Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Your HD Quality Suck? The TV Industry Doesn’t Care!
popularmechanics.com — Sure, you're excited about next week's Shark Week & ComicCon's preview of the fall television lineup. But are you sure you're seeing every last tooth & LOST easter egg? PopMechanics investigates the lawless lands of broadcast television, where the quality of the picture that ends up on your Hi-Def TV set is determined by a bunch of fuzzy math.
Bukowsky- 1889 diggs
- digg it
- reddikilowatt, on 07/26/2008, -4/+92http://tvtech.com/pages/s.0081/t.2145.html
Link to a broadcast industry rag's editorial page. Article was written in 2001. I was looking for another article from the same author about how, according to the FCC, a station would be within the law to hook a VHS player into their HD transmitter. There is absolutely nothing in the DTV transition rules that say anything about image quality.
The other maddening thing is stations that don't even take advantage of the audio leveling/normalization and metadata that automatically puts the monitor in the right mode (zoom/full/wide/etc). A few stations use it, some just leave it in the same mode all the time, and some set it to wide and stretch 4X3 pictures.
And don't tell me that broadcasters are still trying to figure this stuff out. It's been over 5 years since they have been required to transmit DTV and they have had plenty of opportunity to figure it out.
Lots of other very good, somewhat "inside baseball" editorials from the same author:
http://tvtech.com/pages/s.0081/t.p0001.html- Charlotte_Web, on 07/27/2008, -9/+3I would oppose more government regulation in this area; this is an issue for the free market to work out. As market penetration of HDTV grows and grows, more consumers will be demanding HD content, and broadcasters already know that in order to stay competitive, they have to offer HD content.
There's also the problem of 50+ years' worth of content that's already been created that's not in HD. Sure, in a lot of cases, the studio will go back to the original print and create higher quality versions, particularly for the Blu-Ray market. But again, that's an issue for the market to worry about. Most content will not be converted to HD because of the cost.
If there were a law were passed that TV stations could only show HD content, Turner Classic Movies, TV Land and Nick @ Night would go dark, and a lot of content on a lot of other stations would be taken off the air.- scruffles, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5Don't get so hung up on the regulation aspect of this. Whether regulated by the government, or left to market forces, we still have the same issue: The FCC defined DTV and HDTV, and they did it without considering quality.
Most people think they have a measuring stick for tv quality already... they don't know better, so they use resolution. Without a real classification system they won't be able to express their desires to 'the industry'. Someone (the government, a standards organization, Sony, I don't personally care), needs to come up with a simple system that rates a broadcast considering source, resolution, compression and anything else I might be forgetting. It needs to be a term that everyone can understand, a rating or a number. Until then, the industry will continue flailing around trying to guess what they can get away with.
- scruffles, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5Don't get so hung up on the regulation aspect of this. Whether regulated by the government, or left to market forces, we still have the same issue: The FCC defined DTV and HDTV, and they did it without considering quality.
- Spuy767, on 07/27/2008, -1/+10Nothing tells anyone how to source their video. They could be 100kbit video so long as the video itself has a frame at least 720 pixels tall. Loopholes like this are the reason that comcast nearly doubled their HD lineup without any improvements to infrastructure, just compress the video more. The one place I've seen that seems to have great video quality on their HD equipment is DirecTV. I've had DishNet, and the DTV service blows their HD away, don't even get me started on cable. The FCC needs to set up a bandwidth window to be able to call your programs HD, that would solve the problem.
- sg7791, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3It's all ridiculous. But I can only hope that this 2009 required DTV garbage will make them raise their standards.
- MtheoryX, on 07/27/2008, -1/+7It won't.
- Charlotte_Web, on 07/27/2008, -9/+3I would oppose more government regulation in this area; this is an issue for the free market to work out. As market penetration of HDTV grows and grows, more consumers will be demanding HD content, and broadcasters already know that in order to stay competitive, they have to offer HD content.
- TypeEE, on 07/27/2008, -3/+82On the other hand, a lot of viewers don't care and are still hooking up their decoder box with composite wires.
- proliance, on 07/27/2008, -2/+50I think they care, but they probably don't realize they are not getting the best quality picture with composite cables. When I picked up my digital box from the cable company I asked "where's the HDMI cable?" Comcast doesn't provide them, so a lot of people make do with what they are given.
- norman619, on 07/27/2008, -49/+3You can actually go out and buy them.
- marx2k, on 07/27/2008, -2/+24This is why everyone on the planet should know about amazing sites like monoprice.com
- sardion2000, on 07/27/2008, -0/+47@norman619, talk about missing the point completely.
- Snokage, on 07/27/2008, -2/+23i requested my, comcast carries them, its just the tech guys are stingy and you need to request them. Trust me, i got HDMI cables from comcast for nothing extra.
- digid, on 07/27/2008, -6/+25Comcast provided me with COMPONENT cables which is arguably no different than HDMI.
If I really wanted HDMI they are like $1.75 off amazon. The cheap component cables are like $5-$7 and that doesn't include audio.
So Comcast does provide me HD cables without asking. However I recently paid a visit to my dad who did have his cable box hooked up with composite. He said the cable guy hooked it up that way. I fixed it up and he had no idea it looked that much better. - elveis, on 07/27/2008, -43/+1I don't know, I wouldn't want free HDMI cables from Comcast. They're going to be really cheap. Maybe even cheaper than $1.75 off amazon. : 0
I think the quality of cable makes a HUGE difference when you're dealing with HD. You're going to spend $1500 on a TV and $2 on the cables? - HairyFotr, on 07/27/2008, -1/+54elveis: HDMI is digital, so cable quality doesn't matter.
- briguymaine, on 07/27/2008, -0/+35@ HairyFotr: don't tell that to Monster Cable. Their "best" HDMI 4 ft. cable goes for $150 on their site!
- aliguana, on 07/27/2008, -0/+18it's true, whereas with analog (speaker cable etc) the quality of the cable DID matter, with digital it doesn't, as long as your 0s and 1s get from a to b they're all the same. It could be argued that more expensive cables last longer, that they have connectors that are less likely to snap or bend etc, but as far as "quality of image" goes they're all the same. The fact that Monster Cable are selling them for that price only means they are riding on the back of the old analog more=better thing, and hope people are dumb enough (and rich enough) not to realise it doesn't apply to digital
- elveis, on 07/27/2008, -29/+4HairyFotr: I know it's digital. If you have a wall mounted TV and have to run a significant length of wire through the wall to reach the TV, quality makes all the difference in the world. Especially when 1080p signals start showing up. Cheaper cables won't be able to handle the higher bit rate that a 1080p signal requires. If you are just running 1-6ft cables, then yes, quality doesn't matter. I also wouldn't buy Monster Cables unless you like getting ripped off.
