HDTV vs color television

[oldtvman]

after living throught the birth of both technologies, I find litte comparison in the two. HDTV was a natural progression from analog. Color television had no predicessor. The hard work, the network battles between NBC an CBS would make for a hit mini-series. but after all is said and done, I don't find the same passion or feeling watching my HDTV as I do any one of my 6 roundies.

[oldtvman]

as an after thought, one of the reasons RCA had such a hard time selling color was the way it left many of the contributors to color in the dust and took basically full credit for the NTSC system, although I you look back in history, there were other companies that made major contributions to the NTSC system. and then there was the battle between GEN Sarnoff and William Palley of CBS.

[OvenMaster]

BobGary, I'll second that! I've got a 25" BPC TV in my listening room with a VCR and every single year there are fewer and fewer shows to tape and watch. Literally, days can go by and I'll not even turn on the set. Other family members watch TV far, far more than I do. HDTV was nothing more than the NAB's attempt to hang on to spectrum space. Ironic, since (in my area at least) 90% of all sets in my area are hooked up to cable. There's so little worth watching now, that when the analog stations go off the air I just might not even bother replacing the set or getting a pricey set-top converter.

Tom

[frenchy]

Originally Posted by OvenMaster

BobGary, I'll second that! I've got a 25" BPC TV in my listening room with a VCR and every single year there are fewer and fewer shows to tape and watch. Literally, days can go by and I'll not even turn on the set. Other family members watch TV far, far more than I do. Tom

One wonders how much of this is the programming and how much of it is us? I hardly watch anything on TV nowadays either but used to watch a ton. They put shows on that young people watch. I ain't young anymore (45 ain't old but it ain't young either!) : 0 I venture to guess it has been like that for a LONG time, perhaps since TV began. I was reading a book about Jackie Gleason and it said that part of CBS's reasoning for finally dumping him in 1970 was they wanted the younger viewers that he was not bringing in. This is not a new phenomenon.

[oldtvman]

Understand I,m not disputing the natural progression to Digital television, my point of the thread was that I have lived through the introduction of both, and in my mind there is little comparison between the excitment of seeing color tv for the first time vs seeing digital television, keep in although the picture quality has improved, the program material has not, i still wonder why I spend the money I do to subscribe to directv with 160 channels and nothing on.

[frenchy]

Originally Posted by oldtvman

Understand I,m not disputing the natural progression to Digital television, my point of the thread was that I have lived through the introduction of both, and in my mind there is little comparison between the excitment of seeing color tv for the first time vs seeing digital television,

What did you first view HDTV on? (I mean HDTV, not just 'digital television', which could just be plain old standard definition). I don't think you can really see the full effect of HDTV unless it is on a newer plasma or other recent screens and on a BIG one, the bigger the better (50 inches and bigger), and something in 1080i.
I remember when I first started thinking about HDTV, the sets were a lot smaller and not nearly as good as they are now and I didn't bite. Would have been same with color for me probably too. I wouldn't have bought HDTV when I first saw it any more than I would have bought a CT-100 with that dinky little screen roundish screen compared to the much biger rectangular b/w 'big' screens.
The bigger the set, the better and better HDTV looks than standard def, and the more standard def starts to look very cheesy looking, akin to a kinescope.
Again I point out comparing to HDTV to standard def on a big screen, if you watch hdtv for an hour and then put it back on regular tv, you will squint and say "eeeewwwww!" I guarantee it, if you have good eyes. You will NOT do that switching between color and b/w no matter how much you look at color. That indicates HDTV is not some minor improvement in TV compared to color introduction.

[OvenMaster]

Originally Posted by frenchy

The bigger the set, the better and better HDTV looks than standard def, and the more standard def starts to look very cheesy looking, akin to a kinescope.

