I STILL Want My HDTV 430
jhaberman writes: "Slate.com has an opinion piece talking about the horrific mess the HDTV rollout has been. It seems everyone's
been to blame from the hardware manufacturers, to the cable/satellite companies,
to the producers of the actual shows. I fell into the trap a year ago buying a
top of the line Sony Wega digital TV and I STILL don't have ANY HDTV! Here's why..."
Crap (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Crap (You aren't looking hard enough) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Crap (You aren't looking hard enough) (Score:3, Informative)
I suspect the "filter" involved here is the film on which the show is shot...AFAIK, news, sports, and soaps are the only things that get shot with video cameras instead of motion-picture cameras (news and sports because they're live, soaps because they're cheap). If a show does a live episode (like ER did a couple of years or so ago), the difference is blatantly obvious since they have to use video cameras for anything that's live. Everything else gets shot on film and is then telecined to bring the framerate up. (Film is typically 24 fps. NTSC is 29.97 fps. What's the framerate for ATSC?)
No HDTV (Score:3, Insightful)
Science FIction (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Science FIction (Score:2, Interesting)
Sport will be the killer app for HDTV - imagine golf where you can actually see the ball!
Re:Science FIction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No HDTV (Score:5, Funny)
Ah yes, porn.
Re:No HDTV (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I just want a TV that will suckle...
Why porn today sucks, and what to do about it (Score:5, Insightful)
All the more reason for the real networks and producers to get involved. Porn IS the killer app. Demand for porn is nearly universal among men, and if they bothered to work on the stories they could make it appealing to women too. One need look no further than the demand for Yaoi Doujinshi among women to see that this is true. There's money to be made, and Hollywood has more than enough of it. They certainly pay the actors enough. At an Indecent Proposal sum of one million dollars per episode each, I don't see why every episode of Friends DOESN'T have a different permutation of the cast members gettin' it on, culminating with an orgy in the series finale.
Can you imagine how much better porn could be with real acting, a hefty production budget, and a schedule based on weeks rather than days? I can. It's time to stop burying softcore smut on the premium channels, and bring porn to prime time.
Olympics (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it was $10,000 impressive though. :)
http://www.hd.net/ (Score:2, Informative)
Man, the difference between full 1080i and regular broadcast TV is HUGE.
Those who whine about HTDV sucking are probably sitting in front of their analog tube.
Fabulous technology (Score:2)
Re:No HDTV (Score:2)
You are clearly uninformed. Most of CBSs prime-time schedule is simulcast in HDTV. ABC airs all their movies in HDTV, as well as a lot of their regular programming like "NYPD Blue" and "The Practice." NBC broadcasts Leno and most of their Olympics coverage in HD (although the HD broadcast of the Games isn't live).
This omits all-HD networks like HDNet and HBO-HD.
HD content isn't exactly coming out of our ears, but it's false to say that there is almost none.
I dunno... (Score:2)
High definition sucks (Score:4, Funny)
Re:High definition sucks (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the HDTV standard is much more than just better picture and sound. Included in the broadcast spectrum is 1.6Mbps allotted for "other transmission". I worked for NBC when the standard was being nailed down, and part of my job was to try to come up with a use for the extra bits. That was, of course, before my whole dept. got axed.
So, anyway, we tossed ideas around, like being able to broadcast 4 distinct shows on one channel, or netcasting movies or mp3s that would be stored on the set-top while you were watching the broadcast. Think of HDTV like DVD over the air. Multiple angles or audio commentary, multi-language, etc. There is a lot more to HDTV than the guy at The Wiz knows about.
[work, friends, tv] - choose 2. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would anyone want to go outside, meet people or do things ? Instead, you can watch others have fake adventures or get your opinions and desires programmed in rather than going to all the trouble of figuring them out for yourself. You can achieve a state of lower consciousness - it helps pass the time while you wait for death.
If you must watch TV, at least buy a mirror to put up above the screen. That way you can look up from time to time and compare the excitement on the screen with the futile existence of the vegtable on the couch.
Re:[work, friends, tv] - choose 2. (Score:2, Informative)
Agreed [penny-arcade.com].
Re:[work, friends, tv] - choose 2. (Score:2)
Vegitate in a club with friends...
Don't really see the difference here.
If you must complain about people watching TV, don't suggest an equally mind-numbing alternative.
Re:[work, friends, tv] - choose 2. (Score:2)
Seriously thought, I don't think that "vegitate" in a club with friends is as bad. It dosen't matter if all the subjects that you talk among your friends is as trivial as the last episode of friends. Social interaction is very important and rewarding. You should try.
Re:[work, friends, tv] - choose 2. (Score:2)
Re:[work, friends, tv] - choose 2. (Score:2)
Lifester (Score:2)
HDTV already has a killer App (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:HDTV already has a killer App (Score:3, Informative)
No, it isn't. There is no static on an HDTV broadcast, any more than there's static on digital cable or DBS or any other digital TV delivery mechanism.
If something interrupts your data stream, you'll get flickers or brief interruptions, but you'll never see static.
UK only has widescreen (Score:3, Informative)
At least the USA is making inroads into HDTV. Here in the UK, only a few channels seem to be able to broadcast widescreen effectively (namely the BBC and Channel 4).
BSkyB (part of News Corp.) seems totally incapable of doing any 16:9 broadcasts. For instance, Enterprise is shot in 16:9 but we get it as 4:3, even though most pay TV in the UK is now on a digital platform (DVB) and a sizable percentage of homes have a widescreen set. Certainly as a percentage, more homes in the UK have widescreen than the USA has homes that have HDTV
widescreen HD (Score:2)
Re:widescreen HD (Score:2, Interesting)
as an aside, I watched aliens SE the other night with some friends on my 32" widescreen tv and I was appalled at the quality of encoding. it was awful, like watching a dodgy avi, well, not that bad
hey ho
dave
compression (Score:2)
encoding. it was awful, like watching a dodgy avi
Crap compression isn't too uncommon. And it'll only get worse with HD compression... uncompressed 24-bit 1080i HD is 176 MB/sec or 1408 Mbps. To get that down to the holy grail of 50 Mbps will require some crazy lossy compression. Ugh!
Re:UK only has widescreen (Score:3, Funny)
I know of two people who have a PalPlus TV, plus I myself have one. I guess that explains my urges to retrieve every bone people throw.
it's mostly the manufacturers' fault (Score:3, Insightful)
They have a point... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Fox probably thought, 'Since widescreen at 480 is good enough for the millions who watch DVDs, why spend a lot more to please the few purists?'"
As much as I hate to admit it, from a purely business standpoint the network executives are probably being most prudent in not commencing with the conversion at this point.
