Picture Tube TVs: Going Away Faster Than Expected

[TBoneit]

I'm pretty sure witout double checking that if I were to subscribe to HBO, Showtime and/or Starz movie packages I'd also get their HD feed for no extra cost. It is true I'm paying extra for the Gold HD pack, OTOH that has channels that are not available in the SD equivilent. Universal HD and others so I'm paying the extra for that. My DVR via S-Video to a Pioneer 531 does trim the right and left sides of the image. However the recordings are so much better that the SD channels.

As for costs to the end user... I' can see both sides. Providers are using the same bandwidth for one HD channel as multiple Sd channels would require. In Most cases this has driven a need for upgrades, Better cable or more satellites.

[NiteLite]

Not sure about the bandwidth as most local stations (OTA) are using multiple channels like Channel 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4,etc. So where did the extra bandwidth all of a sudden come from. And some of my locals are so cheap they never went stereo.
Also some stations are using a EDTV signal and looks like using the extra BW for more channels using more advertising time = more money.
Anyway I guess I must be in a minoirty here as I still see it unjustisfied due to law.
I think HBO, ect probably had HD in mind with their last price increase.

TBoneit, thanks for the reply. At least you give info for thought.
Regards,
NL

[edDV]

Not sure about the bandwidth as most local stations (OTA) are using multiple channels like Channel 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4,etc. So where did the extra bandwidth all of a sudden come from. And some of my locals are so cheap they never went stereo.
Also some stations are using a EDTV signal and looks like using the extra BW for more channels using more advertising time = more money.
Anyway I guess I must be in a minoirty here as I still see it unjustisfied due to law.
I think HBO, ect probably had HD in mind with their last price increase.

TBoneit, thanks for the reply. At least you give info for thought.
Regards,
NL

DTV stations have to fit it all into 19Mb/s bandwidth for a single ATSC OTA transmitter. They can divide that bandwidth into 4-5 SD subchannels (3-5 Mb/s each), 1HD at full 19Mb/s, one HD ~14 Mb/s plus one or two SD subchannels. News and Weather SD channels use very little bitrate.

For cable there is the old way and the new way. For the old way, the cable company pulls some or all of the subchannels off the air and assigns them to separate cable channels.

The new way for both cable and DBS locals is to pull the signals directly from the DTV station over fiber. This way they can get a full bitrate for each subchannel. Comcast here is feeding the locals and the cable networks at 20 or 25 Mb/s for HD and 3-7 Mb/s for SD. It is all fiber from the DTV station through Comcast to the last mile which is coax. Picture quality is very good.

[NiteLite]

edDV,
Always a treat to be able to learn from your wealth of knowledge.
Now that I have somewhat of a more understanding...I'm sure it will click in this old brain as I read and learn the process.
So in your opinion are they justified in charging more for something that has been mandated and for something I cant see how OTA will be able to charge for.
Is it fair for OTA to still be a free service and some company gather a few HD/ED stations and charge a lot for it? And I know the Sat/ Cable companies are loving it...any excuse to justify price increases, as if they ever needed one.

To me it's like the Gov't mandating cars to get 2 more MPG per unit. (has been suggested) and then the gas stations rasing prices because of it.
Maybe I'm just way off and maybe when the actual mandate date arrives things will change. I'm sure OTA will want some kind of extra compensation if the Sat/ Cable companies are doing it.
Anyway, I'm still confused somewhat but I do appreciate your "free" investment in my learning process.
Regards,
NL

[raffie]

In my opinion, the standard definition DVD picture looks better on the interlaced tube TV monitor than it does on the flat panel LCDs.

It's a shame more people don't realize this.
Newer technology displays makes older movies and broadcasts look worse.

HA HA HA
Hi-Def displays are ABLE to show the SD sourced artifacts, and u see them better when sitting with your face in the screen. From a normal viewing distance its obviously just the same...

'It's a shame more people don't realize this' That made me crack up LOL

[ROF]

In my opinion, the standard definition DVD picture looks better on the interlaced tube TV monitor than it does on the flat panel LCDs.