- jsauter, on 07/27/2008, -1/+15Elveis:
It doesn't matter with digital. It is the same copper between the devices no matter if you buy $5 or a $500 cable. The cheap cable producers are not buying 'slow copper' to cut costs. The cables are built to satisfy a standard and if you think a more expensive cable is going to get your bits to their final destination faster/better/whatever you are unfortunately mistaken. Like the other fellow said, you could technically built a higher quality connector in more expensive cables, but the actual cable itself will not perform any better. - MtheoryX, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3@norman619:
This. Is. What. We. Call. Whoooosh! - GliTCH82, on 07/27/2008, -0/+6Elveis: Whatever makes you feel better about your purchase, man. In science, however, observation and facts triumph over your measly personal opinion.
So tell me, how does the poor quality of a cheap, 50ft HDMI cable exhibit itself while playing digital 1080p video? Does the picture look grainy? Do you get... snow? Or maybe because of bit-errors you see the wrong number on a football player's jersey. You should try moving the cable around to see if you get better reception. I heard attaching a pair of rabbit ears might work, too. - ConceptJunkie, on 07/27/2008, -5/+17HarryFotr:
Don't tell me quality doesn't matter because it's digital! Sure you say it's all 0's and 1's, but with cheap cables you're likely to get -0.001's and 0.993's or maybe 0.023's and 1.0017's. Trust me, you can see the difference in a pixel with real zeroes and real ones compared to a pixel with "bit drift", which is common among almost all makes of cable sold for less than $150. Furthermore, the bits themselves are purer with very little distortion (almost no measurable wow and flutter) using the several hundred dollar cables compared to cheap cables. In bad cases, even the pixels themselves lose shape and definition making the picture significantly (and obviously to even the casual viewer) more blurry. Your best bet is a digital signal purifier, which prevents bit drift to the seventh significant figure. I paid over $3000 for mine (the ByteSharpener from Shamco, but I've heard good things about the slightly cheaper PureDigit model from Eye Ronic Systems), but my picture is better than anything I've seen, even systems set up by so-called experts.
Trust me. Your eyes don't lie.
p.s. The digital signal purifier works on your network connection too... even YouTube videos look better. - cubbiesx, on 07/27/2008, -13/+2"with cheap cables you're likely to get -0.001's and 0.993's or maybe 0.023's and 1.0017's" - ConceptJunkie
WTF?? Are you being serious? Binary is BINARY! 2 numbers!!!
My 55" LCD looks and sounds fantastic using my $4 hdmi cables and no $3000 signal purifier. - GliTCH82, on 07/27/2008, -0/+10@cubbiesx
check your sarcasm detector - Frustian, on 07/27/2008, -8/+2ConeceptJunkie:
The cable itself is not transmitting 0's, 1's or colors. Each wire in the cable either has no voltage (interpreted as a '0' by the tv) or it has a small signal current (interpreted as a '1'). Everything you just said is bs, and your $3000 cable will look no different than a cable bought from monoprice.com.
EDIT: I did not see the last line. Very funny, and my sarcasm detector does need repairs evidently. - SwedishNinja, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4@elveis:
I bet you're the guy who buys Monster Cable at Best Buy, huh?
- proliance, on 07/27/2008, -2/+50I think they care, but they probably don't realize they are not getting the best quality picture with composite cables. When I picked up my digital box from the cable company I asked "where's the HDMI cable?" Comcast doesn't provide them, so a lot of people make do with what they are given.
- spyd3rweb, on 07/27/2008, -7/+162How about some TV shows that aren't ***** to go with that HD quality.
- Zippo, on 07/27/2008, -4/+7Yeah, that's my biggest beef with HD right now. There just aren't enough HD channels (at least in Canada) and the programming is often limited and repetitive.
For me, the biggest reason to have an HD TV is gaming (and hooking up my laptop).- spyd3rweb, on 07/27/2008, -4/+2I was also referring to the lack of real shows on regular TV as well, unless you consider So You Think You Can Dance and American Idol good TV.
- xmod3, on 07/27/2008, -2/+8yeah i know really.
here's this crappy program about storm gutters.....BUT ITS IN HD!!!! - Tyrghast, on 07/27/2008, -2/+4Hey the History Channel is in HD, thats enough for me.
- Snokage, on 07/27/2008, -3/+2but not all ares get the history channel in HD
- iddybiddy, on 07/27/2008, -3/+1Sure its subjective but here in Australia I find the opposite, most HD shows are fantastic, especially the docos.
- josereyes0, on 07/27/2008, -3/+1What shows do you watch aren't in HD? All the major networks are on HD as well as major movie channels, Discovery Channel, History Channel as well as Nat Geo. Major sports channels and in Boston even the local sports channels are on HD. The only channel I'm still longing for in HD is Comedy Central, but outside of that I'm fairly happy with the selection.
- mogebier, on 07/27/2008, -2/+1Wait... you still watch the major networks??
Grandpa. - josereyes0, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Yes I do, I'm a fan of Lost, 24, House, Family Guy and lately have become a fan of Last Comic Standing. And those shows are on ABC, FOX and NBC, which are HD and also known as the major networks.
- FARMER, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1To each his own, But I must disagree:
to spyd3rweb, I think So You Think You Can Dance is great entertainment and a even better in HD.
to josereyes0, Man - Last Comic Standing really and truly sucks. and BORING is STILL BORING in HD.
- mogebier, on 07/27/2008, -2/+1Wait... you still watch the major networks??
- Zippo, on 07/27/2008, -4/+7Yeah, that's my biggest beef with HD right now. There just aren't enough HD channels (at least in Canada) and the programming is often limited and repetitive.
- ProKid, on 07/27/2008, -12/+4I understand that bandwidth isn't unlimited. But these networks need to get this ***** together and give us the quality we need and deserve. Especially after we got "Bushed" by the brick & mortar companies to buy these expensive 1080p tv sets...
