<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Industry is at fault for HDTV confusion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/03/22/industry-is-at-fault-for-hdtv-confusion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/03/22/industry-is-at-fault-for-hdtv-confusion/</link>
	<description>Can you think of a better name?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:25:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Printed Matters &#187; A million sources, one story - and MSMs are the worst</title>
		<link>http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/03/22/industry-is-at-fault-for-hdtv-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-24352</link>
		<dc:creator>Printed Matters &#187; A million sources, one story - and MSMs are the worst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/03/22/industry-is-at-fault-for-hdtv-confusion/#comment-24352</guid>
		<description>[...] The second example comes from Fagstein. Check near the bottom, where he hides an interesting tidbit about CBC&#8217;s handling of a press release. Then he says: I’m just going to go ahead and assume the CBC did not, in fact, check to make sure these statements were true. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The second example comes from Fagstein. Check near the bottom, where he hides an interesting tidbit about CBC&#8217;s handling of a press release. Then he says: I’m just going to go ahead and assume the CBC did not, in fact, check to make sure these statements were true. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blork</title>
		<link>http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/03/22/industry-is-at-fault-for-hdtv-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-24115</link>
		<dc:creator>Blork</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:16:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/03/22/industry-is-at-fault-for-hdtv-confusion/#comment-24115</guid>
		<description>Just to clarify, you can still watch those &quot;less than full HD&quot; Videotron shows on a Full HD TV, and you can watch a 1080p Blu-ray on a &quot;not quite Full HD&quot; TV. But in both cases, it doesn&#039;t look as great as it would if the signal and the TV match. 

That&#039;s the key; matching the signal to the TV. 

For example, if all you ever did was watch TV with a 720p signal, you would arguable get a better image from a 1366 x 768 TV, because the signal and TV would match. But then it would look not so good when you&#039;re getting a better signal, and who wants that?

It&#039;s not unlike the way that your LCD computer monitor has a &quot;native resolution.&quot; If you set it to display at a different resolution, you can still see it, but it&#039;s not as sharp. Ditto mismatching signal and TV. But since there are so many signal types, all you can do is decide which you want to match. For most people, the answer is to match to the highest quality signal, as that&#039;s the direction in which most signals are going.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to clarify, you can still watch those "less than full HD" Videotron shows on a Full HD TV, and you can watch a 1080p Blu-ray on a "not quite Full HD" TV. But in both cases, it doesn't look as great as it would if the signal and the TV match. </p>
<p>That's the key; matching the signal to the TV. </p>
<p>For example, if all you ever did was watch TV with a 720p signal, you would arguable get a better image from a 1366 x 768 TV, because the signal and TV would match. But then it would look not so good when you're getting a better signal, and who wants that?</p>
<p>It's not unlike the way that your LCD computer monitor has a "native resolution." If you set it to display at a different resolution, you can still see it, but it's not as sharp. Ditto mismatching signal and TV. But since there are so many signal types, all you can do is decide which you want to match. For most people, the answer is to match to the highest quality signal, as that's the direction in which most signals are going.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blork</title>
		<link>http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/03/22/industry-is-at-fault-for-hdtv-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-24114</link>
		<dc:creator>Blork</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:09:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/03/22/industry-is-at-fault-for-hdtv-confusion/#comment-24114</guid>
		<description>Actually, there is such a thing as &quot;partial HD,&quot; although nobody calls it that. &quot;Full HD&quot; means HD across all aspects of that separates HD from regular old fashioned TV:

- LINES OF RESOLUTION. &quot;Full HD&quot; goes all the way to 1080 horizontal lines, versus 720 lines, which is more HD than regular TV, but not &quot;full&quot; HD. Until about a year ago, most plasma and LCD TVs on the market (even the 42&quot; ones) had a screen resolution of 1366 x 768. That&#039;s only 768 lines tall. As such, their &quot;native&quot; HD resolution was 720. The TVs that you now see &quot;coming down in price&quot; are largely the old stock of those ones. In the past year or so, plasma and LCDs have been boosted to 1920 x 1080, which is a huge leap in resolution, as they are 1080 lines tall. That&#039;s where &quot;Full HD&quot; comes in, as the &quot;Full HD&quot; signal is 1920 x 1080.

- PROGRESSIVE SCANNING. The &quot;p&quot; in 1080p stands for &quot;progressive scanning.&quot; In simple terms, that means the TV displays all 1080 lines in one swoop, then repeats over and over. This is a big improvement over &quot;interlaced&quot; which means the TV scans every second line, then scans a second time to get the lines it missed the first time. Repeat, etc. Interlaced tends to have more visible flicker and is not as clear because of that. So a 1080i  TV is not &quot;full HD&quot; because it is interlacing the image.

Bascially, that means the evolution has been 720i, 720p, 1080i, 1080p.

But even with a Full HD, 1080p TV, you won&#039;t always get the Full HD image. Videotron doesn&#039;t go any higher than 1080i, for example, and a lot of shows on Videotron HD are in 720p.

