I don't get the hype regarding picture quality, although I can only judge by what I've seen in stores. Only when the screen size gets "huge" can I really notice the difference between HDTV and a good quality conventional set. The expensive sets display a nice picture, but since my living room isn't 40' wide like the showroom, I don't need a 50" picture.

However my complaint is not about picture quality, but rather this new 16:9 aspect ratio. Except for some sporting events, and epic films like Ben Hur, is 16:9 really the best way to frame a shot? Most TV shots are of a single person speaking, fairly close. Yet by the time you get back far enough to frame the complete head/bust in the shot, you've included a bunch of unnessecary junk (like the fence in the head shot of yours truly). Even inanimate objects like cars, houses, etc. are usually closer to square than "super wide", so you must include a bunch of extra stuff (such as the the SUV turning left in the first shot of the Rolls Royce). You end up with a smaller shot of the subject, no matter what. Perhaps not a problem on a 50" screen, but what about portable/table sets of the future?

Does anybody else think this is stupid?

With HDTV you need a down-conversion box for a regular TV and they are expensive now (like the up-convertors for SDTV to HDTV). You need to have the proper scaler in line among other things. As soon as the HDTV std really shakes out - change will happen really fast!!


dave

I think the 16:9 or similar widescreen ratios were orginally developed around 1953 for movies in theaters, to give a wider field of view and to fill up the stage area...it was developed in large part to give movies an extra distinction over the new competetion at that time of television.

In my opinion, like Carmine I think this wide screen ratio is only valuable when there is actually stuff to SEE in that expanded area that matters in terms of the story...for TV and a lot of what is in movies I just think it is not really needed.

Much of the time I have seen a 4:3 image stretched sideways to fit into a 16:9 screen. Maybe there will be 4:3 ratio digital TV's available that give you the ability to crop off the sides of the 16:9 image.

Much of the time I have seen a 4:3 image stretched sideways to fit into a 16:9 screen. Maybe there will be 4:3 ratio digital TV's available that give you the ability to crop off the sides of the 16:9 image.

Yeah, I've seen that stretched image too.. Looks like garbage! I also thought of a switch between 16:9 to 4:3, but even if you did that, you'd still end up with a much smaller image, because you've already filled the screen vertically...

I expect to enter the HD market soon myself, and I've looked at a number of sets, both in stores and in rooms (bars, restaurants, homes, etc.).

I agree that we aught to go back to the 4:3 ratio. As Chad mentioned, Cinematic style has changed from the epic "Ben Hurr" days, so that 4:3 seems more beneficial even for movies. Also, horizontal space (the TV's "footprint") is much more expensive in a home than the vertical space. I hate the prospect of needing more than twice the width to get close to the same screen size. Also, unless I get a HUGE HT screen that takes up most of my wall (which will be purchased through future lottery winnings), the picture really seems squashed to me. Maybe that's just because I'm so used to the 4:3 ratio, but everybody'sl in that situation. 16:9 is just there to match a standard that's somewhat obsolete, IMO.

However, I DO really like the higher resolution. One of my pet peaves is being too close to a medium-to-large TV, so that the horizontal lines are too obvious. My perception goes from "I'm observing a story" to "I'm watching a television image". I've noticed that I can get as close as I want to an HD set of any size without seeing those lines. However, for smaller sets, a standard def. flat panel makes more sense to me.

I'm not an industry slappy, but I do support the 16:9 ratio for this and this reason only; it's the way the film was originally shot and crafted by the director. To view it any other way is a compromise of what the director wanted to show. Granted, there's more of an effect with LOTR or Lawrence of Arabia than the latest Jack Black flic, but I usually only buy DVDs of that nature.

BTW, I don't have a big screen, 27" is the big screen here. but I do buy all my DVDs as widescreen, because that's what you see in the theatre.

There is also an option that stretches out non 16:9 programming to 16:9. I can't believe that any manufacturer would use it, but I've seen it on a Philips we sell at Costco. The kids playing football look like a bunch of little fat blobs running about :lmao: :lmao:

I'm not an industry slappy, but I do support the 16:9 ratio for this and this reason only; it's the way the film was originally shot and crafted by the director.

