Talk:Enhanced-definition television

message: Now I need someone to check grammar and spelling. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote the article 

message: Anyone have a list of channels that broadcast in EDTV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.255.168.44 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EDTV TV Channels 

message: There is one question that this page doesn't seem to answer. Can the normal crts, the ones that millions of people have owned for the past 15 years, display ED? Or is it only possible on the newer HD sets? JayKeaton 10:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest requirement is the ability to scan at 31.5 kHz. Any "computer" CRT dating back to VGA (1987) can do this. (You may need an adapter to convert YPP components to RGB+sync components.) But "standard resolution" CRTs such as those used in SDTV sets and JAMMA arcade monitors can display only SDTV. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ED Question

message: "EDTV generally refers to video with picture quality beyond what is broadcastable in NTSC or PAL, but not sharp enough to be considered High-definition television (HDTV)."
However, near the end of the article, there's also this:
"In the United States, the ATSC official DTV formats include SDTV, and HDTV. EDTV is considered part of the HDTV standard."
To my understanding, a 480 (or 576) line resolution is not "High-definition" by any widespread standard, that term only being used to denote the 720p and higher resolutions.  Unless I missed something here. At any rate, this contradiction should be noted.  RyokoYaksa 23:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDTV or not? 

message: The statement "50% more perceived vertical resolution than interlaced" is only true in the context of a moving subject, but its entirely false in the case of a stationary subject. Anyone want to come up with a better wording? --Ray andrew 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  50% more perceived vertical resolution than interlaced 

message: Support - I support merging Extended-definition television into Enhanced-definition television. A simple move of content from Extended-definition television, while keeping non-duplicate data would be fine. — IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 10:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Extended-definition television]] 

message: I don't know much about the resolution standards, but the graph in the article clearly seems to state that 854*480 is what EDTV is. Yet this format isn't mentioned even once in the article. Shouldn't it be?
(It's in the green part here:)
Image:EDTV Resolutions.png
--LeGUIGUI (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That resolution has been a long standing headache for the article.  Some plasma displays used to be made at 854 x 480 pixels, but nothing was ever natively shot or broadcast at that pixel count.  Actual broadcasts use 704 or 720 pixels horizontal.  But this uses non-square pixels, so if you draw a rectangle with 720x480 pixels, it comes out with a non-standard 2:3 aspect ratio.  Since people drawing the chart need 854 pixels to make the shape of the screen 16:9, that is what we keep seeing.  Algr (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So basicaly, EDTV have a 720*480 resolution, but the use use of non-square pixel give it the size of a square pixel screen of 854*480, right? And if an ED video (720*480) is diplayed by an HDTV with square pixel and 16/9 ratio (for example, 1280*720) it will be interpreted as a 854*480 video and then upsacaled to the size of the screen. Did I get it right?--LeGUIGUI (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Close.  An HD set would resample the 720 horizontal pixels directly into whatever it's native horizontal resolution was.  (1280 in your example) There would be no need to turn 720 into 854 first.   Another example of non-square pixels is the anamorphic lenses that can be placed on any camera (film or video) to change it's aspect ratio.  It doesn't change the number of pixels or film grains you have, it just changes there shape, and thus the shape of the screen.  Algr (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of the 854*480 

message: The end of the introduction says "in Australia the 576p digital TV system is officially recognized as high definition."
One broadcaster may choose to claim 576p is "HD" as mentioned in the reference, but that's hardly official. 124.176.20.49 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition as high definition 

message: Can I use an EDTV that is not specified as an HDTV to watch cable HDTV?  Maybe it would not look quite as good, but would it basically work?  BTW the specific EDTV in question is a Samsung SP-P4231 NS42D4, but that of course is not as important to the article's content as the practical general question.  Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it obsolete or compatible with HDTV? 

message: Many shows were in fact broadcast in edtv. I don't know why it's a point of confusion. Fox40 in Sacramento, not super far from Grass Valley Group, did broadcast some episodes of Star Trek the Next Generation in edtv, even including a scroller before the broadcast that "this program is in edtv". I'm certain there were other's but I was too busy producing the hardware to watch many shows back then.
Certain tv's of the era were capable of receiving these broadcasts. In fact right now I have a plasma edtv with full receiving capability. 
And no it wasn't ever properly defined on horizontal resolution, some sources are different than others. Probably due to being an even multiple of digital video data, or being a relative to analog. Hence there's multiple explanations of the horizontal resolutions. And I'm 99% sure the stations just used whatever the manufacturers provided. 
DVD's are their own animal. Widescreen DVD's can be stretched to fill from regular sdtv, in anamorphic lens(720x480), shrunken letterbox(like vhs), or be genuine 852ish by 480, or any format that worked. I've seen all of these being used. In point of fact, auto-stretch is super common, just check any dvd's actual frame format. Don't be surprised to see anything from 480x480 to 900x512, it's literally just a disc with digital data. The player is responsible for making that into a video signal.
 
Grass Valley was a place I worked at and was physically there during the first HD tv recordings and transmission(internally) of the Olympics in the 90's. And yes we had tons of edtv support gear being built at the time for local stations. Therefore edtv was active, being transmitted, and more hardware was actively being ordered. As to the number of able receivers, well who knows?
I've never run into a e-vhs deck, but the d-vhs decks were designed to handle it. There were also widescreen modes in Hi-8mm, and Betacam that were specifically for edtv distribution. Yes there was a time when double horizontal resolution was a selling point. Of course it wasn't really double, that's just how they referred to it.
In later years I discovered that due to "stabilization tricks" they actually were often greater resolution than was thought of. It's just they output whatever they were told to in the circuitry. Actual sensors were often just square 1024x1024 and then cropped electronically to make whatever format was required. The extra space was to allow the primitive digital stabilization to have enough "image" room to move.
And yes this information can be included with any edit's required. I was just hoping to expand the knowledge on this subject. Nojoeco (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  edtv was broadcast. Absolutely confirmed