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

when?

[kingOFgEEEks]

how about when i can afford one? (college is expensive)

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

[Squarewav]

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

Re:Completley agree

[slaker]

*MY* big monitor (32" Sony presentation display) is a lot bigger than my TV (27" JVC thing that I presumed would have a better tuner than my TV card). I bought the TV just this year, largely because I was tired of not having any knowledge of what my co-workers were talking about.

Then I found out that the only channels I can get with an indoor amplified antenna are Telemundo and Unavision (I live really close to Chicago). I'm not paying for cable. Dancing hispanic chicas in thongs are awesome and all, but somehow that didn't help me converse with my coworkers. :(

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.

Re:Completley agree

[slaker]

Not that I'm arguing or anything, but why the heck was my snotty comment about having a bigger monitor than Tv modded "interesting"?

Was it the thongs? It was the thongs, wasn't it?

Re:Completley agree

[dubiousmike]

*MY* big monitor (32" Sony presentation display)

Your old workplace called.
They want their 32" monitor back...

Re:Completley agree

[Hadlock]

tvs these days, especially those that will be used in home theater systems are little more than a monitor, the sound and tuning is usually done seperately by a reciever. the internal speakers and remote that comes with the HDTV often will only be used to select the proper outputs to the reciever. those with an external tuner won't ever need the remote as the tuner will output directly to the reciever without ever going through the HDTV.

Re:Completley agree

[pjrc]

On the other hand, a VHF/UHF tuner has a huge swath of the electromagnetic spectrum to grope around blindly through.

In practice, a phase locked loop creates a frequency comparable with the broadcast carrier frequency, and this frequency is "mixed" with the incoming signal (using a non-linear circuit, which is often a diode or simple transistor circuit). The resulting signal has 4 components, spectrally, at the two original frequencies, their sum and their difference. The difference one is kept (because it effectively eliminates the original high frequency carrier) and the other three are elminited with a simple low-pass filter. The PLL accurately creates exactly the right frequency (well, as accurate as the quartz crystal it has), and the "groping though" the spectrum is an extreemly simple circuit and a low pass filter. There is also the small matter of automatic gain control, but it's also an easy circuit.

This is really pretty simple, and it's been done this way since the days of vaccume tubes... with the exception that the oscillator was tuned by adjusting a coil or capacitor value rather than with a phase locked loop. The reason PLLs are used today is because the complex silicon is less expensive that the coils (involved winding wire) and their moving parts which needed to be calibrated at the factory to match the official broadcast frequencies.

No, the receiver decodes the signal. That's the easy part. It's the tuner that has to find the damn signal to begin with.

As I just described, the modulation of the signal from the RF carrier is quite simple. Tuners were made back in the days when TVs had only a dozen tubes and passive parts hand soldered between the tube sockets (before circuit boards were in common usage).

The comb filters used in all modern receivers, which separate the chrominance from luminance data, are actually quite complex digitial filters (though not expensive with today's technology AND economy of scale). In the old days, the signal was simply low-pass filtered (around 2 MHz) to remove the color signal and capture the luminance.

The thing to keep in mind about tuners is that they've been around a long time.... and they've been implemented long before transistors. Even "cable ready" tuners roughly equivilant to today's were on the market in the mid 80's, when semiconductor technology was at the level of the 4.77 MHz IBM PC and 8 MHz Machintosh.

The TV tuner really isn't that big of a technical challenge.

How HDTV Works

[syr]

Ever wondered how HDTV works or how its comparable to regular TV or pc monitors? Howstuffworks has a page describing the technology behind HDTV.

Gametab - Game Reviews Database

Re:How HDTV Works

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

You should be able to use any graphics card/HDTV, you just need a converter like this. They also have a magic box to go the other direction. A bit pricey, though. I'm sure there are a bunch of these kinds of gadgets being developed.

See, now that's a good capitalistic business model, wait for a huge crisis (OK, OK, maybe crisis is too strong a word), and come out with devices that solve the problems... or even just bandaid over the problems until a real solution arrives.

-If

2006?

[ksheka]

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...

Re:2006?

[Simonetta]

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!

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:Wait...

[updog]

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.

HDTV or DTV?

[jDinK]

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

Re:HDTV or DTV?

[TopShelf]

I think you're correct - I recall reading an article about how the broadcasters weren't crazy about moving to HDTV, because if they pushed only DTV, they'd be able to cram something like 5x as many channels over the same bandwidth. There's waaaaayyy too many channels out there already. Half of them run infomercials or repeats much of the day anyways!

Re:HDTV or DTV?

[creative_name]

Here's a little blurb discussing the differences if anyone's interested

Article

Re:HDTV or DTV?

[Student_Tech]

I belive that the digital by end of 2006 is to over-the-air broadcasts only. Cable can still be analog if that is what the cable company chooses.