It's a shame more people don't realize this.
Newer technology displays makes older movies and broadcasts look worse.

HA HA HA
Hi-Def displays are ABLE to show the SD sourced artifacts, and u see them better when sitting with your face in the screen. From a normal viewing distance its obviously just the same...

'It's a shame more people don't realize this' That made me crack up LOL

This stuff always makes me laugh. Try watching a 1930's flick on any color display device. Now watch on a B&W display. Which seemingly looks better? If you have any answer besides neither looks better you are incorrect. The only difference is the media being shown in it's native display. In 10-15 years when HD is the norm there will still be people complaining that their SD pictures don't look good and after 20 years most people won't even know what SD looks like.

[TBoneit]

ROF I think you are perhaps being a bit optomistic about only 10 to 15 years for HDTV to be the norm. There are a whole lot of SDTVs out there that get fed their picture via cable and satellite. My guess is that when the mandated date arrives and passes most people will still be watching SD content on their SD TV. Until their SDTV dies, and they have to buy a HDTV. Then they'll complain about the missing part of the picture. I was in a local store and people are still buying SDTVs. They may buy a converter if they only get OTA TV when they have to to continue watching TV but the crys for that converter to be subsidized because the Government took away their free TV will most likely be heard.

Most others that get Cable or Satellite TV will be able to keep watching SD "Cable" channels and/or downconverted content via the cable box.

Haveing recently (2 weeks or so) upgraded to a HD DVR, 32"HDTV (LCD) and then getting a moneytary hit because I needed to upgrade my sound system that was fine switching SDTV signals to handle the HD feeds, A unexpected and unwanted expense I maight add.

Anyway the 4:3 stuff isn't as bad IMHO as some complain about.
DVDs look great compared to the old TV.
Divx/Xvids if from a Widescreen source can fill the screen and look decent depending on the encode. I just watched one last night as a test. Choosing fill on the TV it filled the screen and looked pretty good to me. Fill stretched it to fill ine the black on the right and left sides of the picture, won't do that on SD content .

My next step is to search for tutorials on how to take a widescreen release, trim it, encode at really good setting and see if there is a way to be sure it plays at 16: to fill the screen.

Problem as I see it twofold. widescreen does note mean 16:9 could be different and I can not seem to wrap my mind around avisynth scripts. I don't know if it because I used to program in Dbase and a dbase complier, and Basic (Qbasic and Basic complier) or what.

Anyway, would I want to go back? No but if the TV died I could be happy watching my shows on a SDTV until the TV was repaired.

Anyhow

[davideck]

Try watching a 1930's flick on any color display device. Now watch on a B&W display. Which seemingly looks better? If you have any answer besides neither looks better you are incorrect.

Not to nitpick ROF, but I disagree. Color TVs (CRTs) sometimes have a difficult time displaying a good B+W picture because convergence and purity issues are often more apparent with a monochrome image. It is not so much an issue any more, but in the old days tweaking up a Color TV for a good B+W picture could take some time.

Hi-Def displays are ABLE to show the SD sourced artifacts, and u see them better when sitting with your face in the screen. From a normal viewing distance its obviously just the same...

IMO, people are being encouraged to sit too close to their HDTV. The Viewing Distance charts are more concerned with field of view than with picture quality.

For example, the 4:3 display area of a 32" Widescreen HDTV is about the same as a 27" SDTV. At 6-7 feet, I can still discern the scanning lines on a 27" SDTV if I try. Or I can just sit back and enjoy the picture. At 6-7 feet, I can still discern the artifacts on a 32" HDTV if I try. Or I can just sit back and enjoy the picture.

Replacing a 27" SDTV with a 42" HDTV (or above) and then complaining about the PQ at the same viewing distance is a bit too critical in my view. Everyone should literally sit back, relax, and just enjoy the pictures.

Anyway the 4:3 stuff isn't as bad IMHO as some complain about.
DVDs look great compared to the old TV.

And HDTV programming looks fantastic!

[jagabo]

Is it fair for OTA to still be a free service and some company gather a few HD/ED stations and charge a lot for it?