But if you plug in a Blu-ray disk on a Blu-ray player, you get the full 1080p, but ONLY if your TV is Full HD.

There you go. Easy! ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, there is such a thing as "partial HD," although nobody calls it that. "Full HD" means HD across all aspects of that separates HD from regular old fashioned TV:</p>
<p>- LINES OF RESOLUTION. "Full HD" goes all the way to 1080 horizontal lines, versus 720 lines, which is more HD than regular TV, but not "full" HD. Until about a year ago, most plasma and LCD TVs on the market (even the 42" ones) had a screen resolution of 1366 x 768. That's only 768 lines tall. As such, their "native" HD resolution was 720. The TVs that you now see "coming down in price" are largely the old stock of those ones. In the past year or so, plasma and LCDs have been boosted to 1920 x 1080, which is a huge leap in resolution, as they are 1080 lines tall. That's where "Full HD" comes in, as the "Full HD" signal is 1920 x 1080.</p>
<p>- PROGRESSIVE SCANNING. The "p" in 1080p stands for "progressive scanning." In simple terms, that means the TV displays all 1080 lines in one swoop, then repeats over and over. This is a big improvement over "interlaced" which means the TV scans every second line, then scans a second time to get the lines it missed the first time. Repeat, etc. Interlaced tends to have more visible flicker and is not as clear because of that. So a 1080i  TV is not "full HD" because it is interlacing the image.</p>
<p>Bascially, that means the evolution has been 720i, 720p, 1080i, 1080p.</p>
<p>But even with a Full HD, 1080p TV, you won't always get the Full HD image. Videotron doesn't go any higher than 1080i, for example, and a lot of shows on Videotron HD are in 720p.</p>
<p>But if you plug in a Blu-ray disk on a Blu-ray player, you get the full 1080p, but ONLY if your TV is Full HD.</p>
<p>There you go. Easy! ;-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/03/22/industry-is-at-fault-for-hdtv-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-23960</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:24:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/03/22/industry-is-at-fault-for-hdtv-confusion/#comment-23960</guid>
		<description>In all fairness, I think we&#039;re talking about a number of industries, including television manufacturing, broadcasters, distributors and media production (studios). Mind, in today&#039;s world of conglomeration, some multinationals span some or all of these industries (Sony? GE?).

I would shift some of the blame on government for its lack of leadership. The U.S. Congress mandated the FCC to see the industry shift to digital to free up some bandwidth over the air ten years ago, but it didn&#039;t ensure a smooth transition. Now, one year before the cut-over it&#039;s only now taking action for those consumers (most) who are unprepared. Congress also mandated the FCC to implement a standard box-free digital implementation, but ten years later its &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cablecard&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;CableCard&lt;/a&gt; is poorly implemented and no longer meets today&#039;s market&#039;s needs.

The Canadian Government has fared even worse. The least they could have done was follow the U.S.&#039;s direction. Now we find ourselves with no action plan for cablecards and no cut-over plan for over-the-air digital.

P.S.: You forgot to emphasize the em dashes the CBC put in... =P
P.P.S.: Check out the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dtv.gov/index.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FCC&#039;s DTV information site&lt;/a&gt;. Its interface and design give me a warm, fuzzy, nostalgic feeling, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.archive.org/web/web.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;navigating the Internet back in 1997&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In all fairness, I think we're talking about a number of industries, including television manufacturing, broadcasters, distributors and media production (studios). Mind, in today's world of conglomeration, some multinationals span some or all of these industries (Sony? GE?).</p>
<p>I would shift some of the blame on government for its lack of leadership. The U.S. Congress mandated the FCC to see the industry shift to digital to free up some bandwidth over the air ten years ago, but it didn't ensure a smooth transition. Now, one year before the cut-over it's only now taking action for those consumers (most) who are unprepared. Congress also mandated the FCC to implement a standard box-free digital implementation, but ten years later its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cablecard" rel="nofollow">CableCard</a> is poorly implemented and no longer meets today's market's needs.</p>
<p>The Canadian Government has fared even worse. The least they could have done was follow the U.S.'s direction. Now we find ourselves with no action plan for cablecards and no cut-over plan for over-the-air digital.</p>
<p>P.S.: You forgot to emphasize the em dashes the CBC put in... =P<br />
P.P.S.: Check out the <a href="http://www.dtv.gov/index.html" rel="nofollow">FCC's DTV information site</a>. Its interface and design give me a warm, fuzzy, nostalgic feeling, like <a href="http://www.archive.org/web/web.php" rel="nofollow">navigating the Internet back in 1997</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Silverman</title>
		<link>http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/03/22/industry-is-at-fault-for-hdtv-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-23955</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Silverman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:46:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.fagstein.com/2008/03/22/industry-is-at-fault-for-hdtv-confusion/#comment-23955</guid>
		<description>Ah, an example of churnalism at it&#039;s best. 

Churnalism = http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/2008/02/the_difference_between_journal.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, an example of churnalism at it's best. </p>
<p>Churnalism = <a href="http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/2008/02/the_difference_between_journal.html" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/2008/02/the_difference_between_journal.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

