# If you have HD, you're not very happy, are you?



## nimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

If wide-screen/HD-compatible LCD and plasma TVs have been the hottest consumer electronic purchases for the past year or so, why are there so few HD channels actually delivered to the marketplace? As consumers, we have all bought into the HD hype way, way before it's time.

No one with an HD-capable TV in their home can be happy about how much money we've spent to see so few choices in HD ... and the fact that we've paid a ton of dough to actually have our SD channels look worse than on our old CRT sets.

How much money has been invested by consumers in HD technologies, only to find their actual return on investment to fall way, way short of their expectations. Sure, HD broadcasts are spectacular and are unlike anything we've ever seen before. But only 20 channels of programming (outside of the major networks)??? How can that be???

If lack of bandwidth and expensive technology investments limit carriers' ability to expand into the HD space, then there are obviously many disappointed consumers who invested a lot of money buying expensive equipment that is currently being totally under utilized. The consumer is truly getting screwed by receiving so little in return.

So, if you have HD, while you love the little you get to actually watch on your beautiful investments, you're highly disappointed and dismayed about the limited offerings in the marketplace, aren't you?


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

WRONG!!

I'm eminently satisfied with my new rear projection CRT TV.

I didn't fall for the digital hype of fixed pixel purgatory.

CRT is the BEST picture bar none.

And I didn't pay 2 or 3 thousand dollars for a 57 inch picture, just barely over 1 thousand and no bulbs to replace.

Oh, and I have more than enough HD to watch.


----------



## MadScientist (Dec 1, 2004)

Well I Have a Sony KDSR70-XBR2 hooked-up the the VIP-622 and I did pay Thousand of dollars for the 70 inch Picture and I am very happy on what I get. It can only get better. 

Ps. and it's only money enjoy it now! why wait, your just missing out!


----------



## Amon37 (Mar 5, 2007)

I do wish there were more HD channels out there. I don't pay that much more a month for HD channels so it's not too big of a deal.

I don't regret buying either of my HDTV's(Sony KDS-50A2000, KDF-E50A10). They get plenty of use with either an upconverting DVD player, or a PS3 with Blu-ray playback and HD videogames.

Edit: Nice madscientist!!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

I would be frustrated if I had a provider that didn't offer a reasonable selection of programming. One of my cable providers offers no HD programming at all while the other offers 9 channels. HD programming is probably the biggest reason that I'm a Dish Network subscriber. Rather than complaining about the lack of HD programming, I subscribed to a bundle of it.

I also bought a cheap up-converting DVD recorder which makes for a very nice picture from store-bought or rental DVDs.

When I watch HD programming, I watch it on an HDTV. When I watch SD programming, I watch it on an SDTV. I do this even though my HDTV is among the best at doing SDTV.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Sorry nimmer, but to me, nothing you said makes sense. Every single network program and sporting event is produced in HD these days. What is it you want? Just an example or two will do. Do you want tvland in HD, so you can watch B&W cropped 16x9 shows of Andy or something? 

FWIW, my pioneer 5070 was worth every penny to me.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Jim5506 said:


> CRT is the BEST picture bar none.


Falls multitudes short of plasma in this home.


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

nimmer said:


> If wide-screen/HD-compatible LCD and plasma TVs have been the hottest consumer electronic purchases for the past year or so, why are there so few HD channels actually delivered to the marketplace? As consumers, we have all bought into the HD hype way, way before it's time.
> 
> No one with an HD-capable TV in their home can be happy about how much money we've spent to see so few choices in HD ... and the fact that we've paid a ton of dough to actually have our SD channels look worse than on our old CRT sets.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I remember not all that long ago having 5 channels on an antenna, so only 20 HD channels (10 on DirecTV) and HD networks, I'm counting myself ahead...


----------



## MadScientist (Dec 1, 2004)

heisman said:


> Falls multitudes short of plasma in this home.


I think its the SXRD RP from Sony that has the #1 spot with picture.


----------



## Amon37 (Mar 5, 2007)

MadScientist said:


> I think its the SXRD RP from Sony that as the #1 spot with picture.


Agreed.

It's 10,000:1 contrast ratio is the highest and many other HT enthusiasts choose it before plasma or LCD TV's.


----------



## nimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

I really think people are settling and don't understand the point I am trying to make.

YES, I have HD in my house and I too am blown away at just how amazing high definition looks compared to SD. The fact is, though, the amount of channels broadcast in HD is pretty pathetic. I agree that E* has the most offerings in the marketplace, but in reality, only @ 10% of the channels are in HD. You mean to tell me that we should be happy with 10%? Additionally, HD locals are still not available to many people over their E* receivers.

I'm not looking for miracles here, but it's taking way too long for cable and satellite companies to expand their HD offerings. If we, as consumers, do not push them and simply settle on what's currently available, we're sending them the wrong message.

The fact that the multi-channel premium movie networks still only push out 1 stream of HD speaks volumes to what I am trying to illustrate here. HBO offers 8 channels of premium programming in SD through E* and 15 thru Comcast, yet only 1 in HD. Are you satisfied with that? No one should be.

And for those that claim that their SD programming looks great on their HD displays ... Come on. You're just making yourself feel better. I've yet to see an SD signal look decent on any high-end plasma or LCD panel. Stretching the picture looks ridiculous and zooming is even worse. Watching in 4:3 is a waste of screen real estate, that's for sure.

