50% of HDTV Owners Don't Use HD

Ant writes "Broadband Reports and Techdirt posted The Technology Liberation Front's article that said apparently half of all High Definition Television (HDTV) owners don't actually use the HD capabilities of their set, and nearly a quarter think they are watching high definition video when they actually haven't set it up correctly. Set-top box maker, Scientific Atlanta's survey, noted that HDTV sets will be in approximately 16 million homes across the country by the end of the year."

Comments

I believe it

[lewp]

I haven't RTFA (I really should be asleep...), but my experience with my parents backs up the headline. They recently bought one of the new Dell 50" Plasmas and had HD service installed. Their cable system places SD channels in their "normal" slots, and gives them HD versions of the same channels in the 600 range. My parents, being creatures of habit, and not traditionally technology-savvy pretty much can't tell the difference and seem to watch the SD versions of these channels 99% of the time.

It almost makes me want to cry, but I'm still glad they have it, if only for the week or two a year I visit them :). HD sporting events and Discovery HD Theater are so nice as to be almost completely different experiences from regular television.

Re:I believe it

[alnapp]

Never mix Parents and Tech
Unless you never want to leave "home" again ;-)

Re:I believe it

[TheStonepedo]

My grandparents bought a HD LCD and watch mostly 4x3 SD channels... in wide zoom mode "so the picture fills up the screen instead of being so small." The center area of the their television where a 4x3 picture would be displayed is nearly a foot bigger than my TV, but I suppose old folks need the biggest picture possible. Attempting to explain that they should watch 16x9 mode with letterboxing is futile. At least the digital sound on the HD channels is clearer than SD stereo.

If you think HD sports and HD Discovery channel are nice, you must not have seen HD PBS yet. "Viewers like you" do a fabulous job getting the latest tech into the hands of skilled TV producers, yielding amazing widescreen programs with remarkable sound.

Re:I believe it

[BenjyD]

Such is the life of the geek. I can't go round to anybody's parents' house without being asked to help with their TV/Computer/DVD/Phone/Broadband. And no matter how many times you explain it, next time you'll be back there again telling them how to do it all over again. My dad now religously records my advice in little lists and keeps them in a folder because I snapped at him after he asked me one too many times.

Re:I believe it

[Ford Prefect]

It almost makes me want to cry, but I'm still glad they have it, if only for the week or two a year I visit them :). HD sporting events and Discovery HD Theater are so nice as to be almost completely different experiences from regular television.

Does it still have the easily-peeled-off manufacturer's information labels on it? You know, the ones most people remove within ten seconds of unpacking the device, but which certain, erm, less technically able persons leave on for the entire lifetime of the product?

(I've seen them on kettles, heaters, tellies, toasters, radios, you name it. Offer to remove one, and the appliance's owner's eyes widen in horror, as if you just suggested stripping all the insulation off the cables and then fitting several kilograms of Semtex to said appliance. I wouldn't be surprised if many of these non-HD HDTVs have such labels present too...)

Re:I believe it

[TorKlingberg]

I just realized my laptop had one of those. I felt a little brave and took it off. And wow! The computer still works!

Re:I believe it

[pomo monster]

With you 100%. I peel the labels off everything I buy. Grandma's body was found facedown by the medicine cabinet.

Re:I believe it

[BushCheney08]

My dad now religously records my advice in little lists and keeps them in a folder because I snapped at him after he asked me one too many times.

Are you sure the folder isn't full of receipts and calculations on exactly how much it cost him to raise you for 18 years? I'd be worried about going over there. One of these days he may just present you with a hefty bill and say "Fix it or else..."

Re:I believe it

[TerminalInsanity]

If he didn't want to pay for it, he shouldn't have poked it.

Re:I believe it

[Professor_UNIX]

My parents, being creatures of habit, and not traditionally technology-savvy pretty much can't tell the difference and seem to watch the SD versions of these channels 99% of the time.

And that just goes to show you how irrelevent "high definition" television is to the majority of Americans. I'm technology-savvy but I have no interest in buying a $3000 television set so I can watch television in HD. Higher resolution doesn't make these shows better, better scripts do. I don't watch any sports on television so I'll stick with my 32" Toshiba CRT until it goes on the blink and then if these 50" LCD TVs are under $800 I might consider one. DVDs look beautiful on my 32" CRT using an SVIDEO cable and if I really want a bigger screen I'll hook it up to my SVGA projector and watch them on that.

Re:I believe it

[Tim Doran]

But... how will you know there's Intel Inside now?

Re:I believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled local hardware store.

Re:I believe it

[kannibal_klown]

I proudly bought an HDVTV a few months ago and had Comcast come by to deliver/install an HD DVR box (I went all-out). They asked on the phone if I had an HD box and I said yes.

A few days go by and they deliver it. They hook it up with the old RCA cables (2-audio, 1 video). I say "But hthis is an High Def TV and that's a high-def box, why are you hooking up RCA cables?" He looked at me blankly and said "High Def doesn't require anything special." And before anyone mentions, no they weren't Component cable, just standard RCA.

I went out and bought a DVI->HDMI cable and hooked it up myself, then had to go to non-obvious menu to turn on the High Def support.

So, if my cable guy was any indicator, a lot of people are probably not getting Hi Def that ordered it.

Re:I believe it

[elrous0]

One of these days he may just present you with a hefty bill and say "Fix it or else..."

Yeah, and that's the day he's gonna get transfered to the nursing home that's under investigation by the state.

-Eric

Re:I believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of a similar story with those labels..
My mother-in-law had a refrigerator deilvered to her house. A few days later, the display screen above the ice maker had developed some bubbles on the surface. She called, had a repair technician out and he said he needed to order a new ice maker panal. He called back in a few days and stated he could not get that part and would get her either a new door or a new frig. Two weeks later, a brand new frig was brought in and swapped out. Two weeks later, the same thing, the same small bubbles in the display. I show up for Thanksgiving dinner and while I am getting some crushed ice, I notice the same bubbles and without even thinking about it, I pull off the plastic protective cover over the clear plastic display and go about me business. While eating she brings up this story to the entire family about having her frig swapped for a defective display and the new one is bad as well. I stated that i was just looking at it and it looked fine. Turns out, she and the "tech" and who knows how many other people she spoke with did not realize that bubbling was the protective cover that was supposed to be removed after initial setup.

Re:I believe it

[Golias]

But oddly, it looks a little bit like a stereoscope where you have one eye closed. Or a 3-D Viewmaster (remember that little thing you put up to your eye and pull the lever to change the picture that came on the disk).

That's not the fault of PBS.

What you are most likely seeing is the "rainbow effect" of a DLP system.

