I still think it's notable to realize that today, in 2007, 40 years later, our wonderful, glorious 720p/1080i HDTV pictures have only a few percent more resolution and slightly better
color than PAL TV has had since it's inception in 1967. Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:As for your ability to discern between SDTV and HDTV programming on a 26" display, you seem a bit confused. How are you defining SDTV?By SDTV I mean those programs that are originated as digital SD, such as most ads. Very good quality, but not HD. Another SD source for me would be all my time-shifted HDTV programs, recorded on my DVDR set to a 3 hour recording time. Again, not bad quality, but not HD by any means. And of course prerecorded DVDs, which are better than my recordings, especially when viewed up close. Digital conversions of NTSC are either those my receiver does internally, those very few times I tune in an NTSC station just for grins, or programs that are transmitted as SDTV but seemed to be clearly meant for analog transmission. The best example of this is the BBC News we get from WMPT-DT, which is the 14:9 version of BBC News intended for analog broadcast (as Alan Roberts informed us). Other examples are some of the infomercials, or the weather channels or other multicasts. This last category of SD is clearly inferior to the others. The best way to describe the image is "grainy." The image looks like what you'd see on an analog set with noise-free and ghost-free reception. They are probably MPEG-2 transmitted at ~2 - 2.5 Mb/s. Then there's real HDTV. With my 26" set, differentiating that from the best of SD sources, from my normal sitting position, is possible, although I have to agree that the really good SD sources are plenty enjoyable as is. But the extra detail, comparing HDTV even with DVDs, is discernable. And quite obvious if I move up closer to the set.You can make the same argument that radial tires didn't help auto manufacturers. In some narrow ways, this might be true. But the fact is, radial tires and many other innovations improved the whole product category for all consumers. And it would be foolish for any auto maker to stick with the old bias ply tires and leaf-sprung rear axles. As people get used to HD quality, and buy larger screens, they will preferentially go to HDTV whenever they have the option.What a weird attempt at an analogy. The only way that radial tires "hurt" car manufacturers was the increased cost. But the increased cost was perceived as a major benefit by consumers. First because the tires last much longer; second because the car handles much better.The analogy related to news in HDTV, which you discounted. As screens get bigger, and even in 26" size, all else equal, why wouldn't a consumer prefer to watch the HD news channel, rather than a low quality one? The TV industry is simply raising the bar, that's all. There is no "merit" requirement here. Just as you want your own vision to be sharp and clear always, not just when viewing a nice landscape. Ditto for sound. Good sound is always preferable to crappy band-limited AM sound. Not just when listening to classical music.But many consumers are now buying smaller LCD panels for second and third locations. While these panels have high pixel densities, because of their size one cannot take full advantage of the extra resolution unless sitting uncomfortably close.In a broadcast medium, you have to aim for the upper bounds of receivers out there. Therefore, HDTV transmissions will make more sense as time goes by. And even if the smaller secondary sets don't make the *best* use of HDTV, it still beats NTSC or SDTV. Actually, all of this is coming to pass very much as I predicted way back in the early 1990s. HDTV is becoming the new standard, not some niche product for the wealthy few. It was never meant to be an exclusive product. SDTV will only be used when bandwidth demands require a low bit rate. Bert
