People are already moaning (well one US forum I saw anyway) about how they've made the font on the straps huge to accommodate these people who are watching the new format on small 4:3 televisions.
If you use your TV's 16:9 zoom function (I know it's a naff way of doing it), you can kind of see what they mean when it fills a 16:9 screen.
The US terrestrial HDTV standard is becoming a joke though. The picture quality is terrible - they went for 1080i or 720p HD via MPEG2 in a 19.2Mbs ATSC 8VSB modulation scheme. This was OK-ish if they just broadcast a single HDTV signal, but to maximise income from their spectrum many stations are multi-casting multiple SDTV or HDTV streams. The result is a blocky mess. NBC in particular had a very shonky Ku-band low-bitrate distribution scheme as well - the 2004 and 2008 Olympics looked dreaful from most NBC affiliates. ABC is a bit better, though their HDTV subchannel is killing the main channel via bit-starving on the O&Os and others that carry it. Fox has never set benchmarks for quality (though have a very neat splicer-based distribution scheme), leaving only CBS O&Os carrying something of a torch for decent HD OTA.
The irony is that the US networks are commissioning lots of great HDTV content, but most US over-the-air (and often cable and satellite) viewers are watching it in appallingly poor quality. When the same shows are shown on C4HD, Sky1HD, FXHD or BBC HD in the UK they look MUCH better quality, as they are broadcast at a decent bitrate and with a very good quality compression scheme.
The US launched their digital TV system with HDTV and simulcasting - so you often only have 4-6 digital TV channels (and a few rubbish sub-channels) OTA in the US. In the UK we went for digital SDTV and multicasting - meaning we gained the BBC Three/CBBC, BBC Four/CBeebies, BBC News Channel, ITV2-4, E4, More4, Film4,Sky News, Sky Three, Sky Sports News, and the other FTA services we have in SD. We'll also soon have BBC HD, ITV HD, C4 HD and Five HD as well - using the much better H264 compression scheme, and DVB-T2 which delivers 36-40Mbs rather than the 19Mbs that is used in the US.
I wouldn't wish the US Digital TV standard on my worst enemy - but their production standards are setting the benchmark. The irony...
Thanks for your very detailed reply, noggin. It was a fascinating read. The US HDTV channels looked OK to me during my visit this summer, but I was only watching on a small LCD TV (I'm guessing about 19-26"). I guess it would look worse on a larger screen?
People are already moaning (well one US forum I saw anyway) about how they've made the font on the straps huge to accommodate these people who are watching the new format on small 4:3 televisions.
If you use your TV's 16:9 zoom function (I know it's a naff way of doing it), you can kind of see what they mean when it fills a 16:9 screen.
I can't help thinking anything which might put people off watching Fox News has to be welcomed.
Thanks for your very detailed reply, noggin. It was a fascinating read. The US HDTV channels looked OK to me during my visit this summer, but I was only watching on a small LCD TV (I'm guessing about 19-26"). I guess it would look worse on a larger screen?
Always fascinating to get these insights from Noggin. I was in New York for a week in July, watching HDTV on a massive LCD in my hotel room. Frankly, it all looked fantastic, especially the news.
Here in Dubai, where HD has just been introduced, it's equally stunning. However, there seems to be a multiplicity of standards, feeds, compression rates and screen formats impacting severely on the existing channels broadcasting in SD, some of which have become almost un-watchable.
Thanks for your very detailed reply, noggin. It was a fascinating read. The US HDTV channels looked OK to me during my visit this summer, but I was only watching on a small LCD TV (I'm guessing about 19-26"). I guess it would look worse on a larger screen?
Always fascinating to get these insights from Noggin. I was in New York for a week in July, watching HDTV on a massive LCD in my hotel room. Frankly, it all looked fantastic, especially the news.
I thought so, too. I guess I was so impressed because it was the first real encounter with HD that I've had - well, aside from fleeting glances in shops but they're never set up right. It completely blew me away. I guess if I had already been accustomed to HD over here then I would probably have seen all the problems noggin highlighted. In fact, I was so impressed it persuaded me to get a Freesat box so I could watch BBC and ITV HD content.
Anyone know when Sky News International plans to go 16:9? Even on platforms like Canal Digital in Scandinavia where most channels are 16:9 the Sky News International feed is still 4:3!
Anyone know when Sky News International plans to go 16:9? Even on platforms like Canal Digital in Scandinavia where most channels are 16:9 the Sky News International feed is still 4:3!
Who would want to see their dire presentation in 16:9 though? At least in 4:3 it looks distorted.
Thanks for your very detailed reply, noggin. It was a fascinating read. The US HDTV channels looked OK to me during my visit this summer, but I was only watching on a small LCD TV (I'm guessing about 19-26"). I guess it would look worse on a larger screen?
Yep - on that screensize many of the compression artefacts won't be as obvious - particularly on the 1080i channels (NBC, CBS, PBS and most others), though they may be more obvious on the lower resolution 720p channels (ABC, Fox, ESPN) though 720p can compress better so may have fewer artefacts anyway for a given bitrate.