# All Not True Hd To Date



## patonenow (Jul 22, 2005)

Until they broadcast and make tv's in 1080P to me it ain't nothing but almost fraud to call anything to date true HD.

Digital confusion frustrates TV buyers By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY
Fri Dec 30, 6:38 AM ET



Consumers snapped up millions of high-definition TV sets this holiday season. Now if they can only figure out how to use the darn things. More than half of HDTV owners lack the knowledge or gear to actually watch digital high-definition on their new sets, recent surveys show. 


Others are dismayed by the sometimes-poor picture quality of analog shows on sleek digital screens. 


Given the dent in their wallets from shelling out $2,000 or more for a TV, it can lead to "buyer's remorse," says Mike Vitelli, senior vice president of consumer electronics at Best Buy. HDTV returns are "notably higher" than for analog sets, he says. 


The good news: HDTV should take off its training wheels in 2006. Cable companies and retailers plan to ramp up consumer education and fix the analog picture problem. 


HDTV sets with crisper pictures and clearer sound are estimated to be in 16 million, or 15%, of U.S. homes, up from 7% a year ago, Leichtman Research Group says. Another 2.5 million or so households have digital sets that are not HD, but still are sharper than analog sets. 


Meanwhile, leading cable channels and most TV network affiliates offer at least their prime-time lineups in HD. 


But up to 56% of HD-equipped homes haven't obtained extra gear needed to watch in HD: a special set-top box from their cable or satellite service, a cable card or an over-the-air digital tuner, surveys by Leichtman and gear maker Scientific-Atlanta say.


Why? About 28% say the picture already is better on an HD set; 23% think the logo labeling broadcasts "available in HD" means they're watching HD. "It's like buying a sports car and never driving more than 50 miles an hour," Leichtman President Bruce Leichtman says. 


The cost of extra HD gear can range from $5 a month for a set-top box to $200 for a new satellite dish.


Experts say stores and cable companies need to better inform buyers. "(Retailers) just want to make a quick sale," Parks Associates analyst Deepa Iyer says. 


Circuit City CEO Alan McCollough disagrees. "It's important for us that you have a great experience when you get home," he says. He concedes some sales representatives make mistakes. 


McCollough and Vitelli say proposed legislation to end analog broadcasts on Feb. 17, 2009, will help them more emphatically steer customers to digital TVs. 


Time Warner Cable is among services planning TV and print ads next year to tell subscribers how to get HD, spokesman Keith Cocozza says. 


It's also among those working to fix poor analog display on HDTVs. Much of cable and local broadcasting still is transmitted in analog only. Stretching that picture onto a digital screen often blurs it, TeleChoice analyst Pat Hurley says. 


"The HD picture is wonderful, but the analog channels look much worse than on your regular TV," says HDTV owner Jerry Schoenburg, 60, of Moorpark, Calif. 


To fix that, many Comcast and Time Warner systems now transmit digital versions of analog channels, and all will by the end of 2006, the companies say.


----------



## DavidS (Sep 27, 2000)

I _know_ I never see "true" HD since I have an ED plasma TV. I'm still constantly astounded by the picture quality, however.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

1080p TV's have been out since the summer. That plus OTA HD equals true HD experience.

But welcome to a year ago.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

I'll tell ya want.... 720p and 1080i look AWFULLY DARN GOOD.... way above and beyond and worth the $$$ I plopped down on it...

Then mix in the 5.1 sound on just a regular TV show.... 

NICE...... When my next windfall of cash comes around... It will be a hard choice between 1080p and and 1080i... (based on volume of 1080p programming)


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

I think that we will reach a point, if we haven't already where the picture quality will be bottlenecked by the content providers compression due to bandwith. With more and more HD content coming out, bandwith will be pushed to the limit leading to more compression. 
The only exceptions to this that I see is OTA broadcasts and maybe HD-DVD and/or Blueray but those have some sort of compression as well.


----------



## A J Ricaud (Jun 25, 2002)

There are very few true 1080p TVs. The big name manufacturers advertise "1080p" TVs, but almost none of them even accept a 1080p signal. Instead, they use de-interlacing circuitry.


----------



## bsnelson (Oct 30, 1999)

Shoot, I'd be happy just to see 1080i and 720p with better end-to-end presentation. DirecTV seems to be a lost cause with this (at least with MPEG2; of course, the MPEG4 stuff won't "technically" be ATSC), as they're downrezzing almost everything now. 

Then there's the issue of so few sets that can fully display 1080i or 720p, although some do a very good job with what they have to work with. 

It's probably a fair statement to say that there's very little TRUE HD going on in the average consumer's household. 

