First, my brother gets a 50" DLP HD a couple years ago, and he doesn't realize he is not getting HD because he is still watching the non-HD channels (i.e., channel 10 cable rather than channel 910). Now my sister just purchases a 42"' LCD HDTV and hooks up the HDMI cable and says the picture looks fine and doesn't want to spend an extra $5 a month for HD Access from Comcast because the picture looks fine as it is. How do you argue with this? When I try to explain they just get upset. And they don't like the fact that they have bars on the side of the non-HD channels.

Seems like I recall where over 50% of households with HDTV's are not actually receiving HDTV on them. Part of the problem is with the HD source, and part of it is the households. I'm not sure which party is more culpable. Others' experiences?

Please don't tell me she bought a Monster HDMI cable. If so, she could've just got one from Monoprice and paid for HD for a year and a half instead.

[QUOTE=Rammitinski;15478836]Please don't tell me she bought a Monster HDMI cable. If so, she could've just got one from Monoprice and paid for HD


Curious you should say that. She just called me this afternoon where the saleswoman at CC was trying to sell her a $150 Monster cable so she could have 120hz. I referred her to this forum via a link for a discussion of HDMI cables, but since the discussion was a few years old she didn't know whether she could rely on the fact that members here said that such a cable was not needed. Nevertheless, I did convince her to purchase a "normal" HDMI cable for around $35 instead....but now she is hesitant to spend $5 a month for HD access to Comcast in Denver. She says the networks look fine; the rest of the HD channels she can not receive (a message appears that she is not authorized). I called a Comcast rep who told me that if she does not have HD access then she is not receiving HD on the locals even if she is seeing them on the HD channels. Since I am not there I can not be sure whether this is true or not. So I try to convince her to at least spring for $5 to see if the picture quality improves (and to get the other HD channels) for at least a month, but it's like pulling teeth, and she says they will think about it, but my guess is that with the husband's reluctance they are not going to shell out the money.

Since I have DirecTV, could those who have HD via cable tell me whether you need to pay for HD access to receive the local channles in HD? Thanks!

I going to try and find the article but I read, but it was a study that found that some 15% of people could not tell the difference between HD and SD signals when looking at them side-by-side. So with that said, I am sure it is probably way more then double that number. People have no idea at all what HD is, i mean come on, they can't even understand the digital transition.

Since I have DirecTV, could those who have HD via cable tell me whether you need to pay for HD access to receive the local channles in HD? Thanks!

Either Comcast is completely different(I doubt it), or that person on the phone is a liar or clueless(most likely this).

On TWC, all you have to have is a HDTV cable box(SA 8300HD, 4250HD, 3100HD) to get local HD channels. Also included are regular "basic cable" channels like ESPN/2, TNT, TBS, Food, HGTV, History, A&E, Discovery HDT. The only channels you have to pay for "HD Access" is the HDTV Tier that consists of UHD, HD Net/HDN Movies and MGM HD(used to be Mojo).

http://williambryson.blogspot.com/2008/11/sdtv-vs-hdtv-1-in-5-sees-no-difference.html

Here's that article.. well a blog.... with a link!

most people are just stupid....im numb to it at this point.

First, my brother gets a 50" DLP HD a couple years ago, and he doesn't realize he is not getting HD because he is still watching the non-HD channels (i.e., channel 10 cable rather than channel 910). Now my sister just purchases a 42"' LCD HDTV and hooks up the HDMI cable and says the picture looks fine and doesn't want to spend an extra $5 a month for HD Access from Comcast because the picture looks fine as it is. How do you argue with this? When I try to explain they just get upset. And they don't like the fact that they have bars on the side of the non-HD channels.


This is why Stretch-o-vision exists on so many channels.
:(

First, my brother gets a 50" DLP HD a couple years ago, and he doesn't realize he is not getting HD because he is still watching the non-HD channels (i.e., channel 10 cable rather than channel 910). Now my sister just purchases a 42"' LCD HDTV and hooks up the HDMI cable and says the picture looks fine and doesn't want to spend an extra $5 a month for HD Access from Comcast because the picture looks fine as it is. How do you argue with this? When I try to explain they just get upset. And they don't like the fact that they have bars on the side of the non-HD channels.

Seems like I recall where over 50% of households with HDTV's are not actually receiving HDTV on them. Part of the problem is with the HD source, and part of it is the households. I'm not sure which party is more culpable. Others' experiences?


My brother and other family members have done the same thing and we've had the same arguments. Hell, even though they have a Widescreen rear-projection TV, they still purchase the FULLSCREEN 4:3 versions of DVD movies and stretch it to make it fit! Don't like the black bars they say!

I've given up arguing and our family gatherings have gotten easier. They still ask me why I don't ever come over for movie night to watch crappy stretched movies!

Curious you should say that. She just called me this afternoon where the saleswoman at CC was trying to sell her a $150 Monster cable so she could have 120hz. I referred her to this forum via a link for a discussion of HDMI cables, but since the discussion was a few years old she didn't know whether she could rely on the fact that members here said that such a cable was not needed. Nevertheless, I did convince her to purchase a "normal" HDMI cable for around $35 instead....but now she is hesitant to spend $5 a month for HD access to Comcast in Denver. She says the networks look fine; the rest of the HD channels she can not receive (a message appears that she is not authorized). I called a Comcast rep who told me that if she does not have HD access then she is not receiving HD on the locals even if she is seeing them on the HD channels. Since I am not there I can not be sure whether this is true or not. So I try to convince her to at least spring for $5 to see if the picture quality improves (and to get the other HD channels) for at least a month, but it's like pulling teeth, and she says they will think about it, but my guess is that with the husband's reluctance they are not going to shell out the money.I'm confused by this whole thing. If she's buying an HDMI cable (presumably to connect her Comcast STB to the TV), then shouldn't she have access to the HD channels? The SD STBs don't have HDMI, only the HD STBs. She should be getting at least the HD Locals in HD if she's not paying for a higher HD Tier.

I realize that it's difficult to help her since she's in another state, but if you really want to help her, you could download the channel listing for her area and haver her tune to an HD-local channel during primetime. Ask her questions like "where do you see the network logo?" and if a sports event is on, ask "is the score on the top of the screen all the way to the left or closer to the middle?" If she answers "middle" for both questions, then she's watching HD. NOTE - just make sure she has the right picture setting for both the STB and the TV.

I've given up arguing and our family gatherings have gotten easier. They still ask me why I don't ever come over for movie night to watch crappy stretched movies!Don't do it. You have to fight the good fight. Keep working on them and it'll get easier, I promise. Eventually, when all the channels go HD and widescreen, you'll be the winner.

