Slashdot Mirror
I STILL Want My HDTV
jhaberman writes: "Slate.com has an opinion piece talking about the horrific mess the HDTV rollout has been. It seems everyone's
been to blame from the hardware manufacturers, to the cable/satellite companies,
to the producers of the actual shows. I fell into the trap a year ago buying a
top of the line Sony Wega digital TV and I STILL don't have ANY HDTV! Here's why..."
I paid so much and winter olyimpics is all i get? Heck, i stay with my 10 year old Sony.
With almost no content to view in the HDTV format who wants to pay thousands of dollars to buy a set that can display it? Not me. I am happy with my current set. Just as with the film The Matrix providing a great vehicle to push DVD players HDTV needs to come up with its 'killer' show. Something so awe-inspiring that we, the viewing public, just can't live without. Good luck.
If Darwin was right, you'd be dead by now.
I bought a sweet 36" Sony Wega KV-36FV16 plus a progressive scan DVD player. That plus my DirecTV Plus reciever have kept me pretty happy. Beats the heck out of my old low-res 27" Sanyo, VHS, and DishNetwork box. HD rocks!
I mean, it takes AGES to D/L a low-res DivX, I cannot even imagine how long it would take... oh, you were talking about *analog* TV? The one without keyboard? The one that according to this poll isn't used by many slashdotters? <g>
Rather than whining about not being given the option to vegetate in front of inane rubbish at improved resolution, why not rejoice in the fact that you have an incentive to go outside and interact with the world, it's considerably less pixelated than even HDTV.
Why would anyone want to go outside, meet people or do things ? Instead, you can watch others have fake adventures or get your opinions and desires programmed in rather than going to all the trouble of figuring them out for yourself. You can achieve a state of lower consciousness - it helps pass the time while you wait for death.
If you must watch TV, at least buy a mirror to put up above the screen. That way you can look up from time to time and compare the excitement on the screen with the futile existence of the vegtable on the couch.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Its called DVD. My friend and co-worker has a killer entertainment system with the centerpiece natrually being his HDTV. He uses it almost exclusively for DVD. He has all of the expensive decoders, but doesn't use em much. Lets face it when you're pulling the waves out of the air, static at 1080 is still static.
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
At least the USA is making inroads into HDTV. Here in the UK, only a few channels seem to be able to broadcast widescreen effectively (namely the BBC and Channel 4).
BSkyB (part of News Corp.) seems totally incapable of doing any 16:9 broadcasts. For instance, Enterprise is shot in 16:9 but we get it as 4:3, even though most pay TV in the UK is now on a digital platform (DVB) and a sizable percentage of homes have a widescreen set. Certainly as a percentage, more homes in the UK have widescreen than the USA has homes that have HDTV
Just like most people I'm not going to pay $2,000 for a set then another $600 for an idiotic "receiver", no matter how many shows you broadcast in HDTV. Set what prices you want, they're your TVs; but don't whine when we don't start throwing money at you. And don't try to swindle us by separating the decoder and the set, that's just idiocy.
I'm confused, aren't widescreen already HD capable? I don't understand what the problem would be.
From the article:
"Fox probably thought, 'Since widescreen at 480 is good enough for the millions who watch DVDs, why spend a lot more to please the few purists?'"
As much as I hate to admit it, from a purely business standpoint the network executives are probably being most prudent in not commencing with the conversion at this point.
Like any industry, television networks are in business to make money and their executives have an obligation to move forward with the best strategies possible to realize this goal. Unfortunately, what may make good business doesn't always equate to what promotes progress.
To use a simple metaphor, one need look only as far as the automobile industry. We have known for years that automobile emissions are bad for the environment. Additionally, we have much (if not all) of the technology available this very minute to switch to an alternative fuel source resulting in vehicles which would be much more 'environmentally freindly' - ethanol or electic power. Why don't we convert - because the automobile industry is just like the television industry, they are in it for the money. The obvious positive progress aside, such advances increase overhead and decrease corporate profit margins - aka 'bad business'...
I think it suck as much as anyone - I own a wide-screen, HDTV compatible set!!! However, putting myself in their position, I can't argue with their decisions at this point in time...
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
..and came across a few links that show all the HDTV broadcasters in the U.S. Kind of interesting, there's one in a town 100 miles north of myself.. woohoo.. :P
www.nab.org
www.hdpictures.com
Stupider like a fox! - H.S.
Give me a break. The FCC has tended to be a corporate tool for the past few decades, and HDTV rollout is no exception; it was the corporations who pushed the FCC and Congress to set HDTV standards.
The corporate sector is a hundred times more greedy and short-sighted than even the most ineptly run government agency.
DirecTV is carrying HDTV on channel 199. Of course you need the HD DirecTV Receiver, to go along with your HDTV. They are carrying 16 Hours a Day of HDTV transmitted by HD.NET which was founded and run by Mark Cuban of Broadcast.com and Dallas Mavericks Fame. Currently they are running the Olympics in conjuction with NBC. The schedule can be found here Hey it's not the latest movies yet, but if you're really jonesing for some HDTV it's better than nothing...
The problem with a burner and HDTV is you'd need hardcore compression to squeeze any amount of HD video onto CD-R. HD 1080i resolution (1900x1080) has about 6x as many pixels as SD 480i (720x480) resolution. Plus, I'd want something a bit better than DiVX for compression if I'm going to make full use of my $2000 television. I paid for HD, I want to preserve the quality. Hell, uncompressed 24-bit 1080i is 176 MegaByte/sec. That's friggin huge considering that the latest IDE drives can't even do 50 MB/sec. Lossless compression hasn't gotten that good yet.
as an aside, I watched aliens SE the other night with some friends on my 32" widescreen tv and I was appalled at the quality of
encoding. it was awful, like watching a dodgy avi
Crap compression isn't too uncommon. And it'll only get worse with HD compression... uncompressed 24-bit 1080i HD is 176 MB/sec or 1408 Mbps. To get that down to the holy grail of 50 Mbps will require some crazy lossy compression. Ugh!
DVD's are not HD. They may be widescreen(most of the time), but they do not have the high resolution that HD gives you.
Perhaps one of the big sci-fi shows could accompish this. A show like "Friends" isn't going to see much benefit from HD, whereas special-effects saturated shows like "Enterprise" or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" might. Alas, while the genre has grown substantially in recent years, I don't think it has the mass-market appeal to be a true killer-app.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
I don't want them to hurry for the sake of getting all the best quality show at too many lines to see. I'd like for them to make a switch and have my current set not work anymore. Maybe then I'd be able to stop watching T.V. Otherwise, I'll just use it as background noise, or for an excuse to drink beer and not talk to my roommate.
I really hate Dan Patrick.
I watch HDTV every day. Most people in the US have HDTV signals available to them. Mine comes in via Time Warner. If you can get Time Warner cable find out if they offer HD boxes in your area, most do now.
If you can't get it via cable use an antenna. It looks every bit as good since it's all digital. As for content, if you watch primetime then a lot of that is in HD. HBO shows movies in HD that look better than DVD. NBC is showing the olympics in HD right now, and they look amazing.
