field pair is the same. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Still asking for an authoritative source for that particular point. I thought 1080/Ni is the nomenclature for which field rate was defined to be used, but I haven't found any authoritative source for this. It is noteworthy however that in the book "Blu-Ray Disc Demystified", by American authors, in the chapter "Other Conventions" under heading "Television Systems" it is stressed that in notation 1080/Ni the N is always for frame rate and never field rate. EBU declares nomenclatures 1080/I/N and 1080i/N with N being the frame rate, which makes me believe 1080iN is just a shortcut for these nomenclatures. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think someone is trying to push the argument that progressive is better than interlaced, but as the photo is a static image there should be no difference (the waterfall doesn't count as it is blurred in all the images). Unfortunately the uploader has got it wrong and the 1080i is sharper than the 1080p. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The photo depicting the resolution comparison between the resolution and apparent sharpness details should be changed or removed. It suggests that 1080i had halve the spacial resolution of 1080p and that of the SD images. It's a misleading image and not true to the actual differences between the different format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genetichazzard (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, the image should be changed, since it is incorrect. The 1080i and 480i images appear to be a simulating single field each. This is different from how it would actually look on a 1080p HDTV, even if the scene was moving. If the original scenes were captured with progressive scan imagers, the interlaced images would not look significantly different from the progressive scan images (whether it was moving or not), unless the HDTV was confused about which field was "even" and which field was "odd." If the original scenes were captured with interlaced imagers, and the scene was moving, then even the 1080p/480p images would have alternating scanlines from two different points in time, and they would look bad. This appears to be a synthetic image that was created by someone who was misinformed about how interlaced video actually looks (when both fields are being displayed and interpolated into a final 1080p image). This is a common misconception, since some DVRs will only display one field when paused (whether the display is 1080p or not). 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Plea to merge 9 overlapping articles
The High-definition display resolutions section of the article, while certainly helpful, is simply running in parallel with 8 other articles:
- Aspect ratio (image)
- Computer display standard
- Display resolution
- List of common resolutions
- Template:Widescreen monitor resolutions
- Template:Monitor resolutions
- Template:HD resolutions
Also look at these:
It's one of those cases where authors should be looking beyond the page they've landed on or maintained, and come together in a way that will strengthen everybody's work and deepen everyone's insights. I don't know how the merger process is authorized, but this is a plea to get this thematic mess organized.
Please see the talk pages on each of those pages for ALL comments related to this issue.
Date written: 21 May 2010, 02:19 GMT
Can someone knowledgeable please explain why my television (Panasonic Viera P50G10A) only scans at 60hz?
The reason I ask, is that I used to have old CRT monitors that scanned at 120hz, and the difference to the picture is staggering. I am very sensitive to any kind of flicker, and I find low refresh rates really annoying. Apparently my MacBook Pro is also running at a 60hz refresh rate, but there is no noticeable flicker. What gives?
What is the difference between HDTV and DVB-T2 ?
I'm trying to understand the difference between HDTV and DVB-T2. I've looked at both of the articles here on WP, but I am confused by specifications for TV equipment which say, e.g: "HDTV H.264/MPEG-2 Live TV Ready (DVB-T2 is not supported)"
Currently we have only India, US and Europe in this article, is there really a need for them to be here as they are inconsistent with there titles and info, all do we change the titles and add all countries in here--Luke193 (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
One aspect of HDTV not discussed here is the deinterlacing issue. Video images (as in shot on videotape or digital video) have a different look than film, which traditionally has a sheen or gloss look (and many TV shows shot on video, such as Doctor Who, are digitally processed to add that sheen to simulate a shot-on-film look). Some HDTV sets - particularly LCD (not so much plasma) - remove this sheen from 1080i recordings. As a result, you have a film like Avatar having the film sheen, and looking like a "film" on plasma and under-1080i HD, but in full HDTV it takes on the appearance of something shot on video. Someone more technically inclined can expand on this, but I think it's an important aspect of HDTV that's worth discussing. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
High-definition display resolutions
In the section "High-definition display resolutions", the first line of the second table says 1780x956 is 876,096 pixels. Not by my calculator it isn't ..... Jonathan 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good catch. That looks like it was old anonymous vandalism from 7 March 2010. Or maybe it was some kind of inadvertent mistake. See this. I just fixed that. I hope I got it right. There were several things that changed at that time, but probably nearly all of it has been fixed since then. —Mulligatawny (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Why a history lesson first?
99% of people coming to this page are hoping for a semi-technical explanation. I was looking for what exactly "upscaling" implies. It's not here. Instead the first two-thirds of the article is a history lesson. That may be very laudable information, but why does it dominate the article? I don't know enough about the subject matter to edit it myself. Afterbrunel (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- While I tend to agree that this article is a bit heavily weighted towards history, and the lead could do with some work, it is fairly standard for the history section to come at or close to the beginning of the article. Also, upscaling isn't really within the scope of this article - if you put upscaling in to the Wikipedia search box, you should be redirected to Video scaler, which is what you seem to be looking for (in a nutshell, it's basically just taking a video signal and blowing it up to the resolution of the screen in use). Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)