Talk:High-definition television
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Telecommunications Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Television B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the High-definition television article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Archives
- Talk Archive 1 (Fox HDTV program listing ... Ads on external links)
- Talk Archive 2 (Resolutions diagram wrong? ... History of HDTV)
- Talk Archive 3
Requested move
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was: Not Moved. (See Talk:Liquid crystal display#requested move for similar discussion.) Station1 (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
High-definition television → HDTV — Per WP:ABBR, Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (e.g., NASA and radar). GraYoshi2x►talk 02:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, thank you. Firstly, Television is at "Television" not "TV". Secondly, "HDTV" is not an acronym. It can't be pronounced, having no vowels, unlike NASA or radar, or Laser. Thirdly, no-one ever actually says "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" or "Light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation" and it is unthinkable that those articles would be titled thus.
- But people will say "high-definition television". Sometimes they will say "HD television". They may say "High def TV". Very often they will just say "HD". "HD" is one abbreviation, "TV" is another. So there is a case for "HD TV". But just keep it where it is and provide redirects from other plausible search terms. Sussexonian (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- "HD" is distinct from "HDTV". Almost no one uses awkward terms like "HD television" or "high def TV" either. And where does it say that acronyms have to be pronounceable? Show it to me, please. Otherwise your argument is a fallacy in itself! GraYoshi2x►talk 19:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't speak for anyone else, but I hear "High-definition television" said frequently. It is a very common term from what I have seen. TJ Spyke 03:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't exactly heard that mentioned anywhere, and I've been in both sides of the US. GraYoshi2x►talk 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- You must be in isolated areas then. Hell, even a simple Google search shows how common it is. "High-definition television" gets 1.35 million hits [5]. The term is also used in many retailers and books [6]. TJ Spyke 22:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose — Above reasonings are valid & I fully agree with them. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 07:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep in mind though, that Sussexonian seems to have based his/her arguments on simple misconceptions. GraYoshi2x►talk 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- The acronym/abbreviation distinction is important in applying the policy quoted by GraYoshi. The examples quoted (NASA, radar) are acronyms and have the specific features that (i) they are pronounceable and (ii) they are hardly ever spoken as complete phrases. 'Patriot Act' is another example where Wikipedia's article is named for the abbreviation. 'FBI' and 'CIA' are not: they are phrases spoken as abbreviations/initialisms and their full forms are well known. I have commented similarly on GraYoshi's attempt to move Liquid crystal display to 'LCD'. Sussexonian (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- More misconceptions. "CIA" and "FBI" are far more well known than their full counterparts. Again, acronym != pronounceable. Please don't comment when you hardly know what you're talking about. GraYoshi2x►talk 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- The acronym/abbreviation distinction is important in applying the policy quoted by GraYoshi. The examples quoted (NASA, radar) are acronyms and have the specific features that (i) they are pronounceable and (ii) they are hardly ever spoken as complete phrases. 'Patriot Act' is another example where Wikipedia's article is named for the abbreviation. 'FBI' and 'CIA' are not: they are phrases spoken as abbreviations/initialisms and their full forms are well known. I have commented similarly on GraYoshi's attempt to move Liquid crystal display to 'LCD'. Sussexonian (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose For the reasons everyone's given above, plus this: When an initialism is used to describe 2K resolution television, it's virtually always just plain "HD". When the term "HDTV" is used, it generally describes a television set capable of receiving and displaying a high definition television signal. ie you buy an "HDTV" to watch "HD" or watch "high definition television" or watch "television in high definition". As an aside, yes, the definition of the word acronym requires that it be pronounceable: it has to form a "word"[1], I used to make the same mistake of thinking it was a synonym for "initialism". FBI is an initialism, NASA is generally considered an acronym, and GNU is definitely an acronym. --208.152.231.254 (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Should there be a listing of TV networks which broadcast in HD?
Should there be a listing of networks that are offered in the HD format? I think that people would like to know which networks offer the HD option and which ones don't. I am positive that there are a lot of happy people now that Turner Classic Movies has started airing their broadcasts in HD, as of October 2009. I wonder how many people would get HD if they knew their favorite network was available in HD, as well as standard transmission? 204.80.61.110 (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk
- There is a listing in the article: High-definition television in the United States. This has a listing of the broadcast and cable television networks that offer a high-definition option to their viewers in most parts of the USA.Thank you for the listing of the networks that broadcast in high-definition in addition to their standard transmission programs.204.80.61.110 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk
1080iN
What is the source for the chapter "Notation"? Specifically, that in notation style 1080iN the N may represent either frame or field rate. 212.246.213.38 (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the position is vastly complicated because the two sides of the Atlantic use the notation in different ways. In America there is a tendency to quote the field rate for the interlaced formats whereas in Europe the tendency is to use the frame rate (or is it the other way around?). For progressive, they are the same thing. Any progressive system that operates at 24, 25 or 30 frames would be very flickery indeed, though modern LCD and plasma displays over come this. Consumer camcorders are often advertised as having a 25p (or 24p or 30p in the US) mode. But in reality this really refers to the mode in which the sensor is read. The output remains an interlaced video signal but the image in each half of the field pair is the same. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Still looking for an authoritative source for that particular claim. I thought the nomenclature that allows for field rate was 1080/Ni, but I haven't found any authoritative source for it. It is noteworthy however that in the book "Blu-Ray Disc Demystified", by American authors, in the chapter "Other Conventions" under heading "Television Systems" it is stressed that in notation 1080/Ni the N is always for frame rate and never field rate. Furthermore, EBU declares nomenclatures 1080/I/N and 1080i/N with N being the frame rate, which makes me believe 1080iN is just a shortcut for these nomenclatures. I'd love to see what ATSC or ITU has to say about it. 212.246.213.38 (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Photo?
What is the source for the photo compares sharpness of SD and HD pictures? To me looks fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.103.244 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think someone is trying to push the argument that progressive is better than interlaced, but as the photo is a static image there should be no difference (the waterfall doesn't count as it is blurred in all the images). Unfortunately the uploader has got it wrong and the 1080i is sharper than the 1080p. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)