Talk:High-definition television/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

high-definition is suggested to be a digital resolution

HD was not only defining a certain amount of pixels. It defined a resolution of the image, which didn't necessarily have to be digital. Don't forget that in the past the (HD) image was transferred in an analog way without any digital encoding. The term HD could be used in the context of the bandwidth of an analog connection, or with the capability of a used lens, which has nothing to do with pixels. I've understood a device can be considered HD if it is capable of resolving/transfering more than 800 TVL (vertical TV-lines).

The various digital resolutions and frame rates should not be in the introduction chapter. They are "implementation".

I am in favour of merging the article High-defition_video into this article. After all, high definition first appeared in television (if we ignore film). Only after that came digital high-definition video for consumers, and even later HD editing on a computer. This historical context is important to understand the definition of HD.

Robijn (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

stiff language

What is a temporal "low-power pre-DSO multiplex" transmitter, (not multiplexer) ?PaulPeter188.25.54.114 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I could not find this on the page. Mackatackastewart (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

yeah vs nah

Is there any statistical-research on the emergence via consummer support of the Digital HDTV vs analog TV ? What about India's government reactions on the "HDTV is an expensive revolution in the market" ?PaulPeter188.25.54.114 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We definately should include some kind of evaluation of HD if suitable sources are available. I personally doubt that most people can really tell the difference most of the time, especially between "HD Ready" and "Full HD" and I am sure off the top of my head that there must be other Notable critics of the effort involved to make this industry-led change.

IceDragon64 (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

lack of notoriety

Wouldn't wikipedia.org have any succes in the field of consumer electronics & home appliances. I mean the article on howto use the 1080p TV set in discussion lacks. Step by step instructions for Grundig 129kW LCD would be interesting to me, too you know.PaulPeter188.25.54.114 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

cut-off section

inthe type of media section, the article has big lacks. Not anywheere in the seection the reader is informed of the ANALOG VS DIGITAL differences for it. Does Jimmy need to know what he already knoes, or should he look up on wikipedia to find a meaning of his old floppy disks Sony left off on him ?PaulPeter188.25.54.114 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

commercial

A "CableCard" written as shown in the article, relates to a product of a company. By writting Cable-card word in a single word, plus different caps, you are doing either: hidden commercial for someone, or the auter is unnaware of small caps & spaces. I think both are ruled out by Wikipedia.org If you are kind and look up, there has to be a single specific symbol near the word, a symbol-round. Shoulld author know he's infringment some laws, or does Jimmy Wales' picture conjure ?PaulPeter188.25.54.114 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

standard / ptent

What country has addopted the 'hdtv standards is nowhere in this article. I propose for deletion because the standard involved is between companies, IN THE UNITED STATES. Has little to nothing to do with E.U.PaulPeter188.25.54.114 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

SD

SD stands for Secure Digital from Sony & co, and is copyright protected.PaulPeter188.25.54.114 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Archives

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Not Moved. (See Talk:Liquid crystal display#requested move for similar discussion.) Station1 (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

High-definition television → HDTV — Per WP:ABBR, Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (e.g., NASA and radar). GraYoshi2x►talk 02:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  • No, thank you. Firstly, Television is at "Television" not "TV". Secondly, "HDTV" is not an acronym. It can't be pronounced, having no vowels, unlike NASA or radar, or Laser. Thirdly, no-one ever actually says "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" or "Light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation" and it is unthinkable that those articles would be titled thus.
But people will say "high-definition television". Sometimes they will say "HD television". They may say "High def TV". Very often they will just say "HD". "HD" is one abbreviation, "TV" is another. So there is a case for "HD TV". But just keep it where it is and provide redirects from other plausible search terms. Sussexonian (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
"HD" is distinct from "HDTV". Almost no one uses awkward terms like "HD television" or "high def TV" either. And where does it say that acronyms have to be pronounceable? Show it to me, please. Otherwise your argument is a fallacy in itself! GraYoshi2x►talk 19:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, I hear "HD television" used a lot; including retailers. For example, Sears [1], buy.com [2], Kmart [3], Bonton [4]. TJ Spyke 22:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't speak for anyone else, but I hear "High-definition television" said frequently. It is a very common term from what I have seen. TJ Spyke 03:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't exactly heard that mentioned anywhere, and I've been in both sides of the US. GraYoshi2x►talk 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You must be in isolated areas then. Hell, even a simple Google search shows how common it is. "High-definition television" gets 1.35 million hits [5]. The term is also used in many retailers and books [6]. TJ Spyke 22:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Above reasonings are valid & I fully agree with them. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  07:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind though, that Sussexonian seems to have based his/her arguments on simple misconceptions. GraYoshi2x►talk 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The acronym/abbreviation distinction is important in applying the policy quoted by GraYoshi. The examples quoted (NASA, radar) are acronyms and have the specific features that (i) they are pronounceable and (ii) they are hardly ever spoken as complete phrases. 'Patriot Act' is another example where Wikipedia's article is named for the abbreviation. 'FBI' and 'CIA' are not: they are phrases spoken as abbreviations/initialisms and their full forms are well known. I have commented similarly on GraYoshi's attempt to move Liquid crystal display to 'LCD'. Sussexonian (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
More misconceptions. "CIA" and "FBI" are far more well known than their full counterparts. Again, acronym != pronounceable. Please don't comment when you hardly know what you're talking about. GraYoshi2x►talk 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons everyone's given above, plus this: When an initialism is used to describe 2K resolution television, it's virtually always just plain "HD". When the term "HDTV" is used, it generally describes a television set capable of receiving and displaying a high definition television signal. ie you buy an "HDTV" to watch "HD" or watch "high definition television" or watch "television in high definition". As an aside, yes, the definition of the word acronym requires that it be pronounceable: it has to form a "word"[1], I used to make the same mistake of thinking it was a synonym for "initialism". FBI is an initialism, NASA is generally considered an acronym, and GNU is definitely an acronym. --208.152.231.254 (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