- norman619, on 07/27/2008, -4/+20You don't deserve jack and you don't need HD TV. No one forced you to buy an HD TV. Next year all TV over the air TV goes digital not HD. You are forced to buy either a TV with a digital tuner or get a converter box. Get your facts right.
- ProKid, on 07/27/2008, -2/+8whoa buddy, never said anyone forced me to do anything. But if something is advertised as 720p or 1080i, shouldn't I be getting just that? I mean, I am paying for it. Sure we don't NEED HD tv, but we don't NEED a lot of things, thats not the point.
- Charlotte_Web, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5If you buy a 720p or 1080i TV set, you ARE getting those resolutions.
Now, whether the TV station broadcasts in those resolutions is another matter entirely, and beyond the control of the TV manufacturers. - norman619, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2ProKid:
I can't believe I have to quote you your own words. Here we go.
"Especially after we got "Bushed" by the brick & mortar companies to buy these expensive 1080p tv sets..."
Translation: "Especially after Bush and the retailers forced us to buy 1080p (HDTV) tv sets..."
It's sad that you can't read your own comment correctly. - dandonia, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah that's right dick head - you stick up for big companys that screws those of us that struggle to pay for our HDTV's then struggle to get a HD subscription only to get less quality than promised.
When you pay for something you're damn right you deserve it
-------
Bushed = Forced????? huh
- proliance, on 07/27/2008, -0/+8Far from being forced to buy an expensive 1080p tv, the govt. is giving away coupons for $40 off digital converter boxes.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dtvcoupon/- drlha, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3Indeed, boxes that cost $60 (so just $20 after coupon) and are easily available (I saw a pile of about 100 of them yesterday at Circuit City).
- Spuy767, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2What I want to know is what I get for not forcing the government to subsidize a converter box for me?
- jsauter, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2Need = food, shelter, water, air
Want = iPhone, new car, HDTV
You don't need HDTV (but it sure is pretty).
- norman619, on 07/27/2008, -4/+20You don't deserve jack and you don't need HD TV. No one forced you to buy an HD TV. Next year all TV over the air TV goes digital not HD. You are forced to buy either a TV with a digital tuner or get a converter box. Get your facts right.
- dattaway, on 07/27/2008, -11/+6When sponsors finally discover television advertising isn't reaching anyone, they may soon find their customers are on the internet. This is what the FCC did to television. The FCC should have never discovered the internet.
- norman619, on 07/27/2008, -3/+15Nice try. I don't see people not watching TV because it's not in HD.
- duckley, on 07/27/2008, -24/+14America:
It's ALL about Money. Everything, every day.
Politics, Health Care, Jobs, Defense, etc.
America has the best QUANTITY of material life in the world, but the QUALITY of life gets worse and worse.
And Americans don't even realize it.- norman619, on 07/27/2008, -11/+7Go live in another country for a while then get back to us.
- gasoline, on 07/27/2008, -3/+14Why should he come back?
From the Guardian:
"Despite spending $230m (£115m) an hour on healthcare, Americans live shorter lives than citizens of almost every other developed country. And while it has the second-highest income per head in the world, the United States ranks 42nd in terms of life expectancy.
/---/
The US infant mortality rate is on a par with that of Croatia, Cuba, Estonia and Poland. If the US could match top-ranked Sweden, about 20,000 more American babies a year would live to their first birthday."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/17/inte ... - Spuy767, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3It's because americans have the option, and frequently make the choice not to lead healthy lives. It's called freedom, we have the choice to treat our bidoes like *****. What I don't believe is that we should get government provided healthcare when we ***** it up.
- FARMER, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1a relative of mine, who also happens to be a republican, told me recently that there is no way the USA could AFFORD to provide healthcare to all citizens, and that the Canadian healthcare system doesn't work. Funny thing is, 20 years ago She was married to a Canadian citizen and they both lived in the US and had ***** jobs that had no health insurance. She had 4 kids ALL BORN IN CANADA AND EVERY DIME OF HER HEALTHCARE PAID BY CANADIAN TAXPAYERS. after each birth it was back across the border 'cause taxes were lower. :)
- gasoline, on 07/27/2008, -3/+14Why should he come back?
- proliance, on 07/27/2008, -4/+12You really need to get out more often. I happen to think America is a pretty nice place.
- HypocriteDigg, on 07/27/2008, -2/+1And you're also a dumbass diggiot.
- mikesbaker, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1idiot libtard alert ^^^^
- mousky, on 07/27/2008, -5/+1So you work for free then?
- norman619, on 07/27/2008, -11/+7Go live in another country for a while then get back to us.
- tooli, on 07/27/2008, -2/+7There is technology adopted all over the world in favor of high quality broadcast over the net. By example
http://www.teliasonera.com/press/pressreleases/ite ... .
When TeliaSonera demonstrated uncompressed 4K SDI, ultra High Definition, video services at IBC 2007 with the Swedish company Net Insights Nimbra switch over a public network with a distance of 1300 km. Many American companies are deploying Net Insights DTM network today, The technology guarantees 100% QoS without the need for any compression.
Links: www.netinsight.net , www.teliasonera.com - facepalmjpg, on 07/27/2008, -33/+91People still watch TV?
- gasoline, on 07/27/2008, -7/+104Yup. Takes one press of a button to start streaming and lagging is very rare. And I have hundreds of streams ready for me at any time. Oh, and the resolution is quite good.
- computerusr, on 07/27/2008, -15/+1Serious question: Are you talking about watching the actual TV or watching TV shows on your computer?
- MalenfantX, on 07/27/2008, -0/+8@computeruser: Is that a meaningful question? My theater PC is connected to a 1080p video projector. People from a computing background would see it has having TV on my PC, and people more into TV would see me as being able to put my computer on the big-screen TV.
- otbeverly, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Thanks, MalenfantX, for giving me a paradigm changing perspective on my HDTV. Unfortunately I previously fell (still fall, I guess) in the "being able to put my computer on the (moderately) big-screen TV."
But now I look at it differently. It'd be great if I could somehow stream my desktop to my TV, but I have my PS3 along with a keyboard so I guess I could at least browse the Web more often from there rather than in another room where the PC is located. If only Sony would improve the PS3s browser I'd be set.
- Nudar, on 07/27/2008, -14/+10Are you really so stupid to think people don't watch TV anymore? Have you seen the sales figures for HDTV's?
- MillionsLivio, on 07/27/2008, -1/+14HDTV's aren't just for watching cable or satellite, they can be used for gaming, watching movies, and among other things. I own two HDTV's and rarely use them to actually watch cable, mainly due to the poor HD services in my area.