I converted both of my BILs to HDTV and they are now very astute viewers (well at least one of them is) and can spot HD from SD.

The next time you go over, bring your BD player and the some movies (preferably the same ones they have on FullScreen DVD) and shove it in their faces.

ft

if they don't want to shell out $5 a month for the box, what did they spend 7 months worth of rental on a hdmi cable for? they should return it and make comcast give them a hdmi or component cable (frankly, not a whole lot different PQ wise).

The same people who buy HD tv's without paying for HD service and think they are watching HD are the same people who vote in this country. God help us :)

My brother and other family members have done the same thing and we've had the same arguments. Hell, even though they have a Widescreen rear-projection TV, they still purchase the FULLSCREEN 4:3 versions of DVD movies and stretch it to make it fit! Don't like the black bars they say!

I've given up arguing and our family gatherings have gotten easier. They still ask me why I don't ever come over for movie night to watch crappy stretched movies!


Lol, ya know in some cases ignorance is bliss... I think it's even funnier when your arguing over TV.

Either Comcast is completely different(I doubt it), or that person on the phone is a liar or clueless(most likely this).

On TWC, all you have to have is a HDTV cable box(SA 8300HD, 4250HD, 3100HD) to get local HD channels. Also included are regular "basic cable" channels like ESPN/2, TNT, TBS, Food, HGTV, History, A&E, Discovery HDT. The only channels you have to pay for "HD Access" is the HDTV Tier that consists of UHD, HD Net/HDN Movies and MGM HD(used to be Mojo).


If you have a QAM capable TV you do not need a cable box to get retrans local broadcasting through TWC at least here in WLA. You get a ton of digital tiers as well as the local/PBS HD retrans.

From my own personal experience, I think the average joe is coming around but it doesn't help the technology keeps changing from component to hdmi for example.

First, my brother gets a 50" DLP HD a couple years ago, and he doesn't realize he is not getting HD because he is still watching the non-HD channels (i.e., channel 10 cable rather than channel 910). Now my sister just purchases a 42"' LCD HDTV and hooks up the HDMI cable and says the picture looks fine and doesn't want to spend an extra $5 a month for HD Access from Comcast because the picture looks fine as it is. How do you argue with this? When I try to explain they just get upset. And they don't like the fact that they have bars on the side of the non-HD channels.Simple for you, get new relatives.

Seriously, it's been well known for quite some time many HDTV owners don't know they aren't watching HD. Sad but true.

Here's a recent article, but I'd bet the real number is a lot higher than what it claims. http://reviews.cnet.com/8300-18438_7-82.html?keyword=HDTV+owners+who+think+they're+watching+HDTV

most people are just stupid....im numb to it at this point.

Yes, Dr. House!! LOL, seriously, I agree.....

Don't do it. You have to fight the good fight. Keep working on them and it'll get easier, I promise. Eventually, when all the channels go HD and widescreen, you'll be the winner.

I converted both of my BILs to HDTV and they are now very astute viewers (well at least one of them is) and can spot HD from SD.

The next time you go over, bring your BD player and the some movies (preferably the same ones they have on FullScreen DVD) and shove it in their faces.

ft


Screw it. I've been work'in on 'em five years. Perhaps I will take you up on the idea of inviting THEM over for Blu-Ray night on my 52" Samsung LCD (beats the crap out of his faded rear-projection Magnavox) and show them what a real HD can do....as soon as I purchase the Blu-Ray player...waiting for the price to come down on the Samsung 2500 with Netflix streaming....

Didn't want to make a new thread for this, so I guess I'll post it here.

Long story short, went to my cousin's family's house for Christmas/New Year's. They have D* with a new 47" LCD, I was getting excited. My cousin (the wife) said it'll be great because they got a brand new hi-def tv, and they had NFL Sunday Ticket. I get there, SD box, tv connected via coax, the husband and their two children, 6 and 4, kept saying "Isn't HD great?!" I had the hardest time biting my tongue. After a long, quiet conversation alone, I reluctantly get the husband to order a new install for the HD package, after telling him what he thinks he's watching in HD, isn't really HD. I'll check back with them in a couple of weeks and see if he did anything.

And of course they didn't have Super Fan either.

most people are just stupid....im numb to it at this point.

Not stupid, just ignorant. Maybe if the salesmen selling HDTVs actually owned one they could advise their customers about how to get the most out of their purchase. Some people think that the difference in PQ isn't worth the extra money and nothing can be done to change their minds, as long as they are happy who cares. I agree with you.

I am always amazed as well. I was over at a neighbor's for Thanksgiving who had their new 46" HDTV....no HD service...cable box and DVD players were still set up with 4:3 settings (stretch city). I at least fixed the aspect ratio settings.

Out of the 7 neighbors I know who have HD sets, only 2 of us actually have HD service. Two of the others know they don't have HD service, and the other 3 think they do.

It's pretty pathetic, but you just can't educate everyone. If people can't be bothered to do a bit research about the HDTV they are buying and HD service, it's not my problem.

I am always amazed as well. I was over at a neighbor's for Thanksgiving who had their new 46" HDTV....no HD service...cable box and DVD players were still set up with 4:3 settings (stretch city). I at least fixed the aspect ratio settings.

Out of the 7 neighbors I know who have HD sets, only 2 of us actually have HD service. Two of the others know they don't have HD service, and the other 3 think they do.

It's pretty pathetic, but you just can't educate everyone. If people can't be bothered to do a bit research about the HDTV they are buying and HD service, it's not my problem.
Even worse. My neighbors have the hd package from their cable company, but constantly watch the sd channel, instead of the hd channel, which they actually have and PAY for!!:eek:

It's pretty pathetic, but you just can't educate everyone. If people can't be bothered to do a bit research about the HDTV they are buying and HD service, it's not my problem.

I don't blame consumers as much as I did. If you read the thread about Seinfeld in HD you would know I think the attempts to define a standard for HD have become a joke. Everyone is slapping the HD tag on their channels and programming and it's no wonder viewers cannot tell if they are actually watching something in "HD."

Whatever HD is now.

I don't concern myself with whether or not others appreciate quality image as much as I do, until it affects my viewing choices (e.g., Stretch-O-Vision, implementers of which should be executed).

A lot of people are watching zoomed or stretched SD on their displays and they think it looks fine. I've found this especially true with new U-verse customers. A lot of them balk at spending the extra $10/month. Granted, U-verse has better SD quality than the local TWC, Dish or DirectTV offerings, so people think the bump up in SD quality is HD. U-verse also hasn't been pushing their HD as much since their *cough* ability to deliver on multiple sets is a bit limited.

