FCC And More HDTV Rules 139
Logic Bomb writes: "The New York Times has a story (free reg req) on the latest twist in the battles over High Definition Television. The FCC has concluded that cable companies can not be compelled to carry both the digital and analog versions of a broadcast station's signal. This will definitely make the transition period to full digital even more turbulent, since in individual markets people who have or have not updated their viewing equipment may end up watching different channels." deebaine points also to this CNN story on same; all this HDTV is going to get worse before it gets better.
DTV broadcast DOOMED (Score:2)
- Networks are moving from paying affiliates to carry programs, to having the affiliates pay them.
- Eventually, networks will avoid local broadcast affiliates completely and go direct to the consumer over cable, DSL, and satellite
- 70% of U.S. residents already get their TV from wire-based services, 10% from DBS satellites
So while DTV and HDTV will probably find use over digital wirelines services, the quagmire known as broadcast TV will only adopt any DTV services in the 10 largest metropolitan areas. Station owners are going to have to start paying TV networks for programming, and there is no coherent business plan for local broadcasters to recover the costs of switching to DTV (no viewers either due to expensive sets). I think that it is nuts that the FCC determines what modulation modes should be used. Technological change happens rapidly now. Broadcast stations wasting precious bandwidth with analog transmissions should not be catered to. Spectrum use (rental) should be auctioned, and the winner can do whatever he or she wants with it. Look at the unregulated 900 MHz spectrum, used by everything from baby monitors to Ricochet micro-cellular data networks. We could have G3 wireless technology now instead of channel 5.Re:According to CNN (Score:1)
Re:Um..... (Score:1)
------------------------
Re:Australia Already Has This (Score:1)
Also. The US developed it's own DTV standard. As Australia is a PAL country, they've probably adopted the european DTV system using the COFDM modulation. Not sure of the companies involved... probably Philips is a main one.
Part of the reason for a slower rollout here in the US is due to a debate over the modulation standard. COFDM vs. VSB8. Some broadcasters want receivers that can accept either thus adding delay to the designs and increasing the cost. To what end? My theory is that Sinclair Broadcasting wants COFDM for mobile applications (Data transmition anyone) That is probably worth more in revenue than the broadcasting of programs. Use a quarter of the bandwidth to broadcast a standard def program and use the other three quarters for some serious revenues for pagers and internet appliances.
Re:This is all one big facade. (Score:1)
eudas
really that informative? (Score:1)
Re:To be honest.. (Score:1)
Blasphemey!
That's the reason I hate all of those bullshit highschool projects that require powerpoint.
It doesn't matter how well you know your subject material. As long as you have some pretty pictures, it's ok.
--
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:1)
Instead, the airwaves of television have turned into nothing more than a marketing tool for the corporations that plague them. And given their stranglehold on the broadcast content, we can be assured that nothing (not even the "news") that hits the airwaves is real.
Don't hate TV. Hate the people that control it. Because even if television were to die, those same people will just end up controlling the next mass communications medium that comes along.
Re:FP (Score:1)
Broadcast TV (Score:4)
something more than once).
From the advertising industry pov, there are only so many Lexus commercials that they can usefully air. They need to sell things like second mortages, Tide, PineSol, and Doritos on there too. They need to sell monster truck show ads. Point being, the market does not involve only those people who make enough money to spend $300 on a tv set.
A tv set is something that should be, like a radio, low threshhold of entry into the market. You should be able to get a shitty tv at the tag sale and be able to watch broadcast shows on it.
If everything is mediated through expensive digital cables, there will be an even greater media divide than there is right now. Broadcast tv does some useful stuff, like telling people where to vote, what the weather will be, and where the traffic jams are. Many of these people don't have the time or the resources to look anywhere else. Usually, even the poorest family has access to a tv set, not the internet or even the newspaper.
Advertisers, wanting to reach all markets, value the broadcast TV market and hopefully should resist any attempt to exclude poorer markets from watching television.
Bad news for HDTV (Score:3)
The latest news just shows us that the cable companies already have enough of a foothold to stall indefinitely, and they have obvious motives to do so, since the ultimate goal would be to make it possible to get better-than-current-cable picture quality without purchasing anything, at least in urban areas. At least that's the way I understand the goal, correct me if I'm wrong.
