Here it is, a quarter too to. I should be getting back two work but instead I'm reading this very fine article named "HD Marketing: Getting To Gimmicky?" ...

I think we'll be arriving at that destination soon.

I believe the Mac Observer is getting to sloppy.

I two feal that it is geting to gimmecky out their in marketing land.

Pshaw, folks. The typo has been corrected, and our full-time professional copy editor has been reprimanded.

Thanks for the notes!

Bryan
Editor
TMO

quit complaining-- lets see all you complainers maintain a site that has at least 10 updates per day with a plethora of staff and temp writers

i dont even think everything on my website is perfectly spelled, so i am not going to complain about others, especially those updated so often

why not write about the content of the article, instead of griping about one little typo that wasnt picked up by the spell checker because it is another word that is correctly spelled

now that thats over

he is unfortunately correct-- there are some of these televisions that are claiming to be HD, but even some SD televisions look better (higher resolution)-- the most egretious error is the larger LCD televisions (30" and greater) which start to hold the same resolutions as 12"iBooks and claim to be HD

so, call it flat panel, call it LCD, call it Plasma, but dont call it HD unless it is actually High Definition

my 2 Turkish Lira

TRO

Quote

Mike Washlesky wrote:
...but the problem is editing in this HDV hybrid format, not to mention the image itself. The bottom line is that it is not really HD, but it is marketed as such.

You seem to be treating HD as if it's some "digital-film, pro-user" kind of thing, when in fact it's much less than that. It CAN be a very nice, Star Wars kind of aquisition format, but it can also be Jay Leno's huge head coming into your home over the airwaves in HD. (Which has the same data rate as HDV, btw.) The basic qualifier for something to be "HD" is the resolution. Of course, there's more to it than that, but nowhere is it said that somthing has to be a professional format to actually be "HD."

Saying something is "HD" is a lot like saying that video is "in color." My local news is "in color" and the original 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is ALSO in color. Yet the two couldn't be more different.

Likewise, shooting a movie using HDCAM is "HD," but so is every "ER" and home-movies shot on the FX-1. That doesn't mean they're the same...far from it...but it also doesn't mean the lessor forms of HD aren't HD.

That would be a lot like saying my local news isn't "real color" just because it's not film quality.

Part of the problem here is that the term "HD" is dumb to begin with, because it's subjective. "High" compared to what? Nowadays "HD" is (usually) taken to mean video at a particular resolution (1920x1080), but a few years ago, when someone said "high-definition", they usually meant 640x480.

And does it even mean 1920x1080? Or does it simply mean that it reads HDTV signals? If I displayed an HDTV feed on my 800x600 iMac monitor, would it or wouldn't it be "HD"?

"HD" doesn't really mean a whole lot. It isn't written into lawm. Anyway, "high" is a relative term, so you can hardly blame people and the industry for using it as such.

Bleh.

There actually is a more descriptive term, but nobody uses it: 1080p. That is to say, 1080 pixels tall, progressive scan (doesn't say anything about aspect ratio, but then again, why should it, since any 4:3 "HD" content obviously wouldn't be 1920 pixels wide anyway).

[quoting SmallWhiteCar]

You seem to be treating HD as if it's some "digital-film, pro-user" kind of thing, when in fact it's much less than that.

[end quote]


If "HD" is a defined technology for broadcast and record/playback, the fact that a device is "professional" or "consumer" oriented is really irrelevant. If this device does not meet the definition of "HD" then it is not HD. The matter is no more complex than that.

Irrespective, if prices for HD TVs do not come down dramatically by the time normal broadcast signals go away, I for one will no longer be watching television. Heck, there's darn little of value on broadcast TV now as it is, so I don't really know as I'll be missing a whole lot, either.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Quote

SmallWhiteCar wrote:

You seem to be treating HD as if it's some "digital-film, pro-user" kind of thing, when in fact it's much less than that.

If "HD" is a defined technology for broadcast and record/playback, the fact that a device is "professional" or "consumer" oriented is really irrelevant.

Aren't you saying exactly what I said?

"you will be able to put your hand into the television and smack Paris Hilton on the face for being on your TV in the first place."

