# HDTV whats so great about it



## esteg (Aug 27, 2003)

Maybe a little attention to some good progaming would be better then a slightly more detailed picture.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

esteg said:


> Maybe a little attention to some good progaming would be better then a slightly more detailed picture.


:welcome_s to DBSTalk, esteg.

From what I've been told, the new Digital Broadcasting standard includes several modes including a 1080i mode for extra sharp pictures. Your computer monitor is more likely sharper than your TV.

The problem is that there isn't enough programming out there yet. For DBS providers, this is tough because while they can put ~10 channels on a single transponder, the bandwidth requirements leave them with just 2-3 HD channels.

I got home from Costco today, and the lowest priced 16:9 TV was still $900, plus you still have to get a tuner. I can see getting that TV for those Anamorphic DVDs that I have, but not for HDTV yet... at least not until a DVR comes out that records both OTA and satellite material.


----------



## pez2002 (Dec 13, 2002)

it will get better AND HDTV Prices will come down


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Eventually all tv's will be digital in which is a lot clearer than the analog you are seeing now. Some people get HD confused with digital.


----------



## fslove (Sep 14, 2003)

esteg said:


> Maybe a little attention to some good progaming would be better then a slightly more detailed picture.


*"slightly more detailed picture"!* You have GOT to be kidding! Have you ever seen an HD picture? HD is so much more detailed and clear then SD that you would have to be blind to think otherwise! I am able to watch almost all the prime time shows on CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX will be doing their prime time in 2004. Then you have Monday Night Football, Sunday Night Football, CBS NFL game of the week in HD, multiple college games in HD each saturday, every major sporting playoff event in HD. You also have HBO, Showtime, Discovery, HDNet. HDNet Movies, ESPN-HD and a whole slew of HD channels coming online in the next few months!

I guess if you don;t like sports, films, nature shows, documantaries etc.. then there is no real HD out there for you. For the other 99% there is a whole bunch out there for us!


----------



## toad57 (Apr 23, 2002)

In a comparison similar to the huge move years ago from 'silent' films to 'talkies' (in which some silent stars had voices that were a real mismatch with their audience' perception of what they should sound like), I once heard a discussion that the move from SD to HD might take a similar toll on some TV personalities, especially newscasters, who are often in close shots.

Why? With HD, you'll be able to see their faces in much greater detail and perhaps that handsome news anchor or cute perky talk show host won't look quite as good 'close up' (_gee, Tom has a tiny scar shaped like Texas just below his nose!_).

Dunno if any of that will come to pass, but I'm sure some TV types will complain/worry/fight the HD revolution/evolution.

P.S. My avatar is currently that of 'Stan and Ollie', my all-time favorite comedy team. Their transition from silents to sound was pretty smooth since they each sounded like people expected them to sound.


----------



## esteg (Aug 27, 2003)

Seen HDTV a little more detail still doesn't improve content of programing nor the cost of equipment,plus the fact the Feds are forcing the changes too fast.


----------



## marko (Jan 9, 2003)

toad57 said:


> Why? With HD, you'll be able to see their faces in much greater detail and perhaps that handsome news anchor or cute perky talk show host won't look quite as good 'close up' (_gee, Tom has a tiny scar shaped like Texas just below his nose!_).
> 
> Dunno if any of that will come to pass, but I'm sure some TV types will complain/worry/fight the HD revolution/evolution.


Yeah, wral in raleigh broadcasts their locals news in hdtv. I think the do a good enough job with makeup that you can't tell too much of a difference with hdtv/sd. Obviously some people it will matter with, but with wral, the closeups are not too bad.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

esteg said:


> Seen HDTV a little more detail still doesn't improve content of programing nor the cost of equipment,plus the fact the Feds are forcing the changes too fast.


 The feds are not forcing a change to HDTV, all that's mandated is that they go to the ATSC standard, which still allows for 4:3 480i transmission.

As for having to buy new equipment, I say so what. Broadcasters have been GIVEN FOR FREE the spectrum to run their business. So if you want to continue to make money using public resources for free put some money back into infrastructure so that the public can get to a better picture.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

I think you meant "GIVEN FOR FREE" there. 

It's a chicken-and-egg scenario. You can't have HDTV content without the hardware to receive it, and vice versa. Wasn't the TV manufacturers mandated to put those tuners in by a certain manufacture date?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Mark Holtz said:


> I think you meant "GIVEN FOR FREE" there.
> 
> It's a chicken-and-egg scenario. You can't have HDTV content without the hardware to receive it, and vice versa. Wasn't the TV manufacturers mandated to put those tuners in by a certain manufacture date?


The R has been added, thanks.

I think that 35" or greater sets are supposed to include tuners sometime next year, with smaller sets being phased in over the following years. I think I remember the set manufacuters raising a stink when the FCC said that they had to include UHF tuners in all sets, then again when they said they UHF tuner had to operate the same way as the VHF tuner.


----------



## Cyclone (Jul 1, 2002)

The programming in HDTV is often the same popular programming of SD, so I'm not sure what your idea of "Good Programming" is or how it differs from what is already out there. 

