randycat99 said:
it is sure as hell not devoid of blemish if you really take some time to look into the picture.
Quality is variable based on source material and who did the compression, must like DVD, but buddy, I am an expert at spotting artifacts, so please, take your speculation elsewhere. I'll ask again, do you even own an HDTV?
In technical resolution, yes. In keeping down compression artifacts, no. Disc formats seem to hold the standard so far, in passing instances of proper encoding.
ATSC broadcasts are 19mbps. DVD has a maximum bitrate of 10mbps, and that's only achieved on SuperBit DVDs. The fact is, there is nothing in the OTA ATSC standard that prevents it from being superior to DVD, assuming equally skilled producers.
I'm telling you from personal experience, that most of the OTA HDTV broadcasts I watch have less artifacts than most DVDs.
I'm sure not having to be encoded in realtime has a lot to do with it, but there you are.
Realtime is not a requirement.
That's why it is soooo easy to point out how HD looks sooooo much better than the germanely available digital SD. How could it not (aside from the obvious resolution advantage)??? Digital SD has been dumbed down so badly in current days, it looks just plain bad to begin with- far more than it should be given what SD is actually capable of.
OTA HD looks better than digital SD, better than NTSC broadcast, better than most DVD SD, whether you view it on a CRT or not. It looks better across the board. First, it has a much higher bitrate, and secondly, you're viewing it on superior TVs.
At least you are able to acknowledge this threat. Now imagine all the people who think what they shovel out looks absolutely stellar on their brand new HDTV simply because it ends up looking better than what they had before on average... People just fail to recognize a crap signal as soon as it has an HD label slapped on it.
Yes, everyone is ignorant of PQ, and the amazing Randy (who doesn't even seem to have extensive HD viewing experience) must swoop in and tell us long time owners what we're not seeing.
What we have now is "passable" in its best state, and downright embarrassing at its worst. Simplistic generalizations of "vast" improvements is just plainly not seeing the forest for the tree.
You're talking out of your ass. Like in the past, all of your arguments boil down to hypothetical losses of information involved in the entire production and reconstruction process, and some seeming nirvana of quality that would exist if all of these losses were eliminated.
You simultaneously claim that HDTV today is a small step in quality, but if we had this mythological zero-loss production pipeline, there would be a huge perceptible difference. Yet, zero proof is provided, meanwhile, most people who have HD contend they see very large PQ improvements.
Stamping out awareness of quality standards may serve your ego, but it most certainly will not put the industry on a favorable future. You can bet on that.
Most HDTV owners, like I said, are upper middle class videophiles, who are perfectly aware of PQ loses. I mean, jesus christ, a few hundred thousand HDTV owners flooded Fox and UPN phone banks over poorly tuned codecs.
You're preaching to the choir, but despite all of your ramblings, Most HD as it exists today, is *STILL* much better than broadcast SD, and superior to your average DVD. (Criterion and SuperBit are the exceptions) You sir, are in denial.
(and your comments on SD upconversion are non-sense. Anyone with a good upconverting DVD player knows that the player doesn't introduce any additional blurriness, as the image looks the same @ 480p on a CRT)
Mostly I wish to generate more awareness about true PQ in the HD era. Let's not assume it's great in every single way. Let's hold the industry accountable for actually delivering on that promise. We've already witnessed how they drove digital SD into the ground out of greed and indifference (and to very little dis-acclaim, apparently). Don't let them think they can do this all over again for HD. 