I wonder how many people aren't getting HD because they don't want to buy the $200 HDMI cable that the salesman tells them they need.

I'm working on my parents(mid 50's), they are getting better. Sometimes if I'm visiting home and I see them watching ABC, i'm like ummm check out ch 703 instead of ch 6, it looks better. They claim they keep "forgetting" to go to the HD channel instead. But i've seen them watching movies on TNT "HD"

With Time Warner(at least in upstate NY), an HD cable box doesn't cost a penny more to rent. And all the HD channels(minus HDNets, premiums, and a couple other sports HD channels) are included with standard digital cable, which costs like $1 more than plain old cable, and is even less than regular cable, when you get the dual pack of digi cable/internet! So it's actually cheaper to have digi cable w/ HD! As many know, this certainly is NOT the case with Comcast!

I set them up with this package in late 2007, since they have an older LCD HDTV that doesn't have any HD tuner(s) in it.

My great Uncle is a diff story. I set him up with 2 CECBs, he thinks that he's watching "HD". I just kinda let it go. He's pretty sharp for being 80, and was fully aware of the digital TV transition. He also things it's just great that he gets 3 PBS channels now instead of 1.(the PBS affil uses a main HD channel and 2 subs). He's also amazed that there is no more "snow". thankfully he lives so close to the towers that he can use a bowtie and a dipole, complete with 300ohn twin leads on each, lol.

I wonder how many people aren't getting HD because they don't want to buy the $200 HDMI cable that the salesman tells them they need.I was recently shown a demonstration in a chain store by the department manager between an inexpensive HDMI cable and Monster cable in response to my stating that cables do not make a difference in picture sharpness. Obviously they can make a difference in the amount of errors in the transmission but that is a different issue. There were two computer type monitors side by side with the same material, but the one with the Monster cable looked sharper. A sign in the middle asked if one could see the difference. I then noticed that the two monitors were being fed from two different SD DVD players. I asked them to swap the cables on the monitor end, and the sharper image moved to the other monitor. I then asked if the cable on the DVD player's output could be swapped, and the sharper image moved again. If the cable was responsible for the difference, the last swap should not have altered which monitor had the sharper image.

I came back later that day and checked the settings on the monitors and the DVD players. The monitors were the same, but the DVD players were not. The DVD player feeding the sharp monitor was set to upconvert to the monitor's native resolution, while the softer one was set to 480. I asked one of the sales people if this was a comparison that Monster had set up as the DVDs were Monster cable demo material. He said that it was something that the individual store had set up.

I can see how people might interpret that comparison to mean that significant expensive is required to improve image sharpness and decide to pass on any HDMI cable as the cheaper ones may not help much. A more fundamental problem is that the store looks to be using a dishonest method to sell expensive cable. I didn't know whether to call them on it or report them. They could just plead innocent and counter that anyone could have changed the settings on the DVD players.

My experience is so much different. All my family has HD now, and they all use HD sources. My sister (late 50's) went from not caring about HD, to buying 6 HD sets in the past six months. She also has D*, HD cable, and OTA. Now I kid her about how all the "full screen" dvds she bought over the years will have bars on the sides now. :)

My friends have HD sources, as well. But most of us work in IT, so mabybe they're more "techy" than most folks.

Art

P.S. I did have to warn my sister NOT to buy expensive HDMI cables. Even Walmart cables are 25-35 bucks, when I can get them from CDW for 10.

[QUOTE=Rammitinski;15478836]Since I have DirecTV, could those who have HD via cable tell me whether you need to pay for HD access to receive the local channles in HD? Thanks!

I have comcast, and I'm pretty sure you do NOT have to subscribe to HD to get the locals in HD. With a regular "basic cable" subscription, and by using the TV's built-in HD Tuner, you should be able to pick up the simulcasted HD signals for the locals. I have a coworker who does this. I tried it with my tv (although I have an HD package), and I was able to tune to all of the local HD channels, but not any of the higher tier HDs. It just proves that the locals are being sent unencrypted and can be tuned by any HDTVs built-in tuner.

I'm working on my parents(mid 50's), they are getting better. Sometimes if I'm visiting home and I see them watching ABC, i'm like ummm check out ch 703 instead of ch 6, it looks better. They claim they keep "forgetting" to go to the HD channel instead. But i've seen them watching movies on TNT "HD"

With Time Warner(at least in upstate NY), an HD cable box doesn't cost a penny more to rent. And all the HD channels(minus HDNets, premiums, and a couple other sports HD channels) are included with standard digital cable, which costs like $1 more than plain old cable, and is even less than regular cable, when you get the dual pack of digi cable/internet! So it's actually cheaper to have digi cable w/ HD! As many know, this certainly is NOT the case with Comcast!

I set them up with this package in late 2007, since they have an older LCD HDTV that doesn't have any HD tuner(s) in it.

My great Uncle is a diff story. I set him up with 2 CECBs, he thinks that he's watching "HD". I just kinda let it go. He's pretty sharp for being 80, and was fully aware of the digital TV transition. He also things it's just great that he gets 3 PBS channels now instead of 1.(the PBS affil uses a main HD channel and 2 subs). He's also amazed that there is no more "snow". thankfully he lives so close to the towers that he can use a bowtie and a dipole, complete with 300ohn twin leads on each, lol.

My dad is in early 70s but I got him started on Directv hd in Nov of 2002 when he got his first hd set. I had to train him but he can spot a HD pic and a SD pic and tell the diff between the two. It also helps that with Directv, when you input the channel via the remote, it'll take you to the HD version of that channel if there is one.

It really does seem to be up to those of us who understand to help those who don't. The fact is some people get it, some don't, and some do, but don't care. I have examples of all 3 in my immediate family

My 70 year old father gets it- I bought an HD set in the summer of 2004. He made a 200 mile trip to my place to wait on delivery and help me set things up. He could see the HD difference immediately and when he visited always watched things on the HD channels. Last year he finally bought himself a 37" LCD and is loving HD. When the satellite installer arrived he was shocked to find Dad already hdmi cables (bought from Monoprice of course). He is even kicking around picking up a blu-ray player now that he has seen how good it looks on my set. Dad gets it.

My mother and step-father really don't get it. They bought a very nice 42" LCD a couple of years ago. At first they had no idea they were not watching HD, and stretched everything (shiver). They have finally figured out they are not watching HD, but don't fully understand how to get it. I have tried explaining to them what they need, but I get blank stares. They don't get it.

