The end of analog TV ??

[offline]

Sadly, I am stuck in a town full of such people who come to the conclusion first and then say just about anything that will support it.

Everybody is guilty of that at least some of the time
I even believe it is an Aussie tradition. Something
about collingwood??

[tonydead]

Gurm must live in a Cave.

I made the switch. Just getting rid of the colour smearing and low-level noise was more than enough reason for me. The fact that I get an uninterrupted picture 95% of the time, as opposed to one that blanks out and requires me to turn the TV's power cycle, has led me to the conclusion that regardless

I don't mean to sound negative, but, is sounds like you are watching TV in a cave. This is barbaric even for analog. Maybe you guys are arguing because you are comparing apples vs. oranages. Sounds like analog is much worse down under???

Sorry if I'm wrong.

[AlecWest]

Yeah but total lack of tv can be a powerful incentive.

So can a total lack of advertising revenue. If the networks want everyone to switch to HD but the public isn't ready to switch, who are the advertisers going to apply pressure to ... their customers or the networks who serve their customers? Of course, there are other considerations as well. People who watch TV also vote ... and if they vote the same way their pocketbooks have already voted, I'd hate to be the politician who supports a mandate for change. The article spoke of a "loophole" Congress put in the conversion mandate. I suspect it was put there for a reason.

[offline]

Sounds like analog is much worse down under???

It may well be, but I think Nilfennasion is in a
rural area where reception is average even with
a decent 10 metre or so aerial. Rural coverage in
Australia has never been that great. I'm not sure
if he even gets the full 5 networks + community
channel.

As I live in the city I get crystal clear PAL analog so my
eyes tend to bleed when I have to look at NTSC
analog. US HDTV looks great,
even on my analog set you can tell the difference.

[guns1inger]

"I even believe it is an Aussie tradition. Something
about collingwood??"

Don't poke fun at the mentally impaired, OK. I have Collingwood supporters in my family, although we have kept them chained in the attic for years.

There certainly is a vast difference in quality in the way that some US shows are shot. But this has always been the case. Currently it is the haves (HD) versus the havenots (SD or worse). Before that ir was those who shot on film versus those who shot direct to tape.

I may be convinced when someone can show me HDTV on A - a television that makes it look good (haven't seen one yet) and B - a television that costs less than AU$15000 (won't happen until point A is satisfied - not currently holding my breath)

[brokenback]

yep the into of HD TV transmission was touted as what the consumer needs and was hand in hand with HD sets aka Plasma and LCD sales.

It is a pity that these either suffer from grainy images (plasma pixels are quite large compared to a CRT pixel) or dead pixels (LCDs) and are expensive and not as clear (IMO) as a CRT image. There has been lots of debate about the pros and cons of the HD plasma and LCD sets but they are still poor in image quality compared to CRTs. Digital television transmission will not make them look any better, given that digital television transmissions are more prone to interference than analoge transmission.

Thus there is no incentive to run out and buy a HD set.

The flip side is that 4:3 ratio sets have dropped in price consderably and are bargins. In arsetralia the change over to digital only Txmission will obviously not take place on the nominated date due to low take up.

and yes we keep Mddie Mcguire (collingwood football club president)locked up because "he's prone to biting"!

[TooLFooL]

i wish they'd "throw the switch" today.

[bugster]

I am a little confused by many of the posts in this thread. It seems that most people equate digital TV with Hi Def. This doesn't have to be tha case.

From the original post:

One drawback to the U.S. version of HDTV was that to make it work, all broadcast television (not just high-definition) would have to convert to digital

So SD TV can be digital too. All you would need to receive this is a digital receiver. I can buy one in the UK (for digital SD) for less than £50. So are there any SD terrestial digital service in the US yet? Or all all terrestial digital channels HD?

[guns1inger]

The problem is that a large proportion of the advertising for digital is based around HD, for plasma and LCD is based around it being HD ready, and many of those who have been conned into spending large sums of money on substandard (IMNSHO) believe that the reason it doesn't look good is because too much bandwidth is dedicated to SD and should instead be handed over to exclusively HD content/bandwidth. (Source : a couple of Australian digital TV dedicated forums. May not be a universal opinion, but I wouldn't bet on it).

Plasma has only one thing going for it over CRT - Size. CRTs are too heavy and bulky at large sizes. Plasma is light(er) and flat. LCD has no place as a television display until is has sub-4ms response and can show true blacks.

