Video Asylum

Posted by DWPC (A) on August 09, 2006 at 09:15:30

In Reply to: I finally have HDTV! But what's up with the poor quality HD signals out there? posted by kurt s on August 9, 2006 at 08:00:05:

In general, HD picture quality varies considerably from exquisite to terrible. You've probably recognized thet most content on HD channels isn't HD. On the major networks, I don't think they do any true HD at optimimum res. It looks better than Std Def, but the occasional true HD program instantly shows how much potential quality is ignored. The true HD features on Discovery or PBS are stunning and stand out dramatically over the routine "psuedo HD" stuff. The colors are more impressive than the sharpness. You never realize how color-limited SDTV is 'til you see true HDTV. The problem is that its virtually all nature and travel stuff. For all their HD glory, one grows weary of watching bugs, fish, and the Tomato-throwing Fiesta in Spain.

I know that providers often compress the HD content to preserve bandwidth, at least partially defeating the whole notion of hi def. It also seems to me that digital television handle neither contrast or low level lighting well at all. Not good considering how low level lighting has become standard fare in most "drama" shows. So the cave-dwellers of "24" and "CSI" are almost always murky and blotchy viewed in HD . The best HD stuff is always that which was well and evenly illuminated.

The TV industry seems to be largely ignoring HD as a specific vehicel and is just stuffing the same crap into the HD pipe. IMO, they only intend use HD to make Std Def more viewable on large screens. Beyond that, HD's promise is still hype. Except for sports, I'd wouldn't advise anyone to buy an HDTV for the programming. Its got a long, long way to go.