Most Monitors Will Not Play New HD Video

[edDV]

My 42" HDCP ready plasma was only $1600. I could have bought a 50" for almost $3K, but it wasn't even HDCP ready, so why should I have spent that much on something that wasn't future proof? If you spend god awful sums of ca$h on a display, it's your own fault. I won't fall into that trap. Of course, some people might say $1600 on a TV is a waste of money too, of which I tend to agree with, but when you sit in front of it, you can continue to say it's a waste of money yet your eyes can't seem to leave the screen. I wouldn't buy my major electronics at wal-mart, but they do offer a good place to price point your purchases.

If you recently got a 42" plasma for $1600 it's most likely an EDTV (720-768x480-576) or at best just a little higher in resolution. That is unless it "fell off the truck".

If that is the case, you don't have HDTV capability to start. HDCP might make getting downscaled EDTV resolutions from HD DVD or HD broadcast a bit easier but current progressive DVD would work as well.

It's Hisense TA42P 42" HDTV Plasma with a 1024x768 resolution, DVI w/HDCP, and 3000:1 Contrast. It retails for $1800, but I got it for $1450 and a wall mount for $99. It's widescreen for that true 16:9 display. I bought it to connect a media center PC and the DVI/HDCP Support. It came with speakers, which I do not use since I already have my own theater system. It didn't fall off a truck, but if it did I'm quite sure it would have been damaged in that process. Most LCD/Plasmas could not survive such a fate.

I'm looking towards purchasing a smaller one for another room after the exceptional display/inputs of this thing.

You got a good deal. 1024x768 isn't 1280x768 but can look good (also EDTV with 852 x 480 panels) if you are viewing broadcasts or DVD at a distance. 1920x1080p24 (HD_DVD), 1920x1080i and 1280x720p get downscaled for presentation at 1024x768.

[ROF]

I haven't seen any sub 50" models with a 1280 or 1366 resolution. Do they make them? I could have gotten a 50" model with 1280x768 HDCP ready and a contrast of 1100:1 for double the price. The picture on that model(a Pioneer) was considerably worse than the Hisense. It looked really fuzzy and viewed at an angle the picture was distorted. You can sit anywhere in my home theater and get a good image display. The heat produced from that 50" model was another thing I noted. Granted, most plasmas produce a good amount of heat, but the 50" models all seemed to have pictures that didn't look as sharp as this one. I saw earlier today Tigerdirect now sells my model for $1600 and a separate $99 wall mount.

[edDV]

Well resolution need is a function of distance from screen and screen size. 1366x768 seems to be getting more common. Next year the LCD video optimized technology looks to optimize at 46" 1366x768 (for 720p) and should get cheap as the panel plants ramp up.

Everything gets better and cheaper as time goes by but the main point is early adopters are already stung by early prices. Now you want to see us have to start over with an all new set. HDCP is adding insult to injury.

[ROF]

Everything gets better and cheaper as time goes by but the main point is early adopters are already stung by early prices. Now you want to see us have to start over with an all new set. HDCP is adding insult to injury.

I agree in that it's going to be upsetting to those who invested in technology they thought would survive or at least support them for a few decades. Unfortunately, I can't seem to come up with any audio/visual technology that doesn't have this occur. My 8 track still plays it's cartridges, yet it doesn't offer the audio quality of what CD does. I can't seem to get the 8 track to play CD's either. My black and white zenith television still works, yet despite my best efforts I can't seem to get it to display any reds or blues. My Hitachi 25" TV which was purchased in 2002 can not seem to display HBO-HD.

I've come to the conclusion that when you buy something in the audio-visual department that it will work and will continue to work for a long long time (bad parts notwithstanding) but you must accept the fact that once you leave the store with your product it's now considered outdated. Sure it may take a year or two maybe even longer for you to realize this but from my purchasing experiences this is a fact of the high tech/high fidelity lifestyles we lead.

[Cornucopia]

I agree in that it's going to be upsetting to those who invested in technology they thought would survive or at least support them for a few decades. Unfortunately, I can't seem to come up with any audio/visual technology that doesn't have this occur. My 8 track still plays it's cartridges, yet it doesn't offer the audio quality of what CD does. I can't seem to get the 8 track to play CD's either. My black and white zenith television still works, yet despite my best efforts I can't seem to get it to display any reds or blues. My Hitachi 25" TV which was purchased in 2002 can not seem to display HBO-HD.