Bingo. IMHO, the real test therefore would be to put one HDTV of a size as similar as possible to a standard def set side by side, with both sets fed the same signal. Just like speakers where louder is perceived as "better", so bigger is perceived as "better" for television pictures. I've tried this in stores with sets around the 27" size, and the differences are (while admittedly marginally better)simply not worth the massive price premium that HDTV commands. When HDTV sets of a similar size drop in price to within around ten percent more than what a standard def set costs, THEN talk to me! Otherwise I will let other suckers... I mean early adopters... subsidize the cost of R&D and marketing and profits.

Tom

[vintagecollect]

HDTV looks greatest on smaller screen as pixels are closer together as so does NTSC.

1 year ago Sears had a $500 HDTV, 25" or 27" that had one of the BEST HD pictures I had ever seen for TWO important reasons over sets costing ten times as much. Screen size was big enough to watch, but NOT too large to dilute high definition picture qualities. Two, this was a direct view CRT that cannot be rivaled in Contrast, shapness , and brightness(DLP rear projection sets are close but no cigar), also limited viewing angle of DLP set.

I have two front projectors HDTV resolution compatible--DLP and high quality LCD video projectors that produce fantastic pictures --- until screen reaches a certain size that drags down picture quality down. HD resolution can be kept on larger screens, but line doubler is expensive and most people not familiar with. Front projectors also can be viewed at any angle like regular TV . Rear projection sets are still lacking in theatre quality for HDTV unless outragious amount of money is spent on upscale model. My point is---- HDTV isn't the same unless you are actually watching HDTV resolution on your final screen size.


Early color roundies with a DVD video signal and video amplifier in between TV and DVD player from Rat Shack will reduce noise in signal to give tuner a strong signal. This shows full quality of NTSC as DVD resolution is greater and doesn't take away NTSC picture quality. It's weird to watch a 50 year old color TV and see such a great picture as same standard used for many years. It feels liked I'm not watching shows on old technology or an "antique TV". Color roundie still feels state of the art ---and a marvel of modern technology.




I don't see public accepting Digital that instantly makes their current sets obsolete if not backward compatible to NTSC. Home theatre owners have small fortunes invested in video setups as so do Plasma TV people. Television stations I'm sure will do a gradual transition to Digital as has happened with color in 50s/60s. IT HAS GOT TO BE NTSC backward compatible for this reason. Most will be reluctant probaly since just spent money for HDTV conversion. ANY standard will be abandoned if costs public too much/ not feasable anyways.


Both topics are rehash of other threads .

[frenchy]

[QUOTE=vintagecollect]HDTV looks greatest on smaller screen as pixels are closer together as so does NTSC. 1 year ago Sears had a $500 HDTV, 25" or 27" that had one of the BEST HD pictures I had ever seen for TWO important reasons over sets costing ten times as much. Screen size was big enough to watch, but NOT too large to dilute high definition picture qualities. Two, this was a direct view CRT that cannot be rivaled in Contrast, shapness , and brightness(DLP rear projection sets are close but no cigar), also limited viewing angle of DLP set. >>>

I have a Hitachi rear projection with the 3 crts in it, 51 inch (same crts and chassis that were in their 65 inch set so it is PLENTY bright on this sucker). It also lets you dial in the convergence of the beams perfectly with an electronic grid you can tweak, can basically make it perfect.
While a small screen and a large screen might be able to both create 1080i HDTV, I wanted a big screen to get the full effect at normal viewing distance. If I'd gottem a little 27 incher, I'd have had to set 3 feet away from the screen to even be able to pick out the detail that was there. And if I didn't sit that far, it would be too small for the picture to have any impact whether it was HDTV detail or not.

[Pete Deksnis]

There's another parallel between early color and HDTV. Don't recall exactly in the early '60's when the Tonight Show went color, but last Monday Letterman went true HD (1920 x 1080i). Probably there were not many viewers for either advanced-format startup; he joked that eight or so were seeing him in HD. His show has been taped in HD for about two years, but not broadcast that way till now... maybe they wanted a backlog of shows to rebroadcast? The only advantage to HD were some jaw-dropping outdoor shots of Broadway, IMO.

