Another reason I hate HDTV...

[Carmine]

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?

[Dave A]

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

[Eric H]

Originally Posted by Chad Hauris

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.

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.

[colortrakker]

Originally Posted by Carmine

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?

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.

[Sandy G]

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.

[NowhereMan 1966]

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?

[Bill R]

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 Hauris]

Originally Posted by Eric H

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 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.

[RetroHacker]

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

[kc8adu]

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

Originally Posted by Carmine

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?

[kc8adu]

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;-)

Originally Posted by RetroHacker

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

[RetroHacker]

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

[old_tv_nut]

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.

[john_w]

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.

[old_tv_nut]

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.