I’m another one who’s not impressed. Yeah, the image is nice and sharp, but my current TV’s picture serves me just fine. The people who are comparing it to the switch from black-and-white to color are kidding themselves. It’s not all that.
Plus, I just don’t watch much TV anymore. If it wasn’t for HGTV and the Sci-Fi channel, I would probably cancel my cable subscription. And as for broadcast television: why should I spend thousands of dollars to watch the latest crappy reality show in glorious HD? Similarly, I can watch sports just fine without being able to see if the guy in the orange shirt in the 37th row flossed his teeth this morning.
The way I see it, the cost/benefit ratio is way, way, way too low.
Your account is a tad revisionist. The CBS field sequential system that the FCC approved in 1950 was an electro-mechanical throwback to the earliest days of television, and required a wheel of red, green, and blue color filters spinning in front of the television screen. To reduce flicker, the scan rate was increased from 60 to 144 fields per second, but to compensate for that increased signal within the allotted bandwidth, the number of screen lines was reduced from 525 to 405. And such a wheel by necessity more than doubled the width of a television set: a 12-inch wide screen would require a 30-inch wide cabinet.
And the CBS system was not denied FCC approval. It was approved by the FCC in October 1950, languished for months in a court battle by competitor RCA, and made its network debut in June 1951 to a nationwide total of about 30 prototype color receivers in five cities. CBS had to buy a television manufacturer to produce compatible receivers, as no existing company was willing to make the gamble. When the first model came out that fall, only 100 sets were bought by the public. CBS, realizing its failure and seeing continued financial loss, halted its color broadcasts (which never made prime time, as they were unwatchable by existing monochrome sets) and stopped manufacture of the color sets.
This withdrawal of CBS’s pledge to the FCC of commitment to color broadcasting was given legal cover when the National Production Authority (this was during the Korean War), probably at the request of CBS, suspended the manufacture of color sets for the duration. That was indeed a legal cover can be seen by the fact that no such suspension was ordered for monochrome sets. As the Korean War ended, CBS testified to a congressional committee that it had no further interest in color broadcasting at that time. The National Production Authority immediately lifted its ban on color set manufacture, and within months the FCC approved an improved color television system proposed by the industry’s National Television System Committee, using RCA-developed hardware.
Although the FCC had found the competing RCA and CTI systems had technical and cost problems in 1950 when they gave CBS the green light, RCA and the NTSC rapidly made improvements, and press accounts from 1953 consistantly called the RCA dot sequential system a notable improvement over the CBS system.
So, the CBS system was never “denied approval”. CBS withdrew from color broadcasting when it realized its FCC-approved system was a technical and financial failure.
Oh but that which you do like with HDTV vs. your puny CRT is dang amazing. I was
watching a friend (who has way too much money on his hands) play Final Fantasy
X-2 on his ginormous HDTV. I was AMAZED at the difference in quality between my
TV and his. It looked great.
But also, watching DVDs on my TV vs. my computer monitor is a vast difference in
quality. The difference in Farscape’s space or planet shots on my CRT monitor is
amazing compared to my TV as well.
Will I get a super great big HDTV, sure… Someday. Right now, I, as others, only use
my TV for very limited watching of TV. If, like me, that is your bag, it is unimpressive
unless you find your bag on the HDTV.
I’m about as gadget-obsessive as you can get, and I can’t get myself remotely interested in HDTV. Every store display I’ve seen has been less than overwhelming – I’m not saying it’s worse; I just don’t see the point. I’ve been to friends’ houses who have HDTV, and it’s the same thing – their big demo of how awesome the technology is, is just underwhelming.
I’m going to be one of those late adopters. Maybe when it becomes the overwhelming standard, I’ll invest in one. It’s not quite like the DVD revolution, because they were as much about extra features as they were about improved image and audio quality.
Before I bought an HDTV last year I talked to friends and co-workers about their experiences. I was surprised to find out that many of them said that their HDTV was nice but nothing special. I was even more surprised when, after a little more questioning, it was obvious that they didn’t know that their TV needed an additional set-top box to actually display a high definition picture.
After buying my HDTV in August I thoroughly enjoyed widescreen DVDs connected via component cables. In January I finally bought a set-top receiver and spent the weekend watching high-def sitcoms, sports, nature etc.
My only regret after that was that I didn’t buy the set-top box sooner. Being a football fan I was just blown away by live, widescreen, high definition pro football.
I anxiously await the start of the next season.
I agree with some of you who point out that bad programming is still bad programming even if it is a sharper, bigger picture. But crystal clear focus and an extra 20 yard view at the time the ball is snapped is just bee-you-tee-ful.