Dual Broadcasting (Score:1)
This is probably an excuse for the cable companies to drop anologue services as quickly as possible because it would free up huge amounts of bandwidth.
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:2)
That's fine, except most movies in the studio libraries will never be shown on the big screen again.
Movies that make 95% of what is available in theaters today look like junk.
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:3)
Turn your brightness down, and/or get a better DVD player. This is a common symptom of poor calibration.
Free reg not reqd... (Score:1)
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:1)
2001 is perhaps one of the best serious Science Fiction movies ever made, and that can't be owed directly to Clarke's brlliant writing. If 2001 had been made by any other director it would've suffered, IMO, as Kubrick is the only director I know of that had the attention to detail and persistance to pull it off.
I mean, every single film Kubrick made is completely different from his others, and every one is extremely good, if not brilliant.
Re:Um..... (Score:1)
Well, companies have to follow the rules just like everyone else, even though this is America (apple pie and streets of gold).
They don't have free reign to do whatever suits their budget and tolerance for stupidity.
--
Re:HDTV is like IPv6 (Score:1)
TV Content Gripes On Topic? (Score:1)
Besides, there's a new thing coming up quick, VOD. Sure, they're just going to stock your top ten PPV's at first, but you WILL see a day soon where if you're up at 4am and can't sleep and the mood strikes you, Enter the Dragon will be a few clicks away... Point being that HDTV isn't just for prime time television simulcasted shows...
Re:Set-top boxes (Score:1)
Re:VCR without an eject button. (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't we blame the electronics companies to (Score:2)
latest greatest toys... (Score:1)
You don't know what I do for a living, how I make my money, what charities I give time or money to, or anything else, yet you've decided that I'm evil. You have no ideas what steps I take to help the environment, the sick, the arts or anything, yet you've decided that you know exactly who I am.
How sad is that? That because I thought it amusing to defend the position that television can be fun, and entertaining, that you've declared that I'm a selfish, insecure, money-driven person, who dislikes strangers, and doesn't care about social issues. And by sad, I mean it's sad for you, not me.
I'm not going to argue whether you're right or wrong. I know exactly who I am. I'm not the kind of person who looks at some superficial information, like a person's TV viewing habits, and decides they know everything about them.
YOU DO NOT KNOW ME. and you never will. It's obvious, because I can't stand people like you. People who make judgments about a person without nearly enough information to understand them, or to know what they do.
Welcome to the real world, where a good stereo doesn't equal a lack of social responsibility. Get a fucking life, and stop judging people. Judging other people's lives won't make your, or anybody else's life any better.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Most likely... (Score:1)
Re:TV is all about passive entertainment.... (Score:1)
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Re:TV is all about passive entertainment.... (Score:1)
If you see every differing opinion as a personal attack on yourself this is going to be one long and very difficult life for you.
-josh
digital cable is not too good (Score:1)
Plus, speaking of MPEG artifacts, has anyone else notices how ugly DVD's get when you have a solid dark color. For instance, in dark scenes the whole background becomes a bunch of black squares.
A need has arised to move technology along.... (Score:1)
Re:To be honest.. (Score:1)
They will stop making traditional VCRs and DVD players. No big deal for the DVD, since I am reasonably sure they'll do them backwards compatible (or will they? Let's not forget that greed is powerful, maybe they will force the consumers to buy again all their titles), but not VCRs. And I have some of the best things on VHS tapes.
Just look at those poor bastards with laser discs. Noone makes LD players anymore. Who the hell cares? Once your last LD player breaks, you are fucked. Not to talk about the fact that some titles had much nicer features on LD than on DVD. Why? Because the movie industry doesn't give a shit about customer satisfaction. They are after the dough. All these bastards care about making money, not about high quality whatever. They shape your needs "you need HDTV because it's so much better, you need DD 6.1, because the sound is so much better, and btw. you need a new DVD player that can do HD, and a new VCR that can do HD..."
It's all screwed up.