Then there is my little brother. He was actually the first member of the family to have an HD television in the home as he was working for a retail store that sold furniture and televisions. He didn't have an HD source for the longest time. In the last year he bought a couple 42" LCDs and has them hooked up to cable. They have built in tuners so he can get the HD locals on cable at no additional cost. He knows all this, but does not care enough to make sure he is watching the HD channel. I spent a couple weeks with him recently and it was almost comedic as every time I watched his set I found the HD local channels and left them there, but when I returned they were back on the SD local channels. It was sad really. It took all my willpower not to change his setting so that there was no stretching, but I was a guest. He gets it, he just doesn't care.

All we can do is get the word out and let people decide for themselves. Once we have informed them, and offered to help, it is up to them to decide if they have the interest, the time, or the money to watch HD. Fortunately, their failure to understand or to care does not stop me from enjoying glorious HD. It is their choice, even if it is the wrong one. :)

Maybe I should post in the other threads.
'Consumers Continue to Buy HDTV Sets at Strong Rate, But Many Pass On HD Service'
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1088894&highlight=house

Over the winter holidays, my grandparents got a LCD HDTV and immediately upgraded to an HD-DVR w/HD service. Good for them!
Some people, after spending a lot of money on their new HDTV, don't want to upgrade STB's w/HD service.

Maybe I should post in the other threads.
'Consumers Continue to Buy HDTV Sets at Strong Rate, But Many Pass On HD Service'
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1088894&highlight=house

Over the winter holidays, my grandparents got a LCD HDTV and immediately upgraded to an HD-DVR w/HD service. Good for them!
Some people, after spending a lot of money on their new HDTV, don't want to upgrade STB's w/HD service.

Perhaps it's a case of some people buying HDTV's because they want HDTV, and others buying HDTV's because they need a TV and want to make sure they have DTV, but not necessarily HDTV. In the first case it's worth it to upgrade their cable/sat to HD, but in the latter it wouldn't be worth to extra. Just my semi-geek opinion.

I wonder how many people aren't getting HD because they don't want to buy the $200 HDMI cable that the salesman tells them they need.Probably a lot, but pretty much any HDMI cable, even the cheapest ones available, will all work about the same.

Jeeze, a little over a month to go before the digital transition is a done deal and these stories of clueless family members just go on and on. I have my own collection of these as well that I have reported on in various AVS threads. I guess these tales will continue for many years.

Speaking of that, just the other day I was reading this forum, as I have done daily since 2002, I wondered to myself isn't it about time that a forum labeled HDTV Programming is about to become not needed anymore? After all, in those early years when HDTV was new and any new programs, broadcasts, networks etc. were in HD there was actually good reason to talk about it. You know,is the Super Bowl going to be in HD? The Academy Awards? The thrill of HDNet Bikini Destination, the soap opera called VOOM - all these fun threads that those of us who were HDTV pioneers loved to read about. But here we are in January 2009 and there's still a thread about the NFL playoffs being in HD, and that's HD with an exclamation mark! I don't know but this thread about clueless HDTV buyers/owners/viewers/non-viewers just got to me. Guess i'll go back to bed, now.

Happy New Year (in HD, of course)!

I was recently shown a demonstration in a chain store by the department manager between an inexpensive HDMI cable and Monster cable in response to my stating that cables do not make a difference in picture sharpness. Obviously they can make a difference in the amount of errors in the transmission but that is a different issue. There were two computer type monitors side by side with the same material, but the one with the Monster cable looked sharper. A sign in the middle asked if one could see the difference. I then noticed that the two monitors were being fed from two different SD DVD players. I asked them to swap the cables on the monitor end, and the sharper image moved to the other monitor. I then asked if the cable on the DVD player's output could be swapped, and the sharper image moved again. If the cable was responsible for the difference, the last swap should not have altered which monitor had the sharper image.

I came back later that day and checked the settings on the monitors and the DVD players. The monitors were the same, but the DVD players were not. The DVD player feeding the sharp monitor was set to upconvert to the monitor's native resolution, while the softer one was set to 480. I asked one of the sales people if this was a comparison that Monster had set up as the DVDs were Monster cable demo material. He said that it was something that the individual store had set up.

I can see how people might interpret that comparison to mean that significant expensive is required to improve image sharpness and decide to pass on any HDMI cable as the cheaper ones may not help much. A more fundamental problem is that the store looks to be using a dishonest method to sell expensive cable. I didn't know whether to call them on it or report them. They could just plead innocent and counter that anyone could have changed the settings on the DVD players.

Report them to the Better Business Bureau and call whatever local TV station most reports on shady business practices in the area.

I've given up arguing and our family gatherings have gotten easier. They still ask me why I don't ever come over for movie night to watch crappy stretched movies!

Do you tell them why?;)

My M-I-L was the same way about the black bars. Then one night I showed her the Directors comments from the Sydney Pollack film The Interpreter. He goes though and shows side-by-side what scene content you are missing when they Pan and Scan a film. It was eye opening for her and she finally agreed that the black bars were not so bad.

I'm working on my parents(mid 50's), they are getting better. Sometimes if I'm visiting home and I see them watching ABC, i'm like ummm check out ch 703 instead of ch 6, it looks better. They claim they keep "forgetting" to go to the HD channel instead.

Your parents and my parents must be siblings.:D

I had my parents all set up with the older DirecTV HD DVR and they had OTA and everything. I would come over and they would be watching the SD ESPN or Network football in SD even though all they had to do was go to the HD version.

Well, I have managed to thwart their SD viewing somewhat with their new DirecTV HD DVR as I can hide the SD duplicates. So now when Dad goes go to ESPN, he gets it in HD. He can't even get to the SD version.

But I didn't even bother to install the AM21 OTA tuner because they won't use it. Hopefully our locals will be up soon in HD and they will be totoally thwarted from their SD viewing.:)

Dish advertises an HD-only package, which is tempting. My cableco requires me to subscribe to the entire worthless analog tier before allowing me to pay them extra for the only thing I want...the HD. I've told them they have until the end of February to stop that practice, or they're fired.

Do you tell them why?;)

My M-I-L was the same way about the black bars. Then one night I showed her the Directors comments from the Sydney Pollack film The Interpreter. He goes though and shows side-by-side what scene content you are missing when they Pan and Scan a film. It was eye opening for her and she finally agreed that the black bars were not so bad.

That reminds me I have a DVD that has a similar feature...I can't think of what it is now, but I want to say Die Hard (the trilogy with the big grey cases). I'll have to check later. It was a great thing to put on back before I had an HDTV and people would come over and complain about the black bars.

Yes, Die Hard has a featurette of widescreen vs. pan & scan.

