Slashdot Mirror
To HDTV or Not to HDTV?
fishrokka asks: "I'm considering buying an HDTV, but before I jump in I wanted to get Slashdot's opinion. The demos I've seen at
stores look great, but is it worth the extra money? I would love to
hear some real-life experiences..." I have yet to actually go
out and see a demo of HDTV, but from what I hear, it's markedly better
than the current analog technology. Although there are HDTV
broadcasts to be found today, the FCC deadline for adoption of the format is not until sometime in 2006. Are the current HDTV implementations worth the pricetags, especially when one can limp along
with their existing TVs for another 4 years?
GameCube supports HDTV.
:(
:)
:) (heh, at least its already progressive. :) )
Me?
I'm still using a shoddy Zenith 19in with only RF plugs.
My computer moniter is bigger then that.
Thus, the TV in card I am using.
Anybody know of a TV In card that supports HDTV signals? Seriously, I have a 36inch monitor and a fscking 19inch TV set and things aren't likely to change soon! Nifty to be able to view HDTV on my computer though.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
I bought a HDTV last year. Yes the picture is great but the price/performance is definitely not worth it. I have digital cable and some other HDTV supporting stuff but currently its not worth it. I get 15 HDTV channels. I would say wait for 2006. Everyone will need one then and prices will drop drasticly. Plus the current tvs havent really been tested a lot. Once they all start hitting the market they will be tweaked much better and I would say the picture will increase in quality 2x.
Don't Buy Yet. Coming from an HDTV owner spending 5K for a TV isnt worth it yet.
The other big problem is that by 2006, the majority of us will still have plain old nonHD-TVs. What incentive will there be for the networks to provide a high-quality signal?
I don't think its realistic to expect networks to broadcast high-quality TV for free when they can split the signal and make more money, especially when the consumer demand is not there. The only hope is to have pay channels like HBO - I think thats the only real HDTV you will see.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
My parents bought a big-screen (52") projection TV in 1986. Mom was the one who ended up buying it, because Dad insisted on waiting for HDTV.
;)
They still have that TV. It does everything they need (it has S-video inputs, for instance), and still looks like a lot of the models in stores today. Will they upgrade to an HDTV? Sure. But not for a couple of years.
Take my mom's advice: Buy something you like now if there is something out there that is significantly better than what you have. You can always upgrade again later.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
HDTV is worth it, but you can't balk at spending USD$5000-$10,000. If you're going to "go cheap", you're better off waiting.
I currently enjoy quite a bit of HD content on my 56" 16:9 rear-projection set (Panasonic PT56WXF95A, which does 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i). I get my HD content OTA (over-the-air), using an imported British UHF indoor antenna. The SF Bay Area has about 10 HD OTA stations currently, and more on the way (see this page for info).
At the minimum, you need a set (and I strongly recommend a 16:9 set that's at LEAST 40", and a direct-view set if you go that small. Anything bigger and you should get rear- or front-projection. My set was $3500 new), a tuner (I use a Panasonic TU-HDS20, for which I paid USD$1000), an antenna (I got mine for USD$40).
To this, you may want to add satellite (DirecTV or Dish Network) for additional HD content (such as HD-HBO), or cable...there are a few test markets in which the cable companies are testing HD content over coax. Digital cable is NOT HD. it's not even 480p. It's just digitally-compressed analog.
Further, you'll want a progressive-scan (480p) capable DVD player (I use a Toshiba SD6200 and Sony 7000, around USD$1700 all told. The Sony isn't progressive, though.)
Finally, you can enjoy things like the XBox, which can output 16:9 480p for games.
Of course, with all this visual quality, you're going to want a sound system to match. That means at least 5.1 Dolby Digital, and preferably THX. You're looking at a base of USD$2k for a system and speakers.
Additionally, you're going to need to get your set calibrated if it's a rear- or front-projection unit. A good ISF calibration on all inputs can run USD$1000 and take two days. And you'll want the correct lighting and light control in your viewing area, which may cost you an additional $500-several thousand in screens/lamps/etc.
Last, you may want a "toy" or two. My current toy is a standalone DVD recorder, the Panasonic DMR-E20 and a Data Video TBC1000 timebase corrector for videotape->DVD transfer. That was another $1200.
Is it worth it? Every single penny. Is it something you should jump into if the money I just described makes you nervous? Not yet.
.@.
At this point there are a bunch of things you need to answer internally before deciding to DTV your world:o ru mhdtvdigitaltelevisionnewsforum.html
1. Are you in a major DTV region? (Or are you stuck in Denver where there is none?)
1a. If not, do you want to pay for 2 WHOLE Channels on DirecTV or 3 on DISH--both in a lowball ATSC standard (540P?)
