I finally purchased an HD monitor last week and got hooked up on the Time/Warner Cable Basic HD bundle earlier this week - and I must say I'm disappointed by how very little true HD broadcasting is out there. I'm not a big sports fan so ESPN HD (on an extra HD package) doesn't interest me that much and I'm finding that even HBO HD is sometimes broadcasting movies "Full Frame". Discovery HD looks great (very low compression) but all they seem to show is "Monster Garage" 12 hours a day. TNT HD just showed a Full Frame "stretched" version of "Fried Green Tomatoes" and even the PBS affilite I work for runs their HD channel at such a high compression that it pixilates high density areas of the video (gonna' have to talk to our engineers about this). I'm just wondering what you guys who have HD TV recommend as particularly good HD programming? What else is out there - and is it worth it?

I read on a "Lost" thread that the show is broadcast in 1:78 in HD. People have compared recordings and there is picture cut off the sides in the standard 1:33 broadcast.

I read on a "Lost" thread that the show is broadcast in 1:78 in HD. People have compared recordings and there is picture cut off the sides in the standard 1:33 broadcast.

I did catch a little bit of "Lost" the other night and it looked pretty good. And it's definitely Widescreen HD.

Be careful of who you blame for the compression. The cable company probably is largely responsible for most of the compression in order to squeeze as much content as possible into the coaxial stream. Remember, there are MANY channels, any in-demand programming they offer, the interactive channels, "digital music, and so on. Plus the high speed internet services too. That's alot of content in a relatively small bandwith coaxial provides.
People also get confused that "Digital" cable automatically means "HiDef". I have Cablevision, they offer alot of these things, & on alot of the "standard" channels, you can see a lot of digital artifacts (pixelation, ghosting-especially in dark areas of content where there is motion in only a small areas of the screeen, etc.). Even on the hi def channels will have these issues. Sometimes an over the air (!) antenna for local programs is a better bet, depending on how the quality of your general reception area is.

Be careful of who you blame for the compression. The cable company probably is largely responsible for most of the compression in order to squeeze as much content as possible into the coaxial stream. Remember, there are MANY channels, any in-demand programming they offer, the interactive channels, "digital music, and so on. Plus the high speed internet services too. That's alot of content in a relatively small bandwith coaxial provides.
People also get confused that "Digital" cable automatically means "HiDef". I have Cablevision, they offer alot of these things, & on alot of the "standard" channels, you can see a lot of digital artifacts (pixelation, ghosting-especially in dark areas of content where there is motion in only a small areas of the screeen, etc.). Even on the hi def channels will have these issues. Sometimes an over the air (!) antenna for local programs is a better bet, depending on how the quality of your general reception area is.

Interesting points. The head of our statewide PBS affiliate is hepped big-time on pushing the over the air antenna concept for viewers (of course, this is motivated more by ratings panic than by any kind of technical considerations). Still, it's interesting that Discovery HD and HBO HD evidence almost no visually noticeable compression on my cable - while the HD channel of the PBS affiliate I work for evidences considerable compression. At the same time - we are broadcating 4 different digital channels (and considering a fifth) while Discovery HD and HBO HD are each using only one. I don't know whether this would speak to a bandwidth issue, a server issue, or some other combination of the factors you mentioned above.

I think we're still early adopters.

Like Brent says though, your DVD's which are widescreen anamorphic will take advantage of the HDTV to a large extent.

I hope you opted for the HD DVR from the cable company so you can record the content and watch it later. You're right, there's not that much scheduled. I think football fans are happy.

I'm glad I didn't pay thousands.

I think cable has bandwidth to burn still. Dunno what PBS's excuse is. Maybe it takes a circuitous route to get to the cable company?

Watching Rome on HBO in HD was almost organic.

I think we're still early adopters.

Like Brent says though, your DVD's which are widescreen anamorphic will take advantage of the HDTV to a large extent.

I hope you opted for the HD DVR from the cable company so you can record the content and watch it later. You're right, there's not that much scheduled. I think football fans are happy.

I'm glad I didn't pay thousands.

I think cable has bandwidth to burn still. Dunno what PBS's excuse is. Maybe it takes a circuitous route to get to the cable company?

Watching Rome on HBO in HD was almost organic.