Don't be satisfied. We all need to demand more. That's the only way we will get more.



heisman said:


> Sorry nimmer, but to me, nothing you said makes sense. Every single network program and sporting event is produced in HD these days. What is it you want? Just an example or two will do. Do you want tvland in HD, so you can watch B&W cropped 16x9 shows of Andy or something?
> 
> FWIW, my pioneer 5070 was worth every penny to me.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I haven't seen the numbers lately... but I don't know if 10% of the consumers in the US have HDTVs... so if only 10% of the programming is HD, that would be about right wouldn't it?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> CRT is the BEST picture bar none.


CRT direct view is among the best for content that was shot on video, but there are reasons that only one or two manufacturers still make CRT projection (or projector) televisions.

Among the drawbacks of CRT versus the competition:
Relatively high power requirement (yet about half that of Plasma)
1080i at best
Typically not as bright
Often subject to convergence , geometry, pincushion and linearity issues
Brightness bloom
Non-uniform decay of phosphor across display surface and burn-in
Advantages:
Excellent contrast
10x tube life (replacement not feasible)
According to those who are paid by the column inch, direct view CRT is bested in almost all categories but contrast by LCoS. Projection CRT falls to the middle of the pack.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

MadScientist said:


> I think its the SXRD RP from Sony that as the #1 spot with picture.


Where's that crack smokin' smiley when you need it most? :lol:

http://reviews.cnet.com/Televisions/2001-6475_7-0.html?tag=promo.tv

(I own both btw, and plasma just blows away CRT.)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

nimmer said:


> I really think people are settling and don't understand the point I am trying to make.


You're talking to someone who watched black and white TV until the late sixties. HD is a good chunk of the future, but there are a whole lot of viewers out there that don't have it and don't want to be told that they need to upgrade or be in the margins.

If I were an SD viewer, I wouldn't want to be nagged by the idea that I was subsidizing HD content which costs more to deliver and likely more to acquire. There is need for a balance which is why we have networks like HD Net and Voom; a little something for everybody.

There is also a strong case for "who cares" when it comes to certain types of programming that benefit little from HD.

When the studios start producing programming that finally displaces Gilligan's Island and Gunsmoke, let me know.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Odd If people followed the logic of this poster we would not have Color TV.

It took sometime before their was a good selection in Color. The broadcaster did not want to invest into equipment to produce color, untill they knew their was an audience that can get color. luckly Americans bought color tv even though in the begining very few shows were in color.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

harsh said:


> When the studios start producing programming that finally displaces Gilligan's Island and Gunsmoke, let me know.


You forgot about MASH and Andy!


----------



## MadScientist (Dec 1, 2004)

heisman said:


> Where's that crack smokin' smiley when you need it most? :lol:
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/Televisions/2001-6475_7-0.html?tag=promo.tv
> 
> (I own both btw, and plasma just blows away CRT.)


Oh, so C/net is your source, and I guess you believe Consumers Reports also.

Ask the big review magazines and you will see and then know which is the best in blacks and picture and thats the SXRD RP's.


----------



## johnsbin (Nov 14, 2002)

I'm very happy with the HD I do get on my ViP622 and project onto my 90" screen. Yes, I want all new content to be made in HD and then downrez it for the non-HD crowd if needed.

But, if they made everything HD, I have no idea how I would ever get off my recliner and get any work done! The gradual increase in HD content is agonizing to wait on but at least it gives me time to figure out when to watch it!

Come on external hard drives!


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

It's all about perspective.

Sure if a person invests the money into a HD display and HD receiver, yet the bulk of the programming/channels they watch still isnt done in HD, it doesnt do them much good.

But what if it so happens that most all the type programming a person does watch is whats done in HD these days? Then life is grand.

Then theres the folks that bought in 7 or 8 years ago already when about all there was in HD was HBO/SHO and the PBS demo loop. If they added a new segment to the demo loop or someone like CBS actually did an NFL game in HD it was big news and guys were pissin themselves over it.

Suffice it to say those cats think life is pretty good these days too comparatively.


----------



## nimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

You missed the point. This has nothing to do with buying HD TVs and everything to do with pushing the broadcasters (cable and satellite providers) to deliver more in HD. We have to keep the heat on them and let them know that we demand more ... and that they are not doing it fast enough.



tomcrown1 said:


> Odd If people followed the logic of this poster we would not have Color TV.
> 
> It took sometime before their was a good selection in Color. The broadcaster did not want to invest into equipment to produce color, untill they knew their was an audience that can get color. luckly Americans bought color tv even though in the begining very few shows were in color.


----------



## dclaryjr (Mar 11, 2007)

You wont hear any complaint from me at the moment because I just switched from Time-Warner to E* specifically for the added HD content. I'm quite happy with what I have--at least for now. I'm not a real big movie watcher so having all those HBO SD's is not a big deal to me.

I'm terribly unhappy that I don't get CBS and Fox in HD but that's a local situation.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> If you have HD, you're not very happy, are you?


Well, obviously, you' are not, but I'm ok -- at least for the present. My cableco
has added 6 new HD channels since the first of the year for a total of 23 HD
channels with more to come.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Don't forget to take a look on Super Hi-Vision project.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Nick said:


> Well, obviously, you' are not, but I'm ok -- at least for the present. My cableco
> has added 6 new HD channels since the first of the year for a total of 23 HD
> channels with more to come.