Not trying to be a smartass; but should I buy one TV for movies only, and another 4:3 set for sit-coms, "news", American Idol, Infomercials, Home videos, Law & Order, Bonanza re-runs, etc.?

Also, is at any more of a crime to crop an Adam Sandler movie-master-piece down to 4:3 than it would be to stretch Twilight Zone to 16:9? :scratch2:

Not trying to be a smartass; but should I buy one TV for movies only, and another 4:3 set for sit-coms, "news", American Idol, Infomercials, Home videos, Law & Order, Bonanza re-runs, etc.?

Also, is at any more of a crime to crop an Adam Sandler movie-master-piece down to 4:3 than it would be to stretch Twilight Zone to 16:9? :scratch2:

Well, I just suck it up and watch the "shorter" version with the black bands.

Personally, I can't see stretching at all; it seems to distort the image, where cropping eliminates portions but maintains proportion. I really don't want to see Rod with a sz 46 waist smoking a ceegar :lmao: :lmao:

I'm not up on HDTV, but I keep hearing that HD requires tremendous bandwidth and that most stations will be broadcasting at reduced bandwidth with the end result being only slightly better than what we currently have. Anyone have any comments or knowledge of this?

Well, OK, I agree that we should keep 16:9 as a option, especially for the older epic films. Now, looking at the source format -- can you imagine going into a theatre and seeing a 4:3 screen? 16:9 somehow seems to work better for large audiences, even though it seems that most current directors don't give a rat's arse about anything too far off-center. (Any hollywood directors or producers here on AK? If so, let me know if I'm wrong! :D ) I don't know of anyone who notices a distinct difference when network broadcasted movies are cropped for TV. IMO, that's how format translations should be done, not by distorting the picture! I think at least some DVD players have a cropped 4:3 image option, but I'd still like to see HD 4:3 sets, due to the room space issue.

A line doubled NTSC picture can look extremely good. The progressive scan output of my DVD player looks about 90% as good as 1080i HD from Voom satellite on my Sony CRT projector. Most people would have a really hard time telling the difference.

Most of the poor picture quality I see is caused on the production and transmission end, not by the deficiencies of NTSC. I swear my local Fox station broadcasts from VHS tapes. I've seen HD broadcasts where all they did was crop the top and bottom of their NTSC feed and upconverted it to 1080, or 720.

Our local FOX affiliate (WHBQ 13 Memphis) sucks too...and in so many ways.

All HDTV will be in 16:9 format - that is part of the HD. Just go read the forums at http://www.avsforum.com .

Dave

All HDTV will be in 16:9 format - that is part of the HD. Just go read the forums at http://www.avsforum.com .

Dave

Yes, but the signal should be locally "cropable", unless some FCC nazi says you can't do that for a 4:3-only TV, for some reason...correct? There is danger is losing significant info, but no more than the usual cropping of movies for TV broadcast, I would think.

Marketers probably think only a handful of oddballs (such as myself) would want something like that anyhow. And they're likely correct! :D

Heres hoping a 35 year broadcaster can help with some info on this in a short lesson.

Most HD at the moment is sports broadcasts. They are done with the 4X3 viewer in mind. At the production, the graphics are located in the 4X3 area of the 16X9 image and then a "center cut" image of this area is sent for a separate feed to the 4X3 analog transmission. That is why on the HD version of the game, the graphics don't go to the edge of the pic.

This "center cut" is only that part of the complete image and thus suffers some degradation as it is not all of the full video information, not to mention all of the electronic conversion that is needed to get this picture. The 16X9 HD version just has some extra video on the left and right that are best called "wings". The camera ops have graticules on their viewfinders that show both formats, but the basic shot is framed for 4X3. The rest is bonus material. Entertainment shows, either film or tape, use the same basic formula but ususally have fewer graphics.

On the transmission, the digital stations have multiple channels that are combined for a full-blown HD broacast. Otherwise they are on a lower def discrete, but still digital, channels sometimes 4X3 or 16X9 low res. This was shown a few days ago when the PBS stations reached an agreement with cable ops to carry 4 digital channels on their systems. You can see the details here:

http://www.ncta.com/press/press.cfm?PRid=573&showArticles=ok

There have been plans floated for affiliates to repeat day programming (read soap operas) at later hours on a PPV basis on the discrete digital channels. Don't know if anyone is doing this yet.