How about content first?

[funkman]

Give us content and buyers will follow. Content ... any content. Content! Content! Content!

Re:How about content first?

[koreth]

There's lots of HD content being broadcast today. No, not everything is in HD, but enough that you'll probably find something you like. And even without HD, DTV broadcasts often look a lot cleaner and crisper than analog NTSC broadcasts. Think over-the-air DVD-quality video.

Re:How about content first?

[SN74S181]

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.

Gadget freaks only

[alexhmit01]

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

Why buy?

[pctainto]

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.

Re:Why buy?

[mosch]

Actually, there are a lot of reasons to buy HDTV now, not the least of which is the fact that HDTV-ready sets cost about the same as high-end standard definition TVs of two or three years ago, so if you're planning to spend $1k or more on your next TV, you're not going to avoid getting an HD set.

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.

Re:Why buy?

[FatherOfONe]

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

Re:Why buy?

[Chris Carollo]

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.

$150 for cables?

[neurojab]

>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.

$150 for cables?

I knew Monster cables were a racket, but DAMN, I need to buy stock in that company. Is that best buy sales associate going to try to sell me an extended warranty for my cables?

Re:Now or later

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

Well, the article mentions a converter box that will reduce an HD-signal so it displays on non-HD TVs. I don't know what the price point is, but you probably won't HAVE to buy a new TV. It can't be too high, otherwise people would just get new TVs.

-If

firewire

[mrpuffypants]

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

Re:firewire

[Anonymous Coward]

This called HAVi - Home Audio Video integration. Read more at http://www.havi.org/

Re:firewire

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:firewire

[jweeld]

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

Digital Broadcast != HDTV

[Jethro73]

The 2006 deadline is for having DIGITAL broadcasts, *not* High-Definition. They are two seperate issues right now. While there will be a set-top adapter available to convert digital to analog for older TVs, it is unknown as to whether or not these will actually be inexpensive enough to warrant not just purchasing a new television set. It is also very likely that stations will maintain an analog broadcast if it proves to be useful in their area (perhaps where the demographic is not likely to upgrade old systems).

Hear that, CBS? You'd better keep analog up for your demographic (the old farts that don't want to give up their old console Zenith from the 1970s).

Jethro73

In-depth HDTV report

[ecarlson]

This guy did an in-depth HDTV report. It's on his web site: HDTV Report

Shoved down our throats - again...

[spin2cool]

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

Re:Shoved down our throats - again...

[lvdrproject]

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?

HDTV vs DTV

[aaarrrgggh]

Soon we will have to buy a DTV converter. There is no guarantee that HDTV will ever become a reality; it's just DTV that is required by the FCC.

DTV has 480-line modes, as well as 1080 lines.

Me

[abramsh]

I just bought one a few weeks ago. A few random thoughts:

1. There is a distinction between monitor and tuner. I went with the "just the monitor" route, and picked up a $150 HDTV tuner off ebay. I plan on replacing it with a HDTV TIVO late this year or early next. Unlike previous posts suggest, you can get tuners with digital outs, but they use some sort of "copy protection" on them.

2. It's amazing how hard it is to get a good over-the-air signal. From my apartment I can SEE the actual antennas on the tower that transmit HDTV for my area, but the signal still goes in and out with a normal indoor UHF antenna. On the other hand, maybe you live in an area that has HDTV over cable.
their HDTV PVR late this year.

3. Everybody Loves Raymond looks great in 1080i, but does it really matter?

Good Luck.

Use a PC

[koreth]

With any of several HDTV tuner cards (HiPix, AccessDTV, and MyHD, to name three) you can do timeshifting and in some cases editing of HD material. For example, I record "Alias" in HD every week and archive it to DVD-R. It's a much more versatile option than a simple HDTV set-top tuner box. All of those cards will output either composite or RGB to feed into an HDTV set. If you subscribe to DISH Network and you have the right kind of satellite receiver, you can feed HD HBO into one of those tuner cards for timeshifting as well.

This could have been done a decade ago.

[blair1q]

If they'd just gone with the existing, working standard for Japanese HDTV (maybe with necessary compatibility adjustments and maybe incremental quality improvements) we'd have had HD sets below $1k before the Millennium.

Instead, we got a "standard" that was a combination of 6 competing standards and a system that will be supported in all the different permutations and never actually look like it's been standardized.

The cost of building TVs to work with all those permutations (because you know the end-user will never accept being unable to see Matlock reruns; or rather, the advertisers will never accept that the end-user will have an hour to not watch commercials) has resulted in TVs that are hideously expensive despite being poor in amenities (beyond the HD, of course).