  1. ^ Definitions by Google

Should there be a listing of TV networks which broadcast in HD?

Should there be a listing of networks that are offered in the HD format? I think that people would like to know which networks offer the HD option and which ones don't. I am positive that there are a lot of happy people now that Turner Classic Movies has started airing their broadcasts in HD, as of October 2009. I wonder how many people would get HD if they knew their favorite network was available in HD, as well as standard transmission? 204.80.61.110 (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk

There is a listing in the article: High-definition television in the United States. This has a listing of the broadcast and cable television networks that offer a high-definition option to their viewers in most parts of the USA.Thank you for the listing of the networks that broadcast in high-definition in addition to their standard transmission programs.204.80.61.110 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk

1080iN

What is the source for the chapter "Notation"? Specifically, that in notation style 1080iN the N may represent either frame or field rate. 212.246.213.38 (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the position is vastly complicated because the two sides of the Atlantic use the notation in different ways. In America there is a tendency to quote the field rate for the interlaced formats whereas in Europe the tendency is to use the frame rate (or is it the other way around?). For progressive, they are the same thing. Any progressive system that operates at 24, 25 or 30 frames would be very flickery indeed, though modern LCD and plasma displays over come this. Consumer camcorders are often advertised as having a 25p (or 24p or 30p in the US) mode. But in reality this really refers to the mode in which the sensor is read. The output remains an interlaced video signal but the image in each half of the field pair is the same. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Still asking for an authoritative source for that particular point. I thought 1080/Ni is the nomenclature for which field rate was defined to be used, but I haven't found any authoritative source for this. It is noteworthy however that in the book "Blu-Ray Disc Demystified", by American authors, in the chapter "Other Conventions" under heading "Television Systems" it is stressed that in notation 1080/Ni the N is always for frame rate and never field rate. EBU declares nomenclatures 1080/I/N and 1080i/N with N being the frame rate, which makes me believe 1080iN is just a shortcut for these nomenclatures. 212.246.213.38 (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo?

What is the source for the photo compares sharpness of SD and HD pictures? To me looks fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.103.244 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think someone is trying to push the argument that progressive is better than interlaced, but as the photo is a static image there should be no difference (the waterfall doesn't count as it is blurred in all the images). Unfortunately the uploader has got it wrong and the 1080i is sharper than the 1080p. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The photo depicting the resolution comparison between the resolution and apparent sharpness details should be changed or removed. It suggests that 1080i had halve the spacial resolution of 1080p and that of the SD images. It's a misleading image and not true to the actual differences between the different format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genetichazzard (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the image should be changed, since it is incorrect. The 1080i and 480i images appear to be a simulating single field each. This is different from how it would actually look on a 1080p HDTV, even if the scene was moving. If the original scenes were captured with progressive scan imagers, the interlaced images would not look significantly different from the progressive scan images (whether it was moving or not), unless the HDTV was confused about which field was "even" and which field was "odd." If the original scenes were captured with interlaced imagers, and the scene was moving, then even the 1080p/480p images would have alternating scanlines from two different points in time, and they would look bad. This appears to be a synthetic image that was created by someone who was misinformed about how interlaced video actually looks (when both fields are being displayed and interpolated into a final 1080p image). This is a common misconception, since some DVRs will only display one field when paused (whether the display is 1080p or not). 98.189.161.124 (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Plea to merge 9 overlapping articles

The High-definition display resolutions section of the article, while certainly helpful, is simply running in parallel with 8 other articles:

Also look at these:

It's one of those cases where authors should be looking beyond the page they've landed on or maintained, and come together in a way that will strengthen everybody's work and deepen everyone's insights. I don't know how the merger process is authorized, but this is a plea to get this thematic mess organized.