DLP rear pro and projectors (especially the latter) are the closest thing to high quality large screen display devices, but still dont match a good CRT for clarity, depth and colour reproduction.

In Autralia all channels are SD (some stations have multiple channels (all showing the same thing at the same time thanks to our stupid regulations). It is legislated that at least 20% of programs be broadcast in HD as well (again - same program, same time). At present the HD channels show the station ident 75-80% of the time. The AU$5000 required to even start to view HD at anything less than complete crap is well worth it, no ?

[Nilfennasion]

Even when I lived in a very built-up area, the reception I received via analogue was terrible at best. The signal would just flick out, make a very loud noise, and the screen would turn to blue. For no readily apparent reason. It would stay like this for as long as ten minutes unless I turned the TV off then on again. Put simply, the TV I have is lousy at receiving a signal unless it is through an S-Video or composite port. Thing is, though, that through a VCR (analogue), the SBS and even the ABC are generally ghastly to look at. On digital, it's more or less like watching a DVD. I know it sounds like a sales pitch, and I didn't even believe it at first until I saw it.

The fact that shows like Law & Order (which is pretty much the only reason I watch TV anymore) can be seen in its proper aspect ratio on digital is also a good selling point.

[Tom Saurus]

I read over at "cdfreaks" once that Carbon based tv's are on the way, and they will be much cheaper than lcd's and very similar in quality. Perhaps when these sets enter the marketplace we will see people more able to afford HDTV or Digital.

HDTV to me is a big turnoff, it is very expensive. Besides at the moment my homemade DVD's look fairly decent on my standard television. If I had a HDTV they wouldn't look so good. Besides everything that was ever made for tv wasn't shot in HD, so you are going to be disappointed, if you get used to such a great picture. I think alot of people are going to save why does "Desperate Housewives" come in so clear and sharp and "Beverly Hillbillies" looks so drab.

[adam]

Forget about HD already folks. I seriously doubt that those people using nothing but rabbit ears now are going to make such a giant leap. The channels that are accessible over the air now will go digital, and these people will buy a cheap tuner that accepts them, if their tvs don't by default. If you are a cable or satellite subscriber now then you'll never even notice the change.

Tom Saurus, historically most everything out there was shot on film which is perfect for an HD presentation. That's really all HD does is allow us to keep more of the resolution that is available on existing film sources.

Yes your existing DVD collection won't look as good as your HD broadcasts. But if they were to remaster that movie onto HD-DVD, whenever it comes out, than it would look better than the broadcast.

[Richard_G]

given that digital television transmissions are more prone to interference than analoge transmission.

I don't know where this little gem came from but it simply isn't true. Part of my job is in tracing and eliminating interference to radio transmission systems, including domestic TV and radio. Digital transmission does NOT suffer from interference. It also does not suffer from ghosting. The difference is that with an analogue transmission any exterior interference will take the form of picture disturbance. It might be patterning (if caused by an RF source) or horizontal lines of bands of dots, if caused by an impulsive source.

A digital transmission will not be affected at all by a low level interference source. If the interference source is of sufficient level that the signal to noise ratio drops too low so the error correction cannot cope, you get no picture. That's it, no interference, just nothing at all. However, if the TV installation is done properly, an interference source needs to be much stronger to have any affect on digital reception. An interference level that would cause very noticable picture disturbance (so noticable that you'd even be able to see it on an NTSC broadcast!!) to analogue reception will have no effect on digital reception.

The level of interference needed to have an affect also varies on the type of transmission mode in use. In the UK some digital multiplexes use 64 QAM while others use 16QAM. The latter is less succeptable to interference but carries less channels per multiplex so is less spectrally efficient.

[Tom Saurus]

Adam: I kind of feel better when you wrote that alot of stuff that is on Film will transfer well to HD-DVD. Some of the older shows are entertaining.

Richard_G: I know with Digital Satellite Dishes, when the rain is heavy the signal goes out. When I used to watch our C Band Dish, that didn't happen.

[guns1inger]

Richard_G

I think the mis-conception comes from the fact that analogue can suffer gradual decay. As the signal gets worse, so does the picture. While digital can suffer intermittent breakup (much like viewing a dvd with fingerprints on it) from say, a tree blowing in the wind in front of an aerial, it is much more of an all or nothing proposition. Rather than a steady degradation of image quality as signal quality goes down, digital is good, good, gone - the so called 'digital cliff effect'.

It's this all or nothing impact that makes it look like it is more prone to interference.

