High Definition TV Starts Slowly

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&summit=&storyid=2005-09-01T103134Z_01_DIT137907_RTRIDST_0_TECH-TELEVISION-HIGHDEFINITION-DC.XML' target='_blank'>http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&summit=&storyid=2005-09-01T103134Z_01_DIT137907_RTRIDST_0_TECH-TELEVISION-HIGHDEFINITION-DC.XML</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Armin Schoenfelder would love to buy a television set that is ready for high definition broadcasts but the German engineer wants to spend no more than 900 euros, while the sets start at twice his budget. "Sure I'm interested, but I'm looking at the prices," the 68-year-old said as he browsed at the Saturn electronics store in Frankfurt. Salesman Mathias Kerscher, 25, is not convinced about high definition television (HDTV) yet, because no German channel is broadcasting in the high-quality format yet. "Until there's a better signal, I don't see any point," he said."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/hdtv_lead.jpg" /> <br /><br />Kind of puts our "problems" here in the United States in perspective. I'm quite unhappy with the HD content available, but at least we have even a little bit. The story keeps repeatings itself over and over again, you must have content as the hardware becomes available as most people don't want to spend the money on something they can't use.

[jizmo]

Actually the prices for HDTV-ready sets in Germany are pretty good, you can get a decent 32" LCD TV for about 1100€, and 37" LCD TVs start from 1700€.

The actual content is a much bigger problem.

One can get HD content from satellite companies, who are the only ones trying to bring a improvement to the problem at the moment, while other companies don't have any urge to do so. And why should they? Here in Finland Joe Average seems to be pretty content paying 1700€ for 32" LCD TV and getting smudged interpolated 576i programming. They haven't seen what's possible with real 720p signal, so they don't know for any better and therefore don't demand for enhancements in this area.

They're just shrugging their shoulders and saying that this LCD era wasn't really that big of an improvement.

On the other hand the sale for HD satellite sets has started picking up, national TV transmitters are missing the boat big time sending a signal that's not good enough even for traditional tv sets. TV viewing content in Europe will become even more americanized because we completely lack own our HD production and distribution.

It's really a shame, that we are losing our national content, but this seems to be the road Europe has decided to take with national tv companies deciding what people need - instead of listening to people and investing for solutions that would be more future-proof.

[Felix Torres]

TV viewing content in Europe will become even more americanized because we completely lack own our HD production and distribution.


Oh, I'm sure yoour governments will do everything inhumanly possible to protect you from the cultural imperialists' content. Just like they're protecting you from the Google library project that wasn't even targetted at you. :twisted:

Besides, its not as if there is all that much to be protected from.

Having recently taken the plunge myself with one of the next-gen 1080p LCDs (and probably the only one on the market that actually accepts 1080p inputs as well as 1080i) I can tell you that true HD content is...limited...

My first thought was that my local HD cable offering was lacking and that the satellite feeds would be better...

Uh, no, it turns out DirectTV and Dish are not significantly better...

Basically, my options for true HD viewing include:
- Upscaled DVDs ranging from very good to freaking fantastic!

- 2 channels of HD Net and 2 channels of inHD that showcase how good 1080 video can be with old movies, travelogues, IMAX movies, and occasional live sporting event. MLB games are great.

- a handful of HBO and Showtime, etc channels running the same movies we chose *not* to see in theaters six months or six years ago. Guess what? They still suck.

- Two channels worth of ESPN sports, mostly well-formatted clean SD with a growing supply of very good 720p broadcasts. Watchable not that sports season is in full bloom but after the world series it'll be a wasteland til next next spring. (repeat after me: there is but one true sport and its name is baseball. 'nough said.)

- Four of the six national networks feeding a few hours at night of HD content mixed in with their regular SD fare. CBS is tops with 1080 HD content and proper presentation of SD. Fox is next with 720p and proper SD. ABC and NBC both run 720p and are too lazy to properly format the SD content fror widescreen, leaving it to the user to adjust the tv or STB to display the stretched-out video properly. Dunno if its just the local broadcasters (one of which is directly owned by the network) or if the laziness is national, but it is unaceptable. Still, between the two networks they only have one show I care about and it runs in HD, so I can safely ignore everything else.