Organic? :p Yeah - I can't wait til' "Deadwood" and "The Sopranos" start up again. "Rome" ended before I made the switch. And yes, I switched out my digital DVR for the HD DVR. In fact, the HD upgrade came at no extra cost. On top of that, I asked for a break on the overall bill for my cable TV/Roadrunner and they reduced it by $20.00 per month for the next year! And you better believe I've been watching DVDs to beat the band - I watched "The Thin Red Line" earlier this evening and it was freakin' gorgeous. Even old black and white stuff like "Psycho" is a completely different viewing experience when it's filling up a decent-sized 16x9 screen (especially with all the lights turned out). I'm liking my HD TV just fine.:)

I have found almost no "good HD" out there. The promise of "quality" HD in the home has been so completely compromised through excessive video compression that it is an exercise in frustration to try to actually watch anything sent over the air, off satellite, or on cable. The inherent noise introduced from such extreme compression results in an image that looks more like blocky dialup internet video increased to a huge scale.

If you've ever seen pure, uncompressed or low-compression HD there is no way that you could stand to watch the crap that the providers are dishing out. In an effort to try to squeeze as many channels as possible into a lineup, broadcast HD has been severely compromised before it could truly be experienced as it was meant to be.

Hopefully, high-bitrate Blu-Ray HD players and discs will be released soon so that everyone who has invested their hard-earned money into one of these great new high-def displays can finally be given the opportunity to experience the format in all it's true, uncompromised glory.

The bad thing about that is that the broadcasters still don't really have a firm grasp on some things. There are now 3 HD "standards" (720p, 1080i, & the newer and more bandwidth hogging 1080p). Plus the "enhanced" 480p, which, I suspect, is what most people assume is a HD format, but isn't. There is a great site that will give you a good grasp of all the differences (and believe me there are many) at http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/hdtv.htm
I've been doing a lot of research, & have decided to wait some more until some things are solidified. I think broadcasters have 1 year left (end of 2006)? to switch over to full HD formats & give up the analog broadcasting bandwaves. DVD's will eventually go HD too, so all those great movies we love can be repurchased by us (again) to take advantage of the upgraded quality. :roll:
By the way, Cablevision does NOT charge extra to upgrade your box to HD. (The box has DVI, & HDMI outputs, as well as optical digital, & coaxial digital audio outs). The content is already there.

Last I knew, 2009 is the analog broadcast cut-off date.
But even that hasn't been finalized.
The house and senate are still far apart on a compromise, and chances are good that the date will get pushed back even farther if they can't agree on how to handle all the analog only TVs still in use.

Interesting thread,I just got the HDtv package that my local cable company offers.I wanted to try it for about three months before I made up my mind.At first I couldnt understand why the HD program was being cut off at the sides,then i found out that the settings on the box were not set to 16:9.Then I had the tech come over and he set it up and boy what a difference!I have a 34" widescreen tube TV with 1080i,I could not justify a flat TV until they get better and cheaper.Watching Invaison and Lost is spectacular,and HD Discovery Theather is is stunning but is limited in its programming as someone mentioned.I love the picture,there is just not enough programming.My girlfriend is envious.

I've got the HD package with DVR from Cox Cable here in Nola, and it includes InHD1 and InHD2, and, best of all, UniversalHD. Great channel, lots of series in HD (Karen Cisco, The District, Century City). They even showed the new Battlestar Galactica in HD!

But best of all are the uncut movies. Old stuff, in HD widescreen format. Big Trouble in Little China, Rollercoaster, Dragonheart, Silent Running, Xanadu (OK, a really bad movie, but still...), even the Director's Cut of Blade Runner. :thumbsup:

Since my wife let me get a DVD recorder, I've been saving the movies on DVR, then burning them over on my days off. The only real problem is that I don't have a listing for what they're showing. I tend to stumble across movies by accident.

I've got the HD package with DVR from Cox Cable here in Nola, and it includes InHD1 and InHD2, and, best of all, UniversalHD.

InHD1 and InHD2 are available on an extra package on my cable. What kind of programming do they offer?

inhd1,2 mainly play old imax format movies. If it's included in the price, ok, but I don't find myself ever recording from those channels. DiscoveryHD is more interesting.

