"Once you show people HD they realise how poor the standard picture is, but a lot of people don't get the opportunity to see that."
Blissful ignorance, yes please! If, when I watch the television, I think it looks good, let's call that television 'Telly A', and then I watch another television, let's call it 'Telly B', and I subsequently think that Telly A is rubbish, can it really be taken as read that Telly A is rubbish?
I think that standard definition television looks fine, because it does. Unless you have a stupid big massive planet-eating one. (No offence Americans, I know a lot of you have them, I'm talking about the UK here. The story I'm using as a jumping off point is only concerned with the UK.)
I object to the rush to HD, for various reasons, which I'll outline here. Firstly, digital television is overly compressed, resulting in what is often an inferior picture quality to analogue television, and HD digital television will suffer from compression too (the channels are compressed so they can get more rubbish channels and stuff in the space available). So, even if people can see a significant improvement on a normal-sized television from what they had before, they would have probably seen a significant improvement from a better quality standard definition picture too.
Secondly, it costs more to make a lot of television programmes in HD too, especially if they have special effects. Doctor Who, for instance, will cost more to make, take longer to make, and we will get less for our money. And, of course, because of the unique way the BBC is funded the poorest people who can't afford massive televisions will be subsidising HD content for better off people who can. The BBC are making noises about cutting some of their channels like BBC3 and BBC4 to save money. But they have committed to making all their programmes in HD, from as early as next year, I believe.
The BBC reports a survey in a rubbish way, eagerly lapping up nonsensical leaps of illogic. It says although 56% of UK households have an HD television 91% aren't watching and HD content. (This, although it's not mentioned there, is undoubtedly partly because of confusion with the analogue switch-off, people being encouraged by retailers to think they need an HD television for digital TV - I've certainly come across a few people who have been thus confused). It said that you can get full HD broadcasting from some TV receivers but not others on some platforms, and not at all on others. It then says that 81% of the people surveyed said they don't get the best from any of their equipment. "That means that many consumers who have all the technology in hand to view full HD may not be setting up the devices and the cables properly to do so." May. Note that, may. They may not be. Many of them may not be. Many of the people who have all the technology. It's not saying all of the people concerned do have it.
It then says that sometimes - note that word, somtimes, it's as simple as not getting a cheap cable. How much of the sometimes? No idea, it doesn't say. I don't know, and nor, I suspect, do they. Then, it says: "While HD boxes from commercial providers like Sky and Virgin come with an installation cost, the implications are that people are stymied by the technical details rather than the economics."
The implications. The implications. The implications of what they're reprinting without any real critical eye, not the implications of the facts. Perhaps they could have made that distinction? Naaah, that would be ridiculous.
"Unless you're really into your technology, perhaps you don't realise that just because it says HD on the box, the picture quality isn't necessarily HD," said Stuart Miles, editor of technology website Pocket Lint.
Could it be that unless you're really into your technology, you'd be quite happy with it anyway, even though the picture quality isn't actually HD? Those are the implications. But not the implications. Because there are implications, and there are implications.
that's all from me for now
see you around
Fun To Drive Regimobile Of The Day Film For Historians Of The Day: Toyota Crown Royal