- boodog, on 07/27/2008, -9/+1I enjoy the Internet on my TV
http://techavid.com - you can too and its free.
But that thing called TV where you sit like a zombie, take in crap and spend a fortune - not for me. - kungfool, on 07/27/2008, -10/+3People still crack that joke on Digg?
- ilgaz, on 07/27/2008, -0/+15No, they choose to watch 320x240, heavily transcoded youtube or 3 megabit compressed files claiming they are HD because resolution matches :)
- bigt8dogg, on 07/27/2008, -1/+4I don't. I have an HD FiOS TV box sitting on top of my 36" TV, and I think I turned it and the TV on last month for a couple hours when I was reinstalling my OS...I just download the shows I want to watch, far easier, no commercials, good quality.
- gasoline, on 07/27/2008, -7/+104Yup. Takes one press of a button to start streaming and lagging is very rare. And I have hundreds of streams ready for me at any time. Oh, and the resolution is quite good.
- upfrontfanatic, on 07/27/2008, -4/+18So they consider 18mbps "very good" for HD? They better not be broadcasting using MPEG2. I would consider using anything less than 20mbps for MPEG2 HD-broadcasts downright fraud.
- stizz, on 07/27/2008, -0/+14We are forced to use 15Mbps mpeg-2. 19Mbps is allowed by the Cable labs spec, but they wont let us use that much bandwidth.
Consider that SD TV mpeg-2 is 3.75 Mbps and h264 for IPTV is a mere 2.2Mbps - surfacewound, on 07/27/2008, -0/+7Why? According to my PS3, MPEG-2 Blu-Ray movies vary between 15-28mbps throughout the movie, though I would expect Blu-Ray movies to be almost exclusively in H.264 soon.
But I actually would've thought HD over television would only be ~10. An "HD" signal technically means nothing regarding quality, all it means is that the signal is in an HD resolution (1920x1080 for "True" HD).- MikeCerm, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5"True" HD is a marketing term. Anything 720p or above is considered high-definition. 1080p30, which is basically the same as 1080i60, is the highest allowed by the ATSC standard, but has only 10% more pixels (per-second) than 720p60. Despite Blu-Ray and some TVs supporting 1080p60, it's not part of the broadcast standard.
- reddikilowatt, on 07/27/2008, -3/+5You're kidding, right? ATSC specifies 19Mbps, using 8-vsb transmission for OTA. The original ATSC spec specified 16-vsb for cable, but QAM is much more bit-dense and is compatible with existing cable tech (meaning much cheaper receivers). If you really think that you need more than that for HD using modern encoders, I have some magic monster cables I'd like to sell you.
Now, once stations start adding a bunch of other streams, like Weather plus and the all news all the time feed, that 19Mbps will look like a lot less data. For now, though, most broadcast stations are more interested in getting a HQ picture out there. When the advertising sales manager gets involved, I'm sure that will change. - justintsmith, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2For a second I thought I was on slashdot.
Live long and prosper geek squad - Ductapemaster, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1The reason they transmit at such a low bandwidth is because they simply do not have enough bandwidth to start with. They have to make do with what they're given...this is why we don't have all HD channels. Simply not enough bandwidth.
- stizz, on 07/27/2008, -0/+14We are forced to use 15Mbps mpeg-2. 19Mbps is allowed by the Cable labs spec, but they wont let us use that much bandwidth.
- Ethek, on 07/27/2008, -3/+15Truth in advertising. Lets term it HD Lite
- Sphinxer, on 07/27/2008, -3/+17It sucks that they are allowed to do this, but then again a lot of people don't care what the actual quality of the signal is. As long as they can say that they have HD on their 50" plasma TV and use that to show off, then they are happy. These are typically the same people who are happy to pay 500 bucks for a USB cable for their "home theater".
- sphigel, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1500 is a bit exaggerated. I have actually seen Best Buy sell a USB cable for $35 though and people actually pay that much for it.
- sphigel, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1500 is a bit exaggerated. I have actually seen Best Buy sell a USB cable for $35 though and people actually pay that much for it.
- mcsurvey, on 07/27/2008, -16/+3Inaccurate, the article tries to state that 1080i isn't HD.
- adstretch, on 07/27/2008, -2/+6FTA "In order to qualify as hi-def, a signal must have either 720 horizontal lines of progressively scanned pixels (720p), 1080 lines of interlaced pixels (1080i) or 1080 lines of progressively scanned pixels (1080p, which nobody even broadcasts yet.)"
- Joetwopointoh, on 07/27/2008, -7/+32Here's the fun part. Even after everyone is forced to go digital in 09 the cable and satellite providers will still charge you extra for HD equipment because "Digital is not necessarily HD". Never mind the fact one cannot purchased a digital set that is not HD. :)
Digital sucks, at least when an analog signal gets weak it gets snowy and noisy but you have a chance of getting the information. When digital gets weak you can forget about it. lol- ThrobbingBrain, on 07/27/2008, -3/+4"Never mind the fact one cannot purchased a digital set that is not HD. :)"
Really? I can't? Standard Definition digital tuners are available in some CRT TVs and Enhanced Definition sets with digital tuners used to be available too; not sure if they still are though. I know because I used to have to try to explain the difference between EDTV and HDTV to people. Lots of blank stares...- KelticKal, on 07/27/2008, -0/+0If your tuner can't receive QAM, you will need a converter box with cable.
- seinman, on 07/27/2008, -4/+1"Digital sucks, at least when an analog signal gets weak it gets snowy and noisy but you have a chance of getting the information. When digital gets weak you can forget about it."
True; however, digital is easier to tune, i've found. I used to live in a brick apartment building about 25 miles south of Chicago, and all of my analog channels were fuzzy. I upgraded to a digital tuner, and I could now get every channel except for one in crystal clear digital. I'd be willing to bet that if you're having trouble tuning digital channels OTA, then you're just too far away regardless and aren't going to have any better luck with analog. - BossKey, on 07/27/2008, -2/+2"Digital sucks, at least when an analog signal gets weak it gets snowy and noisy but you have a chance of getting the information. When digital gets weak you can forget about it."