I suppose it is no use trying to educate folks on OAR versus crap-o-vision. But if their idiocy eliminates OAR as a choice, then that is problematic. Everyone who has decision authority on how their network's content is displayed, who willfully opts for non-OAR or opts for Stretch-O-Vision, should be executed.

That anyone could be so foolish and ill-informed as to buy an HDTV and then watch only SD on it is enough to make strong men weep. Perhaps the number one little secret about HDTV sets is that SD content looks worse on them than it did on 4:3 flat screen SD sets, such as the Sony Wega. H.L. Mencken probably put it best:

"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."

Indeed! :)

That anyone could be so foolish and ill-informed as to buy an HDTV and then watch only SD on it is enough to make strong men weep. Perhaps the number one little secret about HDTV sets is that SD content looks worse on them than it did on 4:3 flat screen SD sets, such as the Sony Wega. H.L. Mencken probably put it best:

"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."

Indeed! :)

take a look over at the lcd and plasma forums and you will be shocked.
many threads from avs members asking about poor SD quailty on their new 1500.00 HDTV's!

Dish advertises an HD-only package, which is tempting. My cableco requires me to subscribe to the entire worthless analog tier before allowing me to pay them extra for the only thing I want...the HD. I've told them they have until the end of February to stop that practice, or they're fired.

I'd be angry if I didn't get the analog versions of the channels. I need them for networks like TBS, TNT, Food, History and others that stretch SD content.

I have comcast, and I'm pretty sure you do NOT have to subscribe to HD to get the locals in HD. With a regular "basic cable" subscription, and by using the TV's built-in HD Tuner, you should be able to pick up the simulcasted HD signals for the locals. I have a coworker who does this. I tried it with my tv (although I have an HD package), and I was able to tune to all of the local HD channels, but not any of the higher tier HDs. It just proves that the locals are being sent unencrypted and can be tuned by any HDTVs built-in tuner.

The FCC requires cable companies to include HD locals as unencrypted QAM as part of basic cable. They don't have to do a very good job of supporting this functionality, they are free to move the damn things around as they please and the support people often deny that they have it, but they are required to provide it.

To add a little bit of variety - a couple of cases where the home (or something related) is the limiting factor:

A good friend of mine has a very expensive home (pretty much a small mansion - he's the creator of the Leisure Suit Larry game, which might bring a bit of nostalgia to some of you), with a very nice, purpose built, professionally installed home theater room. The high-end audio system integrated into the room is just, well, outstanding.

But some months back I was over watching the last half of a Seahawks game - pretty poor SD, with a much smaller screen than I would have expected (for a purpose built room). Now my friend is very technically astute and understands HD pretty well, but is at the mercy of his HT installers (and I wouldn't be surprised if the installers still are using component connections and not messing with HDMI). They might install plasma, but there's really no easy way to put in a projector (which would be the best choice for a nice room like that).

I've been anxious to invite him over to see my setup, which probably costs a tenth of his (and is in the basement of our much less expensive house), but is still technically significantly superior (at least on the video end). Specially since I'm about to pull out my (aging but still beloved) CRT front projector and replace it with a new digital (wish I could afford the JVC RS20, but it will probably be the Epson 6500).

Case 2 - my brother-in-law (and his family) really enjoys watching the big screen at my house (110 inch diagonal) and has kept up on most of the HD technologies (including starting to understand some of the differences in the Blu-ray audio codecs). I think he wants to put something nice and big and fully HD in place, but they only have a TV in the family room area. Which does not have any place to put in a HT, or even a large screen display (the TV has to fit in a nook above the fireplace in a corner, with a pretty small width).

His wife will not let him remodel. Any of the rooms. Or install anything that looks "out of place".

Plus, he's a little bit of a tightwad. Even though he makes at least twice the income I do (medical doctor). And has less than 100K to pay on their house (probably worth 400 or 500K).

So ... there's people with the means (easily!) and the understanding (and desire) for HD that are living with (crappy) SD.

:)

Cliff

I think some of it is the channel number changes. the SD feed will be say ch.10. but the HD feed is way up at 910.
I've got direct and like the fact that all or most of the HD channels are right next to one another. often times they are the same channel number.


anyway, my story would be my friends parents place. they have a 63" HD plasma. but also won't spent the exta $5. worse yet its just strait cable so most of the channels are analog cable woth snow and such. I don't get it you'll spend several thousand on a TV but the few extra bucks a month is to much...

My TWC system has a message that pops up when you tune to the analog versions of channels like ESPN, TNT, etc that says "Press Select For Enhanced" and a menu box comes on that lets you tune to ESPNHD (or whatever channel HD). At least that kind of helps the viewer, especially if they don't know the new number and still tune to the old one.

The FCC requires cable companies to include HD locals as unencrypted QAM as part of basic cable. They don't have to do a very good job of supporting this functionality, they are free to move the damn things around as they please and the support people often deny that they have it, but they are required to provide it.
You might believe this to be true, but is in fact undetermined. They are required to provide, at a minimum, the SD version of the local channel but that's all. WPBA, for example, is the ATL PBS station, and is only available in SD on Comcast even though they also broadcast in HD.
There have been questions about whether must carry applies to ALL broadcasts from a station, but I don't think anything was decided on that.

People are complaining about the upcoming transition to DTV as if it is some big burden. This was to be expected, I suppose, given that so many people are such mindless lumps. There's actually a $250M proposal to increase the assistance in the transition! If anyone is unaware of the transition now, and is shocked to get only snow on their analog-OTA-only TV, let them ask a friend or neighbor what's up. Don't we help one another anymore? Are we all going to look to D.C. for solutions to minuscule issues? That is a travesty.

So, extrapolating from DTV to HDTV, no one should be surprised if many who own an HDTV have no concept of HD content. Let them watch crap; just please provide some good-quality content for those who appreciate it.

The FCC requires cable companies to include HD locals as unencrypted QAM as part of basic cable. They don't have to do a very good job of supporting this functionality, they are free to move the damn things around as they please and the support people often deny that they have it, but they are required to provide it.

Technically, cable companies are not required to provide the HD locals un-encrypted (although most do). I think the wording is that they have to provide clearQAM local channels, so technically, they would be allowed to provide the SD channel as clearQAM and encrypt the HD feed.

But it's a moot point for most as the HD locals are typically available in clearQAM ... and in many instances, the PSIP data is passed through so that your HD locals will show up in the "familiar" channel slots regardless of whether the cableco switches the QAM assignments.

ft

For my non-HD friends and family, I've become a small "PQ Hero" by simply connecting an Svideo cable from their boxes to the TVs. Then doing an A/B comparison (vs coax) on the Weather Channel comparing the colors, text and graphics....yeah I'm a genius.

