I’m looking forward to digital TV, but I just hope more broadcasters opt for quality over quantity.
The gloves are off at the three local network television stations that compete in the 14-county Mid-Missouri market. It’s a geographically diverse and growing market that has 167,860 households and 313,000 individuals older than 18 — a prized demographic for advertisers.
Once limited to the reach of their over-the-air signal, stations now use multiple platforms, including cable and satellite systems, the Internet, mobile phones and iPods.
Local network stations also are gearing up for what Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., calls “the most critical communications issue” facing the U.S. Congress: federal legislation expected later this year that would mandate digital-only broadcasting beginning Jan. 1, 2009.
I am not sure what would be wrong with SDTV for most programs, if it truly has picture quality similar to a DVD. watching TV shows on DVD, which I do a fair amount, is decidedly superior to watching them when they were broadcast.
sports and movies, well that’s another thing … were I a big sports fan, I would have an HDTV already and be agitating for 100% HD broadcasts.
so, daytime broadcasts in SDTV and prime-time in HDTV sounds like a decent arrangement to me.
As of now it sounds too early. Regular TVs cannot view HD broadcasts, and some of us don’t want to replace our old machines quite yet, especially considering the cost of HD. Requiring HD is a good idea. Abandoning analog before consumers do is not.
The technology is almost irevelant; mass market entertainment will always target the lowest common denominator. That’s why, in my upcoming cross-county move, I’ll toss the satellite, eschew cable and order the high tier DSL. I might put up a pre-amped TV antenna (I’ll still be in a rural area), but commercial TV, with few notable exceptions, is rapidly becoming the refuge of hormonal children and basket brained adults.
Whatever. There is no issue here. The only reason why this mandate is being called an “issue” is because of the lobbyists on capital hill trying to milk as many bucks from people that are stupid enough to get HDTV in the first place. Besides. I’ve read over the specs. HDTV becomes an issue when advertisers look at incorporating their new advertising specs with the format being that HDTV uses 1 of 3 parts of the signal. So what will happen is that your SDTV folks will probably be bombarded with flash banner ads, just like online, while HDTV users will have to pay a premium, while not getting any ads at all. For the consumer, I don’t see this as a win/win issue at all. I think its time for the television monopolies to finally pay its viewing audience to watch their pathetic attempts at propoganda. Now that sounds like a deal to me.
“To receive HD quality, viewers must have a digital television set or subscribe to satellite.” – quote from article.
Can this writer get it right? From the above quote it seems I don’t need an HDTV, just a digital one, or my old TV and subscribe to satellite?
First, you always need an HD-monitor, plus a decoder, satellite or (as he completely ignored) cable service with HD channels, like Comcast has down here in South Florida.
Bad reporting.
Most of the comments are a chuckle — since most obviously have never done a side-by-side comparison of SD analogue or digital and HD digital. The scientific perception of greater complexity and sophistication of information services capable with 700-800% more data per transmission — needn’t even occur.
I presume y’all still have your 14″ monitors set to 800×600, 256 colors, P2 processors at a blazing 333mhz, 64K RAM, running DOS 6.2. Right?
Since our Congressional dweebs managed to include subsidies for set-top boxes to keep analogue tubes in action, may the rest of us go back to trying to have the same opportunity for best-quality images, say, that already have come to pass in backward nations like Japan.
I would have brought monaural vs. stereo vs. Dolby 5.1 into the equation; but, I presume you don’t have speakers hooked up to your computers — do you?
Yes, I agree with Alix that the ultimate disappointment — if you’re relying on the “major” networks — will continue to be content rather than picture or sound quality.
Right now I have a 19 inch NTSC Trinitron with cable and RCA inputs, which works fine with our cable box and DVD player.
Suppose I have cable with an appropriate cable box that can handle HDTV. What kind of monitor do I need to display HDTV?
Will the Trinitron be OK? I really don’t care about the hi-res, as I’m in my 50s, and the additional HDTV resolution, based on what I see at Costco, isn’t particularly worth the price. 1024X 768 is my preferred resolution on a PC.
Must I have an HDTV set after the change to all HDTV, or do I just need an LCD display (one I would use with a PC) with enough resolution to display the picture, and use the cable box to do the tuning?