Considering most of Primetime besides News Shows (Dateline, 20/20, Primetime, 60 min II, 48hrs) and the new Reality Shows are all in HDTV. If you are a Masterpice Theater type of person, then PBS has much in HD. Major Sporting events now being shown in HD. I think that your claim that HDTV needs "good programming" falls short. You need to beef up that argument a bit more.

Also the feds are right on target for the digital transition. Most OTA stations are broadcasting digtially at this time. And contrary to misinformation, the requirement is for digital broadcasting and not HDTV. SD can and does get broadcasted on digital stations. The mandate that people have a problem with is that their analog OTA receivers will no longer be able to tune in TV. Digital STBs will fix that, or just go with Satellites or even cable which will all work with your old analog set.

Troll on!


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

esteg said:


> Seen HDTV a little more detail still doesn't improve content of programing nor the cost of equipment,plus the fact the Feds are forcing the changes too fast.


Too fast?

They've been Di-king around with this transition for 14 years now since they announced it back in 1989. DVDs replaced VHS in 5 years. I know the DVD issue is a lower price point, but come on. Color TV took 20 years to replace black and white totally. I would hope that HDTV does better than that.


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

It will probably be seven or eight years before I'll actually buy an HDTV. OTA is not an option for me, and probably will never be an option, even though I live in the largest DMA in the country. I'm not even in the "grade B" area of the O&O stations in NYC, yet I don't qualify for any distants. So I can see some truth to the argument that, "There isn't enough 'good programming' in HD," at least in my particular case, since I can't get any network HD feeds.

Maybe I'm way out in left field here, but I just can't justify spending $1000+ on a decent HD set and another $300 on a Directv HD box to get a handfull of HD channels. Until Directv gets at least HALF of their offerings in HD, I won't even think about spending obscene amounts of money on a better looking picture.


----------



## Jack White (Sep 17, 2002)

esteg said:


> Maybe a little attention to some good progaming would be better then a slightly more detailed picture.


It's NOT just a slightly more detailed picture.
NTSC VHS videotape has up to 153,600 pixels.
NTSC OTA broadcasts can have up to 211,200 pixels.
North American DVD has up to 345,600 pixels.
An HD picture on the other hand can have up to 2,073,600 pixels.
Saying that an HD picture is a slightly more detailed picture is like saying a Ferarri Enzo or a Bentley Azure is slightly more expensive than the average new car.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

When do you think we'll see SD 19" sets with digital tuners? I'm in the market for a new TV for my bedroom. It'd be pretty cool to get crystal clear digital OTA broadcasts.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

If the FCC gets their way - probably in 2-3 years. They put out a timetable that has ALL new TV reception devices doing ATSC by Dec 2007. 

The next piece of the puzzle is reasonably priced ATSC tuners for your old sets.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

scooper said:


> If the FCC gets their way - probably in 2-3 years. They put out a timetable that has ALL new TV reception devices doing ATSC by Dec 2007.
> 
> The next piece of the puzzle is reasonably priced ATSC tuners for your old sets.


 Are you suggesting that they will be able to do a hd tuner for regular analog tvs so we can see digital ota broadcasts? I read somewhere once that they were suppossed to be a hdtv converter box that would turn our analog tvs to hd tvs. I was just wondering if that was a possibility or all hype?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Just about any ATSC tuner you can buy today also has S-Video / Composite NTSC and analog audio outputs as well - the big problem is that they are still $400+. It most certainly is going to pass - the question is how fast it will come down in price ? Heck - I wouldn't mind taking advantage of that E* Model 6000 offer with the ATSC (8vsb) module on it - at least I would have digital TV in the house (even if I couldn't see it in all it's HDTV glory).

You can also get the situation where the local cable company / DBS providers are taking the digital ATSC from their local broadcasters, then convert it to either analog or digital cable / DBS signals that are receiveable for most of the population. That's probably how the 85% rule will get met.


----------



## Cyclone (Jul 1, 2002)

I have a 6000 that connects both via the S-Video and the HD RGB connection. You can watch the HD shows via the S-Video connection (or even the composite). I have the composite connected to my VCR. The HD shows look damn good even on a SD set.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Some SD TVs support progressive scan so if you hooked up an ATSC tuner that supports 480p output then you'll get a pretty darn good picture. Poor man's HD.


----------



## TerryC (Jul 18, 2002)

I love the old Honeymooners episodes that are black-and-white, mono sound and kinescope. I've never thought how much funnier they would be if I saw Jackie Gleason's pores. I must be missing something, but HD seems like it would only be a nice novelty for a while. I'm a gadget guy and I'll eventually take the plunge, but soon after I do, I'll soon realize that it's just TV. 

What am I missing here guys?


