[dave1234]

Now I'm really confused. Is High Definition defined by what you see? Or, is it defined by the Advanced Television Standards Committee?

--- CHAS

High Definition is defined by the marketing department.

 

[dave1234]

I'm only aware of 18 formats that are approved as ATSC standards. So you are saying that the ATSC has approved more formats (it is now at least 20) and now include resolutions like 1440x1080i and 1280x1080i? Where is this listed and when were this new formats approved? If the ATSC has approved these formats then they are officially HD but if not....

Table 7.3 of the following ATSC standard lists 1440X1080i as a valid format. One could still argue(and I'm sure many will) whether this is HD or not...

http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_81.pdf

 

[dave1234]

Funny that nobody ever coined the term SD-Lite.

Afterall, some of the same things that are plaguing HD now have plagued SD channels all along too. With the bottomline being that the providers dont see fit (due to legimate tradeoffs or otherwise) to offer PQ as good as it can be.

From that perspective nobody should be surprised with whats happened in HD. And in defense of the providers, even if they wanted to do the "right thing", it'd be harder now than ever before anyway. Not only because theres more channels than ever before but they're having to double dip with HD and SD versions at the same time.

Good point. True, full resolution, SD can look almost as good as some HD. My DVD player looks outstanding on my 61" HDTV. Nearly as good as many "HD" channels.