Whether (And When) To Buy HDTV?

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.

Comments

Completley agree

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Completley agree

[racermd]

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.

Wait...

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

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.

Re:$150 for cables? (monster, the bose of cables)

[yy1]

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.