It doesn't matter if it's fair or not. In most markets cable companies are a monopoly and they do what they want.

[ROF]

ROF I think you are perhaps being a bit optomistic about only 10 to 15 years for HDTV to be the norm. There are a whole lot of SDTVs out there that get fed their picture via cable and satellite. My guess is that when the mandated date arrives and passes most people will still be watching SD content on their SD TV. Until their SDTV dies, and they have to buy a HDTV.

That is exactly what my father said when he brought home our first B&W television. He would never give up his radio until it died. Within a year his radio was in the basement because it was much more exciting for him to watch the sporting events instead of listening to them.

[TBoneit]

ROF the main difference as I see it is that going from a non visual to a visual medium is a big difference.

OTOH going from one visual medium to another, albeit sharper, visual medium isn't as big a jump. How many people are happy with movies on HBO or Showtime compared to the much bigger picture and probably better sound in the cinema. I still remember the earthquake effect in the cinema for the movie Earthquake, at least I think that was the title. I believe they used really low frequency sub woofers to make the seat shake under you during the earthquake onscreen. And I don't recall the name of the movie but as i recall it a skeleton on a wire came at the audience. Smell-o-vision flopped of course. 3 D... Welll...

I think that there are many, many people quite happy with their 19" to 27" TV sets.

I'm guessing here but I suspect that the younger you are the more likely to change for newer technologies.

Would I like a Home theatre with theatre seating and 100"+ screen, and the old melted butter type popcorn machine probably, do I want to give up the basement and all those bucks ? NO!

[TBoneit]

Quick addition, radio is alive and well yet. Just not used for the same thing.

OTOH I have a huge collection on records of old time radio shows I used to listen to instead of TV and while traveling. I used to get a better laugh from Fibber McGee & Molly, Fred Allen, Jack Benny, than the so called comedies of today.

Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of man, The Shadow knows, exit laughing.

[ROF]

ROF the main difference as I see it is that going from a non visual to a visual medium is a big difference.

OTOH going from one visual medium to another, albeit sharper, visual medium isn't as big a jump. How many people are happy with movies on HBO or Showtime compared to the much bigger picture and probably better sound in the cinema.

Would I like a Home theatre with theatre seating and 100"+ screen, and the old melted butter type popcorn machine probably, do I want to give up the basement and all those bucks ? NO!

Agreed, but this is a decision you have made. I would much rather watch that movie on HBO or showtime in my own theater with much better sound, relatively free(compared to the theater) popcorn, and all the comforts that go along with that. But I would guess this subject is a separate thread. https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=306814

[edDV]

edDV,
...
So in your opinion are they justified in charging more for something that has been mandated and for something I cant see how OTA will be able to charge for.
Is it fair for OTA to still be a free service and some company gather a few HD/ED stations and charge a lot for it? And I know the Sat/ Cable companies are loving it...any excuse to justify price increases, as if they ever needed one.
...
Maybe I'm just way off and maybe when the actual mandate date arrives things will change. I'm sure OTA will want some kind of extra compensation if the Sat/ Cable companies are doing it.
Anyway, I'm still confused somewhat but I do appreciate your "free" investment in my learning process.

The 2009 analog NTSC transmission shutdown, if it happens then*, will only directly affect those people receiving the analog channels with antennas. Those people will need to get an external DTV tuner for an estimated $30-50 and maybe change their antenna since most urban stations will move to UHF. With these DTV tuners people with old sets will get all the MPeg2 DTV subchannels in downscaled form. Anything broadcast 16:9 will display as letterbox on their old TV sets. 4:3 broadcasts will show full screen. That is it. Nobody is forced to buy a new TV.

Cable customers will see no difference as a result of the analog broadcast shut down. By then, the cable companies will be getting the local TV feeds by fiber, or off the DTV subchannels and will be remodulating them to normal NTSC over the cable (channels 1-99). The old NTSC TV tuner will still work for basic analog cable without a cable box. Currently the FCC has "must carry" rules for the locals and those currently must be available as analog NTSC without a cable box.