Re:I have a WinTV-HD (Score:1)
HDTV is like IPv6 (Score:3)
HD-DVD is what I'm REALLY waiting for (Score:2)
Re:Set-top boxes (Score:1)
Um..... (Score:1)
This kinda reminds me of the airbag situation, the transportation agencies don't regulate whether or not a car has to have an airbag, yet if you make a car with an airbag, it has to expand at like 200 mph (thus decapitating younger people) or you can't install one in your car.
These people own private companies, they should be able to do what is in the best interest of their own company, after all, this is America, right?
------------------------
Bringing new meaning to america (Score:1)
I am currently listening to worlock by skinny puppy
I dont know about the rest of
Fight censors!
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:2)
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:1)
But I think you're wrong about stereo. For some weird reason, tv shows that people listen to in stereo, even despite the crappy ass speaker seperation on tvs, improves their perception of the overall picture quality. Even if there's no actual improvement, a percieved one isn't really bad - it makes your watching more enjoyable.
As for watching lots of content, that's great, but I'll be damned if I'll stand for the continued unconstitutional expansion of copyright law at the behest of media corporations.
Re:actually... (Score:1)
A thought... (Score:1)
The concept:
Someone brings out a tivo equivalent that's hooked up to your permanently on DSL and is sent a signal telling it when to start and stop recording to totally avoid advertising. You simply switch on fifteen minutes after the start of your program and you get it clean and ad free.
I've moved from London to San Diego a month ago and haven't even bothered hooking up cable as (from an English point of view) the Ad/Credit/Ad/Show/Ad/Show/Ad/Credit/Ad of American TV is unwatchable. Maybe it's tolerable for those who've grown up with it, but I for one would pay an extra hundred on my tivo or an extra $10 a month on the subscription to never have to watch an advert again.
Anyway, the question this leads to is: Does anyone have any thoughts on how this would effect the market? Would you cable contract specify that you could not use such units with it for fear of loss of advertising revenue? Would they just add product placement in to the main shows? Even if it were prhobited/made illegal, would that stop the boxes from being bought (think non-region specific DVD players)? Would subscriptions costs go up? Would program quality drop?
Just say no (Score:4)
Just don't get HDTV, unless the laws have changed such that fair use comes back and we won't have to be subject to the controls on copying and playback of the digital signal. If they are dependent on a patented signal which must be licensed from a consortium of content providers, then all the builders of end user equipment will be beholden to them, and it will be DeCSS lawsuits all over again.
Only if enough people who realize this decide *not* to buy HDTV is there hope. Yes, it will be painful if you can't get an analog signal, but just do without. Otherwise, we will be gladly cedeing any freedoms we might have to the content providers.
-Rob
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:1)
Networks would sue.... (Score:2)
The networks would simply claim restraint of trade and lawsuit-bomb anyone who offered such a service. The suits probably wouldn't stand up in court over the long haul, but the legal costs would bankrupt the defendant and force him to sell his company...probably to the very networks suing him. Oh, sure, they'd call it a "partnership," but what it would mean in the final analysis is that the commercial-zapping technology would be buried, and buried deep.
Additionally, any service for editing out commercials would be DOA to begin with, as such a device would be difficult to sell without television advertising, and there's no way the networks are going to sell ad time for a service that attacks their revenue stream.
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:2)
Re:Just say no (Score:1)
FWIW, Montgomery Wards is going out of business, and have 60" projection TV's at a discount. This was the lowest cost option for me, because shipping costs were less than by internet purchase.
Re:Broadcast TV (Score:1)
Not to mention it's much faster to switch the TV on than it is to go to a computer.
When I'm showering in the morning, I can listen to the weather, traffic and news on the TV... if I use my computer in the shower, all it will do is shock and kill me.
Re:TV is all about passive entertainment.... (Score:1)
Way to BRING it man! We're in pretty much a golden era of entertainment choices, at all levels of sensibilities, the total opposite of what TV and its three choices were in the 50s and 60s when TV was pronounced pathetic. There are no longer three channels that have to appeal to a third of the audience. Some channels are happy averaging 25000 viewers through the day. It's a different world.
Re:I have a WinTV-HD (Score:1)
I saw it for 10 seconds and realized that replacing my 61" television with what I saw, in addition to shelling out 3-4x as much dough was not worth it.
