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?

Comments

Not worth it Yet.

[msolnik]

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.

Re:Not worth it Yet.

[jesup]

Digital cable is LOWER resolution then even normal cable. In fact, because the displays are large and sharp, digital cable often looks far worse on an HDTV than on a smaller regular TV.

Quality will improve, but not dramatically - the limits are size and (for RPTV's) gun size.

Prices have already come down lots - I paid $5k, but that was 2 years ago for a top-of-the-line Pioneer Elite. Now effectively the same TV (minus lacquer) is $2500.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

my first impressions...

[morcheeba]

I first saw HDTV on a large runco projector... they brought in a studio-quality deck to play the source material since there were no on-air broadcasts at the time (we in dc were one of the first cities to get on-air broadcasts - they had demos of this in national airport).

The HDTV picture I saw was on a large screen (8 foot by 4 foot?), and was film-quality perfect. Lots of detail, no scan lines. Kindof what you'd expect for a $30k TV. But the coolest part was a much smaller normal-definition projection TV that was in the foreground... it was perhaps 3 feet wide, and despite the much smaller picture, it looked worse than the blown-up HDTV picture. It was amazing.

Of course, take this with a grain of salt... I don't own a TV.

Re:my first impressions...

[foobar104]

I first saw HDTV on a large runco projector... they brought in a studio-quality deck to play the source material since there were no on-air broadcasts at the time...

It's important to note that full-bandwidth 1080i is over a billion and a quarter bits per second of data[1], while over-the-air terrestrial broadcast is encoded with MPEG-2 at just over 19 million bits per second. HDTV over satellite is even lower than that, sometimes as low as 6 million bits per second.

The Sony HDCAM deck uses DCT compression at a ratio of around 10:1, and you have to be pretty sharp to see the difference between that format and uncompressed 1080i. But even uneducated eyes, like mine, can see the difference between uncompressed 1080i or HDCAM and over-the-air 19 Mbit, and 6 Mbit direct-broadcast satellite isn't even in the same ballpark.

Of course, your point was that the monitor makes a difference. This is absolutely true. The difference between a consumer set (about $4000) from Sony and a broadcast monitor (about $40,000) from Sony can also be perceived by mere mortals.

Funny story about that. I was told by a Sony rep at NAB two years ago that they manufacture all of their picture tubes on the same assembly line, then they test them. Depending on the quality of the finished tube, they'll put it in their broadcast monitors (if it can resolve 1000 lines), or their high-end consumer TVs (if it can resolve 600 lines) or their low-end consumer TVs (if it lights up when you run current through it). Is it true? Don't know. But it's amusing anyway.

[1] Screw this "giga," "gibi," "goober," "bippi" crap.

Problems with HDTV

[Pinball Wizard]

Although broadcasters will be broadcasting HDTV by 2006, there is a catch. HDTV can be broken up in to several different, lower quality channels. Its much cheaper for networks to do it this way, so what do you think will happen?

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.

Re:Problems with HDTV

[Refrag]

Well, I don't have a better summary of what you think went on behind closed doors. But, I do have an HDTV, so I can tell you what reality is.

ABC and CBS broadcast a large portion of their shows in HDTV. Each affiliate in Charlotte has a station that broadcasts in 16:9 HDTV 24/7 (however during the daytime the programs mostly have black bars on the sides to create a 4:3 image). They both also have an additional sub-channel that is in 4:3 SDTV and continuously runs a weather map. For a brief period of time one of these stations was experimenting with running one 16:9 channel, a 4:3 sub-channel with the same content, and an additional 4:3 sub-channel with a weather map.

NBC does a few shows in HDTV. They have a channel running in 16:9 HDTV 24/7 (most times with black bars -- not even Friends is in widescreen). They also have a sub-channel running a weather map.

Fox does a few shows in 16:9 480P (X-Files is one). They have a sub-channel that runs 16:9 24/7 and a sub-channel that runs a weather map in 4:3 with voice synthesis reading the weather report in a loop. Fox almost always has bars on the sides of the 16:9 channel.

PBS has five subchannels. I don't remember exactly what they all are; but one appears to be dedicated to kids, one to education, and one to 1080i HDTV.

It depends.

[NetJunkie]

I just bought a Pioneer 64" TV. It's 16:9 and HD capable. It replaced a Sony 53" 4:3 I've had about 4 years.

First off widescreen rocks. It's great for movies, and go ahead and get a good progressive DVD player to make them look even better (on most sets).

