Nice to see the new HD channels are on

**kstuart** · 08-21-2007 04:52 PM

More of the AVS quote:

Lowering the resolution can actually have a benefit in re-encoding in that much of the artifacts are filtered out and leaves more true information to be encoded.

But people's minds are stuck in "bigger numbers are better". That's a lot easier for them to understand than:

It's more important to stay flat through the mids to upper mids than the absolute cutoff point for resolution.

**8bitbytes** · 08-21-2007 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by kstuart

More of the AVS quote:

But people's minds are stuck in "bigger numbers are better". That's a lot easier for them to understand than:

Those might have been true when the limitations caused more trouble than 1920 was worth. 1920 is no longer a problem and those concerns no longer exist. 1920x1080 is now a lower resolution in the scheme of "higher" definition.

**Tvlman** · 08-22-2007 10:39 PM

Who gets to decide what constitutes High Definition? That's the problem. It seems that everyone has their own idea about it. To NBC & CBS it is 1080i. To ABC it is 720p.To Fox it is sometimes 720p and sometimes "stretch-fuzzy."

**drdroo** · 08-22-2007 10:42 PM

For our FOX affil here, it's apparently 480i over digital... ABC seems to think 720p, but it's more like SD upscaled (crappily) to 720p...

Our NBC affiliate seems to have the best concept here, they do 1080i and it is nice to see SNL.

Though, the real winner, ultimately, is PBS.. Too bad there's nothing I want to watch on PBS..

Someone pick the standard, then go tell everyone about it. I'll stand behind ya.

**8bitbytes** · 08-23-2007 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Tvlman

Who gets to decide what constitutes High Definition? That's the problem. It seems that everyone has their own idea about it. To NBC & CBS it is 1080i. To ABC it is 720p.To Fox it is sometimes 720p and sometimes "stretch-fuzzy."

Until the vast majority of HDTV owners who are oblivious to what HD really is gets a clue and starts complaining, there will be little incentive for the broadcasters to get their act together.

Do you realize how many HDTV owners are watching SD and thinking that they are watching HD?
How many of them are watching HD channels but they are connected by COAX, COMPOSITE, or S-VIDEO?
How many of them are watching HD on an HDTV and using a digital or component connection BUT they have their STB set to 480i or 480p???

We spend a week arguing about standards and what the real definition of HD is and the vast majority of people out there are completely clueless.

We need to educate everyone we know and tell them to educate everyone they know. Build the base of knowledgeable consumers and we will reap the rewards!

**Cold Irons** · 08-24-2007 10:22 AM

Quite right, 8bitbytes (are there any other kind?)....

I've been slowly (and sometimes painfully) educating friends, neighbors, and family (sometimes, the most painful...). The more "regular" folks that we can get to understand HD fully, the sooner the broadcasters will clean up their act.

**drdroo** · 08-24-2007 10:35 AM

It's really hard to educate though when they've already gone out and bought a 1024x768 Light Beer plasma though. The damage is pretty much done by then and the only thing that happens is that you look like an ass.

A 1080i display isn't that much more money. I don't really see the point in buying anything short of a 1080i display. 1080p is largely a waste of time unless you really have a desire to watch HD-DVD, but 1080i is largely the standard, more than 720p in the wild nowadays.

**waltinvt** · 08-24-2007 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by 8bitbytes

Until the vast majority of HDTV owners who are oblivious to what HD really is gets a clue and starts complaining, there will be little incentive for the broadcasters to get their act together.

Do you realize how many HDTV owners are watching SD and thinking that they are watching HD?
How many of them are watching HD channels but they are connected by COAX, COMPOSITE, or S-VIDEO?
How many of them are watching HD on an HDTV and using a digital or component connection BUT they have their STB set to 480i or 480p???

We spend a week arguing about standards and what the real definition of HD is and the vast majority of people out there are completely clueless.

We need to educate everyone we know and tell them to educate everyone they know. Build the base of knowledgeable consumers and we will reap the rewards!

I know people that have switched from cable to Dish because of poor picture quality. They were connected with only coax to their cable and their Dish installer connected them with coax also but the PQ was still better, so they were satisfied.

When they come to my house, they ask why my picture is so much better than theirs. We're talking only SD - HD blows them away (even HD lite).

I try to explain the difference between connections and offer to switch theirs from coax to at least S-Vid. "No, that's ok, what we have is fine for us". I even offer to provide the cables. "No, that's ok, we don't need any better".

Drives me absolutely up the wall! And forget about 5.1 surround sound or better - the fact that their TV has 2 speakers and they get stereo is already overkill for them.

As long as the majority of viewers have this kind of mindset about picture & sound quality, the providers are not going to compete very hard to improve.

**Voyager6** · 08-24-2007 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by waltinvt

I know people that have switched from cable to Dish because of poor picture quality. They were connected with only coax to their cable and their Dish installer connected them with coax also but the PQ was still better, so they were satisfied.

When they come to my house, they ask why my picture is so much better than theirs. We're talking only SD - HD blows them away (even HD lite).

I try to explain the difference between connections and offer to switch theirs from coax to at least S-Vid. "No, that's ok, what we have is fine for us". I even offer to provide the cables. "No, that's ok, we don't need any better".

Drives me absolutely up the wall! And forget about 5.1 surround sound or better - the fact that their TV has 2 speakers and they get stereo is already overkill for them.

As long as the majority of viewers have this kind of mindset about picture & sound quality, the providers are not going to compete very hard to improve.

My BIL is a prime example. He purchased a 50" Sony XBR1 about 2 years ago. Every time I bring up the subject of calibration or tweaking the set to get a better picture, he just gets defensive and says the picture is just fine. I advise him to go to the AVS forum and read up about the set and he just shrugs, not interested. He shelled out over $4k for this set and has left it at the factory defaults.

He has comcrap cable as his provider and when I suggest that OTA for the locals would be a huge improvement, again he is not interested. Why would anyone invest that much $$ in a TV set and not want the best picture possible?

**drdroo** · 08-24-2007 10:57 AM

A good friend of mine just bought an OTA antenna the other day. He had his digital cable box plugged in via coax, so he had to go buy a set of RCA cables to move it over to a regular composite input.

Needless to say, what's available in HD over the air really opened his eyes. He thought it was wild to be able to see the audience clear as day on Leno or Conan.