My Situation

[tweakt]

An issue near and dear to my heart:

First off, I bought an HDTV capable RPTV (rear-projection television) in April of 2002. It's a nice set, I mainly bought it because it was highly discounted as a customer return, a few scuffs, and nearly 40% off the normal price so I jumped on it.

My main motivation was to have a 16:9 format television because I love widescreen and can't stand mangled versions of movies designed to squeeze into the wrong sized screen. (See the Widescreen advocacy site for more info.).

This set has Y-Pr-Pb input (wideband component) which and supports 480p and 540p/1080i and upscales 480i beautifully. The results of this is gorgeous displays of widescreen DVDs.

My intent was to eventually have some HDTV to watch, but it hasn't happened. First, I live in an apartment. My cable company is clueless and does not carry any HDTV programming. There are some that do (Time-Warner Houston - 9 channels). My other options are satellite, or local broadcast. Neither of which really thrill me with the aspect of having to ask my landlord about installing stuff on his roof.

Aside from actually having the signal available, usually with satellite you need more than the basic receiver box you get for free when you sign up, you need one that goes for $400+ (last I checked it was 500). So that sucks.

So, net result, I own an HDTV set and still don't get to watch any high-res content. I'm happy though since my anamorphic widescreen DVDs look gorgeous. But I'd love to have some HDTV to watch. Eventually....

-------
Just a side note: The us "deadline" for digital TV does not mandate high definition, just that stations broadcast in digital format, which could simply be 480i upscaled to 480p (which is one of the standard digital formats).

55in HD Widescreen or 12in Powerbook

[batboy78]

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.

What's Keeping Me

[MBCook]

So what's keeping me? I'll just gloss over the fact that I can't afford to drop $6k on a TV. So what is keeping me away besides that? Here are a few issues:

Programming is keeping me. While the major networks seem to do everything in HDTV now, most cable networks dont (at least the ones I watch). For example, as far as I know the only Hist/TLC/Disc/Etc channel that is HDTV is Discovery's special HDTV channel. And I won't get any benefit for most of the shows out there (like all the old sitcoms, etc).

Cable/Sat is keeping me. To get HDTV cable I have to rent an expensive box from the cable company, instead of just plugging a cable into my TV (I don't have digital cable, it's not worth it for me). To get my DirecTV, I have to have an oval dish (or a second circular dish) IIRC, AND a sattalite box that instead of costing me $100 costs me $500. I'm not going to pay that kind of fee ontop of the premium I'll be charged over the normal service fee ontop of paying way too much for a TV.

Tivo is keeping me. I want to buy a Tivo and plan to when a good Series 2/DirecTV combo box comes out. But I am not going to buy a new TV so that when Tivo records sitcoms and such for me, they're not in HDTV. I know they are comming out with an HDTV model, and when it comes out I'll give better consideration to buying an HDTV.

DVDs are keeping me. HDTV was finalized after DVDs, IIRC. When DVDs change (Blu-ray, which was recently put into production) they might support some new/better resolutions and I want a HDTV that will support them.

Features are keeping me. A quick look at Sony's site shows that a 32" HDTV is going to set me back $5000. My 32" Sony CRT TV cost me about $350. Yet the HDTV doesn't have PIP (I do), a V-Chip (not that I use it, but I've got that too). It doesn't have Channel naming (I don't use that, but oh well ;). It doesn't have more video inputs that I have (if I'm going to pay an extra $4500, I'd better get at least 1 more input). I doesn't have Firewire/i.Link (something that I'm going to want in an HDTV). Why should I pay $4500 more for something that's inferior to what I'm already using.

Standards are keeping me back. I'm worried that the FTC is going to change standards soon, and then I'll have to buy a $300 converter box to use my "new" TV. I guess this going with the DVD thing above. I don't trust that the TV I'll buy will continue to work as I want it to. By the way, weren't we all supposed to have HDTV by 2000? Then by 2003? Why should I buy one now, when they'll move adoption up to 2009 next, then 2012. I'll just wait 'till things actually get adopted and then get one. Why rush in with that kind of money on the line.

Too Expensive!!

[Newer Guy]

"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! ;-)

My thoughts exactly

[0x0d0a]

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.

It *is* time!!

[updog]

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!

Just upgraded

[OYAHHH]

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...

HDTV resolutions

[Tumbleweed]

If it's 480p, then it's legitimately HDTV. HDTV is not one resolution, but a whole mess of them:

480p
720i
720p
1080i

And higher for the newer specs. The latest Star Wars films (bleh) were recorded in 1080p.

I'd rather have a 720p picture than a 1080i one. Interlacing is the work of the Devil!

Re:HDTV resolutions

[Quikah]

480p is not HDTV. It is just plain DTV. HD is 720p, 1080i and 1080p. This is why FOX is always criticized for only broadcasting 480p, it is not HD.