But that binary nature means the opposite is also true. If you get enough digital signal it will beat the crap out of analog. My local analog broadcast channels have always been a pain to tune and the picture was probably 75% quality. When I got a new TV and started using its digital tuner, every channel that I got a decent signal for came in stunningly better quality than its analog version, and I did not change the cheap tabletop antenna I was using. Yeah, I lost one or two weak analog stations, but the tradeoff was worth it, especially since there are so many more digital channels than analog being broadcast in my area. - quiggibub, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1The digital channels that broadcast in UHF I can get with no problem, but the channels that broadcast in VHF, I can't get a signal for. It sucks because my landlord won't allow external antennas, and I'm already using boosted indoor antennas.
- ThrobbingBrain, on 07/27/2008, -3/+4"Never mind the fact one cannot purchased a digital set that is not HD. :)"
- chiklit, on 07/27/2008, -1/+11I've seen this with Dish Network. Their MPEG2 HD channels are broadcast at 9-10mbps and their H.264 HD channels are broadcast at 3-5mbps. If you rip them off of the DVR they look especially bad compared to OTA HD broadcasts.
- temsi, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3How do you rip them off the DVR?
Link to info, please :) - chiklit, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3It's not exactly easy since the HD DVR uses a proprietary file system and a somewhat strange video format. But basically what I do is use the DishPVR FS FUSE driver from the yahoo group DishRip ( http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/dishrip/files/ ), plug the DVR harddrive into my computer (you have to wait for it to spin up before hotswapping it into your computer), mount the DVR harddrive in Ubuntu using the FUSE driver, copy the .tsp files off and onto my NTFS harddrive, boot back into windows, and use a combination of Project X, MeGUI, and avisynth to reencode it into something useable. It takes about 8 hours of work (including rendering time) to get a single 1 hour show off and reencoded.
- temsi, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3How do you rip them off the DVR?
- Zerophnx, on 07/27/2008, -2/+12@mcsurvery:
"After all, 1080 lines of poor-quality pixels may technically be "high-definition," but that doesn't mean it looks very good."
No, it just says that even if you have 1080 pixels the picture might not look amazing.- bobthegreat1224, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3Use the reply button, please.
- renegadeafk, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2still looks significantly better than SD at least.
- doubleaught, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1for that quote, the author bugs me. There is no such thing as a "poor quality pixel." Pixels are pixels, it how and what you control them that makes a difference.
The second page shows he isn't completely full of crap.
- crownedgriffin, on 07/27/2008, -3/+31Compressed content torrents faster.
- YodaJones, on 07/27/2008, -14/+7What is sold as HD in America is disgusting. The only reason cable and satellite companies get away with this is because Americans are ignorant and don't know what HD really is, or could be. More Americans ought to travel to Europe and see what a good picture is all about. The PAL system is far superior to America's NTSC.
- Nismobeach, on 07/27/2008, -6/+23NTSC = 480i
PAL = 576i
HD = 720p
Full HD = 1080p
PAL sucks.- YodaJones, on 07/27/2008, -4/+8You lemon head. Do you think PAL is Europe's HD resolution? Certainly you can use Wikipedia better than that.
- mousky, on 07/27/2008, -2/+13According your post, PAL has more resolution than NTSC. Therefore, PAL is superior to NTSC. He didn't say that PAL is better than HD.
- ace4261991, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3lol he said lemon head. :)
- Hellman109, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1576i is only one format of PAL.
I get 1080i and 720p over the air here with a PAL signal (Australia).
- proliance, on 07/27/2008, -3/+5I've been Germany, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Spain, Austria and England. I took the time to learn how to order beer in different languages and had the time of my life.
Screw going to Europe to watch tv.
- Nismobeach, on 07/27/2008, -6/+23NTSC = 480i
- epstephen, on 07/27/2008, -1/+12I got a really nice TV as a wedding gift, and for reasons that don't have to do with the TV itself, the whole process has been frustrating. I notice that yes, Showtime and HBO seem to do HD well, as does National Geo and some others, whereas TLC HD, for instance, looks downright *****. Though for what its worth, I've been enjoying the experience much more since switching down from 1080i to 720p.
If one of the satellite or cable cos. could really improve the situation, I'd change over in a heartbeat (ok, once my current contract expires...) But I bet more people are like my father, and well, clueless.- MalenfantX, on 07/27/2008, -1/+0You mean switching up from 1080i to 720p, not down. 1080i is equivalent to 540p.
- sphigel, on 07/28/2008, -0/+11080i isn't equivalent to anything but 1080i. You can't compare progressive with interlaced. 1080i does look like ***** though. 720p is definitely better.
- MalenfantX, on 07/27/2008, -1/+0You mean switching up from 1080i to 720p, not down. 1080i is equivalent to 540p.
- Aleman360, on 07/27/2008, -2/+5The answer isn't regulation... that will just make all the companies put the image quality at whatever the regulation requires. Not many people can tell the difference anyways and happily watch SD content on their HDTV.
- GeneralFailure0, on 07/27/2008, -3/+3If the companies responded to regulations by putting the image quality at that which is required by the regulation, that sounds like a success. Sure, they might not go out of their way to provide superior image quality, but they aren't doing that now either.
- crapmatic, on 07/27/2008, -5/+44I'm saving my money for 4320p.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4320p
I'll be the first one on my block! Haha! 1080i?? Fools!- saqer, on 07/27/2008, -18/+2i have better than 4320p, and it's called the human eye. Instead of being a loser and sitting at home digging up articles about artificial resolutions, I go out and see the world for myself.
Loser.- mrhahn, on 07/27/2008, -2/+20So instead of sitting at home digging up articles about artificial resolutions, you sit at home commenting on articles about artificial resolutions... ¬_¬
- Hawk117, on 07/27/2008, -3/+3Since this has turned into a pissing contest, I have better than the human eye. It is called HD glasses.
(I lied, I wouldn't waste my money on those crap sunglasses.)
- ghostlywind, on 07/27/2008, -1/+8I wonder what Lawrence Fishburn's face would look like on that
- skyshock1, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2...shudder....
- robbob, on 07/27/2008, -2/+5Buy the time 2015 rolls around, my eyesite will see worst than 1080p, much less 4320p
- enzobot24, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0We've had something better than that for a long time: IMAX.
The film stock is 8640p (theoretically - it's analog).- Grjemo, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Wikipedia says it's comparable to 7000 vertical pixels.
- saqer, on 07/27/2008, -18/+2i have better than 4320p, and it's called the human eye. Instead of being a loser and sitting at home digging up articles about artificial resolutions, I go out and see the world for myself.
