Why HDTV is Useless

jagzjagz · 03-24-2006, 06:48 PM

I hate HDTV. 1080p at 60 frames a second is not possible? TV's that market as 1080p that do NOT support 1080p input? What the hell is this crap?

It's all a marketing ploy. Why the hell would we even be sticking to MPEG-2 when MPEG-4 is far superior, consumes less bandwidth, and allows for 1080p transmission without bandwidth constraints?

What the hell are they thinking? Plus current HDTV content that I've seen max's out at 1080i (interlaced, YUCK) and I still see grainy HDTV prints (I.e., Terminator 2).

What is the resolution of FILM? You could have 10 times the resolution of 1080p but what is the point if your film to print conversions are inherently grainy to begin with? Want to reproduce digital grainy pixels? It pisses me off. What is the theoretical digital resolution of older movies? Are newer movies being totally filmed in 1080p from now on (or more)? What is the resolution of the images we see in movie theatres?

If they really want to adopt HDTV properly, nothing should be interlaced, and every television should support full 1080p with 60 frames per second as a profile.

CRT's (I.e., computer monitors) have been capable of viewing HDTV content for YEARS. I'm using a 1280 x 1024 screen right now, just feed me some goddamn decent content!

They should help with monitor dot pitch. That'll squeeze things down and make things look really sexy for our computer monitors. Have them pump out 1080p on smaller displays. That's where the clarity is at, not at blowing up a mere 1080 resolution to fill an entire wall.

I don't know. I'm just frustrated at how stupid these sales people are who try and sell HDTV's to consumer's who really do not have a clue at the factors at play here.

Anyhow.. those are my preliminary thoughts.......

**rbinck** · 03-24-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Anyhow.. those are my preliminary thoughts.......

After you sleep on it, will you go which way? Cooler or madder?

ViperVenom18 · 03-24-2006, 09:14 PM

I agree, kind of a waste of a thread, settle down man.

However I do agree with you totally... It's just how the consumer electronics business has spread to everything now, and nothing will stop it.

pioneer863 · 03-24-2006, 10:31 PM

All their trying to do is keep the initial cost as low as possible for the customer tell HD becomes more acceptable by the avg person. Most people won't spend an arm and a leg for a TV. it's people like us that get the ball rolling and pay the high cost for something that is still pretty new to the masses.

jagzjagz · 03-24-2006, 11:21 PM

I guess so, but irrespective of that, it seriously should not have taken this long to get any changes in resolution to our television screens. The technology is all there. Consumers are willing to pay to get these systems in their houses. The problem is they are being misinformed, misled, and people aren't being given the right information.

On top of that, the right products aren't being sold, and there is just too much crap out there that doesn't make sense (even for people like us that actually research everything to find the truth).

ah802 · 03-24-2006, 11:47 PM

Over time things will improve... right now broadcast bandwidth limits are the issue for 1080p. We really don't need 60 fps...(are you limiting frames because of line voltage?) when most movies are shot at 24fps... we just need them to faithfully rotoscope the frames and let our electronics handle it from there. Most of the big blockbusters with digital effects have been manipulated at the 4kX6k range... and the play nicely on oversized IMAX screens, so for HT a little less will do.

The idea is that WS + HD + THX sound = an eye opener, and everyone buys in. But it looks like there is a lot of cheating going on.... and JQPublic is starting to notice the greed, and that's a spoiler.

**rbinck** · 03-25-2006, 08:32 AM

I had a comment sent to my blog on the 1080p broadcast issue. It in not just the 19mbs channel that is restrictive. Well here, read for yourself:
Steve on 1080p

fuzzy pete · 03-25-2006, 01:21 PM

after watching sd tv for over fifty years or fuzzy tv as i call it know.i really appreciate the hd i have know in my home.but it toke awhile for ma eyes to get use to it.i'am not tech savvy but i know what looks good to me.

Phototone · 03-25-2006, 05:59 PM

I think HD is great. After 50 years of fuzzy images, we can now have "tack" sharp TV....and no visible scanning lines. Film has grain, get over it. Some movies are grainer than others, so what? I would rather see grain and sharpness, than a soft picture anyday. I have no problem with 1080i. If you want perfection, just set your HD Cable box to DiscoveryHD, and throw away the remote. HD programming in 1080i is not the problem anyway. 1080i can look as good as theatrical exhibition. It is "compression" that is the culprit, as far as image artifacts are concerned.

I am a commercial photographer, I use film and digital. The higher resolution the digital capture, the more you see the flaws in the camera lenses taking the picture. Just a fact of life.

borromini · 03-25-2006, 06:38 PM

To declare that HDTV is useless because 1080p input and/or content is not available is lame, IMO. There are many folks out there including me enjoying 720p/1080i HD.