Nope, you can't tempt me

[tarquin_fim_bim]

I'm waiting till retinal implants go wide screen.

From My Cold Dead Hands!

[GMontag]

Ooops, wrong rant . . .

I'm not getting one of these new-fangled color sets until they get the colors to look right.

What happened to Jack Benny? He sounded great on my wireless but I seen him on one of these new color gadgets at the Sears & Roebuck, I don't like it one bit.

That was a while back. I ain't never heard of this Digital HD stuff, is that new colors?

Why don't we all use HDTV?

[YahoKa]

Wait ... it takes 9.8 Mbits/s - 20 Mbits/s to broadcast? I'm really no engineer or anything, but how the hell do we provide that kind of transfer? If i can download at 9.8Mbits/s why isn't my internet using that technology yet? Think of how much pr0n that is!

Anyways, if you have never seen HDTV played on an HDTV capable display, looks beyond amazing (and you thought DVD looked good ... heh.)

I'm fine with my 4:3

[Dante]

>If you buy a 4:3 HDTV set, your a moron.
I'm a moron with a great tv. Shut the fuck up.

The deadline is FUD.

[mjphil]

While the FCC is pushing the December 31, 2006 "deadline", the law gives local stations an out: they don't have to kill the analog services if DTV hasn't reached 85% penetration.

And please don't confuse DTV with HDTV. DTV is the modulation method, HDTV is one of the formats used. Locals CAN send HD, or they can send up to 4 channels of standard definition DTV, only one which has to be free, the rest can be subscription or private.

Also, with the FCC requiring DTV tuners to be built into all new sets, don't expect the price to come down soon.

Re:I agree. HDTV will be outdated by 2006.

[Navok]

HDTV's highest resolutions are 1920x1080i or 1280x720p. I agree the resolutions probably won't be top of the line in 3 years but you can't expect 3 year old technology to support the newer resolutions. Plus creating new standards will only cause us to be stuck on NTSC for longer. HDTV is plenty good for now, granted I wish the frame rate was higher and there was a 1080p. But I don't want to be spending more than I already have on my HDTV equipment. HDTV's resolutions are plenty high for today's equip. Try and find a DLP projector that supports native HDTV resolutions.. Also Digital Projectors used in theaters to show Star Wars only has a resolution of 1280x1024 and they rent those for $100,000.

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.

Very happy with that $700 set

[jonabbey]

I went TV shopping a couple of weeks ago, after I had filed for my tax refund. Went to Circuit City here in Austin and took a look at the 27" sets, as I watch TV in a very small space.. anything bigger would be a waste.

They had the Zenith C27V22 there for $700.. originally went for $1200 or so. The picture quality was far better than the high-end 27" non-HDTV Sony's. Got it home, set it up, and it's just great. It's a nice, flat screen 27" set that can do a fantastic job when playing anamorphic DVD's through the component inputs.

That's only at 480p, of course, which is one of the HDTV modes this set can handle, along with 1080i. It can unfortunately take only one high-def input at a time, so if I ever get an HD tuner or cable box I'd need to get a component video switcher, but it's great for now.

With HDTV sets available starting at such a low price, there's no point in paying for a high end standard tube anymore, if you ask me.

High Definition mass-produced media-giant pablum

[Gothmolly]

Let's all run out and spend $$$$$ on a brand new TV, throw our old ones out, create a landfill the size of New Jersey, so that we can watch "Joe Millionaire" and be bombarded with Coca-Cola ads in super-duper 17.1-quadraphonic digital surround-sound bliss!

WAKE UP PEOPLE. Turn off the TV, and play a game with your kids. Go for a walk. Discuss politics. READ.

The more we act like drones, the more they'll try and cram down our throats. 10 years from now, there won't be any outcry over the next version of the DMCA.

Timothy: then use a computer monitor as an HDTV

[YetAnotherName]

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 didn't stop us from watching HDTV content on computer monitors. I remember this one test video we had featuring sunbathing beauties in Sweden ... but that's another story.

Say, a lot of HDTVs have VGA inputs these days ... hmmmm.

Jesus Wept... some straight facts about DTV/HDTV

[DavittJPotter]

There's another guy around here from Tweeter who posts... help me out if you're out there, dude...

Anyway. HDTV sets do *not* have to cost $6,000. You can get a HDTV-capable set for as little as $1400 from Sony. That's a nice 32" Wega flatscreen.

OK, what's HDTV-capable and HDTV? Here ya go.

A "true" HDTV set generally means that the TV set has the off-air tuner built in to the set. That means you can put up an antenna that can receive in the 54-860Mhz range, and if your local network is broadcasting a HD signal, your set will display it.