Like any industry, television networks are in business to make money and their executives have an obligation to move forward with the best strategies possible to realize this goal. Unfortunately, what may make good business doesn't always equate to what promotes progress.
To use a simple metaphor, one need look only as far as the automobile industry. We have known for years that automobile emissions are bad for the environment. Additionally, we have much (if not all) of the technology available this very minute to switch to an alternative fuel source resulting in vehicles which would be much more 'environmentally freindly' - ethanol or electic power. Why don't we convert - because the automobile industry is just like the television industry, they are in it for the money. The obvious positive progress aside, such advances increase overhead and decrease corporate profit margins - aka 'bad business'...
I think it suck as much as anyone - I own a wide-screen, HDTV compatible set!!! However, putting myself in their position, I can't argue with their decisions at this point in time...
If I might talk out of my ass for a moment.... (Score:4, Interesting)
But if there were accurate reporting, ie people leaveing to get a pop when a commercial came on, sleeping through the news, in short if it tracked how much time people really spent watching TV, they might find trends which I'll preceed to predict with no basis in fact and only wild speculation as my guide. I would bet people with HD TV's recieving HD programing would spend more time watching TV than average, watch longer, and prefer HD programs to standard programs. Since they have the money to spend on purchases like HD TV's and are willing to spend it, it puts them in a better demographic. But most importantly, I'll try to justify this assertion with hand waving and magic powder, that they'd be more likely to watch commercials, as HD commercials would feature more eye candy and probably be more entertaining. And I'm not just talking about Victoria's Secret.
If the viewing habbits were accurately compiled, and my prognostication came to pass there might be a very real, very powerful market pressure where to get the really lucrative advertisers you have to have a HD signal.
But again, just how I think it might really be.
Re:If I might talk out of my ass for a moment.... (Score:2)
Arbitron's Personal People Meter [arbitron.com] technology allows this kind of data to be collected. It is a "pager-sized device that is carried by consumers. It automatically detects inaudible codes that TV and radio broadcasters as well as cable networks embed in the audio portion of their programming using encoders provided by Arbitron."
Re:If I might talk out of my ass for a moment.... (Score:2)
Wow, your ass has alot to say, unfortunately most of it wrong.
Neilson viewer are supposed to only log time actively watching television. They are not supposed to log time for a show if they fall asleep while watching it. The rating box will periodically query the viewer inorder determine that they are still watching.
From the Neilson website [nielsenmedia.com]: Whenever the television set is turned on a red light flashes from time to time on the meter, reminding viewers to press their assigned button to indicate if they are watching television. Additional buttons on the meter enable guests in a sample home to report when they watch TV by entering their age and gender and pushing a visitor button.
Re:They have a point... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuel cell batteries (i.e., spend nuclear-generated electricity on electrolysis to store energy in the form of hydrogen) are the only reasonable replacements for gasoline that we can see today. But the freakin' enviro-freaks get all up-in-arms over the use of nuclear power. I think they would be unsatisfied with anything short of returning to the stone age---as long as they all get their lattes, of course.
Re:They have a point... (Score:2)
Re:They have a point... (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, ethanol is a terribly inefficient fuel. The last dept. of agriculture study on it showed that the NEV (net energy value) of corn ethanol is somewhere around 1.25. Basically, this means that every 1.25 joules of ethanol energy you want, you need to spend 1 joule of energy on farm vehicle fuel, transportation, fertilizer, etc, all the while using up the most fertile land in the country on energy production, since corn needs much more fertile land than most other crops.
While I believe that we now have the technology and experience to build a relatively safe nuclear reactor (compared with any other kind of power plant), we have a limited amount of fissionable materials. I heard one calculation (I don't remember the source, so treat it skeptically) claim if the whole US converted to nuclear power, we would have about 20-30 years worth of power. Despite massive amounts of development money poured into them, nobody has demonstrated an ability to run breeder reactors cost effectivly, much less safely.
The best gasoline replacement I know of is methanol. Methanol can be generated from basically any plant, rather than only sucrose rich plants like corn. Some fast growing trees have a NEV as high as 25, can grow on land poorly suited to growing food products, has a multiple year harvest cycle, reducing errosion, and is all around a Good Thing(tm). these guys [biomass.org] we could replace 1/2 of all gasoline consumtion with methanol without significantly affecting food prices. While that doesn't solve the electricity issue, it goes a long way towards reducing pollution and greenhouse emissions from cars. Plus methanol can either be burned in a traditional internal combustion engine, or used to power fuel cells. Thus, it could be implemented now, with existing technology while easy a transition to fuel cells if the power density issues are solved.
For electrical generation, I still want to hold out for solar, but it looks like it is going to be a while before the cost/kW is reasonable. I actually don't think it should be that hard to do so, it is just that most current research and demand for solar energy (ie, the space program) cares more about efficiency than cost. If the govt (or anyone with money) were to set a goal of solar cells with 1/2 the efficiency of current cells, but 1/10 the cost, I think we could acheive it in 10 years with moderate investment.
Re:They have a point... (Score:5, Informative)
As much as I hate to admit it, from a purely business standpoint the network executives are probably being most prudent in not commencing with the conversion at this point.
Uh... no.
The article was wrong here, as well as in some other points. Fox has done some of the conversion to HD already, although they're the slackest of the five broadcast networks (the leader is PBS, which probably surprises a lot of people). All the other networks are broadcasting in either 1080i or 720p at some point during the day.
The catch here is that the cost difference between broadcasting a high-def digital format vs a standard def digital format (both of which fall under the umbrella of DTV) is minimal. Really. Either way you have to buy a boatload of new equipment -- new digital cameras, digital editing equipment, encoders, decoders, a new antenna and all it's associated equipment, yadda yadda yadda. This is not cheap. By the time you've paid for all of that the difference between resolution costs is truely minimal.
So why doesn't Fox want to do HD? Because Rupert Murdoch would prefer to use the bandwidth, which was given to the broadcasters for free for digital interactive services [current.org], multiple channels, etc. Despite the minor nit that this was not what the spectrum giveaway was for.
Anyone who has actually seen HD on a decently setup monitor knows just how good it looks. And how shabby 480, even 480p, looks in comparison. The issues are rampant though, and I'm seriously doubting that HD will take off now.
The biggest issues, which were missed completely by the article, are the FCC and the content providers. The content providers (e.g. - hollywood) are once again wringing their hands over copyrights. A connection and encryption standard was finally set about a year ago, but there are still companies complaining that they want the right to reach into any recording device and delete, limit the viewings of, or otherwise invalidate a recording. The FCC has made all of the problems with HD even worse by doing absolutely nothing. They refused to beat the industry into a connection standard, a set-top box standard, or anything else beyond vague warnings that if the industry didn't set a standard then they would. Sometime. Really.