What is your zip code Nick? I wanted to check out which 23 HD channels Comcast is offering down there to put a little heat on my local Comcast franchise. Thanks.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

nimmer said:


> If wide-screen/HD-compatible LCD and plasma TVs have been the hottest consumer electronic purchases for the past year or so, why are there so few HD channels actually delivered to the marketplace? As consumers, we have all bought into the HD hype way, way before it's time.
> 
> No one with an HD-capable TV in their home can be happy about how much money we've spent to see so few choices in HD ... and the fact that we've paid a ton of dough to actually have our SD channels look worse than on our old CRT sets.
> 
> ...


Wrong, virtually everything I watch is in HD except for some sports on Dish Network. I have my DVRs set up to record about 12 network (ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX) shows a week in HD. I own four HD DVRs. Two Dish 622s and two Sony
HDD 500s. I watch HBO on sunday nights in HD. I watch PBS Nature on sunday nights at 8:00PM in HD. I watch every Eagles NFL game in HD except one that
was on CBS, so I listened on the radio and did chores and errands. I watch all
Phillies home games OTA in HD on the CW. I watch the NBA, MLB baseball and college basketball on TNT, ESPN, ESPN2, INHD, FOX, ABC and CBS in HD. I watch
the Yankees, Mets and Nets on YES and SNY in HD. Tomorrow, I am dumping
Dish and getting Verizon Fios installed, so I will get the Phillies, Flyers and
Sixers in HD on Comcast Sportsnet. I watch all the local news broadcasts that are in HD. ABC and Fox out of Philly or NBC out of NY. And starting Monday, NBC national news in HD. Plenty of HD for me.


----------



## Deke Rivers (Jan 8, 2007)

nimmer said:


> If wide-screen/HD-compatible LCD and plasma TVs have been the hottest consumer electronic purchases for the past year or so, why are there so few HD channels actually delivered to the marketplace? As consumers, we have all bought into the HD hype way, way before it's time.
> 
> No one with an HD-capable TV in their home can be happy about how much money we've spent to see so few choices in HD ... and the fact that we've paid a ton of dough to actually have our SD channels look worse than on our old CRT sets.
> 
> ...


not at all!
even before I got HD there were really only 20 or so SD channels I watched regularly anyway..having an extra 20 (plus locals) or so in fabulous HD is a plus! 
add my upconverting dvd player to the mix and Im a very happy camper with no buyer remorse whatsoever

I think Dish is doing a great job with thier hd programming and signal..i have had zero problems ..the 622 rocks too


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

I am very happy with HD. Most of the HD content I watch is locals. CSI, Las Vegas, Law and Order, Heroes, all in HD all very nice resolution.

Sporting events in HD just look so much better.

Then with Dish, I watch a good amount of Starz-HD, Sho-HD, and HBO-HD. My wife likes Food and A&E-HD. There's a lot more content available than there was years ago when I was in the early adopter crowd. 

The downfall is that SD becomes almost unbearable and that most people end up being unhappy cause they want more now, not next year.... 

I am also extremely satisfied with my 622. 

Again, I am very happy with HDTV... YMMV


----------



## wstander (Feb 20, 2007)

Okay, I will 'bite':

What does the OP want me to do? I already 'fired' DirecTV for lack of programming and service, and shifted to Dish.

The picture on my Mitsu 65" DLP is BETTER THAN ANYTHING I HAVE SEEN. It is even better than my Mitsu 52" DLP that is only 2 years older. That, in turn , is so much better than the 46" RP CRT it replaced.

Do I want more? Yes! Am I willing to pay substantially more per month to gain a few more channels that I do not watch? No; I don't even care for all of the content available on the AT250+HD channels that I get now.

But, back to the OPs subject, yes, I am happy with my HDTVs


----------



## RickDee (May 23, 2006)

nimmer said:


> If wide-screen/HD-compatible LCD and plasma TVs have been the hottest consumer electronic purchases for the past year or so, why are there so few HD channels actually delivered to the marketplace? As consumers, we have all bought into the HD hype way, way before it's time.
> 
> No one with an HD-capable TV in their home can be happy about how much money we've spent to see so few choices in HD ... and the fact that we've paid a ton of dough to actually have our SD channels look worse than on our old CRT sets.
> 
> ...


You have the U.S. Congress to thank for the current state of HDTV. The terrestrial stations still have almost 2 years before mandatory compliance. Write your Congressman and complain to him/her.


----------



## cosmo_kramer (Mar 20, 2007)

I equate the topic with questions about salary.

As for mine, I'm happy with it, but would I like more?? Of course..... :money:


----------



## thefunks67 (Feb 4, 2007)

Jim5506 said:


> WRONG!!
> 
> I'm eminently satisfied with my new rear projection CRT TV.
> 
> ...


Another F59 owner! I am loving my 65" Hitachi and HD looks damn good on it and I didn't have to lay out a ton of cash to jump on the HD bandwagon.

-Funk


----------



## johnsbin (Nov 14, 2002)

RickDee said:


> You have the U.S. Congress to thank for the current state of HDTV. The terrestrial stations still have almost 2 years before mandatory compliance. Write your Congressman and complain to him/her.


Congress can be blamed for a lot and its always been that way but profit margin is to blame for lack of HD, not the mandate.

The mandate has NOTHING to do with HDTV, just digital broadcasting over a different set of frequencies. The mandate does nothing to require HD at all.