[tonydead]

Even when I lived in a very built-up area, the reception I received via analogue was terrible at best. The signal would just flick out, make a very loud noise, and the screen would turn to blue. For no readily apparent reason..

Sorry guys, no wonder you had an argument with Grum. The analog in the middle of large US city does not have any of these problems, probably would look digital to you. I look at analog TV locked in my bathroom while I take a ____(when I get tired of reading my PC mags for the 3rd time) on a 2 inch screen with at 6 inch antena and don't have any of these problems.

[guns1inger]

Sounds more like a TV/aerial problem. Never had that sort of reception problem in Aus.

[pharlap]

i actually use digital tv and i can tell u if you have it set up right it kills analog .
as for the other catch of upgrading to a set top box it all depends on location ,location ,location .
Signal is of vital importance as is the wall connection, antenna cabling, and least but not least the antenna.
There are piles of TV Antenna manufacturers trying to bullshit there way thru that u must upgrade these components but the old bunny ears can work perfect with an SD definition top box if your signal is OK.
As for another sucker deal all those people buying LCD monitors with Tv-inbuilt oh sorry forgot to tell you it uses analog also,and all the suckers with portable dvdplayers with tv in-car units included -- Sorry but your stuffed as well .
Hope this helps for those not in the Know

[Nilfennasion]

I have to admit, it is sounding more and more like the problems I had with analogue reception were more my television than the signal itself. But that does not change the fact that buying an SD box and plugging it into a switchbox then an S-Video port on the TV pretty much eliminated any signal problems. I still occasionally get what looks like the kind of glitch you get with a fingerprinted DVD, but that aside, I could not be happier. Especially how crap the reception looks on TVs that aren't so prone to glitching, by comparison.

[guns1inger]

Unfortunately, I bet it has done nothing to improve content (unless you like to watch out-of-their-depth Brits purchasing houses in various parts of Europe on ABC2)

[Nilfennasion]

Aside from adding more foreign-language and newscast services to the SBS, it has done nothing to improve the content. To be frank, the only reason I have the thing is so I can watch things like Law & Order without the threat of the bluescreening I described above.

[guns1inger]

And in widescreen. I wish more directors would fully utilise the available space a'la ER. That's why channel 9 have shown it 16:9 letterbox on the analogue channel for the past few years. You simply can P&S it without losing too much. Most of the other shows keep everything nice and centred, and waste almost a third of their playground.

[ViRaL1]

Since 'the idiot box' is such a part of our culture here in America, I'd be interested to see if there might be some kind of subsidies or tax credits for 'helping technology along' by purchasing digital (or digital ready) sets. While I don't agree with forcing things, it would be a shame to see the technology die off for lack of interest because people are too stuck in 20th century to move up. I do realize that there are costs involved but as I mentioned before, we're not ENTITLED to broadcast television. Since I can't remember that far back, were cars that ran on unleaded fuel only more expensive when they first came out?

[hudsonf]

HD Digital TV being better than analog has nothing to do with it. Nobody I know wants all their tvs, vcrs, etc. to stop working over night. Why should we have to spend money to make our not broken equipment work when yesterday they worked fine? If they would stop selling analog tvs first it would give people a chance to upgrade as their tvs die. As for the cars; I don't remember everyone junking their old cars because they wouldn't run on unleaded gas.

[edDV]

HD ready means it needs a tuner, like a cable box.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2601425
Sanyo 30" Widescreen HDTV With Integrated ATSC Tuner, HT30744
$598.00

Panasonic 30" Widescreen Pure Flat HDTV Monitor, CT-30WC14

$797.00

http://ww1.onecall.com/SSF_248.htm
46H84 46 Inch Tabletop HD Ready CRT Projection TV
Was $1399.00

I don't consider any of those prices unreasonable.
A little saving and anyone can buy one. Or they can be bought on credit.

ROFLMAO!

CREDIT?

Ok, so you're suggesting that the people of the United States, already addicted to credit card debt TO THE HILT, drop $600+ on a new TV? EVERY LAST ****ING ONE OF THEM?

Are you INSANE?

Also, let's be honest here - we're talking about people who, WHEN the old TV can't be fixed any more (NOT before that), will buy a $200 TV. Period.

Not to worry. Here is how it will play out in the USA. Currently 10% of households are HD/ED ready. This is expected to increase to 25% in the next year for at least one TV in the household.