I think it’s like night and day comparted to std TV. Maybe not for watching your typical network drama (although CSI is pretty damn good in HD), but sports or TDC/PBS nature shows are mind-blowing.
HDTV has addressed 2 major consumer demands as the television market changes.
Back in the 80’s the common set in a U.S. household was a 27" tube. Projection TVs were for Sports Bars and the upper class. With a 27" screen “high resolution” was not needed because the screen was so small.
With the 90’s people were demanding larger tubes and 32" tubes were commonplace and prices on projection sets fell and screens grew even bigger up to 65" and tubes up to 36". A store like BestBuy that normally carried 5 different projection sets now carries 30-40. However, a big complaint people had was that a picture looked “grainy” when it was that large. No matter the quality of the tv, you couldn’t get a sharper image because the source just didn’t have the resolution.
Secondly, with the theatre to DVD release time getting shorter and shorter, dvd player prices falling, and DVD prices falling, people started using TVs for movies just as much as watching TV. People taking notice that “letterbox” versions on their 27" tv was just tiny, and “letterbox” on their 55" 4:3 set gave them those black bars and they hated paying $1000 for a set and not using the full screen.
So HDTV answered these demands by creating a high resolution picture than doesn’t degrade when blown up on a large screen, and creating a 16:9 format that allows for home theatre viewing of theatrical releases that uses your screen better.
So if your a consumer whose viewing habits are limited to Friends and the 10 o’clock news on your 27" set, then you probably have no demand for HD and see no value in it.
Those of us who watch movies on a regular basis and want them in their un-cut widescreen format, and have upgraded to a bigscreen set, see a great product in HDTV as it supplies or demand.
You can still use your old TiVo, just not for HD channels. There are a few HD recorders out there, AFAIK, they are all bundled with cable/satellite services.
Worker bee for a home theater chain here. Instead of claiming the superiority of HDTV–I’ll save my kneejerk reactions for the political threads in Great Debates–let me throw some brief facts out there (some of which have already been made).
HD TiVo is available . . . but only for DirecTV subscribers, for the time being. Tapioca Dextrin is right, there are other HD DVRs (like the 921 from DishNetwork), but these are either bundled with your MSO (your cable or satellite provider) or only record OTA (over-the-air, a. k. a. broadcast).
By far the most plentiful source of HDTV is OTA. Cable is just now ramping up its capacity for HD, on a town-by-town basis, and satellite will operate from a strong bandwidth disadvantage for a long time. Go to www.antennaweb.org to see which digital stations are available in your area.
Digital TV is not necessarily HDTV. The FCC has mandated that stations start broadcasting digitally by . . . oh, I can’t remember the exact date, sometime in 2005 or 2006, but it doesn’t matter because the date will be missed. There will be stations who elect not to broadcast HDTV, and if one of those is your network affiliate, guess what? You won’t be watching that network’s shows in high-definition!
When evaluating HDTV, remember that the source matters. Cable and satellite have to compress their broadcasts due to bandwidth. And watching a standard-definition show in high-definition is like viewing a painting from 3 inches away.
Also, Equipoise is right, most stores don’t have their displays set up properly. If you buy a set, get it calibrated by an ISF technician, or use a self-calibration disk like Video Essentials.
For those of you who have been unimpressed by HDTV, reread points 4 and 5; you may not have seen it in all its glory.
Hogan’s Heroes is shown in high definition on the HDNet network. This isn’t really germane to much of anything, it’s mostly just a bizarre factoid I wanted to throw in. (It can be shown in high-def because it was originally filmed, then converted to tape.)
Quick technical primer: TV resolution is measured by the number of vertical lines of pixels (the little dots that make up a TV screen). Also, a picture is displayed in either interlaced or progressive format. Interlaced means the screen first draws lines 1, 3, 5, etc., then 1/30th of a second later it draws lines 2, 4, 6, etc. Progressive means the screen draws lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. all at once.
Progressive is generally thought to offer a better picture than interlaced. Standard definition TV is 480i–480 lines of pixels displayed in an interlaced fashion. DVD’s are 480p (assuming your set can handle it). The HDTV standard actually offers 18 different formats; the most popular are 720p and 1080i.
ftg is correct when he speaks of the next Big Thing being High-definition DVDs, although there’s a format war brewing between Blue-ray and the Phillips/Toshiba implementation favored by the DVD Forum. Let’s wait to see how that shakes out; we might be seeing product next year, although we’ll have to wait for the movie studios to decide how they want to release their catalogs.