As for HD, it depends. I'm in Raleigh, NC and have Time Warner digital cable. They offer HD cable boxes here, if you can get to the right person. Luckily, I did. The local network stations all have HD digital feeds on the cable. So, first off I get better quality signal than the normal analog cable streams (When they advertise digital cable, they never mention that the broadcast channels are still analog...sigh). I also get the HD stream when shows are done in HD. This includes CBS, ABC, FOX, NBC, HBO, and PBS (Nature shows are excellent in HD).

Now..as for which shows are in HD... NBC just does Leno. CBS does a LOT of their primetime stuff. FOX does some widescreen, but almost none or no actual HD. ABC does a few shows. HBO does many movies in HD, but unfortunately a lot of their original shows (Oz, Dennis Miller, etc) are not. Band of Brothers is though.

I'm also very lucky to have WRAL, the local CBS affiliate. They are the leading station in the country for HD. They broadcast all of their local news in AMAZING high definition. Kudos to them for all their hard work in driving this.

If your cable company doesn't do HD you can go over the air (OTA) using an antenna. That varies by area and distance. My friend did that for like 2 years until he recently got his cable box. It worked well, just wasn't as convenient. He got all the same network affiliates I do now, but no HBO or PBS. If you have DSS you can get a HD DSS receiver and they do HBO, HDNET (HD demos and movies), and I think one PPV.

I'm very happy with my setup. Once you start watching HD shows you'll really become a snob. :)

Ah, the age-old question...

[SlashChick]

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. ;)

Not true.

[NetJunkie]

DVDs do not display at a higher res on an HD box than on a normal TV. It's just they usually use the current 480 resolution better since the widescreen image isn't only using half the screen.

Also, you can use a progressive scan DVD player on DVDs. This basically doubles the lines on the screen to get rid of interlacing that causes scan lines and flickering.

Only if money is no object.

[.@.]

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.

Re:I think it's a bad idea...

[liquidsin]

No...THIS is a bad idea!

...I wanted to get Slashdot's opinion.

My HDTV

[TheSHAD0W]

My cable company has been offering 4 HD channels (HBO East and West, SHO East and West) for free for some time, and when I decided to add a computer to my entertainment center, I took the plunge and bought a 35" Zenith HDTV/VGA monitor. It was a discontinued, slightly battered store demo, for "only" a thousand dollars. I grabbed it.

Well, I must report that HDTV is certainly all it is cracked up to be. Although the 4:3 ratio monitor squishes some display modes a bit when it letterboxes them (I suppose to get better vertical resolution), the difference in picture clarity is phenomenal. I'd have to say it equates with the difference between VHS and DVD.

The only that really irks me about the Zenith monitor is its inability to handle VGA at 800x600, despite its being able to display much higher HD resolutions. I think Zenith might've improved that in their newer models, though.

HDTV is really hitting it's stride nowadays

[jesup]

I got an HDTV almost 2 years ago, when the amount available was pretty low other than Jay Leno and some football and a few other specials. Even so, it was stunning. Nowadays, it's not even that expensive, and some cable companies are starting to carry it.

Now, there's a wealth of HDTV material available:

- Most of HBO, including Sopranos and Band of Brothers (wow).

- Some of Showtime (increasing)

- HDNet on DirectTV (Marc Cuban of broadcast.com and Dallas Mavericks fame - sports/etc HD channel that will carry much of the winter Olympics in HD).

- PBS (several Nova/Nature/etc shows a month, plus many stations show repeats of HD material)

- Almost all of CBS including CSI, District, Alias, etc, also US Open tennis, football playoffs, etc

- Much of ABC including movies of the week, The Practice, etc

- NBC is starting to get on the bandwagon after being first with Leno; they now have Crossing Jordan and more are coming. - Fox isn't interested in HD, but they do some in 480p widescreen like Ally, X-Files, etc.

CBS lets viewers not in range of a station or in the area of ones they own (most big cities) view the HD feeds from either NYC or LA via Dish Network.

Dish Network has 24-hr PPV in HD; DirectTV has partial-day. Dish has a 24-hr HD promo channel.

Comcast and Time-Warner are starting to roll out carrying HD HBO/Showtime and local HD channels (most of Philly has it now).

HD is here to stay and has come WAY down in price. It looks even better than in the showrooms - they turn the brightness up too high; they often try to sell it using DVD's (which look great but not near as good as real HD material); they don't bother to converge the sets, etc.

Prices are way down - I've seen $13xx in Best Buy for a small 4x3; and $1800 for an open-box 38" RCA CRT HDTV, 16x9, with HD DirectTV built-in.

Don't forget to get an HD receiver; $400-600 currently, but if you're a new DIsh Network subscriber it can be cheaper.