Brad


----------



## kbohip (Dec 30, 2003)

I'll tell you guys how bad it really is with some consumers. I was talking to my sister a few weeks ago who lives a few states away. I mentioned to her how much I was enjoying watching shows in HD with my HD-Tivo. She then responded that she couldn't tell the difference between HD and regular tv. After asking her if she's looked into learning braille yet, I asked her what her components were. She said they had bought an HDtv set, a Sony. She gave me the model and sure enough it was a nice one, 1080i, but with no built in HD tuner. I'm sure you can see where this is going. I then asked her what model DVR she had from Dish. She replied 522.  This is a SD DVR! She had thought she was watching shows in HD only because the networks place the "in HD where available" logo on CSI .

True story. I now wonder how many other people like her are making the same mistake and wonder why they can't tell "HD" from SD.


----------



## Jotas (Mar 19, 2005)

Here's a CNET Q&A article that comments on that issue. I found it easy to understand and thus will probably be investing in one of these when money will permit it.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

It is part of the evolution of "big box store" and internet shopping.

There are very few "experts" out there at the stores to help you understand what you are buying and what you need to truely get it to work. 

I guess there is an advantage to commision sales (to some degree, as they would have made sure they got you the tuner and the "HDTV" antenna too)

Just like the "FCC Deadline" is for all things to be in HD...... (note this is to make a point, I know it is make everything digital broadcasts... not what format)


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

patonenow said:


> ...HDTV sets with crisper pictures and clearer sound are estimated to be in 16 million, or 15%, of U.S. homes...


Here is just one example of why most newspaper reporters, including Paul Davidson of USA Today, should be ashamed to call themselves journalists. They never seem to have anything other than a fuzzy grasp on whatever it is they are reporting about. This statement leads consumers to think that HDTV has "clearer sound" than does non-HD sets, and nothing could be further from the truth. Other than the fact that there may be some sonic advantages to AC-3 and DD (which are also available completely apart from HDTV) but only if the program and station supports it and you have a decent audio system to reproduce it, the concept of "clearer sound" connected to HDTV is all but meaningless. As it works out, sound is pretty much a completely separate issue, and if you are buying HDTV for the "clearer sound", you will be even more disappointed than the folks he is referring to in his article. Not being clear about such things makes him part of the problem rather than part of the solution. There are about a dozen or so such fuzzy statements in this article alone.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

patonenow said:


> Until they broadcast and make tv's in 1080P to me it ain't nothing but almost fraud to call anything to date true HD...


You can certainly latch on to that opinion, but the commonly accepted definition of HD is conforming to either the 720p or 1080i standard. That would mean that the 1280x1080 transmissions from DTV do not meet the strict requirements, even though the resolution is the same in the H dimension as 720p and the same in the V dimension as 1080i.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

You are not watching true HD until you get the new 2160p sets 10 years from now.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Then I guess he'll just have to stick with that old Philco set until then.

I realize you're joking, but there actually is a HD movie system out there with 4096 scanning lines.


----------



## bpratt (Nov 20, 2004)

> I realize you're joking, but there actually is a HD movie system out there with 4096 scanning lines.


Not that I could afford.


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

jamesbobo said:


> You are not watching true HD until you get the new 2160p sets 10 years from now.


exactly, but right now 720p is true HD. at least to me.

it will keep on changing as technology changes...



> Until they broadcast and make tv's in 1080P to me it ain't nothing but almost fraud to call anything to date true HD.


dude get over it. relax and watch HD discovery...


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

TrueHD is a new marketing term the display manufacturer's have come up with to convince people to buy 1080p sets (even though there is no 1080p content). I guess they got at least one person to fall for it...


----------



## patonenow (Jul 22, 2005)

And I wonder WHO coined the term HD LITE?  
Seriously. I put that article for your perusal and I have nothing against HD. But it doesn.t blow me away and someday I will probably get one. But it may interest you to know I have tested right off the satellites with my big dishes and 4D HD TV receiver and with no compression from the little dish programmers there is a WORLD of difference. And that's with my 4 year old toshiba 32".
What I do have a problem with is many selling HD and not telling you all the facts. Then later as you know they will say NOW we got the real deal. And come out and buy it. Enjoy what you have and it will only get better in the future.


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

patonenow said:


> And I wonder WHO coined the term HD LITE?
> Seriously. I put that article for your perusal and I have nothing against HD. But it doesn.t blow me away and someday I will probably get one. But it may interest you to know I have tested right off the satellites with my big dishes and 4D HD TV receiver and with no compression from the little dish programmers there is a WORLD of difference. And that's with my 4 year old toshiba 32".
> What I do have a problem with is many selling HD and not telling you all the facts. Then later as you know they will say NOW we got the real deal. And come out and buy it. Enjoy what you have and it will only get better in the future.


that's all getting subjective and often user related problems are there too. but hey that's life... and for selling... that's in all parts of life not just HD. if you buy something sole based on the sales person you will get burned regardless of what you buy. tv, car, home and beer. a good buyer will do it's own research and get a better picture about things. that's just common sense to me.

and for your big dish and my little dish. i doubt i would be blown away by the difference between the two of them. but i highly enjoy the improvement from SD to HD content.


----------

