Talk:High-definition television

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Første HDTV-kanal i Norge". Dagbladet. November 24, 2004. "Keeping up with technology". Mail-Tribune. July 21, 2004. Randy Cordova (November 2, 2006). "Ch. 12 to switch its newscast to high-definition". The Arizona Republic.

• Talk Archive 1 (Fox HDTV program listing ... Ads on external links)
• Talk Archive 2 (Resolutions diagram wrong? ... History of HDTV)

The "aspect ratio" entries on this table are wrong and non-sensical.

Is there any regional difference in the two region's HD signals as there is in SD NTSC vs. PAL? Or are HDTV sets simply global in standards? A 1080i-capable set in the USA could receive at 1080-i signal in Europe?

Europe still uses 25 and 50 frames per second, USA ~24, ~30 and ~60 fps.Totsugeki 06:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This response doesn’t really answer the question posed. As there appears to be backward compatibility to earlier SD standards, the table of digital video resolutions for HDTV, implies that it will handle differing frame rates for both NTSC and PAL (24, 30, 60; 25, 50 progressive and 50, 60 interlaced). As manufacturers naturally seek significant economies of scale in production, is there any difference in the HDTV’s for sale in North America from those sold in Europe (apart from the tuners and power inputs, of course) So, if not, can a PAL sourced video or DVD be viewed on a North American purchased HGTV without any problems? 70.68.182.33 22:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a fuzzy headache. I don't believe that there is any requirement that 50 hz work in the US, or 60 Hz work in Europe. It's likely that many manufacturers will do this, but you won't be able to count on anything, and will probably have to dig deep into manuals to see who supports what. It's UNLIKELY that you will see CRT based sets supporting the "foreign" field rates, because they would have to build different hardware to deal with each frequency. That is probably a primary reason we never got an agreement on a worldwide standard. LCDs and DLPs can switch frequency much easier. Algr 04:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veto

My 14 year old cheap TV supported Pal and NTSC. I was able to play on my Amiga Computer in both formats. AFAIR most cheap TVs from Asia did this, brand names did not. And also remember that PC-powersupply operates on various voltage- and frequencystandards. The OP is right with "economies of scale in production". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.77.233 (talk) 16:02, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

OK so maybe someone can explain to me why over the air broadcasters only broadcast 2 formats when their are 18 to choose from? Example: Cartoons and Film movies are both 24 fps so why when I watch the Simpsons on FOX do they transmit at 720p60 and I get interlace artifacts from the telecine? The same also goes for 1080i60. Why not just transmit at the native frame rate at with 1080p24? There is no equipment issue at the stations since this is all digital and the ATSC modulators doesn't care about the digital info they get as long as it isn't too much because the resolution and the frame rate are not integral to the ATSC modulator its just a bit stream. To convert everything to 1080i60 or 720p60 seams like allot of work and not necessary. If the flexibility was built into the system why ignore it on purpose and make things more complicated? Madzyzome 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: because Most TV's dont natively display 1080p, only the newest, so 1080i is the most common set right now.

NO! That did not answer my question. Didn't you read it? Obviously not. Please don't respond anonymously with useless answers, it takes up valuable bytes on the wikipeda servers.Madzyzome 04:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification to above: lesser displays (720p and 1080i) would display 1080p transmissions just fine, just downconverted (unless the television decoder is not compliant with ATSC). Totsugeki 06:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not 1080p24? Because most TVs can't display or accept 1080p. Why not 720p24? Depends on show source. Currently, a lot of programming on HD channels isn't from an HD source. Rather, a 480i source (taken from a D1, betacam or other tape)is upscaled to 720p or 1080i and transmitted that way. Also, consider what happens when you play a console or some other source and you change the resolution (especially through HDMI). Usually the screen blanks out for a little bit and comes back on. Something tells me that most of the TV stations want such an effect to happen as infrequently as possible, so they just find a frame rate that they can display all shows at and utilize the appropriate telecine filters and output everything at 60fps. This allows them to display all programming, regardless of source, on a continuous stream with no interruptions as the signal may change from 720p24 to 30 or to 60. Finally, the most important thing to consider is that TV is not a medium for the videophile, but rather the lowest common denominator. Most people don't notice said effects and even someone like me who's sensitive to video crap doesn't notice many of the effects of displaying 24 or 30 fps source at 60fps.Kakomu (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to question. Both 720p60 and 1080i30 require disparate station equipment. Various networks have selected one... ABC and ESPN (Disney) selected 720p60; CBS and Showtime (Viacom) selected 1080i30. Further complexity results when a CBS affiliate decides to purchase 720p60 and downconvert the network feed (it works). As to why 1080p24 is not one of the chosen two, it has visible flicker. 1080i60 cannot fit in a 6 MHz channel using MPEG-2 compression (and it looks awful with MPEG-4 compression). 480i30 is broadcast for another year (in analog) and looks fine on an HDTV set (for several reasons). Hope this answers your question. -Dawn McGatney

That's NPOV how? The "citation" for that sentiment is a blog.