Why? Because nobody has figured out how I can download pieces of someone else's life and play them back at will. Stupid, stupid Strange Days.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
I've been watching HDTV off air and off satellite for a couple years now. The author has apparently never heard of the RCA-DTC 100 which receives both DirecTV standard and high definition broadcasts (NASA tv is on the secondary orbit satellite too) and whose single dish supports four receivers, AND the unit includes an off-the-air broadcast HDTV receiver
In Silicon Valley, we can receive NINE digital off-the-air broadcast stations and the RCA-DTC100 doesn't need an expensive HDTV monitor, it can plug into your computer monitor too and it only runs $475 or so. The computer monitor will show more of the high definition signal than most consumer HDTV monitors since they typically just don't have enough phosphors to resolve 1920 horizontal pixels. There is much pixel aliasing
So in short, if the author of the article had done his homework when shopping, he would have known that there are several boxes that receive everything he was interested in in one unit, and he could still see HDTV HBO and watch the Tonight Show [sic] or the Superbowl or Olympics in HDTV
What's more, these days you don't need cable anymore since you can receive the over-the-air stations in better quality than cable offers. Last time I checked the rates for AT&T digital cable, they were infinitely more expensive than using rabbit ears for HD (which works just fine in my case)
Nathan Laredo laredo at gnuWell, the industry pushed the standards, but it was the FCC that asked them to initially. It all comes down to bandwidth, and the sad fact that we just don't have enough to go around down at the low end of the spectrum (where signals carry well). Digital transmission will allow the FCC to phase out the current wide-band analog TV bands, and to re-use (i.e., sell) the bandwidth for things like fleet dispatch, which is always screaming for more spectrum.
While the ISM and similar bands (900MHz and 2.4 GHz home wireless) are great bands for their purposes, they don't tend to overcome terrain obstacles as well as lower frequencies (and no, this is not really a question of broadcast power). So it is natural for the FCC to want to make more effecient use of the spectrum by reclaiming wide analogue channels and replacing them with narrow digital channels, thus freeing spectrum for other uses. That's what we pay them for. That's their job.
DVD's are *not* encoded in high definition. They may have higher effective horizontal resolution than a VHS VCR (particularly in widescreen), but they sure ain't 1920x1080.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
While I am happy to see some attention being bandied about concerning HDTV, I wish it were a little more accurate. It is a complicated subject though, so it is a comming thing in the articles that have been written to not be 100% factually correct.
For example, you do not NEED two dishes for DirecTV... only the one oval dish. Two would also work though. For Dish, you do need two.
Fox digital broadcasts are not simply "480 lines". They are 480p, like a progressive scan DVD player. While a FAR cry from CBS's 1080i, or from ABC's 720p, it is still much better than what most people see even on their DVD's. Fox has other problems in their presentation though. For example, they "zoom" the picture so it fills a 16x9 TV. This effectively cuts off an inch on the top and bottom of the picture. Why they don't just send it through standard, like ALL the other networks do, and leave it to the viewer to decide on how they want to view it (standard, stretched, zoomed, etc), is beyond me.
Another little known fact, is that the OTA (over the air) broadcasts that are available to most, comes in a better picture quality than analog cable, digital cable, or digital sattelite. It is a very noticeable difference too. The digital broadcasts done OTA are not compressed in any way... great 480i picture (usually better since many/most HDTV's use a line doubler of some sort). Broadcasts done over cable or satellite are all compressed to certain degrees, resulting in pixelation and downright nastiness. Some are better than others, but OTA is better than all of them.
If you like to watch TV, I think it is worth it. Check out www.antennaweb.org to see what digital channels are available in your area, and what antenna you would need to receive them... I guess there is a place to check.
Check out www.avsforum.com to learn all you could ever want to know about anything to do with Home Theater, HDTV, HTPC, and more.
The information is out there; the problem is that you have to go look for it. I agree... the sales people should know more about this stuff so consumers don't get screwed. But really, is sale person's lack of knowledge about a product they are selling something new?
Jeff
(unfortunately I can't take credit for this one. It was written by a fellow slashdotter a while back, and I've lost the attribution. If the author is still out there, let me know and I'll send you a beer ;-) )
For those interested in a brief history of HDTV, here it is:
Here's how it went:
Broadcast Industry asks for bandwidth for HDTV
FCC says "OK, we'll set aside bandwidth for HDTV"
FCC says "What standards?"
Industry says 'No Standards Please' and come up with EIGHTEEN recommended formats for HDTV. I am not shitting you.
FCC says "Isn't 18 different standards a bit much?"
Industry says "Shut the fuck up FCC, we know what we are doing. The 'market' will handle this!"
Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
Industry says "What? We really just want the free bandwidth. You really want us to do HDTV??
Congress says "Fuck you Industry. Broadcast HDTV or we'll legislate your asses back to Sun-day!"
Industry says "We're fucked. 18 formats? Why the hell did we do that? Let's change it."
Consumer Electronics dudes say "You ain't changing shit. We are already building the boxes you said you wanted built."
FCC says "Yah, ya boneheads we told you 18 was too many, now you gotta live with it."
Industry says "Well FCC, will you at least make the cable companies carry the HDTV at no charge?"
Cable companies say "Fuck you! You gotta pay! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"
FCC says "Yep, no federal mandated on HDTV must carry, we are letting 'the market' handle that"
Industry says "We are so fucked. We are spending 5-10 million per TV station in hardware alone and have 1000 HDTV viewers per city, even in LA!"
Consumer at home says "Where is my HDTV? Why does it cost so much? Fuck it, I'm sticking with cable/DirecTV."
Consumer electronics dudes, broadcast industry, FCC, and congress all cry. Cable companies laugh and make even bigger profits.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
Next time you're in your local electronics store and the sales sharks notice you glance at one of their HDTV's, make sure to ask them about all the additional hardware you would potentially need to actually view HDTV. See how honest of an answer they give you... Its been my experience lately that these guys have been so hard up to unload these TVs on people ("HDTV is the thing of the future... And that future is now!") they'll tell you pratically anything. I had one guy tell me that I could receive HDTV signals from *any* local cable provider. I wonder how many truly uninformed folks are out there with new TVs thinking they are watching HDTV.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
What irritates me is the fact that superbowl broadcast quality actually dropped a few notches between 2001 and 2002. Last year the superbowl HD broadcast used 1080i (1920x1080/30i), this year it was done in 480p (720x480/60p). Smoother motion (a true 60 frames per second rather than 60 fields per second interlaced) but MUCH lower quality.
I'd like to make a case for blaming Neilson ratings. They determine whether a tv is tuned to a particular channel, and not whether people are actually watching it right? Well that allows TV stations to over report their viewership. Since media conglomerates want to appear to have more people watching for longer times, in prime demographics, maybe useing that extra spectrum they were given for many standard channels rather than one HD channel would allow them to more efficiently inflate their viewership to increase their ad revenue, while provideding more time to schedule infomercial programming for us insomniacs.
But if there were accurate reporting, ie people leaveing to get a pop when a commercial came on, sleeping through the news, in short if it tracked how much time people really spent watching TV, they might find trends which I'll preceed to predict with no basis in fact and only wild speculation as my guide. I would bet people with HD TV's recieving HD programing would spend more time watching TV than average, watch longer, and prefer HD programs to standard programs. Since they have the money to spend on purchases like HD TV's and are willing to spend it, it puts them in a better demographic. But most importantly, I'll try to justify this assertion with hand waving and magic powder, that they'd be more likely to watch commercials, as HD commercials would feature more eye candy and probably be more entertaining. And I'm not just talking about Victoria's Secret.
