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

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.

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

Re:firewire

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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).

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.

This one's easy

[flacco]

When HD pr0n reaches critical mass.

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