Last I knew, 2009 is the analog broadcast cut-off date.
But even that hasn't been finalized.
The house and senate are still far apart on a compromise, and chances are good that the date will get pushed back even farther if they can't agree on how to handle all the analog only TVs still in use.

Chances are it'll get pushed back even further after the 2006 mid-term elections. There's still a lot of debate over whether to subsidize set-top D-to-A converters for low-income TV viewers.

All I know, if they make my 7 functioning TVs useless, they had better compensate me for each and every one of them!

All I know, if they make my 7 functioning TVs useless, they had better compensate me for each and every one of them!

You jest, and yet that attitude is why the big change-over date keeps getting pushed back. Nobody in Congress is going to risk pissing off their TV-watchin' constituents.

You jest, and yet that attitude is why the big change-over date keeps getting pushed back. Nobody in Congress is going to risk pissing off their TV-watchin' constituents.

If you don't support the digital conversion, then you're with the terrorists. :p

All I know, if they make my 7 functioning TVs useless, they had better compensate me for each and every one of them!

This is the fascinating thing about western society.

I was born into abject poverty. I grew up in a one room house where I slept on a folding cot next to the front door...my grandmother slept on the couch. We had no room for a bathtub but we had a shower stall behind a curtain. Yet it never occurred to me that I was poor and I never had any concept of being entitled to anything.

Yet, here it is, almost 40 years later and society has advanced to the point where a guy can own SEVEN televisions sets and actually believe that he should be entitled to compensation if they become non-functioning.

I swear...the things I've seen in my lifetime...INCREDIBLE!

If you don't support the digital conversion, then you're with the terrorists. :p

I lost my newsletter, Z-man, are we liberals fighting off HDTV this week, or waging war on Christmas?

I lost my newsletter, Z-man, are we liberals fighting off HDTV this week, or waging war on Christmas?

This week - I think we're primarily responsible for the War on Christmas. :rolleyes: :freak: Actually, the two issues are related. One of the big issues of Homeland Security is the fact that Police, EMTs, Fire Departments, etc. need more analog channels to communicate with one another. Until the full digital conversion is made - those channels can't be freed up.

I’ve had my Dish Network HD set up now for a little over a year. I have a 57” widescreen HD and most of the HD programming I’ve seen looks great.
I have the 921 HD / DVR receiver with the OTA antenna combo. The OTA allows me to receive the local digital channels directly off the air. Most of the shows I watch like lost, 24, Surface and Alias look fantastic. However, each affiliate manages its HD programming differently and you can notice the difference in picture quality from one affiliate to the other. On more than one occasion, the local affiliate will forget to switch back to HD after a run of commercials. The Local ABC affiliate is the worst culprit.
If you have a wide screen HD at 1080i and the program is in true HD the entire screen will be filled, no letterboxing. This is not true when some older films are broadcast in HD.

On more than one occasion, the local affiliate will forget to switch back to HD after a run of commercials. The Local ABC affiliate is the worst culprit.Aiiiiieeee! I'd have to wrap my head in duct tape, lest it explode, about the second time that happened. Especially if I were watching Lost.
If you have a wide screen HD at 1080i and the program is in true HD the entire screen will be filled, no letterboxing. This is not true when some older films are broadcast in HD.This is a bit of a tangent, but I have a 21-inch CRT monitor in front of me as I type this, with my resolution set to 1600x1200. Apple now has high-def trailers online. If I download one of the 1080i trailers, I have to reduce the size of the playback window considerably to see everything. The 720p versions alone take most of the width of the monitor.

Can anyone offer a real-world comparison between 1080i and 720p? Does the interlacing make a perceptible difference in image quality?

Qapla'

SSB

Basically, it's a trade-off.

With 720p, you have a display of 60 complete frames per second at a lower resolution of 1280x720, which equals just slightly less than 1 megapixel (921,600 px).

1080i has a total display resolution of 1920x1080, which is slightly more than 2 megapixels (2,073,600 px) at 60 interlaced fields per second (1,036,800 pixels per field).

The trade-off is having sixty complete, lower-res frames that have a very smooth, fluid motion with no trace of flicker with the 720p, and 1080i's more than double-resolution image that has a somewhat perceptible shimmer or flicker during scenes with motion.