If the viewing habbits were accurately compiled, and my prognostication came to pass there might be a very real, very powerful market pressure where to get the really lucrative advertisers you have to have a HD signal.
But again, just how I think it might really be.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
If you use a computer monitor as your display, HDTV isn't terrifyingly expensive. That's no good if you want a 45 inch screen, of course, but it's a heck of a lot better than nothing.
I bought an HDTV box a little while ago and wrote an article on the subject of getting all this stuff happening for cheap. You can read the article here.
Buy some stock in TI now! Their DLP Chip is going to revolutionize television and probably the computer monitor market, as well. Check out this press release.
The Vestel prototype, a 43" (110cms) diagonal 16:9 aspect ratio table top television, weighs just 75lbs (34kgs) and measures only 18" (46cms) front to back. The production version is expected to weigh even less at 55lbs (25kgs), with a depth of just 12" (31cms) and will be suitable for mounting on a shelf or tabletop.
This chip will eventually drive HDTV cost down to the point of critical mass. Then we will start seeing HDTV content.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
...when will advertisers start producing content in HD and/or widescreen format, and start insisting on HD/widescreen distribution in their contracts and payment plans?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
(-1, Wrong. Troll or daft, the eternal question...)
Catalytic converters have been legally required on all petrol cars in the EU since '92 IIRC. In the UK, leaded petrol is now only available on the condition that it doesn't sell more than a certain (extremely low) percentage of the total market. Any car which requires it either has to be converted, run on LRP or accept that maybe 1 in 30 garages carry fuel they can use. Further, emissions regulations are tightening on a very regular basis for new cars - which are also taxed according to volume of CO2 emissions. Older cars are subject to emissions tests in their annual roadworthiness test (can't run a car without one) and if they fail, they're off. Finally, you can be pulled over and tested at random to establish that your emissions are within defined limits and fined if they're not, plus required to get the vehicle up to standard within the time or it's off the road. Tailpipe emissions are never pleasant, trust a cyclist, but they're rather better than they might be over here.
As for LPG, erm, no. Conversions are actually subsidised for many vehicles, not taxed more than anything else. I'm assuming you mean 20,000 km -well, that's around the breakeven point in one year IIRC. Conversions don't have to be done every year, sir.
Yes, we have tax at that sort of level on the petrol. Something has to pay for the road building and maintenance and for healthcare costs from vehicle accidents and pollution related illnesses. Personally I quite like the idea of mass transit such as buses and trains being subsidised by cars, considering that they're far less socially invasive and help reduce congestion, along with providing mobility to those who can't drive (can't afford / too young / disabled) which means they can be economically active, too, which seems A Good Thing.
All forced by the government.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
HDTV is still a solution in search of a problem, as far as I can see. When a set + decoder costs over $2k (and up, as opposed to conventional TV sets being well under $500 for a nice one), there's no compelling advantage that makes it worth the extra money. There's a lot better things the average person can do with that money.
The problem is that HDTV is nice for the enthusiast, but useless for most people. Improved quality of DVD playback is nice, but despite the success of the DVD format, typical viewers are not trying to replicate the theater experience at home. Heck, most of them wouldn't know how if they wanted to (and could afford it). I just can't see people who don't know how to set the clock on their VCR being able to find the sweet spot for a 5.1 speaker system.
Does HDTV have a shot? Of course it does. But the networks need to get serious about it (and soon), prices on the equipment need to plummet (no more than a 20% price difference between an HDTV monitor and the equivalent NTSC TV) to the point where folks are willing to shell out the cash, and the issues with cable companies need to be worked out pronto. And consumers need to demand high-quality video, otherwise all we'll wind up getting someday is 4 channels of the same crap on an HDTV frequency. Yippee.
I should be a perfect target customer for HDTV. I'm a technically-oriented person. I make a good living. I have not one, but two DVD players (one is in the bedroom), several computers, surround sound in the living room, and I only have a 27" set to go with it. I ought to be heading for upgrade city, but I'm not.
I've looked longingly at a 40" widescreen set that I see every time I go to Best Buy, but I just can't justify $2200 for a TV set, no matter how hard I try. Other than the DVD film I watch every couple of weeks, there's just no advantage to the big set. One of my friends has a huge widescreen projection HDTV set (he did well in the stock option roulette game), and I've watched movies on it - they look great. But TV looks just as crappy, only bigger. So what's the point? Guys who made a lot with stock options are far from an ideal market, especially nowadays.
Maybe in a couple more years this'll be worth revisiting, but HDTV is dead in the water for now, and justifiably so. There just isn't any real benefit that makes it worth your disposable income - unless you have a ridiculous amount of income to dispose of.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Nobody has mentioned that the HDTV rollout has been stymied deliberately -- by the media corporations who are reluctant to broadcast their best material throughout the airwaves. If THE MATRIX were broadcast in glorious HDTV, imagine the carnage! You could capture the non-compressed HDTV signal to a hard drive, and you'd actually have a video version of THE MATRIX that was superior to any version you could buy. Plus, you wouldn't have to worry about any DVD copy protection/region encoding.
In short, the media companies are terrified that this will put them out of business.
When I briefly owned an HDTV decoder, the manual's fine print read something like this: The HDTV broadcast standard is still emerging, and this decoder may not be able to decode all or any future HDTV broadcasts. (Especially since BIG MEDIA is still planning to implement copy protection to protect their crappy Hollywood assets.)
I sure wonder how pissed off Joe Early Adopter is going to be when he finds out his $700 set top decoder won't decode any HDTV signal worth watching!
Of course, since true copy protection of digital signals is probably impossible, I would probably bet that Big Media will do everything possible to delay and stymie the HDTV "rollout". Just like DAT.
--
tomRakewell
I just helped my folk find a new TV. They have digital cable, and a DVD player, and they wanted something around 32-36 inches that looked good. I hooked my dad up with a Sony Wega, WITHOUT HDTV. It was $1500 less, and he still have a HUGE improvement in picture quality over his old TV. I don't think most families will justify spending over $2k for an HDTV. Wait until the majority of channels are broadcasting for a year or two, and the prices will be far more reasonable.
There my 2 cents...
Um, this is my sig.
I just call DirecTV. I have a "dormant" account. Each year, they put NFL Sunday Ticket on my spring bill. Each year I call up CS and ask, "$140 is a pretty good chunch of change - are all the games going to be broadcast in High Definition?" Each year the rep has informed me that the games would not be in HD. Each year I tell them to cancel my Sunday Ticket and call me when they start broadcasting in High Def.
I vote with my wallet.
--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The higher resolution is not comparable to the switch from black and white to color.
Even so, the FCC has not chosen (I believe) standards that are backward compatible, as was color to black and white. Let's face it. Color TV probably would have taken a lot longer to get into the markert if it had had been backward incompatible.