OTA DTV tuner boxes are available now. One of the best (currently $199) is http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2598451&cat=107530&type=19&dept=...A3996%3A107530
These work with TV sets that are 4:3 analog (RF only, composite, S-Video, analog component Y, Pb, Pr.) or HD ready (wideband analog componet Y,Pb, Pr). Future models will also have HDMI outputs and prices will rapidly drop to below $50.

These tuners will receive the additional multiplex DTV channels n.1, n.2, n.3, n.4 etc. plus data so users do benefit from DTV even with an analog set.

Expect that the urban lower VHF analog band (Ch 2-6) will disappear first to mobile uses. Upper band analog VHF (Ch7-13) will probabbly disappear only in congested top 20 markets.

In other semi-rural areas, DTV will be offered in UHF and the upper VHF band (where increased reception distance is possible). Rural areas (>150miles from transmitter) will need new larger antennas + amp + DTV tuner.

Cable is rapidly becoming HD/ED ready. A new set-top box is required. Less than a dozen HD channels are offered now but more will be made available as cable companies upgrade and customers make the switch to HDTV or EDTV sets.

DirectTV and Dish will be introducing their new Mpeg4 "1000 HD Channels"* service later this year.

Most people (>75%) will make the change at their own pace by upgrading cable or satt boxes.
OTA people in urban areas (approx 10-15% of viewers) will need a DTV tuner box per TV +Ant or buy a new TV. In most urban areas an indoor antenna will do.

Like it or not, plan for the above. Political pressure may delay action until after the next election or two.


* 1000 channels includes most local channels. Individual customers will get their locals + 20-80 national channels depending on subscription plan.

[igalan]

Spain is the third European country that has started to move to DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting). Right now several stations broadcast in DVB-S (Satellite: Digital +), DVB-C (Cable: Auna, Ono...) and DVB-T (terrestrial). DVB is also available through ADSL (Imagenio). However it has ver little penetration right now, most consumers are simply unaware. The cut off won't happen before 2010 and that seems to far for most people to care about DVB now. And the fact that almost no TVs are sold with built-in DVB tuners (except high-end Sony) isn't helping.

Right now I can watch several DVB channels. But those channels also broadcast on analog, so there isn't much incentive to do the switch. It will probably take until 2008 before people starts to consider seriusly doing the switch, and the current plan is that by that time most TVs sold have the digital tuner already. Time will tell if this si true or gets delayed...

[Gurm]

That's sort of my point. A lot of us CAN view digital channels (through our cable or satellite boxes) but...

I don't personally know ANYONE who owns a digital TV. Not a single person. Unless my friend with the big-ass Samsung DLP has a digital tuner in it. Ok so maybe ONE person. That's pretty sad. My father-in-law just bought a top-of-the-line Sony WEGA, and it's neither digital NOR hi-def. It's hi-def "ready".

Not that it matters - his satellite runs component into the TV - but still this entire topic is predicated on the assumption that 100% market penetration will happen in the next 12 months.

[Nilfennasion]

But therein lies the beauty of the way DTV is being rolled out. I think people read the statement that analogue broadcasting will cease at a certain date and assume that this means they have to buy dedicated digital displays. Nothing could be further from the truth. All one has to do to receive free-to-air broadcasting is buy a tuner box and either connect it to an existing unit, or connect it to a new one. Like with DVD, they knew that the people would not instantly convert to a new display system, so they retained SD specifications for the sake of compatibility. There might not be a lot of displays out there that can show HD broadcasts, but so long as a tuner box is plugged in, ANY television in existence can display SD. They won't even think of withdrawing that option until at least 75% of the displays in the English-speaking countries can display a HD signal in some form. Which is at least another ten years away at the best case.

[dcsos]

What about the PARADIGM change that HDTV fosters in the PUBLIC EYE?
and IS IT TRUE?
I'm not talking about increased quality here:
Since the invention of HOME TAPING in the late 70's,
comsumers have become used to taping shows off the air and playing the content back at their leaisure.
Now the industry spews forth new rules, to whit:
1. YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RECORD HI-DEF CONTENT in your home
2. You may only tape or disk those broadcasts that contain the appropriate broadcast flag

why would anyone want the increased quailty at the cost of losing all
the features of the media sytem its replacing?

[Nilfennasion]

This horseplay about only being able to record under certain conditions will be defeated faster than you can shake your extremities. All it takes is for someone to find that flag and create a program that defeats it. Expect to see a lot of HD boxes connected to computers with burner drives, and so forth.

Just as a further to my previous message, how necessary is it for the tuner to be built into the display unit? Yes, that was a rhetorical question.