HDTV-capable TV's generally don't have the tuner. Many of their components are the same (Mitsubishi is a good example of this), but you'll need either an outboard tuner - about $800 - or a cable box/dish box that supplies the HD signal to your set.

High Definition TV generally refers to the picture resolution. DVD for baseline purposes is 480 lines of horizontal resolution. HDTV is in several formats, with two main choices for networks. Cheap-ass networks or local repeaters may just use 480p (progressive), as it's the easiest for them to do. Next step is 720p, which is what ABC uses, and why those of you who got to see the Super Bowl in High Definition went "Woah!"

DiscoveryHD is in glorious 1080i - which is like looking through a freakin' window. :) CBS will also do 1080i, and they'll be doing HDTV in the studios, requiring no upconversion from local affiliates (that's the current news, anyway, that I have).

HDTV can also carry true Dolby Digital 5.1/DTS surround, so your HDTV movies can be as great as the theater. Or better!

The commercials during superbowl probably looked weird for a few reasons. The HDTV format is *likely* going to be 16:9. National ads were either upconverted at the studio to 720p, or shot natively on HD cameras. Local insert ads were likely (unless you're in a large market) standard def, so they were either boxed on the sides, or stretched to fit like other fullscreen material.

The HD conversion can be done either at the head-end (CBS, NBC) or by the local networks. The local networks will likely use cheaper equipment, so don't expect all shows to look fabulous.

Also - with HD on an antenna, it's a cliff effect - you'll either get HD or you won't - if you've got a weak antenna signal now, you'll likely want to make sure you can get a signal amplifier to help you out.

Lastly, the 2006 deadline seems pretty hard and fast ATM - the government (FCC) wants that frequency range back to give to emergency and police services, and will levy fines monthly on broadcasters who are not using their digital equipment. Local broadcasters don't want HDTV, because it does nothing for their revenue stream. It takes more power to run a HD tower, and it's nearly 10x the normal bandwidth of the analog channel. Compression methods improving, blah, blah, blah, HDTV carries a boatload more information than regular TV.

Any doubts I had about HDTV were laid to rest after I saw Shania Twain in 720p glory. The woman looked BETTER in High Definition!

Also:
No Sony rear projection TV for 2003 has the tuner built in. Even the badass XBR series doesn't have it.

Mitsubishi has 3 main levels of TV - the Gold, Platinum, and Diamond series. The Platinum and Diamond TVs have the tuner built in. The difference between Gold and Platinum is in the HDTV tuner, Firewire connectivity, and a Digital Coax audio out to provide your receiver with true surround input. Mitsubishi Platinum and Diamond series TVs also have QAM64 & AV8SB (sp?) cable tuners built into them, so if your cable provider is pushing QAM or AV8SB, your TV can be your set-top box - yeah, it can do the channel guide for you out of the box. And yeah, Firewire ROCKS. Plug in a HD Digital VCR, and boom - "DVCR Connected". Price on a 65" Mitsubishi Platinum? About $4000. That's SIXTY-FIVE INCHES. That's a big-ass TV, folks.

That said, it amazes me that the same people who think nothing of spending $500-$600 on a video card whine and cry about how expensive big-screen TVs are. Have you really LOOKED at a good big screen TV? Compare it to a Hitachi or other cheap brands. You'll see why they're cheap. A good big screen TV is easy to watch at 6' (though you can only watch part of it at a time! *Grin*), and the color saturation, detail, and edge clarity are that much better. Think it's bullshit? That's fine, but ask a reputable store - Tweeter, a good local specialty store - and they'll be happy to give you the straight skinny. If you're really skeptical, take your favorite DVD to the store, and watch the same scene (2 min or so) on several different TVs. As the man said, "Ya get whatcha paid for."

I don't have experience with LCD/Plasma picture quality and longevity as yet, but the HDTV/HDTV-compatible standard holds there, as well.

On another side note, if you buy a new TV, treat yourself to a GOOD progressive scan DVD player. It uses the component inputs, and looks like a million bucks. :)

Buy what you think you need/can afford, but if you buy cheap now, you'll buy cheap again and again and again instead of a moderate price once.

This one's easy

[flacco]

When HD pr0n reaches critical mass.

HDTV Was An Anachronism Right From The Start

[istartedi]

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.

TV as Monitor

[rfolstad]

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?

For the Australian readers ....

[deek]

... we don't want to accuse SlashDot of being USA-centric after all :)

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 ... 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.

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

Re:For the Australian readers ....

[JoeGee]

A true 1080p monitor (it will upconvert 1080i to true 1920 x 1080 progressive @ 60hz) is being released in the US this year, and should find its way to AU in short order, but the price will be horrible. It will initially retail for USD $8,000. :(

Still, it will offer computer users a true high 1920 x 1080 monitor, and an incomparable TV experience. :)

Dead wrong

[mattACK]

Mathematics disagrees, sir.