I love the idea of HDTV quality, but when there’s such a bandwidth tradeoff with SDTV, it doesn’t seem worth the huge bandwidth increase. The enjoyment I get out of the programs I watch (comedy, news, movies) won’t be markedly increased with an ultra-sharp picture. The comedy won’t be any funnier, and Fox News still won’t be fair and balanced. The big plus will come when I can read the credits at the end of a movie, even when they squeeze them into a sidebar like they increasingly do 😉
There is hardly anything on standard TV, what makes anyone think that were will be vast supply of HD content worth watching?
Neal Saferstein
Bitch about this all you want, but the train has left the station and there ain’t no going back. You can debate the logic, wisdom, etc. of this change but it’s all for naught.
The US over-the-air broadcast TV standard has changed – period. In a few more years analog over-the air (you know, FREE) with cease to exist.
Even cable is trying to get off the analog tit. Most cable systems now replicate all of the analog channels on their digital tier. It won’t be long before analog cable goes away too.
The new digital standard has its problems but because it’s digital all of the analog problems go away. Hardware-wise, this ain’t no different than when color came to town in the 1950’s. Color TVs were expensive and didn’t catch on for a long time. And there wasn’t much color programming in the early days. Same is true with HD programming today. It’s sparse but getting better.
So bitch and moan all you want, but one way or the other, TV is going to change. Just like radio did when the migration from AM to FM began in the 50’s. Once you’ve experienced true HD with 5.1 surround, you won’t want to go back to that 19″ Trinitron with the 5″ speaker.
Do we really need this? Naw, probably not. But there ain’t no stoppin’ it so suck it up and make plans to upgrade those old TVs.
7. Moss – nobody has explained to me the compelling reason for me to watch Seinfeld reruns or the local news in HD. In fact I dont want to, to save space on my DVR.
Appropriate technology for the content, just like not going to see a romantic comedy on an iMax screen.
doug — your Comment isn’t even close to being a straw man. Has anyone here — who actually owns and enjoys HD — suggested they only watch Seinfeld and the local news? I’m not certain of anywhere outside a major coastal metro where either even happens.
I watch movies, sports, PBS (too dangerous?) and documentaries. I wait for more channels to convert so I may continue to select the quality of programming I enjoy — presented in the most enjoyable quality of image and sound available. I did the same when we converted from b&w to color.
I’m not certain you comprehend the point of the discussion.
Floyd — I’m waiting for one more model change — and by this autumn I expect to be able to purchase a Westinghouse 19″ LCD HDTV for the bedroom for $400 or less. It won’t have all the bells and whistles but (according to Robert Heron) it’s a brand that does a good job of reproducing a quality signal. The built-in speakers aren’t great; but, since I’m sneaking up on a speaker upgrade for my computer, I figure on moving the old ones over to that TV.
RTaylor — some channels like TNTHD do an absolutely crap job of converting old filmstock and betamax to HD. Some, like HDNet do a fabulous job. TNT manages to make X-Files look lousy. HDNet does such a good job with Hogan’s Heroes that I actually watch an episode every month or two. The latter’s movie channel, HDNM, shows films from every just about every era — and they are a delight.
HBO is going to show The Grudge, again, in a few weeks and I will scare the bejabbers out of myself for the 3rd time!
Sorry, doug — just read all the way back to your 1st post and see we agree more than disagree.
Sports rock in HD. Cripes, I even watch a couple of innings of baseball once in a while. The Robert Heron crowd (and I) agree on progressive scan rather than interlaced as the choice for fast motion — whether it’s basketball or soccer or motorsports. I can’t wait till we get F1 Stateside in HD.
Whatever. Whoever compliments HD probably has it and has to say something great about their vamped up resolution. And I’d have to say that HD does look good. But that is not the issue. THe issue is since when did you have to pay in cost to have something that is of better quality when it is your tax dollars that are being used to upgrade the signals ? Didn’t we have a revolution over this nonsense ? Have capitalists really traded intelligence for apathy ? Please tell me its not so.
Moss: Actually, it’s 17″ and win98, thank you very much. How did you know the other specs though?
—
How’s this for an issue — my current television setup doesn’t receive digital signals, and the case is the same for most of my neighbors. Presuming that we upgrade, the best case scenario is that we all spend a bunch of money on little boxes to convert the signal from the roof antenna that most of us (on this street) still use. Hmmm. Wonder whether the little-box-maker has any lobbyists.
