1953 NTSC Color Gamut

[dtvmcdonald]

etype2: "And now we are about to enter HFR (high frame rate) which should reduced artifacts
generated by correction algorithms. Micro LED. Non organic, elf emitting (no backlighting, no filters) color displays. "

Who the f***gerund cares? Except for the rare BluRay disk, all
moving signals one gets are utter, complete, abysmally awful, infuriatingly bad,
intentionally horrible. I have seen no good quality signals recently from any purveyor
be it OTA, cable, or anything, except Bluray disks or direct playback from my Canon
5D Mk3 of scenes I myself took. The Canon pictures are stunningly good on either my
semi-calibrated computer monitor sold specifically for Photoshop work, my 55 inch Sony TV (LCD) or
my CT-100 (lower resolution).

All else is pixellated terrible resolution trash. Single OTS transmitters transmitting up to 9 channels!,
some with three so-called HD channels and a couple of SDTV ones for old episodes of "Bonanza" or
"Dick Van Dyke Show" (yes, the Dick Van Dyke of the appliance store
just down the I74 me.)

Even the NFL conference finals were pixellated crap from all sources. Like in one case the
football itself seemed to disappear!

And did I mention that Xfinity boxes are buggy? [living and breeding German cockroaches]

That's what program material purveyors think of quality.

[ChrisW6ATV]

Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald

That's what program material purveyors think of quality.

High-quality displays and improved technology can and will be used for high-quality video content, and many of us appreciate the improvements as we pursue such high-quality content.

It seems to me that a big difference between the early days of color-TV development/broadcasting and today, is this: In the 1950s they wanted/needed to create the best possible signals and displays (within the limits of technology and potential consumer budgets) in order to convince the public to buy into color TV at all. But, in the 2020s, there is little need to put real quality into most live/ongoing content, since most customers pay relatively little attention to quality in such content these days. (One could argue that it has been that way all along; remember how most people set their color TV sets for garish, excessive pictures for decades, and how they just accepted B&W TV sets without DC restoration, and so on.)

As you said, most live/ongoing content these days has pathetically low quality. I have always figured "you get what you pay for", so I cannot complain about over-the-air audio or video quality since it is all free. But that same logic is why I do not use -any- pay-TV (or paid satellite radio) services. Plenty of Blu-Ray and UHD discs and CDs are very high quality by comparison.