Slashdot Mirror
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.
Give us content and buyers will follow. Content ... any content. Content! Content! Content!
For the longest time I couldn't decide what I wanted more, but watching DVDs on a 55in HD Widescreen TV are definitley worth the cost, until yesterday when we spent the money on the Powerbook.
The quality of the TV is great, I have my PVR computer hooked up to it, and I can navigate around all right but I still prefer my CRT monitor to read or post to Slashdot
But if you don't watch that much TV your money will be better spent on that new Powerbook you have been drooling over.
I,
Just upgraded our HDTV ready TV to HD this last weekend via a dealer demo model HDTV reciever I bought off of ebay.
CSI does look really good in HD, but quite frankly, unless you are either really into being able to see the pimples on some guys face or you feel the need to impress your friends then high def just isn't worth spending a ton of money on.
Take the route I did, if possible, buy something cheap off of ebay.
Now if you truly want a digital tv experience then go out and buy yourself a TIVO. I would'd trade my TIVO for fifty HDTV sets.
Over...
Caution: Contents under pressure
a generation has grown up accustomed to the TV being there. And now there are actually arguments on who gets to provide the technology to present you with 1/3 advertising in a half hour show, and all you all are focusing on is 'its a clearer picture'.
The american consumer never ceases to amaze me with how eager they are to give up money to do nothing...btw, keep it up I like having the money to travel the world while others pay me so that they can sit around and look at glowing chemicals!!!
That being said, the set is one of the smallest costs of an HD setup. There are the obvious costs, the TV set, and $250 for a progressive-scan dvd player (or significantly more if you want a region-free one). But then come the non-obvious costs... the new receiver that can switch component video, the $125/m video cables, the HD OTA receiver if you want to receive HD content off the air, the HD satellite receiver and dish to get your hbo and showtime, and the list goes on, dependant on your installation.
In short, I recommend for anybody buying a 32" or larger TV today to get an HD set, but I don't recommend purchasing HD signal unless you're willing to spend four or five thousand dollars in miscellaneous crap in order to make the opening sequence of CSI look really damned cool.
When I worked in the video industry, we developed RAID-based servers for HDTV. Being a small company, we had to rent HDTV monitors for trade shows like NAB.
... but that's another story.
... hmmmm.
But that didn't stop us from watching HDTV content on computer monitors. I remember this one test video we had featuring sunbathing beauties in Sweden
Say, a lot of HDTVs have VGA inputs these days
Actually what will happen is that the cable companies will start to offer some of their "Movie" packages on HDTV. Those will probably be 16X9 ratio as well. Then next will come sports, then most of the "clasic" movie channels and some Disney stuff. You and the consumers that wait (myself included), will start to notice that the stuff we want to watch is only on HD. Kinda like a ton of our local college basketball games are not only on ESPN, not on local channels any more.
Personally I plan on getting a HDTV that does 1080i and 720p when the price goes below a grand for a fair sized set. Something equivilant to our 27" set now.
The other thing that will move people is that the price difference will start to errode. This has already started. I expect by next Christmas that good HDTV sets with HDTV tuners will be under $1,7.000.00
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Detailed specs for the protocol? Why? It should have been clear to them that computing power would eventually reach a point where...
1. The packets broadcast would contain information telling the receiver what encoding was being used.
2. The decoder (if not already installed in your set) could be downloaded, either piecemeal from the station as it transitioned to more advanced codecs, or through a devoted decoder download channel maintained for that purpose. A devoted channel would present some financing and bandwidth allocation issues, but nothing worse than what we've seen before.
A system like that would prepare us for the day when a 6-foot wide TV is considered "small" and anything less than 2048 horizontal lines is simply "unacceptable" to consumers.
Instead, they've got the standard locked in, setting up another upgrade cycle, forcing people to spend money and... oh... wait... they know what they're doing. Nevermind.
At any rate, if analog signals stop, I'll just watch less TV. Actually, I've been thinking that what this ammounts to is a TV tax. It'll decrease TV watching, just as cigarette taxes decrease smoking. This could, in my wildest of dreams, actually lead to a renaissance as people discover how much time they were wasting... but I won't hold my breath.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
... we don't want to accuse SlashDot of being USA-centric after all :)
... there is NO consumer television available that can fully resolve the resolution of the 1080i signal. Plasma can't, CRT tubes can't, rear projection sets can't. That does _not_ mean the television is useless, though. if you have a 76cm (32") widescreen TV that could fully resolve 1080i, you would have to sit about 30-40 cms from the television to be able to see the picture in its full glory. If you're sitting 3 meters back, there's no way that you could see all the detail.
