Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shingdaz
Concerning resolutions etc...I understand that low compressed bandwidth..on ... SD and HD signals, keeps the image quality low...thus deeming the word HD meaningingless...
...my question is...does anyone know why high-bandwidth seems like such a pain in the a***@%$#! for broadcaster's to use?...instead of compressed?...face it...over ten years ago high bandwidth optical amplifiers where first being introduced to the world...now over ten years later...with high bandwidth sophisticated enough to be used more wide'ly...why is it so hard for broadcaster to send high bandwisdth signal for most channels?....I can see cost as a reason...and possibly not a big enough market for HD uncompressed signals etc...but couldn't they just push a button somewhere and crank up the juice so we can receive full uncompressed signals on all if not most cables channels?...if we asked for it?...or do they still need the recoucres to get to this level of broadcasting quality?...not to mention resoltion copyright laws etc...which is understandable...but if we pay for it then why shoudl be receive less?
|
It is ALL about greed!!!! Instead of broadcasting 100 stations, they try and broadcast 400. The extra 300+ stations generate advertising revenue, no matter what the video and audio quality is. They do not care about the latter, all they care about is how many minutes of adverstizing they can carry via more programing. To add even more stations, they reduce the resolution of all the stations, even HD, to fit more programming in. It is not a matter if they can do it technically, just not enough people who care or can tell the difference between standard definition and the crap they transmit. Of course their are no standards and no government enforcement so it is all open to misuse, even though it is all controlled by the FCC.