It'd be at least somewhat valid to say "A survey of consumers show that initial consumer demand for HDTV was minimal." Or whatever source; followed with a citation, of course.

Hi there. I'm the owner of http://www.HDTV-GURU.com. As the owner and as a person looking for new content about HDTV, I was wondering what you guys know about SHDTV, or super high definition television. It seems very exciting. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moneer189 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC-8)

There is already an article for 3840 x 2160 (2160p) and (7680 x 4320) (Ultra High Definition Video )Thewikipedian 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference to the "Canadian Digital Television Offical Website", the link is broken! The link points to cdtv.ca, which is a registered domain, but pages from this site are not currently resolving.Audley Lloyd 22:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Audley Lloyd (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The last external link, CEA'S HDTV Guide, is broken. 24.6.113.149 17:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this section for a long time, realized it had to be completely rewritten, started to, and then realized that it just shouldn't be. It's wrong:
1. The big ongoing debate in the TV/film world is HD vs film, not HDTV. It's about should we shoot on HD or film, but it's obvious it will be broadcast on HDTV. And on the other end of the chain, nobody is wondering whether they should install a film projector in their living room or an HDTV set.
2. Even movie theaters are not considering HDTV vs. film, but higher-quality, higher-definition formats (see digital cinema).
3. From my mediocre wiki understanding, comparing X and Y is good, but "X vs Y" already sounds non-reference.
Binba 05:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there two very similar images of home cinema projection screens, and none of a standard high definition TV, when i'm sure the vast majority of HD TV viewers are only privy to the latter. Perhaps one of the images needs to be replaced? Yeanold Viskersenn 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, one of them needs to be swapped for a display using some other technology. --Ray andrew 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text said: "In addition, 720p is used more often with Internet distribution of HD video". I see the oposite, all the HD videos I downloaded from the web are 1080i. see for example: www.mariposahd.tv .Vmsa 03:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest add http://videos.howstuffworks.com/hdtv-video.htm to the external links section. --HybridBoy 06:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: Seems to be somewhat useful, but the full-motion ad that takes up half the screen is kind of annoying, and may violate WP:EL's prohibition against links with objectionable amounts of advertising. Leuko 19:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article incorrectly states Interlaced has a higher resolution and less frames than progressive. In fact it is the other way round 80.60.95.120 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ahhhh.... please explain yourself. Are we supposed to take a statement signed by an IP address at face value? Pstanton 04:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I will try to explain. 1. Resolution: 1080p -> 1080i - No higher resolution (on still image or parts). But half the bandwidth/bitrate. 720p -> 1080i - Higher resolution (on still image or parts) @ comparable bandwidths/bitrates. So the addition of "at similar/comparable bandwidths/bitrates" would be needed.

2. Movement rate: Interlaced frames hold two fields, and so field rate is double the frame rate. It's not common knowledge that the alternating fields can (and usually it does in television [at least in PAL] - except when broadcasting movies) hold different, running movement phases. This effectively doubles the movement rate, compared to a given frame/sec progressive mode material.

This is the true reason (except telecined movies) of the combing effect that occurs when such special frames (holding fields that belong to different movement phases) are displayed as like they where progressive, not interlaced, so both fields at the same time, which is a mistake! Proper deinterlacing must be done instead! (When done right, the result is comparable to a double frame/sec progressive material - just moving parts has a lesser vertical resolution [every other line is interpolated].)

(On a 50/60Hz CRT television, there is no combing because of interlacing, as it doesn't display both fields at the same time. 100/120Hz televisions differ in how they cope with the subject.)

ps. I don't know why this subject is completely missing on the "interlace page" of Wikipedia.

