the coose writes: "
Got an HDTV set yet? Wait before getting one; here's why ...
" Honestly this doesn't really bother me, except that I really want HDTV to start being a reality soon.
What might get me to buy a HDTV is if it were also capable of handling computer resolutions. If you can do 720p and 1080i, it shouldn't be that much more difficult to handle 1280x1024, 1600x1200, etc. If my big-screen TV can also be a big-screen computer display, then I have a use for it right now, and I can wait for the broadcasts.
-- Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
For computer animation HDTV is real. For a gadget guru it's real. For high resolution live action it sucks. The current CCD technology only utilizes 1/3 of the total pixel count. All the live action HDTV looks more like standard definition 20 years ago because the technologies are at equivalent stages of development.
DVDs already have more resolution in them than a normal TV can display. Maybe VHS can't do HDTV, but saying that the source detail "isn't there" in movies is silly. If your eyes can't tell the difference even between DVD and VHS, you should probably start wearing glasses.
The question is easy ("How can I make video look better?"). When the answer (HDTV/broadcasting) actually gets here is a bit trickier.
The source detail is definitely there, so far we simply lack the tools to view it.
Sony's new HS series sets aren't too expensive
by
Brian+Stretch
·
· Score: 2
Sony's new 53HS10 and 61HS10 sets look appealing, at least on paper (anyone bought one?). 1080i-capable, $3000 and $3500 respectively at Best Buy. My plan is to wait until Best Buy sends out their 10% off "Customer Appreciation" coupons and get another 5% off using my Sony card (normally 3% kickback, but 5% from May 1st thru June 30th). Of course, then I'll get whacked by Michigan's 6% sales tax, but what can y'do. Dish Network is alledged to have integrated HDTV satellite receivers coming out Any Day Now (can't find anything on their site currently, mostly because their search engine is broken). I've been a Dish Network customer for over 3 years so I'm looking forward to upgrading receivers ($500 is the rumored price).
Then again, if Hauppage would make PC HDTV decoders that displayed full 1080i (only 480p currently), my new Sony G500 21" monitor displays 1920x1440 @ 75Hz quite nicely...
This may be a first for hdtv but the practice of using extra channel bandwidth for data is nothing new. WebTV sends urls of webpages in the extra lines of the closed caption data, Intercast is a technology that allows web pages to be sent in the actual tv signal. WaveTop is trying to be a portal by sending webpages, news and software durring PBS broadcasts.
Chances are your local cable system is already sending out out this extra content, all you'd need to recieve it is a pc with a $50 tv card and some windows software (wavetop is proprietary and there are no good specs on how to decode intercast) or some linux software. - MbM
In fact ANY content that was shot on film could be turned into a high resolution HDTV master if the studio wanted too, even old tv series.
Let me second this. Before the widespread use of videotape and satellite downloads as distribution media, networks used to film their television shows on 16mm or 35mm film and ship the film prints to the television stations, where they were broadcast by projecting them through a telecine projector into a video camera. Many series, such as Buffy and NYPD Blue are still shot on film, but distributed on video, so film prints of recent shows don't turn up on the collector's market, but episodes of shows like MASH and I Love Lucy were discarded by television stations by the truckload, and now turn up regularly on eBay. Try a search on "16mm TV" if you're interested.
The film prints are generally full cinema quality, since they were shot on film, just like movies. Seeing an episode of "Love, American Style" on a 12 foot diagonal screen in razor sharp resolution is, um, an experience... I'll leave it at that.
Re:Ummm.. 320x200 isn't VGA...
by
Detritus
·
· Score: 2
The first color television sets were very expensive, $1295 in 1954. That is approximately $8200 in today's dollars. The price dropped through the 1950s and the early 1960s, but they still were not cheap. The early color television sets also had reliability problems (all those vacuum tubes) and the picture quality was terrible by modern standards.
Can't you still broadcast a HDTV network feed even if you have no HDTV production equipment?
-- Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Re:Perfect Example of the Political Pitfalls
by
Detritus
·
· Score: 2
The point is that never before has the US tried to implement a broadcast standards change that wiped out the functionality of existing equipment.
The FCC killed the 42-50 MHz FM broadcast band at the behest of "General" David Sarnoff of RCA. Sarnoff finally succeeded in crushing Major Armstrong, the pioneer of FM broadcasting, who committed suicide after losing too many battles with RCA.
My TV works just fine. The purpose of my TV is watching the TV shows I like, and it has that feature fully implemented and bug free. Why upgrade to a newer version if the current version works fine?
Yes yes, HDTV is digital, and it's a different (not necessarilly better, but different) screen ratio, but so what? X-Files isn't fuzzy when I watch it anyway.
I suspect the bulk of consumers have similar feelings toward HDTV. No one has given us a reason to buy into the idea, so no one is doing it. Most people don't just rush out to buy new stuff because it's new and "cool". If they want me to buy into HDTV, they're going to have to offer me some radically new features that make it well worth converting.
Trying to use it for data is a noble attempt, but it doesn't really appeal to me. I use my computer for browsing the web, not my TV. It'll take something else to make me switch over anytime in the near future.
Go ahead and buy a tunerless HDTV now
by
Quikah
·
· Score: 2
You can always feed it anamorphic widescreen DVDs and get a picture better than anything a standard TV can produce. Plus DSS systems are starting to broadcast HD signals for select channels now. Go for it.
You can get the Toshiba TW40X81 for about $2500. The OTA tuner will be about $1k. About 2x the cost of an equivalent standard TV setup, not the $6k they are claiming in the article.
Upside Today had a good report on this awhile back. I found it again, and you can read it here. It's called "Digital TV: What a mess", to give you an idea of the slant.:) The article talks about data delivery from a slightly different angle, in terms of interests and profit motives, and gives an overview of all parties involved: cable, broadcasters, FCC, consumers, equipment makers and policy makers. It has an obvious bias, and the typical Upside sensationalist tone, but taught me a lot of new things about how we got to where we are with HDTV.
Re:You obviously haven't seen an HDTV broadcast...
by
Xenu
·
· Score: 2
Until *all* shows are shot for HDTV, there's little point in spending for it. It's a boondoggle Congress forced on us.
There is a huge amount of content, such as movies and old television shows, on 35mm film that could be broadcast in high resolution.
The FCC and Congress did not force HDTV on the television broadcasters. The FCC was looking into the reallocation of unused UHF TV channels to the land mobile radio service. When the NAB heard about it, they went ballistic. Looking for an excuse to hold on to their valuable frequency allocations, they found high definition television. Not only did it make use of unused TV channels, the original proposals used more spectrum than the 6 MHz needed for an NTSC channel. It boiled down to "Let us keep our huge, poorly utilized, frequency allocations and in return we will deliver HDTV to the American public in years."
Re:Not giving away, trading for VHF
by
Xenu
·
· Score: 2
I think the original plan was to reclaim the VHF channels (2-13), but many broadcasters have been lobbying to keep their VHF channel assignments, saying that they can't replicate their current coverage on a UHF channel.