The ultimate, of course, would be having all transmissions and displays in 1080p60!

On more than one occasion, the local affiliate will forget to switch back to HD after a run of commercials. The Local ABC affiliate is the worst culprit.


I would definitely call them and complain. In fact, it's hard for me to figure out how the station could manage such a mistake unless they are running some kind of extremely jerry-rigged, largely manual switching system.

This is the fascinating thing about western society.

I was born into abject poverty. I grew up in a one room house where I slept on a folding cot next to the front door...my grandmother slept on the couch. We had no room for a bathtub but we had a shower stall behind a curtain. Yet it never occurred to me that I was poor and I never had any concept of being entitled to anything.

Yet, here it is, almost 40 years later and society has advanced to the point where a guy can own SEVEN televisions sets and actually believe that he should be entitled to compensation if they become non-functioning.

I swear...the things I've seen in my lifetime...INCREDIBLE!

I understand what you are saying here Brent, but I have worked very hard over the years to aquire these 7 TV sets. (one of which is a console TV that used to fascinate the kids when they were little, because it had a knob to turn the channel, and another is a B&W GE TV that my father got when he graduated high school. Which still has great picture quality even though it doesn't have color, and the tubes in it really throw off some heat).

But for the government to pass some act that basically makes all of them useless unless I buy a converter box that costs a whole lot more than most of those TVs are worth combined, well, that's just wrong.
You might define that as entitlement.
I call it getting what I paid for!
When I bought these, there was no talk of changing formats.
I figured I was set and would not have to make another TV purchase until around 2020-2025.
If the government wants to change the rules in the middle of the game, then the only fair thing to do is to supply a converter for every TV that is still in use in the USA. Especially since everyone and their brother are still selling sets that won't work once the change is made. And most of the consumer public have no idea that the TV they buy this xmas will be useless in 3 years. Especially since the estimated prices I have seen for the converters are a whole lot higher than what most people are paying for the TV itself.

Yeah! And when is the government going to reimburse me for the turntable atop my stereo and the cassette deck underneath it and for the non-MP3-compatible CD player I have in my car -- which also doesn't have a line-in jack, meaning I cannot use my iPod with it?

I'm off to wrap my head with duct tape so that when my noggin inevitably explodes, I'll retain all the pieces.

Qapla'

SSB

But for the government to pass some act that basically makes all of them useless unless I buy a converter box that costs a whole lot more than most of those TVs are worth combined, well, that's just wrong.
You might define that as entitlement.
I call it getting what I paid for!
...
If the government wants to change the rules in the middle of the game, then the only fair thing to do is to supply a converter for every TV that is still in use in the USA. Especially since everyone and their brother are still selling sets that won't work once the change is made. And most of the consumer public have no idea that the TV they buy this xmas will be useless in 3 years. Especially since the estimated prices I have seen for the converters are a whole lot higher than what most people are paying for the TV itself.

OK, time for a basic civics lesson. WE ARE the government, and you may argue that point isn't true when it comes to decision-making, but it sure as heck is true when it comes to footing the bills.

That means you're arguing here that I, and everyone else here who pays taxes in the U.S., should buy you seven converter boxes because you made a lousy guess that TV technology wouldn't ever progress and that the FCC wouldn't ever find a better use for OUR airwaves than analog TV transmission.

Your argument would be more valid if the government were forcing you to watch TV. You are perfectly within your rights, when the switch happens, to not buy a box and never watch a broadcast again. There are still DVD players and VCRs you can hook up to your seven TV sets.

The old sets are being sold because that's what people are familiar with and they're cheaper. For now. There have been plenty of news reports about the eventual switchover, and there have been plenty of ads on TV, on radio and in newspapers by people selling HD TVs warning people that the switchover is coming. Ignorance is no excuse, just like lousy guessing is no excuse.

Here's another point to consider. You keep pointing out the estimated costs of the converter boxes; the estimates I've heard from people in the industry is $100 to $150. That's cheaper than a lot of TVs. When they actually come into use, there will be companies competing to sell them, so prices will likely go down. Plus, cable and satellite customers may not even need them, since the cable/sat company may very well decide to offer the option of down-converting the feed before it ever gets to the customer's house, or offering the boxes at a substantially reduced rate in order to compete for business.