Unlike LCD, DLP difracts light through a color wheel to create the image. This generally allows the set to produce a much brighter image and higher contrast, but it does also tend to create the effect you are describing.

Some people are very sensitive to DLP rainbows, while other people can't even see them. If you are one of the lucky people who doesn't notice them, then a DLP set is often a good way to go. I've been told that some of the newer DLP sets do a better job of avoiding this problem, but as I'm currently very happy with the projector I have (a Panasonic LCD-based system), I haven't really been shopping around lately.

Re:I believe it

[Golias]

Wide-screen HD just might save televised hockey.

Hockey and soccer are, by far, the worst sports to watch on TV, especially hockey.

In hockey, all the action you really need to see to follow the game is happening away from the puck. If you can't see pretty much the whole rink at once, it just looks like a bunch of guys randomly skating into each other. On a 4:3 standard def broadcast, they need to stay zoomed in relatively close, or the puck simply disapears from view. (They experimented with digitally highlighting it a few years ago, but most people agreed that it looks pretty stupid.) Once you are zoomed in on two or three players, you can't see much of anything else, even where they are relative to the goal.

On HD, you can back up. This, along with the wider screen shape, allows you to show about 2/3 of the rink most of the time. It makes a huge difference. It's still not as good as being at the game (unlike football, where watching the TV broadcast can actually be a better experience than being there), but it's a big step up from what it used to be like.

HD for dummies

[sethwoodworth]

My parents are convinced that they are watching HD in their very rural home town. But then again these are the people who were equally convinced that letterbox cuts off the top and bottom of the picture.

Re:HD for dummies

[iamjoltman]

What he says is true, but note he says more of the negative is shown, not necessarily more of the movie. When some movies are filmed, they are intended to be widescreen, but they do in fact shoot 4:3 and then trim it to widescreen for release. So, while technically there is more image in the negative, the fact remains that the widescreen version is what the director wants you to see.
When a movie shot like this gets released on DVD as fullscreen, they actually show you the whole negative (tho I don't know if that's how it's always done, some may be left and right cropped) but sometimes you'll see things you aren't supposed to, like boom mics and such, because in the proper format, widescreen, they aren't seen. This is when a full screen release is referred to as Open Matte rather than Pan and Scan.

Re:HD for dummies

[BushCheney08]

There was an article on here a year ago about MGM admitting that their widescreen versions of movies were the pan&scan versions with the tops and bottoms chopped off. Here is a blogcritics page detailing the settlement. I was also able to find this page to give some examples of what they're talking about. Can't seem to find the original slashdot article though.

Re:HD for dummies

[delus10n0]

This is only one of the methods. There are many more:

[from WikiPedia's entry on "Widescreen"]

1. Masked. The film is shot in the standard ratio, but the top and bottom of the picture are hidden or masked off by mattes in the projector. Alternatively, a hard matte in the camera may be used to mask off those areas while filming. The picture quality is reduced because only part of the image is being expanded to full height. Sometimes films are designed to be shown in cinemas in masked widescreen format but the full unmasked frame is used for television.

      2. Anamorphic. As used by CinemaScope, Panavision and others, anamorphic camera lenses compress the image horizontally so that it fits a standard frame, and anamorphic projection lenses restore the image and spread it over the wide screen. The picture quality is reduced because the image is stretched to nearly twice the original area, but improvements in film and lenses have made this less noticeable.

      3. Super gauges. The full negative frame, including the area traditionally reserved for the sound track, is filmed using a wider gate. The print is then shrunk and/or cropped in order to fit it back onto release prints. The aspect ratio for Super 35, for example, can be set to virtually any projectable standard.

      4. Taller pull down. 35mm pull-down, as used for Cinerama, can facilitate better and brighter 3D projection, or offer a low cost means to approach 70mm image brightness and clarity using 35mm film and an anamorphic lens. Commonly referred to as "Cine-160" by recent advocates.

      5. Large gauge. A 70mm film frame is not only twice as wide as a standard frame but also has greater height. Shooting and projecting a film in 70mm therefore gives more than twice the image area of non-anamorphic 35mm film with no loss of quality. No major dramatic narrative film has been filmed on this format since 1996 (the last being the Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet), although big release-films do sometimes strike 70mm "roadshow" prints from 35mm masters. Paramount's VistaVision was a large gauge precursor to 70mm film; it ran standard 35mm film through the camera horizontally to achieve a widescreen effect. VistaVision is still used for shooting special effects, and is notable for its use in Lucasfilm's original three Star Wars films, among others.

      6. Multiple cameras/projectors. The Cinerama system originally involved shooting with three synchronized cameras locked together side by side, and projecting the three resulting films on a curved screen with three synchronized projectors. Later Cinerama movies were shot in 70mm anamorphic (see below), and the resultant widescreen image was divided into three by optical printers to produce the final threefold prints. The technical drawbacks of Cinerama are discussed in its own article. Only one feature film, How the West Was Won was shot in "pure," three-camera Cinerama. With the exception of a few films created sporadically for use in specialty Cinerama theaters, the format is essentially dead. A non-Cinerama, three-projector process was famously pioneered for the final reel of Abel Gance's 1927 epic, Napoleon. Consisting of three 1.33 images side by side, the total aspect ratio of the image is 4:1. The technical difficulties in mounting a full screening of the film, however, make most theaters unwilling or unable to show it properly.

      7. 70mm anamorphic. 70mm with anamorphic lenses creates an even wider high-quality picture. Known as Ultra-Panavision and MGM-65, and most famously used in the 1959 version of Ben-Hur, this system is basically obsolete, although it would likely be technically easy to revive.

It's also worth reading up on Super 35, which is a format that James Cameron typically shoots on; it's easier to go straight from Super 35 to the mainstream formats (widescreen/fullscreen/cinema), due to how the image is stored on the film and the lenses involved.

Re:HD for dummies

[pomo monster]

I wish they'd release DVDs letterboxed except with the image bouncing from top to bottom and back every few seconds. This would make the best use of the full display area on my TV. Then again, I think I have ADD.

Great news.

[reality-bytes]

This is great news.

With any luck, very few people will be disappointed when HDCP scales their backup copies to SD for them.

See how wide it is? That's the HDTV working

[gad_zuki!]

and other hilarious quotes from people with more money than common sense. The worst if it is that I can't go to a bar or a restaurant without seeing another HDTV flatscreen stretching out an NTSC signal so everyone looks short and chubby.

Re:See how wide it is? That's the HDTV working

[rosewood]

My salon does this and it drives me fucking batty. They have these very nice sony plasma displays hanging all over the place. They look like pure sex. They have COX HD programing and also have the hardware for OTA HD. However, the girls working constantly manage to fuck shit up. First time I went there I stopped between my massage and my manicure to fix their fucking TV so I could watch some baseball in HD.