- gkiltz, on 07/27/2008, -0/+12It's not that they don't care! They're still trying to figure it out as much as you are!
Remember, from a technical standpoint we're trashing everything we ever knew about television and starting over!
I'm reminded of something I saw back in 2005. It was the 60th anniversary of the start-up of one of my local stations. They had an engineer who worked that first broadcast on, and he commented, "Just getting on the air, and staying there for more than a few minutes was half the battle back then"
We are not quite back to that level, but with the digital conversion of over-the-air television approaching, that is what is getting the technical resources right now. As we go forward, and a stronger technical knowledge base forms, the situation will improve, and the technologies that can't pass muster will fall by the wayside, with no amount of hype able to save them. Same as AM Stereo!- reddikilowatt, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3Except that they have been "experimenting" for years now. The FCC required the broadcasters to be on air, full power for a few years now. Surely by now they would have some idea of what their signal looked like and tweak accordingly.
Now, the cable and satellite guys are a different story... - chroko, on 07/27/2008, -2/+1(1) It's not rocket science. TV stations have been running networks for a few years.
(2) HD video is a solved problem. *****, it's even accessible for consumers with a $1000 camcorder and a copy of iMovie. There are cheap, single-chip MPEG decoding solutions available off-the-shelf that are perfect for set-top boxes.
(3) Stop apologizing for their massive incompetence and feet-dragging.
- reddikilowatt, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3Except that they have been "experimenting" for years now. The FCC required the broadcasters to be on air, full power for a few years now. Surely by now they would have some idea of what their signal looked like and tweak accordingly.
- hivesster, on 07/27/2008, -1/+8With no real competition, what do you expect? My choices are Comcast for HDTV and that's it. I don't have a view of the southern sky so I can't get DirectTV. So they have no incentive to give me quality service, all while increasing the price every month to remind me of how much they suck.
- proliance, on 07/27/2008, -1/+7Look into getting an antenna. The broadcast signal are not compressed and look much better than cable or dish have to offer.
Yeah, you loose a bunch of stuff you like. But I dropped Comcast, saved $65 a month and still get eight channels.- sgtpppr, on 07/27/2008, -4/+2Enjoy network TV, QVC, and the Jesus channels.
- epadafunk, on 07/27/2008, -1/+9All the stuff on cable is ***** anyway, you're not missing anything when you switch from 500 channels to 8.
- proliance, on 07/27/2008, -1/+7Look into getting an antenna. The broadcast signal are not compressed and look much better than cable or dish have to offer.
- marx2k, on 07/27/2008, -0/+15What should really happen is that there should be a standard that cable companies cannot claim if they compress/degrade their HD signal.
- Portfolioso, on 07/27/2008, -2/+2Cablevision is notorious for this. They do offer free HD, but their infrastructure sucks. Every time I see someone's HDTV who has iO HD, the picture is horrendously pixelated and compressed looking. And this is on a 24" HDTV, not even anything that big. It's pathetic and they should lose all bragging rights for HD, because it's nothing special. Yes, the resolution is higer, but what good is it when the image is severely pixelated.
FiOS for the win.- nihility, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1Cablevision has also taken away channels on their standard cable to make room for more low quality HD for all the TVs with boxes.
- harrison5394, on 07/27/2008, -2/+1Yeah gotta love those 13 HD channels available on FIOS.
- bigt8dogg, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2I dunno what you're talking about, but I've had at least 20 with the basic package until about a month ago, and now I have 39 as of just counting, not including the two they've reserved for HD broadcasts of the olympics. And they say they've got a bunch more coming in the next few months.
Verizon has plenty of bandwidth to deliver high quality content, and I've personally never had a complaint about the video quality coming down the HD channels... It's always looked really nice for me, my family doesn't have any complaints.
- bigt8dogg, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2I dunno what you're talking about, but I've had at least 20 with the basic package until about a month ago, and now I have 39 as of just counting, not including the two they've reserved for HD broadcasts of the olympics. And they say they've got a bunch more coming in the next few months.
- MasterPain, on 07/27/2008, -0/+8I have SD TV & it looks like crap with Time Warner. Every time there is a dark scene or something underwater the screen gets all pixilated looking. I could not imagine what HD would look like witht his much compression.
- Cr85bro13, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3Time Warner's HD actually looks pretty good to me. I have a 720P/1080i 50" Plasma by Vizio and the HD channels look really good. It is hard to go back to the SD channels though...They are really washed out one you start to try to push more pixels. Time Warner's HDTV comes to the HD box at 1080i, not too shabby to TV.
- cubbiesx, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1I have a 55" 1080p lcd and Time Warner cable looks fine to me. Unless, of course you're watching a ***** HD channel like Food Network HD or something. My TV viewing is basically news, sports and "Lost". All look great on Time Warner HD.
Movies are what Blu-Ray and the PS3 are for. - SugarCoatedSalt, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1I have time warner cable, any idea as to how much HD channels they offer? last I checked it was like around 10? =/
I have a panasonic 42" plasma and will be getting the HD box soon.
- cubbiesx, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1I have a 55" 1080p lcd and Time Warner cable looks fine to me. Unless, of course you're watching a ***** HD channel like Food Network HD or something. My TV viewing is basically news, sports and "Lost". All look great on Time Warner HD.
- Cr85bro13, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3Time Warner's HD actually looks pretty good to me. I have a 720P/1080i 50" Plasma by Vizio and the HD channels look really good. It is hard to go back to the SD channels though...They are really washed out one you start to try to push more pixels. Time Warner's HDTV comes to the HD box at 1080i, not too shabby to TV.
- solid12345, on 07/27/2008, -7/+1I am working for a soon-to-be-launched TV network which I won't name because of NDA but basically our company secured a deal with a huge media conglomerate to be on TV purely for the reason all of our material from day 1 was shot in full high-def. The industry WANTS everything to be HDTV but it isn't an easy transition, for one thing who wants to spend the money or resources to go back in and scan all those old episodes of Andy Griffith in HD?
- Nudar, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Well someone thought it was worth the effort for the Twilight Zone so why not an even more popular show such as Andy Griffith?
- adstretch, on 07/27/2008, -4/+13OTA-HD for the basic stuff. Torrents for the premium. FIOS for internet, and I'm a happy guy.