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.

Check out actual HDTV files

[Cyclone66]

Go to here and download some videos (large!) and download the codec here. These videos are REALLY nice, it's like looking at digital photos.. For me it really is like that since my p3-733 just isn't fast enough to play them! Also get Microsoft's shot at HD quality video here.

Re:Excuse me, redundant?

[decaying]

You mean the moderators read the story....

Next you'll be telling me the posters read the articles.

Entertainment Budgets

[arn@lesto]

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 ...

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

[ALoverOfPeace]

Are you telling me you deny the existence of Power Goblins?

Best Buy advice

[Fubar411]

I can't wait until tomorrow. I'm going to Best Buy and taking whatever advice the sales associate offers.

HDTV is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Cable and the FCC killed that

[alexhmit01]

Pre 1996, cable companies simply rebroadcasted the local channels, since they put it out for free. The networks/affiliates were floored that cable was taking over the market and getting paid for THEIR content and then using shopping channels and premium channels to make money. Telecom Act passes (I think that it was the 1996 one, the BIG one) that let stations designate as must carry (you have to carry them if you are carrying other ones... spanish language, pax, and local-only stations use that), or require compensation (the networks do that).

After a bit of playing chicken (different cable companies squaring off with networks, using the customers as pawns) resulted in the current situation, the networks allow their signal to be carried, but the cable companies have to carry several different random network owned stations, so ABC requires that they pay for ESPN ($2/customer, and it has to be in basic cable), Disney, etc., etc.

But they all haggle, and the network has the power, not the broadcasters. So ABC gets their other stuff on, but the affiliated stations don't get compensation.

So, with DTV, the broadcasters would get even better. Told to come up with a standard for HDTV, they came up with a brilliant solution with 3 HDTV settings (720p, 1080i, 1080p - the last only 24 or 30 frames, no 60 frame mode), an enhanced setting (480p) and then they snuck in 480i for backwards compatibility. The catch is that they got what they wanted, and in the same bandwidth of one analog station, get 6 480i channels, AND they can be made must-carry. All of a sudden, anyone that had a license to broadcast one channel now had 6!

Well, the FCC and cable companies hated this. The cable companies didn't want to give up free bandwidth, and the FCC didn't like looking stupid for giving them the bandwidth for HDTV and instead getting current NTSC quality, with compression artifacts, and 5 channels of infomercials.

So the cable companies whined and the FCC ruled that must-carry only applied to the analog signal. So with their plan squashed, the networks began preparing for HDTV. Remember, only 10% of american households use an antenna for their television (20% is satellite, 70% is cable), so getting the ability to send 6 channels to 10% of the market is pointless. Without must-carry, there is no point to squeezing 6 SDTV signals in. The only exception to this will be PBS stations, where there are normally 2 in a market, may send one HDTV signal, two SDTV signals (the current PBS programming), and use the extra bandwidth for school programming by day or stuff like that).

So HDTV is happening, because there is no advantage to the 6-for-1 deal.

As a satellite customer, I'm happy to add an antenna to get 8 DTV channels locally, but if I was a cable customer, I'm not sure what I'd want (other than to move so I could become a satellite customer). If the networks were sending 36 channels over the air, plus whatever PBS sent, who knows what that does to cable. Realize that analog cable systems are normally only 60-86 channels, and I bet you that 30 channels could cover 75% of American viewing. It would kill basic cable as a way of getting basic television. The original reason for cable was because antennas suck. With digital broadcasts, antennas don't have to suck. And $50/mo (basic cable in Boston) goes a long way towards paying an antenna installer...

I think that HDTV is happening and happening fast. Whatever HD-DVD format comes out is very likely to be sent at 1080p24, which will look awesome on either 720p or 1080i sets, especially with the extra bandwidth available to avoid compression problems. This season, LOTS of HDTV happened. Next season, just about every primetime event and lots of sports will be HDTV. End of this year, HD Tivo and Dish HD-PVR ship. HDTV over cable is coming to some markets this year. HDTV cable-ready systems will roll out soon. And the DVI-HDCP vs. Component vs. Firewire/5C issue was resolved... everything will be supported. DVI-HDCP protects you from needing to go analog for non-MPEG2 systems, Firewire is just (IMO) the superior system.

It's all happening, get on board when you have some spare cash.

Alex

Re:Use a PC-23" HD TFT Displays.

[Wesley Felter]

The Apple Cinema HD is a lot cheaper.

Watch out for Burn-in

[ChrisStoy]

I got a widescreen HDTV about a year ago and have loved it. I got an HD cable box and Time Warner is nice enough to broadcast about 7 HD channels for me. BUT, in non-HD they put nice black bars on the screen. Never having owned a rear-projection tv, I didn't realise this was a Bad Thing. I noticed that I now have noticeable burn in where the black bars were (well, kinda inverted...the black bar area is nice an clean, while middle parts of the set look a little yellowish).

