WHY GO HD

[DrewB]

It's a harsh reality, but the bottom line is this: Most content is 4:3.

Stretching 4:3 to 16:9 by any method is an utter failure. Period.

If you think true circles that appear as ovals are acceptable, I have some swamp land for sale.

Yes, you could do gray bars to maintain the aspect ratio, but most people don't find this acceptable either--the average user wants to use every square inch of the screen real estate.

It's a difficult situation. Personally, I think the industry made a huge mistake in doing too much, too soon. Specifically:

1. Switching from analog to digital transmission (hooray!)

2. Switching to such incredibly high resolution, such that today's DVDs aren't considered true high-def (and thus introducing format incompatibilities, fighting the mainstream acceptance of DVDs, and introducing broadcast bandwidth issues with satellites) and requiring the purchase of very expensive hardware.

3. Switching to 16:9 aspect ratio when the overwhelming amount of content is 4:3.


To me, this progression should have been a gradual roll-out. Don't get me wrong--when it all works together, it's amazing. But many people are having problems, particularly with #3.

[57U]

Many DVDs are widescreen (many people rent and purchase DVDs and watch a lot of them). All HDTV is widescreen. Therefore the future is widescreen. Nothing wrong with buying a 4:3 set if you don't watch HD or DVDs. If you do, then a WS set is the way to go. Even some SD programming is now WS. Yes we are going through a transition and change is always difficult.

[mikehbkwm]

DrewB why so angry over HD....:p Sorry but i gotta disagree you cant say streching is a failure.......... most people who have a widescreen tv get used to the stretch modes overtime. i have friends that come over all the time and ask about it at first and then never think a second thing about it........ I myself dont even think about it when Im watching......... So again yes some people might not like it but the majority it probably doesnt even bother them.............

[DrewB]

Mike,

If you're correct (and you probably are) about stretching, then why go to HDTV? If you can just get used to stretched pictures, then why can't you just get used to good analog standard TV?

If the justification for HDTV is superior picture quality (and it certainly is superior!), then how is a stretched image ever acceptable?

Kinda like buying an expensive audio receiver and good speakers, only to listen to everything in "Nightclub" mode (or any of the other fake modes).

[mikehbkwm]

well thats the thing HD is not stretched its in widescreen... yes most of the programming is 4:3 but Mits has really good stretch modes so again its not really an issue... another thing I work for Cox Communications and I get to Beta Test anything before customers do so whenever new HD channels are coming out then I get to see them before most people...... again I see your point and it is valid but lets face it everything is going widescreen plus as 57U stated mostly all DVD's are widescreen and are not stretched so your watching them in their OAR.... and watching them in widescreen is the whole theater experience.........

[kevinw]

You have to do it sometime, at least it is gradual and no one is forcing you to switch NOW. You could wait till enough content is available to make YOU happy.
It has been too gradual. Most people are complaining that it not going fast enough.

DVD's have nothing to do with format incompatibilities. Are you refering to the 720p/1080i argument? Yeh the FCC should have picked one standard but they did not.

DVD's are being purchased and rented at larger numbers each year. How do you figure that people are moving to DVD's reluctantly or fighting mainstreamm acceptance? DVD players cost next to nothing and are given away for free. You can even buy one at a grocery store.

What do you propose would have been than answer? Or better, describe the progression for a gradual roll out. You want gradual but complain about to much 4:3 programming still being done.
As for stretch modes -Oh well if they would have sped up the roll out of 16:9 programming then we would have no need for them or 4:3 tv's for that matter.

[mikehbkwm]

Kevin you stated it perfectly...........

[sillygoose]

Plus watching 4:3 sports on a 16:9 set allows you to see a standard 4:3 game with PIP to the side instead on top of the scoreboard or cover a critical piece of action in the corner (although it really isn't a Picture-In-Picture then now is it ;) )

[Siouxzn]

I ran into the same problem... convincing my Husband to get a widescreen HDTV. I was concerned about stretch mode as well. First 2 days of purchase, he bitched that it didnt look very good and we wasted our money. But then I got the S Video cable and the picture improved quite a bit!! since then.. He hasn't Bitched once and I even overheard him on the phone bragging about it.

I prefer 16:9 standard mode and I Don't notice any distortion

:)

[DrewB]

--------------------
DVD's are being purchased and rented at larger numbers each year. How do you figure that people are moving to DVD's reluctantly or fighting mainstreamm acceptance? DVD players cost next to nothing and are given away for free. You can even buy one at a grocery store.
--------------------

I'm not sure what you mean here. To me, the DVD rollout is an example of incredible success--a significant technological gain, easy for anyone to use, cheap, backwards compatibility with existing equipment, and so on.