Probably the worst decision, and the one that is likely to doom HD to dieing, is the FCC's decision that HD does not fall under the "must carry" rules for cable. Under US law cable providers must carry local broadcast channels to their designated broadcast areas. When HD came about it was unclear if these new signals would fall under that law as well -- they were broadcast by the same channels, but it wasn't any "new" information, just higher bitrate. The cable companies don't want to touch HD because it eats too much of their bandwidth - which they'd rather use for another dozen or so low bitrate channels. The FCC ruled in favor of the cable companies. The problem is that 80% of the US receives ALL of its television over cable. And for HD, mere rabbit ears don't cut it. You have to have a full blown rooftop or attic antenna. Preferably directional. Because 8-VSB sucks.
If you really want to learn more about all of the crap that's gone on, I highly recommend Stereophile Guide to Home Theater [guidetohometheater.com]. They've done a pretty good job of keeping on top of it, particularly on their website.
Re:They have a point... (Score:2)
This would lead to all radios being software driven. A manufacturer would long-term lease a control channel to download new decoders and receiver frequencies to radios.
DTV is good, HD or not (Score:4, Insightful)
However, what you're all missing is the power that DTV has IF the broadcasters use 480i.
I don't recall the exact numbers, but at a 480i DTV transmission, each broadcaster will be able to broadcast 5 or 6 channels. Recording the shows at 1080i shouldn't be a big deal, and they can broadcast them at 480i.
This means that with an OTA Attennae (once DTV has its act together, reasonable anntennaes should become available), you could pick up 40 channels or so...
Now, I love my HDTV 6.1 Stereo system, etc. However, I want OTA to be as good as analog cable, just with a better signal.
That means that the cable company needs to offer me something to keep my business.
Right now they compress signals as much as possible to include more pay-per-view, but its really the same pay-per-view just starting every 30 minutes.
Sorry, but that won't keep my $80/month flowing. HBO and Starz are great, but there is no reason they can't rent descramblers directly and send their feeds on a broadcaster's OTA signal.
The cable companies started to get their act together when the Satellite companies started to really make a push. When OTA competes with them, then Satellite and Cable will have to really offer something.
I look foward to the day when I can get 40 channels for free or drop $50-$100/mo. to get HDTV signals, etc. I mean, there is no reason for shows not to be recording in HDTV, that way they can be sold on HDVD later on and the broadcasters can sell the rights to carry their HDTV signals if the cable companies want to exist.
Alex
The real problem, no smaller HDTV's offered (Score:2, Insightful)
Not everyone has the space for a large screen TV or is willing to bear the cost of one. A smaller tv would bring down the price and perhaps incentivize including a built in HDTV tuner. I believe once these smaller tv's are built then we will see more widespread adoption. Until that point only videophiles will be the ones to purchase them.
Re:They have a point... (Score:3, Informative)
What's missing from the original post is the understanding that the greatest contributor to increased picture quality is not the increased resolution HDTV affords (especially on screens smaller than about 8 feet diagonal), but the change in color space. NTSC was designed in the 1950s to enable black & white television sets to display a black & white image even if the signal being broadcast had color encoded in it. In order to do this, the color information has the bejeezus compressed out of it which is why it looks so lousy.
The single most important change that can be made to improve the quality of broadcast television is NOT to increase resolution, but to start broadcasting a component (e.g., YPrPb) signal while ensuring that the entire production chain, from origination through production to distribution and reception is component end to end.
When coupled with a widescreen aspect (a feature of most modern professional cameras), the component signal can be easily broadcast over existing equipment, or with minor and comparatively inexpensive transmitter upgrades. Most importantly, there is no incremental increase in cost to produce programming in widescreen D1 as there is in HDTV. Finally, monitors/receivers/decoders are much, much, cheaper.
But -- even this is not the issue. It's not about (and never was about) making it easy for consumers. It's about broadcasters wanting free spectrum without the onerous requirement of "wasting" it by having to broadcast HDTV all day long. The spectrum allotted for HDTV broadcast is enough to simultaneously broadcast 6, widescreen D1 streams. Now, instead of having one station in a market, a broadcaster can have 6 -- or rent one or more of the channels to others for other uses.
It's politics, always has been. Probably always will be. {sigh}
Clay
I'd like to make another point that /. forgets. (Score:2)
HDTV, or the lack thereof, is simply not the companies' fault. It may not be the consumers "fault" either; they are just making a determination about what is best for them. Maybe the consumer is misinformed or, maybe, they just have greater priorities were they'd rather spend their finite resources. Maybe having more content on TV is more important to them than seeing it in higher quality....
This brings me to another very important point. That resources not spent here, on rolling out HDTV, are spent on pursuits that are more worthwhile (as determined by consumers). Maybe not by the television industry itself, but within the capital markets, labor markets, etc. This may mean more resources for the development of life saving drugs, better cars, and what have you.
The bottom line is that I am not upset with anyone about this. I may personally be willing to spend the cash (and then some) for HDTV, but I am mature enough to realize that my preferences are not necessarily in line with what society needs and wants. I would not want some regulatory body really forcing this matter on the companies and society in general. This situation, and most like it, simply do not call for regulation.
[Note: Cleaner cars and such are an entirely different scenario and a seperate argument because none of the consumers pay for the pollution that they personally pollute.]
[OT] Re:They have a point... (Score:3, Informative)
Catalytic converters have been legally required on all petrol cars in the EU since '92 IIRC. In the UK, leaded petrol is now only available on the condition that it doesn't sell more than a certain (extremely low) percentage of the total market. Any car which requires it either has to be converted, run on LRP or accept that maybe 1 in 30 garages carry fuel they can use. Further, emissions regulations are tightening on a very regular basis for new cars - which are also taxed according to volume of CO2 emissions. Older cars are subject to emissions tests in their annual roadworthiness test (can't run a car without one) and if they fail, they're off. Finally, you can be pulled over and tested at random to establish that your emissions are within defined limits and fined if they're not, plus required to get the vehicle up to standard within the time or it's off the road. Tailpipe emissions are never pleasant, trust a cyclist, but they're rather better than they might be over here.
As for LPG, erm, no. Conversions are actually subsidised for many vehicles, not taxed more than anything else. I'm assuming you mean 20,000 km -well, that's around the breakeven point in one year IIRC. Conversions don't have to be done every year, sir.
