|
|
Posted by Smarty on 07/18/07 22:31
The move to yet another, higher "ultra" high resolution video format will
allow for replacing "obsolete" hardware and programming in a marketing dream
come true despite little or no technical / perceptual advantages. The
entertainment industry, both music and film, have powerful lobbies and power
to force U.S, consumers to replace and upgrade their video and music
libraries every decade. As much as I hate to say it, I think my bet would be
on the "less is more" strategy, wherein consumers wind up with hi-def
portable content which is distributed to iPods and other mobile devices with
fewer bits rather than more. In the U.S., the lowest common denominator
seems to be the basis for making programming content and delivery choices,
with poker channels, crummy video, and crummy audio prevailing over really
excellent content and delivery. The journalist Henry Mencken made the
observation "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the
American public."
I agree entirely with that.
Smarty
"Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
news:469e5816$0$1630$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Smarty wrote:
>
>>
>> Since you categorically consider HD delivered to the home as being
>> "garbage" and "not HD", I see that your sentiment is way more pervasive
>> than I originally thought. I will make no further attempt to defend HD
>> systems of any type to you, HDV included, since your standards are
>> considerably higher than mine and perhaps of most other people. To my
>> eyes, which are admitedly older and not as acute perhaps as yours, HD is
>> a vast improvement over standard definition, and only the poor choice of
>> technique by the producer is at fault rather than the delivery technology
>> itself. And yes, I would fully admit that an eventual "ultra HD" system
>> with much higher resolution and bandwidth will eventually be introduced,
>> thereby obsoleting whatever systems we now consider "high" resolution.
>>
>
> Ultra HD is another marketing department's dream. At normal viewing
> distances i.e 9 feet a person can only just get the benefit of 1080p on a
> 46" screen. How close would one have to sit or how big would the screen
> have to be for that person's eyes to resolve Ultra HD?
>
> The biggest improvement the broadcasters can make is providing greater
> bandwidth and supporting more efficient codecs. In the UK there is a load
> of up-rezzed SD content being broadcast on the satellite HD channels. The
> broadcasters can get away with it because the HD channels broadcast in
> MPEG4 producing a better image for the same bandwidth than the MPEG2 SD
> broadcasts. Digital TV has set the quality bar so low for SD broadcasting
> that joe consumer doesn't even realise they are watch SD on their shiny
> new HD channels.
>
> I say less resolution and more bandwidth please... Oh and while you're at
> it less f$$king poker channels too!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|