HOWEVER... now that DVDs (and DVD recording) have become 100% mainstream, doesn't this present a potential problem for HDTV? The issue of aspect ratio aside, isn't there a resolution issue? There's no doubt a DVD will look incredible on an HDTV set, but the higher resolution capability of HDTV technology is unused; that is, the best you'll get from a DVD is 480p.

Here's the question: Will we ultimately see DVDs as inferior quality after significant viewing of 720p HD material? If the answer is yes, then the HDTV format has set itself up against the mainstream acceptance of DVDs. If the answer is no, then why is 720p and/or 1020i necessary?

See the dilemma here?


-----------------
What do you propose would have been than answer? Or better, describe the progression for a gradual roll out. You want gradual but complain about to much 4:3 programming still being done.
As for stretch modes -Oh well if they would have sped up the roll out of 16:9 programming then we would have no need for them or 4:3 tv's for that matter.
-----------------

I think a gradual rollout would go something like this:

1. Convert the masses to digital reception (whether via OTA, satellite, or cable). Get rid of analog reception altogether. In doing this, picture quality is DRAMATICALLY improved, yet there's backwards compatibility with existing equipment. Example: I can hook up a digital OTA receiver, and with a cheap RF modulator, pump a good picture to virtually any television ever built. Of course, if your set has s-video inputs or component video inputs, you'll benefit, but it's not required.

2. Roll out high-def stuff that still maintains 4:3, again providing backwards compatibility with existing sets.

3. Move to widescreen programming, with the center of the image ALWAYS acting as the basis for a 4:3 simulcast.

4. Adapt widescreen if that's what people want.


To me, the format (while technologically brilliant) bit off way more than it could chew. And by introducing two key variables at the same time (high resolution AND a new aspect ratio) it's hard to determine what the key buying factor is. What's the bigger issue? Were people complaining that perfectly resolved 480i wasn't good enough? Or would they simply prefer a 16:9 image?

I suspect it's only the latter, and that's perfectly fine. Realistically, how many people would watch a widescreen DVD (on an HDTV set at 480p) and claim the quality is unacceptable? My guess is not very many. Hell, that's the very scenario the sales guys use to sell most of them! So if that's true, then why do we need 720p and 1080i?

If the answer is both--a desire for a widescreen AND increased resolution-- then again, the current DVD resolution standard doesn't fit the bill, and there's an instant discrepancy in quality.

Just my $.02

[kevinw]

There's no doubt a DVD will look incredible on an HDTV set, but the higher resolution capability of HDTV technology is unused; that is, the best you'll get from a DVD is 480p.
New technology is already hear for DVD resolution to be converted to HD-Momitsu/samsung both have a DVD player on the market. Also there is a distinct improvement with a DVD player on a digital TV vs a
tradional analog. If anything was slowing down the movement to widescreen and digital it was DVD's mangled by Pan & Scan to fit 4:3 TV's and BlockBuster. Now BlockBuster had found that people want an unedited version and is supplying WS DVD's.
. Convert the masses to digital reception (whether via OTA, satellite, or cable). Get rid of analog reception altogether. In doing this, picture quality is DRAMATICALLY improved, yet there's backwards compatibility with existing equipment.
I agree this would have been very helpfull in moving the masses to digital, however that would have meant people purchasing STB's for every TV they own. Needless to say economically this would not fly for the masses since ther are probaly 10 analog to 1 digital currently in use. While this idea is not gradual it is radical.
Realistically, how many people would watch a widescreen DVD (on an HDTV set at 480p) and claim the quality is unacceptable? My guess is not
very many. Hell, that's the very scenario the sales guys use to sell most of them! So if that's true, then why do we need 720p and 1080i?

Interesting thought and it just happened to be FOX Broadcasting policy till this year when they found out that they were loosing viewers..shades of Rupert Murdoch.

Here's the question: Will we ultimately see DVDs as inferior quality after significant viewing of 720p HD material? If the answer is yes, then the HDTV format has set itself up against the mainstream acceptance of DVDs.
I would say no more than DVD did against VCR's Eventually there will be HDDVD's -Blue Laser...

Now the real question is what do DVD's have to with HD broadcasting? I and many others like DVD's in 480p and we like our sports in an even higher resolution(720p and 1080i) To me there is not that much of a difference in film base material at 480p or 1080i but a remarkable improvement in video based when seen in HD.
Eventually every technology is replace something newer and/or better...