I watch TV... yes alot. That's why I have a 61" television. But after seeing HDTV, I'm still not sold. Looks like it's nothing more than a shakedown by the corporations to get thousands of my dollars before my old television wears out.
-m
Already There (Score:2)
We're already there. Over the christmas holiday, AT&T Broadband in Oak Park (and probably much of the rest of the Chicago metro area) disabled anything on analog that you had to have a set-top box to get. In order to get those channels, you now have to get digital cable, period. Lucky me, I've always hated set-top boxes, so I didn't have anything that required one to begin with. But many other people complained strongly enough about the minimal warning (yes, there was a warning buried in the previous months bill, amongst all the junk they always include) that it made the local paper.
When it comes time to choose between digital cable or no cable, I'm going with a dish, and AT&T can thank themselves for losing another customer.
Re:To be honest.. (Score:1)
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:2)
I wish TV would finally die the horrible death it deserves!
What is there on TV? 125 channels, and nothing good's on. And when there finally is something on, it's 3 different show, all on at the same time!
In the last 5 decades TV has barely changed. Sure, there's the 'interactive' stuff, which really add no value to the medium. Sure, you can have PayPerView, but I'm the last guy on earth that's gonna pay $20 for a 'special' I'll be able to rent for $3 in a month! The only real major innovation was color, and perhaps CC. Stuff like stereo and SAP are good, but barely used
What's more is the stupid idea of rating shows with a stupid logo in the corner. Sure the V-Chip (whatever happened to that anyways?) could solve this, but it's pointless now: a large percentage of TVs don't have it, so they *have* to put the rating anyways, and since TVs last for a while, we'll be stuck with that for another 10 years! arrrggg!
My vision of 'TV' is like that Quest commercial that ran a while back, where the girl said "We have every movie ever made in every language available, anytime" (or something like that), just like web surfing.
Imagine, being able to watch episode number X of show Y anytime you wish, and have it up within seconds. Just like web surfing.
*THAT* would be real TV
Re:A thought... (Score:1)
Anyway, this is something that seems technically possible but there are wrinkles that might make it impractical, at least in real-time.
You'd need humans in the loop to detect what was a commercial and what wasn't. We don't have AI yet and whatever markers you came up with emprirically would be quickly eliminated by the advertisers.
Doing it real-time would be a pain. You'd need people on-line all the time, watching the shows and marking when the ads started and stopped. If you miss more than half a second your customers get mad.
So you don't do it that way. You have a set of people working, but they do it in batches. You automatically record the shows, and when the show's over, you give them to the humans. They fast-forward through the shows, and mark the ads. Maybe you have special software to help them locate probable ads.
A user who's recorded that show can have their recorder box hit the AdClipper website and get the "blacklist". During playback, it jumps over chunks that have been marked as ads or whatever.
Popular shows get blacklists posted five minutes after the end credits are broadcasted. Less-popular shows get updated within 24 hours. After a week (or month, whatever your disk space fits) the blacklists are purged from the website.
You don't need DSL for this, a modem's just fine. The quantity of data is almost negligible for even a two-hour show - maybe 1K plus a checksum. Not doing it real-time avoids any lag issue.
Hmmm. The TiVo's Linux based. How hard would it be to hack this into it? :-)
Why I hope they do this. (Score:1)
This is more for the future than anything, before they disable the non HDTV content they will have to be sure that the majority of their viewers have capable HDTV's, which you can be assured won't happen until walmart is selling a $189.86 25" HDTV. Till then most of the broadcasts will have NTSC signals too. I personally don't really care anymore. I have decided that TV is BAD because its a huge waste of time. When was the last time you actually saw something on TV and were a better person for seeing it? I used to watch a lot of discovery, TLC, History channel. But now I think i've seen all their programs and its just reruns or stupid real life ER, forensics or other crap shows that they are producing now. Frankly the only reason I watch TV is because I don't want to go to bed and I don't have a light (computer manuals are the exact thing I would be trying to get away from, while pure fiction is just as bad as TV sometimes) enough book to read. If there is less and less available on TV then I will be less likely to watch it. I don't even have the history channel anymore because it requires a digital converter which I refuse to get. I may actually get one of those though as soon as I get my hands on a LM1881 which is the last part of a small electronics puzzle i'm working on (if you know what I mean :> ).