For a great website about OZ happenings in the digital broadcasting world, check out http://www.dba.org.au/ . It has an excellent FAQ area which should answer many general questions on digital television for anyone around the world.
All television stations in the major capital cities are now transmitting standard digital signals (576i). High definition signals (576p,720p,1080i) will be transmitted from the 1st of July this year. All stations are _required_ to broadcast a minimum of 1080 hours per year of HD transmissions. Channel 10 have already stated that they will broadcast HD continuously, so they're going beyond the obligations.
If you want to get into the HD thing, you basically need a HD television, and a HD digital set-top box. Your existing antenna should work perfectly fine (read the DBA FAQ for more info). Currently, the cheapest HD capable TV available is one by Palsonic, and retails for a little over $3000 AUS. The _only_ HD digital set-top box available is the DG-TEC DH2000a. It does the job decently, but has a loyal following of dgtec haters. Read the forums on the DBA website for more information. There are a few more HD set-top boxes due to be released "any day now".
One thing to know
Does that mean HD signals are a waste of time? Absolutely not! A HD signal is much clearer than your standard signal, even if you can't see all the detail. The sweet spot for a 76-86cm TV is around the 720p area (any more resolution, and you just can't see it from a viewing distance). For larger displays, full 1080i resolution is definitely an improvement.
I've already bought my HD display. Now I'm just waiting for a decent HD set-top box, and also waiting for that July 1st deadline. It's a pretty exciting time for television!
DeeK
Consider this:
4:3 aspect ratio TV, 32" diagonal screen
Given some simple math, 32/5 = 6.4
6.4 * 4 = 25.6 inches
Measuring my TV, it seems that this is correct.
Now, a 16:9 30" diagonal TV is approximately 26.14726575863" wide. Measuring the dimensions on my 16:9 lcd screen on my portable dvd, these proportions are also correct.
On the other hand, when viewing a 4:3 signal (certainly far and away the vast majority of signals), the 16:9 image is only approximately 14.70783698922" tall. The 32" 4:3 HDTV displays it 19.2" tall.
Riddle me this, flame boy: is it better to gain 0.54" on the minority of signals, or gain 4.49 inches on most signals? Especially given that the 4:3 HDTV is perfectly capable of displaying a 16:9 signal and simply not use the extra screen real estate (letterboxing)?
The reason these numbers were used and are relevant is that I just bought an HDTV yesterday. There were two beautiful HDTV monitors for $1000 - a widescreen 30" and a 4:3 32". I bought the 32". I am very pleased with my purchase.
Also, just for the record, I am NOT a moron. But you are - the same math gives a 53" 4:3 TV a 42.4" wide screen. A 43" 16:9 screen gives you only a 37.47774" wide screen.
"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
First, cable needs to provide HD unchanged as part of basic cable package. Its free OTA (over the air) so should it be on cable. DTV is broadcast over air in a format called 8VSB, yet on cable it almost always comes in 256QAM, meaning regular OTA HDTV tuners won't recieve it. Instead you have to RENT a cable box that works with their propritary format. Secondly, cables are a misunderstanding. You can get broadcast-quality Belden cables for a quarter of the price of that "Mon$ter Cable." Another HD problem is this whole ruckus about HDCP (copy protection), over which CBS is threatining to stop HD transmission next year. A good resource for HDTV-related issues is at http://www.avsforum.com But, there is more and more content every month. Check out http://www.hdtvgalaxy.com/broad.html Lots of stuff. ESPN is launching an all-HD channel next month, to go along with HDNet, Discovery-HD, SHO-HD, HBO-HD as the other full-time HD channels. Comcast is starting a HD-version of SportsNet too. PS- Someone mentioned "digital" DVD players. I have one. It outputs a 270mbps data stream (SDI Video, same used in broadcast facilties) which goes into the PC for scaling, and out via DVI to my 1280x768 50" plasma display, so I DO have a completly digital DVD system. Also, I can record HDTV to the HDD (9gig/hour) or output it via firewire to a D-VHS record deck. I love my HDTV... When I had a superbowl party this year, people had to take their jaws off the floor after they saw how crisp it looks. Bob
I work for a digital video equipment manufacturer and I am used to testing HD equipment. I also have been using PCs for most of my life and have watched video resolutions increase by the year.