In short: Buy one. Subscribe to HDTVmagazine.com ($35 lifetime; daily email newsletter with the day's HDTV lineup, upcoming news, reviews, etc). You will enjoy it for a long time to come, and you'll have lots of excuses to have people over for parties (starting this winter with playoffs and the Olympics).

I'm scared!

[wfmcwalter]

I'm scared to look at an HTDV.

Everyone I know who has done so has, to a man, come back to me and said "It's amazing - you don't know what you're missing!"

Yep, that's right, I don't know what I'm missing. I know my NeverTwicetheSameColor TV sucks, but I'm not sure just how bad. If I find
out, it's liable to be an expensive revelation.

Ignorance is bliss

Yes and No

[rocur]

First, check out HDTV Galaxy for lots of good information.

I bought myself the Toshiba 34" wide-screen direct-view (tube) monitor and the matching HDTV/DirectTV receiver for Christmas. Total cost around $3000 from Best Buy (you can save at least $500 if you buy off the web, but do you really want to mail back 200 lbs of glass if it doesn't work?)

If you only watch TV and your existing set works fine and you either get satellite or good cable, it's probably not worth the money now. If you just have bad cable, get DirectTV or Dish. If your TV set needs to be replaced but you are happy with your existing TV, get one of the new true flat screen sets (flat as in flat picture tube, not plasma); for $500 you can get a really good picture. On the other hand, if you watch a lot of DVDs, an HDTV set coupled with a progressive-scan DVD player must be seen to be believed. From a normal viewing distance it's hard to tell it's not film. Absolutely gorgeous.

As for actual HDTV content, DirectTV currently carries both HBO and HDNet in 1080i, Dish (I believe) carries HBO and Showtime. HDNet is a startup HD-only channel that carries a mix of movies and "non-mainstream" sports (this week it seems to be mountain biking) and will be carrying several hours/day of tape-delayed Olympic events. The image quality varies from great to amazing, all 3 providers claim to not broadcast any up-converted materials.

As for over the air broadcasts, most major markets seem to have digital broadcasts from PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX. However, this doesn't mean that they are broadcasting HDTV, most of the shows are simply up-converted from NTSC. Many of CBS's night-time lineup are in 1080i, some of ABC's is in 720p (NYPD Blue and Alias). NBC claims Jay Leno is in 1080i, but that doesn't seem to be true in Boston. Fox is all 480p

Bottom line, if you watch a lot of movies on DVD (or just want a cutting edge toy), you can't beat an HDTV monitor. If you just watch TV, there isn't enough on yet to make it worthwhile.

Widescreen TV without HD?

[Malc]

Why are is there so little widescreen without high definition in N. America? I remember going to Britain 3 or 4 years ago and seeing digital wide screen (non-HD) being broadcast everywhere. Now, widescreen TVs are very commonplace. Really, I don't give a rats arse about HDTV, I just want widescreen. Going to 16:9 improves the TV experience much more than just going HD.

HDTVs are well over-priced when compared with wide low-res TVs. What a swindle! No DVD's do better than 480p, and if I can't get much to watch out of 70 cable channels, I'm not giving them more money for the priviledge of receiving some of the same stuff as HD.

But, if you've got lots of money that you just need to waste^H^H^H^H^Hspend, that's your business ;)

Dissenting View from AV Snob

[Doctor K]

Hello,

I saw lots of comments here adovocating HDTV if you have the money. I would like to offer a dissenting view.

Some background ... several years ago, I plunged most of my summer job income and left over money from scholarships into my stereo system. It is all high end equipment that you won't find at BestBuy. For example, my CD player has a 2Hz-20kHz frequency response +/- 0.3 dB. (Yes, 0.3 dB --- not 3 dB ... and, yes, you can hear the difference a CD player makes if you do a side-by-side comparison with a mainstream CD player. The difference is really obvious on jazz tracks with walking bass lines.)

As I assembled my system, I never upgraded the original 21" monitor (not a really a TV as it doesn't have speakers or a tuner). Why? Because, over 21", you can see the crappy resolution of an NTSC signal even at a distance. So, for me, large TVs are expensive and only serve to remind me how crappy a signal is being transmitted.

(A side note: most people with large TVs wire up their systems in brain dead ways --- cable to vcr to tv, all with coax, such that the TV signal is decoded three times and re-encoded twice. This makes TV viewing that much more painful.)

Now that I am gainfully employed and have a wife who doesn't appreciate the dorm wiring look, I was in the market for an entertainment center. However, I had a dilemma ...

Most entertainment centers are designed around a 4:3 aspect ratio big screen TV. However, the FCC has been threatening to go to 16:9 HDTV ... so, do I spend over $1K for a piece of furniture that would be obsolete if HDTV becomes commonplace? And if I buy the entertainment center, do I upgrade my 21" screen?