The end result for most consumers is that they resent being put on the treadmill of upgrading their techonology just because something is supposed to be better. Heck, how many companies were/are still using Cobol when Y2K rolled around. Or look at the hassle MS gets because it wants people to upgrade their computers every three years, even pulling software off the shelves in favor of the last version, trying to force people into shorter and shorter upgrade cycles.
And not every tv station is going to be able to spend money to upgrade to digital right away. The outcry when people are _forced_ to buy new tvs, and these are all high priced items, will kill tv in america. Most folks will say, "I can't afford a thousand dollar tv". They may go down to walmart for something for a couple hundred bucks. But a couple of gs for a bood tube? To hell with it. I know TV is not that important to me. I'll live without, and probably will be better of for it. Just imagine not being able to see allof those political campaign ads because of incompatibility of technologies.
paradise.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I don't think it was $10,000 impressive though. :)
you will just be buying into the corprate trap. HDTV has diffrent rules that govern it right now. you can not record an HDTV broadcast is the content producer does not want you to..even onto a VCR. I am sorry, but if I cannot time shift what I watch or my Ability to time shift is based on the interests of a 3rd party who could not give a damn about my rights, then I say fudge 'em.
getting an HDTV will pull you into their control.
Hell we should not be melting our minds on that sensationalist crap anyway. Read a book, listen to classical music, go to an art museum go to a history museum, go to a play, go to a live orchestra preformance, do the things that make us human.....the entertainmnet industry certainly does not.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
.... from a guy talking to a class about 15 years ago. His general theme was that although the technology had been around for a long time, certain political barriers were delaying it's release. But, he added, in just a few short years, it will replace conventional television.
Here's some HDTV Highlights (Feb. 1981-March 1998).
HD NET (A Mark Cuban thing) has 24x7 HTDT 'stuff'. It ranges from sporting events (even the Olympics) to nature shows.
Man, the difference between full 1080i and regular broadcast TV is HUGE.
Those who whine about HTDV sucking are probably sitting in front of their analog tube.
For those of us who are used to PAL, the increase in quality that HD gives you is negligible in the home.
For those of you used to NTSC, it's huge. Progressive scan helps as well, but it's the stable colours and the resolution that make the difference.
However, the one thing we have been involved in has nothing to do with HDTV, it's to do with HD in the cinema. And the trend there is to cut the costs of making a movie by doing it all digitally. The nice people who make film stock rake in a small fortune every year on stock; in comparison, HD tapes are free! HD provides close to 2K resolution (a film industry term) and anything you see that has been into a computer for effects work will have been scanned in at 2K res.
So, HDTV is certainly not a technology looking for a market, it's just that in the US, the need to replace the awful quality of analog NTSC transmission with something better is much more pressing than in the PAL world. Hence the heartache.
Any transition is painful, but the real crime in the USA is that you're going to be saddled with an off-air transmission system that is not up to the job. The FCC, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided that rather than fall in with the rest of the world - and the laws of physics - it will mandate the 8-VSB specification as the only modulation standard for the US Digital TV broadcast transition (rather than the more recent and just plain better COFDM standard). The FCC seems to have almost completely ignored the technical arguments - instead, it has followed the advice of various industry groups - like the ATSC - who's members control the 8VSB technology. So don't forget to blame the FCC is all this mess!
However, having spent some time in the US, I will also say that the thought of getting the crap that goes out on TV in sharper detail makes me shudder....
No matter what the hardships, it is being rolled out. I live in a community of 50,000 people and we already have HD simulcast on our NBC affiliate.
I work for a company that owns over ten television stations and we're simulcasting on half of them and others will be by next year.
Has anyone seen the Olympics on HD? It's incredible! The reflections on the ice, the shiney gold helmets. The detail in the fabric on the outfits! I could go on. Plus, the sound is great. You can actually hear the movements in the snow or ice.
We've taken the Olympic HD broadcast and pretty much aired it 24 hours over out HD channel.
Sadly, the film on HD shows up what appears to me to be the same (ER or West Wing). However, anything on video looks great.
You do have to be wary, Fox said that they broadcast the Superbowl in HD. This was the not case. They just letterboxed it and upsamlped the stream. It made for some great pixelation at the end when they threw out the confetti.
It'll get there, and the TV set prices will be cheaper, eventually. Until then, I and the other 10+ people in our community will enjoy it.
"Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
I mean, look at the mind numbing junk that they are trying to peddle. Repeat, repeat, repeat, sport, sport, sport, gameshows, gameshows, gameshows, soap, soap, soap. What *utter utter* crap!
And the media companies want to protect this "content"? It's like a beggar protecting his pile of bottles and aluminium cans. What kind of vegetating sheep watches it anyway?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
First off, I work for one of the major manufacturers of HDTV systems.
There are a number of glaring factual errors in the article. First of all, there are about a quarter-millon HDTV _displays_ SOLD total (that's not counting the ones sitting in warehouses). But there are only about 25,000 decoders SOLD (again, differentiate versus those sitting in warehouses. I have _no_ _idea_ where the article author got 300K+ decoders sold). The vast majority of HDTV displays are being used to display DVD / LD output, and have no means to recieve off-the-air transmission.
In short, the average HDTV station has a viewership of less than 200 people.
The current FCC rule is also "stations do not need to relinquish their analog bandwidth until 2005 or until 85% of their viewing market is equipped to recieve HDTV signals." Essentially, that's an infinite delay, as even _color_ TV didn't hit 85% until 1998.
Another omission: Service Area: the field test of HDTV's 8VSB digital modulation screwed the pooch; actual propagation of the signal in a multipath environment (i.e. where people live, with things like telephone wires, tall buildings, etc.) is _far_ worse than predicted. The current tests I've seen on real deployments indicate between 3 and 10dB worse performance than predicted, almost all of it due to multipath. In other words, a perfectly viewable analog signal does not predict a decodeable HDTV signal from the same transmit/recieve pair, as although there's adequate field strength, the signal/noise ratio is insufficient to get a good decode. Since HDTV either decodes correctly or the ECC fails, there's no such thing as a "noisy signal", you just get an onscreen message saying "No signal at all". You can't watch a weak HDTV signal, all you see is bluescreen.
Given all those factors, most station managers are seeing the writing on the wall (and the million-dollar-a-year power bills - work out how much it costs to run a 10-megawatt system for 18 hours a day at 10 cents a KWH). They're taking advantage of an FCC rules loophole- the right of a station to lower their transmitter power without renegotiating their license, and have cut the power outputs of their transmitters drastically. Since "effectively nobody" is actually watching HDTV, this inconveniences no one and saves the stations a bundle of money on the electric bill.
As a Long Island resident who has always used an antenna (why should I pay monthly for something that's "free"? OK, the Sci-Fi channel is good!), I won't be getting HDTV any time soon. But as others have pointed out, I wonder how many sales people in the local electronic stores would even mention this obstacle?
What the real problem is is that I have yet to see in the stores an HDTV which is either 19" or 25" or 27". Of course when all of the TV's are large screened the prices are going to be much higher.
Not everyone has the space for a large screen TV or is willing to bear the cost of one. A smaller tv would bring down the price and perhaps incentivize including a built in HDTV tuner. I believe once these smaller tv's are built then we will see more widespread adoption. Until that point only videophiles will be the ones to purchase them.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
They watched VHF channels 2-13. Even if there happens to still be an TV antenna on top of your hours it was primarily designed to be good at receiving VHF signals with UHF thrown in as an afterthought.