The idea of HDTV is to catch up with computers in terms of resolution. There are some added features but they take a back seat to this resolution upgrade. The problem is they've been working on this for years and PC resolutions have by themselves been increasing at a much faster rate. Within less than 2 years HDTV will be obsoleted by PCs in terms of resolution. Right now there is little need for HDTV resolutions on a PC montiro but that will change when HDTV's big switch. PC users will become jealous of their HDTV counterparts and this will spawn the next increase (maybe Super-duper-VGA or some other equally-hyped marketing buzzword stardard). Then all those years to make HDTV the bleeding edge thing will pass and they'll be back to the drawing boards.
Save your money and only upgrade your video card and monitor (and optionally your tuner-capture card). HDTV is over-hyped, not agile and certainly not useful for the next 10 to 20 years of TV when you see what will be possible on PCs.
Bah, your cost estimates are WAY too high, at least for the average Slashdot reader.
PC: Most Slashdotters already have one.
Good display: Many Slashdotters already have one.
PCI HDTV tuner card: $300 MyHD from www.digitalconnection.com
You don't necessarily need a widescreen super-huge monitor to get the advantages of HDTV. I have an 18" LCD flat-panel and my PC is my HDTV tuner. The quality is stunning. Even on the relatively small monitor the difference is incredible for shows like CSI.
Note that the MyHD card OR your existing video card both make for excellent progressive-scan DVD players.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Oh how wrong you are! TV is a disaster area
I agree with your sentiments, but I must also agree with the original poster's opinion that it is deeply well thought out engineering.
The problem they solved with the technology and limitations they had to produce something affordable was amazing. Especially using 1940'ish technology. (Vaccum tubes, expensive bulky transformers, huge metal chassis.) Didn't you ever take apart old TV's as a youngster back in the 60's? This would give you an appreciation of how much they did with how little.
Believe me, they were not thinking about computer monitors. They solved a problem using their technology (not ours), using amazing engineering. Bitch all you want about interlacing. It was a good idea that sovled a real problem. Reduce flicker by drawing the screen 60 times each second. But each frame is only half full. You only send the bandwidth of 30 complete frames in a second, but get the non-flicker of 60 Hz.
Do I agree with you that by today's standards it looks like a giant kludge? Yes.
Do I agree with your whole disgust of the football / tv-industry? Yes.
So in 50 years, will people look at our computers today in the same kind of disgust? Yes.
Hey mommy and daddy, what were computers like way back in the olden days when you were a kid when dinosaurs roamed the earth?
[....answer....]
Eeeewwwwwwww! They had segment registers! Booted up in "real" mode. Stupid short sighted limits like 32-bit filesystems, etc. And it's all financed, and the industry only moves forward based on who can force upgrades and lock-in on whom.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
I also think that it's unlikely that HDTV will be implemented by government decree at the end of 2006. It reminds me of those decrees that ordered all cars and trucks in Los Angeles to have no pollution by 1979...1989...1999...
Consider that:
1> There are millions of poor and (dumb and poor) people who rely on television as their primary source of entertainment and social connection.
2> The new digital TVs are absurdly expensive for people who don't make a lot of money.
3> There has been very little if any coverage of the 'end of television' on television. Hardly anyone who does not follow technical news is aware of this looming fiasco.
4> Most people don't really care what the politicians do as long as it doesn't affect their daily lives in an obvious and intrusive manner. Turning off television for everyone who doesn't flip over hundreds of dollars to replace their perfectly good TV for a new for some technical reason that few understand is about as invasive and obtrusive as you're ever going to get in the USA.
I suspect that this subject will be completely ignored until summer or fall of 2006 and then there will be stories creeping up in the media about the 'end of television as we know it'.
Let me ask you: Would you want to be the president on the day that Jerry Springer, Oprah, and the rest of television went off the air and tens of millions of poor people with serious firearms decided that "it was 'bout time they were finally going to put things right with the screwy gov'm'nt?"
Anyone who messes with things that keep the poor people fat and happy in America is an idiot. The guy who decided that it would be a good idea to sell off the television frequencies was a true moron!