Is HDTV too expensive and confusing for the average Joe?

[StageLeft]

Well I haven't gotten one yet but it is going to require some study time before I do because i agree it's more confusing than just buying a tv and hooking it up to your cable. Paying premium for HDTV channels doesn't sound fun to me.

 

[Michael]

I too received 2 different answers about needing digital cable. The first person I talked to said that I only needed basic (which I have) plus the box ($5 a month). I called the next day (once everyone had been trained) and was told that I needed the digital service (at least $9.99 a month) to get the HDTV stations plus a premium package to get the HBO (I expected to pay extra if I wanted HBO).

I guess I'll call again to be sure. I don't mind paying the extra for the movie channels and it looks like you're getting SHO for free right now.

Michael

 

[conjur]

ask to speak to a supervisor and work your way up...keep harping on it (and the FCC decision )

 

[LostHiWay]

First off is HDTV too confusing for me?...not at all. For the masses, YES!!! I don't know how many times I've overheard people at stores saying that their new HDTV is going to make their digital cable look so much better.

Then we have my uncle....he has a 60" widescreen HDTV. This is the man who still refuses to buy widescreen DVD's because they still have blackbars. (2.35:1). He still buys "full screen" DVD's and zooms them to fit them on the widescreen set. THE HORROR he's probably missing like 75% of the orginal picture. He wonders why I refuse to watch movies with him.

 

[Michael]

There are a couple of kid's channels that my daughter is interested in plus a couple that I'd like to see (SCIFI, for example), so I'll try the digital signal. If it isn't worth it, I'll downgrade my service after a while. My wife likes to watch movies and there are a few series on HBO that interest me as well.

My biggest worry is the consistent reports that larger screen TV's show how poor the compression is on digital channels.

Michael

 

[conjur]

There were some channels on DISH that were compressed all to hell. I think VHS was actually better looking. But, you tend to get used to it and there's enough HD programming now to keep me happy

But, think about it...you have a large screen that supports a very high resolution.

Take a CGA graphic and put it on a high-end 21" computer monitor and see what happens!

 

[McCarthy]

Ok, I'll be the first to admit then, I'm confused.

Do all HDTV tuners work with 480p, 720p and 1080i? Is 480p even considered HDTV? Do all support Multicasting? Do any currently? And speaking of Multicasting, what's to prevent cable and sat providers from broadcasting individual channels in the lower quality NTSCish multicast streams instead of giving them each full HDTV bandwidth? I mean is there a reason that wouldn't work for a technical reason?

I mean we live in an era where 128/128 cable/DSL is sold as broadband, relying on the benevolent hearts of the cable company isn't my preference. Just because they may advertise 'all our channels are now HDTV (small text, compatable)' doesn't mean all will be offered in the same resolution/audio, right?

 

[McCarthy]

And Conjur, speaking of DISH...blah. My current, and for the forseeable future, TV is coax only. No composite, no S-Video, no component. And it's still easy for me to see mpeg artifacting all over hell from DISH broadcasts.

Just another part of why I wonder just what "HDTV" the HDTV being offered will be. Like newbie Divx encoders who think "oh, if it looks good at 320x240 at 900kbps it'll look twice as good at 704x480....still at 900kbps"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: McCarthy
Ok, I'll be the first to admit then, I'm confused.

Do all HDTV tuners work with 480p, 720p and 1080i?

Pretty much...ATSC can be any of those...can even be 480i as long as it's digital. Now, not all TVs support 720p. Most (all?) support 480p and 1080i and plasmas support 720 natively and more sets are now coming out to support 720p natively so the tuner doesn't have to convert to 1080i for your set (fwiw, mine doesn't support 720p).

Is 480p even considered HDTV?

No, that's EDTV...FOX Widescreen, if you will (or, same as progressive scan DVD).

Do all support Multicasting? Do any currently? And speaking of Multicasting, what's to prevent cable and sat providers from broadcasting individual channels in the lower quality NTSCish multicast streams instead of giving them each full HDTV bandwidth? I mean is there a reason that wouldn't work for a technical reason?

Nothing to stop them but the hue and cry of pissed off viewers. I'm not aware of any datacasting at this point but the public TV here in Ky does do multi-casting. There are 4 channels (KET 1, 2, 3 & 4) but when PBS sends an HD feed, they shut off 3 of the sub-channels and give us the whole HD stream (woowoo...if you're out there...correct me if I'm wrong! )

I mean we live in an era where 128/128 cable/DSL is sold as broadband, relying on the benevolent hearts of the cable company isn't my preference. Just because they may advertise 'all our channels are now HDTV (small text, compatable)' doesn't mean all will be offered in the same resolution/audio, right?

It pays to be a bit informed these days, sure.

ABC is 720p, CBS/NBC/WB/PBS/Showtime/HBO/HDNet (i believe) are all 1080i
FOX is teh l4m3 ranger at 480p.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: McCarthy
And Conjur, speaking of DISH...blah. My current, and for the forseeable future, TV is coax only. No composite, no S-Video, no component. And it's still easy for me to see mpeg artifacting all over hell from DISH broadcasts.