The high definition and wide screen features are nice, but for me, the most important feature is the fact that it is digital video.
I've seen how good NTSC can look when displayed on a studio monitor in a TV station. Unfortunately, that bears no resemblance to the noisy, ghost ridden, ugly NTSC signals delivered by the idiots who run the local cable system or available over-the-air in my area. A end-to-end digital signal, even if it is only SDTV, would be a major improvement over the current situation.
I can remember spending $4000 for a 386 system right after they came out. Too bad computers never got any cheaper as time went by and production increased, eh?
--
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
How many tunerless HDTV's are out there right now?
by
SuperKendall
·
· Score: 2
A number of articles have mentioned that it's a good idea to get a tunerless HDTV right now, and buy tuners and things to hook up to it.
Is there anywhere that has a list of tunerless HDTV's? All I use my TV for right now is to watch DVD's and play console games. So really, a tunerless display sounds great to me...
-- "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Video Game Systems
by
SuperKendall
·
· Score: 2
I'm pretty sure I remember reading at a number of game sites that the PS2 supports HDTV sets - I know I saw a picture from Japan of a game running side by side on a normal TV and HDTV (and unlike the US, they have small HDTV sets in Japan that are at least sort of affordable!). Ahh, here's a list of the ports on a PS2 that shows the AV Output
The games have to be written to take advantage of the different aspect ration though - I'm not sure which ones currently support HDTV aspect ratios.
-- "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not sure about that plan. From the article: "But HDTV has been slow to take off. Reception is spotty..." Does that sound like the kinda thing you'd want to trust your data to?
Re:Details? (Linux support, digital cable)
by
Foogle
·
· Score: 2
My cable company is Adelphia. They provide "Digital Cable", and require you to buy a special box to decode it. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a standard. And, unless the BTTV people have worked some amazing magic, their cards will definitely not decode this signal.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
consider the Pinnacle hdtv card, they have a comparison of their card with the Hauppauge card on their website. One of their advantages is that the Pinnacle card supports a resolution of 1080 while the Hauppauge downmixes everything to 480
_______________________________________________ Television is called a medium because it is neither rare or well-done.
Re:More than 5 digital channels.
by
Jay+Maynard
·
· Score: 2
An HDTV channel is 6 MHz wide, as well. --
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Re:You obviously haven't seen an HDTV broadcast...
by
Jay+Maynard
·
· Score: 2
It is a *very* noticeable difference, if the source material is there. The Jay Leno show is specifically shot for HDTV. If anything, it's *too* clear. YOu can see every wrinkle, every bit of overapplied makeup (which works fine for normal broadcasts, but isn't subtle enough for HDTV).
The key phrase is "if the source material is there". I don't watch Jay Leno, or any of the current crop of popular TV shows; I'd be even less inclined to watch with all of those too-obvious imperfections. I don't watch sports enough to be worth the huge increase in price.
Until *all* shows are shot for HDTV, there's little point in spending for it. It's a boondoggle Congress forced on us. --
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Digital Cable vs Terrestrial Broadcast HDTV
by
jguthrie
·
· Score: 2
sacdelta wrote:
Many cable companies already use a digital signal. I don't know how compatible that signal is with the HDTV programming however.
I don't know what other cable companies use, but around here Warner Cable is using MPEG-3, like the satellite companies. While higher resolution is possible with MPEG, it's not at all compatable with any of the HDTV standards (and there are a BUNCH of those.)
I suppose that one could get one of those receiverless HDTV's (at roughly 10 times the cost of a decent NTSC television with receiver) and use it to display HDTV resolution stuff transmitted over the satellites or cable, but the real point of the matter is this:
sacdelta also wrote:
Signal quality is essential to HDTV. The advantage of a digital signal is that if you receive it, you get pretty much perfect reception. With an analog signal, you get more static as you lose reception quality. With a digital signal it is pretty much all or nothing.
This is why I don't have digital cable any more. By the time they'd repaired the cable enough to receive any digital cable, our analog cable reception (digital cable transmits all of the old analog cable channels using an analog signal) was simply fabulous Sometimes, we'd get hit by line noise and it would absolutely wipe out all of the digital channels. Turn to one of the analog channels and there wouldn't be enough static to notice. (If it wasn't a P5, it was certainly a P4.99.)
When I think of all of the times that I've watched P3 or worse analog signals, I'd have to say that HDTV over terrestrial broadcast channels is a really incredibly stupid idea. It can't possibly work. (Think of how many people you know with perfect off-air reception. I don't know any except for W4KFC who does ATV so has all these marvelous antennae.) The fundamental characteristic of NTSC television signals is robustness and HDTV throws that away in favor of benefits that few truly appreciate. (Who, after all, wants to see Jay Leno's makeup flaws? Does that help you understand the monologue?)
HDTV may be the thing to send over cable or satellite (although I think there already is broader acceptance of MPEG over those media and others as well) but for terrestrial broadcast, it's not the best choice.
The promise of HDTV, crystal-clear images with more than double the resolution of today's televisions, led Congress to mandate that all broadcasts be digital by 2006 and impelled the FCC to give broadcasters extra airwaves for free
So I own a 26" color analog Television set. I paid $250 for this baby back in 1996. I don't have cable. I get my reception from a pair of rabbit ears or an attenna on my roof. Sure the image is fuzzy every once in a while, but I don't care. This setup works great for me. Unless the TV breaks, I have no intention on replacing my set. There's a very good chance that my TV set will last through 2006 and later.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but according to what I read (In this article and elsewhere), I won't be able to receive analog broadcasts past 2006. I will either need to replace working television with a new Digital capable one, or I will need to buy a Digital-to-Analog converter. How much will this box cost? Probably a couple hundred bucks in the begining. I don't want to spend that (and alot of families can't afford this). But if I don't buy this converter, I won't receive any broadcasts, right? Yay, excluded from information because of economics.
Even though 90% of the stuff on TV is crap, television is still a useful medium. From news about tropical storms to the State of the Union, most people get their news through TV. Don't we have a right to access this media without spending more money?
Alot of people have told me that "well, you need to spend money on a Television anyways, which isn't that much different then spending money on a converter box." But the difference is that I can pick up a used television at any Thrift Store for $20, and it works well enough-- it's got sound and an image. Enough to receive useful news.
So why do I want HDTV?
The broadcast spectrum is supposed to be "Free" as in "Democracy", not free as in "High Resolution+ THX sound".