Over time, cable companies will reduce the analog tunable channels to the FCC manadated locals and maybe a few more (like CSPAN, CNN-FOXnews, Public Access, Guide). Expect 70-99 channels to drop to less than 25 offered as a basic analog service. The rest will require rental of a cable box.

The reason for the reduction of analog tunable cable channels has nothing to do with the analog broadcast transmitter shutdown. It is due to demand by higher end cable customers for more SD and HD channels over the cable box. Each analog channel occupies the space of 1 to 2 HD or 6 to 10 SD MPeg2 channels. Reducing analog tunable channels from 70 to 25 would allow up to 400 more SD channels or up to 70 HD channels or some combination. These numbers vary by local cable conditions and picture quality issues.

So, the affect on the old TV Luddites is minimal. They will see more channels available with an external DTV OTA tuner ($30-50) or fewer channels on cable unless they rent a cable box.


* The 911 commission guys are hopping mad because the analog TV shutdown has been delayed until 2009. They want some of those TV frequencies for fire and police unified disaster communication. They blame the Congress and FCC for dragging their feet on the analog TV shutdown.

[Specialist]

This stuff always makes me laugh. Try watching a 1930's flick on any color display device. Now watch on a B&W display. Which seemingly looks better? If you have any answer besides neither looks better you are incorrect. The only difference is the media being shown in it's native display. In 10-15 years when HD is the norm there will still be people complaining that their SD pictures don't look good and after 20 years most people won't even know what SD looks like.

Actually, YOUR comment is comedic.

The ATSC digital TV standard, in case you missed it, contemplates ONGOING support for standard definition... in fact... the majority of the ATSC formats -- TWELVE (12) -- are either SDTV or EDTV and not HDTV:

http://tinyurl.com/3jfvl

To suggest that it will only take 20 years for bandwidth and other issues to be overcome seems to be wildly optimistic and I don't know anybody who is predicting that will happen so quickly.

If you can provide a link to any credible fortune teller who is making such a claim, then do so.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[chesterfield]

this is by far my most prized TV in my collection.....how old do you think it is????

[Specialist]

HA HA HA
Hi-Def displays are ABLE to show the SD sourced artifacts, and u see them better when sitting with your face in the screen. From a normal viewing distance its obviously just the same...

That's obviously the explanation for WHY, but it doesn't change the FACT.

Standard definition just doesn't look very good on HDTVs... period.

It's a common problem with HDTVs, but it's not the only problem as POPULAR MECHANICS pointed out in this recent article:

http://tinyurl.com/f5o58

"THE FIX: If you haven't bought an HD set yet, here's a reason to wait: Future sets will be better at upconverting images to HD."

"Meanwhile, outboard video scalers can convert a 480i signal to 1080p."

"Models from Lumagen and DVDO range from $1000 to $2500."

The thrust of the article is that HDTV technology is STILL BEING REFINED and many of the models being pushed by discount retailers are not-ready-for-primetime with visual problems so great that consumers who buy them probably would be better off with a high quality standard definition set.

Nobody is arguing that HDTV doesn't look great when...

1. one is using a high quality set;

2. one is viewing material that has been properly acquired;

3. one is viewing material that has been properly transmitted, i.e. via high definition DVD or via a wide bandwidth broadcast.

The trouble with the DVD method is the fact that we don't have a universally-adopted high definition DVD format.

Instead, we have two INCOMPATIBLE formats being pushed on us from two different groups of software and hardware corporations who don't care if a large percentage of us wind up with another SONY Betamax experience... spending a lot of money on new technology that will LOSE.

"HD DVD?"

"Blu-ray Disc (BD)?"

Who knows which will emerge at this point?

Do you?

If so, then please share your vast wisdom with us.

I remember the Sony Betamax.

In those days, there were people who proclaimed that it was "the future of video viewing."

"High tech," they said.

The SL-7200 model cost $1,295, which was a lot of money in 1976.

Well have a look at this piece of junk:

http://tinyurl.com/ga4cp

Does that look "high tech" now?

I suspect the same will be said of many of the HDTV sets sold in the year 2006.

