http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/ Engadget Comments for The definition of an HD channel? http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/Sep 21st 2007 11:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/
Guess some people need to put their toe in the water before jumping in, but as we all know HD TV's are just starting to go main stream. Most of the new TV's sold today are HD so the public is jumping on board.

Like any free market, stations will have to see that they are losing customers to those stations that broadcast in HD format. You hear that you Nielson people? If you have an HD TV, only watch HD shows. It will show people that we want more!

- Roger ]]>Sep 21st 2007 11:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/Sep 21st 2007 12:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/
But, nonetheless, I'm back on SD till this whole quagmire of over-compression, very few true HD channels & programs, etc is sorted out. I'm not paying $$$ month after month to get a couple HD stations and programs I actually like. When you have an HD box and 1080/720 HDTV and the HD programming is full of artifacts etc (and SD scales up fine on your tv, producing a better picture for that channel!) then that's sub standard quality I simply don't want to pay for. ]]>Sep 21st 2007 2:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/
and what the hell difference does Judge Judy in 1080 vs NTSC really make? anyone who watches something like that, let's be honest, doesn't know the difference. These are the same people who stretch out their SD channels so it fits the whole screen. Gag. ]]>Sep 21st 2007 1:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/Sep 21st 2007 1:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/Sep 21st 2007 5:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/
When color came around, the studios rushed to produce their big shows in color to steal viewership. It was the consumers who sat around and said 'why do I need a color tv when my b&w works fine?'

Now, it's the opposite. Consumers want HD and the providers don't way to pay to produce it.

Fine, as a consumer I'll go out and buy a nice high quality SD TV while they make up their mind....Oh wait, I can't do that....they're all HD now!]]>Sep 21st 2007 8:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/
What about Stereo Audio? Or Surround Audio? After all, studies by the IEEE have shown that a significant portion of emotional content is conveyed through the use of audio.

I'll go ahead and give this one to you though, since you probably meant the only fundamental "video" upgrade. And besides, you make a good point about the 15 year transition. That transition took place in a time where instant gratification wasn't battling gluttony for the top spot in the USA.]]>Oct 2nd 2007 10:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/
SD = 480i
ED = 480p (and 540p for those Willey manufactures that had to use it)
HD = 720p, 1080i and 1080p

The government is forcing the move to digital broadcasts, but not HD. HD is just icing on the cake, these broadcasts have to at least get digital which means 480p (ED) or above.]]>Sep 21st 2007 3:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/
As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to call something HD, I expect it to be shot, edited and delivered in full HD. Every step along the way needs to be HD.

Once you've done that, you can easily letterbox or crop it and downconvert if you need SD.]]>Sep 21st 2007 4:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/
needless to say, i'm not impressed with the amount of hd out there. some concerts on mtvhd, some silence of the lambs in hd, some Paula Deen in hd, yawn]]>Sep 22nd 2007 3:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/the-definition-of-an-hd-channel/
Maybe HD content should be determined by the weakest link in the chain. I don't call DVDs HD simply because I can play it through an Oppo. If the video was recorded, edited or delivered in SD/ED then don't scale it and pretend it's HD.

I don't think the "chicken & egg" connundrum applies, you'll ruin your market and show that people don't want HD because people won't pay extra for upscaled SD video, nor would they make any effort to switch to an HD channel if it isn't really.]]>Sep 24th 2007 1:17AM