There are a number of different technologies available for HD displays. Rear-projections are cheapest, but the CRT varieties are huge and tend to be at least 20" deep. The quality is very good, but off-axis viewing can be dim. DLPs are a newer subspecies of rear-projection, and aren’t nearly as deep as the CRTs, but are pricier. The next step up are the plasmas, the dominant flat-panel technology, but LCDs are the next big thing and are starting to be made in the largest sizes (<45") that were previously only seen in plasma models.
In the near future we’ll see 2160p surround-screen technologies, but not at consumer levels until the engineers can figure out how to keep people from throwing up while they watch.
Don’t forget your regular “classic” Direct-View CRT TVs. I know that in the States they’re all but obsolete by now (correct me if I’m wrong) but they’re still selling well in Europe and Japan. In fact, IMO the “normal” TV-sets still gives you the absolutely best quality picture, with the drawback of not getting a bigger screen than 36".
I have a 32" wide Panasonic Flat Direct-View CRT TV with built-in digital tuner (HDTV) myself, and currently, there is no TV available that gives me a better quality picture. I bought it about two months ago, and was thinking of getting a 32" - 42" LCD TV instead, but the enormous price difference to get somewhat similar picture quality was not worth it. I’d rather wait a couple of years and see what technology brings.
Further, regarding HDTV broadcasts. Currently in Japan there are very few channels that broadcast in HDTV, so bandwidth is not an issue. The quality of the state-owned channels’ HDTV shows are simply perfect. I watched a bit of Lord of the Rings:Fellowship of the Rings in HDTV and was blown away!!
Don’t tell that to Sony. Heck, don’t say that in my living room, where I have a 40" direct-view CRT. I don’t know their product line now, but about two years ago, Sony had “regular” TVs, “Hi-Scan” and XBR. Regular was just that, and looks awful, as if a mostly-open set of venetian blinds is in front of the TV. By the time you get to XBR, you’ll find a “line multiplier” in the set - you truly don’t see scan lines. Get face to face with it, and you don’t even see the horizontal wires that hold a Trinitron aperture grille together. What you can see, unfortunately, is the pixel structure and artifacts of low-bitrate MPEG encoding on digital cable/satellite. Down side to XBR is the “joke” definition for the letters - Xtra Bucks Required.
It should be mandatory that anyone owning a TV 36" or larger must have and use a copy of Joe Kane’s Digital Video Essentials. It’s the best $20 you’ll spend on entertainment. And for extra credit, access the super-secret setup menus and disable red push. (On a set that can be so adjusted, it’s a worthy effort.)
I have HDTV through my cable provider. My decoder is a digital subscriber box provided by the company at no extra cost.
I absolutely love my HDTV. It’s true that most television programs don’t offer much improvement over their STD, but movies are a great deal better in HDTV. Band of Brothers was breathtaking. Digital movies, such as Toy Story or Shrek also are incredible, and original series made in widescreen for the premium channels are also wonderfully detailed. Even stuff like Kiss of Dragon benefits.
DVD’s played through a progressive scan player are also noticably better than their standard definition counterparts played on a regular tv.
It obviously hasn’t reached the mass-market level yet, but it will within the next few years. 32 and 38 inch direct view hdtv sets are getting closer and closer to consumer level prices all the time.
For those who are worried about being forced to upgrade, don’t. Part of the mandate to have new over-the-air broadcasts in place in markets is that it has to be possible to display these broadcasts on current televisions. It may be done by piggybacking a standard definition signal onto the hdtv signal, or through converter boxes.
In any case, by the time HDTV becomes the standard and standard definition is being phased out (which won’t be for a while yet), HDTV’s will be quite reasonably priced and widely available.
If you are primarily watching network or standard cable, HDTV isn’t really for you yet. But it will be some time in the future.
Anyone got any thoughts on how I should connect my cable box to the TV? I’m currently using component video, but I could use DVI. Would that make a difference? I don’t want to spend $50-100 on a worthless piece of wire.
I run a DVI cable from my sat receiver to my TV. The reason to do so is because DVI is the only cable that doesn’t compress the, or lose any of the signal. The difference between watching DVI and component isn’t great, but it is there. Also, you don’t need to spend that much on a DVI cable. You can find them cheaper on eBay and QED sent me a link with another place that has them for a reasonable price- if you like I can forward it to you.
I believe there are also projection LCD TVs (that is, a smaller LCD is in the cabinet and is projected onto the big screen)
Rightr now, DLPs (tiny mirrors on a chip) use a color wheel. Has anyone thought of a triple DLP (one for each color?) this would eliminate the need for a color wheel, tho would also need two more DLPs (and you would have alignment issues)
