Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Whether (And When) To Buy HDTV?

Posted by timothy on from the agressively-planned-obsolesence dept.

zzxc writes "A NBC local station in Indiana is carrying an article on whether it is smart to buy a high definition television now or later. While it isn't very technical, it does provide some practical insight. Keep in mind that the FCC deadline for television stations switching to HDTV is December 31, 2006." I don't think I want another television screen that can't also be a computer monitor.

23 of 568 comments (clear)

  1. Completley agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful


    And why is it my TV costs more than my monitor yet in comparison a TV is terrible quality ?

    1. Re:Completley agree by Squarewav · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a tv is a hell a lot lower res then a monitor, dont belive me connect your computer to a tv and just try to read slashdot a tv runs at most 640x400@60hz ware a monitor can run whatever for comparison my tv is 25" runs at most 640x400@60hz ware my 19" monitor runs 1600x1200@75hz that

    2. Re:Completley agree by racermd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That may be correct, but you're not seeing the full picture. (horrible pun is, indeed, intended)

      A 19" non-HD TV will only set you back, what, $150? Maybe even just $120? A decent 19" monitor is about $200, now. That's not too far off in terms of price. But picture quality is *way* off.

      That's not to say that your TV can't be a good computer monitor, however. The primary reason your TV looks like crap when you display anything from a computer on it is due to the way the signal is transferred from your video card to the TV. A standard TV's inputs were really only designed for large moving objects over a bandwidth-limited medium such as a multiplexed cable line or over-the-air broadcasts. Because of this, the overall bandwidth requirement is comparatively low. Small text is blurred because the signal going to your TV doesn't carry enough bandwidth to make a change on the scan-line quickly enough to make it as sharp as you'd like it. That's also the reason that you're generally only limited to 640x480 or so even though your video card is capable of so much more.

      Your 19" computer monitor, on the other hand, has an input capable of carrying a single dot on a grid of 1600x1200 that's still very discernable. That's a lot of information wizzing through that 15-pin cable. But when you consider that the 15-pin connector is really a slightly more complex version of the 3-cable component video inputs on most HDTVs and almost all DVD players, it isn't difficult to understand why this is the case. If you can separate the signal such that each conductor only carries a portion of the signal (and some error-correcting stuff that will vary depending on what signal you're sending), you effectively gain potential resolution. On the typical 15-pin connector, there's a separate signal for each of red, green, and blue picture elements. There's also a grounding wire for each signal. There's synchronization signals on 2 or more wires with their own grounding wires, too.

      The input on a non-HD TV must make due with only a single conductor and a single ground for *all* of this information. The RF input is even worse as it's carrying multiple channels of data multiplexed with the one that you really want. An HDTV uses either the 15-pin connector like that found on computer monitors or the 3-cable RCA connector common on most DVD players. (The 3-cable setup carries RGB on their own conductor with the HSync and VSync multiplexed across them. The other method multiplexes all of the signal and sync data across all three conductors. There's only 3 ground conductors in each method, those being the shielding on the cables) This makes the HDTV, effectively, a large computer monitor. The problem isn't with the quality of the tube, but rather the maximum ammount of information that can be transmitted to it. If you were able to bypass the traditional inputs on your typical TV set and send your signal *directly* to the picture tube, you'd get a picture that's similar to what you can get on your computer monitor. (BTW: Don't try that at home, kids. TVs and computer monitors have lots of high-voltage components in them that can kill you if you're not careful. Leave the insides of your TV alone.)

      Some newer HDTV-ready units are already doubling as computer monitors at about $3500 and will easily display your computer signal at about 800x600. As for a large TV-only unit, a decent unit will run about $4k. Granted, that's much higher than you'd find a good computer monitor for, but you're not really going to be able to find a 50-plus inch monitor for anywhere close to that price. In addition, you've got inputs for your X-Box, Playstation2, progressive-scan DVD player, an HDTV satellite receiver, and anything else you want to throw at it. Your PC would be only one element in a home-entertainment package.