Yes, we have tax at that sort of level on the petrol. Something has to pay for the road building and maintenance and for healthcare costs from vehicle accidents and pollution related illnesses. Personally I quite like the idea of mass transit such as buses and trains being subsidised by cars, considering that they're far less socially invasive and help reduce congestion, along with providing mobility to those who can't drive (can't afford / too young / disabled) which means they can be economically active, too, which seems A Good Thing.
All forced by the government.
Just checking out PC HDTV decoders the other day.. (Score:4, Informative)
www.nab.org [nab.org]
www.hdpictures.com [hdpictures.com]
How to get HDTV (Score:3, Informative)
I wish they would hurry. (Score:2)
HDTV is here now. (Score:2)
If you can't get it via cable use an antenna. It looks every bit as good since it's all digital. As for content, if you watch primetime then a lot of that is in HD. HBO shows movies in HD that look better than DVD. NBC is showing the olympics in HD right now, and they look amazing.
Re:HDTV is here now. (Score:2)
Poor guy, he didn't do his homework shopping.... (Score:2)
I've been watching HDTV off air and off satellite for a couple years now. The author has apparently never heard of the RCA-DTC 100 which receives both DirecTV standard and high definition broadcasts (NASA tv is on the secondary orbit satellite too) and whose single dish supports four receivers, AND the unit includes an off-the-air broadcast HDTV receiver
In Silicon Valley, we can receive NINE digital off-the-air broadcast stations and the RCA-DTC100 doesn't need an expensive HDTV monitor, it can plug into your computer monitor too and it only runs $475 or so. The computer monitor will show more of the high definition signal than most consumer HDTV monitors since they typically just don't have enough phosphors to resolve 1920 horizontal pixels. There is much pixel aliasing
So in short, if the author of the article had done his homework when shopping, he would have known that there are several boxes that receive everything he was interested in in one unit, and he could still see HDTV HBO and watch the Tonight Show [sic] or the Superbowl or Olympics in HDTV
What's more, these days you don't need cable anymore since you can receive the over-the-air stations in better quality than cable offers. Last time I checked the rates for AT&T digital cable, they were infinitely more expensive than using rabbit ears for HD (which works just fine in my case)
Nathan Laredo laredo at gnuIt's all about selling the next round... (Score:2, Interesting)
No WAY is it arguable that degrading performance from previous levels is sensible and cost-effective. Arrows in the back notwithstanding, first-adopter pioneers are the best marketing force a company has. If a half million or more people had seen HDTV superbowl as their first exposure to the technology, that would translate into a stupendous sales bump.
If FOX couldn't see the value here, Sony and a few other vendors should have and insisted on better. Hell, they could have covered the cost and put a 'HDTV by SONY' ghost/watermark in and gotten better ad value than all the superbowl ads combined, and probably for less.
Just to throw up one last thought: I'm betting that HDTV will get aggressive adoption by the broadcasters the moment they realize how lame VHS and TiVo look by comparison. People buy DVD's for quality. They buy digital signal for quality. As soon as I could afford to as a kid, I stopped taping favorite songs off FM and started buying. HDTV is a way to continue marginalizing the effects of aggressive digital content sharing for a few more years.
I just look at the convergence point between Moore's law and bandwidth/datarate needed to adequately capture or share video and hope that content providers save up the nickel needed to buy a clue by then (better yet, how about a freebie, on me: Each new (innovative) version of a disk or video is a marketable commodity, dummies! I own many copies of Star Wars on tape, dvd, etc?! Um... all of 'em. So, how many more would I buy if I got toys, unseen footage, yet-another-commentary or yet-another-several-hours-of-episode-1-documentary etc? Probably all of 'em.)
Problems... (Score:5, Informative)
For example, you do not NEED two dishes for DirecTV... only the one oval dish. Two would also work though. For Dish, you do need two.
Fox digital broadcasts are not simply "480 lines". They are 480p, like a progressive scan DVD player. While a FAR cry from CBS's 1080i, or from ABC's 720p, it is still much better than what most people see even on their DVD's. Fox has other problems in their presentation though. For example, they "zoom" the picture so it fills a 16x9 TV. This effectively cuts off an inch on the top and bottom of the picture. Why they don't just send it through standard, like ALL the other networks do, and leave it to the viewer to decide on how they want to view it (standard, stretched, zoomed, etc), is beyond me.
Another little known fact, is that the OTA (over the air) broadcasts that are available to most, comes in a better picture quality than analog cable, digital cable, or digital sattelite. It is a very noticeable difference too. The digital broadcasts done OTA are not compressed in any way... great 480i picture (usually better since many/most HDTV's use a line doubler of some sort). Broadcasts done over cable or satellite are all compressed to certain degrees, resulting in pixelation and downright nastiness. Some are better than others, but OTA is better than all of them.
If you like to watch TV, I think it is worth it. Check out www.antennaweb.org to see what digital channels are available in your area, and what antenna you would need to receive them... I guess there is a place to check.
Check out www.avsforum.com to learn all you could ever want to know about anything to do with Home Theater, HDTV, HTPC, and more.
The information is out there; the problem is that you have to go look for it. I agree... the sales people should know more about this stuff so consumers don't get screwed. But really, is sale person's lack of knowledge about a product they are selling something new?
Jeff
Re:Problems... (Score:3, Informative)
Regrettably false. Uncompressed 1080i requires somewhere around 1.3 Gbps-- it's early, and I'm drawing a blank on the exact figure. But the broadcast spectrum allocated for HDTV is only wide enough to transmit about 19 Mbps per channel. So OTA HDTV is compressed at roughly 5-to-1 with MPEG-2 before it ever hits the transmitter.
That's not to say that OTA HD is a bad thing. It's beautiful. In a living room on consumer-grade equipment, it's practically indistinguishable from the uncompressed original.
Re:Problems... (Score:2)
19 Mbps is the capacity of the broadcast channel. The broadcaster can choose to squeeze it down as far as he wants beneath that, for storage reasons or whatever. So you may be right after all.
A brief history of HDTV: (Score:5, Funny)
For those interested in a brief history of HDTV, here it is:
Here's how it went:
Broadcast Industry asks for bandwidth for HDTV
FCC says "OK, we'll set aside bandwidth for HDTV"
FCC says "What standards?"
Industry says 'No Standards Please' and come up with EIGHTEEN recommended formats for HDTV. I am not shitting you.
FCC says "Isn't 18 different standards a bit much?"
Industry says "Shut the fuck up FCC, we know what we are doing. The 'market' will handle this!"
Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
Industry says "What? We really just want the free bandwidth. You really want us to do HDTV??
Congress says "Fuck you Industry. Broadcast HDTV or we'll legislate your asses back to Sun-day!"
Industry says "We're fucked. 18 formats? Why the hell did we do that? Let's change it."