I personally think most of the "I don't see a difference" talk, is from stubborn people's forever battle with GETTING GLASSES....and having their vision corrected back to 20/20 or better. I'm technically 20/20 cause I can read that line, but see MUCH greater detail at a distance with glasses/contacts. I don't need my glasses to drive but what a difference....and for watching TV, I don't lke watching my HDTVs without glasses. I have friends that squint on the golf course, and always lose their ball in flight, while I'm telling them where it landed.

That fact is, people simply don't want glasses, and don't want contacts, so they're walking around with poor vision, and they can't see/perceive the added details in HDTV.;)...thank you.

For my non-HD friends and family, I've become a small "PQ Hero" by simply connecting an Svideo cable from their boxes to the TVs. Then doing an A/B comparison (vs coax) on the Weather Channel comparing the colors, text and graphics....yeah I'm a genius.

I personally think most of the "I don't see a difference" talk, is from stubborn people's forever battle with GETTING GLASSES....and having their vision corrected back to 20/20 or better. I'm technically 20/20 cause I can read that line, but see MUCH greater detail at a distance with glasses/contacts. I don't need my glasses to drive but what a difference....and for watching TV, I don't lke watching my HDTVs without glasses. I have friends that squint on the golf course, and always lose their ball in flight, while I'm telling them where it landed.

That fact is, people simply don't want glasses, and don't want contacts, so they're walking around with poor vision, and they can't see/perceive the added details in HDTV.;)...thank you.

I work with a guy who's legally blind. He keeps telling me how much better HD is compared to SD.

I think he's lying...








I'm kidding, of course, with the second sentence. However, the first sentence is true. I would suspect HD is easier for him to see.

I'm kidding, of course, with the second sentence. However, the first sentence is true. I would suspect HD is easier for him to see.How do you figure a legally blind guys can see HDTV better than SDTV ?...it's colored images moving around at that point. You must not have corrective lenses.
All I can tell you is without my glasses (again legally 20/20), SD looks like crap, and HD looks like crap. With my glasses, SD still looks like crap and HD looks glorious.

[QUOTE=igreg;15478892]
. . .It just proves that the locals are being sent unencrypted and can be tuned by any HDTVs built-in tuner.

Correct. I read in another thread that it was required by law that the cable companies must pass any local channels unencrypted. This includes any local channels that are broadcasting in HD. So, as long as the TV has a QAM tuner, which most of them now do, you should be able to receive local channels in HD even with the "raw" cable - no STB.

So, in the earlier thread where the Comcast representative was saying the the local channels weren't truly HD unless you paid Comcast for the HD package was just blowing smoke.

The same people who buy HD tv's without paying for HD service and think they are watching HD are the same people who vote in this country. God help us :)

Some of us are watching HD on our TVs without paying for HD service -- all it takes is an antenna...

More generally, I do understand the confusion and frustration regarding non-technically oriented viewers who think that they are watching HD when they aren't -- or who simply can't be bothered to find the HD version of a channel. Because it really is confusing compared to previous TV upgrades -- neither color TV nor stereo broadcasts, nor surround sound required that you had to tune to a different channel or (for cable subscribers) pay for a new service tier. All you had to do was buy the new television, connect it to your existing signal source, and you were good to go.

But HD isn't like that. For broadcast, it isn't so bad -- turning to 11.1 instead of 11 for CBS isn't all that complicated. But even then, some confusion can result, because not all viewers understand why they are getting two different versions of the same station. But the situation with cable is worse -- for a broadcast station, you're maybe going to 811 instead of 11 to get CBS, and the same thing applies to all of your other channels that have HD versions. For those who don't care as much about this stuff as we do, I can understand why some of them might just stop when they find the program that they're not looking for, without worrying as to whether it is the HD or not.

Correct. I read in another thread that it was required by law that the cable companies must pass any local channels unencrypted. This includes any local channels that are broadcasting in HD. So, as long as the TV has a QAM tuner, which most of them now do, you should be able to receive local channels in HD even with the "raw" cable - no STB.

So, in the earlier thread where the Comcast representative was saying the the local channels weren't truly HD unless you paid Comcast for the HD package was just blowing smoke.
The must carry provision for passing local channels unencrypted does not mean that they have to pass ALL signals for those channels unencrypted. As ftaok said, it's not clear that providing only one signal (SD or HD) is insufficient to comply with the rules. As with WPBA in the ATL only in SD on Comcast, I'm sure there are many examples of channels only provided in one form in the clear.

Didn't want to make a new thread for this, so I guess I'll post it here.

Long story short, went to my cousin's family's house for Christmas/New Year's. They have D* with a new 47" LCD, I was getting excited. My cousin (the wife) said it'll be great because they got a brand new hi-def tv, and they had NFL Sunday Ticket. I get there, SD box, tv connected via coax, the husband and their two children, 6 and 4, kept saying "Isn't HD great?!" I had the hardest time biting my tongue. After a long, quiet conversation alone, I reluctantly get the husband to order a new install for the HD package, after telling him what he thinks he's watching in HD, isn't really HD. I'll check back with them in a couple of weeks and see if he did anything.

And of course they didn't have Super Fan either.

So why bite your tongue? In such situations, I just tell them why they are not seeing HD. My family and friends have learned over the years that I am the guy who knows about HD, so they come to me to advise them on TV's, cables, etc., which I normally set up for them anyway.

Most of us here understand that J6P has not got a clue about HD so I take every chance that I get to enlighten folks.

...

But HD isn't like that. For broadcast, it isn't so bad -- turning to 11.1 instead of 11 for CBS isn't all that complicated. ....

For me, one of the worst issues with switching to the HD channels is the inherently slow channel switching speed (and the mind-bogglingly strange behavior of some tuners when changing channels). Channel surfing on HD tuners is so painful that I've (mostly) given up on surfing.

For me, one of the worst issues with switching to the HD channels is the inherently slow channel switching speed (and the mind-bogglingly strange behavior of some tuners when changing channels). Channel surfing on HD tuners is so painful that I've (mostly) given up on surfing.
That's a problem that has come about because of resolution settings. In order to properly display 3 TV resolution standards, your TV needs to scale them.

SD would literally be a postage stamp on your screen if it wasn't scaled to your TV resolution, especially on a 1080p set. If it wasn't scaled, it would be about half the height and a quater the width of your average 1080p set.

720p material would also fail to be sized correctly on a 1080p set.

1080i/p material would be much to large to fit on a 720p set.

So, each channel change between networks with different resolutions means the TV (or the box) has to refresh itself and set the scaling to make everything fit the vertical resolution of the set.

