HDTV: Too Clear for Comfort?
 

October's issue of Discover magazine had an interesting opinion piece called "Peer Review: Too Clear for Comfort," that said basically that the increased detail of HDTV may decrease our viewing pleasure.

It's available online here:
http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-0...off-too-clear/

The author agues that High Definition turns TV from fantasy into "razor-sharp hyperreality."

Here's a quote from when the author watched The Sopranos in HD for the first time:
Apparently, the author has never heard of the medium called "film," which contains more visual detail than even HDTV.

I once read a original 1939 review of Gone With The Wind. The reviewer stated that watching a movie in color was too taxing on the eyes and would never become widespread.

Those predictions can be really funny.

Check out this 1950s picture and caption which shows what a home computer was supposed to look like in 2004.

I think the author was being a bit dramatic, but good HDTV is sometimes more realistic than film (at least for me) because of the lack of film damage/dirt and the fact that it is better focused. In the theater it isn't always perfectly focused and if the screen is torodial, it has an out of focus area.

Really? As the original poster noted, we have watched films at movie theaters for decades and those are higher resolution than HDTV. I don't remember people complaining that the image was too clear.

I read an article in a magazine back when digital projection was starting, and it was said that video doesn't need quite as high of a resolution to look as sharp as film. The effect of the projector not keeping the film image completely stable causes it to be perceived as a lower resolution than it actually is, while video is rock solid. That may go along with what you said about the image not being as tightly focused.

Fortran - ha ha - that was the funniest part of the caption. The article is stupid - the only problem I have with extra resolution is the gore in some horror movies is not realistic enough anymore.

Sad to say, that pic is is fake.

http://www.digibarn.com/collections/...xes/index.html
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...e_computer.htm

That Discover author is an idiot. Besides, the TV providers are all ruining the resolution, anyway.

"Looked like real people". Is TV supposed to be animation? It's still lower resolution than looking out your window with your eyes.

I was wondering how I could even research something like that... I had my doubts about it's authenticity.

Thanks for the info.

I knew it was a fake from seeing it elsewhere previously, but I did a google search for the words "RAND home computer" to find those supporting links.

This reminds me of a review I read of 2001: A Space Odyssey in 2001. The author said the movie sucks because none of it came true! :lol: Apparently The Lord of the Rings also sucks because it never happened.

Also, the Discover guy is an idiot.

But that's what my home computer does look like. :hscratch:

Hell, I'll watch the Food Network for no other reason than it is HD. Stupid author.

And, quite obviously, that viewing "offers less room for interpretation". We're much worse off by seeing muffins baked in 1080i.

"The muffins were no longer a stand-in for every muffin. The screen wasn't a symbolic mirror to my own life; it was a detailed portrait of a world of baking I didn't belong in and didn't want to."

:lol:

As I looked at the pic for a minute I had a feeling it was faked. Thanks for the proof.

As for the article being discussed... I haven't even read it yet but that's a lame analysis. Once you get used to watching HD (and really, that only takes about 10 minutes) you don't want to go back. The first time I watched Sunday NFL Countdown with Chris Berman and crew in HD, I felt like I was in the studio with them. Why wouldn't you want that??

As with just about any new technological development, there will always be some people who will find fault with it.

:lol: rotfl :lol:

Food Network is in HD?

Yep:
http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/hdtv..._26756,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Ne...ood_Network_HD

Not available on all services of course.

Okay, I sent this guy an email challenging the entire article. Let's see what he says.

This guy is apparently a heavy-hitter in the realm of media studies:
http://www.rushkoff.com/bio.html

Looking forward to his response. Supermallet, did you want to share the email you sent to him?

Hello Mr. Rushkoff,

I recently read your article "Too Clear For Comfort," about how HDTV is going to make television a less useful and enjoyable tool than standard definition. I found your article to be astonishingly short-sighted and ill conceived. Of course, the first thing I thought was that film has had more resolution than HD since its invention. I don't think film is considered a useless and unenjoyable medium. In fact, between film and television, film is more often referred to as the true art form, while TV is considered its bastard stepchild.

The next thing that came to my mind was a somewhat obvious fact that you seemed to overlook: TV will remain as engaging as the content put on it. The resolution only makes it easier to see, not easier to comprehend. It still takes an active mind to understand a show that doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator. Let's take your example of The Sopranos. You claim that seeing all the small details of The Sopranos on your HDTV made you feel like you were watching the real world, and not simply a TV show. However, to accept this, we as your audience must accept that you suddenly abandoned one of the central tenets of all entertainment: the suspension of disbelief. Somehow you were unable to realize that these were fictional people in fictional situations because you could see the smudges on their sunglasses? Excuse me if I refrain from suspending my own disbelief.

When motion pictures first started to become popular, a film called "The Great Train Robbery" was released. The last shot of the film is that of a bandit shooting a gun directly at the screen. When the first movie audiences saw this, they dived out of their seats for fear that they would actually be shot. This, despite the fact that film was in black and white! Movies have come a long way since then, but nobody today is afraid that the images on the screen will come out and harm them, even after the advent of 3-D motion picture technologies.

In short, I think your premise is fundamentally flawed, because it presumes that people will suddenly forget that they're only watching the TV. I think what you should be railing against is programming that doesn't let the audience think for themselves, no matter what the resolution. As long as the content is stimulating, HD can only enhance that mental stimulation, not detract from it.

I got this email back:

"I'm not saying tv is less enjoyable this way - only different. Less
iconic, more real.
Something is gained, yet something is lost.

The editors added the title about TV being less 'enjoyable,' which
kind of kills the whole piece."


My reply:

"I still feel that the difference is in the eye of the beholder, no matter how unconsciously, you chose to look at the content differently. Unless a TV show was made specifically to take advantage of the specific resolution of standard resolution (and the only thing I can think of that might have done that would be Andy Kaufman's aborted NBC special), the jump to high definition will not inherently change the content on the screen. I would still argue that television made to stimulate the mind will still stimulate the mind in the same manner that it would have at a lower resolution."