Your example ignores the fact that there is a new different kind of experience between these 2 current scenarios:

Pre-HDCP & BroadcastFlag:

Sat Provider w/ [User subscribed] HD programming --> [User bought] HD-capable sat receiver --> [User bought] HD-capable TV --> HD-quality experience

Post-HDCP & BroadcastFlag:

Sat Provider w/ [User subscribed] HD programming --> [User bought] HD-capable sat receiver --> [User bought] HD-capable TV -->
NO HD Experience, unless User buys $$ BF/HDCP/HDMI upgrades or replacement equipment.

If this is a measure intended to benefit the content producers, then the cost of this measure should be born by those content producers, NOT the consumer.

Scott

[racerxnet]

ROF
[I've come to the conclusion that when you buy something in the audio-visual department that it will work and will continue to work for a long long time (bad parts notwithstanding) but you must accept the fact that once you leave the store with your product it's now considered outdated. Sure it may take a year or two maybe even longer for you to realize this but from my purchasing experiences this is a fact of the high tech/high fidelity lifestyles we lead.]


In some respects this is correct, though not always the truth. In the high end audio market the majority of the AMPS/Pre Amps still hold their value quite well. As for improvments in sound quality, analog is still the king. You can dispute this fact, but the majority still playback vinyl/cd with analog output. SACD is but a wishful thought in audio improvements.

On the video end, the Electrohome, Barco, and Sony CRT all are HDTV ready and have been beyond the resolution specs for some time. My Electrohome was manufatured in 1999, so I am ahead of the curve. Yes I am aware that I would need a SAT box to watch HDTV, but I do not watch any cable or regular TV at all. We do enjoy watching a DVD every night though.

It all boils down to doing your homework before one buys into the latest technology. Some new fads such as digital amps are not making any inroads into audio playback. You will see the dividing line of tube vs. solid state but the output is the same; Analog.

MAK[/quote]

[davideck]

SACD is but a wishful thought in audio improvements.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, and I know it's off topic but...

Have you heard SACD? Recent anniversary releases of older classics remixed for 5.1 SACD are incredible!
SACD is a significant step forward; the best thing that has happened to high end audio since the CD itself...

[racerxnet]

I have had several SACD capable players. SACD remixed to 5.1 is not the same as 2 channel SACD. There are trade-offs in the audio frequency spectrum with SACD that do not appeal to me at all in the high end stereo area. I am more satisfied with Redbook cd quality. This is my own opinion with my equipment.
Mileage may vary.

[davideck]

There are trade-offs in the audio frequency spectrum with SACD that do not appeal to me at all in the high end stereo area.

Could you please elaborate?

[ROF]

If this is a measure intended to benefit the content producers, then the cost of this measure should be born by those content producers, NOT the consumer.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of HDCP. It is not intended for copy protection although that is a side effect. It is intended to protect the integrity of the content as it is being routed from the transmitter to the receiver to make sure the highest quality experience is enjoyed by the end user. The only portion that can be construed as a copy protection measure of HDCP is the retransmission of the device keys in regular intervals between the transmitter and the receiver thus making sure that no leakage of the transmission occurs. This is for both your protection of this high quality experience and also for the protection of the content being displayed.

[ROF]

In some respects this is correct, though not always the truth. In the high end audio market the majority of the AMPS/Pre Amps still hold their value quite well. As for improvments in sound quality, analog is still the king. You can dispute this fact, but the majority still playback vinyl/cd with analog output. SACD is but a wishful thought in audio improvements.

Perhaps they still hold value to you. I still value my 8 track and listen to it regularly in my workshop but I certainly wouldn't label it as a value product in most segments of soceity. I bet quite a few people here haven't heard of 8 tracks or have never actually seen one or for that matter heard the sound reproduced by one. It still works and it functions great for my purposes but I certainly wouldn't recommend someone go out and purchase one for the highest definition audio experience in todays marketplace.

[Cornucopia]

If this is a measure intended to benefit the content producers, then the cost of this measure should be born by those content producers, NOT the consumer.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of HDCP. It is not intended for copy protection although that is a side effect. It is intended to protect the integrity of the content as it is being routed from the transmitter to the receiver to make sure the highest quality experience is enjoyed by the end user. The only portion that can be construed as a copy protection measure of HDCP is the retransmission of the device keys in regular intervals between the transmitter and the receiver thus making sure that no leakage of the transmission occurs. This is for both your protection of this high quality experience and also for the protection of the content being displayed.

