Are we really getting HDTV ??

Lots of earlier posts point out that dramas, filmed or taped, generally use camera filtering and lighting during production that diminishes effective resolution (resolvable details). Here's one archived summary by TVOD, and another one outlining some measurements showing how much potential detail is missing. Live or non-drama productions are also limited in effective resolution by other types of filtering and HD's restricted bit rate (typically <17 Mbps video payload). -- John

Hmmm... I have FIOS, Medium and CSI come in just great. Full 1080i HD, 5.1 sound, etc. I don't have any problem with these (or most others). Some shows (biggest loser, as an example) come in in 720p, but that is just a variation in size, not in quality.

I'm in the Boston area, so obviously I'm seeing the local feeds. If your OTA programming looks the same as your cable, then something is going on at the local level or a few steps up the pipe. The national broadcasts of the shows you mentioned reach me in full HD.

Biggest loser isn't in HD.

720p HD will be the same size and shape as 1080i (16:9) with slightly lower resolution.

Are you under the impression that 720p is inferior or broadcasts at a different size than 1080i?

You are absolutely right. My mistake.

No, just explained it poorly. I realize that it is 16:9.

Each format has advantages, but in my opinion 1080i is better for 24p material provided there is ample bandwidth. I would not expect features to be released in 720p on Blu-Ray.

Another issue with PQ is that it's partly subjective. One person's sharp clear picture can be another's over enhanced edgy image. I've seen images that have nice subtle detail that gets lost in the multiple encoding that's typical with most major networks.

When SD digital component started I remember a company that made election graphics for a major broadcast network. They looked beautiful in component with lots of small detail, but they discovered that most of the detail disappeared by the time it got on the air. They decided to evaluate future material by running it through a Umatic cassette machine to get an idea of what degradation lie ahead.

Because I don't know you and can't see your setup, I have to ask these questions:

1 - How is everything connected to your TV? Is you're OTA connected to the digital antenna input (DTV) of your TV (some TVs have both analog and digital connections or one cable and one DTV)? Is your cable box connect via either HDMI (the little data connector) or Component (the Red, Green and Blue connectors that look like RCA cables)?

2 - Is your TV set to any kind of stretch or zoom mode? Basicly, are any station logos or graphics stretched or getting cut off? Tune in to ABC or CBS during primetime. If either logo is oval shaped instead of round, check your TV settings.

3 - Have you tried setting the cable box to output to your TVs native resolution? Perhaps the scaler in it isn't very good. If your TVs resolution is 1280x768, choose 720p. If it is 1920x1080, choose 1080i. However, before doing so, make sure the installer didn't set your box to only output 480i or 480p.

4 - Are you certain you are tuning in to the HD channel? Over the air it will usually be something like 8.1 or 30.2 (whatever the local channel normally is with a decimal number after it) for HD. Using the autoscan should find all of the available choices. On cable, the HD channels may be in a separate group with each other.

If you know this stuff, I apologize. With all the confusion about this stuff, sometimes it's just simply the viewer's setup isn't correct. Sometimes installers hook this stuff up wrong and if you never look, you might not realize it.

You own three HDTVs and you're claiming you're a victim of hype?

UGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Shows like CSI should look spectacular. If it is not...then you have some sort of local issue.

It is no hype. Most network HD looks fantastic compared to SD.

But a percentage of shows that really are in HD look no better than widescreen SD. This will always confuse and frustrate a lot of people.

Yes, but the OP specifically mentioned CSI and Medium - two very good looking shows. I feel there is something wrong with his setup if that much of the programming looks bad.

You realize that the stuff you think looks good is 60 fps video and the stuff you don't think looks good was shot on 24 fps film?

Not only that the contrast ratios and the gamma curves of a dramatic show are going to spectacurally different from live television. I often find dramatic material to look better in HD than a lot of live events (because there are so many factors in the signal chain of a live event that can and often mess with the final product.) Again there are some HD acquired shows (such as Sunrise Earth on Discovery HD Theater) which are also shot at 24p. If those aren't looking good, I'd really suspect something was wrong on your end. Especially since the video on that show is pretty much left untouched, save for some minor color correction.

The other thing is, what are you basing your assumptions of what good HD is upon. Store displays, Blu-Ray discs? Broadcast television will never match the quality of a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc, too many bits, not enough bandwidth, and no way to get that kinda data effectively to your home (at this point).

He said "I just think it all should look like HD Football on Sunday Afternoons." I guess he thinks every show should look like it was video taped under bright lights and have no distracting visual style.

Well to me "New Amsterdam" and "Canterbury's Law" look like fuzzy sd compared to another Fox show, "House", which looks sharp and clear.

The dream of HDTV is being compromised and it stinks.

The delivered material wasn't run through the UMatic machine, they just viewed the material through it to get an idea how it would look at home. 601 and the D1 format were fairly new at the time (1988). In some ways the degradation was still better than the image at home as it didn't add noise and ghosting.

I've seen quite a few 14" diagonal analogue RF PAL 4:3 CRTs in edit suites for the same reason - to evaluate what the lovely high quality content will look like when displayed on a small composite OTA receiver.

UMatic is probably pushing it a bit far (the colour under chroma will kill more chroma bandwith than composite analogue OTA) but monitoring an SD composite RF signal is a good measure of how stuff will look (whilst analogue continues...)

Monitoring via a DVD Recorder in LP (352x480/352x576) that provides an E-E compression preview might also be a good way of evaluating what SD digital compression is going to do to a signal...

Though you have to draw the line somewhere - and I think tailoring content to match the transmission scheme limitations (resolution, chroma bandwith etc.) is an acceptable compromise. However making stuff work for people who have poor off-air signals because of multi-path and low signal is a different kettle of fish.

I do remember being trained to check for mono-compatibility (i.e. look at the signal in black and white) when designing graphics for broadcast - though B&W reception (which costs less in the UK as the licence fee is lower for B&W TVs) is now pretty minor.