I can hear it now: "Oh, those were EARLY models, which explains why you now need to UPGRADE from your crummy HDTV to this new and improved model."

And the technology will improve -- in a significant way -- which is why many of us are waiting.

In another two years...

1. We may finally learn which high definition DVD format is the winner;

2. We may actually have enough movies on high definition DVD to justify buying for that reason;

3. We'll have cheaper HD sets manufactured with VASTLY IMPROVED materials and design.

Those three reasons alone are enough to persuade me to wait.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[edDV]

HD over ATSC DTV is very good. Cable/DBS HD is also very good. The ATSC standards will remain plus pick up MPeg4 improvements that will increase the number of channels at about the same quality.

Now is not the time to invest in a HD DVD library. It smells like 8-track cassette to me.

[Specialist]

HD over ATSC DTV is very good. Cable/DBS HD is also very good. The ATSC standards will remain plus pick up MPeg4 improvements that will increase the number of channels at about the same quality. Now is not the time to invest in a HD DVD library. It smells like 8-track cassette to me.

Agree.

But I also agree with what you mentioned earlier.

The high definition broadcasts that can utilize the full bandwidth look MUCH better than those that must *share* bandwidth with competing SDTV/EDTV programming.

That fiber optic method sounds like the fix, but I wonder how many stations -- nationwide -- are actually doing that.

Here in Boise, they clearly haven't progressed that far, yet.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Specialist]

edDV,

Question for you.

You may or may not be familiar with the future of so-called "PEG" (public, educational, governmental) channels.

Will they "connect" to the cable centers via fiber?

(Or are they "dead?")

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[edDV]

HD over ATSC DTV is very good. Cable/DBS HD is also very good. The ATSC standards will remain plus pick up MPeg4 improvements that will increase the number of channels at about the same quality. Now is not the time to invest in a HD DVD library. It smells like 8-track cassette to me.

Agree.

But I also agree with what you mentioned earlier.

The high definition broadcasts that can utilize the full bandwidth look MUCH better than those that must *share* bandwidth with competing SDTV/EDTV programming.

That fiber optic method sounds like the fix, but I wonder how many stations -- nationwide -- are actually doing that.

Here in Boise, they clearly haven't progressed that far, yet.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Sacramento Comcast gets them all on fiber accept the recent Viacom acquired CBS13/UPN Duopoly. That is supposed to be finished this summer.

Broadcasters don't necessarily feed Comcast higher bitrates than they broadcast. That is up to the locals. Stations get network feeds at up to 45Mb/s. If they want their signal to look good on cable or DBS, they will feed the fiber with the best signal they have.

Small markets may use fiber, microwave or just pull the station off air. Ask your local TV station Chief Engineer. They are supposed to be supportive of the public. Cable help lines are fairly clueless.

Dish and DirecTV want their locals to feed on fiber. The higher the input quality the better the compressed result.

[Specialist]

Small markets may use fiber, microwave or just pull the station off air. Ask your local TV station Chief Engineer. They are supposed to be supportive of the public. Cable help lines are fairly clueless.

Well, I worked for the NBC affiliate here in Boise (KTVB-TV) for 9 years as a journalist.

So I am well acquainted with the engineering folks there.

Something tells me, however, that they have no immediate plans to switch to fiber.

I'll give my old friends there a call to find out.

But -- for now -- multicasting here in Boise means DEGRADED high definition signals.

You seem to have misunderstood my earlier question about PEG channels.

Perhaps you haven't studied them, in particular, and don't know the answer.

But many are non-profit entities (such as Seattle's SCAN here: http://www.scantv.org/ ).

I am curious to know if there's a revenue stream already earmarked for fiber connections... ?

Or is this a nationwide situation where community access stations will die due to lack of funds to make the digital transition... ?

There's only a one-person shoestring community access facility here in Boise (and they have no money).

I doubt the commercial stations care (or know anything about community access).