Next time I went in ... yea, fucked up again.

If they didn't give me beer whilst I get my hair cut and my nails done, I wouldn't go there again.

Re:See how wide it is? That's the HDTV working

[Daverd]

They look like pure sex. They have COX

I don't even know where to begin making a joke about this.

Re:See how wide it is? That's the HDTV working

[Guppy06]

Heck, I would have started with the fact that he went into a salon myself...

Re:See how wide it is? That's the HDTV working

[thrillseeker]

My girlfriend's (no kidding) father ... is the very definition of more money than sense.

Marry her!

Re:See how wide it is? That's the HDTV working

[TheFlyingGoat]

http://slashdot.org/~rosewood/journal/8354

Right now Im dead tired but my skin is itchy, I feel too hot in my bed (with a multitude of fans), my balls itch, its too bright, etc. and I just CAN NOT FALL ASLEEP!

I sure hope it's a guy.

Not set up properly

[ReformedExCon]

This is one of those areas where OEMs and service providers are incredibly stupid.

The high definition should be enabled by default. The broadcasts should be in high definition by default.

It's not the customers' fault that they don't use these features, it's the technology and content providers' fault for not making those features seamless.

I've always felt the goal of technology was to become as unintrusive as possible. Making things that "just work" without fiddling or even minimal setup is one way to make technology invisible.

Re:Not set up properly

[ReformedExCon]

Why should it be more difficult than plugging in one wire from the wall to the television?

If a box is required to descramble the signal, why should it require more than one wire from the wall to the box and one more wire to the television?

These things should be simple that anyone can do it. Blaming confusing technology on the user is useless. The confusing technology is that way because the designers didn't find a way to make it any easier. That is the designers' fault.

Re:Not set up properly

[doublem]

I've always felt the goal of technology was to become as unintrusive as possible. Making things that "just work" without fiddling or even minimal setup is one way to make technology invisible.

MAC users, bleh

Re:Not set up properly

[JiveDog]

Thank you! It's because of myopic people like you that I will always have a job as a usability expert. Bravo for speaking like a true geek with no regard for how the other 98% of the world sees technology. This problem exists because of people like you.

Re:Not set up properly

[drsquare]

They are too dumb to realize that in order to get HDTV you need to get digital cable and watch certain channels. A lot of them also fuck up their AV wiring and don't use the component or HDMI cables necessary to get things really working properly.

I don't know what the fuck any of that means, this whole article is a mystery to me. HDMI? DVI? WTF? No wonder no-one can set it up properly. I thought the whole point of technology was that it made things easier? All you TV geeks should learn some things about user friendliness from Apple/Google.

There's nothing easy about learning ten thousand acronyms and five hundred cables. If the people who made TVs made kettles you'd need twelve different cables and a degree in water-boiling technology just to make a cup of tea.

Seriously, this is the kind of shit we need to teach in schools that we aren't. Setting up standard A/V equipment is a skill people need to have, and only geeky people ever learn it properly.

Standard? I thought we were talking about HDTV? That's not standard by any stretch of the imagination. I don't see why you can't just plug the TV into the power socket, plug in the aerial and switch on. That should be it. It's not the users fault that the manufacturers insist in making things as convoluted as possible.

If you need schools to teach people how to set up TVs then they're clearly too complicated.

There was actually another study recently, don't know how good it was, that showed that people couldn't tell which TVs were HD and which ones were not. Someone should test that a bit more and see if it's because of bad eyesight or whatever.

Or maybe HDTV is just overrated by TV manufacturers who want to scam people out of thousands of pounds for unwanted technologies. My TV is 14", I doubt I'd get much of a better viewing experience with a slightly higher resolution. We're not all dot-com millionaires with 50" plasma screens on the walls of our penthouse apartments.

Re:Not set up properly

[bigman2003]

As a middle-aged geek (37) and programmer, I just have too much stuff in my head to pay attention to EVERYTHING that I come across.

My wife is in charge of switching all of the clocks in the house and car during daylight savings changes. "Is this the one where you hold the button for 5 seconds, or do I have to hit it twice real fast?" that's my question. Honestly, if it were up to me, I would just wait 6 months until the clock was right again- or I would just unplug it at exactly midnight.

The REAL geek solution is to have clocks that synchonize themselves. (Computers/cell phones)

On the other hand, my cable TV system is just too damn complicated. I've got a Moxie system (don't know who makes it...don't care it's a cable box and DVR in High-Def). It works well, but there are a lot of things that take too long to do. Not that it was designed poorly, but it just does A LOT of stuff. I let my daughter take care of that. She cares enough about it to actually make it work, so does my wife.

I'm the idiot who has to give up the remote control, because I fuck it up each time. There are so damn many buttons, that I can never find things like 'info' or 'back'. So I end up watching a lot of fashion, and decorating shows, or whatever my wife or daughter want to watch.

Oh well...if I really cared enough, I could figure this stuff out. But I spend my whole work day figuring technical stuff out, and by the time I come home I don't want to do it anymore.

And no, I NEVER read the manual, or any on-screen instructions. Not because I feel I am too smart, or just above such things. Just because I really don't care if I get to use every feature...

On the other hand though- I've got a fairly complex camera, and I know how to use every feature of that. I've memorized just about every menu. Because I want to use it. I've made my choices on what I find important, and what I'm willing to ignore. You have to do that in today's world when we are surrounded by so much tech.

So I can understand people who just don't want to learn new things. It isn't always stupidity...maybe they just have other stuff going on in their head.

Re:Not set up properly

[Carthag]

I completely agree. I was helping my dad set up his new surround sound/projector system and that shit is way too complicated for it's own good.

I told him that I couldn't wait until the next generation, or the one after that, when we could get something like ethernet on all the components, each one providing a number of services (audio, video), and each one being capable of receiving a number of services. Then you'd do some dragging and dropping of virtual wires, saying audio from this, goes to these speakers, and this video goes to that monitor/projector.

Jeez.

Re:Not set up properly

[hackstraw]

As a middle-aged geek (37) and programmer, I just have too much stuff in my head to pay attention to EVERYTHING that I come across.

I'm about the same age, and I will concur with this statement.

Overall, I have been very disappointed in much of today's technology recently, something like the past 10 years or so.

It kills me that in 2005, I still have to be a complete geek and know bunches of stuff just to get things like surround sound (which I gave up on) and HDTV to work correctly.