Just another part of why I wonder just what "HDTV" the HDTV being offered will be. Like newbie Divx encoders who think "oh, if it looks good at 320x240 at 900kbps it'll look twice as good at 704x480....still at 900kbps"

I believe DISH sends the HD feeds at about 16mbps...not quite the full 19.2mbps stream but I've switched between CBS-HD from DISH and my local CBS and I can't really see the difference.

 

[McCarthy]

Not saying 16's too low, but setting an early pattern of not offering full bandwidth if they're cutting the bandwidth 17% from the spec to start with.

So that's my next question, what's the specs and what's the upper/lower limits?
480i/(guess 480p is out)/720p/1080i I assume each has different bandwidth specs.

It's like the old "which is better, cable or DSL" question. All depends on the provider. Digital cable can look near DVD quality or it can look like RealVideo over a dialup depending on what's being provided. Same always has been the case with Dish/DirectTV with DirectTV offering a higher bandwidth and overall better picture. And then Dish gives some channels more than others, or so it seems, haven't found any confirmation on that.

Hue and cry can be a powerful thing, but it hasn't stopped AOL discs from showing up in my mailbox, spam from my email or caused Dish Network to maximize their streams on NTSC, or apparently, their HD channels so far. And since this topic hasn't been brought up before by a lot of people claiming HDTV isn't too confusing for them I wonder how much attention this aspect will get.

 

[conjur]

Well, I'm *hoping* the new offerings from DISH later this year (see a post of mine up above in here somewhere) will increase their offerings. Looks like they are planning on having the capability to offer 40-50 HD channels. They are just strapped for bandwidth right now. That's why DISH HD comes off the 61.5 or the 148 bird.

A bit technical

A decent read

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Muse Now, this sounds pretty affordable. No monthly charges whatsoever, not even basic cable. If I was correctly informed my ordinary NTSC TV antenna will pick up HD signals just fine. If I can indeed get a TV card for less than $200 that will feed HD to my monitor, that's a bargain compared to buying a TV/Monitor, possibly a separate HD tuner and pay monthly cable + monthly premiums for channels that have HD programming. We're talking a total outlay of less than $200. I wonder how good it will look on my 22" NEC CRT or the 19 or 20 inch LCD I hope to get soon.

Take your pick

Thanks! Three questions:

1. How good will it look on my NEC 22" (21", in "actuality", meaning CRT dimensions) FP2141 compared to other available displays (I mean plasma and "HDTV compatible TVs)? I know that's a big question but I'd like some ideas.

2. How much better will it look than what I'm seeing using the non-HDTV Winfast XP2000 Deluxe TV/FM card I'm now using?

3. Maybe some help choosing between HDTV cards?

Thanks...

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Well I haven't gotten one yet but it is going to require some study time before I do because i agree it's more confusing than just buying a tv and hooking it up to your cable. Paying premium for HDTV channels doesn't sound fun to me.

Then go OTA.

 

[conjur]

I have the MyHD MDP-100 and I'd get the MDP-120 if I were to get one now (seems to have a better performing tuner and my situation w/regards to an antenna that would be beneficial).

I've not found out how to capture (record) an HD stream yet but it's supposed to be able to.

It looks AWESOME on my Viewsonic 19" monitor.

The MyHD window is resizable in any dimension on-screen

 

[0roo0roo]

my moms happy with a 15" crt monitor for fsuck sake she said the 19" was too big. wtf? i wouldn't even try to explain to her why she needs a p4 or athlon xp or geforce 4fx. she's always wondered why people play music loud, she could live with a 30 dollar boombox, couldn't care less about expensive stereos. can't program a vcr, not that she's had or wanted to ever. not that it matters she's not the target buyer.

 

[Que-TiP]

one way or the other, can i come over and watch your hdtv?

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Exactly. I COULD afford a $2000 HDTV if I wanted to, but I don't want to spend that much on a TV that will probably cost HALF that three years from now. When HDTV's stop costing over twice as much as a conventional TV, they will sell like hotcakes. Until then, they're a luxury item.

And then you forego the greater benefit of HDTV for another 3 years.

Same could be said of putting off buying/building a new PC. There will just be more powerful and cheaper ones in 3 years.

Yeah, but I need to get a new PC every 3 years to play the latest software titles. I don't need to get a new TV every three years to watch the latest reality show tripe coming from FOX, however.

 

[conjur]

Belmont screencaps in the Go FunnyCide thread

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: SyahM
The technology itself is pretty easy to understand, but it becomes confusing when you look at the price. the $$$$ makes you defensive but trust me, when you see your regular programming in HD, you'll be hooked. Get a good TV that'll last long time since the FCC due date is 2007.