This wasn't a problem when everything was 480i.

. . . So why bite your tongue? In such situations, I just tell them why they are not seeing HD. . .

The problem is, in some families, you just can't bring certain subjects up without starting a fight. I have a brother-in-law that my wife and her other brothers and one sister used to talk about (when he wasn't around). They used to joke that "You never talk about I-40 or life insurance." Either one of those subjects would always result in him going on a tirade either about where he thought I-40 went, or about the fact that (to him) life insurance was a rip off and no person in their right mind would ever purchase it.

Fortuneately, this brother-in-law has mellowed as he has gotten older and the last couple of times I saw him, we had a very good visit.

"You never talk about I-40 or life insurance." Either one of those subjects would always result in him going on a tirade either about where he thought I-40 went...

I had a professor in business school who said, "Don't argue about facts, look them up." If you have a brother in law who thinks I-40 goes somewhere, pull out a current map of the interstate and show him whether he is right or not.

Likewise, I think it may be pointless to merely tell a family member that they may not be watching HD content on their shiny new Vizio LCD tv. Instead, hook up a $4 UHF bowtie antenna and show them how much better the HD programming is. They ought to see a striking difference in picture quality. If they can't see a difference, their vision probably isn't good enough for them to drive safely.:eek:

If they can't see a difference, their vision probably isn't good enough for them to drive safely.:eek:I can't see a difference without my glasses, and I'm "technically" 20/20....I can read the 20/20 line.
With glasses, I can read the lowest line, which is 20/10, so I enjoy every bit of HDTV.

George, if that's the case with your glasses off, I think your vision may be slipping.
Happens to the best. :)That's not what I meant...try comparing a DVD, then popping in the Blu Ray of that same movie. Without my glasses, it would be difficult to perceive much difference. With my glasses, it's glorious.

That's my point in this thread....there a TONS of Joe America's out there that have less than perfect vision, therefore they just don't see that great a difference.;)

I had a professor in business school who said, "Don't argue about facts, look them up." If you have a brother in law who thinks I-40 goes somewhere, pull out a current map of the interstate and show him whether he is right or not.

This whole "I-40" argument was back when I-40 was not yet completed in the Eastern part of North Carolina. I think at the time, I-40 may have only gone as far as Raleigh, but had not yet been completed all the way to Wilmington. Anyway, my wife and her family were all originally from the coast of North Carolina. All of them had moved to Georgia, but the oldest brother had moved back to NC. I don't remember how it all came about, but I think one of the other siblings had tried to tell the oldest brother that I-40 was going to be built terminating in Wilmington and that is when the fireworks began. I don't remember now where he thought it was going to end, but he was wrong. You just couldn't tell him he was wrong -- so we all just always joked -- "Just don't talk about I-40".

So, even though it was probably widely published and set in stone where I-40 was going to be built, it wasn't necessarily on any maps at the time.

Most people are still a newbie about HD. I guess at least 40% of people didnt know that they have HD.

That's not what I meant...try comparing a DVD, then popping in the Blu Ray of that same movie. Without my glasses, it would be difficult to perceive much difference. With my glasses, it's glorious.

That's my point in this thread....there a TONS of Joe America's out there that have less than perfect vision, therefore they just don't see that great a difference.;)

I think your vision may be worse than you think then. How big is your HD display, and how far do you sit from the screen?

I've never heard an A/V enthusiast say such a thing before.

Art

Consider these factors.

Take a look at what most of these clueless people have been watching television on for years -- old small dim CRTs that barely work. The PQ improvement of just switching to a new television is far greater than the added improvement of HD. Suddenly they're looking at large bright colorful images on every channel. This alone makes people so happy that they don't care that HD will look a little better.

NTSC receivers have improved a lot over the years. They apply so much digital processing that NTSC can look nearly as clean and sharp as digital SD to most people now.

A quick pass through the HD cable channels will show that there is a lot of content that's still upconverted SD or mediocre quality HD with annoying blocking and other artifacts. Their new HDTVs are showing them flaws that they've never seen before and aren't visible on the SD channels. To many people, this just looks wrong and they'd rather choose the cleaner looking channels.

I get especially frustrated when I check into a hotel and find the room has a nice flatscreen LCD (usually) that is being fed SD only, through a coax cable, and stretched. Then they have a proprietary remote that brings up their in-house VOD/PPV/pay-your-bill channel and won't let you into the set-up menu.

I found the setup on an LG once since it was the same as my STB, and managed to fix the stretch. Then the next time I turned it on, it defaulted back to strech-o-vision. This was a brand new Marriott.

I was in a B&B about a year ago that was sending the DVD signal to their LCDs by composite even though both devices were equipped with HDMI jacks. The picture was so bad everything had a green tinge to it. Then the screen was mounted in a corner above the fireplace and the heat interfered with IR signals from the remote...

What bothers me more than anything is going into a sports bar with lots of nice big flat screen TVs.. and all of them are being fed by SD sources. It really makes me wonder A) why they bothered to get nice flat-panel TVs in the first place and B) if they are even aware that what's on the screens is not HD. Fortunately for me I live in Manhattan so there's always options, but there's at least a couple of places near where I live that I would otherwise consider good sports bars except for the complete lack of HD. As such, I'll always look elsewhere, even if it means going further away from my apartment than I'd like.

So, I've got my new flat panel LCD (Samsung LN52S750) and a Blu-ray player so I KNOW how good HD can look. But, I'm currently on Directv SD. To upgrade to HD means I lose my TIVO, I have to buy a Directv HD DVR for $200 (that I won't even own), have to have a new dish installed, upgrade to a more-costly package, pay the DVR fee, and pay the extra HD fee. In all, nearly doubling my monthly TV bill. Cable is not an option where I live. So making the move to HD broadcast tv is painfully expensive.

The question I have is how much HD content is really available? I'm not a football fan, so the sports packages are of no interest to me. I tend to watch MSNBC a lot and I believe it's still not in HD. I also watch AMC a lot and I know old movies aren't in HD. I don't intend to subscribe to HBO or the other "premium" movie channels but I do like to get Bravo, HGTV, Discovery and that class of channels. It appears, from what I read, that even the HD channels are still broadcasting a lot of stuff in SD. Even news channels, which may broadcast in HD apparently have to use content from other sources that's not HD. So I have to question the value of upgrading at this point. I'm really curious to know if there's enough content to make it worthwhile. I can see the difference between HD and SD (at least via DVDs) but, frankly, SD doesn't look all that horrible from 9 feet away.

