March 11, 2005 4:00 AM PST
Clearing up the HDTV picture
(continued from previous page)
or by not using an HD signal. Manufacturers sell enhanced digital televisions, or EDTVs, which are cheaper than HDTVs and represent a growing sector of the television market. Additionally, HD content is not as abundantly available as digital broadcasts.
The high-definition experience can also include a television with a built-in HD tuner and an antenna for access to over-the-air HD programming in areas where broadcast stations are making it available. (Web sites such as HDTVpub.com have directories showing which markets or cities have over-the-air broadcasts and rating their quality.)
The disconnect between having an HD set and not watching shows in HD, experts say, must be bridged by making it clear that consumers need HD programming--and can conveniently get it.
Dave Watson, an executive vice president at cable giant Comcast, said consumers have access to between 9 and 15 HD channels, depending on the market. While that might not seem like many compared to the more than 250 digital cable channels Comcast offers, consumers seem to think it's enough for now.
"Consumers have expressed the need for more content but most have said they are satisfied with what is available," Watson said.
Consumer confusion
Watson added that while they're pleased with the rapid clip of subscriptions--more than 800,000 of Comcast's 1 million HD subscribers signed up in the last 18 months--he knows the market offers plenty more opportunity. While 93 percent of Comcast's 8.6 million digital-cable subscribers have access to HD service, only 12 percent subscribe.
Confusion is slowing the adoption.
When Comcast asked its customers if you get access by plugging in a cable, "40 percent said they didn't know," Watson said.
For cable providers in particular, HD is a main weapon against satellite television companies.
"We've been a bit of a follower (to satellite) when it comes to new technologies...such as digital-video recorders and services through set-top boxes," Watson said. "Now we're able to lead in innovation."
However, if enough viewers aren't tuning in to that innovation, it won't get too far.
Comcast's Watson also attributes the increase in subscriptions to the cable company's effort to increase the availability of its HD service. "We widen our deployment based on the belief that this is a service consumers want," Watson said, "and we accomplished that."
84 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
HDTV's have only a standard TV tuner, if any at all. With the
futurre of TV, for a large fraction ov viewers, lying within caable
or satellite systems, the potential of broadcast TV using HDTV is
pretty small, especially considering the expense involved.
I any given setup with a home antenna three will be far few channels within range.
HDTV's have only a standard TV tuner, if any at all. With the
futurre of TV, for a large fraction ov viewers, lying within caable
or satellite systems, the potential of broadcast TV using HDTV is
pretty small, especially considering the expense involved.
I any given setup with a home antenna three will be far few channels within range.
The HDTV service and decoder would add $30 a month to a bill that is already $86.00. No way am I paying $1,500 a year (taxes included) for such marginal benefit.
One caution I'd offer to potential HDTV buyers is that most bigger TVs (20" and up) made in the last 10 years use an scan line interpolation feature that enhances the perception of signal sharpness. When commbined with analog channels delivered digitally via fibre optic, as is the case with my provider, the sharpness is visually identical to HDTV at normal viewing distances.
This is why consumers don't miss the HDTV signal: It is little understood that the HDTV's extra resolution is no help on HDTVs with a veritcal height less than that found on a convewntional 33" set. So you must spend huge bucks to get an HDTV set that can deliver in practice a better signal than digitally delivered analog TV.
THe real truth is that a lot of the apparent fuzziness in a TV signal is because much of the remarkable sharpness of regular TV signals at the head end (as in viewed at the TV station) is lost in transmission. HDTV simply does not take the viewer far enough beyond this signal, digitally preserved to the set, to make consumers want it. Bottom line: HDTV is a pricey luxury nobody needs for a crisp picture. One will not miss the extra HDTV detail viweing a set at 15 feet, quite frankly. And not at $1,500+ a year.
from DirecTV in the US is only $10 a month. Set top box is
maybe another $5 a month. That's half the Canadian cost, and
we don't have to put up with having everything in French too.
The HDTV service and decoder would add $30 a month to a bill that is already $86.00. No way am I paying $1,500 a year (taxes included) for such marginal benefit.
One caution I'd offer to potential HDTV buyers is that most bigger TVs (20" and up) made in the last 10 years use an scan line interpolation feature that enhances the perception of signal sharpness. When commbined with analog channels delivered digitally via fibre optic, as is the case with my provider, the sharpness is visually identical to HDTV at normal viewing distances.
This is why consumers don't miss the HDTV signal: It is little understood that the HDTV's extra resolution is no help on HDTVs with a veritcal height less than that found on a convewntional 33" set. So you must spend huge bucks to get an HDTV set that can deliver in practice a better signal than digitally delivered analog TV.
