Definition is an old and inadequate measure. The new hotness is bit-rate. Just looking at the god-awful crap that is served up in childrens TV timeslots in particular is nauseating. Lego-vision on sudden scene changes and artifacts around borders of different coloured objects make me wonder how they ever hope to keep young viewers as they grow older when they serve them low-grade slop like that. I can well imagine that even at HD for sports there will be inadequate bit-rate employed to save a bit of bandwidth and transmitter power, too bad if the rubbish codec skimps on a bit of the scene holding vital detail to see what really happened.
Don't worry. As their viewers slowly switch off they will scream to the Government to protect them from all the pirates destroying their business.
Just wasted 5K on a 65" 3840 pixel Ultra HD TV. The picture quality on free TV is very ordinary.
The technician explained that the extra pixels actually detract from the picture given the specifications of free TV channels broadcasts. I get a sharper, deeper picture on my old 60" 1920 TV (same maker). How do these retailers get away with bombarding us with all this technical stuff when it can actually reduce picture quality, let alone improve it?
Well, don't believe what every well meaning technician tells you.
We're talking supersample anti-aliasing, which might work over the whole picture or just edges of objects or colour areas, depending how much processing power the TV has. It does work, it smooths the jagged edges even though it might appear to blur slightly. I personally don't like it.
The amount of processing power to anti-alias a large picture with a lot of movement is colossal and I feel a waste of technology. This sort of kit should be advancing society, not trying to make a fecking football look better.
And that's from another well meaning technician.