Consumer Electronics dudes say "You ain't changing shit. We are already building the boxes you said you wanted built."
FCC says "Yah, ya boneheads we told you 18 was too many, now you gotta live with it."
Industry says "Well FCC, will you at least make the cable companies carry the HDTV at no charge?"
Cable companies say "Fuck you! You gotta pay! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"
FCC says "Yep, no federal mandated on HDTV must carry, we are letting 'the market' handle that"
Industry says "We are so fucked. We are spending 5-10 million per TV station in hardware alone and have 1000 HDTV viewers per city, even in LA!"
Consumer at home says "Where is my HDTV? Why does it cost so much? Fuck it, I'm sticking with cable/DirecTV."
Consumer electronics dudes, broadcast industry, FCC, and congress all cry. Cable companies laugh and make even bigger profits.
Wow, I wrote that... (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually wrote it for my fraternity mailing list. The reference to Sun-day is an inside joke.
It pays to be a broadcast engineer in discussions like this.
THE HDTV TV Rollout (Score:3, Insightful)
Fox superbowl (Score:2)
DTV and HDTV in Australia (Score:4, Informative)
If you use a computer monitor as your display, HDTV isn't terrifyingly expensive. That's no good if you want a 45 inch screen, of course, but it's a heck of a lot better than nothing.
I bought an HDTV box a little while ago and wrote an article on the subject of getting all this stuff happening for cheap. You can read the article here [dansdata.com].
Here's what will change EVERYTHING: (Score:2)
The Vestel prototype, a 43" (110cms) diagonal 16:9 aspect ratio table top television, weighs just 75lbs (34kgs) and measures only 18" (46cms) front to back. The production version is expected to weigh even less at 55lbs (25kgs), with a depth of just 12" (31cms) and will be suitable for mounting on a shelf or tabletop.
This chip will eventually drive HDTV cost down to the point of critical mass. Then we will start seeing HDTV content.
The question to ask is... (Score:2)
...when will advertisers start producing content in HD and/or widescreen format, and start insisting on HD/widescreen distribution in their contracts and payment plans?
I STILL don't see the point of HDTV (yet) (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that HDTV is nice for the enthusiast, but useless for most people. Improved quality of DVD playback is nice, but despite the success of the DVD format, typical viewers are not trying to replicate the theater experience at home. Heck, most of them wouldn't know how if they wanted to (and could afford it). I just can't see people who don't know how to set the clock on their VCR being able to find the sweet spot for a 5.1 speaker system.
Does HDTV have a shot? Of course it does. But the networks need to get serious about it (and soon), prices on the equipment need to plummet (no more than a 20% price difference between an HDTV monitor and the equivalent NTSC TV) to the point where folks are willing to shell out the cash, and the issues with cable companies need to be worked out pronto. And consumers need to demand high-quality video, otherwise all we'll wind up getting someday is 4 channels of the same crap on an HDTV frequency. Yippee.
I should be a perfect target customer for HDTV. I'm a technically-oriented person. I make a good living. I have not one, but two DVD players (one is in the bedroom), several computers, surround sound in the living room, and I only have a 27" set to go with it. I ought to be heading for upgrade city, but I'm not.
I've looked longingly at a 40" widescreen set that I see every time I go to Best Buy, but I just can't justify $2200 for a TV set, no matter how hard I try. Other than the DVD film I watch every couple of weeks, there's just no advantage to the big set. One of my friends has a huge widescreen projection HDTV set (he did well in the stock option roulette game), and I've watched movies on it - they look great. But TV looks just as crappy, only bigger. So what's the point? Guys who made a lot with stock options are far from an ideal market, especially nowadays.
Maybe in a couple more years this'll be worth revisiting, but HDTV is dead in the water for now, and justifiably so. There just isn't any real benefit that makes it worth your disposable income - unless you have a ridiculous amount of income to dispose of.
Re:I STILL don't see the point of HDTV (yet) (Score:3, Interesting)
> $500 for a nice one)
Define nice. For under $500 you get a bulbous 32" set at best. If you want one of the newer flat (or even at least nearly flat) sets in the 32" to 36" category, it will cost you more than $1000. OTOH, once you get to 36" with an analog set, the low resolution of NTSC becomes REALLY apparent, especially with letterboxed DVDs.
So basically, once you're spending $1200 on an analog set, you might at well spend $1500-$2000 on an HDTV RPTV (check out the Panasonic PT47WX49, you can find it as low as $1500 online, currently $1799 at BB). In my opinion, at that price point an HDTV-ready set is worth it even just for the improved quality and wide aspect ratio of DVDs. In fact, at the moment I would say that the real appeal of HDTV sets lies in playback of DVDs rather than true HD programming, which is still pretty scarce (and expensive to record).
Re:I STILL don't see the point of HDTV (yet) (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're in the market for a higher-end set, it does make sense to consider HDTV instead, but the market for $1200+ analog sets is a lot smaller to begin with than the market for $500 sets - and the HDTV market is in turn a subset of the smaller premium market.
But your point is spot-on. HDTV is ideal for the heavy DVD user, and many of the early sets have circuitry to improve the sharpness of NTSC video as well, so there is a benefit for those premium users. The problem is that it's a small market, and will probably remain so for quite some time to come.
Why did DVD take off so quickly? Because player prices dropped to around the same prices as VCRs. That fueled the explosion. I think it'll be the same thing with HDTV.
Re:I STILL don't see the point of HDTV (yet) (Score:2)
That's what I've been through just recently. I was set on getting a 36" inch analog TV. When my wife and I walked into BB and looked at the $1100 flat Toshiba set, it looked very nice. But then she saw the equivalent HD set next to it and was blown away by the sharpness (despite hardly being adjusted). So now she wanted a HD set. Well, the Toshiba model was $1899, plus it is 4:3, plus it weighs a ton, plus 36" isn't all that big for that money. Once you spend close to $2000, you might as well consider RPTVs, which will have considerably larger screens for the same money, be 16:9, and weigh comparatively less (or at least be on castors). So now I'm looking at a 55" Sharp set for $1999. The thing is, once you start considering trade-offs and value for money, it's easy to walk up the price scale and keep justifying it, so I had to put a hard limit at 2 grand. It's only a TV, after all. Still, after you watch a Bond DVD from 8-10 feet on a 55" in HD, going back to small(er) analog can be very, very painful (to you and the disc
Re:I STILL don't see the point of HDTV (yet) (Score:2)
Copyright issues (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, the media companies are terrified that this will put them out of business.