Here is the compromise I came up with for my wife and the reasons for it. We bought a smallish entertainment center which did not require upgrading my screen (after some fun with a drill and jigsaw). Why?

HDTV is not just around the corner.

- Consumer motivation is not there. See above ... most people wire their systems to get an even worse quality signal than NTSC ... do they care they can't see Jay Leno's pores on the Tonight Show? Do they want to upgrade perfectly good equipment or buy converter boxes? No.

- Cable operators are not required by the FCC to send HDTV signals --- only free space broadcasts. Don't forget, cable has roughly a 70% market penetration. (However, I'm sure the cable company would be happy to rent you converter boxes at a monthly rate if required.)

- Many cable operators are encouraging Digital Cable. (This absolutely sucks ... _every_ Digital Cable system I've seen has worse picture quality on average than regular cable for a variety of technical reasons including: original signal is NTSC, original signal is broadcast in a different digital format, cable companies compress the hell out of the original signal assuming customers won't know the difference ... my in-laws are now quite pissed about their Digital Cable after I showed them the quite obvious artifacts on their large screen TV screens over the holidays. Perversely, most people assume that since digital artifacts are different that NTSC artifacts that it is some kind of sign of quality.)

- Their is still bickering about standards (modulation formats ... the plethora of resolutions ... digital "protection" schemes ...) Don't buy a technology if it might be dropped like a hot potato in the next few years. HDTV has such a low market penetration that it is not entrenched.

- The stuff is expensive for what you get.

I personally am waiting until the standards settle, the prices drop, the equipment becomes more widely adopted and there is an obvious quality improvement.

I'm not going to pay several thousand dollars to see MPEG artifacts from an over compressed signal blown up life size in my living room. (Watch any shot of the rippling surface of the ocean on Digital Cable to see what I mean.)

Kevin

HD for DVD or TV?

[maraist]

I'm personally unimpressed with HD"TV", but have been a DVD finatic for as long as the media has been out. I'm a busy tech head, and the last thing I want to do at the end of the day is watch commercials (anxiety building, just like stop lights). Every now and again I get HBO for their original programming, but most of the time, I'm perfectly happy just buying/renting every DVD in sight.

Given that I'm from the computer world, the interlaced v.s. non-interlaced debate is very religious with me. I refuse to watch anything interlaced, no matter what the resolution. Sadly 480p is all that is left for me.

Rather coincidently, this is the DVD resolution. Add one to the DVD-only usage of HDTV.

There's an interesting point to be made about wide-screen. Half my family is hard of hearing, so I've become very accustomed to utilizing closed-captioning. Now I know that a majority of people out there are distracted by the feature, but even the strongest opponents have "missed subtle dialog that has so sheepishly requested that I backup and enable CC". Having a wide-screen TV means that there is no lower black-bar to hide the captioning off to. I know that there are different dimensions that can cause black bars even on 16:9, but in general CC is going to take up a greater percentage of the visible area. Since I've learned to ignore the black bars, I've found that you can get a larger TV in 4:3 than 16:9 for you dollars. Not to mention you won't have those annoying black-side bars while watching Frasier.

Either way, the BIG difference that is going to make your life happy is a line-doubled TV set... err.. progressive-scan (non-interlaced). I say line doubled because that's what most of them are going to wind up doing.. If you get a 960 line (or 1080 line) set, then it's going to have to perform image duplication, no matter what. Some sets have the ability to perform interpolation, but as I hear, that has horrid quality. No matter how bad the line-doubler is, the loss of shimmer is a God-send.

A little more on DVD pro-scan. I've done a lot of research into the pro-scanning of DVDs and it's not a pretty picture (pun). Apparently 60fps is the minimum that you'll want to see to avoid visial distinguishing of the strobe-effect.. NTSC uses 60fps at half the resolution (240 for traditional DVD-capable 4:3 sets). A pro-scan DVD outputs 30fps at a full 480p, and the pro-scan TV prints the full picture twice (to minimize the strobing). Thus, all you really need is a TV that's capable of accepting the pro-scan input and ideally rendering 480 distinct lines. Being 4:3 or 16:9 is merely a matter of preference.. You're not going to get that much extra detail (though there is horizontal compression for "anamorphic wide-screen 1.666" downsampled to 4:3 (1.33)). Lastly, if you're very unlucky, then the 16:9 -> 4:3 conversion is going to consume some of your 480 lines for use with the black-bars, thereby also having vertical compression. If your 4:3 pro-scan TV can accept a wide-screen input and has excess vertical resolution, then it can generate its own black-bars, thereby fully reproducing the vertical component. Note that many TV's have excess vertical resolution (i.e. for Picture in Picture). Unfortunately, no matter what you do here, there are many DVD's that aren't properly designed with pro-scan in mind, and inappropriately set the pro-scan flags. The player has to compensate (or won't properly render the picture), and the more money you spend, the better the results (usually).