Even if they are exorbitantly high, you could always do something crazy and only buy one box, since it's hard to watch seven TVs at a time. But don't sit there and tell me that I should be paying for you to have seven TV converter boxes.

I'm still waiting for an 8-track tax credit.

I think it's going to boil down to advertising money. Where it's spent. Maybe advertisers will form an alliance to subsidize set top boxes.

I wonder where the cable companies are going? How long will they have NTSC signals?

Yeah! And when is the government going to reimburse me for the turntable atop my stereo and the cassette deck underneath it and for the non-MP3-compatible CD player I have in my car -- which also doesn't have a line-in jack, meaning I cannot use my iPod with it?

I'm off to wrap my head with duct tape so that when my noggin inevitably explodes, I'll retain all the pieces.

Qapla'

SSB

That argument might have merit, if the government had mandated those changes. I still listen to records and tapes. (and some bands still release their material on both those media).
Those were not effectively rendered useless. All those items can still be used for what they were purchased to do.

The old sets are being sold because that's what people are familiar with and they're cheaper. For now. There have been plenty of news reports about the eventual switchover, and there have been plenty of ads on TV, on radio and in newspapers by people selling HD TVs warning people that the switchover is coming. Ignorance is no excuse, just like lousy guessing is no excuse.
I'm glad you have such good media in your area.
Because we don't have it around here. There are no ads from people selling HDTV's because there are only a handfull of retailers that even carry any.
Not even sure if K-mart, or Walmart carry any, because they certainly don't mark them or advertise them.
What news reports? I haven't seen any on TV or in the paper.
I only found out about it a while back because of posts on this forum. Never been discussed on any other boards I go to.
From discussions I have had with everyone I know personally, I would estimate a full 95% have never even heard about the switch over.
When the general public does finally get a clue and learn their TVs will be useless there will be a huge backlash.
I don't no one person that I actually know in person, who even wants HDTV. I know I don't. What good is it going to do me on my 13" TV?


Here's another point to consider. You keep pointing out the estimated costs of the converter boxes; the estimates I've heard from people in the industry is $100 to $150. That's cheaper than a lot of TVs.
Actually, that is more than I have paid for any TV I own.


Even if they are exorbitantly high, you could always do something crazy and only buy one box, since it's hard to watch seven TVs at a time. But don't sit there and tell me that I should be paying for you to have seven TV converter boxes.
Actually, there are 4 in use right now.
I'm watching the one in the living room, my wife is watching the one in our bedroom, and both my kids are watching the sets in their own rooms.

off air or cable?

I'm not sure we'd progress from 1940's technology (I believe, with minor changes that's when the old standard NTSC was developed) without a government mandate?

An interesting civics problem. But I think you'll eat your cake and have it too.

Without HD media, who's going to make the next generation of TV's. Without next generation TV's who's going to make the media?

Did the government really care about what sophistication of entertainment we enjoy in our homes? Or was it private industry lobbying the government for this mandate?

I think in the end you'll be happy with your old TV's, probably purchased at a fraction of their value due to the impending cutover to HDTV.

If you have cable, you'll probably enjoy an NTSC signal well into the future.

If you don't, most stations will continue to broadcast an NTSC signal in addition to HD to satisfy the customers unwilling to switch, until such a time as advertising/market make it uninteresting for them to do so.

And the "government mandate" will just whither on the vine...

And since the full conversion is still at least three years away, there's plenty of time for CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et al. to start spreading the word. Unless they're still on that dead girl in Aruba.

And since the full conversion is still at least three years away, there's plenty of time for CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et al. to start spreading the word. Unless they're still on that dead girl in Aruba.

Or the "Honeymoon Cruise from Hell", somebody at MSNBC decided just because the story was effectively over was no reason to stop reporting on it three times a day.

Interesting article. I think it answers some questions and raises the right ones...

Congress botches digital (http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/04/technology/pluggedin_digitaltv/index.htm?cnn=yes)


Digital TV: Leaving viewers in limbo
Flipping the switch on digital television will be a flop for plenty of consumers.
By Marc Gunther, FORTUNE Senior Writer
January 4, 2006: 10:55 AM EST
NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - Your old TV set may well go dark in 2009, and believe it or not, that's a good thing.