Please see the talk pages on each of those pages for ALL comments related to this issue.

Thanks for your attention. A.k.a. (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Refresh rates

Date written: 21 May 2010, 02:19 GMT

Can someone knowledgeable please explain why my television (Panasonic Viera P50G10A) only scans at 60hz?

The reason I ask, is that I used to have old CRT monitors that scanned at 120hz, and the difference to the picture is staggering. I am very sensitive to any kind of flicker, and I find low refresh rates really annoying. Apparently my MacBook Pro is also running at a 60hz refresh rate, but there is no noticeable flicker. What gives?

Is there any way to up the refresh on the plasma without making the universe implode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclecticmunk (talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between HDTV and DVB-T2 ?

I'm trying to understand the difference between HDTV and DVB-T2. I've looked at both of the articles here on WP, but I am confused by specifications for TV equipment which say, e.g: "HDTV H.264/MPEG-2 Live TV Ready (DVB-T2 is not supported)"

But I thought DVB-T2 was an HDTV standard ? Please can someone add information to the article(s) to clear this up ? Darkman101 (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC) (BTW, I'm in Britain.)

Countries

Currently we have only India, US and Europe in this article, is there really a need for them to be here as they are inconsistent with there titles and info, all do we change the titles and add all countries in here--Luke193 (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Deinterlacing issues

One aspect of HDTV not discussed here is the deinterlacing issue. Video images (as in shot on videotape or digital video) have a different look than film, which traditionally has a sheen or gloss look (and many TV shows shot on video, such as Doctor Who, are digitally processed to add that sheen to simulate a shot-on-film look). Some HDTV sets - particularly LCD (not so much plasma) - remove this sheen from 1080i recordings. As a result, you have a film like Avatar having the film sheen, and looking like a "film" on plasma and under-1080i HD, but in full HDTV it takes on the appearance of something shot on video. Someone more technically inclined can expand on this, but I think it's an important aspect of HDTV that's worth discussing. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

High-definition display resolutions

In the section "High-definition display resolutions", the first line of the second table says 1780x956 is 876,096 pixels. Not by my calculator it isn't ..... Jonathan 83.217.165.85 (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. That looks like it was old anonymous vandalism from 7 March 2010. Or maybe it was some kind of inadvertent mistake. See this. I just fixed that. I hope I got it right. There were several things that changed at that time, but probably nearly all of it has been fixed since then. —Mulligatawny (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why a history lesson first?

99% of people coming to this page are hoping for a semi-technical explanation. I was looking for what exactly "upscaling" implies. It's not here. Instead the first two-thirds of the article is a history lesson. That may be very laudable information, but why does it dominate the article? I don't know enough about the subject matter to edit it myself. Afterbrunel (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

While I tend to agree that this article is a bit heavily weighted towards history, and the lead could do with some work, it is fairly standard for the history section to come at or close to the beginning of the article. Also, upscaling isn't really within the scope of this article - if you put upscaling in to the Wikipedia search box, you should be redirected to Video scaler, which is what you seem to be looking for (in a nutshell, it's basically just taking a video signal and blowing it up to the resolution of the screen in use). Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead section ideas

I'd like to rewrite the lead section in accordance with the template on the page. Any ideas as to how this could be worded? Remember, be bold. Mackatackastewart (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


is HDTV about television "broadcasts" or "display devices"

If the former what is the resolution of an actual analog so called standard definition "transmission" (not a constructed picture however it may be at the other end) or is it a display device (however it might be used). Is the resolution of my 80s crt tv used as a vector display higher resolution than a fullhd lcd panel?, be bold. Mzhulien (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.195.255 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on High-definition television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Full HD / HD Ready

I've restored the terms. They are still widely used. For example, the Argos site offers these choices for resolution

  • 4K Ultra HD Certified
  • 4K Ultra HD
  • Full HD (1080p)
  • HD Ready

-- Cavrdg (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-definition_television/Archive_4&oldid=1088796687"