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?
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 $1200.
Is it worth it? Every single penny. Is it something you should jump into if the money I just described makes you nervous? Not yet.
.@.
another option if you're not watching a LOT of tv and you have the money is buying a cheap DLP projector.
:) ). Why so much for the lights? I've noticed that the replacement is not only a light but somekind of module with some optics, maybe when my Nec will wear off I'll be tempted to open it up and see if I couldn't hack a new lightbulb in the system, but anyways you get the idea.
:) ) is kinda crazy, every year or 2 they come out with new display technologies/electronics that renders your 3K+ tv down to 1K, if you *really* enjoy it well I guess it's worth it, but when I look at the quality you can get in the sub 1000$ 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.
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.