A lot of this is driven by studios and cable ops looking to get the anamorphic (wide screen, but not always an exact 16X9) features on cable, either as basic with older releases or PPV and "On Demand" for newer releases.

Chad is right on the timetable for "wide-screen" movies in the early 50's. What is little known, is that the directors of the time struggled on what to do with the extra space. David Lean of "Lawrence of Arabia" fame seemed to get it over and over.

It's coming and the train has left the station. The question is which will come first. Every home having a HD set or the programming available to fill that screen. I believe the religious broadcasters have asked the FCC for a delay in the death of analog which is already determined by legislation. If you watch the drop in 16X9 set prices, this transition may actually work itself out. Don't throw out your old VCR's quite yet. We may need them. And get yourself a bow-tie UHF antenna for over-the-air. Works fine in a good signal area and the digital product is so much better than the analog...but only as good as the source material.

Dave A

Thanks for all the info, but back to the basic question... How will broadcasters fill a screen shot of a single speaking person, perhaps during a newscast? Will they show us "wings" of the studio, or can we expect a whole new generation of obnoxious news crawls and artifacts?

Should I shut-up before I give them ideas? :sigh:

You are looking live at the learning curve! The big boys and girls have figured it out for the transition until 4X3 goes away. Now you are at the mercy of local newscasters and programmers to do the same. You will notice that there is no headlong rush to do the local news in HD. Lot's of costs to the local station to convert the plant to HD. It is easy to pass the network HD on to the transmitter. My fearless forecast...lot's of graphics on one side of the screen or the other but still in the 4X3 window even if they call it HD.

Dave A

Much of the time I have seen a 4:3 image stretched sideways to fit into a 16:9 screen. Maybe there will be 4:3 ratio digital TV's available that give you the ability to crop off the sides of the 16:9 image.

Chad, the 16:9 sets will show a 4:3 program or DVD in 4:3, it just blacks out the sides.

If you have a 50" 16:9 screen and are watching a 4:3 program it will basically be like watching a 40" 4:3 set which ain't too bad. :yes:

I recently made the jump to HDTV and I'm loving it, even though I've never actually watched any true HD programs on it, mostly DVD's which aren't really HD but look spectacular anyway. :banana:

Thanks for all the info, but back to the basic question... How will broadcasters fill a screen shot of a single speaking person, perhaps during a newscast? Will they show us "wings" of the studio, or can we expect a whole new generation of obnoxious news crawls and artifacts?

Should I shut-up before I give them ideas? :sigh:
For a grahpic-heavy network like H'line News or Bloomberg, they might have the anchor on a 4:3 portion of the screen and the graphics on the other side. For local stations I imagine a shot of the anchor with a 16:9 plasma or LCD monitor to their side to fill the frame.

No,no, no...You boys have it all wrong...ADVERTISEMENTS !! all the time, wall-2-wall ADS !! You'll NEVER be able to escape erectile-disfunction or feminine itch ads from now on...I has seen the future, & ain't it WUNNERFUL ?!?-Sandy G.

I know myself, I don't see much difference between HDTV and the picture on my 1982 Zenith 25" console we had since new. I've been told the pciture tubes "was showing it's age a little bit" in 1999 but the picture is still beautiful. Then again, I'm terminally nearsighted and TV is TV no matter what so what can I say? ;)

One of the advantages of dtv is that broadcasters can transmit multiple video streams, so Sandy you may be on to something. A standard def pic in the middle with flanking sides of comercials. It would allow them to sell more ad air time. Of course you would have the option to pay the station to turn it off. Would that be pay-not-to-view tv? What a concept.
I have seen HDTV, and I am not impressed. I do not like 16X9 format at all, not even for movies on tv. The picture just doesn't look right. Even on my big screen or the 17 foot screen of one of my projection systems, although at that size it is more tollerable.
As far as picture quality, well I just do not see what good all that eye popping resolution is with most of todays programing. It's the Programing quality people, not the picture quality that makes good tv. That is one reason that some of the old shows are so popular. They are good in B&W, Color, Hi rez, or Lo rez, doesn't matter.
I think the whole HDTV thing should be ditched and technical resources focused on real inovations in tv like say 3D interactive television. It would be like the holideck on the Star Trek NG show. Now that would be really cool, and give me a good reason to upgrade my tv.
Bill R

Chad, the 16:9 sets will show a 4:3 program or DVD in 4:3, it just blacks out the sides.

