Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> Some comments in this thread (and others) sound as if there is
> an imminent need to switch to HDTV/H.264, because otherwise we
> won't be able to watch tv any more within a few months. I don't
> see any real incentive in taking all the extra efforts to do
> HDTV. The programmes I usually watch are all broadcast in normal
> MPEG2, SDTV. Even if I had the ability to receive HDTV, I would have
> to pay extra to actually see anyting - so what's the point?
I completely agree with Klaus on that point. All the HD hype right now
is just the industries way of pushing a new technology and selling new
hardware (decoders, TV sets, ...) to the consumers that didn't really
ask for it. Seems a bit like some years ago when 16:9 TV sets was a
*must have*. But there were actually almost no anamorph 16:9
transmissions and most people with their brand new sets were happily
watching the news speaker or their favourite soap opera stars with
squashed heads. That has somehow changed and even the news are in 16:9
anamorph format on German TV now. But how long did it take?
How many channels are available now which transmit quality HD content
(apart from demo channels)? I don't think it's a significant number to
make VDR useless because you can't watch them with it. Of course there
are alternatives for the "early adaptors" so that's fine. I am sure VDR
will also support HD some time in the future. It just doesn't seem
necessary right now.
vdr mailing list