Posted by Spex on 07/18/07 18:12

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!

[Back to original message]