- mrASSMAN, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Same here.. except I don't have FiOS.. lucky slutbag
- WhiteBoyDunkin, on 07/27/2008, -2/+0i actually don't have too much problems with charter's HD. It doesn't have pixalated hd. ESPN looks fantastic, sho time, fox, nbc, cbs, abc look great. SO ino what your guys problem is.
- GreenChaos, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3"For example, an HD broadcast on NBC next month of a track-and-field event during the Olympics would have fast-paced movement requiring a lot of extra bits—in general, the more movement there is on screen, the more pixels need to update in each frame, so the less efficient the compression of the video stream becomes."
This has finally explained why tv HD content on my top of the line tv looks like crap when involving quick motion. - moebis, on 07/27/2008, -3/+1This company is able to do HD broadcasts at 2-3mbit/sec.... that's amazing, take 1gbit raw and crunch it down to 2 megabits:
http://www.investorvoices.com/bcst - frascellyboy273, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3fios ftw
- bokononrock, on 07/27/2008, -0/+36Some nice screencaps of FiOS v. Comcast: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=10 ...
- Hawk117, on 07/27/2008, -0/+9I wish I had FiOS in my neighborhood. :(
- pHreaksYcle, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1I heard from some friends that Verizon is watching traffic closely on FiOS. Be sure to encrypt your bittorrent activity, just in case.
- cave, on 07/27/2008, -1/+9This really should be it's own Digg story.
- suntzusputnik, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4do it. i'll digg it
- skyshock1, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2http://digg.com/tech_news/Comcast_HD_vs_Verizon_Fi ...
There you go.
- Hawk117, on 07/27/2008, -0/+9I wish I had FiOS in my neighborhood. :(
- CaviMike, on 07/27/2008, -6/+1After Feb 2009 I won't be watching TV anyways.
- Gev1982, on 07/27/2008, -3/+1You sound like a sales pitch at Best Buy or Circuit City man :) There is no difference with the cables man--just a gimmick to get your hard-earned $$.
- MaXPL, on 07/27/2008, -0/+6OTA is the best. The worst? TNT HD is the worst. It looks like crap anytime I watch anything on that channel.
- mm911, on 07/27/2008, -3/+2A $1.75 cable is going to have a ridiculous $7 shipping fee attached to it, so I refuse to buy it on general principle. The main difference is the connectors, which unlike a component or RCA cable, an HDMI connector has to be made with a bit more precision for it to fit snuggly and stay in while passing through a clean digital signal.
I recommend getting a $10 to $20 cable with free shipping from a place like Amazon or monoprice.- INTERNETMASTER, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1I don't think clean vs. dirty signal matters for HDMI. it's digital, so it either works perfectly or not at all. I've got a $5 15ft HDMI cable going from my pc to tv and it works fine!
- mm911, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1I'm aware. My point is there's a better chance of "not at all" due to a shoddy connector on a bottom of the barrel cable.
- ZebZ, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1But is it really bottom-of-the-barrel because of cheap quality, or because the reseller isn't taking 4000% markup, packaging, and marketing?
- INTERNETMASTER, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1I don't think clean vs. dirty signal matters for HDMI. it's digital, so it either works perfectly or not at all. I've got a $5 15ft HDMI cable going from my pc to tv and it works fine!
- TailsTheMan, on 07/27/2008, -2/+4TV Shows now-a-days are like ramming a hot rod into my ***** eyes. Horrible.
- josepablos, on 07/27/2008, -9/+4I Don't HAVE T.V
- rockyrobins, on 07/27/2008, -2/+31 I want to find the person that thought multicasting was a good idea and bop them on the head.
2 I'd like to do the same to the MPEG person.
3 We need a quality control law to go into effect. GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out, what the broadcaster puts out can't be compressed any more than it is in the first place.
4 All channels and programming types MUST have the same compression rating. Picture quality suffers when your allowed to vary the compression on the fly
5 That compression must be the maximum available period. If the cable/satellite providers can't make enough bandwidth, than they shouldn't allow so many damn channels. This should allow more companies to get into the game of providing bandwith.
6 I could be a snob, but, no more SD. Upconvert to HD, don't stretch the ratios.
Quality must come first It's 2008, they've had more than enough time to come up with this.
And they can't pass the bucks to the consumer. We bought our fancy expensive HDTVs, Cable/Satellite providers must do their part too.- flailking, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3Please explain why multicasting is a bad Idea...i would really like to know your basis on that comment....
signed an IPTV engineer....
- flailking, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3Please explain why multicasting is a bad Idea...i would really like to know your basis on that comment....
- Thekirby45, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2So my hd glasses were a lie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKYKyIObXyM - Tantrum, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3I plan on switching back to an antenna when i switch to HDTV until all this nonsense is sorted out. Seems like Over the Air is the only way to get a decent high-def picture quality feed. I don't kno wwhy these guys aren't using H.264 for their video compression. Anyway i refuse to pay even more money for 'digital' and an add-on fee for 'high-def' to endup with a signal that's marginally better than my $12/month analog SD signal. That's just not acceptable to me, so i'm going free over the air for now until the quality issues have been worked out. 90% of my viewing is on abc/nbc/cbs/fox , the only channel i'm going to miss is discovery.
- INTERNETMASTER, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1unfortunately it might be along time before all this nonsense gets sorted out!
I'm with you though, free over the air broadcasts are the way to go at the moment - cadmiumpaint, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2i tried doing that. in my area, whenever the wind blows ever so slightly, the HD broadcast will go in and out. Sometimes it will go black screen for upwards of 15-30 seconds. In 10 minutes of broadcast i maybe got 1-2 minutes of uninterrupted broadcast. Watching something like the NBA playoffs like this is just not worth it.
yes its free, yes its HD, yes its unwatchable. - KelticKal, on 07/27/2008, -0/+0As cadmiumpaint noted, ATSC is a joke. This OTA standard provides pretty horrible results for me and I am only about 10 miles from the transmitter. However, there are some power lines in the way that really do not affect NTSC broadcasts much at all but kill the ATSC signals even after trying two different roof-mounted antennas. My daughter lives five miles further away and gets perfect reception with an indoor antenna so its very hit-and-miss. ATSC has serious problems with even relatively small amounts of multipath propagation.
- INTERNETMASTER, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1unfortunately it might be along time before all this nonsense gets sorted out!