Surround sound was screwed up at the beginning when it came out in the mid '70s. It was a hack that used a standard stereo soundtrack and snuck in secret encoding like those red decoders you get in cereal. The information that was completely in phase between the channels was interpreted as a center channel signal, and the completely out of phase information was thrown in mono to the surround speakers. So, if I hook up my TV to surround receiver, I get anything from a mono signal only going to the center speaker, which can change at ads or vice versa, or worse I get a program that was intended to just be stereo, and it mysteriously floats around the speakers because of the misinterpretation of surround information. I can fix it by adjusting the receiver to be in surround or stereo, but then I do something stupid like change the channel and the encoding is wrong again. Then you have DTS signals that you can get in audio or on video. That sounds excellent, much better than Dolby Digital. If you cant tell the difference between a typical MP3 and an ogg, then it doesn't matter for you, but DD and MP3 is bad in the mid to high range. Sounds dull, and not as bright and lively as DTS or ogg (vorbis, another beef with the container and codec game). Anyway, DTS signals are some kind of hack of two channel data, or something I don't know, but some DVD players, computer programs, and receivers have difficulty detecting the hack and send nice white or pink noise sounding stuff to your ears. Thanks.

Now, with HDTV. Give me a break here. There is DLP, Plasma, LCD, rear projection, standard tube, of course in 4:3 format and 16:9. Now the information sent to your TV is a mystery. DVDs can be 4:3 or 16:9, or sometimes they are 4:3 that are morphed down to 2.35:1 with about 1/2 of the screen as black bars. With the last format, you adjust your 16:9 TV to "zoom", and you miss a little of the "widescreen" information on your widescreen tv. It just just as black bared on a 4:3 TV (I did this the other night with Wargames DVD). Now there is standard 4:3 content where you can choose to put your tv into regular mode where there is black (or worse grey) bars on the left and right side. Or you can do the "wide zoom" which stretches and zooms into the signal to cut off the top and bottom a little and stretches everything which looks a little funny on people's faces. Or you could cut off their heads with the "zoom" feature, but maintain the faces proportion (minus the top of their head). Then if you get HDTV signal, you cannot adjust the zoom, wide zoom stuff, it is done for you. Thank god! But some channels like ESPNHD put nifty bars on the side of your screen to let you know your watching HDTV widescreen stuff with a pretty curtain around the 4:3 content. Then there is TNT which wrongly sends either stretched stuff or correct stuff to the TV.

That is not to mention the component, composite, DVI, or HDMI video connectors or the standard RCA, SPDIF that comes in optical and RCA looking digital varieties, or even balanced XLR cables.

Give me a fucking break. I'm a geek and I actually know what this shit means, but how the fuck is someone "normal" supposed to know or care? With my car, I pick the right grade of gas, which doesn't really matter, they will all work (except diesel), and I have to change the fluids in it every couple of months, but that hasn't changed much for over 50 years.

To watch TV and/or listen to music, you have to be an electrical engineer, and then the stuff stil

Re:Not set up properly

[JhohannaVH]

Or maybe HDTV is just overrated by TV manufacturers who want to scam people out of thousands of pounds for unwanted technologies. My TV is 14", I doubt I'd get much of a better viewing experience with a slightly higher resolution. We're not all dot-com millionaires with 50" plasma screens on the walls of our penthouse apartments.

Either you forgot your sarcasm flag, or you don't know wtf you're talking about. Obviously you've never seen an HD broadcast, a video game in high-definition, or anything else. FYI - I paid $1000 for a 52" HDTV with DVI input (to connect my computer) *3 years ago*!!! And I watch programming in high-definition beyond anything else. You don't have to be a millionaire - hell the 50" plasmas are going for $1500 bucks this season. Jesus... I remember when basic TVs cost that much!

The technologies are not UNWanted. In Japan, they are standard delivery. It's not a slightly higher resolution: http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/1180 03.html. This is not something that TV manufacturers would just DO without demand from their customers. And let me tell you, as someone who has been legally blind since I was 7, to see television in HighDefinition is to see like I never thought I could. And that right there is more than worth the $14/month extra to pay for HD programming and the box.

Not to even mention watching football in High Def. I can actually watch Soccer and Hockey games now and TELL what's going on! YAY! Please, before you go spouting about what you don't know about, have some experience and knowledge first.

Jho

Re:Not set up properly

[drinkypoo]

IIRC AFD means it properly selects the right input. I leave my receiver on the same input all the time and use an external switchbox because it has no S-Video switching. It properly and automatically selects between coax, optical, and analog, though you DO have to switch to 5.1 mode if you want to use the analog 5.1 inputs... which I don't. (Actually, I have thought about it, because my PC does 5.1 analog for 3d gaming audio, but doesn't do 5.1 digital, though it has a digital output. I have the nvidia MCP, not the MCP-T.)

However, figuring out how you want audio represented is actually a pretty difficult job. Determining the difference between a bad audio recording and a pro-logic signal is not necessarily nontrivial.

Where?

[KyrBe]

"16 million homes across the country by the end of the year"

Which country? Mongolia... Peru... Turkmenistan?

Re:Where?

[dusanv]

Quit making up countries! You think we can't tell a real country from a phoney one...

Let me guess

[ClippySay]

/ Your newly generated marketing word is: \
|                 HDTV.                   |
\ Want more?                              /
        \     ____
         \   / __ \
          \  O|  |O|
             ||  | |
             ||  | |
             ||    |
              |___/

Re:Let me guess

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Hey! It looks like you're trying to change the channel!
Hey! It looks like you're trying to change the channel!

Re:Let me guess

[dascandy]

You tried to switch to "ABC". That channel cannot be displayed on this television set. Would you try to switch to "MSNBC" instead?

It's because there's nothing on!

[pair-a-noyd]

There are not many channels either on satellite or cable that have TRUE HD content.

MOST of it is just stretched to fit and looks like crap.
I have a friend that has a HDTV and satellite and there's a demo channel that plays some very impressive demos, they blow your mind. When you switch from that to other "HD" channels you can tell that the content was not filmed in HD..

What's the point of having an HDTV?? There's just not enough content out there to warrant dropping the bucks on the bling. It's status and ego. As for usability, it's not very usable. Not yet anyway..

I plan to wait a few years and use what I have until it breaks beyond my ability to repair it. By then HD content may have taken off and the price of the sets will be much more affordable.

But for now, I can go to Wally World and pick up a nice 27" CRT set with multiple inputs for $150 that will last me 10 years or more.

My recommendation is to wait a while before jumping onboard the HDTV bandwagon.
Save your bucks and let the tech improve and prices to come down.

Re:It's because there's nothing on!

[Ford Prefect]

What's the point of having an HDTV?? There's just not enough content out there to warrant dropping the bucks on the bling. It's status and ego. As for usability, it's not very usable. Not yet anyway..