since this article can't be edited, please change to [[pt:HDTV]] --UlissesCarvalho 13:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that, ok. AxG ^{@ ►talk} 13:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2000s in television currently says "2009 in television - ... All Analog TV signals in the United States are mandated by law to be shut off and switched to HDTV format." If this is true, how come it's not mentioned in this article? Seems of pivotal importance to HDTV in general to me.--190.39.214.44 15:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such law. The FCC couldn't care less what resolution you broadcast in. In February 2009, all channels will have by that point shut off their analogue (NTSC) broadcasts and be broadcasting solely in digital (ATSC). --69.123.165.15 02:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is too a law. "Congress passed a law on February 1, 2006, setting a final deadline for the DTV transition of February 17, 2009. Most television stations will continue broadcasting both analog and digital programming until February 17, 2009, when all analog broadcasting will stop. Analog TVs receiving over-the-air programming will still work after that date, but owners of these TVs will need to buy converter boxes to change digital broadcasts into analog format. Converter boxes will be available from consumer electronic products retailers at that time. Cable and satellite subscribers with analog TVs should contact their service providers about obtaining converter boxes for the DTV transition."http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html71.247.42.134 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The law is for converting from analog signals to digital signals not SD to HD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.50.115.210 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram and text show PAL DV as being 768x576 pixels. This is incorrect. It is actually 720x576 pixels. The 768 figure is an equivalent in square pixels, to compensate for the non-square pixels. It may be using when creting graphics on a computer for PAL display, but the actual resolution is 720 pixels.

The NTSC frequency is 59.94Hz, not 60Hz ! This applies both to SD and HD. Strange nobody pointed that out.

Need some citation on "MPEG-2 is more commonly used". I understand that the HDTV systems in place in North America are mostly MPEG-2 based. This is unlikely to change soon as so many people have expensive hardware that would be rendered useless with an MPEG-4 switch... I know I wouldn't be happy! However, aren't the HDTV systems elsewhere in the world almost exclusively MPEG-4? Perhaps some metric is required here, comparing the number of installed tuners or broadcast channels for each standard, rather than a blaze statement that one standard is more common than another with nothing to back it up?

I'd suggest adding a link to http://www.thehighdefinitionguide.com. This site seems to answer a lot of questions about HD.

Explanations are in clear english and the inclusion of a FAQ and forum gives Wiki users who want to find out more a place to go...

I don't see the Windows PC as HDTV source? E.g. my LCD HDTV has VGA input, so I watched many HD movies I downloaded from the BitTorrent. BTW the page is uneditable for me. Maybe because my IP address is from Netherlands.

The actual resolutions which HDTV is broadcast is actually a little lower. They broadcast a percentage less lines to save on expensive bandwidth and the image is merely scaled to fit your tv. It is still more lines than standard def, but the way this article reads you could be forgiven for thinking that the tv stations actually BROADCAST 720 lines JayKeaton 19:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your mistaken, every line of 720p or 1080i is broadcast, perhaps you are thinking of overscan where your tv throws out some of the lines? --Ray andrew 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the official broadcast specifications instead of the numbers that are displayed on the television when it tunes into HDTV JayKeaton 07:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a link to any specification that says otherwise. Again I believe you are mistaken. --Ray andrew 13:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a "link" to anything, but if you like I can email you a scan of a report from the hi def summit earlier this year. Also if you look at the specs of the equiptment major tv stations in the US use to broadcast you will see the same thing. The companies that make the broadcasting stuff can be found online. JayKeaton 17:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there negative attributes listed in the "Advantages" section? I am disputing the neutrality of this article. --algocu 20:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't call that bias, so much as disorganized writing. I never did like that "non-engineering terms" section. The best way to organize a wiki article IMHO is to have things in simple terms at the top, and then go into more technical detail further in. Algr 06:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Disadvantages section, otoh, contains arguments which are not specific to HDTV, like the 16:9 format problems which are the same for e.g. WidePAL. Further, after studying the situation for quite a while, one big disadvantage is missing from this section, i.e. the lack of recordability on external media. To the contrary, the article goes on by stating that HDTV can be recorded on D-VHS and W-VHS. W-VHS is gone. D-VHS recorders have only input terminals (composite) which are incompatible with the output terminals on HDTV players or satellite receivers (HDMI). So, I assume this to be a real and significant disadvantage. Another disadvantage not mentioned in this section is that most known HDTV displays are only able to produce a good image when using HDTV signals. As long as there is still also PAL/NTSC to be displayed, these displays show problems in converting the SDTV signals into an acceptable image at the native resolution of the display. The only exceptions are CRT beamers and HD-Trinitron TV-sets from Sony which do not have fixed native resolutions. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 14:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The writing in this section could be improved but I see no bias problems in there.--Rtphokie 14:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who the heck wrote this?

Older films and programming that retain their 4:3 ratio display will be presented in a version of letterbox commonly called "pillar box," displaying bars on the right and left of 16:9 sets (rendering the term "fullscreen" a misnomer). While this is an advantage when it comes to playing 16:9 movies, it creates the same disadvantage when playing 4:3 television shows that standard televisions have playing 16:9 movies. A way to address this is to stretch the 4:3 image horizontally to fill the screen or reframe its material to 14:9 aspect ratio, either during preproduction or manually in the TV set.