Perhaps the Alliance for Community Media is lobbying for such funding.

http://tinyurl.com/jc4hf

It seems to me that public libraries could re-invent themselves by becoming community access media centers with fiber connections, but I suppose that's wishing for too much.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[edDV]

The larger cities have a surplus of fiber in the ground so they can be put it to work more cheaply than microwave. Mid size cable operations may have to use other methods. If the mid size cities don't get DTV/HDTV savvy, they will loose ad money as more and more local viewers sign up with Dish and DirecTV which only carry Seattle, Portland or Salt Lake City locals to Boise. This would be disaster for the local stations so they may spare you some SD OTA bandwidth if that keeps viewers watching locals.

Cable Access TV tech is all about the 7 year city-county cable franchise renegotiation. Traditionally the cable company will provide a connection, a channel and maybe some equipment but not operational expense. If you want more you have one chance every 7-10 yrs when the franchise is up for renewal and you need local government on your side. It needs to be a priority vs the schools and city council channels.

[Leoslocks]

The government will slap a tax on every cable/satalite supscriber to provide fiber optics for rural areas.

Kind of like the Phone taxes we see on the cell bills.

[painkiller]

Well, for whatever this is worth to anyone - - I finally have experienced for the first time HDTV ATSC programs.

For around $149.00 I got the DVICO Fusion HDTV 5 RT Gold PCI card and plugged it into one of my AMD machines. Displays very nice on my 21" crt pc monitor.

Even for being about 40 to 50 miles from Baltimore, and for now using just an inside set of rabbit ears with UHF loop, I am truly surprised at the quality of the video for the channels I am receiving.

Gawd, can't wait to get my outside antenna hooked into this.....

[MOVIEGEEK]

The government will slap a tax on every cable/satalite supscriber to provide fiber optics for rural areas.

Kind of like the Phone taxes we see on the cell bills.

You are probably right,that's why I own rural telecom stocks.

[kirpen]

Why must hdtvs upconvert sd signals? Most of the hdtvs I have seen look very fuzzy when showing sdtv.

[edDV]

Why must hdtvs upconvert sd signals? Most of the hdtvs I have seen look very fuzzy when showing sdtv.

LCD and Plasma must convert (upscale and deinterlace) to the display's native progressive resolution. Unless the deinterlacing is done very well, 480i inputs will look bad. Errors are magnified on large screens. Progressive 480p DVD, 720p and 1080i will look good. NTSC or 480i component DVD will look awful to ok at best. The exception is 480i film sources where "Cinema" inverse telecine to progressive can get good results.

CRT sets can scan at any resolution interlace or progressive. NTSC and 480i (or PAL and 576i) look better if horizontal scan lines are increased to 960 or 1080. The net effect is scan lines become invisible on larger screens.

CRT sets often allow 480i to 480p conversion. Then 480p can be displayed as 480p or upscaled to 540p, 960p or higher. If the TV has "cinema" inverse telecine, this can look good for movies.

CRT sets usually play 16:9 progressive DVD's directly by concentrating all 480 scan lines in the 16:9 area. Other CRT sets upscale progressive DVD to 540p, 960p or higher.

[Specialist]

Why must hdtvs upconvert sd signals? Most of the hdtvs I have seen look very fuzzy when showing sdtv.

Without up-conversion, the target HDTV monitor will automatically take small SD frame sizes (resolution)...

...720 x 480...

...704 x 480...

...to HD resolutions...

...1920 x 1080... (for example).

It's like taking a digital logo in some type of bitmap format such as .BMP or .JPG and then re-sizing the bitmap to be larger.

With pixels, you can re-sample DOWNWARD and maintain quality.

But it's not possible to re-sample UPWARD and maintain quality UNLESS you're working with a vector-based file format.

But video isn't vector-based.

The up-conversion process interpolates, but it's never going to be as good as taking a native 1920 x 1080 frame size and maintaining that quality from acquisition to final distribution.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Heff]

My mom and dad have a Pansonic 42" EDTV and it shows SD programming pretty well not too fuzzy very watchable. DVDs and primetime HD prohramming looks great. I actually like it better then my 30" Sony HDTV if only due to the larger picture. For me, plasma has the better picture over LCDs. Oh and the audio is clearly superior over SD.