It's so you can be 'future-proof' - yes, you can spend a silly amount of money making sure that the silly amount of money you just spent won't (necessarily) be completely wasted when HDTV becomes more common. Alternatively, you can buy a cheap telly now, and another cheap (but HDTV) telly in a couple of years - one which will most likely out-spec the top-of-the-range ones currently available.

Me, I use a 14in CRT effort. It's probably approaching 15 years old. The picture's still rather good - and it's completely free of the horrendous smearing, deinterlacing, aspect ratio and other problems present on TVs supposedly worth umpteen billion times more. Hooray for the luddites!

Re:It's because there's nothing on!

[lowrydr310]

For the past five years, the only TV in my house was a 9" TV/VCR combo. I just upgraded last week to a 20" Sharp Aquos EDTV. EDTV is nice because it supports 480p from my DVD player which is pretty decent quality. When looking to buy a TV I was surrounded by fancy large HDTVs, however I used my head. I don't subscribe to satellite or cable, rather I just watch SD broadcast or my DVDs. I don't own an XBOX 360 and don't plan on buying that or a PS3 (though I may get a Revolution!). I have no need for HDTV right now, but that might change in the future. I'm not against adopting early technologies, but a TV is something that's not essential to my life and I don't need the best of the best.

But for now, I can go to Wally World and pick up a nice 27" CRT set with multiple inputs for $150 that will last me 10 years or more.

How long do LCD TVs last? I know CRTs are pretty reliable, but is the lifespan of an LCD comparable?

Re:It's because there's nothing on!

[Randall311]

"How long do LCD TVs last? I know CRTs are pretty reliable, but is the lifespan of an LCD comparable?" Depends on the brightness of the LCD and when it was made, as recent models of LCD are better then older ones. A typical LCD TV probably has a lifespan of 60,000 hours. If you left your TV on 24/7, then theorteically it would burn out in apporximately 6.8 years. If you have your TV on for say...8 hours a day, it could potentially last you for 20.5 years. That of course is the actual expected lifespan of the backlight before it burns out, so it doesn't arrount for other factors like contrast getting poorer as the years go by ect. This is all an estimate based on probibility anyway. LCDs, like any lighting appliance, will dim over time and with use. The picture you see will dim ever so slightly as the lamp itself dims. However, in general an LCD TV will last you longer then any Plasma TV.

Do many people *really* care about HDTV

[Viol8]

I'm not trolling , but does anyone really care enough about HDTV to
fork out huge wads of cash on a new set? Perhaps its different in
the USA with NTSC but here in the UK we have the PAL system which does
a nice 625 lines per picture and a good PAL set does an extremely
good picture. Sure , HDTV would be better , but $3000 worth better?
I'm not convinced and neither is my wallet.

Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV

[BenjyD]

I'm in the UK and have an HDTV (Samsung LE32R41), but no HDTV sources to use with it until the BBC starts HD in a few years. I just bought it because all the decent large LCD TVs seem to be HD now and they aren't that much more expensive. A decent PAL picture does look very good though, I agree. The problem I see more often is not the number of lines, but that the digital broadcast itself is so blurry and blocky. Shows converted from NTSC in particular look truly awful, especially as they are almost never in widescreen.

Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I'm not trolling , but does anyone really care enough about HDTV to
fork out huge wads of cash on a new set?

Personally, I would have to say no. I really don't care about HDTV.

Now I'm a classic geek. I like my tech. I like what works. I like what's practical. I don't like chrome and cruft, and I'm generally able to tell an overpriced, overhyped product from a reasonable, practical one.

This isn't an innate talent or state of being. I've been burned by the gaming industry too many times in my youth and as a result have developed a healty skepticism when it comes to flashy new tech.

I've seen HDTV. It looks better, but I really don't care very much. I might like the view better, but I'm not paying current prices for it. I'm still quite happy with my old CRT's resolution. That is, when I'm even watching it anymore.

For me, HDTV is a solution looking for a problem. A very expensive one at that.

Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV

[DrXym]

It may have 625 lines but only 576 are visible and the picture is interlaced on top of that. Despite that, I think the picture quality is okay and certainly much better than NTSC. Of course it depends on what channel you're watching as well and what content. If you end up watching some crap US imported comedy on a crap highly compressed channel, the picture quality will be horrible. If you watch one of the main channels such as BBC, picture quality is just fine and widescreen already.

Still, HDTV is coming to the UK. Lots of TVs are tagging themselves as "HDTV Ready" though what that means is highly questionable. There are a lot of different HDTV resolutions and progressive & interlaced modes to choose from. The labelling is confusing as hell and I would be extremely wary of buying a TV now when there is nothing to test it against. I truly expect some chumps will buy their HDTV now and the warranty will have expired before they discover what the quality is truly like. On top of that Sky are touting some HDTV channels but where is the pricing for them? When is the service and the HDTV rolling out? How many channels are there? When will Sky+ go HDTV? I wouldn't put it past Sky to bend the early adopters over and rape them for every penny they have. The only other use for HDTV at present is the XBox 360 and next year the PS3. That hardly seems worth it either.

Better to wait a few years until there is a market and channels that actually justify the price of these things.

Re:Do many people *really* care about HDTV

[Zog The Undeniable]

Absolutely right about the broadcast quality. The main Sky Digital channels are worse than a decent Sky analog(ue) signal ever was, with the exception of UK Gold which had a notoriously bad transponder on analog. Any smooth gradations of colour exhibit banding even on the "good" channels, and there are hundreds of crappy overcompressed channels where, to borrow Rimmer's line from Red Dwarf, it's like watching Spanish TV.

However, for a truly wasted opportunity look at UK DAB radio. The bitrates are soo poor you might as well stick with FM. It's the worst DAB implementation in the world.

Re:No Surprise

[pjeremyh]

Yea, I once read that 50% of Americans are below average intelligence.

My HDTV was purchased for DVDs

[Shivetya]

I had no other concern in my purchase. It is 16:9 and it has the ability to support HDTV provided I buy the receiver. I've talked with others who have one for the same purpose. The last part is one of the major reasons people don't use HD. Who wants to buy a special receiver?

Once all sets come with it built in then perhaps people will use it.

Re:My HDTV was purchased for DVDs

[FireFury03]

My HDTV was purchased for DVDs

Except DVDs aren't HD - you could get identical quality out of your DVDs with a standard definition 16:9 screen...

Re:My HDTV was purchased for DVDs

[d9000]

I did the same thing. I have been using my HDTV primarily for upsampled DVD content for the past year and a half. I have a Zenith DVB318, and the picture quality is amazing. I hear the OPPO is even better.