- PBS and Discovery HD Theater offer the usual grab-bag documentaries and educational fare they're famous for. Image quality varies by show; some are obviously line-doubled SD, others almost as good as the true HD channels' regular fare.

Slim pickings, no?
I think I'm missing two; TNT HD and Universal HD that are available elsewhere and something like twenty VOOM channels worth of the same filler channels I cancelled digital SD service to avoid. ;-)

None of the good SD specialty channels (A&amp;E, Bravo, Sci-Fi, USA, Lifetime, Nickelodeon, Anime, History, Cartoon, etc) are yet available in HD and even when they start broadcasting HD the quality of the content will doubtless be as spotty as their inventory.

So don't be sure you folks are missing much. 8)
Unless somebody else in NorthAm is getting a better assortment of HD content?

Am I missing anything?
Anybody out there from the center of the Universe (NYC, not Oa) or the kingdom of heaven (aka, LA) have anything better at their disposal?
Hello?
Anybody?

What about Canada, Mr Dunn?

[jizmo]

Oh, I'm sure yoour governments will do everything inhumanly possible to protect you from the cultural imperialists' content.
Naah, I don't think so. French are the only nation who might go for it, but then again I'm pretty sure they're too busy inventing their own proprietary TV format, making sure they'll have totally incompatible broadcasting system once again. :twisted:

[Felix Torres]

Oh, I'm sure yoour governments will do everything inhumanly possible to protect you from the cultural imperialists' content.
Naah, I don't think so. French are the only nation who might go for it, but then again I'm pretty sure they're too busy inventing their own proprietary TV format, making sure they'll have totally incompatible broadcasting system once again. :twisted:

In point of fact, I'm fairly sure your digital broadcast formats *are* incompatible with the ATSC used in NorthAm and (I think) Japan/Korea.

Same resolutions but different broadcast protocols, connectors, and refresh rates. (Not that refresh matters with digital displays.)

At this point, the only question is whether the french will be different from the rest of the EU or will they drag the whole continent down their path in this too.

[jizmo]

In point of fact, I'm fairly sure your digital broadcast formats *are* incompatible with the ATSC used in NorthAm and (I think) Japan/Korea.

Same resolutions but different broadcast protocols, connectors, and refresh rates. (Not that refresh matters with digital displays.)

They are in fact different. The resolution is also different, it's the standard PAL (720x576i). Plus, we don't have component, but cumbersome scart connectors instead.

Now, I'm not sure about protocols used in digi-sat broadcasts, but terrestrial and cable tv digitalization in Europe is complete failure. I'm not even talking about HDTV streams, but normal SD television digitalization which was executed poorly with technology that isn't future proof in any way. We have already huge problems with bandwidth and our set-top boxes have old mpeg2 chips and output ports that are not designed to handle HDTV - even if there was someone who'd be willing to send it.

It's a complete mess and consumers here are more than puzzled. :evil:

Second wave of mpeg4 / h.264 boxes would bring a solution for the bandwidth problem, but how do you think the public will welcome these new digital set-top boxes when they have just been bombed with infomercials for three years to get them buying the one with outdated technology?

[Felix Torres]

but how do you think the public will welcome these new digital set-top boxes when they have just been bombed with infomercials for three years to get them buying the one with outdated technology?

Like the folks who bought HD TVs without HDCP on their digital inputs? ;-)

Life on the bleeding edge is tough, especially when they don't tell you they're selling you essentially experimental hardware.

As for the resolution issue, I knew euro DTV was different res than ATSC SD, but I thought all the proposed euro HD specs were set for 1080-resolution...

Sounds like the problem goes beyond a simple lack of lack of content into a lack of standards for content, distribution, and display.

We at least have those standards in place; we just need to get the content providers to step up to the plate...