Re:This is all one big facade. (Score:1)
The set-top box has a nice diagnositic mode (channel 999) where you can check out the signal strength of the forward and reverse data carriers. The color of the signal strength indicators changes when they reach recommended threshholds, and so it was easy (and rather interesting) to play with the amplifier and splitters.
Remember that you need to buy bi-dir splitters which are rated up to 1 Ghz (also available at radio shack).
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:2)
They're saying that there are too many theaters for the amount of movies being released (and public willing to go see them) - so why wouldn't it be a great idea to retrieve copies of some older classics and replay them at some theaters. You could go back 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 20 years, 50 years, and play some awesome movies that people still want to see on the big screen. Why not digitize them (so the originals aren't destroyed in the copying process), and project them digitally?
I'm sure there are a lot of retired people with no kids to take care of that would LOVE to revisit these movies again.
The movie industry's zeal to saturate the market with new movies is preventing a lot of good things from happening.
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:1)
Not many, but the ones that are good seem to me to still be worth the effort. Let's see: Iron Chef, Junkyard Wars, Battlebots, Win Ben Stein's Money (ok, that's a stretch :-), Good Eats, Dexter's Laboratory, various informative things on HGTV for those of us with homes to maintain (though we could lose Martha).... I could get by with about 6 channels, but without them it is a colder place.
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:1)
Re:TV is all about passive entertainment.... (Score:1)
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Re:To be honest.. (Score:2)
Well, yeah it's a minor point, but sometimes the complete feeling of a scene can be changed when the scene has to be cropped.
Re:Better link (Score:1)
actually... (Score:1)
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:2)
Re:TV is all about passive entertainment.... (Score:1)
It truly was a genius who noted 'If complaining could change the world, slashdot would've created world peace by now'.
Thanks for the comedy!
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Re:TV is all about passive entertainment.... (Score:1)
world? Have you thought there are better things you can do to better yourself and improve the world around you. Think of the social problems in your country, not the pathetically retarted mental mastrubation marketoids inspire to produce, feed it down your throat! HDTV solves not problems, improves nobodys fucking life, just causes more problems, just like DVD. They have to extra nice to me, to get me to buy this stuff, because for 5000$ I can help alot of people rather than trying to impress my rotten spoiled friends by this popculture-buy-the-newest-thing trend. Being nice to me is will be increasingly difficult as I see all these legislations and whatnot coming thru telling me to work, for money to buy shit I don't need. Seriously how often have you considered that you really need that 3000$ system with whoopass subwoofer, and shiny large new TV? Or you want it because your friends say whoo! Or is it because you feel nice and fuzzy that sound wrapping all around you and there is no strangers around you.
You need to get out man and HDTV is not gonna help you to get your or anybody's life better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:2)
Re:To be honest.. (Score:2)
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:1)
Stealing? (Score:1)
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:1)
SAP is used all the time here (Costa Rica). In fact, the thing that pisses me off the most about the VCR I bought is that the primary sound channel bleeds in when using SAP. My TV doesn't have that problem, so I can watch live TV just fine, but recording, say, The Simpsons, results in the very weird experience of hearing Homer speak in English while simultaneously whispering in Spanish.
Re:HDTV is like IPv6 (Score:1)
Sucks to be him. (Score:1)
Man. Sucks to be you!
What color is the sky in your world?
Down with HDTV! (Score:1)
Re:really that informative? (Score:3)
Heh, I'm inclined to agree, +5 for that was a little over the top.
I should've put in a plug for Video Essentials, [amazon.com] a very useful disc for TV/monitor calibration. Once a TV/DVD player combination is set up according to VE's instructions, a lot of commonly-reported "artifacts" simply won't be visible any longer. Sharpness and brightness are the two most frequently-abused controls on just about any TV set, and Video Essentials can really help you bring them in line.
Nothing can salvage a badly-mastered disc. Fortunately, though, the real stinkers are a lot less common than you'd expect. Most R1 DVDs from the major studios look darned good these days.
Re:This is all one big facade. (Score:2)
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:3)
I don't know about you, but I don't re-watch good films because I've forgotten what happened in them, or how good they were. I watch good films for the overall experience, for the same reason that we listen to good music, or eat good food more than once.
