So you're saying the time lords had HD?

Sowwie no SD english....

I've often wondered what a Cyborg evacuation would be like? Would it be a solid evacuation or more fluid? Aromatic perhaps?

Would Cyborgs be concerned about mopping up after a particularly severe evacuation? They'd probably be programmed to tackle any evacuation scenario with aplomb... unlike humans. They'd be dull, boring, tedious and blissfully unaware of any human emotions - lucky buggers!!

Very lucky indeed... ignorance is bliss...

My wife is faaaar removed from a TV techie, and still does not understand why I spent perfectly good money on MY HDTV. She watches it with me though, without a comment about the superior picture. Let a substandard picture appear though, and she complains.

Aha! I guess she CAN tell the difference.

Arguing about better pictures (or better sound) versus program content is like asking if you want your food to taste good, or do you want it to look good. Obviously, it's both.

Travelogues take on a whole new excitement in HD. I'm THERE!

Technology has improved pictures and sound over the years: many would argue that the same has not occurred in programming!

>>>It is a FACT, complete and utter FACT that beyond a certain viewing distance you will not gain anything from HD resolution.<<<

that is exactly right... "A principal advantage of HD over SD video is the ability to view larger images from closer distances....The design goal for HDTV was to facilitate viewing at a distance of three picture heights from the screen as opposed to the five- to seven-picture-height design goal for NTSC." - http://www.tvtechnology.com/features...features.shtml

now consider that nearly all of the so-called "hd" tv sets on the market today are not capable of displaying the full hd resolution... what you are left with is a population that really only wants a big screen tv, period.

a classic example of that is my neighbor, who got himself a big 16:9 plasma tv... unfortunately, most of what he watches is 4:3, stretched to fit the entire screen... that is your typical consumer.

Homers big dream...
 

BIG... Mmmmmm...

Doh!! Are we talking about TVs or donuts?!!

Who cares as long as it's BIG!!! It'll keep the kids and women happy if it's BIG...

LOL.

But actually it's correct - a typical consumer (and let's say 35+ years old) does not even know today what HDTV is and when they go to the shop, they most probably choose the TV set by the size, by the price and by the look. As the slim LCD and plasma televisions look very neat and fit well to the home, they might buy one in case it's affordable for them, but often not because of the HD capability which the most slim TVs anyway support now. People simply have so much else to do in the life in today's busy world that they don't have time to concentrate on all kinds of TV features.

Truthfully, the only reason I care about HD is for acquiring video. As a Homer Simpson consumer, I just want a bigger screen, good sound, and some donuts and beer. The traditional SD delivery formats work just fine for me. If I can save some living room space by hanging a flat screen on the wall, great!

I still think consumer HD in disc form is going to end up like S-VHS. Great for the acquisition side, but just confusing & annoying for consumers. Remember owning an S-VHS recorder? How many commercial S-VHS movie tapes did you actually own?

As a consumer I want easily accessible media, with lots of content choices. HD just doesn't deliver anything in that department that is substantially better than the current delivery channels for SD. In fact, consumer HD's main claim, the higher resolution, makes it less accessible, with less content choices.

I'll bet if you ask the majority of consumers they'll tell you they didn't realize there was even a problem with DVD delivery. They think it's the cat's meow.


The next big consumer delivery format, will need consumer features that are superior to any disc based format: CD, DVD, or HD. The iPod gave consumers the ability to carry around a huge selection of content, that was easy to acquire, and easily accessible. When I see a video device like an iPod that can pull content off cable or iTunes and can display the video on an HD display, then I'll know HD has arrived.

So those of us who actually took the time and effort to research the step on from analogue video, because;

a) we do understand language both written and verbal and
b) we aren't merely existing in mundane existences that numb the senses and annihilate any idea of what is happening in the world,

should;

a) feel very smug and superior compared to the vast seething mindless mosh of humanity because we know that regardless of anyone's opinion about SD vs HD, the one certainty in all of this is that HD IS here and it isn't going away now that it is, or;
b) just keep watching superior HD quality images and ignore all the banter and rhetoric regarding what's going to happen, or;
c) use any extra cash we have to get a frontal lobotomy so we'll blend right in with the vast mindless mosh and still enjoy watching our HD without knowing why it looks better... nor care why it looks better, and just get the mindless but loving (even though she doesn't know why) missus to give us another beer and donut.

I do wish education wasn't a compulsory thing in this country. It's so much easier to not know anything.

I agree with the side which believes that SD will be a continuing production and distribution method. The biggest and most obvious reason being that once the digital transition is complete, there is no obligation on the part of broadcasters or producers to provide anything in high definition. Once the additional bandwidth is divided and provided to various producers, they have the option to do whatever they deem necessary to create revenue. Whether this is one high def channel or 4-5 SD channels. Secondly, how many of the smaller markets can afford to redesign and upgrade there already profitable SD production tools?

My prediction for the future of high definition is that it will coexist for many years with SD production and delivery. I think some people are under the false assumption that once the Blue Laser or HD DVD format is available that it will instantly replace the DVD format. I believe that the two formats will live peacefully with one another as did VHS and Laserdisc for many years. VHS was a cost friendly consumer format, while Laserdisc was a more costly Videophile format, requiring a specialized player with more expensive media.

Brian,

There will certainly be much 4:3 SD around for years, But I think that in the not too distant future every producer must seriously consider HD. I think the best analogy goes back to the conversion to color TV, or the conversion to stereo audio.

B&W pictures are pretty much used only for effect. No serious audio would be done in mono - heck, you better be thinking about 5.1 surround!

That doesn't mean there aren't many folks out there who could care less about HD or stereo sound.

I guess we'll have to wait a few years to know for sure.

The majority of TV viewers still effectively hear mono sound. It's either:
A- Their speakers aren't far enough apart.
B- Because of their setup's wiring scheme, they only get a mono signal.

And if you're sitting too far from your TV (which is a lot of the case), then you don't get the benefits of the higher resolution.

I think the middle ground that is oft missed in this entire debate is the period of coexistence. Did B&W TVs vanish over night? No... there was a period where both B&W and color TVs co-existed. Eventually, the final tipping point became when cost was not an issue. It eventually made no sense for a consumer to buy a B&W TV when a color TV was the same price.

The same thing will eventually happen with HD but the dynamic is a little different. Color vs B&W was revolutionary...HD vs SD? If we were talking holographic 3D, then maybe, but more lines of resolution for exactly the same content? Nah... It is kind of like music, once we got to stereo, that was good enough for most people. They just wanted a more convenient delivery... first CD and now MP3... quality, oddly is actually REGRESSING. There is no compelling reason for most people to go out and get an HDTV... will they like "Lost" better? Prolly not.

Most people will upgrade as their old sets die off and even the most aggressive estimates only have an HDTV in 20%-25% of homes by the end of next year (there is some debate on how these stats were gathered because there are some people, like me, with 4 HDTVs and some of the stats dont seem to factor that in). I think you will REALLY start to see HDTV sales take off when 32" LCDs hit $499 and believe it or not, I bet MANY of those upgrading will be doing so for the form factor as much as the resolution.

HD is coming...eventually... but HD and SD will co-exist for quite some time...



ash =o)

when people made the switch from b/w to color, all they had to do was replace the tv... they did not own any content, everything they watched was broadcast over the airwaves.

these days a whole lot of people own the content that they watch, and they want full control over it... don't expect 'em to spend big $$$ to automatically replace all those sd dvd's for hd dvd's... legacy content will carry sd for a really long time.

so none of the old paradigms are applicable here... that's why it's all about delivery formats... and since software sells hardware, hd is dead, because there is no software delivery format for it.