----------



## paulh (Mar 17, 2003)

Sports, movies and nature shows are probably most enhanced by the enhanced HDTV resolution. 
I think, though that HDTV can bring a more "you are there" type experience that could make comidies more like a live stage show, which would be a better comedy viewing experience. Then the enhanced resolution is less about seeing pores, and more about seeing and hearing all the facial and body movements and expressions that enhance live comedic delivery


----------



## scot (Aug 18, 2003)

Put HDTV on a 119" screen and you will quickly learn the advantages of hdtv. NTSC just doesn't cut it.

In terms of normal use, even SDTV digital eliminates ghosting, blurry pictures, fading, and a whole host of other issues that distract you from the actual programming. Digital allows the funny show to be funny, not to be something that gives you a headache. 

As far as too fast? Do you realize how many years ago the change was mandated? Its not like they didnt know the digital change was coming. Yes it requires some equipment changing, but so be it. Its an expensive game, and we provide the broadcasters with a resource telecoms have paid BILLIONS for, frequency space. Its a fair tradeoff that they have to stay somewhat with the times IMO.

Scot


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

fslove said:


> *"slightly more detailed picture"!* You have GOT to be kidding! Have you ever seen an HD picture? HD is so much more detailed and clear then SD that you would have to be blind to think otherwise! I am able to watch almost all the prime time shows on CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX will be doing their prime time in 2004. Then you have Monday Night Football, Sunday Night Football, CBS NFL game of the week in HD, multiple college games in HD each saturday, every major sporting playoff event in HD. You also have HBO, Showtime, Discovery, HDNet. HDNet Movies, ESPN-HD and a whole slew of HD channels coming online in the next few months!
> 
> I guess if you don;t like sports, films, nature shows, documantaries etc.. then there is no real HD out there for you. For the other 99% there is a whole bunch out there for us!


On of the biggest reaons for this opinion is that many many people that see HD sets in the store are told that a progessive scanned DVD source fed into the set in question is indeed an HD source which couldn't be farther from the truth.

There is no such thing as a HD DVD player to feed into a TV in a store. The only way to display HD in the store is with a local cable source that offers HD, Satellite Demo loop( Best for a store) or HD channel, or less likely a OTA signal that is HD (most programing from a local OTA source will only be HD for a few hours a day and mostly in Primetime and in limited availability because many programs are not in HD.

John

True source on a HD set is BREATH TAKING, no if ands or buts.

John


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

JohnL said:


> On of the biggest reaons for this opinion is that many many people that see HD sets in the store are told that a progessive scanned DVD source fed into the set in question is indeed an HD source which couldn't be farther from the truth.
> 
> There is no such thing as a HD DVD player to feed into a TV in a store. The only way to display HD in the store is with a local cable source that offers HD, Satellite Demo loop( Best for a store) or HD channel, or less likely a OTA signal that is HD (most programing from a local OTA source will only be HD for a few hours a day and mostly in Primetime and in limited availability because many programs are not in HD.
> 
> ...


You can also demo a TV with A JVC D-VHS VCR that has D Theater capability. This is a true HD picture (although I hate the idea of going back to magnetic media)


----------



## fslove (Sep 14, 2003)

JohnL said:


> On of the biggest reaons for this opinion is that many many people that see HD sets in the store are told that a progessive scanned DVD source fed into the set in question is indeed an HD source which couldn't be farther from the truth.
> 
> There is no such thing as a HD DVD player to feed into a TV in a store. The only way to display HD in the store is with a local cable source that offers HD, Satellite Demo loop( Best for a store) or HD channel, or less likely a OTA signal that is HD (most programing from a local OTA source will only be HD for a few hours a day and mostly in Primetime and in limited availability because many programs are not in HD.
> 
> ...


Actually, the biggest way stores supply HD to show on their HDTV's is with a computer and the HD content on the hard drive. But what happens a lot of the times is they hook up component or RGB (VGA) to one or two HDTV's then just run Composite to the rest of the HDTV's thus the much inferior looking HD!


----------



## Martyva (Apr 23, 2002)

Actually most stores, today, are using satellite demo channels for feeds. most current sat STBs will not allow SD and HD out at the same time. If you see SD it's probably from a different source.


----------



## Martyva (Apr 23, 2002)

This article is about a year old, but remember, new models will be better at same or lower price and some will include ATSC and QAM tuners.http://www.dtvmax.com/dtv.htm


----------



## cnsf (Jun 6, 2002)

bills976 said:


> It will probably be seven or eight years before I'll actually buy an HDTV. OTA is not an option for me, and probably will never be an option, even though I live in the largest DMA in the country. I'm not even in the "grade B" area of the O&O stations in NYC, yet I don't qualify for any distants. So I can see some truth to the argument that, "There isn't enough 'good programming' in HD," at least in my particular case, since I can't get any network HD feeds.
> 
> Maybe I'm way out in left field here, but I just can't justify spending $1000+ on a decent HD set and another $300 on a Directv HD box to get a handfull of HD channels. Until Directv gets at least HALF of their offerings in HD, I won't even think about spending obscene amounts of money on a better looking picture.


Which county are you in? Many Pleasant Valleys in NY.


----------



## cnsf (Jun 6, 2002)

When are holodecks coming out? Now THAT would be a revolution.......


----------