On an even higher logistical plane, let’s say that we all go out and get fully digital setups. What happens to all of our televisions? The tv that my grandfather made from a mail order kit in the 50s still runs, and it’s a monster. My parents’ house has two 38″ analog televisions and one or two smaller ones. My own house has four televisions of various scale (from 3″ to 30″). Are we about to throw all of this lead and phosphorous, generated over 50 years or so, into a pit all at once? Besides environmental concerns, can you imagine the logistics of every house in the city calling for bulk trash pickup on the same day?
Allen — you must be from the branch of my wife’s family that lives in OK.
The projected retail for the digital to analogue box is $50. Subsidy from the Feds is projected to bring that down to $20. One time per home.
Skip beer for a week. Two days if my first sentence is correct.
Does your tv accept rabbit ears ? If so it is sdtv ready. Don’t trust what the bestbuy people tell you.
To Tim and others who thing that our tax money is subsidizing the conversion to digital and HD. Yes, the Congress has proposed using taxpayer money to pay for set-top converter boxes. But they did that only to try and force the conversion from analog to digital to move along more quickly. The original law that made this all happen, said that TV stations did not have to turn off their analog transmitters until 85% of their market had converted to digital TV. Once Congress realized how slowly the conversion was going, and how disinterested the American public was in buying new hardware, they had to have a gimmick to speed things up.
The impetus behind digital TV is NOT better quality TV pictures for the masses. It’s all about spectrum auctions and cash for the Treasury.
Congress “loaned” broadcasters a 2nd channel for digital broadcasting with the understanding that at the end of the conversion, the extra channel would be returned. But, in this process, they also reduced the number of available TV spectrum and compacted the remaining broadcasters into smaller chunk of spectrum. The plan was to auction off this newly returned spectrum for big bucks to help out the Treasury and maybe even balance the budget?
But that scenario backfired when first responders realized they weren’t getting their fair share. So the plan changed and now “some” of the spectrum will be auctioned and some will go to first responders.
Broadcasters have spent big bucks to put their digital channels on the air, with no corresponding ROI. No one has made a buck so far from this second channel. And all of the equipment used by broadcasters will become obsolete requiring a total rebuild if they want to switch to 16×9 HD broadcasting.
It’s never been about better TV, it’s always been about spectrum auctions and money! Broadcasters are not the bad guys, despite what you often read in the press.
My guess is most readers of this site are at least above average intelligence. Most of the preceding comments are negative, which isn’t surprising, my opinion is pretty negative (accurate) as well. Too bad entertainment evolution has nothing to do with rational thought, it’s purely driven by corporate greed, as most everything else.
I see little wrong with analog SDTV. Sure, you get a little snow if you live in the boondocks, but will that be better with HDTV? My analog TV broadcast signal is rock-solid and perfect. I do have an HD tuner in my PC, so I’ve seen the broadcast HD as well. Live sports are neat on HDTV. So is PBS HD. That’s about it, IMNSHO.
On the other hand, I’ve seen many examples where a digital signal falls below 90%, and the screen freezes or goes blank. While at the bar a few nights ago, it started to rain heavily. DirectTV disappeared, just gone. Had it been a good ol’ reliable analog SDTV system, the picture would have been snowy or fine, but not gone.
How about compression glitches, especially in fast-motion scenes? On analog, there aren’t glitches. On digital, you get nifty pixelation all over the screen somewhat frequently. It kind of ruins the whole experience, and is certainly far more annoying than “snow” from analog. If you’re in a plains metro area, analog usually is fine. If you’re in the mountains, get a satellite dish.
I’ll stick with cable/broadcast and basic stereo TV, thanks. If I want super-pretty and THX, I’ll go to the theater. That is, if Hollywood can produce something better than the rubbish they’ve been making on both mediums.
On other posts: yes, 16:9 is great for movies, sports, and more — we’ll just all need new sets. Screw the earth, bury some more stuff!
1080p is the best format, yet isn’t supported by 90% of the hardware already out there, and I do see perceptible flicker on 1080i signals. 720p is pretty, but the picture is still 4:3.
Unfortunately, #12 is correct. Certainly a poor writer with a limited vocabulary, but correct.
19. Tim – you are saying that if I plug a pair of rabbit ears into the coax input on my TV, it will receive and decode the SD digital signal although, to the best of my knowledge, it does not have a digital tuner?