When I briefly owned an HDTV decoder, the manual's fine print read something like this: The HDTV broadcast standard is still emerging, and this decoder may not be able to decode all or any future HDTV broadcasts. (Especially since BIG MEDIA is still planning to implement copy protection to protect their crappy Hollywood assets.)
I sure wonder how pissed off Joe Early Adopter is going to be when he finds out his $700 set top decoder won't decode any HDTV signal worth watching!
Of course, since true copy protection of digital signals is probably impossible, I would probably bet that Big Media will do everything possible to delay and stymie the HDTV "rollout". Just like DAT.
--
tomRakewell
Why bother? (Score:2)
There my 2 cents...
Just waiting... (Score:4, Interesting)
I vote with my wallet.
--
NO compelling need (Score:3, Interesting)
The higher resolution is not comparable to the switch from black and white to color.
Even so, the FCC has not chosen (I believe) standards that are backward compatible, as was color to black and white. Let's face it. Color TV probably would have taken a lot longer to get into the markert if it had had been backward incompatible.
The end result for most consumers is that they resent being put on the treadmill of upgrading their techonology just because something is supposed to be better. Heck, how many companies were/are still using Cobol when Y2K rolled around. Or look at the hassle MS gets because it wants people to upgrade their computers every three years, even pulling software off the shelves in favor of the last version, trying to force people into shorter and shorter upgrade cycles.
And not every tv station is going to be able to spend money to upgrade to digital right away. The outcry when people are _forced_ to buy new tvs, and these are all high priced items, will kill tv in america. Most folks will say, "I can't afford a thousand dollar tv". They may go down to walmart for something for a couple hundred bucks. But a couple of gs for a bood tube? To hell with it. I know TV is not that important to me. I'll live without, and probably will be better of for it. Just imagine not being able to see allof those political campaign ads because of incompatibility of technologies.
paradise.
Re:NO compelling need (Score:2)
This reminds me of an old quote from, I think, Gallagher. "I wish there were a way to increase the intelligence of the programming on television. There's a knob called 'brightness,' but it doesn't work."
Even so, the FCC has not chosen (I believe) standards that are backward compatible, as was color to black and white.
I'm afraid you believe incorrectly. A circa-1990 TV set can't receive digital broadcasts, period. If you had a way to receive them, a circa-1990 set couldn't display them.
None of the production equipment in a TV studio or station is compatible between analog SD and digital HD. None. You'd expect to have to buy new cameras and decks, of course, but do you realize that you even need new switchers, even new sync generators! The only thing that's compatible between analog SD and digital HD is the coaxial cable that the station is already wired with. And that's a blessing. For a long time, it was parallel HD only, not serial. Bleah.
In short, HD is about as incompatible with SD as it can be without being three-D or smell-o-vision or something.
don't get HDTV (Score:2)
getting an HDTV will pull you into their control.
Hell we should not be melting our minds on that sensationalist crap anyway. Read a book, listen to classical music, go to an art museum go to a history museum, go to a play, go to a live orchestra preformance, do the things that make us human.....the entertainmnet industry certainly does not.
I first heard of HDTV.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's some HDTV Highlights (Feb. 1981-March 1998) [bgsu.edu].
Well, we make HDTV.... (Score:5, Informative)
For those of us who are used to PAL, the increase in quality that HD gives you is negligible in the home.
For those of you used to NTSC, it's huge. Progressive scan helps as well, but it's the stable colours and the resolution that make the difference.
However, the one thing we have been involved in has nothing to do with HDTV, it's to do with HD in the cinema. And the trend there is to cut the costs of making a movie by doing it all digitally. The nice people who make film stock rake in a small fortune every year on stock; in comparison, HD tapes are free! HD provides close to 2K resolution (a film industry term) and anything you see that has been into a computer for effects work will have been scanned in at 2K res.
So, HDTV is certainly not a technology looking for a market, it's just that in the US, the need to replace the awful quality of analog NTSC transmission with something better is much more pressing than in the PAL world. Hence the heartache.
Any transition is painful, but the real crime in the USA is that you're going to be saddled with an off-air transmission system that is not up to the job. The FCC, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided that rather than fall in with the rest of the world - and the laws of physics - it will mandate the 8-VSB specification as the only modulation standard for the US Digital TV broadcast transition (rather than the more recent and just plain better COFDM standard). The FCC seems to have almost completely ignored the technical arguments - instead, it has followed the advice of various industry groups - like the ATSC - who's members control the 8VSB technology. So don't forget to blame the FCC is all this mess!
However, having spent some time in the US, I will also say that the thought of getting the crap that goes out on TV in sharper detail makes me shudder....
I have HD (Score:3, Interesting)
I work for a company that owns over ten television stations and we're simulcasting on half of them and others will be by next year.
Has anyone seen the Olympics on HD? It's incredible! The reflections on the ice, the shiney gold helmets. The detail in the fabric on the outfits! I could go on. Plus, the sound is great. You can actually hear the movements in the snow or ice.
We've taken the Olympic HD broadcast and pretty much aired it 24 hours over out HD channel.
Sadly, the film on HD shows up what appears to me to be the same (ER or West Wing). However, anything on video looks great.
You do have to be wary, Fox said that they broadcast the Superbowl in HD. This was the not case. They just letterboxed it and upsamlped the stream. It made for some great pixelation at the end when they threw out the confetti.
It'll get there, and the TV set prices will be cheaper, eventually. Until then, I and the other 10+ people in our community will enjoy it.
TV is shite anyway. (Score:2)
And the media companies want to protect this "content"? It's like a beggar protecting his pile of bottles and aluminium cans. What kind of vegetating sheep watches it anyway?
Factual errors in article. (Score:4, Informative)
There are a number of glaring factual errors in the article. First of all, there are about a quarter-millon HDTV _displays_ SOLD total (that's not counting the ones sitting in warehouses). But there are only about 25,000 decoders SOLD (again, differentiate versus those sitting in warehouses. I have _no_ _idea_ where the article author got 300K+ decoders sold). The vast majority of HDTV displays are being used to display DVD / LD output, and have no means to recieve off-the-air transmission.
In short, the average HDTV station has a viewership of less than 200 people.
The current FCC rule is also "stations do not need to relinquish their analog bandwidth until 2005 or until 85% of their viewing market is equipped to recieve HDTV signals." Essentially, that's an infinite delay, as even _color_ TV didn't hit 85% until 1998.