I can never get enough of Stanely Kubrick films, and I know a good portion of the
Personally, I am going to look at HDTV once it's been around for a while and the benefits have become a little more sought-after. But IMO the only quality it has going for it, in reality, is the additional number of channels available.
There is just simply no way that millions of people are going to turn in their old sets in favour of 'better quality', when the reality is that the majority of people are content in watching poor reception on tiny TV's.
Re:To be honest.. (Score:1)
--
Brian Voils
"A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
Re:My experiences with the HDTV beast. (Score:1)
hmm..... Ever think of a digital projector?
I know they're $5000+ but man are they schweet. I was using one for a presentation in English a while back and I showed up about 45 min early... played Red Alert 2 for a bit, then the 'Hallway Scene' from the Matrix (DivX rip)... The quality was absolutely amazing.
$$$HDTV vs. NEW pc/server (Score:1)
FCC (Score:1)
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:1)
Digital TV is not a waste of bandwidth. You can typically squeeze many digital stations into the bandwidth (in the proper sense of the term) into which one analog station will fit. This is true even when broadcasting digitally at very high quality (low compression).
Also, it is somewhat naive of you to think that just because a signal is digital it is represented electromagnetically by a square wave. The digital signal is actually encoded in something approximately resembling a sine wave, resulting in virtually no harmonics.
I do agree with you, though, that there are certain advantages to analog TV signals, not least the rawness of the signal resulting in lack of artefacts.
Even cheap home theatre is great (Score:2)
My system is a simple (and cheap) 5.1 surround, but even that is good enough that I really don't go out to movies much anymore. As another poster pointed out you also are not going to be able to see 95% (really more like 99%) of the movies availiable on DVD in the theaters ever, so why not make home as theatre like as possible?
I agree with you about TV, I long ago discontinued my cable service and don't watch broadcast TV much at all. Mostly my TV is a pure monitor for games and movies.
The last statement I thought was on target as well - I think before too long someone is going to start offering some sort of cable cable over tcp/ip (with agreements to broadcast the shows they air). Then perhaps I could really get the shows I want to watch, and not have to pay for the crap. As soon as studios stop fearing the piracy bogeyman, they will actually be able to make some real money.
Re:Set-top boxes (Score:4)
Re:This is all one big facade. (Score:2)
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:3)
bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:5)
The more I read about all the bulshit going on with and around HDTV, the more I think I'm just going to not upgrade to it at all. When my regular set is no longer useful, I'll make it into a great big 35" aquarium.
Seriously, how many really good TV shows are there on TV now? CNN- and MSNBC-type info can all be gotten online. This leaves local news (read the paper) and fiction. OK, so you want to spend how much money to be able to watch Buffy, X-Files, Angel, StarCrap, et al.? I'm leaving asides sports games, but for me this is a total non-issue. Hmmm, movie playback... Unless you spend $100K on your home theater, it's better on the big screen (and if your memory is good it's pretty pointless to watch something more than once).
I suspect many people will hit this point of diminishing returns where the marginal utility realized from upgrading to HDTV is just too small (hastened by the prevalence of PCs and net appliances providing a roughly equivalent feed of information). If the broadcasters and manufacturers wish to avoid this fate they'd better begin acting intelligently real quick (interoperable standards, ease of use (including taping and reproduction) similar to prextant standards, etc.). If they don't I suspect that my as-yet unconceived child(ren) will ask me what this "TV" thing was that I and their grandparents blabber on about...
This is not to say that there won't be some form of intellectual cotton-candy available as an opiate to the anesthetised masses. It might just be tcp/ip based instead of TV-feeding-trough based.
--
Fuck Censorship.
Better link (Score:4)
My experiences with the HDTV beast. (Score:3)
Some clients left impressed, while others left scratching their heads, but I think the most interesting thing about HDTV, is that while we had some large screen $10,000 HDTV's to display some of the video, we were also using standard Dell monitors to display HDTV signals as well. The picture quality is great, though limited to the 21 inches or so of the monitors we had on hand. Now if I just had a 40 inch "monitor" I'd be all set for the HDTV "revolution" if and when it ever arrives.