When I first bought the TV, I tried HD programming for about two weeks. I was disappointed in the lack of true HD content as well as the heavy compression that was being used on the SD channels. I called to cancel not only the HD package, but digital cable completely. I switched to the basic analog package. Imagine my fun trying to explain "compression" to the CSR. She finally got it when I told her I saw little squares around the edges.

Re:My HDTV was purchased for DVDs

[leppi]

Except DVDs aren't HD - you could get identical quality out of your DVDs with a standard definition 16:9 screen

Not true. Standard definition sets show an interlaced image. Since DVDs are recorded with a full frame, it will look "better" on an non-interlaced monitor (provided you have a "progressive scan" DVD player).

I believe that you would need an 'EDTV' set in order to say you would get "identical quality" with HDTV for DVDs.

http://www.oppodigital.com/Getting-Most-out-of-DVD -on-HDTV-Display.html

Re:My HDTV was purchased for DVDs

[BiggerBoat]

"The 3:2 pulldown is created in software by the player."

Sure seems logical, but this is just not the case:

"There's a persistent myth that DVDs are inherently progressive, and all a DVD player needs to do to display a progressive signal is to grab the progressive frames off the disc and show them."

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benc hmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html

This is just one of the many, many well-written, technical articles out there that explain this issue. Unfortunately, as your post suggests, I just don't think this myth is ever going to go away.

I don't doubt it..

[deep44]

I pushed my father (who likes watching television) to purchase an HDTV a couple years ago. He simply wanted a "big screen", but after reviewing the numerous benefits of high-def over and over again (at gunpoint), he finally gave in. I took care of ordering Comcast's HD service for him as well- so in my mind, he's living life in the fast lane for once!

Fast forward two years- I find out he's shopping for a DVR. He's sold on one that will let him record directly to DVDs, but in standard definition. I asked him why the hell he would want to waste a perfectly good DVD on crap like that, and he told me it's because his VCR is starting to flake out.

I say, "VCR? What VCR? (I run downstairs to find 50+ VCR tapes of recorded standard-def movies with commercials, meaning he taped them off network television) What the fu- ahh, nevermind. Yeah, get the DVR with a DVD burner. I'll grab you a 500-pack of blanks for Christmas."

Some folks just don't care enough to change how they enjoy life.. even when their asshole childen, like me, threaten them. Well... that means it's time to play hardball.

f'in DUH!

[ph4s3]

Who is supposed to be shocked at this? My family can't even figure out how to watch the TV in the correct aspect ratio on their widescreen non-HD TV. What's worse is that they don't even know that it is the WRONG aspect ratio, despite the short fat people on their screen that were previously tall and skinny. Oh wait. My dad knows. But he doesn't like the gray bars on the sides when it is in the correct aspect ratio. FFS. I swear.

Depending on consumers to do anything right is idiotic. It's why they're so easy to sell to in the first place.

Re:f'in DUH!

[Knuckles]

And on every f***g airport or whatever, -all- the screens (where they play CNN and stuff) have the wrong ratio. Drives me nuts. In a few years there will be no way to convince people they are too fat, after all everyone on TV looks like this.

The Blind Will Wait Many Years

[Ka D'Argo]

I dunno what it is, but stuff like HD or really "good" audio quality (we're talking the best there is) I cannot really tell a difference. It looks the same to me, visually. I'm sure on some level there is a technical aspect that is higher quality than the current standard but it's not "there" enough for the average person to see it unless you know what you're looking for.

The only reason I'd update to a HD tv set is if every channel in my digital cable package (400+) required HD to watch. As long as there is a large cable package that does not require HD I will use that. I refuse to go drop several hundred dollars, if not much more, for a HD set.

Remember when CD's first came out and having a cd player was the new rave? Yea well I was the guy still buying cassettes, and hunting them down as stores kept keeping their cassette isle smaller and smaller. Remember when DVD's went mainstream? I kept using VHS, it was cheaper and I already had my favorite stuff on VHS.

Oh and, I don't want to start a flame thing but this is my opinion, I dislike Wide Screen. I know WS shows more picture per screen and is a slightly higher quality, I know this is the current standard for filming shit and has been for a few years. I can take a screen shot from Lord of the Ring's comparisons and I hate how the heads are "cut off". Sure it's stretching the image to fit my screen, and in WS you gain more length wise than you do height but if I can see the full persons head and shit in the frame vs say, some extra scenery footage I'd take the full head shots any day.

The real radical opinion is, well, I paid for a 35 inch screen. Using WS I am "gaining" extra footage on the sides but at the same time I'm losing over 5+ inches from the top and bottom. That's like a rather large percentage of 35 being wasted by black blank space not being used. Maybe tv's grow on tree's for some people but not everyone can afford to drop $200-300 for a nice sized tv. (Not that it destroys the tv or anything but if I pay for 35 inch I want all 35 inches to be used).

Re:The Blind Will Wait Many Years

[tap]

Except the 4:3 aspect was the standard film aspect before TV was even invented. In fact wide screen movies started as a way to provide something extra to keep people going to theaters AFTER television came out.

Re:No Surprise

[Loconut1389]

The other 50% who do use HDTV must be the ones who are obese...

Tuners and televisions?

[vidarlo]

There really should be 2-way communication, so that the tuner knows if it is talking with a HDTV. If it is, it should pick a HDTV version of the channel. Of course, this means the tuner has to know that the two channels are the same content... Whilst this might be a challenge, it is certainly relatively trivial to employ. Also, seller should inform customers that they might have to select the channels manually...

cuban says no bandwidth, no content

[agslashdot]

FRom Mark Cuban ( Owner HDNet ) blog:

"Over the past 5 years, bandwidth to the home has grown from 300k for broadband to 5mbs, and in some cases even 10mbs. But that bandwidth is not dedicated per user. That bandwidth is shared. The number of users sharing that bandwidth has increased even faster than the size of the pipe. Thats not going to change...the amount of bandwidth required to transmit an HDTV show vs the amount of bandwidth required to transmit a DVD quality show is about 8mbs to 1mbs...For broadcast it takes 2 to 3mbs to transmit a standard definition show, and 10mbs to transmit an HDTV, non sports program at quality that is equal to what is available from over the air HDTV broadcasters like CBS and NBC.

Which leads to point. Bandwidth to the home is not expanding as fast as the bandwidth required to transmit content.

What makes a program worthless in High Definition ? If it was shot or mastered on tape. Shows from the 1980s, 1990s, and even some shows today, are shot using standard definition tape. Why is it worthless ? Because standard definition video doesnt have enough resolution to look good in high definition. To up convert it to HD would be like upconverting music from mono to 5.1 Surround Sound. You can fake it and improve it a little, but when compared to music captured in Surround Sound or even stereo, its obviously inferior.