Still, unless you're in that upper income bracket, I'd say that anything below $2,000 that's pro scan, coupled with a half decent DVD player (such as the Toshiba 4700 for $225). Tweeter carries $1,100 pro-scan TVs in 4:3.

Lastly, for those that have a size complex, there is no differnce between having a TV that's twice as large verses sitting twice as close to the TV.. It's all about field of view.. In fact, a larger set is probably going to have poorer quality (due to convergence issues on said large projection sets). I personally would rather a picture tube and a properly engineered living room over said projection sets.

-Michael

Worth It

[renehollan]

I recently bought a Sony 32" HDTV-ready set for US$1800 delivered from Crutchfield. Combined with a Sony Sat-HD100 terrestrial/satellite receiver (another $800, from American Satellite) and a Terk TV55 terrestrial HD/Standard TV antenna, it is great.

Couple points, though, that will save you $$$:

While there is a dearth of HDTV programming, there is plenty of DTV programming, even terrestrial. All satellite programming, for example, is digital. The immediate bonus is that all terrestrial digital channels look great, and a great reason to drop cable in favour of an antenna -- if you get enough local digital channels.

16:9 sets add about $1000 to the price, and most broadcast material you will watch is still 4:3. Get a big enough screen and live with letterboxing for the next several years. Sony makes a 36" version of the set I bought, and I would say that 32" is the bare minimum you should consider. Of course, there are bigger and cheaper projection sets, but I never liked them and the convergence problems they have. Your call.

Similarly, you can save money if you buy an HDTV-ready set instead of an HDTV set (the former lacks an HD tuner/decoder). This provides some flexibility in the choice of outboard tuner/decoder and combining such a set with a HD terrestrial/satellite reciver is a nobrainer. The total cost amounts to about the same, but the flexibility is important. RCA makes a 38" set with a built-in HD Satellite receiver, but they have had problems with early versions of that model, and I've heard people complain about the noisy fan (yes), in them. I have no opinion of my own about the RCS sets, but have generally been pleased with the Sony's I've owned.

Important feature #0: Make sure it displays 720p, and possibly 1080i. There are some cheap DTV sets (480i, 480p) that accept HD signals (720p, 1080i) and downsample them. Beware.

Important feature #1: progressive scan component video inputs -- at least two sets (one for sat receiver, one for DVD player). I don't know of any HD sets that don't have this, but it is important.

Important feature #2: a line doubler. This takes interlaced material (like from an analog broadcast, or source) and makes it progressive (i.e. 480i becomes 480p). The result is a sharper-looking picture. Line doublers vary in quality and poor ones can have difficulty with motion. A bonus is that if you have a DVD player with interlaced component output, instead of progressive, the set can "sharpen" (figuratively) the picture.

Important feature #3: On 4:3 sets, make sure that the set actually displays 720 or 1080 lines of resolution on letterboxed material, instead of downsampling to the area between the black bands. This feature goes by various names, and works by cutting the amplitude of the vertical drive to get the letterbox aspect ratio instead of downsampling. Of course, the shadow mask will be the limiting factor in actual resolution.

DirectTV has only 3 HD channels on one of their non-main satellites, so unless you subscribe to HBO, a sports package (I think), or like to watch the demo loop, you won't find much HD material (yet). But, because it is on another satellite, you will need two LNBs and, in most of the U.S., an 18" x 24" elliptical dish with four coax cables (two from each dual-LNB), or wo dishes. Spanish programming (Para Todos) is on a third satellite and requires an additional single-LNB (for a total of three on the dish). The point of all this is that if you get an HDTV or HDTV-ready set and DirectTV (Dish competes with them in the U.S.A., and there are comparable services elsewhere in the world), spring for the twin dual-LNB 18"x24" dish instead of the standard 18" round one -- you won't want to have to redo installation later that way (while the extra LNB and elliptical dish add about $100 to the cost, initial installation is usually free, while a retrofit will probably cost that $100).

All totaled (set, sat rx, dish) I must have spent about $2800. So far (three months later) I am pleased.

Oh, if you do get a satellite system as well, you will have to learn all about multiswitches (satisfied customer plug: Hometech has 5x8 Trunkline multiswitches for about $160).