High definition Penguins. The Linux Pimp [thelinuxpimp.com]
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:3)
A conventional NTSC image has 525 lines scanned at 29.97 Hz with a horizontal resolution of 427 pixels. This gives 3.35 MHz (assuming 2 pixels per video cycle) as a minimum bandwidth to carry the video information without compression.
If one decides to move to an HDTV image that is 1050 lines by 600 pixels (keeping the same frame rate), then this means a bandwidth of 18 MHz. Clearly we have a problem here -- as the current terrestrial channel allocations are limited to 6 MHz!
(As an aside, the word "terrestrial" as used by TV people means conventional wireless TV transmission. This is to differentiate it from satellite or cable.)
The options for terrestrial broadcast (assuming a 20 MHz bandwidth) are roughly as follows:
1. Change the channel allocation system from 6 MHz to 20 MHz.
2. Compress the signal to fit inside the 6 MHz existing bandwidths
3. Allocate multiple channels (2 with compression or three without) for the HDTV signal
Options 1 and 2 are virtually incompatible with current NTSC service. About the only possibility for maintaining compatibility is simultaneous broadcast of NTSC information over certain channels and HDTV information over other channels.
Option 3 does allow compatibility -- as the first 6 MHz of the signal could keep to the standard NTSC broadcasting and the remaining be additional augmentation signal for HDTV. Typically, in this type of augmentation system, an existing VHF channel would be tied to one (or two) UHF channels. The VHF channel would carry information similar to the current NTSC signal and the UHF channel (or channels would carry augmented high resolution information).
Re:This is all one big facade. (Score:2)
If your cable signal sucks, you should call your cable operator and complain. If they don't comply, call your states public utility commission.
I have a WinTV-HD (Score:4)
(Some might also say I paid $400 to beta test for Hauppauge, but that's another story)
HDTV is beautiful. Those who haven't seen it are the ones who think it's not worth the bother. I don't have a great setup either, basically just a 2nd hand Panasonic 30" 16:9 monitor I purchased over Ebay (with lots burn-in, sigh) my PC and the Hauppauge WinTV-HD. After seeing this I'd say it's definately worth it just to display on a larger PC monitor, say 19" or larger. I can only imagine what it will look like on a progressive RPTV.
I watched my first ever football game last week on CBS and was amazed at how sharp and clear things were. CBS clearly leads the way with original Hi-definition programing. You just have to see Football or a sitcom like Raymond in Hi-def to see what you've been missing.
The only thing is I live in an apartment. I use a plain old Rat-Shack UHF Double-Bowtie for reception. I can receive the 3 networks and Fox, that's it. I can't put up an antenna of any type. My cable company won't carry any HDTV, not even the local channels so the other 4 aren't available to me, not to mention the premium HBO-HD and SHO-HD channels.
Most folks are in the same situation as I am. Over 60% of the US population gets their TV reception exclusively from cable tv. If cable doesn't carry HDTV it will fail. Simple as that.
Re:bah, *TV sucks anyway (Score:2)
I think that the big content providers and cable operators *WANT* broadcast TV to die. They can get much more money by selling us pay-per-view entertainment. The push to force all digital broadcast TV in 2006 and forcing copy protection & encryption in digital TV equiment are part of it.
The digital cable operators will be glad to *rent* converter boxes to people with old sets so that they can watch the improved digital TV. This will keep people from stealing service since the digital converter boxes will be much harder to crack. They can also institute a two tier pay per view system one that only lets you watch and a higher one that lets you record the program. It also lets the studios have "electronic delivery" of movies over the cable system but keeps anybody but you on your orginal TV set viewing them. If you get a new set, it probably won't play the "electonic" version of the movie because it was coded to a specific viewing appliance.
The only one that really suffers is the local independent station since buying content from the major providers will go up. The network affiliates ar screwed too since the major networks won't really need them so it will either be pay-up or shut-up. Oh the consumers will suffer to, but the government won't care since the big companies are greasing their wallets.
I will agree that frankly there is nothing useful on TV or cable except for the odd show on SciFI, Discovery Channel, TLC, and PBS. About the only local programming I watch is PBS, and frankly I would love to drop cable service except for two local channels plus the above mentioned Basic-Plus channels and my cable modem. I frankly don't want the kids watching the rest of the crap on TV.