That's because, at the end of last year Congress approved legislation that set a date for the switch from analog to digital television -- February 17, 2009.

But managing this transition -- which will render about 70 million TV sets obsolete -- will be not be easy. Nothing is, when the federal government gets involved. Indeed, Congress will soon have to revisit this issue, to clean up this mess it has created.

This fixed switch date allows consumers, electronics manufacturers, broadcasters, cable and satellite operators to plan for the transition. All have a lot at stake.

Viewers adrift
But for consumers with one of those 70 million sets -- many of whom are likely to be poor, elderly or uneducated, being forcibly switched from one technology to another will be a nightmare.

To be sure, the transition will facilitate a lot of progress for both the tech industry and the public sector.

Once TV stations switch to digital transmission, they will return to the government a big chunk of the radio spectrum they currently use to transmit their analog channels.

Some of that spectrum will go to first responders -- police, fire and public safety officials -- so they can better communicate with one another. Breakdowns in emergency communication slowed the response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina. New spectrum should help.

The rest of the spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidders -- probably tech companies. The sale of this valuable, scarce real estate is expected to bring in about $10 billion, maybe more. That will help reduce the federal budget deficit.

Fostering innovation
Better yet, when the spectrum is sold off, the companies that buy it will use it to develop new technology and services. Cheap, ubiquitous wireless broadband access is one possibility. Mobile TV or music services are others.

Scheduled for 2008, the auction will be the biggest spectrum sale since a 1994-95 spectrum auction. That sale helped boost the mobile phone industry, boosting the number of cell phone subscribers in the U.S. from 24 million to 200 million. It also helped drive down the cost of wireless minutes from an average of 47 cents a minute to 9 cents a minute, according to analysis from financial services firm Stifel Nicolaus.

"With the new auction, we will finally become a broadband nation," says Blair Levin, a Washington analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. "Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Intel, Dell -- these companies will all benefit. The more broadband pipes you have, the more applications will come along, the more often you will upgrade your device."

Indeed, Microsoft (Research), Intel (Research), Dell (Research) and Cisco (Research) all joined a Washington lobbying effort called the High Tech DTV Coalition to push for digital television. Congress has been debating the issue for a decade, ever since the 1996 telecom bill gave digital spectrum to broadcasters, with the expectation that they would eventually give their analog spectrum back.

Government handouts
The difficulty, of course, is that the analog broadcast system will then be shut down -- which will leave most of today's TV sets unable to receive a signal over the air.

Roughly 20 million of those soon-to-be-obsolete sets are in homes where people don't subscribe to cable or satellite. The other 50 million or so are in pay TV homes, and used as second, third or fourth sets. Sets hooked up to cable or satellite services should work fine no matter what.

To avoid a consumer revolt, Congress has set aside about $1.5 billion to smooth the transition. Owners of outmoded TV sets will be eligible for two vouchers, worth $40 each, to help buy converter boxes that will enable today's analog TV sets to receive digital signals.

Yes, the very same federal government that is cutting back on college loans and food stamps will soon be issuing TV vouchers.

Consumer groups say this is only fair because the government is essentially reducing the value of people's property.

"If you are forcing consumers to adopt new technology -- whether or not they are ready -- you ought to provide full compensation for everyone," says Jeannine Kenney of Consumers Union.

Consumers Union says the transition, as currently planned, is "totally unworkable and unfair to consumers." It sure sounds that way.

Free TV signals scrambled
People are supposed to apply for the vouchers during a three-month window in 2008, and use them within three months. But there probably won't be enough vouchers to go around, and no one really knows how much converter boxes will cost. Disadvantaged people are most likely to be left behind in the scramble.

The nightmare scenario is that people who depend on free, over-the-air TV for news and entertainment will lose their access, or have to pay more for it, so that the rest of us can get faster service on our Blackberries and ESPN on our cell phones.

Congress will return to DTV soon to deal with these issues and others, notably some major wrangles between broadcasters and cable operators. This is a big deal. Let's hope Washington can get it right.

I really liked this line

The sale of this valuable, scarce real estate is expected to bring in about $10 billion, maybe more. That will help reduce the federal budget deficit.

They forgot to mention that congress has already earmarked all that money.
In other words, they have already spent it, years before they even get it.