If you have a 50" 16:9 screen and are watching a 4:3 program it will basically be like watching a 40" 4:3 set which ain't too bad. :yes:



Yes I have seen this before, but it just seems like many people tend to want to stretch the 4:3 image so that the whole 16:9 screen is filled up.

I have recently got Direct TV (no cable available in my area) and have not watched antenna TV for months! Have been using the digital recorder to record my favorite shows and that is more than I can usually watch in a day. I know that HD is available on Direct TV but think that they would keep compatibility with their current receivers, as the signal coming into the satellite dish is digital anyway.
Even though there are some digital artifacts sometimes noticeable, the picture quality is MUCH better than what I was getting with antenna and of course the programming is a lot better.

My parents got an HDTV 16:9 set but when I went to visit them and watched it, did not think the improvement in the picture was good enough to me to want to buy a new set...am still using my 60's and 70's sets.

We had digital cable here for a while, and dropped it after two months. It wasn't HD, but the picture was just SO BAD that it wasn't worth the trouble for the extra channels. The analog picture has always been crystal clear, and only fuzzy on a couple channels. The digital picture was always full of digital artifacts, it would skip frames/get stuck frequently, and the sound sometimes dropped out. The cable company could never get it to work properly. They swapped out the receiver box a couple of times, and for a while we had a DVR. All the digital boxes suffered from the same major pain in the neck problem - the delay when changing channels. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I press the "Channel UP" button on my remote, I expect the channel to flip to the next highest number. Instantly (or pretty close to it). Not in two seconds, not in one second, and reliably every time. This thing was horrible, the delay between any action on the remote and the actual action was very annoying. Not only that, but the digital box didn't even have a display! Sure, it had a clock, but is it too much to ask to have a couple little numbers on the front of the box that tell the number of the current channel? I mean, this isn't compicated stuff here.

Another pet peeve - DVR's. The one we got from the cable company was a piece of total junk. Sure, you could set it to record shows. But then what? It's stuck in that box. Not only that, but the quality was absolutely terrible. It was like watching a VHS tape that was recorded at the SLP speed, on very, very low quality, worn tape. The picture was just that bad. The digital artifacts only got worse on the recording, and the colors were all faded and 'compressed' looking (you know, that grain from bad image compression). Also, you'd see things where not the entire screen was being updated, so you'd get this smear across the screen as a character moved or something. Sure, it varied, but it was generally always pretty bad. Sound was flat sounding too. Also, say, for instance, you now wanted to copy ths show you had recorded. Simple, huh? I mean, it's a digital format, so I should just be able to connect the firewire port on the back of the box to my computer, and transfer... wrong! Those ports aren't even active. It says so deep in the manual. (And yes, I tried it. It didn't work.) Also, if the cable goes out, or the box gets moved and isn't hooked up to the cable, it doesn't work. At all. You can't even play the shows you've recorded to the internal hard drive.

Oh... right... the topic... Back to HDTV - from what I've seen of HDTV, the picture is, indeed clearer. But is is necessary? I too absolutely hate the 16:9 aspect ratio. It's totally unweildy and not well suited to much of anything, save for certain wide shots, which the directors can't seem to use right anyway. Right now, on regular television, they can't even come up with programming that's any good on a 4:3 screen. Do they think a wider screen will magically make "Survivor" good? Do they think that new technology will make their bad writing better? I don't know. Do I _need_ to watch these shows in high definition - no, especially since I don't watch them anyway. Now, I do watch TV. I absolutely love CSI, Law and Order, Star Trek, Stargate SG-1, and a lot of other shows. Some of which are available in HD. But I've never found myself thinking. "Gee, I wish CSI was higher resolution", or "Man, 512 lines just isn't enough to convey the true terror of the Klingon battle cruiser".