This is bollocks. Why would anyone want to stretch a 4:3 image? Do people actually like things to look distorted? And "reframe" the material? In other words, chop off the top and bottom to fit 16:9? Why? Why is a 4:3 image on a 16:9 screen a "disadvantage"? A 16:9 screen size is meant to have flexibility, so that you can exhibit many different aspect ratios, such as widescreen 2.35:1, 1.66:1, and yes, 1.33:1, or 4:3. So what if there are pillars on the sides? If the Simpsons is 4:3, it should be viewed in 4:3.

The above section, taken from "Advantages of HD", is ignorant and certainly not neutral. Sladek 16:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed the whole paragraph. To me, it looked like an argument against, not for, HD. The topic of 4:3 material displayed on 16:9 screen is already covered under the heading of "Disadvantages..." Binksternet 17:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not that a 4:3 image on 16:9 having unused screen on the sides is inherently a disadvantage. Again, why is it a disadvantage? This is subjective.

Many consumers aren't satisfied with this unused display area and choose instead to distort their standard definition shows by stretching them horizontally to fill the screen, giving everything a too-wide or not-tall-enough appearance. Alternately, they'll choose to zoom the image which removes content that was on the top and bottom of the original TV show.

What is the consumer obsession with filling the screen, to the detriment of the image? There are many, many things that do not have 16:9 aspect ratio, and there are many people that see no problem whatsoever with "unused display area". Sladek 15:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dad's TV in the UK automatically stretches 4:3 pictures to fill the 16:9 display. There's an option to turn it off. The centre of the screen isn't stretched, just the edges. It's noticable if there's lots of straight lines, e.g. rail tracks, power lines, edges of buildings at the edge of the screen, since they become wonky lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.151.120 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a link in this article's External links section that points to a page I've maintained for some time now that lists all the HD programs that are available for download from the Xbox Live Marketplace service: http://kplusb.org/xboxlivehd/. Does that link seem like it might be useful to Wikipedia users who read this article? Bryan H Bell 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no objection so far, I'm adding the link. Bryan H Bell 20:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone trying to be clever added "HDTV is an answer to a question few viewers were asking" and added a reference to a blog in which a librarian pontificates about digital issues. Not only is that statement non-factual (lots of people wanted to know when HDTV was coming) it's "source" is not primary information and does not address the assertion made in that statement. Its not the purpose of an encyclopedia to provide commentary or "analysis" a la a newsmagazine. --papamurphy

Could the French 819 line monochrome system not be considered an early form of HDTV

Not really. Because it was interlaced, this system's theoretical best picture would have been clearly inferior to 720p. And of course it was black and white 4:3 only. In practice, the tube technology of the day meant that actual sets and broadcasts fell well below the quality that the signal could theoretically have delivered. Also, I wonder how many people actually owned such sets? Was it like the CBS color sets in the US in the 1950s? Algr (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1080i video is interlaced as well, yet is still considered HD. Rather, the defining features of HD appears to be twofold: resolution greater than the old standards (480i) and the fact that it's a digital source. This would exlucde 480p, because the resolution isn't any higher and would exclude the 755i source mentioned because it's not digital.Kakomu (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1969, NHK of Japan first developed commercial, high-definition television.[4] However, the system was not commercialized until late in the 1990s."

This is a completely paradoxical statement - If it was the first commercial HDTV, then it was, by definition commercialized.

A more appropriate phrasing would be "In 1969, NHK of Japan developed the first commercially-viable, HDTV.[4] However, these designs were not fully utilised commercially until late in the 1990s"

there is a lot in this article that reads like a brochure for some company ad. We need to get rid of that, hence I cited this for npov and cleanup. I removed some of the more offensive stuff down in the "equipment section." -Signed by Scryer_360, lazier than a Cadillac XLR in the turns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.91.137.171 (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I just went ahead and deleted the whole "HDTV equipment" section. Its a good idea to mention that people will need more than just the TV and standard sat-box to get HD, but I'll be damned if I let that corporate sounding trash reek all over wikipedia. I mean hell, it was talking about the "HD Experience" and how "buying your new HDTV can be a great experience." Firstly, Wiki articles never address the reader as "you." They never address the reader at all, this is a catalog of knowledge not a self-help book. Secondly, only corporate whores at BestBuy talk about HD Experiences. What the hell is that. I know its going to be a way to experience something, hell, thats what doing something has as baggage, you experience it. I do not need more badly written brochure material to tell me that.

Signed by an increasingly angry Scryer_360, who doesn't understand why corporations want to help Americans get dumber by writing sections like the old HDTV Equipment section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.91.137.171 (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]