If you go through the schedules of many cable networks, some are made up completely or substantially of shows shot or mastered on tape. The networks that are full of music videos from the past 20 years. Networks with comedies from the 1980s and 90s. Science Fiction created for syndicated TV (Most primetime scifi was shot on Film and then HD). THere is nothing their owners or licensors can do to make them look good in HD. I dont think they will even try. "

Rest here

Doesn't surprise me either

[Peregr1n]

It's just the same with surround sound - I know so many people who have shelled out for full 5.1 or 8.1 speaker sets but due to amateur wiring are really just listening to stereo.

To be fair, it still sounds a little better than two speakers due to the number of speakers, even though they're all pumping out the same signal. I imagine a similar thing applies to HDTV - even if the resolution is no higher, the mere fact that HDTVs are newer, clearer and have great contrast will probably mean the picture looks nicer; hence these people being convinced they're watching a HDTV signal.

Bless.

Public intelligence...

[Peregr1n]

We haven't got much HDTV in this country (UK) yet, but I can see the same thing happening here when we do;

One of my girlfriend's friends hasn't got a DVD player yet, but bought DVDs and got me to copy them to VHS tape. When I asked why she didn't just buy them on VHS, she said that she wanted to watch them in DVD quality!

I'm suprised 50% actually have HD

[pavera]

I own 2 HDTV sets, and I don't have HD programming at all. I use them to watch movies (for the 16x9 more than the high def, as dvd's aren't high def). My parents have an HDTV and they have the HD package from DirecTV, my friend has the HD package from Comcast, and another friend has dish networks HD package... In short they all suck. I refuse to pay an extra $20-50/mo for 10 extra channels that say they are "HD" channels and only actually broadcast HD maybe 20% of the time.

The worst is ESPN HD, 90% of the stuff they show on that channel is standard def, and just to rub it in your face the fill up the rest of the 16x9 screen with banners proclaiming ESPN HD! It's such a rip off. On the DirecTV HD package only 2 channels broadcast in HD more than half the time, Discovery HD and HDNET, Unfortunately, I'd say 50% of Discovery HD's programming from what I've seen is pictures of birds and flowers, no actual content, just a glorified screen saver.

In short, I'm suprised 50% of HDTV owners are actually wasting their money for a few channels that once in a while broadcast HD shows. Bring the content to HD, and more people will subscribe... Of course the networks won't have that, cause they're afraid of piracy, so until all the TVs are locked down there won't be any content....

I still feel my TVs were worth the money just for watching movies, with a good DVD player, good surround sound, good cables everywhere, watching a movie in my basement is just as engaging as watching it at the theater.. and I don't have to worry about gum stuck to my shoes or the inevitable jerk in the row behind me that refuses to shut up (or that brought his 1 year old to a 10pm showing, and wonders why the kid won't stop screaming).

Re:No Surprise

[chris_eineke]

That's almost 55%!

My Cow-orker is queen of the hill

[MrBoombasticfantasti]

A collegue of mine has a 1600x1200 lcd monitor. A truly wonderful piece of engineering. And does she use it as it is supposed to be? No, she has her desktop at 1024x768, because she doesn't like the tiny letters in Windows. I showed her how to enlarge the fonts, but noooo.....

Get some glasses, cow!

it's the show that counts not the number of pixels

[MancunianMaskMan]

I remember watching many _good_ films as a kid on out old b&w telly (my parents upgraded to colour only in the mid-80's iirc). The lack of colour didn't really harm the experience. (only as a kid i thouight big bird was white). If the programme is good, it's worth watching whatever the image quality is, otherwise, HDTV soesn't make it any better. Get a grip. I know this is /. and all, and I'm biased because we live in a house that's so much more enjoyable to live in because it has no TV, but let's face it: HDTV is for wankers.

Re:Great news. maybe..

[davygrvy]

unless.. your older HDTV's DVI jack doesn't understand the HDMI encryption or you find your component outputs from your receiver shut off too. Then you're SOL. Lame hardware makers!

DRM makes me dizzy.

The sad reality

[DrYak]

The Geek : ...those news technologies that restrict users freedom and cripple the functionnality in name of copyrights shall be bannded !
(Goes signing pettitions on website no-one has heard about, writes article read only by other geeks, listens to speeches by well-known geeks in NerdCon.05 etc)

Joe Six Pack : Woah ! This new model is surely better ! There's a new thing written on it : HI-GH-DE-FA-NI-TI-ON. Shiny !
(Buys it. Even if he doesn't know what it means.)

The Industry : Money ! Here I come !
(new technology becomes new standart because everyone is buying it)

The Geek : you suck.
(Cannot use new media in his old linux-powered hybrid E-toaster-coffemachine)
The Geek : you really suck.
(eventually, manage to circumvent the protection scheme because it was designed by a 2 years old. Strangely, HE is the one who gets blamed - because of suputative piracy - and not the boss of the engeneering team - who employed children and even let them do underage drinking while designing the scheme).
The Geek : you really really really suck.

The Industry : Wait, I have more useless, stupid, freedom-crippling, ads-enforcing, shiny technologies to sell !

Re: Poor Quality HD

[some guy I know]

I have a friend that has a HDTV and satellite and there's a demo channel that plays some very impressive demos, they blow your mind. When you switch from that to other "HD" channels you can tell that the content was not filmed in HD..

What's the point of having an HDTV?? There's just not enough content out there to warrant dropping the bucks on the bling.

It doesn't matter if the content is HD if the cable/sat provider uses a crappy codec (or crappy codec settings).
I watched "The Triangle" on sci-fi earlier this week, and the quality of the night scenes just sucked, really, really, sucked, because DirecTV is cramming too many channels onto too small of a bandwidth.
I've also noticed this with star scenes on astronomy programs on TDS, and with night scenes generally.
If DirecTV et al do the same thing with their HD channels, then what's the point of having HD at all (except to watch DVDs)?

People are stupid salesmen are smart

[gelfling]

Most people who own a Ferrari never take it out of 2nd gear either.

Re:Not set up properly - HOGWASH

[sInTaKs.dg]

Fear-based apathy and laziness. Technology is always cumbersome in it's infancy. Think it was easy the first time these people drove a car? How about operated a microwave? My dad used to cuss the microwave daily. "Damn new-fangled gadgets." Now he's a pro. Technology should work for us, yes. However, these so-called "challenging" technologies are not that difficult. There's nothing worse than someone who won't do something technical for themselves because either they fear it or "I can't understand this stuff." Excuses. Take setting up an HDTV. Is this really a difficult process? Cables are provided. Picture-laden instructions show you where to connect them. The channels you are supposed to view are labeled "HD" in the name. Come on... we are supposed to be intelligent adults here. Remember the toy you had as a child where you put the triangle into the triangle shaped hole? Are people really sitting around scratching their heads trying to put a component cable into an hdmi port? The truth is people want their cake and eat it too. "I want HD, but just make it work for me." Ah the consumer mentality. This attitude in general really just sucks. Of course this is all just my opinion.