Amen to that! LOL

Thanks for a well-written article.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Irrespective, if prices for HD TVs do not come down dramatically by the time normal broadcast signals go away, I for one will no longer be watching television. Heck, there's darn little of value on broadcast TV now as it is, so I don't really know as I'll be missing a whole lot, either.

I'm just about to that point already, and cable isn't much better, IMHO. As always, advertising money rules, and since advertising seeks the lowest common denominator, we will, as always, end up with more of the same worthless junk.

The bottom line is that it is not really HD, but it is marketed as such.

How do you figure this? What is the minimum you are calling HD then? ANY camera will "fall short" of the image from cameras that cost ten times as much, (even 35 mm) no one expects otherwise. But both these cameras deliver pictures clearly impossible from DV or DVD. No one disputes that VHS is "NTSC" even though it doesn't deliver all the detail that NTSC is capable of.

================

High quality isn't the critical selling point you think it is. Consumers chose audio cassettes over superior sounding LPs. SVHS had no more effect on VHS sales then digital playback effects. Laserdisc never got beyond a niche either.

The successful high quality formats (CD, DVD, FM radio, color TV, iPod) improved convenience as well as quality. With these formats the consumer automatically got better quality without having to do anything extra to get it. No scratched records or rewind time, no flipping the disk in the middle of a movie, ect... I'd bet that 90% of DVD players today are connected through the composite jack, even when S-Video inputs are on the set. But DVD's advantages are clear anyway.

HDTV by comparison is complicated as all hell to use! It will NOT survive being treated with the level of tech savvy that the typical consumer has time to learn. Even when I look at the displays in electronics stores, half the HDTV sets are connected to HD sources through the composite jack. I see messed-up aspect ratios everywhere. Just changing from one HD channel to another can be an ordeal, since you usually have HD sets with NTSC-only tuners, and separate tuners to actually get HD, plus multiple versions of each program to surf through. It is easy to get "lost" in the inputs and become unable to get a picture on the set at all. And it takes forever to switch from one HD channel to another - making channel surfing an awkward experience.

People will wake up one day and start wondering why watching the tube has suddenly become work instead of relaxation. Then they'll pick up the Nintendo Gameboy HD...

Super HDTV is already in development

Forget about this. Today's best $25,000 screens are barely above one megapixel of honestly visible detail. It will be at least a decade before 4 megapixel UDTV is available, and then where will the programming come from? You'll see this in movie theaters, and probably that's it. Screen resolution hasn't progressed nearly as fast as, say, CPU power.

Say what? HD is defined as 720 lines (progressive) or 1080 lines (interlaced), 16:9 aspect ration. HDV is both of those (JVC is 720p, Sony is 1080i). They are, by definition, HD. Get your facts straight.

Quote

No one disputes that VHS is "NTSC"

Except when it's not.

I feel the concept of TV has to be re-invented. With the rapid adoption of broadband (I recall reading that it has passed 50% penetration in home), is about time for someone (aka Apple) to re-invent TV.

The concept of channels, scheduled time for news/shows/movies and revenue through in-show advertising business model are arcane.

Are super-HD, HD and whatever formats still relevant?

Reprimand your copy editor again.

"The problems with these cameras is that the manufactures are trying..."

The problems... is?

"never looses suction, 91 inch rear-projection, plasma cored Hologram box!"

Looses suction?

"I just want it in true HD that is less confusing to the public, and has the ring of quality."

Not a compound sentence. Lose the comma.

In reply to Randompro's retort :
"quit complaining-- lets see all you complainers maintain a site that has at least 10 updates per day with a plethora of staff and temp writers"

What is wrong with pointing out these gaffes? We make comments on article content, why not the same for spelling and grammar?

We expect online publications to manage their articles, that includes content, spelling, and grammar.

So, I'm for nitpicking at grammar and spelling. Because the less it is pointed out, the more there is the tendency of a site's editors and writers to overlook their mistakes. Feedback is important. Even when it comes to spelling and grammar. Nothing kills credibility to a piece more than bad spelling and grammar.

I guess I should point out another, then.

It's "manufacturers", not "manufactures" in one of the items you mentioned;
"The problems with these cameras is that the manufactures are trying..."

It passes spelling checks and consequently doesn't get flagged.

Can someone explain the diffrence between HD and HDV for me please?