THe real truth is that a lot of the apparent fuzziness in a TV signal is because much of the remarkable sharpness of regular TV signals at the head end (as in viewed at the TV station) is lost in transmission. HDTV simply does not take the viewer far enough beyond this signal, digitally preserved to the set, to make consumers want it. Bottom line: HDTV is a pricey luxury nobody needs for a crisp picture. One will not miss the extra HDTV detail viweing a set at 15 feet, quite frankly. And not at $1,500+ a year.
from DirecTV in the US is only $10 a month. Set top box is
maybe another $5 a month. That's half the Canadian cost, and
we don't have to put up with having everything in French too.
Its called Buyer Beware
Bought HDTV from Best buy and unless you pay close to 500 for service contract u are screwed on 91st day, BB will Not support
Its called Buyer Beware
Bought HDTV from Best buy and unless you pay close to 500 for service contract u are screwed on 91st day, BB will Not support
are actually broadcasting in HDTV, and then only if you have a
set-top (or built-in) HDTV TV tuner.
Where I live, antennaa are a waster of money, and the maybe
only one of the local channels don't broadcast in HDTV anyway. I
do know that Fox does a lot of advertising thet NASCAR is
broadcast in HDTV. My mickey mouse local Fox station doesn't
do HDTV, but they still refuse the give me access to the Fox net
channels from the satellite that are in HDTV.
So I watch NASCAR on 4x3 TV. After all, it is the only show on
the Fox network that is worth watching.
But there is a lot of money to be made by usually unnecessary middle men who take a digital signal and repackage it for delivery to your home. There are a handful of programs on HBO and Showtime but almost all the popular series in HD are available for free if you get an antenna and ATSC capable receiver.
Someone earlier implied this was an expensive proposition. Buying a receiver and putting up an antenna are one time costs. Cable and satellite are options that you never finish purchasing. You get to pay that $50 - $100 bill every month forever. Which option is really more expensive?
But the bigger issue is not the choice you might make on that particular question. The bigger issue is that most people don't understand that the free option exists. They have been trained to believe you need cable/satellite and most would confidently assert you have to pay in order to get HDTV. In fact one person who was trying to get a problem resolved in the HD signal of a local station and was told that if he was getting the signal without cable or satellite he must be pirating it! The station employee was so stupid she did not know it was available by using an antenna. I use the term 'stupid' because the person is in the business and still unaware.
are actually broadcasting in HDTV, and then only if you have a
set-top (or built-in) HDTV TV tuner.
Where I live, antennaa are a waster of money, and the maybe
only one of the local channels don't broadcast in HDTV anyway. I
do know that Fox does a lot of advertising thet NASCAR is
broadcast in HDTV. My mickey mouse local Fox station doesn't
do HDTV, but they still refuse the give me access to the Fox net
channels from the satellite that are in HDTV.
So I watch NASCAR on 4x3 TV. After all, it is the only show on
the Fox network that is worth watching.
But there is a lot of money to be made by usually unnecessary middle men who take a digital signal and repackage it for delivery to your home. There are a handful of programs on HBO and Showtime but almost all the popular series in HD are available for free if you get an antenna and ATSC capable receiver.
Someone earlier implied this was an expensive proposition. Buying a receiver and putting up an antenna are one time costs. Cable and satellite are options that you never finish purchasing. You get to pay that $50 - $100 bill every month forever. Which option is really more expensive?
But the bigger issue is not the choice you might make on that particular question. The bigger issue is that most people don't understand that the free option exists. They have been trained to believe you need cable/satellite and most would confidently assert you have to pay in order to get HDTV. In fact one person who was trying to get a problem resolved in the HD signal of a local station and was told that if he was getting the signal without cable or satellite he must be pirating it! The station employee was so stupid she did not know it was available by using an antenna. I use the term 'stupid' because the person is in the business and still unaware.
I think we all can agree that regardless of, or lack of, HDTV programming, the bulk of viewing is the good ol' standard 4:3 aspect ratio of standard broadcasting. This means viewers of the plasma TVs must either watch a distorted image, if their TV is in the 16:9 HDTV aspect ratio, making everyone look fat and bent out of shape, or switching the TV to the narrower screen, i.e., 4:3 aspect ratio.
But viewer beware, as I found out the hard way. If the bulk of your viewing is in the narrower mode, you'll soon discover when you decide to rent a DVD movie, that the "sidebars" (that area on the left and right side of the viewing area that was normally "not lit" during 4:3 viewing), will appear much lighter when switched to 16:9. You may not notice it at first glance, but wait for a pause in programming, such as occurs for a second or two, when a TV station breaks for a commercial and the screen is all "black". Then it will be very obvious. You'll see the screen divided into three sections; the two sidebars on the extreme left and right of the screen and the center area.