2. If you are in reach of a major city with fair DTV coverage, do you know anyone who can get the channels (I'm in Southern Orange County...and I get all but one LA station with a couple of Double Bow Tie RS Antennas and an amplifier on a Second Gen Tuner.)
3. Do you give a rat's arse about primetime content or HDNet's Hockey Coverage (Thank-you for carrying a whole second channel part-time, DirecTV...Magnanimous of you.)
4. Can you cope with knowing that in a year and a half the quality of whatever you buy will double and the price will halve--at a minimum.
If you answered yes to most of those or enough to convince your wallet, go second and a half gen now... otherwise wait for the 4th Generation with better res, lower prices, more content, real multipath abbeyence... et al.
PS. NBC has One Whole Primetime Show! Whooohoooo!
This site might help you:
http://pub1.ezboard.com/fdigitaltelevisionhdtvf
don't buy a tv. buy a digital projector. you won't have to worry about burn in abd u can get a very large screen like 100". go to projectorcentral.com and www.avsforum.com to find a good one in your price range.
Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead.
If you are buying a new TV because you don't like your old one, get an HDTV Ready TV and a Progressive Scan DVD Player. That way you can watch widescreen DVDs in 480p mode instead of NTSC, getting a slightly better resolution.
Most areas still do not have HDTV broadcast, or if they do it is limited and you need a really weird antennae. DirecTV and Dish Network have HDTV broadcasts, but they are pay per view, and the endless loop you watch in the stores.
I will be buying a new TV this year (bigger and better baby) and will be getting an HDTV ready TV, nothing more. Heck Kansas City isn't supposed to come close to HDTV until 2003 or 2004 anyway.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
another option if you're not watching a LOT of tv and you have the money is buying a cheap DLP projector.
:) ). Why so much for the lights? I've noticed that the replacement is not only a light but somekind of module with some optics, maybe when my Nec will wear off I'll be tempted to open it up and see if I couldn't hack a new lightbulb in the system, but anyways you get the idea.
:) ) is kinda crazy, every year or 2 they come out with new display technologies/electronics that renders your 3K+ tv down to 1K, if you *really* enjoy it well I guess it's worth it, but when I look at the quality you can get in the sub 1000$ area, I'm not tempted to shell out 4000$ for that nice sony hdtv screen.
:)
That way, you can get any size you want, at the 3000$ price point they have HDTV support, it's cool but the downside is the replacement lights are really expensive (200-300$) and lasts for 1000 or 2000 hours depending on manufacturers (that's why I specified if you Don't watch a lot of tv
Personnaly I think buying a tv for 3K$ (or kibidollars
In the end it's like buying a computer, you don't need a quad alpha if you want to send email, but if you do a lot of renders, you'll probably enjoy it, same goes for a tv I guess, if you watch a lot of movies and get a home theatre, you'll probably appreciate it.
The last thing that comes to mind is the brain's adaptation of the content, I mean, it's like going to an IMAX theatre, you're like "wow" the first minutes, and after that you don't even notice you're sitting in front of a super large screen unless you "detatch" from the movie and take a look again. Then again, I'm sure it's nice to actually see the players when you watch an hockey game... get one and tell us after a month of usage
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
Almost anyone will appreciate the improved definition of the HDTV broadcasts. The image is just amazing. Many major markets (and some not so major) have at least one network station sending out the HD signal.
;)
FWIW, I was playing with a friend's RCA set last weekend, and was pretty surprised by a couple things I didn't know about:
1) There are sub-channels available. Briefly, we received the high-definition network broadcast itself, then we also got a "standard"-definition transmission of the Red Wings game, and, a standard "weather radar" transmission. These channels were labelled 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3 respectively. Kinda neat, if you ask me. Think FM subcarriers...
2) Dolby Digital showed up, which I assume means a discreet 5.1 channels of sound. Beats dbx/MTS any day!
2) While the "standard" TV broadcasts at this rural location suffered badly from ghosting and generally poor signal reception, the HDTV did not, and was basically crystal clear. Supposedly, if you can get the signal at all, this will always be the case.
Now, here are a few warnings before you plop down all that money:
1) If you're wanting to use that HDTV with a DVD player to enjoy the most faithful picture, you should do some homework. Depending on who you ask, you may want a "progressive-scan" player. Honestly, the whole thing is confusing as hell, to me at least: Anamorphic video, 480p, 1080i, line doublers, component video... ugh. There is an excellent FAQ at http://www.nwlink.com/~rxg/hdtv.html which I highly suggest you read, or perhaps news://alt.video.digital-tv if you're a Usenet type.