- subsolar
You don't see a difference? (Score:3)
Do you see a big difference in quality between DVD and regular TV broadcast movies? Because HDTV is about twice as good as DVD (or more).
If you really can't see a difference, than you probably were not watching a properly adjusted HDTV, or it was not receiving a high quality HDTV signal.
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:2)
Actually, one has to say that analog satellite or cable TV has quite some advantages. First, if you put a hand in front of your sat antenna, it doesn't really disturb an analog transmission too much while digital transmissions esily get artefacted or the picture simply freezes. And then, digital TV is in my eyes a waste of bandwidth und is also harder to transmit and creating more interference and signal disturbance because of the high frequencies and the square nature of the signal (think Fourier here...).
And I also think that the standard PAL/NTSC TV is in its visual quality definitely good enough for the human eye - and free of artefacts as well. Next thing is, when HDTV comes, analog will die soon. And not everybody is ready or willing to pay all the money for a complete new set of digital TV equipment.
So I think we should --- while of course preferring digital storage methods --- stick with analog transmission.
Re:To be honest.. (Score:2)
Well alot of people won't bother getting it, so the market pentration will be poor, especially if it is expensive.
For myself, if it comes to that, I won't get one. I do not have cable now, because for the cost. For the things I would watch, it is cheaper to go to the movies or a club once or twice a month.
If I really had a hankering I'll drop a tv tuner card into my system. That has to be cheaper.
If you add into it the utter and complete hassle of digital locking on HDTV with your HDTV VCR, then people will not but into it to begin with. People don't like getting scammed. or thoughts of the thought police in their bedroom
This will mean that alot of people will not have tv, and will be forced to do things like listen to the radio, or read a book. The TV media market cannot afford this, actually. They want market penetration.
I can recall an article some place talking about the market saturation levels of Computers vs other products, and how long it took to get there. Computers are reaching saturation after about 20 years, but are roughly 60% ofthe market. this compares to normal TV of 85% in a similar period of time. The market penetration seems to be much slower than computers, and due to cost it might take much longer to break 50%. Ity might not reach 50% after 20 years. People are used to the technology shuffle with computers, and won't by into it with HDTV.
Part of it is that if it gets too complex, the reaction will be, why should I do this? I have a computer that does that already.
Old-school 8-bit NES (Score:2)
I guess I'll have to connect my NES to it (yes, the old-school, 8-bit NES).
NES games look just as good or better on a VGA monitor. Here are some Free (as in speech) NES-compatible ROMs [8m.com] to play on a Free (as in speech) NES emulator [simplenet.com].
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them? [pineight.com]
Re:digital cable is not too good (Score:2)
The FCC rules call for the new digital TV system to fit inside of the exsisting 6Mhz bandwidth. That means HDTV or SDTV must fit. With MPEG2 you can either place 4 Standard Definition or 1 HDTV program(s) in that space.
Re:This is all one big facade. (Score:2)
Actually he said ANALOG like it wasn't some new technology, and if this old crap costs $60 a month then what is the newfangled stuff gonna cost (surely they will want a premium for it to cover their conversion costs)?
I watch very little TV anyway. I'm with the guy who will make his into an aquarium. Mine's just a 19" bought in 1985, watched about as often as that car was driven by the little old lady from Pasadena, and I'll still be able to use it as a monitor for my old Radio Shack Color Computer II when I get the time to port Linux to it.
I can live without television (Score:2)
Regular or HDTV? Neither.
To be honest.. (Score:3)
If HDTV becomes a mandated product (because of FCC's decision) and more of them hit the market, in no time will current VCR and DVD players become obsolete. Oh sure, there is backwards compatibility... till when? The same which happens with home surround systems: my Yamaha DSP E1000 does only Dolby Surround 2.0, so it's obsolete, I should rather buy a AX1 which supports 5.1 and DTS. And what next? Some fucker will invent Dolby Shorpround 10.5, for a "really really realistic experience". Fuck that.
So, HDTV anyone? And why?
Set-top boxes (Score:2)
Travis