Another omission: Service Area: the field test of HDTV's 8VSB digital modulation screwed the pooch; actual propagation of the signal in a multipath environment (i.e. where people live, with things like telephone wires, tall buildings, etc.) is _far_ worse than predicted. The current tests I've seen on real deployments indicate between 3 and 10dB worse performance than predicted, almost all of it due to multipath. In other words, a perfectly viewable analog signal does not predict a decodeable HDTV signal from the same transmit/recieve pair, as although there's adequate field strength, the signal/noise ratio is insufficient to get a good decode. Since HDTV either decodes correctly or the ECC fails, there's no such thing as a "noisy signal", you just get an onscreen message saying "No signal at all". You can't watch a weak HDTV signal, all you see is bluescreen.
Given all those factors, most station managers are seeing the writing on the wall (and the million-dollar-a-year power bills - work out how much it costs to run a 10-megawatt system for 18 hours a day at 10 cents a KWH). They're taking advantage of an FCC rules loophole- the right of a station to lower their transmitter power without renegotiating their license, and have cut the power outputs of their transmitters drastically. Since "effectively nobody" is actually watching HDTV, this inconveniences no one and saves the stations a bundle of money on the electric bill.
And in the NY City Area (Score:2, Informative)
As a Long Island resident who has always used an antenna (why should I pay monthly for something that's "free"? OK, the Sci-Fi channel is good!), I won't be getting HDTV any time soon. But as others have pointed out, I wonder how many sales people in the local electronic stores would even mention this obstacle?
Here we go! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm lucky enough to be in a market where the local cable system is transmitting a few channels in HD. I had to go online and grab a decoder (~ $300), and I was all set.
WOW. Amazing. I pick up CBS HD, and their Saturday afternoon College Football games made it ALL worth the while. You could read the frickin warning label text on the backs of the helmets! I now find myself to be a regular fan of the CBS primetime lineup, previously would have never watched a single show on there. (Hear this, advertisers? Networks?)
I live in Omaha. People probably don't think Omaha is a big tech area. (I don't!). But I've written our major networks in town, one is already transmitting OTA digital, another comes online in 2 weeks, and the other two will be done by Summer. Why justify HDTV?
I've since bought a direct-view toshiba widescreen hdtv for upstairs. I haven't gotten it to start picking up OTA transmissions yet (waiting till it gets a bit warmer to start figuring out antenna placements), but DVD content is amazing - and, guess what? The XBOX has a few widescreen 480p games, with 1080i games to follow shortly! Have you seen DOA3 on an HDTV? It would blow your mind away.
Things are going okay.. The prices ARE plummeting (my widescreen tube hdtv was only $1850! - and it's a flat screen as well). The content is growing. All the people that are sitting on the sidelines will start seeing more and more letterboxed NTSC television feeds (did anyone notice the black bars in the NCAA game CBS had a few weekends ago???).. While you had that, I had a PERFECT 16:9 game to watch.. Ahh..
this article is crap! (Score:2, Interesting)
Bullshit. First, the FCC is mandating that all transmissions be digital by 2006, NOT 2003.. 2006 is the only date that the FCC has announced, so where is the author of this article getting his information? Secondly, Only 70 percent of homes currently have cable eh? Don't you think DirecTV, DISH, and other digital satellite tv players which have gone out of business by now, have something to do with that Sherlock? Hell, my old hometown took forever before they got cable finally.. it was 1994 by the time they got cable. Then I learned that everyone got satellite dishes and drove the cable company there out of business! As of 1996/1997 that town no longer has cable tv.
If you want HDTV there is a very cheap option compared to buying a 52" HDTV ready set that you don't need. Buy a WinTV-D or WinTV-HD card. The difference between the two is that the 'D' card only supports 640x480 res max.. while WinTV-HD will support full HDTV res. WinTV-D is usually around $300, WinTV-HD is around $400. Don't come crying to me that it only works on a computer, this is Slashdot.. not MTV. If you want something to watch HDTV broadcasts on your old tv you can find a STB for $300+.. if you don't mind the much lower res on your tv.
The author here should stop crying about HDTV not being available everywhere for the cost of a cup of coffee. Reality check here, HDTV broadcasts only started in 1999/2000. I wasn't around, but I'm willing to bet that it was a long time before color tv sets were cheap enough that everyone had one.
Copy Protection is Just One More Gotcha! (Score:2, Informative)
As mentioned in the Slate article, I am constantly amazed that network affiliates don't even advertise that they are broadcasting in HD. Considering all the competition the networks get from cable and satellite stations you'd think they would want to trumpet this as an advantage since they've already invested in all the equipment. They Olympics is a perfect example. Other than the press release, what mention was made of this? Did anybody see a banner like "broadcast in NBC High Definition"? Nope, because there weren't any! Maybe the affiliates and networks are saving all the promotion for a time when they can finally figure out how to charge you for the free HD they broadcast now.
Tee Vee Schmee Schmee (Score:2)
HDTV and 2002 Olympics coverage (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, considering that NBC has done a horrible job of covering the Olympics live (do we really need to see each hockey match up, men and women, live, for the entire length of the game? No.) the fact that the HDTV coverage is even LESS than this indicates to me that there must be some chasm in the way that they are either taping the events (they need to have separate equipment for HDTV/NTSC) or the way they are broadcasting (not enough bandwidth?)
In either case, if HDTV is ever to be considered a 'good' thing, broadcasters are going to *at least* have to provide the same programming at a higher quality to HDTV customers as regular NTSC viewers. Why would I pay extra money if I get less to watch? That makes absolutely no sense!!
Just my $0.02. One last thought - the 7-10 japanese stations that are covering the Olympics in Japan, are they all broadcasting in HDTV? If so, NBC should consider that a slap in their face. 'The US leads the world in
Move to Houston - HDTV is GREAT here! (Score:3, Informative)
The article mentions how few HD decoders have been sold - well, I'm one of those who didn't buy buy a decoder because the cable box takes care of it for me.
HDTV- don't hold your breath. (Score:5, Informative)
1. There is no static. You either get the channel or you don't.
2. Digital cable is not HD. In fact, for the most part, the quality of the signal decreases as Cable TV companies try to squeeze more channels into less bandwidth.
3. DVDs are not HDTV killer apps. they look better, but they're still 480p. True HDTV (1080i or 720p) is amazing, but HD-DVDs are held up for reasons related to the next point.
4. The real problem for studios is that there is no copy protection on HDTV hardware. They are afraid of giving out theatre-quality resolution video, and component outputs (95% of HDTVs) have no built-in copy protection. It's not enough that there is no commercially available HDTV signal recorders. Networks and studios are belatedly seeing HDTV as a chance to integrate copy controls to prevent unauthorized recording, copying, etc. to combat TiVO/Replay. There had been at least one HD-DVD player that was pulled from the market shortly after introduction. As part of this, the industry is moving to Firewire instead of component signals, because Firewire has copy protection built into the hardware, obsoleting 99% of existing hardware. A Firewire -> Component converter is unlikely, because that would defeat copy protection. This pisses the early adopters off and hardware manufacturers are not interested in producing cutting edge new hardware which may be obsolete under the new Firewire standard, and distributors and retailers don't want to be stuck with unsellable new hardware.