They're even using 16:9 for laptop screens now! Laptops! Isn't the point of a laptop to make it SMALLER? Not only that, but what use is a wide screen on a laptop? Word processor documents are still not going to fit very well, and Windows will still not be bearable even with a longer taskbar. I really wonder how Linux would run on one of those things, I mean, the standard 80x24 console would be rather stretched. Emacs would look really weird.

Also, speaking of modern television, has anyone noticed that the cameramen seem to have gotten really terrible as of late? What happened, did they cheap out on tripods, or have they just been serving up stronger coffee at the studio?

</rant>

Hehe, oops. Sorry 'bout the rambling there...

-Ian

you better shut up.;-)
they already put stupid crapsannos pizza commercials on here that squeeze the screen from the bottom.
broadcast tv is a wasteland anyway.
maybe they will pay you for your ideas


Thanks for all the info, but back to the basic question... How will broadcasters fill a screen shot of a single speaking person, perhaps during a newscast? Will they show us "wings" of the studio, or can we expect a whole new generation of obnoxious news crawls and artifacts?

Should I shut-up before I give them ideas? :sigh:

hey another linux junkie here!
looks like its time for me to start hacking hdtv firmware.
like adjustable side curtains for hiding annoying crap in 4:3
soon we will need popup blockers for these things.
carmine and i had better both shut up;-)


We had digital cable here for a while, and dropped it after two months. It wasn't HD, but the picture was just SO BAD that it wasn't worth the trouble for the extra channels. The analog picture has always been crystal clear, and only fuzzy on a couple channels. The digital picture was always full of digital artifacts, it would skip frames/get stuck frequently, and the sound sometimes dropped out. The cable company could never get it to work properly. They swapped out the receiver box a couple of times, and for a while we had a DVR. All the digital boxes suffered from the same major pain in the neck problem - the delay when changing channels. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I press the "Channel UP" button on my remote, I expect the channel to flip to the next highest number. Instantly (or pretty close to it). Not in two seconds, not in one second, and reliably every time. This thing was horrible, the delay between any action on the remote and the actual action was very annoying. Not only that, but the digital box didn't even have a display! Sure, it had a clock, but is it too much to ask to have a couple little numbers on the front of the box that tell the number of the current channel? I mean, this isn't compicated stuff here.

Another pet peeve - DVR's. The one we got from the cable company was a piece of total junk. Sure, you could set it to record shows. But then what? It's stuck in that box. Not only that, but the quality was absolutely terrible. It was like watching a VHS tape that was recorded at the SLP speed, on very, very low quality, worn tape. The picture was just that bad. The digital artifacts only got worse on the recording, and the colors were all faded and 'compressed' looking (you know, that grain from bad image compression). Also, you'd see things where not the entire screen was being updated, so you'd get this smear across the screen as a character moved or something. Sure, it varied, but it was generally always pretty bad. Sound was flat sounding too. Also, say, for instance, you now wanted to copy ths show you had recorded. Simple, huh? I mean, it's a digital format, so I should just be able to connect the firewire port on the back of the box to my computer, and transfer... wrong! Those ports aren't even active. It says so deep in the manual. (And yes, I tried it. It didn't work.) Also, if the cable goes out, or the box gets moved and isn't hooked up to the cable, it doesn't work. At all. You can't even play the shows you've recorded to the internal hard drive.

Oh... right... the topic... Back to HDTV - from what I've seen of HDTV, the picture is, indeed clearer. But is is necessary? I too absolutely hate the 16:9 aspect ratio. It's totally unweildy and not well suited to much of anything, save for certain wide shots, which the directors can't seem to use right anyway. Right now, on regular television, they can't even come up with programming that's any good on a 4:3 screen. Do they think a wider screen will magically make "Survivor" good? Do they think that new technology will make their bad writing better? I don't know. Do I _need_ to watch these shows in high definition - no, especially since I don't watch them anyway. Now, I do watch TV. I absolutely love CSI, Law and Order, Star Trek, Stargate SG-1, and a lot of other shows. Some of which are available in HD. But I've never found myself thinking. "Gee, I wish CSI was higher resolution", or "Man, 512 lines just isn't enough to convey the true terror of the Klingon battle cruiser".

