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

[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

[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

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.

HDTV or DTV?

[jDinK]

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

Re:HDTV or DTV?

[creative_name]

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

Article

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.

$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?

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/

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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