----------



## pcstuff (Jan 22, 2007)

RickDee said:


> You have the U.S. Congress to thank for the current state of HDTV. The terrestrial stations still have almost 2 years before mandatory compliance. Write your Congressman and complain to him/her.


:joy: :joy: :joy: :joy:

I totally agree. Dish for now has pretty much all the HD channels that are available. It is not the satellite/cable companies fault that the stations do not provide more HD content. Said stations will wait until the last minute to make the switch to squeeze as much money as they can out of their soon to be outdated equipment. And I don't blame them.

In addition, how much TV do you really watch? The 2-3 hours I watch every day are almost 90% HD content...


----------



## projectorguru (Mar 5, 2007)

agreed, I have a 42" LCD Westinghouse and love the dish package in HD, well worth the money, also am getting(as we speak) a sanyo PLZ5 projector at a screen size of 100" for 1200 bucks and is also LCD, wonderful


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

nimmer said:


> You missed the point. This has nothing to do with buying HD TVs and everything to do with pushing the broadcasters (cable and satellite providers) to deliver more in HD. We have to keep the heat on them and let them know that we demand more ... and that they are not doing it fast enough.


We need to be letting the different networks know that we want more programs filmed in HD. Like all of the the Discovery channels (Dirty Jobs would be great in HD), Animal Planet, History channels, etc.

Cable/sat can't provide more HD if the networks aren't producing HD content in their programming. I've sent e-mails to all of the networks that we watch requesting more HD programming.


----------



## debpasc (Oct 20, 2005)

Count me in with the happy people. Love the quality of HD on my Samsung DLP and love the ease and trustworthiness of my 622 DVR. As said elsewhere, at least 90% of my routine viewing is in HD -- locals, Showtime, HBO. I will be even happier when FOOD Network and HGTV HD catch up and start showing new broadcasts, and other HD is added -- but right now, I am happy with the current status of HD in my life.


----------



## norton54 (Feb 2, 2006)

I agree with nimmer. The HD offerings are what has kept me from upgrading from a 36" crt to a fancy lcd widescreen. I can't get locals, voom is a total joke. Half the damn ballgames on ESPN aren't even true HD. We have a long way to go to make me happy.


----------



## Amon37 (Mar 5, 2007)

dbconsultant said:


> Like all of the the Discovery channels (Dirty Jobs would be great in HD),
> .


The funny thing about that is if you watch Dirty jobs they always comment about using the expensive HD camera's in shots where they could potentially be damaged. So we know they are using HD cameras.


----------



## Cocoatreat (May 16, 2006)

nimmer,
i understand what you are saying. i guess thats y it took me so long to finally get an hdtv. i was waiting for the programming and the sets to come down in price. so many people just assume that they have hd just because they bought an hd set (not knowing that you must buy a service and the content must be available). i think that the channels have been just slow to change. i think they will wait till the last available moment that they can. but in all honesty, u gotta do your homework! i knew what i was getting before i bought it, so therefore i wasnt disappointed.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

Amon37 said:


> The funny thing about that is if you watch Dirty jobs they always comment about using the expensive HD camera's in shots where they could potentially be damaged. So we know they are using HD cameras.


Yeah, I heard the same thing in one of the episodes and immediately did a search thinking that since it's being filmed with hd cameras, there would be an hd version on Discovery HD. Wahhh, no such luck! Too bad, since it would be really cool to see such gross stuff in HD!!!:lol:


----------



## Todd H (Aug 18, 2006)

I have a 50" Sony A2000 SXRD. Between HD on Dish, OTA HD, and Blu-ray, I'm pretty happy. Could there be more programming? Sure. But I have enough now to keep me busy.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

I'm not sure you would want to see some of "Dirty Jobs" in HD, to tell the truth


----------



## Car1181 (Mar 30, 2006)

nimmer said:


> So, if you have HD, while you love the little you get to actually watch on your beautiful investments, you're highly disappointed and dismayed about the limited offerings in the marketplace, aren't you?


Not only am I not "highly disappointed and dismayed", I'm very happy with the HD I get. All the network shows I watch are in HD except Survivor and The Amazing Race. My Mets are in HD. Rome, Sopranos and anything else on HBO are in HD. The local news from ABC and NBC are in HD. My point is it all depends on what you are looking for. They could put TNT, FX, SciFI, etc in HD and it's not going to get me to watch it. Obviously some, maybe most for all I know, would like more in HD because they watch more but your quote above is way off for me and I would guess a lot of others.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Dirty Jobs in HD?!?!? Widescreen VomitVision!!! LOL!


----------



## TomH (Jun 11, 2005)

harsh said:


> You're talking to someone who watched black and white TV until the late sixties. HD is a good chunk of the future, but there are a whole lot of viewers out there that don't have it and don't want to be told that they need to upgrade or be in the margins.


Since color TV didn't come along until the mid-sixies you didn't really watch black and whit all that long. I watched black and white until the early eighties so I know something about lagging behind in technology. Sometime you just stick with what you have until you have a reason to change.

I think the final push to get rid of analog TV will help a lot. It'll force those people who never really had a reason to get a new TV to go out and look at what's new. A large percentage will buy into HD and we'll get a critical mass that will start forcing more HD content. I was a farely early adopter of DVD and disks were hard to come by. At some point enough people had players to the point where everything was finally released in DVD. Same thing with CDs, PCs and cell phones. The technology started slow but finally everyone has them. Getting rid of analog will be the catlyst to push digital and HD along.