      Back on topic, HDTV programming is still rather sparse for my taste. I'm on DirecTV and can only get a few channels with HDTV resolution. HBO has some content, and there's at least one PPV channel dedicated to it. But I'm waiting until there's more HDTV content from the more "regular" channels, such as Discovery Channel (currently in HD, but only for Dish Networks customers) and Speed Channel. The major network affiliates such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc., don't have enough HD content available for me to justify an $800 purchase. My HDTV-ready big-screen will need to get by on 480p signals from my DVD player until I think there's enough HDTV content to buy that box.

      --
      My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
  2. 2006? by ksheka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah. And in a couple years they'll push it back because there's not enough adoption of the technology or it's still too expensive...

    --
    alias uptime="echo '5:33pm up 22342352324 days, 6:28, 2124315623 users, load average: 2432.40, 12312.31, 123123.19'"
  3. Wait... by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 5, Insightful


    They've just standardized HDTV for cable.
    HDTV's still do not have digital outputs, and
    VCR's & DVD's do not have completely digital output yet.

    Another few years, it should settled out.

    1. Re:Wait... by updog · · Score: 3, Insightful
      All HDTV's have component inputs. They are capable of displaying a picture in a variety of formats, for example 480p, 720p, and 1080i.

      You can take advantage of the progressive output (480p) of your DVD players now; eventually many cable and satellite receivers will output 720p and 1080i so you can take full advantage of your HD set.

      In fact, right now an ATSC receiver will display a 1080i picture on your HD set.

  4. HDTV or DTV? by jDinK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought everybody had to switch to DIGITAL TV, not necessarily HIGH DEFINITION DIGITAL TV.

  5. Gadget freaks only by alexhmit01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I love my HDTV set, and it's only a 32" 480-line 4:3 TV. Watching Sopranos in HDTV, or any movies on HBO/Showtime, and even network television if I'm home for prime time.

    However, it's had it's hassles and difficulties, and you are paying to be on the cutting edge. It's fun, and the sound/video is incredible. However, be ready to pay the early adopter premium and pain.

    Alex

  6. Why buy? by pctainto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    HDTV looks amazing. Thats great. But, the price is amazingly high as well. When (or rather if) all the stations broadcast only in HDTV, I am POSITIVE that cable companies will give/let people rent set-top boxes that will translate HDTV signal into what 'normal' TVs now will understand. Cable companies and stations can't afford to lose out on the hundreds of millions of customers simply because they don't have the money to buy a compatible TV. The only reason to buy an HDTV now is if you are addicted to great quality video... but, the hassles of there not being a clear-cut HDTV standard make this close to a waste of money 5 years down the road.

    --
    I think my principles are reachin' an all time low
    1. Re:Why buy? by Chris+Carollo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      the set is one of the smallest costs of an HD setup
      On the contrary, the cost of the set can be the only substantial cost you incur -- and they can be had for as little as $800 for 27" HD set.

      In Austin, you can get a number of HD channels (HBO-HD, Showtime-HD, ABC-HD, CBS-HD) simply by swapping out your digital cable box for a HD model at no cost. Hook up the component outputs, and boom, you're watching HD. No more difficult or expensive than hooking up a non-HDTV.

      $125/m cables? Please -- head down to Radio Shack and pick up some cables for $10, they'll do just as well.
  7. firewire by mrpuffypants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the other day I was walking around in Best buy taking a look at the big TVs and I saw a display for some company's fision of the future of home theatre: The little illustration showedd a big TV, DVD player, Receiver, and other boxes all joined together by Firewire cables.

    No fancy wiring schemes just to be able to record off the Satellite, or to do other things that require clever wiring, just Firewire between all the devices that can route a purely digital signal wherever it needs to go.

    Once all of my components can do that, AND interface with my PC and Mac, then I will see a revolution in TV/Home Theatre. Until then, it's just another way to make the picture sharper and better looking overall, not redefining the whole idea of home theatre

    1. Re:firewire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No fancy wiring schemes just to be able to record off the Satellite, or to do other things that require clever wiring, just Firewire between all the devices that can route a purely digital signal wherever it needs to go.