HAHAHAHA

Then I think you better tell the originators/licensors of HDCP, http://www.digital-cp.com/, because that's what they say it was meant for: COPY PROTECTION.

re: 8track
You can't seriously equate the never-better-than-mediocre quality and horrendous wow/flutter of 8tracks, even in their prime, with the brilliant/pristine sonics of Bryston amps, etc. Whatever respect I may have had for you just went out the window...
It seems you think the capabilities of audio playback fidelity is on par with the video side. However, audio has long been able to provide--even in analog mode and at non-stratospheric cost--an experience non pareil. Video, because of it's complexity and bandwidth requirements, is only now approaching this kind of experience (for consumers).
Stick with what you know.

Well, I'm getting tired of this [call it what it is] BAITING...

Scott

[ROF]

@Cornucopia

Sorry I gotta laugh because you linked to a licensing group. Of course that page touts the licensing benefits of HDCP. That's the purpose of the DCP, LLC. Sure, as I stated the effect of HDCP is copy protection, but it also ensures a high quality experience for all by ensuring that your equipment from beginning to end is 100% capable of displaying this new high quality content. It also ensures that their is no leakage of the content and thus protects the distributor from losses due to piracy.

BTW, you brought up the audio equation with your discussion of amps and such, I never mentioned them so you only have yourself to blame when someone points out that digital audio is 110% better sounding than analog audio in a 100% true system. It sounds like you might have a mix of both analog and digital audio equipment which could account for your inferior experience with SACD.

[edDV]

@Cornucopia

...
but it also ensures a high quality experience for all by ensuring that your equipment from beginning to end is 100% capable of displaying this new high quality content.

It does no such thing. Explain that rationale.

If you put garbage into the HDCP connection (couracy of your local broadcaster, cable company or DBS provider) it will display the same garbage and NOT inform you that the signal is garbage. It has no quality monitoring provision.

The HDCP doesn't know if the monitor is a HDTV or a EDTV that will immediately downscale the HDTV feed to 704x480. It doesn't care if your display is high quality.

All the HDCP connection does is ensure the monitor (or other receiving device like an approved DVR) is licensed and is properly handshaking keys. Then it enables the high resolution mode on the upstream device and opens the port to pass the same signal that would have been passed if HDCP was not present.

[ROF]

@Cornucopia

...
but it also ensures a high quality experience for all by ensuring that your equipment from beginning to end is 100% capable of displaying this new high quality content.

It does no such thing. Explain that rationale.

This is easily explained.

You have broadcasters sending a high definition signal to an HDCP Cable Box. The HDCP Cable Box outputs the signal via it's HDCP DVI Port to the HDCP DVI Input of your HDCP television. That's the only way to receive this and it ensures the highest quality reproduction of the broadcasted signal.

Have you ever seen an DVI/VGA/Composite Converter to downgrade the quality of the broadcast to be able to be recieved on a VGA or Composite Device? HDCP/DVI ensures that this is not possible and thus ensures the highest quality output to your display. Early in this thread I was asking if it were possible to "trick" the signal. It appears this is not possible but then again why would you want to receive this high def on a low def output device. The only reason I can come up with is because a lack of investment dollars from the consumer. All new technology costs money. You can't play DVDs in a VCR, you had to buy a DVD capable device. I don't see the difference here really.

[edDV]

@Cornucopia

...
but it also ensures a high quality experience for all by ensuring that your equipment from beginning to end is 100% capable of displaying this new high quality content.

It does no such thing. Explain that rationale.

This is easily explained.

You have broadcasters sending a high definition signal to an HDCP Cable Box. The HDCP Cable Box outputs the signal via it's HDCP DVI Port to the HDCP DVI Input of your HDCP television. That's the only way to receive this and it ensures the highest quality reproduction of the broadcasted signal.

Have you ever seen an DVI/VGA/Composite Converter to downgrade the quality of the broadcast to be able to be recieved on a VGA or Composite Device? HDCP/DVI ensures that this is not possible and thus ensures the highest quality output to your display. Early in this thread I was asking if it were possible to "trick" the signal. It appears this is not possible but then again why would you want to receive this high def on a low def output device. The only reason I can come up with is because a lack of investment dollars from the consumer. All new technology costs money. You can't play DVDs in a VCR, you had to buy a DVD capable device. I don't see the difference here really.

You are drifting even further into the trees. There are many monitors capable of highest quality HDTV display that do not have HDCP (such as studio monitors, projectors, first and second generation HDTV sets). HDCP is only a gate that is opened or closed based on the broadcast flag.

If the downstream device does not have working HDCP, the gate is held closed regardless of the capability of the display. If the downstream monitor has HDCP, there is no ensurance the display device won't down scale the image to SD or otherwise provide inferior display quality.

[ROF]

It's OK to be in the trees, it's hunting season afterall.