----------



## MadScientist (Dec 1, 2004)

Color TV came out at the New York World Fair in 1939. My family had a color TV in the house since 1959 an RCA TV with test tubes. Was there an programs in Color I think only one at that time. So color tv as been around a very long time.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2007)

heisman said:


> What is your zip code Nick? I wanted to check out which 23 HD channels Comcast is offering down there to put a little heat on my local Comcast franchise. Thanks.


I asked Nick yesterday if he could list the 23 channels he is getting in HD (his zip code would be nice, too, so we could look it up ourselves), but he hasn't replied.

He claims not to exaggerate, but he makes an apples-to-oranges comparison of how many total HD channels his cable system has compared to how many national channels DirecTV has:

Nick:
"Actually, my cableco has just added 9 new HD channels for a current total of 23,
including all six network affiliates in HD, and more HDs coming.

And just how many HD channels does D* have all together? What's that you say?
DirecTV has only 9 HD channels total? That is really, really sad -- especially in
view of the fact that they are supposed to be the world's oldest, biggest and best
DBS provider. Someone has really been asleep at the wheel."

He also claimed that when he left Dish in 2005, there were 28 more premium channels on his cable system than what Dish offered. Well, I left Dish in 2003 and there were approximately 40 premium channels at that time. Maybe there are more premiums out there than I'm aware of, but I'd like to know what they are.

So can you fill in the blanks for us or not, Nick?


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

thefunks67 said:


> Another F59 owner! I am loving my 65" Hitachi and HD looks damn good on it and I didn't have to lay out a ton of cash to jump on the HD bandwagon.
> 
> -Funk


And the SD is pretty good, too!


----------



## TomH (Jun 11, 2005)

nimmer said:


> You missed the point. This has nothing to do with buying HD TVs and everything to do with pushing the broadcasters (cable and satellite providers) to deliver more in HD. We have to keep the heat on them and let them know that we demand more ... and that they are not doing it fast enough.


I think YOU missed the point. The broadcasters don't want to invest in the cost of HD until they know there is a demand for it. Just like they didn't want to invest in color until there was a demand for it. Until enough HD sets have been purchased to make them feel there's a critical mass they won't feel compelled to push HD.

You're correct though, the broadcasters have to be made to understand there IS a demand for it NOW.


----------



## Will Munshower (Mar 4, 2007)

You should have been watching HD as I was back in 1999. I had a first generation HD ATSC receiver, the RCA DTC-100. At the time, there were a total of 2 stations broadcasting DTV (part time!) and only three or four shows a week were broadcast in HD. When the third DTV station went online, all they were showing was a 12 minute demo loop of shots of downtown Orlando shot on an HD camera. My wife and I used to watch that over and over in total amazement. 

So, as one of the original early adopters of HD programming reception, I am here to say that I am completely happy with the Dish offering and what I am able to pick up OTA. You obviously weren't watching back in the 'old days'. 

Just my .02...Will


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

TomH said:


> Since color TV didn't come along until the mid-sixies you didn't really watch black and whit all that long.


The FCC approved the NTSC color television petition in 1953; just in time for the Tournament of Roses pararade.


----------



## lpmiller (Mar 8, 2007)

the fact is, dish is carrying the majority of HD channels that even exist. We are still on the starting end of HD programming. In a few years, this will be all irrelevant, but it takes time. I waited this long to get HD for that very reason, and I'm pretty happy. And for the most part, I can even tolerate SD programming.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

lpmiller said:


> the fact is, dish is carrying the majority of HD channels that even exist.


If you look closely, Dish doesn't carry much more than half of the available HD channels. Channels like MTV, Golf/Versus, Playboy, Spice, TMC.

Dish has as many as anyone, but cable is catching up.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

harsh said:


> If you look closely, Dish doesn't carry much more than half of the available HD channels. Channels like MTV, Golf/Versus, Playboy, Spice, TMC.
> 
> Dish has as many as anyone, but cable is catching up.


Depends upon where you are... Around here, Time Warner does have MTVHD but has only a handful of other HD aside from locals... and since I get OTA very nicely, Dish blows Time Warner away in my area.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Yes, I want more HD anyone that has an HD setup does. I started out w/ HD around 7 yrs ago. I didn't own 1 then but put in 1 of the 1st in Seattle for a company that I worked for. It was the DTC-100 that was mentioned above by Will Munshower. I was hooked. I bought my 1st HD set about 4 1/2 yrs ago and still am using it. It's a 32" 4X3 Panny monitor. I got it when a chain of stores in the Seattle was closing down some of their branches. So the deal was better than most at the time. I want all programming in HD but understand why it is not. It is expensive to upgrade a studio w/ all HD equipment. This is the real reason that most nets are slow to go to HD. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to convert from SD to HD. I would expect that by this time in 5 yrs most all national nets will be HD but right now they are staying SD. As the amount of ppl that have HD increases to say a 15 or 20 point any net that isn't HD will be looking at going down the tubes if they don't. Also the standards for HD are still pretty new. In fact in the broadcast industry some are just now stabilizing. I work for a TV station that broadcast the CBS network. We can't afford to go HD for the studio yet but as we change our equipment we are getting what will accept standards that should be flexible for the future. We may speed a a grand or 2 but that is nothing in comparison to what it cost the be an HD net. For an example 1 HD camera to shoot say news footage cost anywhere from $5 k up. Then you have to have an editing setup that can cost say another $5 k before long it runs into real money. So we have to be patient and it will pay off. I expect that both D* & E* are pushing providers to give them an HD feed. Not to mention that the big cable co's are starting to push to get more HD from the nets as well. So enuff I'll get off the soap box now.