[klinux]

Having recently taken the plunge myself with one of the next-gen 1080p LCDs (and probably the only one on the market that actually accepts 1080p inputs as well as 1080i)

Hmm, which one did you get? I have been reading avsforum religiously lately and the consensus seems to be there are only one, maybe two, LCD TVs out there that may accept and output 1080p material after hacking. And even so, they do not resolve every single detail of the 1080.

The avsforum consensus, in addition to number of reviewes, seems to be that picture quality is more important than pixel count and if you care about picture quality above all else, you should pick something else than these so-called "1080p" LCDs. This is like shopping for a digital camera or a PC - megapixels and megahertz is only one of, and in my opinion, not the most important, factor in choosing a camera or a PC.

For those interested, I know of only a handful LCD TVs out there that claim 1080p: the 37" ones (BenQ DV3750, Westinghouse LVM-37w1, Sceptre X37SV-Naga, etc) and the 45' Sharp 45GX6U.

[Felix Torres]

Hmm, which one did you get? I have been reading avsforum religiously lately and the consensus seems to be there are only one, maybe two, LCD TVs out there that may accept and output 1080p material after hacking. And even so, they do not resolve every single detail of the 1080.

The avsforum consensus, in addition to number of reviewes, seems to be that picture quality is more important than pixel count and if you care about picture quality above all else, you should pick something else than these so-called "1080p" LCDs. This is like shopping for a digital camera or a PC - megapixels and megahertz is only one of, and in my opinion, not the most important, factor in choosing a camera or a PC.

For those interested, I know of only a handful LCD TVs out there that claim 1080p: the 37" ones (BenQ DV3750, Westinghouse LVM-37w1, Sceptre X37SV-Naga, etc) and the 45' Sharp 45GX6U.

There seems to be a bit of debate (and a lot of fog) as to what constitutes a "1080p display" as you must have noticed in the debates at AVSFORUM. :-) (I'm not a regular attender there but I have dropped by enough to notice.)

As best I can tell, it is not enough for a display to feature a panel or DLP that can present 1920x1080 discrete pixels, but it must also have the electronics to actually accept a full 1080-progessive input *and* to map it correctly on a one-by-one basis to the panel. It also helps if it bring some adaptive-motion de-interlacing to the 1080i to 1080p conversion when needed.

The evidence I've unearthed (the AVGuide review among others) says the display I bought (the Westinghouse, btw; not the cheapest but far from the most expensive) can do exactly that both though the VGA port and the DVI port designated for 1080P use.

Most of the deep technical research, has been after the fact, I must admit.
I bought the panel because it looked too good to be true and I had reached the point where the only way to determine if it could truly do what the specs say(and whether it matters what the specs claim) was to take it home and live with it.
Thanks to the magic of 30-day no-questions-asked return policies, I gave it a try. Right now, it doesn't look like its going back. :-)

Its been...educational...
(In the good sense. As in, still too good to be true, and the subtleties you discover with ownership are of the good kind, not the bad.)

It would take a full review to list all of them, which would be somewhat off-topic on this thread, but I could probably crank one out if it would serve a purpose, I guess. (Twist my arm, why don't you? ;-) )

The bottom line is that for *my* applications, the Westinghouse offers exactly the right mix of features and the image quality, when fed the proper content, is just downright scary good. (And it does a good job when fed less than good content, too).

One thing to note about the Westinghouse is that it really and truly is a different creature from the other displays you listed; hopefully the first of a new breed of displays designed and optimized to fit in with the emerging AV component systems of the near future instead of the old paradigm of TV-watching. The way we build up our mid-range entertainment systems is changing, as we've all noticed, and along with it the way we assess value in displays *and* content is starting to change.
Dramatically.

The folks in Europe who think DTV plasma is all they'll need are headed for a less that amusing wake-up call around mid 07, unless I miss my guess. Cause it doesn't look like they'll have any of the necessary infrastruture in place in time to deal with the next wave of home video applications.