5. There are websites that have information about which channels are broadcasting around your area and antenna recommendations.
I am a broadcaster... (Score:5, Informative)
Let me break it down for you... MONEY.
The natinal debt caused Bill Clinton's Administration to try to make the FCC become a profit center for the US Federal Govt. So why give the people their airwaves for free when you can sell the band and pay down the debt?
So they (the FCC) were going to sell the bandwidth to the telephone companies (where the money is in T-com) for cell usage, until high compression digital phones made the idea worthless several years into the plan. Every television engineer in the world saw this coming. They all said, "this whole plan will dry up when digital phones come along, because this is predicated on the idea that telecomm technology won't advance. Telecomm tech is one of the fastest advancing techs out there, if not the fastest." Of course, digital cells came out, and all of that HD band move for the sell off became useless. We (broadcasters) were stuck with the grandchild. Cable, of course, makes the highest profit in the industry, and hasn't had to do a fucking thing.
Now we (local television stations) are stuck with the idea of making millions of dollars of changes for a pittance of high end users... when most people watch TV for the shows, not the technical specifications. Many have never heard of HD.
Bill Clinton did this to us. He wanted ways to pay down the debt without slashing anything, so he hit the one industry that is one of the most regulated short of atomic energy, and wrapped it up in a bow that said, "progress." It was a big lie.
Why is is not here yet, even though it is regulated to be here RIGHT NOW?
Well, most of the broadcast quality digital equipment is made by single manufacturer overseas companies (like Sanyo or Toshiba), so they can charge literally whatever they want without worrying about anyone messing with them... why? They pushed the idea on the FCC, and they hold all the patents. Its literally the whole Rambus thing all over again. When the FCC says jump, local television stations are forced to say, "How high, Master?"
The current cost per HD user nationwide is several thousand dollars in the hole per user, if not tens of thousands, depending on the market.
I understand the reason for the FCC, but their power is absolute over private businesses that already give people what they want OR THEY FAIL MISERABLY. The truth is, the FCC lost touch along the way. Completely became a post for political insiders to sit on like being the Drug Czar, and now they just constantly muck up a system that is extremely market reactive. No one in the FCC knows shit about television. They have a late 70's Sesame Street NPR attitude about one of the most cutthroat businesses out there.
HDTV is not in your hometown market because they can't afford it. Period. The Gov't can say, "We need you to be HD NOW!" and they respond with, "We just got hit about as bad as the airlines, we just laid off workers... we don't have millions lying around for 15 A/V enthusiasts. Up yours. Pull our license. See what the people think about that when people can't get 'free' local TV all over the country."
That is where we stand. The TV stations try to look like their complying, because they like their license. The FCC wants a cool new standard, no matter what it costs to the common man and television stations.
And it was all over trying to sell off your public trust of the bandwidth to big rich phone companies, because politicians like big government programs and waste, and it was an idea that was fundamentally flawed because they thought the world was going to be analog forever. Way to go FCC. Are YOU EVEN AWAKE?
Can't be done (Score:2, Informative)
I'd hate to see the copy protection schemes in a new DVD format made specifically for HDTV. It would make DiVX look as open as VHS.
Re:Government Overregulation (Score:4, Informative)
The corporate sector is a hundred times more greedy and short-sighted than even the most ineptly run government agency.
Re:Government Overregulation (Score:4, Informative)
While the ISM and similar bands (900MHz and 2.4 GHz home wireless) are great bands for their purposes, they don't tend to overcome terrain obstacles as well as lower frequencies (and no, this is not really a question of broadcast power). So it is natural for the FCC to want to make more effecient use of the spectrum by reclaiming wide analogue channels and replacing them with narrow digital channels, thus freeing spectrum for other uses. That's what we pay them for. That's their job.
Re:Government Overregulation (Score:2)
Re:Government Overregulation (Score:2)
If the FCC wants HDTV to take hold, they must mandate HDTV must-carry on cable and HDTV compatible tuners on new TV sets. 85% of the public gets their TV signals from cable or DBS. The FCC mandated the inclusion of UHF tuners in TV sets, and set performance standards for UHF tuners, to make UHF TV a commercial success. When the FCC let the market decide with AM Stereo, it was a disaster.
Re:Why not HD In setup boxes? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeesh... (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong (Score:2)
Re:UHF antenna? Was the big deal? (Score:2)
They watched VHF channels 2-13. Even if there happens to still be an TV antenna on top of your hours it was primarily designed to be good at receiving VHF signals with UHF thrown in as an afterthought.
Re:HD questions (Score:2, Informative)
PAL gives some people seizures (Score:2)
Then just switch to PAL - the colour encoding is far better than NTSC
Granted. However:
and the vertical resolution is better to boot!
Wrong. PAL-M (PAL color encoding of a 60 Hz 525-line signal) has the same vertical resolution as NTSC. The version you're talking about (50 Hz 625-line signal) poses great problems for people with epilepsy because its flicker rate is so darn low. It's not as bad as early Pokemon cartoons [google.com], but it can still be noticeable to those sensitive to flashing lights.
Here's the scoop (Score:3, Informative)
The HDTV signal is a very tightly compressed signal. To give you an idea, the native production format is around 1.5 GIGAHz of bandwidth. This can be squeezed down to a 19.3 MEGAbit/second signal. The 19Mbs signal can be shoved through a 6MHz pipe.
There are several pipes you can listen to at you house, each is handled differently.
Over-the-air:
You need an arial antenna (rabbit ears or rooftop yaggi) to recieve the signal. Then the signal must be run through an ATSC decoder. The decoder aka settop box, decodes the MPEg and creates a HD signal that you feed into you HD montior. Care must be taken that you chose a settop box that has outputs that match the input of your monitor. ATSC decoders are $1,000 last time I checked. Could be less now. What you get -> Possibly 5-6 HDTV stations of the local area with less than 15 hours/week of actual HDTV programming.
DirecTV:
You buy the special DirecTV HDTV reciever for $700 or so. Hook it up to dish antenna, plug into your HD monitor. What you get -> ONE channel of HBO movies. That's it...
Cable TV:
Most cable TV systems do not retransmit the HDTV signal, you have to check with your cable provider. If they do, you will probably need settop box from the cable company that makes a signal that feeds a second ATSC decoder settop ($$), then that feeds your HD monitor. What you get -> Depending on local cable system, you may get some of the local HDTV stations.