----------



## wje (Mar 8, 2006)

harsh said:


> CRT direct view is among the best for content that was shot on video, but there are reasons that only one or two manufacturers still make CRT projection (or projector) televisions.
> 
> Among the drawbacks of CRT versus the competition:.....


Don't forget the disadvantage that a big CRT weighs a ton. I remember all too well when I got my glass monster. So does my back.

It's retired now, in favor of an LCD.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HDMe said:


> Depends upon where you are...  Around here, Time Warner does have MTVHD but has only a handful of other HD aside from locals... and since I get OTA very nicely, Dish blows Time Warner away in my area.


At the vacation home locale, I have the distinct underprivilege of having Charter. HD is something that they don't talk about there.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

whatchel1 said:


> It is expensive to upgrade a studio w/ all HD equipment.


I don't think it costs as much as many insist. I've visited a couple of cable access centers that are HD capable and the first station to go full-time HD in my market was the PBS station (KOPB). About a month ago, our CBS station (KOIN) finally went to widescreen in the news studio, but I'll bet they're using the same equipment that they've been using all along.

When 2MP prosumer gear can be had for under $1,300, I think it is hard to defend staying with SD gear. Yeah, it takes more storage and maybe a $2,500 here and there for computer cards and the like but I'm betting that all of this gear is on a lease plan anymore.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wje said:


> Don't forget the disadvantage that a big CRT weighs a ton. I remember all too well when I got my glass monster. So does my back.


The CRT RPTVs are considerably lighter than the direct view models, pound per diagonal inch. Yes, they're heavier, but if you don't cart them around alot, it doesn't really matter.

My 27" Sony SDTV weighs 134 pounds and my Dish HD34 weighs quite a bit more, but I only move TVs as they are replaced.


----------



## brownclown (Feb 28, 2007)

nimmer said:


> I really think people are settling and don't understand the point I am trying to make.
> 
> YES, I have HD in my house and I too am blown away at just how amazing high definition looks compared to SD. The fact is, though, the amount of channels broadcast in HD is pretty pathetic. I agree that E* has the most offerings in the marketplace, but in reality, only @ 10% of the channels are in HD. You mean to tell me that we should be happy with 10%? Additionally, HD locals are still not available to many people over their E* receivers.
> 
> ...


I personally don't care about quantity right now, I care about quality. What is the point of having 30+ hd channels with nothing worth watching? Content should be what we all want. Everything we have now is a bonus, lets see what 2009 holds as far as the digital switch.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

brownclown said:


> Everything we have now is a bonus, lets see what 2009 holds as far as the digital switch.


2009 will bring fewer stations and more subchannels (reduced bandwidth). I've already got a station with five subchannels.

Digital sux!


----------



## brownclown (Feb 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> 2009 will bring fewer stations and more subchannels (reduced bandwidth). I've already got a station with five subchannels.
> 
> Digital sux!


 don't you think that bandwith will go up in 2009? Switched video for major cable companies, more birds for dbs. The lack of bandwith is due to people like us demanding the future now!!!! :lol:

Thank god here in the heart of buckeye nation our networks have 1 sub channel only, except during the ncaa's, cbs has 3.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> 2009 will bring fewer stations and more subchannels (reduced bandwidth). I've already got a station with five subchannels.


I don't see that prediction as coming true.

We will lose the analog mirrors ... situations where one has an analog SD broadcast and a digital SD or HD broadcast of the same content ... but we should end up with the same channels in February 2009 that we have now. Low Power stations will either start companion digital channels or flash cut over to digital by the deadline. Full power stations should already be there with at least a SD mirror of their analog feed.

In 2009 when all the analog stations go away the spectrum will be cleared up for new digital services. The FCC is taking away the high end channels for more two way communications, but overall there will be more channels open for digital TV than there were for analog TV. Which means more stations.

Subchannels are another issue ... some stations are taking that route, others are shooting for the best HD they can do. Some are trying to do both. Some stations will vary their schedules, showing HD when they have it and multicast when that is more appropriate. This is another case of more choices ...

I suspect that we won't see five subchannels on commercial stations --- non-profits will do it to get more of their message out (especially if they have no HD plans) but most commercial stations will shoot for HD ... which makes multiple subchannels a poor choice.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2007)

James Long said:


> I suspect that we won't see five subchannels on commercial stations --- non-profits will do it to get more of their message out (especially if they have no HD plans) but most commercial stations will shoot for HD ... which makes multiple subchannels a poor choice.


Time will tell, but I think you're right. Those subchannels might make sense right now, when only a small percentage of viewers have HD. But HD is starting to take off now, and as more people get HD, those stations will find that viewers with HD will simply refuse to watch the HD channels anymore.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> In 2009 when all the analog stations go away the spectrum will be cleared up for new digital services. The FCC is taking away the high end channels for more two way communications, but overall there will be more channels open for digital TV than there were for analog TV. Which means more stations.


This part confused me... How will there be more digital station capability OTA? It looks to me like all the frequency assignments are the same for the channels that will remain available for OTA usage. 6MHz or so per channel I believe (though the numbers are not in front of me).