03-24-2006, 06:48 PM	#1
jagzjagz What is HD? Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 3	Why HDTV is Useless I hate HDTV. 1080p at 60 frames a second is not possible? TV's that market as 1080p that do NOT support 1080p input? What the hell is this crap? It's all a marketing ploy. Why the hell would we even be sticking to MPEG-2 when MPEG-4 is far superior, consumes less bandwidth, and allows for 1080p transmission without bandwidth constraints? What the hell are they thinking? Plus current HDTV content that I've seen max's out at 1080i (interlaced, YUCK) and I still see grainy HDTV prints (I.e., Terminator 2). What is the resolution of FILM? You could have 10 times the resolution of 1080p but what is the point if your film to print conversions are inherently grainy to begin with? Want to reproduce digital grainy pixels? It pisses me off. What is the theoretical digital resolution of older movies? Are newer movies being totally filmed in 1080p from now on (or more)? What is the resolution of the images we see in movie theatres? If they really want to adopt HDTV properly, nothing should be interlaced, and every television should support full 1080p with 60 frames per second as a profile. CRT's (I.e., computer monitors) have been capable of viewing HDTV content for YEARS. I'm using a 1280 x 1024 screen right now, just feed me some goddamn decent content! They should help with monitor dot pitch. That'll squeeze things down and make things look really sexy for our computer monitors. Have them pump out 1080p on smaller displays. That's where the clarity is at, not at blowing up a mere 1080 resolution to fill an entire wall. I don't know. I'm just frustrated at how stupid these sales people are who try and sell HDTV's to consumer's who really do not have a clue at the factors at play here. Anyhow.. those are my preliminary thoughts.......

03-24-2006, 11:47 PM	#6
ah802 Visual Arts Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,241	I reserve full opinion for two years.... or should the dust settle. Over time things will improve... right now broadcast bandwidth limits are the issue for 1080p. We really don't need 60 fps...(are you limiting frames because of line voltage?) when most movies are shot at 24fps... we just need them to faithfully rotoscope the frames and let our electronics handle it from there. Most of the big blockbusters with digital effects have been manipulated at the 4kX6k range... and the play nicely on oversized IMAX screens, so for HT a little less will do. The idea is that WS + HD + THX sound = an eye opener, and everyone buys in. But it looks like there is a lot of cheating going on.... and JQPublic is starting to notice the greed, and that's a spoiler.

03-25-2006, 08:32 AM	#7
rbinck Administrator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Katy, Texas Posts: 12,335	I had a comment sent to my blog on the 1080p broadcast issue. It in not just the 19mbs channel that is restrictive. Well here, read for yourself: Steve on 1080p __________________ www.highdefinitionblog.com www.BlogOfHawaii.com

03-25-2006, 01:21 PM	#8
fuzzy pete What is HD? Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4	appreciate after watching sd tv for over fifty years or fuzzy tv as i call it know.i really appreciate the hd i have know in my home.but it toke awhile for ma eyes to get use to it.i'am not tech savvy but i know what looks good to me.

03-25-2006, 05:59 PM	#9
Phototone High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 148	I think HD is great. After 50 years of fuzzy images, we can now have "tack" sharp TV....and no visible scanning lines. Film has grain, get over it. Some movies are grainer than others, so what? I would rather see grain and sharpness, than a soft picture anyday. I have no problem with 1080i. If you want perfection, just set your HD Cable box to DiscoveryHD, and throw away the remote. HD programming in 1080i is not the problem anyway. 1080i can look as good as theatrical exhibition. It is "compression" that is the culprit, as far as image artifacts are concerned. I am a commercial photographer, I use film and digital. The higher resolution the digital capture, the more you see the flaws in the camera lenses taking the picture. Just a fact of life. Last edited by Phototone; 03-25-2006 at 06:02 PM.

03-24-2006, 09:14 PM	#3
ViperVenom18 High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 641	I agree, kind of a waste of a thread, settle down man. However I do agree with you totally... It's just how the consumer electronics business has spread to everything now, and nothing will stop it.

03-24-2006, 10:31 PM	#4
pioneer863 Rear Projection HDTV Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Minneapolis Age: 37 Posts: 48	All their trying to do is keep the initial cost as low as possible for the customer tell HD becomes more acceptable by the avg person. Most people won't spend an arm and a leg for a TV. it's people like us that get the ball rolling and pay the high cost for something that is still pretty new to the masses.

03-24-2006, 11:21 PM	#5
jagzjagz What is HD? Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 3	I guess so, but irrespective of that, it seriously should not have taken this long to get any changes in resolution to our television screens. The technology is all there. Consumers are willing to pay to get these systems in their houses. The problem is they are being misinformed, misled, and people aren't being given the right information. On top of that, the right products aren't being sold, and there is just too much crap out there that doesn't make sense (even for people like us that actually research everything to find the truth).

03-25-2006, 06:38 PM	#10
borromini HT Frontiersman Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Northern California Posts: 9,822	To declare that HDTV is useless because 1080p input and/or content is not available is lame, IMO. There are many folks out there including me enjoying 720p/1080i HD. __________________ "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"