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
They've been demonstrating it state fairs and the like for several years. When it is done right it blows socks off anythig already out there. Too bad it seems to be such a mess.
First, I'm one of the early adopters, I bought a Pioneer Elite HD set about 2 years ago, mainly for watching DVDs at first (which is OUTSTANDING, btw). The TV cost approx $7000. (In retrospect, I think I should have waited a year.. Heh)
.. It's here folks. The programming is here.
I'm lucky enough to be in a market where the local cable system is transmitting a few channels in HD. I had to go online and grab a decoder (~ $300), and I was all set.
WOW. Amazing. I pick up CBS HD, and their Saturday afternoon College Football games made it ALL worth the while. You could read the frickin warning label text on the backs of the helmets! I now find myself to be a regular fan of the CBS primetime lineup, previously would have never watched a single show on there. (Hear this, advertisers? Networks?)
I live in Omaha. People probably don't think Omaha is a big tech area. (I don't!). But I've written our major networks in town, one is already transmitting OTA digital, another comes online in 2 weeks, and the other two will be done by Summer. Why justify HDTV?
I've since bought a direct-view toshiba widescreen hdtv for upstairs. I haven't gotten it to start picking up OTA transmissions yet (waiting till it gets a bit warmer to start figuring out antenna placements), but DVD content is amazing - and, guess what? The XBOX has a few widescreen 480p games, with 1080i games to follow shortly! Have you seen DOA3 on an HDTV? It would blow your mind away.
Things are going okay.. The prices ARE plummeting (my widescreen tube hdtv was only $1850! - and it's a flat screen as well). The content is growing. All the people that are sitting on the sidelines will start seeing more and more letterboxed NTSC television feeds (did anyone notice the black bars in the NCAA game CBS had a few weekends ago???).. While you had that, I had a PERFECT 16:9 game to watch.. Ahh..
I've been lucky enough to live in a city (Boston) where I can receive a lot of HD programming with just a simple set of rabbit ears (It turns out the simpler the antenna the better for receiving an HD signal, you can also get HD net (great channel) over satellite) But I have to say that my roommates and I (2 electrical engineers with masters degrees and 1 CS guy) have had to do a lot of research on just how to run and tweak the HDTV and our reception. When an HD program is properly produced and transmitted it totally blows you away. The local PBS channel was doing testing awhile back and had a program about Italy on and to be honest it was like looking out an open window at Italy, completely amazing. Conversely if you watch HD programming on CBS the shows look much better and there is definitely that HD 3d effect but the network has chosen to use filters or a process to make the image look like a film, i.e. a softer less defined image. Where HD really has shined consistently is with true HD sports broadcasts. (The last super bowl was billed as an HD broadcast but really wasn¦t) With the wider aspect ratio you can see so much more of the field in an incredibly higher detail. In hockey games when a slap shot bounces off a post you can see the shot come in and bounce off the post where with a traditional broadcast you usually only hear the ding off the post. That being said NBC has made a choice to simulcast their digital TV signal with their HDTV signal for the Olympics which means sometimes the signal isn¦t as good as it could be, some pixelization on high speed shots with objects moving inside of the point of focus. Really a very small thing, but I¦m told if NBC didn¦t waste bandwidth on the extra signal it would not occur. (BTW - God bless Mark Cuban for getting NBC to allow him to broadcast the Olympics even if they are a day behind) DVD will never look as good as true HD programming even with a progressive player, don¦t get me wrong DVD look great but for example ABC has been running James Bond films and Indiana Jones movies in HD and comparing the bond films to the DVD version (no Indiana Jones DVDs yet f¼) The HD broadcast of even very old films is completely amazing. There are still the limiting factors of the original film but the image of the HD broadcast is much better than the DVD version. Finally playing Halo for the Xbox at 480p in co-op mode on a 50 16:9 screen rocks! It will be interesting to see how games look when Xbox game makers start shipping games that run at higher res. (Xbox is the only game console with true HD support)
There are several cabling standards for HDTV. The one that most people will use is S-video, but you can also use HD15 (VGA cables) and two different component setups (RGB with separate horz and vert sync and Y,Pb,Pr). You can also use component over coax, but you loose quite a bit of quality. There isn't a current standard for an optical video cable.
I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
If the FCC wants HDTV to take hold, they must mandate HDTV must-carry on cable and HDTV compatible tuners on new TV sets. 85% of the public gets their TV signals from cable or DBS. The FCC mandated the inclusion of UHF tuners in TV sets, and set performance standards for UHF tuners, to make UHF TV a commercial success. When the FCC let the market decide with AM Stereo, it was a disaster.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The HDTV signals may be just as wide (6 MHz) as NTSC, but they can be more closely packed, saving spectrum. HDTV is much less susceptible to inter-channel interference.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Then just switch to PAL - the colour encoding is far better than NTSC
Granted. However:
and the vertical resolution is better to boot!
Wrong. PAL-M (PAL color encoding of a 60 Hz 525-line signal) has the same vertical resolution as NTSC. The version you're talking about (50 Hz 625-line signal) poses great problems for people with epilepsy because its flicker rate is so darn low. It's not as bad as early Pokemon cartoons, but it can still be noticeable to those sensitive to flashing lights.
Will I retire or break 10K?
While progress, in and of itself, may be good, that doesn't mean that it's worthwhile at any cost. What's more, this determination is largely made by consumers, not by companies. Take this HDTV roll out, for instance, if enough customers were willing and capable of paying enough money to even cover all the costs and the risks (e.g., increased production costs, increased infrastructure costs, labor, etc. Not to mention a relatively nominal profit for the companies), then HDTV would probably be a reality. The truth of the matter is that this is not the case now. It's simply not worth that kind of money to enough people now.
HDTV, or the lack thereof, is simply not the companies' fault. It may not be the consumers "fault" either; they are just making a determination about what is best for them. Maybe the consumer is misinformed or, maybe, they just have greater priorities were they'd rather spend their finite resources. Maybe having more content on TV is more important to them than seeing it in higher quality....
This brings me to another very important point. That resources not spent here, on rolling out HDTV, are spent on pursuits that are more worthwhile (as determined by consumers). Maybe not by the television industry itself, but within the capital markets, labor markets, etc. This may mean more resources for the development of life saving drugs, better cars, and what have you.
The bottom line is that I am not upset with anyone about this. I may personally be willing to spend the cash (and then some) for HDTV, but I am mature enough to realize that my preferences are not necessarily in line with what society needs and wants. I would not want some regulatory body really forcing this matter on the companies and society in general. This situation, and most like it, simply do not call for regulation.
[Note: Cleaner cars and such are an entirely different scenario and a seperate argument because none of the consumers pay for the pollution that they personally pollute.]
All the color standards could ride on top of existing transmissions. With the exception of the 405 line system in UK and the 819 line system in France (which ate up 14 MHz of b/w), color television coexisted with regular TV in the channeling. If you got a clean b&w signal, that was good enough to do color.
