Of all the complaints I’ve heard about television before HDTV’s debut, I’ve never heard any about its low resolution. Whoop-de-doo; now we can see the same yawners in ostensibly sharper MPEG format (really, I’m not too impressed the HD software’s artifacting that I’ve never witnessed before on analog broadcasts). Maybe if manufacturers didn’t have the nerve to charge such outragous prices for HD sets, the technology would be more alluring. Were color TVs (a real revolution, as they allowed programmers to offer a dramatically different product than they could before) similarily priced when they first debuted (relative to inflation, I mean)?
The first commercially produced color television receiver, the CBS-Columbia Model 12CC2, sold for $499.95 in 1951, or $3,539 in today’s dollars. Only 100 units were manufactured before the model, and all network color broadcasting, was discontinued for lack of interest.
Network color broadcasting returned in December 1953. The RCA Model CT-100, the first mass-produced color television receiver, with a 11 1/2-inch wide by 8 5/8-inch high picture, retailed for $1,000 when it was introduced in April 1954. In today’s dollars, that’s $6,840. The price dropped to half that by December 1954, but that’s still a lot of money — about equal to what HDTV sets cost today.
I’m not sure I understand your issue. HDTV’s picture quality is visibly, far, far better than a regular TV’s if it has a decent high resolution signal to display. If the signal is standard low res TV/VHS type signal, all you’re going to get is the same relative picture quality as a regular TV because that’s all the info the signal has in it no matter how wonderful the monitor is.
You’re unimpressed with the technology itself, or the slow ramp up of of HDTV broadcast signals?
RE the cost of HDTV it’s amazing they’re able to produce them for the relatively low price that they do. Prices will fall when volume increases, but no one’s gouging relative to production costs. You can’t do that (too much) and stay competitive.
Might I ask what channel(s) you’re watching in hi-def?
I’m not sure if this is across-the-board, or just with Comcast, but hi-def on both Fox and NBC is nothing spectacular at all. CBS looks very nice, and ABC looks gorgeous (especially sporting events in indoor arenas).
There are two good things about digital television - clear signals, and widescreen programmes.
There are two good things about HDTV - higher definition images (if your TV is equipped to receive and display them) and true 5.1 surround sound (if it is being broadcast).
There are several bad things about them
[ul]
[li]Expense for both broadcasters and consumers[/li][li]High compression to fit all the channels in the limited bandwidth available to broadcasters[/li][li]Not being utilised at its full potential (most of the shows that are broadcast in HD aren’t really anything worth looking at - here in Australia, we have most of our mid afternoon gameshows in HD. Why? I have no idea! Even our ‘Australia’s Funniest Home Videos’ is in HD - WTF???)[/li][li]Lack of support by consumers (suggesting to the channels its not worth it to them to put much effort in)[/li][/ul]
I love the widescreen shows, I love the occasional HD broadcast (I don’t have the ability to see true HD on my Plasma TV but I can see that the images are still tons better even than DVDs), and I love to see these features growing to become standard, even in the last few months. Here in Australia compression isn’t an issue, as we have so few channels broadcast using airwaves.
I’m not impressed, just because I don’t need it. I’ve never lived in a house with a big TV set, and I don’t watch enough TV to appreciate the difference HDTV would create. I don’t watch any sports except pro wrestling, and even though I’m a big movie buff, I’ve always been content with whatever TV I own (plus a DVD player). It boggles the mind what an amazing, envy-inducing collection of DVD movies and music CDs you could build with what people spend on HDTVs and home theaters.
(And in my experience, it’s usually the people who blow the most cash on big TVs and high-end stereos who have the worst taste in music, movies, and television.) 
I just saw a sample at a store (Best Buy). I guess it was high resolution, but there was way too much artifacting.
[QUTOE=Walloon]Network color broadcasting returned in December 1953. The RCA Model CT-100, the first mass-produced color television receiver, with a 11 1/2-inch wide by 8 5/8-inch high picture, retailed for $1,000 when it was introduced in April 1954. In today’s dollars, that’s $6,840. The price dropped to half that by December 1954, but that’s still a lot of money — about equal to what HDTV sets cost today.
[/QUOTE]
!!! Wow. Well I guess they aren’t gouging us…
One point. I’ve been working in semiconductors for about two years, and FPD (flat panel displays) are considered a part of that industry.
The poster was right about not gouging. Right now, fpd’s are hideously expensive to produce. Unlike a cathode ray tube, you are essentially creating a separate circuit for every pixel on the screen (like a computer chip). (I may be wrong here.)
At any rate, they are costly puppies to make.
-
Here in Japan, there’s hardly a price premium anylonger between HDTVs and non-HD capable TVs, making the argument that the price is not worth it an obsolete one.
-
The quality is A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. If you watch a true HDTV-broadcast on a true HDTV set, the image is so much clearer and better than a DVD.