[pradike]

BECAUSE ITS THERE!


(Those who don't have, sometimes try to justify why they don't have. Those that have....enjoy!!!!)


Anyone who has seen HDTV or DVD's on an HDTV screen KNOWS why. It's a shame some people refuse to accept the future. Soon enough, this question will go away - since there will be NO TV that isn't HDTV.

[mikehbkwm]

Cant we all just enjoy our HD......;)

[57U]

If we used your schedule of a phased in approach, I'd be dead before I could see HD properly.

DVDs are upconverted on HDTVs, so they look better, much better than they do on SDTVs. HD programming is better still. Let me cope with the problems through a, hopefully, brief transition. I'll take my HDTV now.

[satanami69]

I'm so proud of everyone here. A difficult question was asked, and instead of reverting to flaming him, we answered all of the questions succinctly.

As for my part, I'm still a few weeks away from getting my HDTV service turned on. For me, having a widescreen sport of DVD in its OAR gives me a reason to invite people over to the house and enjoy the entertainment. I see those with HDTV becoming the center of attention come Superbowl time. Having an HDTV is just a good time to have fun with good friends.

[dciandrew]

I got my set on Friday Toshiba 57hx93 w/intigrated tuner. After using it this weekend I don't ever want to go back. ESPN-HD comes in for some reason over my analog feed and after seeing that and MNF (which is almost as good) I can't see why people would complain about HD unless their just complainers by nature(you can't please everyone, but you know what it pleases me).

I can't wait until more programming looks like that. I would guess in less than two years most HD-TV will.

Once you go HDTV you can't go back.:D

[zeroG]

I was complaining about the lack of 16:9 programming until yesterday. TWC finally gave us some decent HD programming, and I've had it on Discovery HD for 2 days straight :)

Most prime time shows that I like are airing in widescreen now, so I'm not gonna complain. If I had ESPN already I could die happy.

I think it's great when I have guests over and they get to watch an HD program for the first time. Their amazement alone makes it all worthwhile.

[leadvocal]

Originally posted by Siouxzn
I ran into the same problem... convincing my Husband to get a widescreen HDTV. I was concerned about stretch mode as well. First 2 days of purchase, he bitched that it didnt look very good and we wasted our money. But then I got the S Video cable and the picture improved quite a bit!! since then.. He hasn't Bitched once and I even overheard him on the phone bragging about it.

Now that he's accepted it I bet he's on the phone telling all of his friends how HE decided to get a new widescreen HDTV.

Us men are like that :p

sony surround (cheap and old)
Sounds like my brother-in-law........

[Ratman]

When color TV's were available, "Bonanza" was one of the only shows in color. Still, color TV's sold, color programming grew and it didn't happen overnight.

When 'stereo' TV began, "Amazing Stories" was one of the few.
Same story as above.

Some individuals jumped immediately on those technological bandwagons and enjoyed what they had at the time. Very few waited for ALL programs to be in color or in stereo.

HD/digital is the same. The technology is here, the hardware is affordable and to many, the programming and software that is available is acceptible. The improvement in quality alone outweighs any of the 'growing pains'. We have chosen to accept the meager crumbs and be happy. Now all we can do is wait for broadcasters and manufacturers to start throwing out beers to wash down those crumbs!

I've has my HD set since January 2001. I have NEVER looked back or have not one regret. Just the improvement in DVD's alone (widescreen/480p) is enough let alone the increased HD programming that's now available (much, much more than 2001 and probably 2002!).

As for stretch modes, grey/black bars, etc... Who cares! That is either a preference or an opinion to which each is entitled. Personally, I'm used to grey bars, like black bars and only use stretch mode when watching letterboxed broadcasts.

Just my $.02 !

[tpetters]

DrewB


I think a gradual rollout would go something like this:

1. Convert the masses to digital reception (whether via OTA, satellite, or cable). Get rid of analog reception altogether. In doing this, picture quality is DRAMATICALLY improved, yet there's backwards compatibility with existing equipment. Example: I can hook up a digital OTA receiver, and with a cheap RF modulator, pump a good picture to virtually any television ever built. Of course, if your set has s-video inputs or component video inputs, you'll benefit, but it's not required.