But the rollout of color took a long time. Color standards were adopted in the US in the late 1940's. Color transmissions started in the 50's. It wasn't even until the middle 60's that half the programming was in color.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Porn today sucks. It's boring. Like any other vicarious form of entertainment, it requires suspension of disbelief for it to be enjoyed. But with the lousy acting, directing, stories - and pretty much everything else - there's plenty of disbelief. Hell, with all the fake tits, formulaic scenes, and uninspired moaning they can't even make the sex believable. To say nothing of the offensive levels of sexism (contrary to popular belief porn is not inherently sexist), or numerous other factors. All it is is people screwing on camera for money.
All the more reason for the real networks and producers to get involved. Porn IS the killer app. Demand for porn is nearly universal among men, and if they bothered to work on the stories they could make it appealing to women too. One need look no further than the demand for Yaoi Doujinshi among women to see that this is true. There's money to be made, and Hollywood has more than enough of it. They certainly pay the actors enough. At an Indecent Proposal sum of one million dollars per episode each, I don't see why every episode of Friends DOESN'T have a different permutation of the cast members gettin' it on, culminating with an orgy in the series finale.
Can you imagine how much better porn could be with real acting, a hefty production budget, and a schedule based on weeks rather than days? I can. It's time to stop burying softcore smut on the premium channels, and bring porn to prime time.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I suspect the "filter" involved here is the film on which the show is shot...AFAIK, news, sports, and soaps are the only things that get shot with video cameras instead of motion-picture cameras (news and sports because they're live, soaps because they're cheap). If a show does a live episode (like ER did a couple of years or so ago), the difference is blatantly obvious since they have to use video cameras for anything that's live. Everything else gets shot on film and is then telecined to bring the framerate up. (Film is typically 24 fps. NTSC is 29.97 fps. What's the framerate for ATSC?)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
A few points:
1. There is no static. You either get the channel or you don't.
2. Digital cable is not HD. In fact, for the most part, the quality of the signal decreases as Cable TV companies try to squeeze more channels into less bandwidth.
3. DVDs are not HDTV killer apps. they look better, but they're still 480p. True HDTV (1080i or 720p) is amazing, but HD-DVDs are held up for reasons related to the next point.
4. The real problem for studios is that there is no copy protection on HDTV hardware. They are afraid of giving out theatre-quality resolution video, and component outputs (95% of HDTVs) have no built-in copy protection. It's not enough that there is no commercially available HDTV signal recorders. Networks and studios are belatedly seeing HDTV as a chance to integrate copy controls to prevent unauthorized recording, copying, etc. to combat TiVO/Replay. There had been at least one HD-DVD player that was pulled from the market shortly after introduction. As part of this, the industry is moving to Firewire instead of component signals, because Firewire has copy protection built into the hardware, obsoleting 99% of existing hardware. A Firewire -> Component converter is unlikely, because that would defeat copy protection. This pisses the early adopters off and hardware manufacturers are not interested in producing cutting edge new hardware which may be obsolete under the new Firewire standard, and distributors and retailers don't want to be stuck with unsellable new hardware.
5. There are websites that have information about which channels are broadcasting around your area and antenna recommendations.
--I hate people when they're not polite -"Psycho Killer", Talking Heads
doesn't mean there's no point in having it for those of us who can.
Remember when 19" monitors were over $1000? There was still a point to having one back then...
The problem with the HDTV rollout is not FCC overregulation, it's lack of backbone.
The US public owns the airwaves and has the right to determine how they will be used. This is done by the FCC.
The FCC did two things, they mandated the channel allocations and format of TRANSMISSION only.
It was 'industry' that could not agree on a MPEG playback standard for HDTV itself. 1080i, 720p, 480p, etc. The FCC said, 'Do what ever you want for format, we'd like it if you stayed within these EIGHTEEN different formats ont he infamous Table 3, but you can do whatever you want. We are letting the market decide.'
And so, noone agreed on what to do. THe cost of production is high, the payback to broadcasters is zero, and therefore HDTV sucks.
Just as Europe is far ahead of the US in phone technology due to GSM standards, Europe is far ahead of the US in digital television due to DVB standards.
Standards aren't a bad thing. Without them, you wouldn't be reading this text.
The FCC didn't set standards and now we are in a mess. Getting out of it will be near impossible.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
Heh, that was a while ago. Did you save it somewhere? Or is it deep in the /. archive?
I actually wrote it for my fraternity mailing list. The reference to Sun-day is an inside joke.
It pays to be a broadcast engineer in discussions like this.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
First of all, what is avertised as 'digital cable' is not HDTV. It is somethign completely different. 'digital cable' is the equivalent of DirecTV or Dish Network over a cable instead of over and satellite dish.
The HDTV signal is a very tightly compressed signal. To give you an idea, the native production format is around 1.5 GIGAHz of bandwidth. This can be squeezed down to a 19.3 MEGAbit/second signal. The 19Mbs signal can be shoved through a 6MHz pipe.
There are several pipes you can listen to at you house, each is handled differently.
Over-the-air:
You need an arial antenna (rabbit ears or rooftop yaggi) to recieve the signal. Then the signal must be run through an ATSC decoder. The decoder aka settop box, decodes the MPEg and creates a HD signal that you feed into you HD montior. Care must be taken that you chose a settop box that has outputs that match the input of your monitor. ATSC decoders are $1,000 last time I checked. Could be less now. What you get -> Possibly 5-6 HDTV stations of the local area with less than 15 hours/week of actual HDTV programming.
DirecTV:
You buy the special DirecTV HDTV reciever for $700 or so. Hook it up to dish antenna, plug into your HD monitor. What you get -> ONE channel of HBO movies. That's it...
Cable TV:
Most cable TV systems do not retransmit the HDTV signal, you have to check with your cable provider. If they do, you will probably need settop box from the cable company that makes a signal that feeds a second ATSC decoder settop ($$), then that feeds your HD monitor. What you get -> Depending on local cable system, you may get some of the local HDTV stations.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
It's not a matter of not being able to afford it. I could buy a nice big HDTV and not miss the money (a plasma display, OTOH, would set me back a ways...). It's that I don't see the value proposition for most people.
There will always be for virtually any product, no matter how expensive:
- some people who can afford it
- some people who get enough value from it to justify it
-a few people who need it so badly it's worth any price
But are those enough to make something a commercial success? Often, that's not the case.
Being able to afford something doesn't necessarily make it worthwhile. I (and most of us) can afford a lot of things that have no value, so we don't buy them. I could afford to buy a really nice outdoor gas grill with multiple burners and all sorts of cool stuff. But I don't like to barbecue that much, so I just have a small old Weber charcoal kettle that I use for the one or two times a year that I use it.
But I do have a very expensive over-the-range microwave oven that does about everything you can imagine. I use it very often and get great utility from it, so it's worth the money to me.
I think the TV set is the same kind of thing to most people - a $500 (or less) NTSC set displays broadcast TV fine, is OK for VCR/DVD playback, and is a better value than the $2000 (or up) HDTV. Enthusiasts will disagree, but that's a small percentage of the market.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
This is the fault of the make-up artists who were not ready for the clarity HDTV brings.
You don't beleive me? Check out Leno in HD. He looks so damn creepy, just like Frankenstein. I asked people if he looked that way in person, and they told me most definately not.
MOD PARENT *UP*!