- deadbaby, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5It's not everyone... I work at a small cable company and our rate shaping is about 1-2% on HDs. (2 per QAM and a couple SD channels mixed in) The real problem is a lot o these so-called HD channels straight off the satellite are not great quality. It's common to see 9-12mbit streams out there. Channel space on satellites is expensive and in high demand so they will crunch them down before we even get them. Not much we can do about that
- flailking, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Very much agree....Local off-air HD usually comes in around 19mbps, while sat is lower and you can tell based on the quality. I have made a lot of sat changes lately so it looks like the providers are trying to move sat and transponders around to get enough BW....
- knopper67, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1"our rate shaping is about 1-2% on HDs."
So let me get this straight...they throttle TV now too?- deadbaby, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Sorta but it's nothing new. Just about all digital cable platforms have offered it for a decade+ now. Since you're dealing with set channel bandwidth limits sometimes you need to shave off some bandwidth to make everything fit. MPEG2 is old & inefficient so it is possible to chop out some of the data without any image quality loss. Unfortunately some greedy cable companies take it too far. They see it as a way to fit more channels into their system without doing an expensive plant upgrade. I'm fine with going up to 5% but anything over that and I can start to notice image quality issues. Once you get past 10% or so it's VERY noticeable. It's basically the same exact process a program like DVD Shrink uses to fit big movies on a 4.5GB DVD. The same rules apply... high motion stuff doesn't shape well, low motion stuff does.
- boodog, on 07/27/2008, -6/+1People on digg use their LCD HD's for watching cable? Huh ... i thought we all have Internet TV by now like this digger
http://techavid.com . One of many of us here!- cadmiumpaint, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2he recommends buying a Westinghouse TV. Those are the cheapest made P.O.S. on the market. Absolute crap picture quality.
Lost all credibility right there.
- cadmiumpaint, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2he recommends buying a Westinghouse TV. Those are the cheapest made P.O.S. on the market. Absolute crap picture quality.
- h0ser, on 07/27/2008, -3/+2not only that, but many of the TV's out there claiming to be high definition have HORRIBLE quality picture. When you have a 52inch tv at 1080p resolution, the quality isn't that great. The TV is too big and they havn't raised the resolution enough to make it worthwhile. A 50inch 1080 p TV is like havinng a 20 inch non hdtv.
- kolop1, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2What? 1080p is for big TVs. 720p is good for smaller TVs. You have no clue what you are talking about.
- cadmiumpaint, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3well many people think that $300 Westinghouse or other no name brand is going to look as good as that $2k Samsung, LG or Sony.
You get what you pay for...to a point. - doubleaught, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3You don't know what the hell you're talking about. True 1080p content looks jaw-dropping on a quality display, even if you're way closer than you should be.
My guess is someone bought a TV capable of 1080p and told you it WAS 1080p while showing you some broadcast tv, probably 480i material at that. Although there are geeky ways of doing it, for most people 1080p will only come off blu-ray (or hddvd) discs. - KelticKal, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2Your statement seems a bit extreme. With a good display, even upsampled DVDs can look pretty good. The quality of the content is a huge issue here. Most commercial HD programming pales when compared to PBS broadcasts. There is also a surprising difference with DVD quality. Some look very good when viewed on an HD set while others are very poor. The quality difference is not obvious when using NTSC or S-video.
- h0ser, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3I guess i've just been comparing Computer monitors to regualr TV's.
When you can get a 24 inch computer monitor displaying 1080p resolution then you compare it to a 52 inch TV display you'll definately notice the difference. Even old CRT displays have better picture then the giant 52inch TV displays.- doubleaught, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1What are you doing, sitting with your face 1.5ft from the 52" display? A 1080p display means it can display 1920x1080 pixels. You could even kinda say it's a 52" computer monitor with the above resolution. In fact I've hooked my computer up via HDMI to my plasma and it looks incredible.
Do some research. - h0ser, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2I did do research by observation. Imagine those lines of resolution on a smaller screen, it'd be more detailed and a much sharper image. That same resolution on a large display will look bloated in comparison. It's like blowing up a picture, it becomes fuzzy and pixelated. The same thing happens on larger screens, you may not be able to notice it, but when placed side by side the difference is stunning.
- doubleaught, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1What are you doing, sitting with your face 1.5ft from the 52" display? A 1080p display means it can display 1920x1080 pixels. You could even kinda say it's a 52" computer monitor with the above resolution. In fact I've hooked my computer up via HDMI to my plasma and it looks incredible.
- matt2m, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1Who has bright house I am glad I do for 70 bucks a month just with the digital pacage not the HD package. We get over 35 HD channels good ones ESPN 1 and 2, Discovery, dicovery theater Animal planet and they keep on giving us a free offer for Showtime and HBO HD.
Also every month they send a coupon for 1 free PPV movie.
And the picture is crystal clear when we go to our families house with Comcast there HD is horrible and fuzzy. - taseedorf, on 07/27/2008, -5/+1I can't wait for 1080p Seinfeld!
- MSP1, on 07/27/2008, -4/+1Unless you have zero imagination the best pictures are still on the radio!
- cadmiumpaint, on 07/27/2008, -1/+6In my experience, the only broadcasts to fully take advantage of HD are sports broadcasts. ESPN sportscenter looks KILLER on HD. Watching TBS baseball right now, and its pretty sweet.
Can't wait to see the Olympics and NFL on HD this year. Should be amazing.
movie channels like HBO look like DVD quality at best. Other chanels are touch and go. NBC seems to be pretty good with it. CBS is horrible.- thegrantman, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3ESPN makes CBS look like it was drawn with a dull crayon.
- sfgeek, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1I still haven't figured out why CBS looks so, so awful. It seems like they film in SD, compress the hell out of it and add little borders to make it HD. NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams looks 10x better.
- cadmiumpaint, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1even standard def CBS is almost unwatchable. they must do some "its good enough" compression on their stuff.
Watching sports on there is painful. At least with HD its kinda ok.
- cadmiumpaint, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1even standard def CBS is almost unwatchable. they must do some "its good enough" compression on their stuff.
- Scottamus, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1The olympics looked like ***** last time. I clearly remember watching the diving and everytime they panned the camera down to follow the diver there was nothing but giant pixels. Then you see a splash. Considering HD has been looking worse in general lately I shudder to think what it will look like this year. Assuming they can even get a signal out of China.
- illustrick, on 07/27/2008, -5/+1world cup hd, nuff said.
- celer1ty, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1It's refreshing to see a technology article on the front page.
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by