      I don't want to rain on your parade -- I love Firewire, and I dream of the day that setting up a home theatre system is this easy -- but there's a possible downside: they'll put DRM in everything so being able to record off satellite isn't really that easy. Gah.

    2. Re:firewire by jweeld · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I agree & disagree.

      Here's the disagree part: The FireWire specification has authentication/encryption and tag bits built in (DTCP). Sure it isn't unbeatable, but it's good enough to protect content streams from the honest people + all but the most determined crackers. There *are* DVD players with FireWire interfaces, and TVs, and A/Vs, and speakers...

      Here's the agree part: FireWire *is* a great technology with the potential to actually make our lives *simpler* instead of more complicated. But due to politics and the content providers' mortal fear of content "theft" we'll all be very luck if we ever get to enjoy a tiny fraction of its potential.

      For the record, I design FireWire microchips for a living. And yes, I've implemented the key exchange protocol and 5C streaming stuff :-(

      QED

  8. Shoved down our throats - again... by spin2cool · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The media giants have their scheme down pat. They reveal new technology, tout it's benefits with heavy advertising, then slowly withdraw the old technology to force consumers to buy the new hardware product.

    How often do you see VHS advertised anymore? Yes, DVD is better quality, but except for videophiles, people don't care much about the negligible difference. I don't see that HDTV is in anyway different.

    It's no coincidence that manufacturers like Sony, that also make hardware, are the ones who push new technologies the most.

    --spin2cool

    1. Re:Shoved down our throats - again... by lvdrproject · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Uh... i agree with you on the notion that they're kind of shoving HDTV down our throats, but your DVD argument falls through. DVDs are superior in every way to VHS. They're better quality, and you're right, not a whole lot of people care much about that. But they also hold the ability to do things VHS is incapable of, such as:

      - real-time (as in, while the movie plays) commentary
      - different subtitle languages, and the ability to enable/disable them
      - different audio languages
      - portability (ability to play them in computers, video game systems, and portable DVD players)
      - chapter selection (ability to skip to pretty much any point in a movie easily)
      - no need to rewind (a task that i personally despise)
      - double-sidedness (in order to show really long films, or in order to show both wide-screen and "normal" versions of a film)

      and probably many other features. Also, is it just me, or do animated films benefit from DVD (over VHS) far more than live-action films? Also, aren't DVDs cheaper than VHS?

  9. Too Expensive!! by Newer+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Matt French is a product specialist at Best Buy in Mishawaka. He says, "Tube TV's start at around $700. The projection televisions start at around $1100 for the square televisions and the 4x3. And about $1500 for wide screen TVs."

    But that's not the total price. With that $700 model, you'll need a tuner, which will add another $400 to $700 plus about $150 for cables. That brings the total price in at least around $1300."

    I paid $199.00 for my 27 inch Daewoo color TV at Fry's three years ago. For the amount of TV
    I watch, it serves me just fine! The deadline for DTV will be moved back several times. Just watch. The average person simply isn't going to shell out "At least $1300.00" for TV in this recession! Food and clothing are simply more iportant - though the Channel 13 weather girl here in L.A. who does the weather braless in her tank top and tight leather pants would sure look
    cool in HDTV! ;-)

  10. My thoughts exactly by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If HDTV adoption deadlines *don't* get pushed back like they did 80 bazillion times previously, I'll be amazed. We're in the middle of a recession, people aren't that interested in HDTV period, yadda, yadda, yadda.

    --
    May we never see th
  11. It *is* time!! by updog · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Go ahead and get one. Even though it'll take a while for the cable and satellite companies to start broadcasting most channels in HD, you can enjoy the benifits via an over-the-air ATSC receiver. They're a couple hundred bucks, but no monthly charges. A lot of stations are now broadcast in HD (most of the major networks, NBC, KQED, etc), and once you see 1080i on a HD set you'll never want to watch standard def television again.