-- "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I can't stand this. When I pay for a service nobody should be able to spam me with ads. I think this includes pay cable tv stations. I remember how cool HBO was and all the rest of the cable stations were when it first came out. I cannot believe how much advertising is done through the media today. I turn on the radio in my car on the way home from work and all I get is ads. I'm in the car for 15 fscking minutes and not a single song plays. So radio and tv are in the crapper. Our lovely web is nearly there. This is all done to make some corporations insanely rich. I get spam, everyone gets spam, you can filter it, but many times someone has sent me and important forward or a document that I needed and It got filtered out. If I pay for broadband I want disgustingly fast access, not more complex advertising. Samething with HDTV. If I pay 6000+ bucks for this tv I better not even see one commercial. But that wont happen. We ARE going to see more complex targeted advertising on the net, tv, magazines, radio. It will never stop. There are only 3 sure things in life death, taxes, and avertising. You will consume what we tell you to. See FIGHT CLUB. nuff said
Re:Not giving away, trading for VHF
by
Cramer
·
· Score: 2
The FCC mandated every TV station must be broadcasting a DIGITAL signal by 2005 -- that was later dropped back to 2006 and could drop back even further -- or they would lose their broadcast license. They've given away the necessary spectrum for a full HDTV signal. However, a great deal of content is currently "up-converted" from NTSC, so there's little point in shipping it out as 1080i. The HDTV signal can support _4_ programs plus a bit of data -- not T3 volumes, but some. PBS is interested in sending multiple programs and streaming computer "interactive" content along side the program; for example, transmitting a "side bar" for Nova.
The FCC is making broadcasters move away from NTSC to HDTV. They haven't said what resolution or ratio of "TV" to "data" one must transmit. [Give them some time. They are part of the.gov]
Very few cable companies have warmed up to HDTV. The signal take a fair amount more bandwidth than a standard cable channel -- and the bandwidth can vary. Cable companies are quickly throwing digital hardware down so who knows what's on the horizon. [One of the reasons for digital cable is signal quality. The other is cable modems -- analog cable was never designed to be bi-directional; in fact there are laws against putting signals back into the public cable network.]
T1s are not fiber, my company has a T1 coming in and all it is is ordinary twisted pair copper wires. Of course the line has been tested and is guaranteed and all, when you follow it back to the CO there's a lot of difference, but the wire coming through the wall is indistinguishable from the twisted pair coming into my house. (Which supports a regular telephone together with cheap 64/256 ADSL, but my house line tested OK for up to 768/768 DSL.)
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:Transmission Standards
by
ecampbel
·
· Score: 2
This response to your previous article addresses many of the issues you present.
Sinclair is not doing independent research like the FCC did for the nine years it took to hammer out the current standard. Many believe that Sinclair is not pursuing this for the benefit of us, but for their own benefit as they stand to gain a lot financially if the US changes to COFDM.
By reading your post, people will think that the people at the FCC are idiots for settling on the 8VSB standard. This isn't true. There are advandages to both, and currently the FCC believes that 8VSB's strengths such as better picture quality and transmitter power requirements make it a superior standard.
Remember, all of Sinclair's tests were conducted using first generation HDTV's, and manufactuers are confident that they can eliminate the multi-path interference problem that 8VSB telivisions are subject to. The FCC and television manufactuers have a vested interest in making HDTV work. The FCC wants to reclaim and sell the analog spectrum, and telivision manufactuers want the public to buy new digital telivisions. An inferior standard doesn't serve either group. Sincalair's interest, on the other hand, is to sell more of their COFDM transmitters. Which group should we listen to?
This article talks so much about the bandwidth capabilities of this new "data-streaming"...but, as a consumer and developer, what I care most about at this point (which may possibly change in the future) is better resolution, not more bandwidth! Of course the two are forever intertwined, but HDTV directly has a much better resolution than my old crappy NTSC TV, and that means so much more to me than having interactive content, more channels, etc. etc.
I will never, ever buy a console gaming system, for example, until one comes out that can match the resolution of my PC! What's the point, otherwise, when I can play the exact same game on my computer at 4 times the resolution of this crummy NTSC game on my TV?
This is, IMHO, one of the most important sentances in this article: "Multicasting or datacasting is fine, as long as they don't abandon HDTV," he said. So very true...so don't buy an HDTV yet?...no, please do! Support the standard, so I don't go blind by the time I'm 60!
One of the problems for DTV, and the major reason that reception is currently spotty, is the current transmission standard. 8VSB, as the current standard is called, is flawed. See my earlier article for some information, and find more thanks to Google.
COFDM is clearly the better solution. This was a major topic of discussion at this year's NAB, and a demonstration by Acrodyne of a COFDM signal transmitted from ~17 miles away being received in the convention center without any problems showed this quite well, as did Sinclair's earlier testing in Baltimore, which I discussed in my article; see above.
This is seriously not a troll, but instead, I think, a wake-up call. Another poster asked if you would want to trust your data to spotty reception. There is no reason to. With superior "ease of reception" in metropolitan areas, or other areas with a lot of multipath, or "ghosting", and equal or better reception outside of the city, there is no reason not to go with COFDM.
A bit of the science behind it: 8VSB uses one carrier that carries all of the information, which is typically MPEG-encoded video. COFDM carries the exact same information split up into many carriers across the 6 MHz spectrum given to a television station. If one of those carriers is somehow damaged, other carriers containing duplicates of that information can be used. The amount of duplicate data can easily be adjusted at the transmission side, allowing for the most data during non-peak hours (for use by data and multiple virtual channels), but increased signal reliability during prime time.
By the way, some xDSLs (which?) use (C)OFDM. Many mobile communications systems either are currently or will in the future use a multi-carrier system like COFDM.
I have noted a few errors in my first post that I wish to correct.
First, the signal that can be carried using COFDM is not exactly the same as the signal for 8-VSB. In fact, the bandwidth is adjustable up to about 20 Mb/s, but sacrificing some signal reliability. As I said, this can be tuned for the specific scenario.
Also, there are reasons not to go with COFDM as a single standard format. But there are no technical reasons not to consider it as an alternative. A major concern is that adopting COFDM even as an alternative system would slow DTV reception. Possibly, but do we want an inferior system?
I am about to become a test subject for trial HDTV broadcasting later this month. Of course rather than just issuing us a box, they are providing a computer board to do the same thing (and a high-end graphics card if we don't have one), so that we have the HDTV signal pumped directly into the computer, from where we can route it to the TV. Best of all, after the test is over, we get to keep the goodies for free. =7)
On the set side, I was in a Circuit City store a couple of months ago looking at big screen TVs. I wasn't really considering one of the grainy beasts very seriously until I saw a 61" HDTV. WOW! The only question is, how long do I have to wait until I can pony up the $8k the thing costs? Definitely no later than the end of this year, and depending on the stock market (and my stock options), it may be considerably sooner.
As far as misuse of airwaves as described in this article, these things have a way of catching up with the misusers. Meanwhile, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the picture.
Isn't it that old tech that was around before the Internet? I figured it would have ended up in a museum by now.
Monumental Stupidity in Congress
by
hypergeek
·
· Score: 2
I can't believe this! Congress just gave the extra bandwidth for HDTV to broadcasters for free with no strings attached, and trusted them to use it only for HDTV, then sat there dumbfoundedly as they (gasp!)... used it for other purposes!