2. Roll out high-def stuff that still maintains 4:3, again providing backwards compatibility with existing sets.

3. Move to widescreen programming, with the center of the image ALWAYS acting as the basis for a 4:3 simulcast.

4. Adapt widescreen if that's what people want.




I see two problems with the "gradual" rollout. (actually it is incremental, in steps, not gradual, but that's not a nit worth picking)

1) The customer would have to upgrade his set three or four times, at some expense each time. The digital converter box would have to be purchased or rented for each analog set. (This will be required regardless of when or how we switch from analog to digital). A few years later we will have to junk that box for a new high def box when the HD upgrade comes, as well as buy a new set with 1080 lines of resolution. THEN in a couple more years I would have to buy a widescreen TV as more producers and/or directors put meaningful content in the "wings" of the picture.

2) Let's say step one is completed. SDTV uses only a fraction of the 6MHz bandwidth of the analog signal. The rest of that bandwidth outght to go unused until the HD upgrade. The broadcaster owns that bandwidth, but doesn't use it for single channel broadcast. What's to keep the broadcaster from either multicasting up to six SDTV signals or selling a Datacasting service by subscription. After all, he CAN'T show HD yet. When the time comes to step up to HD, the broadcaster has services he will be asked to turn off, and that broadcaster will fight tooth an nail for the revenue streams he has set up through multicasting/datacasting. The HD upgrade step would never take place.

[Tom]

Originally posted by mikehbkwm
DrewB why so angry over HD....:p Sorry but i gotta disagree you cant say streching is a failure.......... most people who have a widescreen tv get used to the stretch modes overtime. i have friends that come over all the time and ask about it at first and then never think a second thing about it........ I myself dont even think about it when Im watching......... So again yes some people might not like it but the majority it probably doesnt even bother them.............

in the gym or on my set...........but...........watching programs in 4:3 sure makes you appreciate all those morsels we're getting in 16:9 that much more - a year from now we'll have to hit the 'wide' button a less and less.......... :D

[Wooger]

Did you consider buying a large 4:3 HDTV that makes the black bars top and bottom when watching HD/widescreen???

That is what I have and I STILL am very happy with it. 61" in 4:3. 56"ish inches in HD.

Works great for me.

[hawks066]

It's all about taking baby steps.. Kevin is right, you gotta ease people into it and not make them have to spend big bucks on HDTV's. The HD content is growing. I work for Comcast in New England, and we just launched 3 more HD channels.. All Boston Red Sox home games are now presented in HD. WOOHOO! I'm just thankful I work for the leader in the cable world.

[Eyedox]

Why go HD?? Because those old black and white 5" TV's are having trouble picking up the Honeymooners anymore.

[57U]

Originally posted by hawks066 I'm just thankful I work for the leader in the cable world. Well, the cable USA... ;)

[kevinw]

Originally posted by hawks066
It's all about taking baby steps.. Kevin is right,....THANKS MY EGO IS ALREADY PRETTY BIG.

I work for Comcast in New England, .... channels..... I'm just thankful I work for the leader in the cable world.
I THOUGHT Mikehbkwm worked for the best cable co.:D Just Kidding:D

[durl]

I LOVE my HD, but I hate squashed formats like ESPN-"HD"'s non-HD programs. The whole point of having HD and calibrating your TV is to have the most REALISTIC picture possible. Saying that you "get used" to stretched pictures is like saying you'll get used to the green faces: both are unrealistic images.

I went with a 4:3 HD monitor so that I have the option of watching in either mode. My HD is widescreen and my 4:3 pictures fill the screen. I don't mind black bars on the top and bottom when I watch a 16:9 image...the picture is what I want to see so I don't care about what's above it. Sure I lose a few lines, but the picture is amazing and that's the key.

[TSturgill]

For me, it seems the best way to go is Samsung's (or others) DLP so you can watch 4:3 or 16:9 in their regular format without having to worry about burn in for the 4:3 programming.

[alpha21]

Originally posted by durl
Sure I lose a few lines, but the picture is amazing and that's the key.

A FEW????!!!

Personally, I'd rather have a gigantic viewing area, than complain about stretching (which is NOT as dramatic as people say)

That is why many people on this forum say that the majority of your viewing should be HD or DVD for a 16x9 to be your choice

[durl]

Losing some lines at the top and the bottom does not affect the picture quality that is on the screen. Some is omitted of course, but if your aim is to have a realistic picture, a stretched format does not provide that...period. You can say it's a good picture, but it's still not realistic.

I would like to have a 16:9 monitor and may very well get one in the next 5 years, but since most of my viewing is 4:3 content, I'll give up the top and bottom lines of the picture in order to have the screen that best fits my viewing habits.

[alpha21]

not disagreeing with you, if you look at the last line of my prev. post, that's exactly what you said.

I was just say that you are losing more than just a FEW lines (not PQ)