But seriously there is no denying that HDCP is as much for copy protection as it is to ensure high quality output. Your monitor maybe capable of twice that of an HDCP capable monitor yet it fails. Why is that? Because the monitor is not approved to receive the signal. That's similiar although slightly different then how non-HDTVs can not receive an HD signal. why? because the signal is not supported by the device.

I actually think we're arguing apples to oranges here. I see it one way, you see it another. Will we ever agree? probably not. I agree to disagree with you, but I also agree that I bought my television to support the latest technology. I accept the fact that the moment it was delivered that it was outdated. I also accept the fact that next year something new is going to come along to further outdate my device. I also accept the fact that my analog cable signal is going to go blank in a few short years. Either you can embrace new technology and invest or be left to your old devices. In either case, I think everyone will be happy. If not, I guess they'll have to upgrade.

[edDV]

It's OK to be in the trees, it's hunting season afterall.

But seriously there is no denying that HDCP is as much for copy protection as it is to ensure high quality output. Your monitor maybe capable of twice that of an HDCP capable monitor yet it fails. Why is that? Because the monitor is not approved to receive the signal.

Yes, retroactively not approved (months to years after purchase) after being sold as "HD-Ready". The lawyers are going to get very rich off a class action* against the HDTV manufacturers when they, like their customers, were innocent bystanders of this retroactive legislation (broadcast flag if it passes) and HD-DVD spec.

I think the remains of your "ensure HDTV quality" arguement are destroyed by the inclusion of HDCP inputs on EDTV and desktop SD DTV TV sets. It has nothing to do with ensuring a quality HDTV display as these sets can't produce a HDTV display. They can only receive a HD broadcast or DVD input and scale it down.

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-Ba8ltVB3g98/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=146350&I=13342PD50U&search=EDTV
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7123917&type=product&id=1110265592639

*which we consumers must pay in higher prices for new TV sets.

[ROF]

I think the remains of your "ensure HDTV quality" arguement are destroyed by the inclusion of HDCP inputs on EDTV and desktop SD DTV TV sets. It has nothing to do with ensuring a quality HDTV display as these sets can't produce a HDTV display. They can only receive a HD broadcast or DVD input and scale it down.

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-Ba8ltVB3g98/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=146350&I=13342PD50U&search=EDTV

How can you say destroyed my "ensures HDTV quality" and then add "scales it down"? Doesn't scaling it down involve some loss of quality or pixel reduction or other method in order to allow a signal to be displayed? HDCP ensures this doesn't occur by only allowing approved devices to display this high quality signal.

[edDV]

I think the remains of your "ensure HDTV quality" arguement are destroyed by the inclusion of HDCP inputs on EDTV and desktop SD DTV TV sets. It has nothing to do with ensuring a quality HDTV display as these sets can't produce a HDTV display. They can only receive a HD broadcast or DVD input and scale it down.

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-Ba8ltVB3g98/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=146350&I=13342PD50U&search=EDTV

How can you say destroyed my "ensures HDTV quality" and then add "scales it down"? Doesn't scaling it down involve some loss of quality or pixel reduction or other method in order to allow a signal to be displayed? HDCP ensures this doesn't occur by only allowing approved devices to display this high quality signal.

I don't understand your arguement. The two sets above and many of lower quality are incapable of displaying HDTV in any form of the definition. They are locked into ~704-852x480 pixel space. They can only receive the input of a HDTV HDCP encoded signal, but cannot display in HDTV.

Thus your arguement that

"it also ensures a high quality experience for all by ensuring that your equipment from beginning to end is 100% capable of displaying this new high quality content."

completely falls apart.

[junkmalle]

The nonsense that HDCP "ensures a high quality experience" is obviously an attempt by the industry to sugar coat the bitter copy-protection pill hoping to confuse consumers into swallowing it.

[hhhhbk]

most people upgrade their pc and monitor every couple of years

if HD becomes mainstream then more and more people will buy the kit when it comes time to upgrade

if the cost of the high definition dvds is a lot more than standard dvds
(and they continue to make standard dvds thereby not forcing you to upgrade)
then i expect it to be a bit like dvdram drives (in that a minority buy them)
and by the time they come down to a reasonable price they will have been superseeded by another format


dvd caught on because it was not that expensive and was a massive leap in quality over vhs plus the other benefits of being digital and easily transferred between tv and pc

if it costs £1000's to get compatible kit for HDCP for a comparatively smaller quality increase (especially if only being viewed on a small screen) then mainstream wont buy in

[edDV]

most people upgrade their pc and monitor every couple of years

if HD becomes mainstream then more and more people will buy the kit when it comes time to upgrade

if the cost of the high definition dvds is a lot more than standard dvds
(and they continue to make standard dvds thereby not forcing you to upgrade)
then i expect it to be a bit like dvdram drives (in that a minority buy them)
and by the time they come down to a reasonable price they will have been superseeded by another format


dvd caught on because it was not that expensive and was a massive leap in quality over vhs plus the other benefits of being digital and easily transferred between tv and pc

if it costs £1000's to get compatible kit for HDCP for a comparatively smaller quality increase (especially if only being viewed on a small screen) then mainstream wont buy in

In the USA the issues are far more serious than upgrading a computer for HD DVD. If the broadcast flag is successful here you will see the same proposal in the UK.