#ifdef DRIPPING_SARCASM
Hmm... let's see. While we're at it, why not give small children handguns to protect themselves from child abuse! It's not like they'd come up with other ways to use them!
Why not give North Korea large supplies of plutonium? I'm sure they'll only use it to make cheap electric power, and maybe recharge their flux-capacitors!
Why not release criminal psychopaths from the asylums and give them hammers and chainsaws? I'm sure they'll use their newfound freedom and tools strictly to build houses for the homeless!
Why not give Microsoft a tiny slap on the wrist and let it off the hook? I'm sure it'll use its world domination exclusively to promote Quality $oftware(TM)!
Why not elect 535 random politicians to Congress and expect them to make smart decisions! I'm sure they won't use their power to... to... gee, what is it that they get done, anyway?
Oh, that's right. They improve our viewing experience to ensure that C-SPAN comes in digital crystal-clarity. Can't have our elected representatives lookin' shabby in Lo-Rez, can we?
God bless America®.
#endif
-- Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
From my observation most new technology which suceed depends on its 'leap' in technology which can be felt by normal consumers. I don't see why anyone would want HDTV when their Cable or Satelite works just perfect as they are. People are happy with TV just they way it is. The higher resolution offered by HDTV is just not enough of a 'leap' from conventional TVs - not enough for normal users to really appreciate it. Here are some major technological leaps (for consumers) which succeded in the market : Zip Drive - 100 MB or conventional 1.44 MB - 2.88 MB Failed. - Someother 10s 20s MB disk failed. Cable Modem - 10 Mbs vs conventioal 28.8 Kbp - 56K modem not really a sucess. - ISDN 128K...ho hum. HDTV vs. Conventional TV I don't see how normal consumers would really feel the 'significant' benefit in their daily viewing if they were to use HDTV instead of the conventional TV. Lesson to be learned here is that in order to gain wide acceptance of a new techology, it has to have some form of quantum leap over the previous technology. HDTV just don't have the edge that cable modem have over conventional modems. Gary Note : I am applying what I said to TYPICAL CONSUMERS.
So what happens when HDTV does come out??
by
SuperDuG
·
· Score: 2
So what happens when HDTV does come out... does IBlast just die. Then what do you do with those sill $300 boxes?
My other question is... why is this any different then wireless networking or advertised paid paging?
Seems like a gimmick that costs too much to get off the ground and no one will really use anyways. Ohh well.
-- Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
I haven't bought an HDTV set yet, and won't for at least the next little while, for one reason: I haven't heard the question yet to which HDTV is the answer. So what if the picture is twice as sharp? The source material simply doesn't take advantage of it, nor can my eyes. I use high resolutions on my computer screens because it allows me to put more stuff of the same pixel size on the screen, not to enjoy the nuances of every little photograph on the web - because the source detail isn't there. Neither is it in TV programs, or movies. --
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Re:White Paper on Haupage DTV cards
by
Cy+Guy
·
· Score: 3
This paper (pdf format) gives some technical info on the WinTV-D card and also on DTV data casting in general.
BTW, the Slashdot and ABC headlines are only helping to increase the confusion of DTV and HDTV. The spectrum is reserved for DTV which can include HDTV. If it were for HDTV only, then there shouldn't so much left over spectrum when broadcasting 1080i.
Here is the Digital TV Term Glossary from paper
by
Cy+Guy
·
· Score: 3
In case people don't want to load the pdf file, here is the Glossary:
GLOSSARY OF DTV TERMINOLOGY
AC-3: Also known as Dolby Digital, a coding and compression method for surround audio capable of driving 5 speakers and a sub-woofer.
Chroma, Chrominance: The signal in an S-Video circuit that carries the color overlay information.
DBS - Direct Broadcast Satellite: The generic term for the small-dish digital systems in popular use today.
Downsampling: Reducing the information content (detail) in an image in order to allow rendering to a lower resolution display.
DTV - Digital Television: The generic term for broadcasting of any of the approved digital formats.
DVD - Digital Versatile Disk: A data encoding standard for CD-ROM-like disks, capable of storing data at the higher densities needed for recording movies.
HDTV - High Definition Television: The term which refers to those approved digital formats with resolution higher than SDTV, namely those with 720 or 1,080 vertical lines of resolution.
IEEE 1394: Also known as Firewire, a high-speed serial interconnect capable of transferring up to 400 Megabits per second.
Luma, Luminance: The signal in an S-Video circuit that carries the black-and-white detail information.
MPEG-2: A "compression" method for reducing the bit rate needed to transmit a series of images.
MSO: Multiple Services Operator - a cable TV company.
PSIP - Program and System Information Protocol: The data stream within a DTV broadcast that describes the various video, audio and data streams that are present.
QAM - Quadrature Amplitude Modulation: A method of encoding bits using multiple analog levels to represent bit patterns - often used by the cable industry.
SDTV - Standard Definition Television: The term which refers to those of the approved digital formats with resolution comparable to today' s DBS and DVD systems, namely those with 480 vertical lines of resolution.
Transcoding: Converting from one modulation method to another, for example, from VSB to QAM.
USB - Universal Serial Bus: A medium-speed (12 Megabit per second) local communication bus.
VSB - Vestigal Side-Band: A method of encoding bits used primarily by the television broadcast industry.
The WinTV-d only support 480i, the lowest of the low HDTV resolutions, in fact, so low that that res it typically referred to as D(igital)TV, cuz the rez aint all that high. Hauppauge is going to have a full out, ahve you cake and eat it too, completely HDTV card within the year, but this sure aint it.
Movies (and even most high budget TV shows) areshot on film. It's a relatively simple matter to run an edited film print through a high definition Telecine. Bang, all of a sudden you have a HDTV film master for broadcasting. The effective resolution of film is greater than 2048x1920 so there's plenty of detail there for HDTV.
In fact ANY content that was shot on film could be turned into a high resolution HDTV master if the studio wanted too, even old tv series.
And yes when you see HDTV you will know the difference, remember the first time you saw a DVD versus a VHS tape?
Our dear government should never have started the great spectrum auctions.
Instead of selling it, they should have rented it out, and evect any renter who doesn't actually use it as indended.
The hidden dangers of HDTV
by
Greyfox
·
· Score: 3
Once they start broadcasting in digital, how long will it take them to insure that your VCR can't record anything? With the DMCA and the MPAA trying to encrypt everything, it won't surprise me when they start building something like CSS into the TV itself. Encrypt the signal right up to the point where it hits the TV and bang! The VCR suddenly becomes useless.
On the plus side, assuming you can munge the digital signal based on your own parameters, filtering/editing out commercials should become a lot easier. I'm sure they'll figure out how to prevent that too...
--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
HDTV really isn't going to take off until it's affordable. I mean, come on, who is going to pay over $5000 just for a little better resolution. Only people with large sums of money to blow, really...