They're even using 16:9 for laptop screens now! Laptops! Isn't the point of a laptop to make it SMALLER? Not only that, but what use is a wide screen on a laptop? Word processor documents are still not going to fit very well, and Windows will still not be bearable even with a longer taskbar. I really wonder how Linux would run on one of those things, I mean, the standard 80x24 console would be rather stretched. Emacs would look really weird.

Also, speaking of modern television, has anyone noticed that the cameramen seem to have gotten really terrible as of late? What happened, did they cheap out on tripods, or have they just been serving up stronger coffee at the studio?

</rant>

Hehe, oops. Sorry 'bout the rambling there...

-Ian

Of course, the first thing I'm going to want when HDTV starts taking over, is a converter box. I'm NOT going to get a new TV. I'm happy watching my old ones. A converter box will become necessary for all of us that routinely watch old sets. Right now, in my compuer room, I've got an early 80's Mitsubishi set connected to a Beta deck that doubles as the cable tuner. As much as I hate to be forced to use NEW technology, I guess I'll have to give in to a converter box. (Shudders at the thought of a cheap, flimsy, uncomfortable plastic-with-crap-mushy-buttons remote control).

Now, I've heard rumors that converter boxes will not be available. I can't truly believe that however. If all transmissions go to HD is a few years, and no converter boxes are available, what the hell is everone going to do? There are MILLIONS of televisions out there, and people are pitching them at an alarming rate, but if they become totally useless, I don't know what's going to happen - around here, you can't put TV's out at the curb anymore, they're considered hazardous waste with all the lead in the picture tube, etc. There's no way the FCC can make all existing television sets and VCR's unusable. I mean, even if new HD sets were $100, that's still an awful lot of money for a lot of people.

-Ian

You should get an antenna and digital off-air receiver box to go with that 55-inch set - you will definitely see the difference in Hi-Def sports. (We get the Cubs and Bulls local games in HD in Chicago --- OK, maybe that's a bad example...) Joking aside, football games and other sports look fantastic.

Olympics were beautiful, too bad NBC did only a loop of partial coverage. HD movies look good too, but if you want a significant quantity you have to consider HD cable or satellite. Prime-time dramas look great, too, but I don't know how much it really contributes to the story. However, CBS in Washington DC said that if they accidentally send out "The Young and the Restless" in standard def, they get complaints! So there are some appreciative people watching even that in HD.

Personal opinion: below 30-inch, its hard for a CRT to have enough resolution to show a big difference in HD. HD LCD's or plasmas are very good at showing the resolution in this size and up, but still expensive. Something like a 55-inch rear projection is about the best bang for the buck right now, but if you just must hang it on the wall, you could wait for prices to come down some more.

I've looked at rear projection sets, and decided I'll wait until I can afford an LCD or plasma. Off-axis viewing fades quite noticeably, and even if you're sitting dead-center, the brightness is focused in the center portion of the screen.

Optimum viewing distance is 3x picture height, and optics are usually designed to be reasonably flat by that distance - closer will get you a definite hot spot, but usually more critical vertically than horizontally. Can differ somewhat from model to model. So, the same caviat as buying a car: test drive it first.

You've got tradeoffs with tube or projection. LCDs have narrow viewing angles, plasmas eventually lose their charge, and tube projectors are too bulky (and usually a pain in the ass to converge).

I watch my HD on a 38" RCA tube set. I'm used to 16:9, but what annoys me is having to stretch or zoom 4:3 material to keep the bars on the sides of the picture from creating burn. Plus, any artifacts I get from the signal are magnified, which brings an NTSC picture down to about VHS quality.

With HDTV you need a down-conversion box for a regular TV and they are expensive now (like the up-convertors for SDTV to HDTV)

Ok fine. Where in blazes can anyone FIND one of these boxes? I keep reading that the only downconverter boxes are for satellite and cable. All I want to do is downconvert local terrestrial broadcasts so I can watch 'em on the familys' multiple NTSC sets, meaning a converter for each set(example: parents just bought a new NTSC 20" Panasonic, house also has a 27" Sanyo and a 25" GE).

Anyone got brand names? Model numbers? Prices? Dealers?

Tom