So I don't see how there is any more potential for new stations after 2009 than there are now. If the FCC would grant a permit for another OTA station, and a channel/frequency assignment is available... it would be available now.

Only difference right now is some stations doing an analog channel and a digital channel... true the analog frequency would be freed for a new channel after 2009... but who will use that?

IF the current locals wanted to keep that frequency and do another channel they could/would already be asking the FCC to keep it I would think and convert that to digital after 2009... If it is dependend on new local stations going into business, I don't see that happening as it is very hard to start a new channel these days, especially when most markets already have the big networks OTA. The little guys wouldn't have much to draw an audience from to start a new digital OTA independent channel that doesn't already exist today.

Basically, I'm just seeing status quo after 2009. No more analog, but no more digital than I have today in my market since all stations are already digital, and most already HD (not Ion or Shopping channel but all the others).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> So I don't see how there is any more potential for new stations after 2009 than there are now. If the FCC would grant a permit for another OTA station, and a channel/frequency assignment is available... it would be available now.


At the moment the FCC is dealing with existing stations ... full power have been delt with and now they are working on low power stations. Eventually they will open windows for new stations.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Depends upon where you are... Around here, Time Warner does have MTVHD but has only a handful of other HD aside from locals... and since I get OTA very nicely, Dish blows Time Warner away in my area.


Where I live Dish is missing INHD, Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia HD, YES HD,
Versus/Golf HD, SNY HD, MSG HD, FSNY HD, Wealth HD, MTV HD, TMC HD, MAX HD,
PBS HD, MY HD, CW HD and NBATV HD. All of these channels are available on
Verizon or Comcast. Subs have to decide which HD channels you actually watch.
I rarely watch Voom and have not watched A&E HD since added by Dish.


----------



## dclaryjr (Mar 11, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> Time will tell, but I think you're right. Those subchannels might make sense right now, when only a small percentage of viewers have HD. But HD is starting to take off now, and as more people get HD, those stations will find that viewers with HD will simply refuse to watch the HD channels anymore.


I'm real curious to see how this plays out. There are a couple guys in a hdtv Usenet group that swear OTA HD will be a thing of the past because broadcasters will use the multiple subchannels of SD.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

harsh said:


> I don't think it costs as much as many insist. I've visited a couple of cable access centers that are HD capable and the first station to go full-time HD in my market was the PBS station (KOPB). About a month ago, our CBS station (KOIN) finally went to widescreen in the news studio, but I'll bet they're using the same equipment that they've been using all along.
> 
> When 2MP prosumer gear can be had for under $1,300, I think it is hard to defend staying with SD gear. Yeah, it takes more storage and maybe a $2,500 here and there for computer cards and the like but I'm betting that all of this gear is on a lease plan anymore.


I gave you a close to an exact price on the new camera's we are looking at getting for the station where I work. And you pull out the prosumer price to say I don't know what I'm talking about. That is apples & oranges. One doesn't send a photog out into the field in the middle of bad weather and no telling what w/something that is made for the general public and expect it to work for long. Did KOIN go widescreen or HD. You know that is 2 diff things. I'm pretty sure they went HD in a market that size. Which means they bought new equipment starting w/ camera's, and switchers that pass HD signals. The SD switchers won't pass HD. It is too wide of a bandwidth because they are designed to pass composite video & audio. We just priced hard drives for a new server that we are using. They use 73 GB drives in the RAID array. We were told that it will cost us $750 for 2 of the drives. I kid you not for that kind of money I could have a couple of tera-bytes at home. Why does it cost that much cuz you can't get them from any place other than Dell commercial products. Broadcast pq just isn't as cheap as prosumer stuff. Reason it has to sync up w/ other equipment so that when goes for one source to another it doesn't roll or lock up the programming you are watching. I'm sure you would just love to see black for 10 sec between each switch or picture roll or a green bar roll across the screen. All 3 of which I have seen when the equipment doesn't sync correctly.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

dclaryjr said:


> I'm real curious to see how this plays out. There are a couple guys in a hdtv Usenet group that swear OTA HD will be a thing of the past because broadcasters will use the multiple subchannels of SD.


Actually there are some new encoders that have better pq than in the past. They will allow 1 HD & 4 SD on the same OTA ch. So it will be possible to have 1 HQ HD and 4 SD channels. I would like to see them come up w/ the ability to do 2 HD's but so far no luck on that one. I just hope that I decoders will be able to keep up w/ the advances.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> _"If you have HD, you're not very happy, are you?"_


On the contrary, I have HD and I am now watching and recording three hours of the greatest high-
definition programming my eyes have ever witnessed -- _Planet Earth_ on Discovery HD Theater.

Yes, I am _very_ happy.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> Actually there are some new encoders that have better pq than in the past. They will allow 1 HD & 4 SD on the same OTA ch. So it will be possible to have 1 HQ HD and 4 SD channels. I would like to see them come up w/ the ability to do 2 HD's but so far no luck on that one. I just hope that I decoders will be able to keep up w/ the advances.


Are those still MPEG2 encoders? IF so, that would be cool for OTA.

I know OTA could do better with the newer MPEG4 encoders, possibly squeeze 2 HDs OTA in one channel's bandwidth... but then most folks would be SOL in terms of their HDTVs with built-in tuners.