Until a good portion of the population can afford them, it won't really go anywhere, most likely.
-- Dr. Eldarion -- It's not what it is, it's something else.
10^12 channels and nothing's on...
by
Alien+Perspective
·
· Score: 3
So congress gives away all that HDTV bandwidth, a very valuable commodity, for free to the broadcasters, with the understanding that the broadcasters will convert to HDTV and release their old frequencies for other uses.
Naturally, the broadcasters reneg...going for $$$ using the HDTV bandwidth for other stuff while continuing to hold the old bandwidth too.
Does anyone else see this as a blatent spectrum theft? Of course, we can't expect our elected representitives to do anything about it; pissing off the broadcasters is electoral death.
When one industry gets a veto on who gets to be our government, you should be worried.
Personally, I was looking forward to everyone having to toss their old TVs...maybe it would wean people from sucking on the glass teat, and that would raise the collective IQ of the country.
HD is wonderful - if you haven't seen it, its like a great flat 21" monitor with resolution set to 1280x1024. (only in 16x9 ratio)
What little programming that is available so far really looks good. The superbowl was outstanding, except when the ntsc camerman walked right in front of the HD camera, so you got a really great picture of the back of the SD camera.
Waiting for the set is a toss up. If you do have the bucks, even regular tv looks really good on the set. The two most important things are native resolution and the set top box.
Do not get a set that is not native 1080. Otherwise, any 1080 signal will be downcoverted to whatever the native mode is - a cheap set might be 480 native, in which case you have a fancy regular tv.
do NOT get a set with an integrated box. The linked article is a perfect reason why. Until there is enough HD programming, broadcasters are looking to fill their pipe with some source of revenue. The new broadcast pipe can carry 5 SD signals and change or one HD, so sending 1 SD leave about 14 mb/s of available pipe.
There are a lot of revenue generating things you can do with 14mbs. Given the cost of going digital (1-1.5 Mil for a transmitter; a new antenna, tower space, microwave, etc can tack on another mil or so)(not to mention another 5-15k/month for electricity) broadcasters are in need of income asap.
There is a great opportunity for someone to come up with new business models to take advantage to this distribution medium. Any ideas? Any Takers?
-- The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
Slashdot Mirror
What might get me to buy a HDTV is if it were also capable of handling computer resolutions. If you can do 720p and 1080i, it shouldn't be that much more difficult to handle 1280x1024, 1600x1200, etc. If my big-screen TV can also be a big-screen computer display, then I have a use for it right now, and I can wait for the broadcasts.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
For computer animation HDTV is real. For a gadget guru it's real. For high resolution live action it sucks. The current CCD technology only utilizes 1/3 of the total pixel count. All the live action HDTV looks more like standard definition 20 years ago because the technologies are at equivalent stages of development.
a ft/5-14_HR.jpg
Sample HDTV image:
http://lds.org/med_inf/gen_con_pho/gen_con_sun_
DVDs already have more resolution in them than a normal TV can display. Maybe VHS can't do HDTV, but saying that the source detail "isn't there" in movies is silly. If your eyes can't tell the difference even between DVD and VHS, you should probably start wearing glasses.
The question is easy ("How can I make video look better?"). When the answer (HDTV/broadcasting) actually gets here is a bit trickier.
The source detail is definitely there, so far we simply lack the tools to view it.
Then again, if Hauppage would make PC HDTV decoders that displayed full 1080i (only 480p currently), my new Sony G500 21" monitor displays 1920x1440 @ 75Hz quite nicely...
Chances are your local cable system is already sending out out this extra content, all you'd need to recieve it is a pc with a $50 tv card and some windows software (wavetop is proprietary and there are no good specs on how to decode intercast) or some linux software.
- MbM
- MbM
In fact ANY content that was shot on film could be turned into a high resolution HDTV master if the studio wanted too, even old tv series.
... I'll leave it at that.
Let me second this. Before the widespread use of videotape and satellite downloads as distribution media, networks used to film their television shows on 16mm or 35mm film and ship the film prints to the television stations, where they were broadcast by projecting them through a telecine projector into a video camera. Many series, such as Buffy and NYPD Blue are still shot on film, but distributed on video, so film prints of recent shows don't turn up on the collector's market, but episodes of shows like MASH and I Love Lucy were discarded by television stations by the truckload, and now turn up regularly on eBay. Try a search on "16mm TV" if you're interested.
The film prints are generally full cinema quality, since they were shot on film, just like movies. Seeing an episode of "Love, American Style" on a 12 foot diagonal screen in razor sharp resolution is, um, an experience
The first color television sets were very expensive, $1295 in 1954. That is approximately $8200 in today's dollars. The price dropped through the 1950s and the early 1960s, but they still were not cheap. The early color television sets also had reliability problems (all those vacuum tubes) and the picture quality was terrible by modern standards.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Can't you still broadcast a HDTV network feed even if you have no HDTV production equipment?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The FCC killed the 42-50 MHz FM broadcast band at the behest of "General" David Sarnoff of RCA. Sarnoff finally succeeded in crushing Major Armstrong, the pioneer of FM broadcasting, who committed suicide after losing too many battles with RCA.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
My TV works just fine. The purpose of my TV is watching the TV shows I like, and it has that feature fully implemented and bug free. Why upgrade to a newer version if the current version works fine?
Yes yes, HDTV is digital, and it's a different (not necessarilly better, but different) screen ratio, but so what? X-Files isn't fuzzy when I watch it anyway.
I suspect the bulk of consumers have similar feelings toward HDTV. No one has given us a reason to buy into the idea, so no one is doing it. Most people don't just rush out to buy new stuff because it's new and "cool". If they want me to buy into HDTV, they're going to have to offer me some radically new features that make it well worth converting.
Trying to use it for data is a noble attempt, but it doesn't really appeal to me. I use my computer for browsing the web, not my TV. It'll take something else to make me switch over anytime in the near future.
You can always feed it anamorphic widescreen DVDs and get a picture better than anything a standard TV can produce. Plus DSS systems are starting to broadcast HD signals for select channels now. Go for it.
You can get the Toshiba TW40X81 for about $2500. The OTA tuner will be about $1k. About 2x the cost of an equivalent standard TV setup, not the $6k they are claiming in the article.
Q.
Upside Today had a good report on this awhile back. I found it again, and you can read it here. It's called "Digital TV: What a mess", to give you an idea of the slant. :) The article talks about data delivery from a slightly different angle, in terms of interests and profit motives, and gives an overview of all parties involved: cable, broadcasters, FCC, consumers, equipment makers and policy makers. It has an obvious bias, and the typical Upside sensationalist tone, but taught me a lot of new things about how we got to where we are with HDTV.
There is a huge amount of content, such as movies and old television shows, on 35mm film that could be broadcast in high resolution.
