Brits are HD TV numpties So you are a reghardware reader and you already know that for high definition TV viewing, you need watch your content through a bolt-on hi-def set top box, Blu-ray player or PS3 console. But what about the population at large? More than six million Brits think they are already watching High-definition television - but are not …
Your last paragraph reads like there are 41 channels via Sky that are free-to-view, thankfully though those HDTV numpties aren't going to be reading reghardware.
How picky are we being as there is a lot of content that has been 'upscaled' that is being punted as HD, which in my book doesn't really do it justice, it needs to be filmed in HD and broadcast in HD, connected via HDMI for a true eyewatering picture quality to come through.
In response to some of Sky's early advertising around HD, I lodged a complaint with Advertising Standards, who bounced it on to Ofcom. My complaint was around the number of hours each month that Sky had HD programming. My argument was the same - that for it to be considered HD then surely it must be filmed in HD.
The response was:
"We would not dispute that much of Sky's HD output is up-scaled standard definition programming rather than content filmed in HD. However this material is still being broadcast in an HD format (720 or 1080 lines) and would therefore be correctly regarded as HD."
You see, when you consider what utter rubbish is provided on the vast majority of channels, you need to consider whether these are numpties for buying HDTV without the adequate kit or whether they are numpties for buying HDTV for watching channels that generally don't show shows that are up to being broadcast in higher definitions.
Personally, I believe that we are numpties for paying through the nose for so much junk. The picture quality doesn't really enter into it.
The problem is you cannot "buy" a tv that is not HD!
Last time I bought a TV in around 2007 or 2008 I specifically looked for one without HD because standard definition channels on an HD set look ugly as sin... I had so much difficulty to find even one that wasn't HD two years ago, I dread to think what it is like now.
Well the HD rollout goes on and next on the horizon is the 3D TV fad. You know what I am sick of changing formats and re-purchasing kit because the manufacturers feel the need to make more money out of us.
The only HD content an average HD set is likely to see in its lifetime is the rolling demo played in the store to sell it to you.
I've done live sound engineering, and most people don't notice a nasty feedback-y howler, let alone the difference in quality between CD and 128 bit mp3. It's not that people are stupid, just that they don't care. They could however spot the difference between CD and tape, because tapes were nasty even before they got stretched and sounded horrible.
While I'm much less qualified to talk about pictures, I strongly suspect the same applies here. There's a massive difference between VHS and DVD. Is there a similar jump in quality between DVD and Blueray? HD is better, but is it enough that people who aren't looking can tell. Again I'd say the same with TVs. LCDs are now so much nicer than CRTs, and that's a huge jump in picture quality that most people probably assume is caused by HD - rather than just the fact they've upgraded the old telly.
My experience is pretty limited with HD content, but of the films I've watched the only one that stood out was Martin Scorsese's Rolling Stones live DVD 'Shine a LIght'. I've not seen it in normal definition, so I've no idea if what amazed me about the quality was just how much better it was than the usual run of the mill live music DVDs, or its HD superbness.
The manufacturers didn't help with their abuse of the term HD when trying to shift the early, crappy HD TVs that they were trying to dump on the market a few years back. And of course a downside of going for Blueray rather than HD-DVD is that it's just another thing to confuse consumers. HD-DVD does exactly what it says on the tin, Blueray means nothing to people.
Clearly there's a home theatre market, that will pay out thousands to have superb set up, but I'm not sure if that's going to go mainstream, because most people just don't care enough. I guess when Blueray is as cheap as DVD people will switch, but I doubt there'll be the same bonanza as when people dumped their VHS and rebought the same content on DVD. I guess people will just have Blueray players with DVD upscaling.
People don't care.
For most people the jump from an old CRT to a large LCD is enough of a leap in 'quality'. Me included come to that. I can tell the difference between DVD and blu-ray (just about). But it's not enough of an improvement to make me want to rush out and buy a new 1080p screen and blue-ray player.
An absolute fact; Standard Definition Content is best viewed on a top end CRT based TV; High Definition is best viewed in 1080P which requires a HD signal source connected via an HDMI cable. As it is now only possible to purchase TVs that are optimised for HD the best solution for most viewers is to use a SD signal that is 1080P upscaled to the maxim resolution of the screen (e.g. Humax 9300T). This gives all programmes a nearish HD quality that looks much more pleasing to the eye. SD on a HD TV is very poor, have you ever wondered why shops never display flat panel televisions showing SD Freeview?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