[frenchy]

Originally Posted by vintagecollect

IT HAS GOT TO BE NTSC backward compatible for this reason. Most will be reluctant probaly since just spent money for HDTV conversion. ANY standard will be abandoned if costs public too much/ not feasable anyways.

"No one expects the public to junk the more than 30 million monochrome sets now in our homes just because color television is available..."

- W. H Buchsbaum, Corlor TV Servicing, 1955

Actually I believe HDTV is catching on MUCH faster in sales than color TV did, and color WAS backwards compatible.

[oldtvman]

I agree with a lot of things you guys say, but for those of you who lived way back when, the distractions that exist today were non-existant back then, most families had one television the world outside television at the time was the movies, radio and a few events such as local sporting events, but for most of us kids we were left up to what we could invent to do, so I say that is why color back then for me was such an amazing event. Sure I watch HDTV, but there is also dvd's, computers, 500 channel cable systems, and so on and so on. I guess the magnitude of color back then with the intense hard core engineering was a marvel for the time.

[uofmtiger]

I have no desire to see HDTV. If the programming was worth something, I may rethink that. As long as the nets are shoveling shit, my sets will be showing DVD's of Archie Bunker, Hogan's Heroes, etc

HDNET showed Hogans Heros in HD for months. You would have been in heaven.

Actually I believe HDTV is catching on MUCH faster in sales than color TV did, and color WAS backwards compatible.

My cable box will show the same HD broadcast on my analog TV (via coax) as it will on my HDTV (via HDMI, component, or firewire). Obviously, the program is downscaled somehow over the coax output, but it does seem to be backward compatible.

and in my mind there is little comparison between the excitment of seeing color tv for the first time vs seeing digital television, keep in although the picture quality has improved, the program material has not, i still wonder why I spend the money I do to subscribe to directv with 160 channels and nothing on.

While I can't argue with how it felt to get color because it has been around my entire life, I bet many people said "why do I need color? I have Andy Griffith, Dick Van Dyke, and The Three Stooges in B&W."

For me, HDTV makes a bigger impact when watching movies. HDNet has converted 35mm film to HD specs with great results. Seeing movies like(the original) "Oceans 11" in HD is truly awe inspiring. Then when you have movies like "Winged Migration", "Blade Runner", etc.. (on this month) it is worth gathering around the TV for a Friday night at the movies.

In my eyes, an even greater impact is made with sports in HD. The widescreen shows more of the game and everything is in perfect focus. If you have ever watched one football game in HD and then switched to standard broadcasting, you would truly appreciate what HDTV brings to the table.

Is it a more exciting change than color? I have no idea, but I do know that people spend more time in front of the TV nowadays (for xbox, dvds, cable TV, etc..), so more people may appreciate the change.

[andy]

---

[uofmtiger]

I'm sure everything will be worked out eventually, but it will be many years before we have the equivalent of a HDTV VHS deck.

Actually, they are already out and I own one. They can playback DVHS tapes and record HD over a firewire connection. I have a new cable box that has a hard drive for time shifting and a firewire output for dropping to HD VHS tape (or SVHS tape after modification). This is the best of both words.

In retrospect, if I had to make a choice, I prefer a hard disc Tivo-like ability over tape. I had the choice a while back when a company called 169time was making it possible (and still is) to record HD programming from Directv or Dish via a modified satellite box. Directv also had a HDTivo available that could not be modified. I picked the HDTivo because it is much more convenient and easier to use than VHS. Actually, for my life, Tivo/PVRs are even more important than HDTV. I do not want the TV to decide my schedule and the 30 second skip is a real time saver.

For OTA signals, it is very easy to record even without a cable box. All you need is a HDTV Wonder card on your computer and you can record off the air directly to your computer.