The FCC and Congress did not force HDTV on the television broadcasters. The FCC was looking into the reallocation of unused UHF TV channels to the land mobile radio service. When the NAB heard about it, they went ballistic. Looking for an excuse to hold on to their valuable frequency allocations, they found high definition television. Not only did it make use of unused TV channels, the original proposals used more spectrum than the 6 MHz needed for an NTSC channel. It boiled down to "Let us keep our huge, poorly utilized, frequency allocations and in return we will deliver HDTV to the American public in years."
I think the original plan was to reclaim the VHF channels (2-13), but many broadcasters have been lobbying to keep their VHF channel assignments, saying that they can't replicate their current coverage on a UHF channel.
I've seen how good NTSC can look when displayed on a studio monitor in a TV station. Unfortunately, that bears no resemblance to the noisy, ghost ridden, ugly NTSC signals delivered by the idiots who run the local cable system or available over-the-air in my area. A end-to-end digital signal, even if it is only SDTV, would be a major improvement over the current situation.
I can remember spending $4000 for a 386 system right after they came out. Too bad computers never got any cheaper as time went by and production increased, eh?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
A number of articles have mentioned that it's a good idea to get a tunerless HDTV right now, and buy tuners and things to hook up to it.
Is there anywhere that has a list of tunerless HDTV's? All I use my TV for right now is to watch DVD's and play console games. So really, a tunerless display sounds great to me...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm pretty sure I remember reading at a number of game sites that the PS2 supports HDTV sets - I know I saw a picture from Japan of a game running side by side on a normal TV and HDTV (and unlike the US, they have small HDTV sets in Japan that are at least sort of affordable!). Ahh, here's a list of the ports on a PS2 that shows the AV Output
The games have to be written to take advantage of the different aspect ration though - I'm not sure which ones currently support HDTV aspect ratios.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not sure about that plan. From the article: "But HDTV has been slow to take off. Reception is spotty..." Does that sound like the kinda thing you'd want to trust your data to?
"Sorry dear, no email during the thunderstorm."
Hotnutz.com - Funny
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
consider the Pinnacle hdtv card, they have a comparison of their card with the Hauppauge card on their website. One of their advantages is that the Pinnacle card supports a resolution of 1080 while the Hauppauge downmixes everything to 480
_______________________________________________
Television is called a medium because it is neither rare or well-done.
An HDTV channel is 6 MHz wide, as well.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
It is a *very* noticeable difference, if the source material is there. The Jay Leno show is specifically shot for HDTV. If anything, it's *too* clear. YOu can see every wrinkle, every bit of overapplied makeup (which works fine for normal broadcasts, but isn't subtle enough for HDTV).
The key phrase is "if the source material is there". I don't watch Jay Leno, or any of the current crop of popular TV shows; I'd be even less inclined to watch with all of those too-obvious imperfections. I don't watch sports enough to be worth the huge increase in price.
Until *all* shows are shot for HDTV, there's little point in spending for it. It's a boondoggle Congress forced on us.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Many cable companies already use a digital signal. I don't know how compatible that signal is with the HDTV programming however.
I don't know what other cable companies use, but around here Warner Cable is using MPEG-3, like the satellite companies. While higher resolution is possible with MPEG, it's not at all compatable with any of the HDTV standards (and there are a BUNCH of those.)
I suppose that one could get one of those receiverless HDTV's (at roughly 10 times the cost of a decent NTSC television with receiver) and use it to display HDTV resolution stuff transmitted over the satellites or cable, but the real point of the matter is this:
sacdelta also wrote:
Signal quality is essential to HDTV. The advantage of a digital signal is that if you receive it, you get pretty much perfect reception. With an analog signal, you get more static as you lose reception quality. With a digital signal it is pretty much all or nothing.
This is why I don't have digital cable any more. By the time they'd repaired the cable enough to receive any digital cable, our analog cable reception (digital cable transmits all of the old analog cable channels using an analog signal) was simply fabulous Sometimes, we'd get hit by line noise and it would absolutely wipe out all of the digital channels. Turn to one of the analog channels and there wouldn't be enough static to notice. (If it wasn't a P5, it was certainly a P4.99.)
When I think of all of the times that I've watched P3 or worse analog signals, I'd have to say that HDTV over terrestrial broadcast channels is a really incredibly stupid idea. It can't possibly work. (Think of how many people you know with perfect off-air reception. I don't know any except for W4KFC who does ATV so has all these marvelous antennae.) The fundamental characteristic of NTSC television signals is robustness and HDTV throws that away in favor of benefits that few truly appreciate. (Who, after all, wants to see Jay Leno's makeup flaws? Does that help you understand the monologue?)
HDTV may be the thing to send over cable or satellite (although I think there already is broader acceptance of MPEG over those media and others as well) but for terrestrial broadcast, it's not the best choice.
The promise of HDTV, crystal-clear images with more than double the resolution of today's televisions, led Congress to mandate that all broadcasts be digital by 2006 and impelled the FCC to give broadcasters extra airwaves for free
So I own a 26" color analog Television set. I paid $250 for this baby back in 1996. I don't have cable. I get my reception from a pair of rabbit ears or an attenna on my roof. Sure the image is fuzzy every once in a while, but I don't care. This setup works great for me. Unless the TV breaks, I have no intention on replacing my set. There's a very good chance that my TV set will last through 2006 and later.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but according to what I read (In this article and elsewhere), I won't be able to receive analog broadcasts past 2006. I will either need to replace working television with a new Digital capable one, or I will need to buy a Digital-to-Analog converter. How much will this box cost? Probably a couple hundred bucks in the begining. I don't want to spend that (and alot of families can't afford this). But if I don't buy this converter, I won't receive any broadcasts, right? Yay, excluded from information because of economics.
Even though 90% of the stuff on TV is crap, television is still a useful medium. From news about tropical storms to the State of the Union, most people get their news through TV. Don't we have a right to access this media without spending more money?
Alot of people have told me that "well, you need to spend money on a Television anyways, which isn't that much different then spending money on a converter box." But the difference is that I can pick up a used television at any Thrift Store for $20, and it works well enough-- it's got sound and an image. Enough to receive useful news.
So why do I want HDTV?
The broadcast spectrum is supposed to be "Free" as in "Democracy", not free as in "High Resolution+ THX sound".
