|
|
Posted by AnthonyR on 01/17/07 14:11
"Joshua Zyber" <joshzyber@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QuqdnU-25KGl8DDYnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:45acfe89$0$5167$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>I don't accept ... from seeing the level of detail in the picture ... that
>>this is just an upconverted NTSC signal. Yet it's 4:3, which rules out
>>most of the HDTV standards (most of them are "widescreen"). The "HDTV"
>>light on the cable box is on (yes, that might only mean that it's
>>digital), and it's on a channel (all 500-599 channels in this cable
>>system) that is supposed to be exclusively HDTV. I note that 1024x768 is
>>a 4:3 format that is one of the approved HD formats, so 4:3 aspect ratio
>>does not always, automatically, mean it's SD and not HD [However, I don't
>>think that's what they are broadcasting]. Most likely this signal [Brian
>>Williams NBC nightly news] is 640x480 progressive scan with a 60Hz refresh
>>rate. That is a lot higher quality than standard NTSC analog TV (more
>>than twice the data rate), although no 480 line format is considered to be
>>HDTV.
>
> There's really no debate to be had about this issue. If the nightly news
> were shot on High Def video, it would fill your 16:9 TV. All HD video
> cameras are natively 16:9 in aspect ratio. For example, The Today Show
> recently switched to HD production. Compare the same program on the SD
> channel and the HD channel. Then take another look at upconverted nightly
> news and see if you're really so impressed by the level of detail present.
>
I don't know about NBC News but I did hear their commercial touting it being
the first nightly news now in HD.
But what is to stop someone from recording in HD, then downconverting to SD
format (4:3) for broadcast and yet
simulcast the same full HD signal only over digital broadcast just to HD
capable tuners?
That would work well, no? Maybe that's what they do?
AnthonyR.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|