Really, I don’t even see an argument for/against here; HDTV is the future (and the future is now).
As with every other unnecessary technology, I’m unimpressed.
All my HDTV stuff turned up yesterday. The resolution is just amazing. Watching the Lakers getting beaten in widescreen was so worth the money. 
You want to see artifacting, watch digital TV in the UK. I don’t know what algorithm they use to compress it but it’s atrociously bad. If you’re in an area with good recption (as I am) the analogue picture is far better.
Oh ghod, something was wrong. They had it set up wrong, and/or the TV wasn’t a true HD display. My husband is out of town or I’d have him write up his rant about how stores routinely screw up their HDTV displays. It’s his biggest pet peeve. He installs HDTV systems and knows what it’s supposed to look like.
If it had been set up correctly, this OP never would have happened. HD is, as RealTronic said, A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. If you watch something in HD (assuming everything is set up properly) then watch a DVD, your eyes will think the DVD is a 2nd generation VHS recorded at SLP speed. It’s a dramatic difference. I can’t watch a DVD for hours after watching anything in HD because it just looks awful to me.
Amen, brother.
I admit, I used to be against DVDs, too.
But I’ve seen HDTVs in operation, and I’m just not impressed.
To me, it isn’t worth an extra 2 cents, much less hundreds.
I see no reason to buy one, & every reason to add to my own collection of films with the money I save.
As an added bonus, I can get quality viewing with the DVDs.
Quality of content not the unimportant improvement in image quality.
To put it another way, The Seven Samurai on analog TV is vastly superior to Laverne & Shirley on HDTV.
<Insert Gallagher joke about “Brightness knob on TV turning up the intelligence” here>
I am VERY impressed by it. Without it, I would feel like I was wasting the capabilities of my bigscreen. It’s an incredible visual experience.
Herein Boston, only 3 channels (2,5,and 44) broadcast in HDTV. I must say that HDTV is impressive, but given the HUGE amount of commercials on broadcast AND cable TV, I can’t see it as worth the expense. I guess it is still the “chicken and the egg” syndrome…nobody will buy it until the price comes down, and the price won’t come down until the mfgs. achieve enough sales volume to lower the costs.
However, you are talking to somebody who just shifter to color TV in 1998! (My 1948 B&W MUNTZ TV broke down…now way to repair it!
I can see myself adopting HDTV sometime in the mid 2050’s time frame! :smack:
I’m not impressed with HDTV. As a matter of fact, the big thing they’re pushing – more “realism” – is just plain false. The image on HDTV is completely unrealistic. As one HDTV backer pointed out, you can see each face in the crowd across a football stadium. Can you actually see with such resolution in real life? No. So the image is not realistic at all.
Besides, what’s the point of seeing the same old crap, only more sharply?
Basically, HDTV is a sop to US TV manufacturers; if they can get HDTV-only broadcasting, they make a big windfall as everyone in the US has to buy a new TV.
It’s enlightening to remember that, in the 50s, CBS’s superior color TV system was eventually denied FCC approval because it was incompatible with existing systems and would require everyone to buy a new TV. But back then, the FCC considered what was best for the public, not for the people who bribed the right politicians.
I almost always check to see what is on HD before I look elsewhere. I don’t get the broadcast networks in HD, but I like the stuff that Discovery HD has (there was one show about a dive to a WWII shipwreck that was incredible -the sort of thing that really makes HD worthwhile). Plus HDNET shows reruns of Andy Richter Controls the Universe.
It’s not the algorithm (MPEG-II, just like DVDs), it’s the low bitrates caused by cramming too many channels in to the available bandwidth. Watch BBC1, the highest bitate channel on digital terrestrial (‘Freeview’) - it’s pretty good. Other channels on Freeview and satellite use much lower bitrates and look terrible.
Like I mentioned in another recent thread, I just went to a trade Pro A/V show. It had a lot of amazing screens. Some, like a 10Megapixel projector system are clearly not for consumer use but still a lot of “merely” consumer gear around.
It really is dazzling but source quality is always an issue. A lot of smaller booths tended to play only animated films for demos. One major player had a loop showing a Brazilian Carnivale parade thing. Looked absolutely stunning as long as nothing moved. (Yeah, right.) So compression artifacts are going to be an issue in many cases.
Forget over-the-air HDTV. It will not be worth it for most folks.
Cable/Satellite can only do a small number of channels with good quality compression.
The Big Thing will be blue laser DVDs. That will provide the stunning source quality needed to wow people with HDTVs. Esp. if the Sony version wins. (And pray that the Philips version doesn’t.)
Panasonic seems to have settled on “720p” btw.
As to Hal Briston’s comment on ABC quality: Panasonic has been working closely with ABC for some time to get them to use quality HDTV gear. So MNF clips were a key part of Panasonic’s demos at the trade show.
Strangely, didn’t see anyone touting OLEDs. I guess they’re still too far from the production pipeline to show.