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I can't stand this. When I pay for a service nobody should be able to spam me with ads. I think this includes pay cable tv stations. I remember how cool HBO was and all the rest of the cable stations were when it first came out. I cannot believe how much advertising is done through the media today. I turn on the radio in my car on the way home from work and all I get is ads. I'm in the car for 15 fscking minutes and not a single song plays. So radio and tv are in the crapper. Our lovely web is nearly there. This is all done to make some corporations insanely rich. I get spam, everyone gets spam, you can filter it, but many times someone has sent me and important forward or a document that I needed and It got filtered out. If I pay for broadband I want disgustingly fast access, not more complex advertising. Samething with HDTV. If I pay 6000+ bucks for this tv I better not even see one commercial. But that wont happen. We ARE going to see more complex targeted advertising on the net, tv, magazines, radio. It will never stop. There are only 3 sure things in life death, taxes, and avertising. You will consume what we tell you to. See FIGHT CLUB. nuff said
The FCC mandated every TV station must be broadcasting a DIGITAL signal by 2005 -- that was later dropped back to 2006 and could drop back even further -- or they would lose their broadcast license. They've given away the necessary spectrum for a full HDTV signal. However, a great deal of content is currently "up-converted" from NTSC, so there's little point in shipping it out as 1080i. The HDTV signal can support _4_ programs plus a bit of data -- not T3 volumes, but some. PBS is interested in sending multiple programs and streaming computer "interactive" content along side the program; for example, transmitting a "side bar" for Nova.
.gov]
The FCC is making broadcasters move away from NTSC to HDTV. They haven't said what resolution or ratio of "TV" to "data" one must transmit. [Give them some time. They are part of the
Very few cable companies have warmed up to HDTV. The signal take a fair amount more bandwidth than a standard cable channel -- and the bandwidth can vary. Cable companies are quickly throwing digital hardware down so who knows what's on the horizon. [One of the reasons for digital cable is signal quality. The other is cable modems -- analog cable was never designed to be bi-directional; in fact there are laws against putting signals back into the public cable network.]
T1s are not fiber, my company has a T1 coming in and all it is is ordinary twisted pair copper wires. Of course the line has been tested and is guaranteed and all, when you follow it back to the CO there's a lot of difference, but the wire coming through the wall is indistinguishable from the twisted pair coming into my house. (Which supports a regular telephone together with cheap 64/256 ADSL, but my house line tested OK for up to 768/768 DSL.)
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
This response to your previous article addresses many of the issues you present.
Sinclair is not doing independent research like the FCC did for the nine years it took to hammer out the current standard. Many believe that Sinclair is not pursuing this for the benefit of us, but for their own benefit as they stand to gain a lot financially if the US changes to COFDM.
By reading your post, people will think that the people at the FCC are idiots for settling on the 8VSB standard. This isn't true. There are advandages to both, and currently the FCC believes that 8VSB's strengths such as better picture quality and transmitter power requirements make it a superior standard.
Remember, all of Sinclair's tests were conducted using first generation HDTV's, and manufactuers are confident that they can eliminate the multi-path interference problem that 8VSB telivisions are subject to. The FCC and television manufactuers have a vested interest in making HDTV work. The FCC wants to reclaim and sell the analog spectrum, and telivision manufactuers want the public to buy new digital telivisions. An inferior standard doesn't serve either group. Sincalair's interest, on the other hand, is to sell more of their COFDM transmitters. Which group should we listen to?
Sig goes here
I will never, ever buy a console gaming system, for example, until one comes out that can match the resolution of my PC! What's the point, otherwise, when I can play the exact same game on my computer at 4 times the resolution of this crummy NTSC game on my TV?
This is, IMHO, one of the most important sentances in this article: "Multicasting or datacasting is fine, as long as they don't abandon HDTV," he said. So very true...so don't buy an HDTV yet?...no, please do! Support the standard, so I don't go blind by the time I'm 60!
COFDM is clearly the better solution. This was a major topic of discussion at this year's NAB, and a demonstration by Acrodyne of a COFDM signal transmitted from ~17 miles away being received in the convention center without any problems showed this quite well, as did Sinclair's earlier testing in Baltimore, which I discussed in my article; see above.
This is seriously not a troll, but instead, I think, a wake-up call. Another poster asked if you would want to trust your data to spotty reception. There is no reason to. With superior "ease of reception" in metropolitan areas, or other areas with a lot of multipath, or "ghosting", and equal or better reception outside of the city, there is no reason not to go with COFDM.
A bit of the science behind it: 8VSB uses one carrier that carries all of the information, which is typically MPEG-encoded video. COFDM carries the exact same information split up into many carriers across the 6 MHz spectrum given to a television station. If one of those carriers is somehow damaged, other carriers containing duplicates of that information can be used. The amount of duplicate data can easily be adjusted at the transmission side, allowing for the most data during non-peak hours (for use by data and multiple virtual channels), but increased signal reliability during prime time.
By the way, some xDSLs (which?) use (C)OFDM. Many mobile communications systems either are currently or will in the future use a multi-carrier system like COFDM.
For a bit more information, see Sinclair's COFDM FAQ.
Kenneth
First, the signal that can be carried using COFDM is not exactly the same as the signal for 8-VSB. In fact, the bandwidth is adjustable up to about 20 Mb/s, but sacrificing some signal reliability. As I said, this can be tuned for the specific scenario.
Also, there are reasons not to go with COFDM as a single standard format. But there are no technical reasons not to consider it as an alternative. A major concern is that adopting COFDM even as an alternative system would slow DTV reception. Possibly, but do we want an inferior system?
Its slow coming, but its coming.
I am about to become a test subject for trial HDTV broadcasting later this month. Of course rather than just issuing us a box, they are providing a computer board to do the same thing (and a high-end graphics card if we don't have one), so that we have the HDTV signal pumped directly into the computer, from where we can route it to the TV. Best of all, after the test is over, we get to keep the goodies for free. =7)
On the set side, I was in a Circuit City store a couple of months ago looking at big screen TVs. I wasn't really considering one of the grainy beasts very seriously until I saw a 61" HDTV. WOW! The only question is, how long do I have to wait until I can pony up the $8k the thing costs? Definitely no later than the end of this year, and depending on the stock market (and my stock options), it may be considerably sooner.
As far as misuse of airwaves as described in this article, these things have a way of catching up with the misusers. Meanwhile, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the picture.
Gonzo
Isn't it that old tech that was around before the Internet? I figured it would have ended up in a museum by now.
#ifdef DRIPPING_SARCASM
Hmm... let's see. While we're at it, why not give small children handguns to protect themselves from child abuse! It's not like they'd come up with other ways to use them!
Why not give North Korea large supplies of plutonium? I'm sure they'll only use it to make cheap electric power, and maybe recharge their flux-capacitors!
Why not release criminal psychopaths from the asylums and give them hammers and chainsaws? I'm sure they'll use their newfound freedom and tools strictly to build houses for the homeless!
Why not give Microsoft a tiny slap on the wrist and let it off the hook? I'm sure it'll use its world domination exclusively to promote Quality $oftware(TM)!
Why not elect 535 random politicians to Congress and expect them to make smart decisions! I'm sure they won't use their power to... to... gee, what is it that they get done, anyway?
Oh, that's right. They improve our viewing experience to ensure that C-SPAN comes in digital crystal-clarity. Can't have our elected representatives lookin' shabby in Lo-Rez, can we?
God bless America®.