2) On top of that, some of these HDTV sets actually require you to buy an extra box to receive the hi-def TV broadcasts. Yes, they're *capable* of showing HDTV signals, but they're essentially missing the tuner, kind of like a monitor with no computer.
3) Don't expect DirecTV to beam you those HDTV signals for free, even though the present equipment allegedly supports it. And if you use an emulator/hack, who really knows what works and what doesn't.
4) Play with the candidate HDTV set at the store, extensively! Note what options there are for the screen size when it's NOT hi-def. In other words, that big-ass 16:9 tube is probably going to have black or gray bars on either side, which can be annoying. Some models allow you to "stretch" and "fill" which alleviates this effect (somewhat). Furthermore, because of the innate complexity, the menus can be either easy to navigate or a button-pushing free-for-all.
-- LunarFox (nee' LunarQT)
Alignment can do wonders for a television. If you are going to invest in an HD set then its a good idea to invest in having it professionally aligned. The picture will look much better, and certain aspects of the picture tube quality and life will be preserved longer. I think you can probably get this done for $150 - $200 in home. It sounds like alot but the difference can sometimes be as great as comparing a DVD to a "previously viewed" VHS from Blockbuster. If you buy from a local HT shop rather than a chain like Worst Buy or Circuit Sh*tty then you can often buy an extended warranty which may include such in home service.
As for set recommendations..... your own eye is your best friend, all the reviews in the world won't be better than what you see wih your own eyes. Just make sure you know the facts about the set and anything extra the shop may be using. I've noticed that commonly people don't ask to see the screen with an analog/regular signal instead of a progressive scan DVD or HD signal. This is so odd to me seeing as how the large percentage of programming isn't HD yet. I'd look for a set with the best picture all around rather than one with the "Best" on an HD signal.
You also may want to take into account additional hardware like the set top box and/or a TRU progressive scan DVD player. Unless you're lucky enough to have a cable provider in your area who can magically produce those hard to find HD cable boxes, you'll need to spend a few hundred in addition to the television itself.
HDTV was designed to deliver equivalent resolution, to the screen, as the best 35mm projection. (Although film starts out with much higher resolution, by the time it goes through all of the processing steps, each with mechanical transports, and then projection, the final resolution is quite low.)
A minimum 36" diagonal monitor is required to display every pixel in the image. However, the full effect of HDTV is not apparent until the image is at least 8 feet (diagonal measure). Furthermore, the original color space demands very low light level conditions in order to appreciate fully. Finally, the minimum viewing distance should be 3x the height of the screen, in order to make the pixels/grain disappear, so you'd need to sit at least 15 feet away from the image.
There are very few viewing environments that meet these conditions -- the average American home is certainly not one.
From a production viewpoint, HDTV requires film-level production standards. The sloppiness that NTSC and PAL encourage (and hide) is clearly visible to HDTV production processes. As my old boss, Barry Rebo, used to ask, "What does HDTV bring to 'Wheel of Fortune'?" The answer is absolutely nothing, except increased production costs.
The political stalemate in Washington is a blind for the desires of broadcasters to capitalize on the offer of free spectrum. The technical arguments are about how a broadcast signal will degrade in fringe reception areas. This is a smokescreen designed to delay introduction until terms are more favorable to broadcasters.
In fact, there is a production medium today that can be broadcast today over existing equipment with only marginal incremental costs to broadcasters: widescreen D1. It's the appropriate aspect ratio (16:9) and is a component system from beginning to end, which is the major contributor to quality.
This format could be delivered more or less right away and would deliver picture quality far in excess of what people expect today, and is, in fact, perfectly appropriate to the broadest range of viewing environments. Importantly, the incremental cost of production in D1 is virtually zero making it very attractive from that standpoint.
Finally, it is very easy to downconvert an HDTV-originated image to D1, especially because the timebase is the same (60 frames (or fields)/second as opposed to 29.94 frames/sec for NTSC).
HDTV is a perfect production medium and is great for projection in controlled viewing environments. For mass distribution D1 (or, more particularly, widescreen component) is far more appropriate, with or without line-doubling.
-- Clay
"I never metadata I didn't like."
Wait another year to 18 months. Even if you pop for an $800 normal def TV now and then a 16:9 high def set later, you will probably come out ahead.
Plus, what compelling reason is there for an HDTV set now? DVDs aren't high def and can look pretty bad when they are pushed onto a hi-def set. Most of the high-def broadcast stuff is barely worth watching.
Hang tight.