Let me break it down for you... MONEY.
The natinal debt caused Bill Clinton's Administration to try to make the FCC become a profit center for the US Federal Govt. So why give the people their airwaves for free when you can sell the band and pay down the debt?
So they (the FCC) were going to sell the bandwidth to the telephone companies (where the money is in T-com) for cell usage, until high compression digital phones made the idea worthless several years into the plan. Every television engineer in the world saw this coming. They all said, "this whole plan will dry up when digital phones come along, because this is predicated on the idea that telecomm technology won't advance. Telecomm tech is one of the fastest advancing techs out there, if not the fastest." Of course, digital cells came out, and all of that HD band move for the sell off became useless. We (broadcasters) were stuck with the grandchild. Cable, of course, makes the highest profit in the industry, and hasn't had to do a fucking thing.
Now we (local television stations) are stuck with the idea of making millions of dollars of changes for a pittance of high end users... when most people watch TV for the shows, not the technical specifications. Many have never heard of HD.
Bill Clinton did this to us. He wanted ways to pay down the debt without slashing anything, so he hit the one industry that is one of the most regulated short of atomic energy, and wrapped it up in a bow that said, "progress." It was a big lie.
Why is is not here yet, even though it is regulated to be here RIGHT NOW?
Well, most of the broadcast quality digital equipment is made by single manufacturer overseas companies (like Sanyo or Toshiba), so they can charge literally whatever they want without worrying about anyone messing with them... why? They pushed the idea on the FCC, and they hold all the patents. Its literally the whole Rambus thing all over again. When the FCC says jump, local television stations are forced to say, "How high, Master?"
The current cost per HD user nationwide is several thousand dollars in the hole per user, if not tens of thousands, depending on the market.
I understand the reason for the FCC, but their power is absolute over private businesses that already give people what they want OR THEY FAIL MISERABLY. The truth is, the FCC lost touch along the way. Completely became a post for political insiders to sit on like being the Drug Czar, and now they just constantly muck up a system that is extremely market reactive. No one in the FCC knows shit about television. They have a late 70's Sesame Street NPR attitude about one of the most cutthroat businesses out there.
HDTV is not in your hometown market because they can't afford it. Period. The Gov't can say, "We need you to be HD NOW!" and they respond with, "We just got hit about as bad as the airlines, we just laid off workers... we don't have millions lying around for 15 A/V enthusiasts. Up yours. Pull our license. See what the people think about that when people can't get 'free' local TV all over the country."
That is where we stand. The TV stations try to look like their complying, because they like their license. The FCC wants a cool new standard, no matter what it costs to the common man and television stations.
And it was all over trying to sell off your public trust of the bandwidth to big rich phone companies, because politicians like big government programs and waste, and it was an idea that was fundamentally flawed because they thought the world was going to be analog forever. Way to go FCC. Are YOU EVEN AWAKE?
True. I know a lot of the early wind programs had pretty bad maintenence problems (I have seen several wind farms where at any given moment, half the windmills are offline), but I assume that has gotten better. I should not have excluded that -- wind power is excellent.
I love my HDTV... If only I could get programming... However, I love running my DVD (progressive scan) and Gamecube at 480p... There is a nice difference. I bought my set knowing that it would be mostly for 480p.
However, what you're all missing is the power that DTV has IF the broadcasters use 480i.
I don't recall the exact numbers, but at a 480i DTV transmission, each broadcaster will be able to broadcast 5 or 6 channels. Recording the shows at 1080i shouldn't be a big deal, and they can broadcast them at 480i.
This means that with an OTA Attennae (once DTV has its act together, reasonable anntennaes should become available), you could pick up 40 channels or so...
Now, I love my HDTV 6.1 Stereo system, etc. However, I want OTA to be as good as analog cable, just with a better signal.
That means that the cable company needs to offer me something to keep my business.
Right now they compress signals as much as possible to include more pay-per-view, but its really the same pay-per-view just starting every 30 minutes.
Sorry, but that won't keep my $80/month flowing. HBO and Starz are great, but there is no reason they can't rent descramblers directly and send their feeds on a broadcaster's OTA signal.
The cable companies started to get their act together when the Satellite companies started to really make a push. When OTA competes with them, then Satellite and Cable will have to really offer something.
I look foward to the day when I can get 40 channels for free or drop $50-$100/mo. to get HDTV signals, etc. I mean, there is no reason for shows not to be recording in HDTV, that way they can be sold on HDVD later on and the broadcasters can sell the rights to carry their HDTV signals if the cable companies want to exist.
Alex
I don't own an HDTV, but I have a friend who does. I helped him upgrade his DirecTV setup to HD-compatibility. When I got to his house the night we did that, he already had his DirecTV HD receiver attached to his OTA antenna, and he was watching fabulous HD images from the local PBS station. After we got his dish replaced and his multiswitch installed, he was receiving fabulous HD from HBO and Showtime as well.
HDNet definitely shows the phenomenal potential of HDTV, especially for sports broadcasts. Baseball is astounding on HD, but the sport that picks up the most benefit from HD is clearly hockey. On a standard NTSC picture, you can't make out much detail during a hockey game unless the camera zooms in so much that you can't see the big picture. That fight that's developing around the blue line? Can't see it because the camera's zoomed into the scrum for the puck in the corner.
HD definitely rocks. It sucks that Fox refused to broadcast the Super Bowl in HD. The year previously, CBS did offer an HD broadcast of the Super Bowl, but the local CBS affiliate refuses to install HD equipment so we got to see that in standard definition as well.
You'll actually violate the warranty on many HD projection sets if you watch NSTC broadcasts in their native aspect ratio because the bars down the side will burn in.
How does this happen?
I will make an assumption here, simply because I have never taken apart an HDTV bigscreen, but I do know what a regular bigscreen uses, so I assume it is the same thing:
Most bigscreens (HDTV or otherwise) use tube based CRT projection systems (basically, three CRTs with liquid cooling systems, cranked brightness for the lumens, projecting the RGB color triad which are combined with mirrors and lenses). HDTV would use much higher resolution CRTs, with faster scan rates and drivers.
Now, a CRT works by scanning an electron beam, produced at the back of the tube in the neck, using electromagnetic steering coils, across the face of the tube - actually, there is a "shadow mask" in the way - but that isn't relevant to my question. When the beam hits the front of the tube, on the inside face of the tube is coated with phosphor dots (red tube coated with red only, blue with blue only, etc) - which when struck by the electron beam, glow (for a brief period - refreshed on each scan). The electron beam is modulated for brightness, to produce different levels of color for each tube. So, beam on high equals max brightness - beam not turned on at all equals true black, right?
So, when watching a 4:3 aspect ratio picture on a wide screen, there have to be "bars" to either side of the image, right? So - for burn-in to occur (like on old arcade game screens, or old terminal screens), the image has to be unchanging, and relatively bright - ie, not black (which is an absence of the electron beam, right?)...
The only other kind of "burn-in" I can imagine is where if you only use the bigscreen for 4:3 ratio images, and there is an "uneveness" resulting from _not_ using the area where the black bars are - so that when you did go to use "widescreen" mode, the areas of the blackbars would look "brighter" than the central area where your 4:3 ratio image normally was.