#endif
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
From my observation most new technology which suceed depends on its 'leap' in technology which can be felt by normal consumers. I don't see why anyone would want HDTV when their Cable or Satelite works just perfect as they are. People are happy with TV just they way it is. The higher resolution offered by HDTV is just not enough of a 'leap' from conventional TVs - not enough for normal users to really appreciate it. Here are some major technological leaps (for consumers) which succeded in the market : Zip Drive - 100 MB or conventional 1.44 MB - 2.88 MB Failed. - Someother 10s 20s MB disk failed. Cable Modem - 10 Mbs vs conventioal 28.8 Kbp - 56K modem not really a sucess. - ISDN 128K...ho hum. HDTV vs. Conventional TV I don't see how normal consumers would really feel the 'significant' benefit in their daily viewing if they were to use HDTV instead of the conventional TV. Lesson to be learned here is that in order to gain wide acceptance of a new techology, it has to have some form of quantum leap over the previous technology. HDTV just don't have the edge that cable modem have over conventional modems. Gary Note : I am applying what I said to TYPICAL CONSUMERS.
My other question is ... why is this any different then wireless networking or advertised paid paging?
Seems like a gimmick that costs too much to get off the ground and no one will really use anyways. Ohh well.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I haven't bought an HDTV set yet, and won't for at least the next little while, for one reason: I haven't heard the question yet to which HDTV is the answer. So what if the picture is twice as sharp? The source material simply doesn't take advantage of it, nor can my eyes. I use high resolutions on my computer screens because it allows me to put more stuff of the same pixel size on the screen, not to enjoy the nuances of every little photograph on the web - because the source detail isn't there. Neither is it in TV programs, or movies.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
This paper (pdf format) gives some technical info on the WinTV-D card and also on DTV data casting in general.
BTW, the Slashdot and ABC headlines are only helping to increase the confusion of DTV and HDTV. The spectrum is reserved for DTV which can include HDTV. If it were for HDTV only, then there shouldn't so much left over spectrum when broadcasting 1080i.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
In case people don't want to load the pdf file, here is the Glossary:
GLOSSARY OF DTV TERMINOLOGY
AC-3: Also known as Dolby Digital, a coding and compression method for surround audio capable
of driving 5 speakers and a sub-woofer.
Chroma, Chrominance: The signal in an S-Video circuit that carries the color overlay information.
DBS - Direct Broadcast Satellite: The generic term for the small-dish digital systems in popular
use today.
Downsampling: Reducing the information content (detail) in an image in order to allow rendering
to a lower resolution display.
DTV - Digital Television: The generic term for broadcasting of any of the approved digital
formats.
DVD - Digital Versatile Disk: A data encoding standard for CD-ROM-like disks, capable of storing
data at the higher densities needed for recording movies.
HDTV - High Definition Television: The term which refers to those approved digital formats with
resolution higher than SDTV, namely those with 720 or 1,080 vertical lines of resolution.
IEEE 1394: Also known as Firewire, a high-speed serial interconnect capable of transferring up to
400 Megabits per second.
Luma, Luminance: The signal in an S-Video circuit that carries the black-and-white detail
information.
MPEG-2: A "compression" method for reducing the bit rate needed to transmit a series of images.
MSO: Multiple Services Operator - a cable TV company.
PSIP - Program and System Information Protocol: The data stream within a DTV broadcast that
describes the various video, audio and data streams that are present.
QAM - Quadrature Amplitude Modulation: A method of encoding bits using multiple analog levels
to represent bit patterns - often used by the cable industry.
SDTV - Standard Definition Television: The term which refers to those of the approved digital
formats with resolution comparable to today' s DBS and DVD systems, namely those with 480
vertical lines of resolution.
Transcoding: Converting from one modulation method to another, for example, from VSB to
QAM.
USB - Universal Serial Bus: A medium-speed (12 Megabit per second) local communication bus.
VSB - Vestigal Side-Band: A method of encoding bits used primarily by the television broadcast
industry.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
The WinTV-d only support 480i, the lowest of the low HDTV resolutions, in fact, so low that that res it typically referred to as D(igital)TV, cuz the rez aint all that high. Hauppauge is going to have a full out, ahve you cake and eat it too, completely HDTV card within the year, but this sure aint it.
matt
Um, neither is movies? What sorry?
Movies (and even most high budget TV shows) areshot on film. It's a relatively simple matter to run an edited film print through a high definition Telecine. Bang, all of a sudden you have a HDTV film master for broadcasting. The effective resolution of film is greater than 2048x1920 so there's plenty of detail there for HDTV.
In fact ANY content that was shot on film could be turned into a high resolution HDTV master if the studio wanted too, even old tv series.
And yes when you see HDTV you will know the difference, remember the first time you saw a DVD versus a VHS tape?
Instead of selling it, they should have rented it out, and evect any renter who doesn't actually use it as indended.
On the plus side, assuming you can munge the digital signal based on your own parameters, filtering/editing out commercials should become a lot easier. I'm sure they'll figure out how to prevent that too...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
HDTV really isn't going to take off until it's affordable. I mean, come on, who is going to pay over $5000 just for a little better resolution. Only people with large sums of money to blow, really...
Until a good portion of the population can afford them, it won't really go anywhere, most likely.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
Naturally, the broadcasters reneg...going for $$$ using the HDTV bandwidth for other stuff while continuing to hold the old bandwidth too.
Does anyone else see this as a blatent spectrum theft? Of course, we can't expect our elected representitives to do anything about it; pissing off the broadcasters is electoral death.
When one industry gets a veto on who gets to be our government, you should be worried.
Personally, I was looking forward to everyone having to toss their old TVs...maybe it would wean people from sucking on the glass teat, and that would raise the collective IQ of the country.
HD is wonderful - if you haven't seen it, its like a great flat 21" monitor with resolution set to 1280x1024. (only in 16x9 ratio)
What little programming that is available so far really looks good. The superbowl was outstanding, except when the ntsc camerman walked right in front of the HD camera, so you got a really great picture of the back of the SD camera.
Waiting for the set is a toss up. If you do have the bucks, even regular tv looks really good on the set. The two most important things are native resolution and the set top box.
Do not get a set that is not native 1080. Otherwise, any 1080 signal will be downcoverted to whatever the native mode is - a cheap set might be 480 native, in which case you have a fancy regular tv.
do NOT get a set with an integrated box. The linked article is a perfect reason why. Until there is enough HD programming, broadcasters are looking to fill their pipe with some source of revenue. The new broadcast pipe can carry 5 SD signals and change or one HD, so sending 1 SD leave about 14 mb/s of available pipe.
There are a lot of revenue generating things you can do with 14mbs. Given the cost of going digital (1-1.5 Mil for a transmitter; a new antenna, tower space, microwave, etc can tack on another mil or so)(not to mention another 5-15k/month for electricity) broadcasters are in need of income asap.
There is a great opportunity for someone to come up with new business models to take advantage to this distribution medium. Any ideas? Any Takers?
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2