I love HD. I love progressive DVD. I love widescreen. I love Xbox. I HATE BURNIN.
Lesson here is, switch to HD ONLY when watching widescreen format broadcasts. Otherwise have your tv zoom to fill the whole screen.

Re:Watch out for Burn-in

[adolf]

As another poster said: You get what you pay for. Meanwhile, your TV is burnt.

Runco rear-projection sets, for example, use neutral grey bars on each side, to help equalize burn-in across the width of the screen.

I'm pretty sure Extron makes a box that does the same thing, with justabout any monitor.

With any monitor, make sure you're not operating your next set in Torch Mode. That's usually how they're set up out of the box - it's a sick, cold war-like race to look brighter (and bluer) than everything else in the showroom. Simple to test, and fix: Pause a DVD during a very bright scene. Turn down the contrast control (sometimes labeled "picture"), until you notice the brightest subjects becoming a bit less so.

Your picture is now somewhat darker than it was before. This is a Good Thing(tm).

Resume watching the DVD. You'll notice an additional spectrum of detail and shades of grey that your TV couldn't display before, and everything from the power supply to the CRT(s) will last longer. Now, go do the same to your computer monitor, and keep it around for a few more years, too.

For more do-it-yourself action, buy/borrow/rent the Video Essentials DVD. You'll be enlightened.

Other fun stuff:

Pay an ISF-certified shop to use a color analyzer to calibrate your set to standard. It's not very expensive, and generally makes what was once a pretty decent TV into something approaching the view from a window.

It's usually cheaper and better to calibrate things properly, than to spend more money on a what the salesgeek/price tag indicates is a "better" model.

I picked up an incredibly cheap 19" Sanyo TV at Christmas time, for the bedroom. After a bit of basic work, using a calibrated Sony as a reference, I've got it displaying a more accurate picture than anything you'll find displayed on a store shelf. Big hint: The service menu is your friend, and all current TVs have one hidden somewhere in their firmware.

Re:UK is having a lot of trouble with HDTV

[isorox]

(-1, Wrong)

Digital TV in the UK is a PAL mpeg stream, normal resolution, but you can get about 5 channels in the space of one analog channel. Same with cable and sky.

HDTV, as posted elsewhere, isnt available in the UK, and dont hold your breath for it - we went for more channels instead of higher res, andsky dont even have 16:9 yet!

Speaking as someone who's actually made the switch

[The_Laughing_God]

I'll admit I didn't finish reading all the responses (I will - this subject has particular interest to me) but after plowing through ca 100 posts w/o any actual real World experience, I had to pipe up:

Slashdotters should realize that a decent (not great) PC with some free software and inexpensive hardware can be the key to nearly State-of-the-art (compared to the stuff in the retail chains) TV exceeding kilobuck HDTV sets. A spectacular home theater is within the reach of a dedicated high school fry cook working at McDonalds and living with their folks. In fact, get your folks to chip in, and it's *easy*. In Home Improvement, we call it "sweat equity": creating with work and know-how something that would cost mucho dinero to buy (plus learning a thing or two as a major benefit -- I can easily afford an HDTV at Best Buy, but that would be boring to me, or even pointless)

1) Some starting points for real-world solutions:
AV Science: where I hang out now (esp. the HTPC forum, whose Linux section could use more programmers!)
Keohi HDTV (they helped me get started, I assume they're still good)
The Home Theater Spot: Admittedly, a home for guys with more dollars than sense, but at least they experiment instead of spouting sales literature at each other. They also had some great group buys from One-Call, which is as good as it gets for both support and service (if you want to buy)

2) Only now am I retiring my original HTPC (Home Theater PC), a Celeron-466 with 256 MB, a $20 TV card, and a $45 Matrox 450 DualHead with s-video, composite and XVGA outputs - a simple system that would still wow a lot of 'retail buyers'. I can't explain how it changed my TV viewing, how great it is to have a library of 150-300MB archived eps of my favorite shows, etc. Add a few sub-$1/GB HDDs (see Anandtech Hot Deals or FatWallet for bargains), and you'll wonder how you ever tolerated clumsy VHS tape libraries. For archiving, these same forums will tell you how to get 4x DVD-R recorders for as little as $140 at major chains (epending on sales)

3) My current aging workhorse is a Athlon 1700+XP ($209, barebones, from Outpost.com a year ago). I added memory, a sub-$300 MyHD card (some other HDTV cards are as good or better) and a few minor bits like a $50 Dolby Theater Sound card, etc. It'd be much cheaper today, and many of you already run gear that's much hotter than this. The software was mostly free and/or open source.