This is what is called "burn in" and voids your warranty! So, what is one supposed to do? Either watch the standard broadast (non-HDTV) the way it was supposed to be viewed and void your warranty, or watch it in stretched-out mode and make everything look weird, or set the TV into Zoom mode and cut off the top and bottom of the viewing area.
In other words, there is no solution to enjoy standard broadcast TV on a plasma screen TV without voiding your warranty!
BTW: Why do some HDTV's when you do set the TV to view 4x3 correctly it has grey bars on the left and right? You would think black bars would at least be less noticeable.
I think we all can agree that regardless of, or lack of, HDTV programming, the bulk of viewing is the good ol' standard 4:3 aspect ratio of standard broadcasting. This means viewers of the plasma TVs must either watch a distorted image, if their TV is in the 16:9 HDTV aspect ratio, making everyone look fat and bent out of shape, or switching the TV to the narrower screen, i.e., 4:3 aspect ratio.
But viewer beware, as I found out the hard way. If the bulk of your viewing is in the narrower mode, you'll soon discover when you decide to rent a DVD movie, that the "sidebars" (that area on the left and right side of the viewing area that was normally "not lit" during 4:3 viewing), will appear much lighter when switched to 16:9. You may not notice it at first glance, but wait for a pause in programming, such as occurs for a second or two, when a TV station breaks for a commercial and the screen is all "black". Then it will be very obvious. You'll see the screen divided into three sections; the two sidebars on the extreme left and right of the screen and the center area.
This is what is called "burn in" and voids your warranty! So, what is one supposed to do? Either watch the standard broadast (non-HDTV) the way it was supposed to be viewed and void your warranty, or watch it in stretched-out mode and make everything look weird, or set the TV into Zoom mode and cut off the top and bottom of the viewing area.
In other words, there is no solution to enjoy standard broadcast TV on a plasma screen TV without voiding your warranty!
BTW: Why do some HDTV's when you do set the TV to view 4x3 correctly it has grey bars on the left and right? You would think black bars would at least be less noticeable.
Also not all HD is going to be created with HD cameras. With film you usually won't get a sharp image unless it is well lit or daytime shot. Some people ignorantly think that every scene should look pristine in HD (they'll be big fans of DiscoveryHD and INHD Imax shows). But scene softness may often be done on purpose and with film you often loose sharpness when shooting a night scene etc.
This may all be a moot point next year after HD-DVD is on the market. It would have been here already if it hadn't been the red and blue laser squabble.
Still I would rather not watch TV at all than to go back to analog.
Also not all HD is going to be created with HD cameras. With film you usually won't get a sharp image unless it is well lit or daytime shot. Some people ignorantly think that every scene should look pristine in HD (they'll be big fans of DiscoveryHD and INHD Imax shows). But scene softness may often be done on purpose and with film you often loose sharpness when shooting a night scene etc.
This may all be a moot point next year after HD-DVD is on the market. It would have been here already if it hadn't been the red and blue laser squabble.
Still I would rather not watch TV at all than to go back to analog.
But you have to understand its a chicken and the egg scenario. Until you have enough HD viewers, the cost of doing HD content isn't worth it.
Now having said that, there is more HD content out there....
But gettting back to the point...
You may have an HD TV, but at what level?
I've had a Sony Plasma monitor for about 4 years now. The newer generation of the same 42" monitor comes in two flavors. One has a slightly higher resolution.
You need to compare 480i to 1080i for picture quality. Also you need to compare composite video out to component video out. There are a lot of things that would effect your picture quality.
Even switching your dvd player from 720i to 720p shows a major difference.
In 10 years, everything, including comercials will be recorded in HD, and then downgraded to 480i until that is phased out.
They say the next great thing is 1080p, which is what they use to record the content. If Moore's law holds true, in 18 months, you could expect to see comerical/consumer (high end) sets that can handle 1080p. (Note: Some projection units are already shipping.)
There are two HD format optical disc standards that are vying for adoption. They are HD-DVD and BluRay. Both support the ATSC digital formats which include the HD formats. Neither is available commercially but there are a few titles already that are playable on PC's which include a standard DVD-video and another DVD that contains the computer file of the same content at a higher resolution. They use a codec from Microsoft that is being promoted for use in higher resolution applications and DRM that can sometimes be more than a little annoying. Confusing enough yet?
I'd also like to point out that there is a significant supply of true HD content available in essentially every large market in the US. Furthermore it doesn't involve any monthly subscription fee. That's right, it is free! But you have to put up an antenna and get a receiver capable of reception of the new ATSC signal. All your favorite programs on PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, WB, and UPN can be viewed in glorious high definition for free. You don't need permission from a cable or satellite company to receive and display these programs. Because there is no lucrative after market your salesman at Best Buy is not trained to even realize this option is available.