What is this FCC due date about? I heard that HDTV TVs would be required shortly to include an HDTV tuner so you don't have to rent or buy one. Is this true? I've been waiting for HDTV ever since around 1989 or so when I first heard about it. At that time some version of it already existed in Germany and Japan and it was thought that HDTV would be a reality in the USA in a very few years, certainly before the middle of the 1990s, but the process of working out consortiums and standards played out WAY longer than originally anticipated. After a while I just figured it would be years and years before I'd have HDTV. Even now, it seems like it's still very expensive and the playing field is chaotic, with industry players (manufacturers, and the content providers) trying to capitalize bigtime on the new technology. I thought I'd have HDTV ten years ago but unless I get it on my computer, I think I'll wait for the dust to settle a bit.

 

[Boogak]

HDTV != DTV

High Definition TV does not equal Digital TV. This is a common misconception and one that I was guilty of as well. The FCC has only mandated that broadcasters switch to DTV by 2006, not HDTV which is up to the discretion of the broadcaster. As quoted from the FCC website:

At the same time, it will take a number of years to convert fully to DTV because today's television sets are not designed to receive digital transmissions. In order to provide a smooth transition to DTV service with as little disruption to the public as possible, and as provided in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC granted each existing broadcaster an additional 6MHz channel to be used for digital transmissions. Each broadcaster will also retain its existing channel to continue broadcasting its current analog technology signal during the transition period.

At the end of the transition period -- which is now scheduled for the year 2006 -- broadcasters will be required to surrender one of the two channels. The transition period is subject to periodic progress reviews by the FCC. In addition, last fall Congress included provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that would extend analog service beyond the 2006 date if certain conditions exist. They include a variety of conditions such as: the failure of one or more of the largest TV stations in a market to begin broadcasting digital TV signals due to causes outside the broadcasters control, or if fewer than 85% of the TV households in a market are able to receive digital TV signals off the air either with a digital TV set or with an analog set equipped with a converter box or subscribe to a cable-type service that carries the DTV stations in the market.

With that said, I can't see HDTV programming extending beyond primetime shows for the major broadcasters because of the costs associated with it. And I think most average non-videophile users could care less for HDTV. Case in point, when I tried pointing out to my gf how much clearer Alias in HD looked, she just shrugged and said it looks the same. Doh!

 

[CrazyPerson]

as long as you cna pay for it...

 

[mithrandir2001]

I think the whole HDTV expensive is too expensive right now. However, this opens opportunities for bottom feeders like myself.

The high-end of the analog market is imploding. People aren't spending $1000+ on analog sets anymore and this must be creating a glut of large-screen analog sets in retailers' inventories. Case in point (as I mention in another thread): I bought a 36" Panasonic Tau set yesterday for $799. This set would have cost $1399 just one year ago. I could have bought a 32" version for $599 (last year's price: $999). Very recently, prices like this were unheard of for such large flat-screen TVs. Sure I could have purchased a nice high def set for under $2000 but I would have to replace my DVD player for a progressive scan one, I'd have to pay more to subscribe to digital cable and I'd have to replace my VCR since it lacks a remote cable box controller. It's just too much money since I know HDTV sets will come down in price dramatically in the next several years. Those 34" 16:9 sets going for $2200 now will be $1000 in three years, mark my words. So you buy a big analog set now and a lower-priced DTV later and you still come ahead: lower overall cost and a better-featured TV later.

 

[spidey07]

I don't get what is expensive about HDTV?

Buy a HDTV, slap up an antenna and watch glorifying, DVD stomping, 5.1 DD goodness.

Or just pay 2 bucks a month like I do and get 10 channels of HD through cable.

-edit- buy RPTV, much better resolution and color than any direct view TV can ever provide. Direct view cost too much money and is actually the WORST technology for displaying HD. RPTV, FPTV, dlp, lcos, lcd, plasma knock direct view around.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
I think the whole HDTV expensive is too expensive right now. However, this opens opportunities for bottom feeders like myself.

The high-end of the analog market is imploding. People aren't spending $1000+ on analog sets anymore and this must be creating a glut of large-screen analog sets in retailers' inventories. Case in point (as I mention in another thread): I bought a 36" Panasonic Tau set yesterday for $799. This set would have cost $1399 just one year ago. I could have bought a 32" version for $599 (last year's price: $999). Very recently, prices like this were unheard of for such large flat-screen TVs. Sure I could have purchased a nice high def set for under $2000 but I would have to replace my DVD player for a progressive scan one, I'd have to pay more to subscribe to digital cable and I'd have to replace my VCR since it lacks a remote cable box controller. It's just too much money since I know HDTV sets will come down in price dramatically in the next several years. Those 34" 16:9 sets going for $2200 now will be $1000 in three years, mark my words. So you buy a big analog set now and a lower-priced DTV later and you still come ahead: lower overall cost and a better-featured TV later.

True...but sets have already come down dramatically...remember the 1st plasma sets at $15,000 and up? 55" RPTVs at $6,000 and up?

And, waiting another 3 years you'll be missing out on a lot of programming (NCAA Basketball/Football, Super Bowl, Monday Night Football, NBA Finals, The Masters, U.S. Open, Stanley Cup, CSI, Tonight Show w/Jay Leno, HBO, Showtime, HDNet, ESPN, Discovery, wow...quite a bit! )