Shame it isn't easier to upgrade decoders for consumers... as it would be nice if OTA could go to MPEG4 in the future without creating a mess of incompatibility.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Are those still MPEG2 encoders? IF so, that would be cool for OTA.
> 
> I know OTA could do better with the newer MPEG4 encoders, possibly squeeze 2 HDs OTA in one channel's bandwidth... but then most folks would be SOL in terms of their HDTVs with built-in tuners.
> 
> Shame it isn't easier to upgrade decoders for consumers... as it would be nice if OTA could go to MPEG4 in the future without creating a mess of incompatibility.


According to the info we have at the station they are MPEG 4 compatible. Which as we know means MPEG 4 is being considered by some but not approved by ATSC.


----------



## Mustang Dave (Oct 13, 2006)

nimmer said:


> ....So, if you have HD, while you love the little you get to actually watch on your beautiful investments, you're highly disappointed and dismayed about the limited offerings in the marketplace, aren't you?


I have a sort of a reverse view. There is too much SD that is still being broadcast.

It's pretty frustrating that I have to watch many things I like in SD still.

I want ALL of my movie channels in HD not just like 5 out of the 100 I am paying for.

I want ALL of my sports in HD. RSN's, SpeedChannel, Every NFL, MLB, NHL game.

I want ALL of my news broadcasts in HD. CNN, CNN/HN, Weather Channel, Locals etc.

I want ALL of my Discovery channels in HD. Not just one.

That's just to name a few.


----------



## cdub998 (Aug 16, 2006)

I have more HD than I can handle right now. I am more than happy with my Sony 46e2000. With all of the HD on Dish and OTA I have my fill. Then with all of the movies and trailers on the 360 as well as the HD DVD's I'd say I have about all I can watch for now.


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> WRONG!!
> 
> I didn't fall for the digital hype of fixed pixel purgatory.


Umm. Well OK, then.



> CRT is the BEST picture bar none.


If you say so.

BUT, I couldn't disagree with you more. I've had both. I'll never tolerate a RP CRT display again. The deep black issue used to be CRT's only strong point. Not any more. And CRT's negatives far outweigh any negatives for a good plasma. And I think you'll find far more people agree with me than with your opinion.

Nuff said.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

All types of displays have their on advantages. The CRT still has better blacks & smoother fast movement display than all LCD's. Plasma's have better refresh rates. LCD's have a better contrast ratio. The thing is we all have a better picture than we have ever seen before.


----------



## thefunks67 (Feb 4, 2007)

whatchel1 said:


> All types of displays have their on advantages. The CRT still has better blacks & smoother fast movement display than all LCD's. Plasma's have better refresh rates. LCD's have a better contrast ratio. The thing is we all have a better picture than we have ever seen before.


You left out us old school CRT RPTV users. 

-Funk


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I haven't seen the numbers lately... but I don't know if 10% of the consumers in the US have HDTVs... so if only 10% of the programming is HD, that would be about right wouldn't it?


Currently 30 to 35% of US households have a HDTV.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

nimmer said:


> If wide-screen/HD-compatible LCD and plasma TVs have been the hottest consumer electronic purchases for the past year or so, why are there so few HD channels actually delivered to the marketplace?


I'm not sure why, but it looks like you have got a bad reception for a very valid argument.

30 to 35% of the US households have HDTV now. In therms of disposable income they probably represent much more than 30%. So why don't we have all the popular channels in HD now ? Not one news channel in in HD, for example.

I guess the reason might be that the expansion in HDTVs took channels by surprise and they were not prepared for it. They are going to follow the crowd - probably in '08 we will see a lot of new HD channels. Otherwise someone will beat them to it and they become the AOL of the HD age.


----------



## thefunks67 (Feb 4, 2007)

At $.67 a day I have no complaints with the HD package from E*.

My day job pays me $.39 a minute and my night job pays $.16 a minute.

Two minutes a day @ my day job more than covers my $20 a month HD expense with E*. 

Watching two hours of HD content in a 30 day period @ $.16 a minute would equal the $20 monthly fee.

Hell of a bargain if you ask me.

-Funk.


----------



## johnsbin (Nov 14, 2002)

nataraj said:


> I'm not sure why, but it looks like you have got a bad reception for a very valid argument.
> 
> 30 to 35% of the US households have HDTV now. In therms of disposable income they probably represent much more than 30%. So why don't we have all the popular channels in HD now ? Not one news channel in in HD, for example.


One very revealing note to this stat - >70% of those with an HDTV are not watching ANY HD content on it and DON'T EVEN KNOW IT!!!

Ignorance is allowing broadcasters to take their time but is now starting to bite the HDTV manufacturers. Look at how many people who know "something" think that the 2009 mandatory switch to digital broadcasting means mandatory switch to HD.


----------



## JMikeF (May 2, 2003)

I'm not happy with Dish's version of HD - known as HD-LITE. Even Discovery HD suffers from downrezzing. I spent major coin for a projector that is native 1080p, and believe me, on an 8' wide screen, HD-LITE lacks the punch I see with OTA channels, or HD-DVD.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

johnsbin said:


> One very revealing note to this stat - >70% of those with an HDTV are not watching ANY HD content on it and DON'T EVEN KNOW IT!!!


I've seen figures of upto 50%, never 70%.

In anycase, the reason most site as to why they are not getting HD programming is lack of availability. Yes, there are many who don't know they don't get HD programming but the % I've seen of them are in single digit.


----------

