Talk:High-definition television/Archive 1

message: According to the daily HD program listing on http://www.titantv.com, there is no HD program offered by Fox as of Dec 2003.  Someone added Fox to the list which may or may not be valid. 
:Fox began HD network broadcasts in October 2004 --Blainster 08:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fox HDTV program listing

message: :A cable company called Voom is currently the largest HD provider offering upwards of 40 High Definition channels.
I thought Voom is a satellite provider?  I may be wrong though.  Kowloonese 00:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Voom is in fact a satellite broadcaster.  They were owned by CableVision but with financial losses mounting while struggling to build a subscriber base, they have sold one satellite to Echostar (Dish network) and sold the rest of the company to a small investor group led by CableVision's Chairman.  --Blainster 08:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voom a cable company??? 

message: Unlinked Euro1080 since it was recursive (ie linked back to the HDTV article) Lee M 00:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link 

message: As I understand it the original Japanese HDTV system used 1125 scan lines, which is equivalent to 1080i. Is that wrong? Lee M 00:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really like clarification on this point. If the original HDTV system is equivalent to 1080i then the statement that "Their old system is not compatible with the new digital standards" is false. Lee M 01:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall, because the Japanese HD system was analog, the 1125 number included "off screen" scan lines during the screen refresh.  Only 1035i of those lines had picture data in them.  This is similar to NTSC having 525 lines, but only 480 of them actually have video information.  In digital video, the off screen lines are not counted, so NTSC is counted as 480i. Algr 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Japanese system incompatible? 

message: Despite being made in HDTV a lot of American shows are still being distributed to the UK in NTSC, resulting in a noticeable loss of quality. Are the distributors holding back the HD masters for the DVD releases? Lee M
:And additionally I'd like to know whether Fox News and CNN International originate their European transmissions in NTSC or HD. Lee M 14:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cable networks in the United States are decidedly NTSC.  No loss of quality from the original if it's already analogue. --Alexwcovington 14:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cable networks in US metropolitan areas have hybrid networks carrying both NTSC (analog) and QAM (digital) SD programming.  Many have added HD programming in the last year, which requires changing the cable set top box (STB).  HDTVs are now beginning to  appear with CableCard slots which allow reception of cable programs without needing an STB.  And most all evening scripted primetime programming (that is,  excepting "reality" shows) is now produced and broadcast in HD.  I doubt if there is any "holding back" of HD content for any reason but licensing or transmission issues.  --Blainster 08:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My cable company Interactive Optimum transmits content to the end-user in both QAM and NTSC.  They push NTSC down on the CATV frequencies for analog users, and they also push many channels (including some that are also pushed down CATV) to digital boxes (QAM).  Also, they are acquiring more and more programming via MPEG-compressed feeds from satellites.  But many of these are still originated in NTSC standard, then converted for satellite uplink.  --Tonsofpcs 06:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you mean that the shows are being distributed in PAL? --   23:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean NTSC-M (RS-170a, 7.5 IRE Black).  The United States of America is NTSC land. --tonsofpcs (Talk) 20:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  And finally a gripe... 

message: Should BluRay be moved from "Future media" to "Recording and prerecorded media"? It is now expected to be on the market within a few months...
:It should be moved after the products are introduced to the market. --Blainster 04:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: XD-Cam (Sony's 'Professional Disc') is a proprietary BluRay format and is on the market now.  Also note that (for future) Panasonic's P2 is due to be released in September.  --Tonsofpcs 00:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: This article is about the HD format itself.  Information on products using it would be more appropriate in the respective articles on those types of products.  --Blainster 04:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current/Future 

message: hi, are these pics usefull for the main article?
Image:Raster graphic fish 40X46squares hdtv-example.jpg|HDTV
Image:Raster graphic fish 40x46 20x23 overlay hdtv-sdtv-example.jpg|HDTV - SDTV comparission
Image:Raster graphic fish 20x23squares sdtv-example.jpg|SDTV
Image:Raster graphic fish (original-size-and-sdtv-hdtv-comparision)(originalgroesse-zu-sdtv-hdtv-vergleich).png
feel free tu discuss them here User:Andreas -horn- Hornig/Think Tank , --Andreas -horn- Hornig 21:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers for that 'resolution' image (far right) are wrong.  Not as bad as the current one, but still wrong.  --tonsofpcs (Talk) 03:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating pictures 

message: Below is a link to one detailed and funny post on the politics behind HDTV. It can go a long way in enriching this article. I am sure I had seen it sometime in 2002, but never able to dig it out as slashdot search is very weak. 
: I think that comment is wrong. Read  instead. ABostrom 19:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good synopsis of the politics behind HDTV 

message: "Moving images were thus blurred in a manner similar to using 16mm movie film for HDTV projection." What does this mean?
:That is in reference to Multiple_sub-nyquist_sampling_Encoding  --tonsofpcs (Talk) 20:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't understand. 