If this is the case, I wouldn't consider the areas where the bars "burned-in" - but rather the central area would be, correct? Is this the case they are speaking of (BTW - I am not saying bigscreens don't suffer from burn-in - I know they do, at far higher rates due to their inherent brightness and power levels of the CRTs used)?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
You don't need lossless compression. You just need high-bitrate MPEG-2. And that's doable for this application.
Just as a comparison, 352x240 30fps YUV9 avi capture of NTSC runs about 2GBytes per 10 minutes (video and audio). Or, 352x240x3x30 = 7.6MBytes/sec for the video only. Converting that into vcd-compatible mpeg-1 drops it from 60MBits/sec to 1.15MBit/sec. 50x lossy compression.
DVD is about 5MBit/sec for the MPEG-2 stream, audio and video together. (Someone will doubtless drop in the exact bitrate range.) That's, for DVD, 720x480 at 30fps, or, about 31MBytes/sec (248MBits/sec) for video only. That's 50x compression, or thereabouts? For pretty decent quality video, lossy compression.
So your 176MBytes/sec for HDTV, at a 50x compression, gives about 3.5MBytes/sec.
That gives a bandwidth requirement of about what I'd been told for HDTV, 25MBit/sec.
Not so unreasonable. You don't need lossless compression for video.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
I have never seen an HDTV set that upconverted 1080i to 720p. 720p is generally harder for a TV to support, most of the HDTV's being sold today support 1080i and not 720p.
Many people consider 720p to be the higher quality format because of the progressive display at 60 fields per second. When I bought my HDTV, I made sure it supported 720p and 1080i.
Perhaps what you're talking about is the ability of the display to completely show a 1920x1080 image. Given the dot pitch of my set, and the size of the display area (34" 16:9), the effective resolution of the 1080i image is somewhat less than 1920 x 1080. But, this is very difficult to tell with the naked eye.
Other displays, such as plasma flat panels, may have a lower native resolution, and downsample 1080i images to their native resolution.
This is something to be aware of when shopping for an HDTV display, but I would not call it a scam.
I've actually been looking forward to HDTV for years. I like the 16x9 aspect ratio, and the clarity of the picture is awesome.
However, I am really sceptical about all of this copy protection that I keep hearing is going to be incorporated.
I watch almost no TV live, I record it and watch it later. And some (a very small amount) shows that I particularly like, I save the tapes so that I can watch them years later (currently only Buffy the Vampire Slayer :). And yes, I have lent my tapes to friends who had starting watching the show in the 3rd season and wanted to see what had happened in the 1st 2. If the move to HDTV takes away my ability to do this, then I don't want it.
MikeI don't think the industry will ever persuade me to get HDTV. They'd need to:
equivalent). No point having a high quality image when it's
interrupted every ten minutes.
high quality image if you're going to paste an ugly logo over it. My TV
already tells me what channel I'm watching.
of the few shows I watch regularly, so it's getting to the stage where all
I have the TV for is watching DVDs and Twilight Zone reruns.
going to get me to give up DVDs.
ears every time I want to change channels.
news and bread-and-circus channels (ESPN, FOX Sports, etc.).
Obviously the above ain't gonna happen, so there's no point my worrying
about HDTV. However, I'd like to get a widescreen set capable of scan-doubled 480p for my
DVD player...
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I went home this past winter break. We have a kind of half-finished basement, which is carpeted and heated but only one wall is drywall. It's kind of a "den" type room, or it could be seen as a spare bedroom. Anyway, there is a 13" TV in this room. A monophonic Magnavox, with the speaker pointed left out of the side of the enclosure, made around 1989. An absolute piece of shit by any standard.
My girlfriend and I stayed up late one night to watch one of those strange HBO late-night movies cuddled up in front of this little 13" TV, and it was probably the most enjoyable movie-viewing experience I've had in years. I've seen Hollywood epics on huge-screened surround sound systems, I've seen numerous films inside state-of-the-art theatres, but I must say, this little 13" television had them all beat.
I guess I don't expect most Slashdotters to understand that, but...
Alex
Actually, the market handled Enron perfectly. Bad companies have to be allowed to go bust under a market economy. I hope whoever broke the law and created that fiasco is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (and then some in the afterlife), but if they're not you should be criticizing the DOJ (or God), not "the market." It sucks that people had their pensions and such invested in that stock, but seriously, there's no reason why they shouldn;t have diversified. I just hope everyone else will learn from their mistakes.
The California energy markets were one seriously fucked-up situation. Read an economic analysis of it sometime, it's remarkable how stupidly the whole thing was done. Basically, they "deregulated" the industry only to provide them with a market so hampered with new regulations that prevented the market from correcting itself when things started going wrong. I could go on but I'm off-topic enough as it is.
The market would be doing a fine job of handling digital media, too, unfortunately not the way some of us might like to. Essentially, the broadcasters and cable companies would rather take the HDTV bandwidth given to them and use it to pack more normal-resolution digital channels downstream, because, frankly, not enough people care about HDTV for them to make a buck.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
Be very careful not to confuse softness with lack of detail, or as you a say "less defined image". I think most broadcasters add "sharpness" to the image which adds artificial edge enhancement and though might make the image look "sharper" what it really does it to REMOVE detail.
Most TV sets as set from the factory do the same thing, and HDTVs are just as guilty of it. There's two things that the TV does to add "sharpness". One is the sharpness control. In most all instances it should be set to ZERO or close to it. That will keep the TV from adding edge enhancement and you'll get a more detailed picture. The other thing is to disable SVM (Scan Velocity Modulation) if at all possible. This also introduces artifacts intended to make the picture look "sharper", but in reality it takes away detail.
When you do these things, your first reaction will probably be "Ugh... that looks soft and fuzzy" but that's only because most people are used to watching TV with the sharpness set far too high. Give it a couple of weeks and I guarantee that you'll start to see more detail and a more "film-like" appearance from your set, HDTV or otherwise... and that's a good thing.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Think of all the action going on outside the vertical range that you miss because of your rectangular screen. Wider screens only help if they take up the majority of your range of vision -- like a movie screen. It's only the peripheral vision of from having two eyes that makes you see more on the horizontal angle.
8VSB/COFDM Comparison Report PBS Position Paper on Industry Reconsideration of DTV Modulation System - COFDM vs. 8VSB CEA APPLAUDS FCC'S UNANIMOUS DECISION TO DISMISS SINCLAIR DTV PROPOSAL DIGITAL TELEVISION AND 8-VSB
You can also use component over coax, but you loose quite a bit of quality.
I find it unlikely that one would ever intentionally "let loose or release" quality. It seems more likely that you would fail to retain it. The word you were looking for is lose.
Congratulations! You have been participant #38 in my campaign to rid Slashdot of this error.
Proudly correcting Slashdot's most irritating linguistic error since 2002.
So why give the people their airwaves for free when you can sell the band and pay down the debt?
Sorry bud. I should have put sarco-marks(TM) on that one. It left it open to interpretation. I meant to be a smartass on that one. Whoops. I reread it, and I could totally see how you could get my intentions wrong.
I personally hate the idea of selling off the public trust too. I should have rephrased a few things, I guess. But TV is out to make money... just like everything else. I am parroting more of the TV stations attitude.