4) My favored output device is a Toshiba TLP650 LCD projector (native 1024x768, but with a nice 1600x1200 mode) cost $900 on eBay last year - a bit pricey, but that was last year and the last-gen prices are dropping fast. On President's Day (Monday) I got my GF a nice 640x480 projector to experiment with: under $100, and it exceeds the line resolution of any 'normal TV'. You can assemble a decent HTPC/projector for about the price of a "pretty nice" normal TV if cash is tight, and you'll have far more capability, like HDTV and HDTV *recording* (which runs a few kilobucks by itself, retail). Admittedly, I'm comparing "MSRP" TV prices to bargain-hunting for HDTV, but hackers have always been scroungers, right?

To me, the learning is the biggest benefit. I'm not a big fan of most TV, but building my HTPC has been a wonderful (and not *that* pricey) hobby. I don't need cable when most of what is sold locally as "digital cable" doesn't come close to the 1080i resolution I pick up with a $20 "double bowtie" antenna from Radio Shack (As a general rule, any antenna that calls itself an HDTV antenna will be *worse* than a cheap 1950's retro-looking double bowtie)

When your videos are always on your HDD, you'll rule in Geek Debates on SF tech or plots (one-click access encourages the invaluable habit of rigorous fact-checking). You can make outrageous SF music videos or parodies, and otherwise exercise your creative and intellectual side instead of being purely a passive couch potato. Modesty prevents me from linking my own videos, but I'd gladly recommend a friend's site of example TV-SF music videos and parodies

HDTV Quest

[Mriswyth]

ExtremeTech has a much better look at the trials of buying an HDTV running this morning.

Rise of the HTPC

[Andy Dodd]

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.

Please cut the FUD Taco.

[Andy Dodd]

"I don't think I want another television screen that can't also be a computer monitor."

Most HDTVs have DVI or VGA inputs.

For those that don't, quality-wise component YCrCb is as good as RGB VGA for inputs. Radeons have component capability built in, and a $200 transcoder is all that's needed to make any other video card output component. (I've seen plans to DIY a transcoder for $20 or so too.)

This gives a large, widescreen, decent resolution monitor that kicks butt for games. Many current consoles support component outputs also, I've seen many people raving about how great their Gamecube or Xbox looks on their HDTV.

Conversely, if you're not concerned too much with screen size and only with picture quality, you can't go wrong with using a $300 HDTV tuner card (MyHD, available from www.digitalconnection.com)to feed your current monitor.

I added a MyHD to my machine for a total outlay of only $300 beyond what I'd already spent on my system for general computing and gaming. I have an 18" flatpanel, anything better than a 17" CRT will do pretty well as an HDTV resolution-wise.

Re:Completely agree (Poynton rules)

[ReelOddeeo]

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.

You paid too much

[JonTurner]

"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."
and
"...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."

You don't have to spend a fortune for a great HDTV setup. Let me show you how to save $500, right off the top.

$250+ for a region-free proscan DVD? No way! I paid $50 (after rebates) for a Cyberhome CH-500 Progressive Scan DVD player with Dolby 5.1 and component video outs from BestBuy. Image quality is great and yes, it's region free. Open the tray, press 1999 on the remote to bring up the service menu, and choose any region you like. [SAVINGS: $200+]

If you're paying $125 for cables, you're wasting your money. The difference between $20 component cables and the high-end $100+ "video snob" cables is beyond the capabilities of my eyes to discern and I'm pretty damned picky about image quality. Why buy cables that cost more than your components? Seriously, try a set of mid-grade cables and see for yourself. Better yet, have a friend swap cables while you watch the picture and you try to identify which cables are connected. I bet you can't! If I'm wrong, you can call me an idiot, just try it first. :) [SAVINGS: $100]

The OTA ("set top box) HDTV decoder is expensive, usually $400. Zenith and Samsung seem to be the only models offered in my area's consumer electronics stores. I bought the Samsung SIR-T151 is about $400 as an Open-Box item (it was returned but it has a full warranty). My cost = $260.00. [SAVINGS: $140]

What about the Over The Air antenna? Radio Shack has some fine Yagi antennas for around $50 and a 10dB antenna-mounted signal booster (to help signal loss over a long span of RG6 -- 1db drop per 18 feet of cable!) runs around $25.00. Also RadioShack sells a Terk TV50 clone for $50 (half of Terk's price) Add $40 for a length of decent RG6 cable, a cable stripper, some ends and make your own cable rather than buying pre-built lengths. (savings? about 30%) Don't forget a grounding block unless you like lightning damage. [SAVINGS: $50+]

So there you are. I just saved you at least $500, not including taxes! That's half the cost of some of the 32" tube HDTVs and is about 1/3 the price of many 48" projection sets.