    So go ahead and get one now with an over-the-air receiver, then when the satellite and cable companies add more HD channels you'll be all set!

  12. Re:$150 for cables? (monster, the bose of cables) by yy1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kind of off topic but I just have to say, Monster cables are about marketing and technobabble more than quality. Alot of people call Monster the BOSE of cables. You get a decent cable for 2x, 3x the price of a regular good cable. They are anti-competative, alot of stores ONLY carry monster because monster has an agreement that they won't carry anything else. (this is from a store manager's mouth). You won't get a a bad cable for the most part, just paying alot for hype and limited retail options.

    --
    Because, sometimes they just have to touch the stove.
    -YY1
  13. TV as Monitor by rfolstad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the topic of using your TV as a monitor, i'm curious if anyone has done this with an HDTV succesfully. I'm talking about connecting your computer to your tv and running at HDTV resolutions (720p). Does the text look good? is it useable?

    I am amazed at slashdot with everyone talking about how good thier dvd's or tv shows look on HDTV what about using it as a monitor?
    Is my only option for using my computer from my couch at a higher resolution than 800x600 a digital projector?

  14. Entertainment Budgets by arn@lesto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In 1992 I was briefly mucking around in the set top box world. It became apparent that people behave as if they have an entertainment budget. At the time it was something similar to:

    • $35/mth - Cable TV
    • $30/mth - Movies (Rentals, Theaters ..)
    • $250/yr - Equipment, TV, VCR, Set Top Box, GameBox

    I don't believe it has changed much. If the person intended on buying a new TV/VCR every three years then they would only spend $750 on both. Every ten years - $2500.

    The other factor was an equipment threashold of around $250. If it was more expensive than this people thought too much about the purchase, below it they would buy on impulse. This doomed lots of game boxes that tried to sell above this price.

    The trouble with introducing a new service (payTV) or a new product (like a set top box) is that it had to fit into this budget by replacing something that was already there. HDTV and DTV are facing the same problem.

    Tivo clearly got it. Pricing less than $250, replaced the VCR.

    DTV tuner (4:3) is at least $100 more expensive (now) than the normal cable TV tuner - for what additional value? That is $100 they have to find from somewhere else in the budget. People are good at maximizing their entertainment value within the budget.

    HDTV 16:9 tubes are at least $500 more expensive - too much thinking.

    The FCC is trying to speed up the adoption but are proving to be rather toothless, the old deadline was the end of this year. 2006? 2010 more like it.

    The broadcast companies were given the option of using the 6Mhz bandwidth for one HDTV signal or 5 DTV signals ... guess which one they prefer? Where can you sell more advertizing space.

    There is also the confusion of will DVD/PVR work with the new HDTV set. The cable companies aren't helping either. Why would they want to replace their infrastructure, they already own their customers.

    Until HDTV reaches these threasholds and budget constraints it's not time to buy for most people. The FCC won't, or won't be allowed to, force the switch.

    It would have been faster and less traumatic if the FCC had said "on YYMMDD everything HDTV or DTV" a couple of years ago instead of the slow phase in. Networks would have been scrambling to subsidize the converters and new TVs so their audience and advertizing revenue didn't get hurt.

    Bit of a ramble ...

    --
    - AndrewN
  15. Re:How about content first? by SN74S181 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The point of CD versus Cassette tapes is random access, durability, and for some applications, sound quality. But many people don't have a good enough set of speakers, nor do they listen to the kind of music where it matters, wether it's CD or Cassette quality.

  16. Morons are insightful?. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    " DVDs are superior in every way to VHS."

    Really?

    I want you to tape the basketball game tomorrow because I can't get home from work in time.

    Here's a DVD player and a VHS machine.

    Which will you pick?

    I'm guess you'll say DVD because " DVDs are superior in every way to VHS".

    Oh wait.

    DVD's have a huge flaw in them.

    What could that be, bright boy?