Yup

[edmicman]

I personally can back this up. We have a Samsung HDTV, Comcast digital cable, yet not the HD part of the package. Last I checked, there's only like 6 total channels they offer in HD here, and of those, I think only two or 3 of those were local stations. Most of the TV that we do watch isn't available in HD, and the ones that are, we wouldn't use. I don't think we're about to START watching stuff we don't want to just because it looks nicer. Eventually I'd like to get it for the sports (maybe around the time of the Superbowl or March Madness), but I just can't justify the extra cost just to "have it". Heck, I still haven't gone and gotten a nice DVD player (still using s-video) because we just don't watch enough movies. It was one of those things where we wanted a new TV, and might as well get one that supported HD. There's just not enough content yet to make full use of it. This is probably the case in a lot of places. Or maybe I'm just incredibly lazy and cheap. Just my $.02.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Most poorly rolled out technology ever.

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

HDTV has been caught in a catch 22 for the last decade. Content providers don't want to invest the money converting their broadcasts to HD because the market of HDTV owners is small.

Consumers avoided buying HDTV's because there wasn't enough content.

So, who needs to initiate the HDTV revolution? Consumers or Content Providers?

Content providers should have taken the reins and initiated the HDTV revolution like 10 years ago. They should have started making all their content available in HD broadcasts, it is easy enough to down grade the HD content to standard def and put them on two different channels. Digital Cable has been around for over a decade allowing dual HD and standard def content. With content immediately available, consumers would have adopted HDTV sets more quickly and thus this technology would, by now, have been well underway to becoming a mature and successful implementation.

Instead, content providers are slowly rolling out content, and I have really only seen this year cable channels promoting their content in HDTV.

Also, why are HDTV's so expensive? LCD's and Plasma's are luxury items, but not the only technologies capaple of HD digital content. Anyone with a CRT computer monitor has been able to display HD content for over a decade, and CRT monitor resolutions exceed HD resolutions. There is no reason for CRT HDTV's to have been $5000 when they were first introduced, and still these televisions are over $600, when an equivalent sized standard television could be bought for $300.

Finally, its the greed of cable and satelite companies that has stagnated HDTV adoption. The requirement to buy or rent a digital cable terminal in order to view HDTV content is one reason why few people are adopting this technology. I don't want to buy a $4000 television and then another $150 - $500 for the "convertor" box. Cable companies need to OPEN UP digital cable broadcasts and allow ALL HDTV and SDTV's to be able to decipher cable content and HDTV content built-in, WITHOUT PAYING A PREMIUM. I know that many HDTV's are being built with ATSC tuners capable of over-the-air HDTV broadcasts, but cable companies do not allow 3rd party television makers to decipher the program guides and other features that made digital cable easy to use. Also, digital cable companies don't allow 3rd party PVR's to read HDTV and digital cable content, allowing for quicker adoption of HDTV technology by buying 3rd party devices with recording capabilities.

It is greed which is preventing HDTV from becoming a "must have" technology. Greed by the content providers by not investing in the conversion to HDTV broadcasts until there is a well established consumer base, and greed by the cable/satellite companies for not allowing ubiquitous HDTV technology adoption by allowing 3rd party companies from decoding and using digital cable and HDTV broadcasts. And ultimately, it is greed which is stagnating rollout because all companies involved CANNOT find an easy to implement solution that will prevent people from recording digital content and distributing it for free online.

I for one will continue to wait, patiently, until such a time where I can buy a HDTV set with built-in digital cable and ATSC tuners without the requirment of having a cable company box attached to my tv as well, and pay extra for HDTV content. I want a PVR that can use the same digital program guide that the cable boxes display to be able to select which shows I want to record WITHOUT having to buy the feature limited box from the cable companies. I want CHOICE in this industry, not force fed content and products at the discretion of greedy corporation who have been stalling adoption simply because can't find an easy way to protect content from being copied.

Fark called...

[Syberghost]

...they want yesterday back.

Not just the info labels...

[Ellis D. Tripp]

When I used to work in repair shops, I was always amazed by how many items would come in for repair with the clear plastic protective film still covering the display windows, keypad bezels, etc. Usually well yellowed with age and nicotine residue....

Big high-res computer monitor

[Kagami001]

I don't watch TV, but playing Guild Wars at 1920x1080 on a 70" DLP is pretty spiffy.

Re:Doesn't surprise me at all

[cornface]

Hot actresses just look that much hotter in HD. You can see each strand of hair and the threads on their clothes.

Wow, you're a creepy dude. Really, really creepy.

Enough about HD already.

[PFI_Optix]

I *just* bought a new non-HD television. Why? Because a decent 27-inch analog TV costs $150. Out of the box it can recieve broadcast signals and works with all common hardware from satellite and cable companies. A comparable HDTV monitor costs somewhere around $300. If you want to receive broadcast signals, you have to pay an additional $200 for an HDTV receiver or buy a $600 TV (I still can't figure out where the extra $100 got there, but that's the prices I saw in the stores). If you have cable or satellite, you have to get an HDTV decoder for their signals, and the upgrade can cost money with some providers. In other words, I saved a MINIMUM of $350 by not buying HDTV. The government can just buy me a decoder when they force the shut down of analog signals in a few years. Screw HDTV, I'll buy it when it's at a reasonable price.

Not Just Different Channels Different Programs!

[Rancidlunchmeat]

It's crap, that's what it is. I'm one of those people with a HDTV with no digital content except for my DVD player. I cancelled my subscription to HD Cable. Why? Because it's bad enough that you have to remember to go from watching the Discovery Channel on 56 to Discovery Channel HD on 623. But on top of that, there's a worse problem!

Oh? There's a program I want to watch on Discovery Channel? Cool.. I'll watch it in HD. You switch over and... Whaaat? It's a completely different program! The show you wanted to watch in HD, simply isn't on, because all the HD channels aren't simply the same programs in HD.. They are completely different channels with completely different programming! That's what none of the content providers want to tell the public. They want you to believe you get all your normal programming, but with the extra benefit of HD!

It's simply NOT TRUE. It's like a bait and switch. Watch Discovery Channel in HD! But you can't, because all you get on Discovery HD is the same 10 programs about Ocean Life played over and over again, while none of their "normal" programming is ever broadcast in HD!