message: Both the introduction to this article and the television resolution graphic identify Secam as a standard definition standard. But the Secam section of this article refers to it as HDTV. Is Secam rightly identified as SDTV, or does it belong to some legacy set of HDTV?
: The SECAM currently used is not the same as SECAM 755i -- ABostrom 19:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secam? 

message: This section has several "Advantages" that have nothing to do with HDTV, so I'm pulling them out.  (For example, plenty of low resolution sets can read memory sticks - and there is no conection between using 3 chips and becoming HD.  The only such cameras for under $1000 are Panasonic's and they are NOT HD - the cheapest HD camera is a Sony one-chip.Algr 09:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advantages of HD TV technology expressed in non-engineering terms

message: In the section Stereoscopic 3D television is far more practical with HD technology, it is not clear how HDTV would make 3D TV more practical.  Based on the physics of stereoscopy, HD or not HD should not make a difference at all.  This section does not make sense as is.  Can someone expand on the topic to justify the section heading?  Kowloonese 22:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can speculate that digital TV's support for multiple video tracks would make it much easier to transmit a separate image for each eye.  Regular viewers could just watch one perfectly-normal channel, and not have to do anything special.  With data compression, you could also make the second channel share data with the first one, (Something like how P and B frames work.) so the second eye would need much less data, and both could run at near the resolution of a single HD image.  However I have not heard that anyone is actually _doing_ any of this - it just seems possible to me. Algr 22:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May be so!  But the article does not go into clear explanation.  While it is true that bandwidth allows the transmission of more video data required by the left right eye images, but the extra video signal is useless unless the display can present these images in two distinguishable ways so that the left and right eye would pick up the different images.  The Red/Green images filtered through Red/Green lens can selectively pass the two separate images to separate eyes, but the weird color gives the viewers a headache.  Recently the TV show Medium presented some black and white dream sequences in 3-D using the Red/Green images.  In my opinion, those Black and White images don't do justice to HDTV's vivid color capability, though the HD gives a sharp 3-D image.  Another approach is to use electronic shutter to block up alternating left and right images, that require special hardware that does not come with standard HDTV nor DVD players.  So I don't see how that is the reason why many 3D movies is going to be made available on HD-DVDs.  Like the Disney 3D technologies used in theaters, they change the polarization of the projected light so that the polarized 3D lens can be used to pick out one of the two images for each eye.  But regular HDTV has no such polarization capability.  So the bottom line is that the statement HDTV would make 3D TV more practical needs some backing.  I cannot see how anyone can make such a conclusion.  Did I miss some advanced HDTV feature that would explain that?  Kowloonese 23:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3D TV?

message: Several years ago, the major US Networks held a public "3D experiment" based upon left-right eye 
perception differences of shades of gray v/s time.  (Darker images get processed slower).  
You would wear a gray lens (20% ?) over one eye to watch, and some magic was done at the 
filming/editing/processing studio to produce a "3D" moving image.  The process seems related 
to the derived 3D images captured by NASA from a single moving satellite.  What ever else is done 
at the studio is a mystery.  However, the human brain somehow perceives depth after the studio 
magic has been done.  Without the dark lens, you wouldn't know it was there.  The effect was 
lost in still shots. But for motion, I thought it was effective, and very cheap.  No polarizing, 
red/green, or other switching technology was used, and the only down side was feeling silly 
wearing half a rayban.  
HDTV, with it's greater range of light level resolution, might make the 3D effect more pronounced.  
Or, the converse might occur.  
Can anyone comment on this 3D technique and how it would interplay with the resolution power of HDTV?
:* That technique is far more of a gimmick then regular 3D.  If your left eye is darkened, the camera must perpetually move to the right in order for the effect to work - either straight, or circling the action. The idea is that if you delay the image as seen by the left eye, the left eye will see the scene where the camera has been a fraction of a second earlier - which would be a few inches to the left of what the camera is seeing.  (There is no studio processing, you could do this with a home movie camera shooting out of a car window.)  But any other movement in the shot would cause the two eyes to see images that don't match.  My impression is that HDTV could expose more errors and mismatching between the two shots, and thus make the 3D effect less effective.  Or it might not make any difference one way or the other.  I doubt that HD would improve this.Algr 18:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * That is not new discovery.  I remember I used to have a Laser Disc (those 12" platter) like more than 10 years ago on 3-D imagery .  The LD cames with all kind of 3-D glasses including the light-dark glasses you mentioned.  The 3-D effect shows in all panning shots in a certain direction. The panning does the trick, there is no need for special processing.  Kowloonese 22:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  information about hdtv AND 3D 

message: I think that the external links section redirects to a number of sites which appear to be custom designed for reporting Google ads and similar. Who is in charge of checking and (eventually) deciding to remove them? Cantalamessa 16:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ads on external links