The broadcast flag will stop existing HDTV sets and HDTV computer tuners from receiving HDTV resolutions unless they support the new (mid to late 2004) HDCP encryption scheme. There is no provision for upgrade of older HDTV sets. HDTV sets purchased before HDCP will be locked out of HD resolutions by DTV tuners, cable boxes and DBS tuners for all broadcasts as proposed. An encrypted link must be established before any HD will pass.

Those sets that support HDCP encryption will be allowed to pass the HDTV signal for viewing but DVR recording restrictions will be imposed for specifically flagged programming.

The HD-DVD players will work as described above. That is a given. The broadcast flag is proposed to work in the same way but may be less restrictive after public input and compromise.

My main complaint is the resulting obsolescence of early adopter HDTV sets. They were expensive. They were sold as "HD-Ready". Buyers justified the high costs based on an expectation of a 5-10 year product life.

[alstatr]

I've been reading this post since it started and I'd like to say that I've learned quite a bit.

It kinda sucks for everyone that adopted the "HDTV-Ready" sets. Sadly I am one of them. I convinced my parents to buy a very nice 42-inch HDTV set last November. Old TV was 19 inches bought in 1991; talk about an upgrade! We bought it on the thought in 2-3 years when digital HD cable comes down in price we'll buy the box that allows us to view the HDTV signal and then enjoy.

This may have been already discussed but will there ever be a HDCP box/adapters that will allow older sets to play the full 1080i/p HDTV signal? For example, cable comes into the house --> HDCP capable cable box to our TV that has an HDCP adapter before the TV inputs. And then for DVDs, HD-DVD player capable of HDCP to the TV with the HDCP adapter?

Or is this just wishful thinking?

Since, I am in college and will graduate in two years maybe all this HDCP stuff will be sorted out and I can buy all compliant equipment.

Thanks for the information on HDCP!

[racerxnet]

Davideck,

I will elaborate a bit more on SACD when I have some spare time tommorow. I have been working 7 days a week for over a month now. Finally got the weekend off.

[edDV]

...

This may have been already discussed but will there ever be a HDCP box/adapters that will allow older sets to play the full 1080i/p HDTV signal? For example, cable comes into the house --> HDCP capable cable box to our TV that has an HDCP adapter before the TV inputs. And then for DVDs, HD-DVD player capable of HDCP to the TV with the HDCP adapter?

It's not likely. That would defeat the pupose of the HD DVD encryption. There is some talk that quarter resolution 540p (960x540) may be allowed.

We can hope the broadcast flag doesn't pass and that cable/dbs will continue to support non-HDCP connections.

[alstatr]

Thanks edDV. I was thinking about my post earlier today and it occured to me that having an adapter before the TV wouldn't really ensure it would still be secure. So I guess after thinking about it more I answered my own question. But thanks for the post.

If they do allow a lower resolution of viewing if you don't have compatiable hardware, what is going to stop people from capturing that lower resolution stream? It would obvisiously not be as high as quality as the pure HDTV but for caputring so you don't have to pay for the DVD release it would be just fine. I mean beggers can't be choosers and who can argue with the price of free?

Any thoughts?

[edDV]

Any thoughts?

That attitude resulted in all my HD gear being made obsolete. You want free copies, I have to eat my early adopter HDTV investment.

Those are my thoughts.

[Stingray]

This idea is so stupid its hard to put into words... so basically the consumer is always wrong when it comes to the entertainment industry? And do these studios actaully think that the recording of TV shows will in some way affect their income... bull.

[alstatr]

@ edDV -

I wasn't saying that I want free copies of TV shows/DVDs I was just pointing out that if the whole point of HDCP is so that you need a closed loop system to view anything HDTV then what is to stop the people who want free copies from coping the lesser quality stream and sharing that on the internet?

I am in the same boat as you are. If everything goes the way of the studios and HDCP is implemented in everything then my HDTV equipment is just really nice SDTV equipment.

I know it sucks...