Re: Hi-Def not always full-screen ?

phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 04:27:32 -0400 TheWebJunkie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> | FakeAddress@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Ed) posted:
> | 
> |>> "Then, I switch over to PBS and watch, oh, Nature 
> |>>or Masterpiece or something like that. I know PBS 
> |>>is broadcasting in hi-def but the image is often 
> |>>letter-boxed 16:9, with several inches of black 
> |>>space all around."
> | 
> | phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 responded:
> | 
> |> "Digital TV does not imply it must be high definition. 
> |>While digital is a requirement for high definition,
> |> there are other things that can be done with digital. 
> |>Many stations have chosen to transmit multiple 
> |>programming streams instead. A lot of PBS stations 
> |>have chosen to do so. Maybe they feel it is of more 
> |>value to the community to offer a greater choice 
> |>of programming than to make one program look 
> |>better and have less of a choice."
> | 
> | But Ed said that he *knows* PBS is broadcasting in high-def, so it's
> | just the *opposite* of what you said.  By wasting high-definition
> | bandwidth on a standard-definition picture, PBS gives neither high
> | definition *nor* the additional programming which would otherwise fit
> | into that signal.
> 
> Then they have designated a specific channel to transmit in high
definition
> mode, but some of the programming is not (yet) available in high
definition.
> 
> Some people are just too fussy.  More HD programming will be coming as
more
> and more production switches over.  But most of the old programs that
are in
> SD now will stay in SD.
> 
> They played black & white programs back when the TV stations had already
> converted over to color, and even after I had a color TV.  It was no big
> deal.  What would people have wanted?  For them to be colorized?
> 


Damn straight Bippy!!  If I'm gonna spend all this dough on a color 
teevee, I damn well better get a color pitcher.  :)

-- 
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'