Why, you might ask, did I buy an HDTV in the first place? Because my 15+ year-old rear-screen projection TV was in bad shape and I wanted to get the latest technology. I definitely want HD content (especially when the Winter Olympics come around in 2010) so I want to be ready for it. I'm just not convinced broadcast HDTV is really there yet. Am I wrong?

So, I've got my new flat panel LCD (Samsung LN52S750) and a Blu-ray player so I KNOW how good HD can look. But, I'm currently on Directv SD. To upgrade to HD means I lose my TIVO, I have to buy a Directv HD DVR for $200 (that I won't even own), have to have a new dish installed, upgrade to a more-costly package, pay the DVR fee, and pay the extra HD fee. In all, nearly doubling my monthly TV bill. Cable is not an option where I live. So making the move to HD broadcast tv is painfully expensive.Then how about Dish Network?

Also, there is more than enough OTA network HD now to make it worth putting up an antenna, if you can receive anything from wheverever you're at.

So, I've got my new flat panel LCD (Samsung LN52S750) and a Blu-ray player so I KNOW how good HD can look. But, I'm currently on Directv SD. To upgrade to HD means I lose my TIVO, I have to buy a Directv HD DVR for $200 (that I won't even own), have to have a new dish installed, upgrade to a more-costly package, pay the DVR fee, and pay the extra HD fee. In all, nearly doubling my monthly TV bill. Cable is not an option where I live. So making the move to HD broadcast tv is painfully expensive.

The question I have is how much HD content is really available? I'm not a football fan, so the sports packages are of no interest to me. I tend to watch MSNBC a lot and I believe it's still not in HD. I also watch AMC a lot and I know old movies aren't in HD. I don't intend to subscribe to HBO or the other "premium" movie channels but I do like to get Bravo, HGTV, Discovery and that class of channels. It appears, from what I read, that even the HD channels are still broadcasting a lot of stuff in SD. Even news channels, which may broadcast in HD apparently have to use content from other sources that's not HD. So I have to question the value of upgrading at this point. I'm really curious to know if there's enough content to make it worthwhile. I can see the difference between HD and SD (at least via DVDs) but, frankly, SD doesn't look all that horrible from 9 feet away.

Why, you might ask, did I buy an HDTV in the first place? Because my 15+ year-old rear-screen projection TV was in bad shape and I wanted to get the latest technology. I definitely want HD content (especially when the Winter Olympics come around in 2010) so I want to be ready for it. I'm just not convinced broadcast HDTV is really there yet. Am I wrong?

A new HD Tivo for D* will happen. Maybe later this year. You can add HD to any D* package. Unless you have some grandfathered in package.

Then how about Dish Network?

Also, there is more than enough OTA network HD now to make it worth putting up an antenna, if you can receive anything from wheverever you're at.

Dish doesn't offer the channel lineup I prefer and doesn't really seem to be any less expensive anyway. I have tried attaching an attenna to my TV but I'm at least 40-50 miles away from the nearest TV station, so I wouldn't hold much hope of getting anything.

My question though, is more along the lines of what percentage of shows are actually in 16:9 HDTV format even if the station says they broadcast in HD. For example, I watch re-runs of The West Wing a lot, which if I recall, are on Bravo. I think Bravo is available in HD but I'm pretty sure The West Wing isn't. So that show is going to look just as bad no matter what. I suspect there's more SD content out there than HD but, since I don't have HD, I don't really know.

What bothers me more than anything is going into a sports bar with lots of nice big flat screen TVs.. and all of them are being fed by SD sources. It really makes me wonder A) why they bothered to get nice flat-panel TVs in the first place and B) if they are even aware that what's on the screens is not HD. Fortunately for me I live in Manhattan so there's always options, but there's at least a couple of places near where I live that I would otherwise consider good sports bars except for the complete lack of HD. As such, I'll always look elsewhere, even if it means going further away from my apartment than I'd like.

A general rule of thumb is if a Sports bar uses a dish they will have only SD.

You might believe this to be true, but is in fact undetermined. They are required to provide, at a minimum, the SD version of the local channel but that's all. WPBA, for example, is the ATL PBS station, and is only available in SD on Comcast even though they also broadcast in HD.
There have been questions about whether must carry applies to ALL broadcasts from a station, but I don't think anything was decided on that.

Actually, they have an HD carrier, but they have not broadcast anything in HD since late last summer. Over in the local ATL OTA thread, as far as we know, there are no plans from WPBA to broadcast any actual HD in the near future.

I think your vision may be worse than you think then. How big is your HD display, and how far do you sit from the screen?

I've never heard an A/V enthusiast say such a thing before.

Art12' back from a 42" plasma, and in the Theater it's 15' from 110" screen. The difference is more dramatic on the 42" as everything is smaller. But if I didn't have corrective lenses, HDTV wouldn't be that great.
IOW, I don't go into the Theater without my contacts in or glasses on.

A PERFECT example is my father, he wears glasses for distance, but he feels he only needs them "for driving" for addede safety. What about when we're at the beach ?, ball game ? golfing ? anything outside ? If glasses help perfect his distance vision, don't you think glasses will help seeing tiny pixels from 15' away ?When he comes over the Eagles game, I tell him to bring his glasses....he never does and always says, "the game looks good, but it's not that great".

Add my wife to the list of people who have the technology but is too lazy to learn the new HD channel numbers.

We got one of the 32" Sony 720p LCD on Black Friday and I finally got time to go to TW and get an HD DVR to replace the SD DVR that was in the living room. It took two trips to get a box that worked (gotta love TW!), but it's hooked up and working. I come home from work or from running an errand and she has House on USA, not USA HD! She gets up to go to the bathroom and I change it and she goes on with life like nothing's changed. When I point out the difference, she acknowledges that it looks better, but that she didn't want to have to hunt for the HD version. :eek:

Women. :rolleyes:

12' back from a 42" plasma, and in the Theater it's 15' from 110" screen. The difference is more dramatic on the 42" as everything is smaller. But if I didn't have corrective lenses, HDTV wouldn't be that great.
IOW, I don't go into the Theater without my contacts in or glasses on.

A PERFECT example is my father, he wears glasses for distance, but he feels he only needs them "for driving" for addede safety. What about when we're at the beach ?, ball game ? golfing ? anything outside ? If glasses help perfect his distance vision, don't you think glasses will help seeing tiny pixels from 15' away ?When he comes over the Eagles game, I tell him to bring his glasses....he never does and always says, "the game looks good, but it's not that great".


12 feet back for a 42" television is too far...you will miss some of the detail, especially if your vision is not 20/20.

My answer is unfortunately no...

My cable provider allows its customers to convert their digital cable boxes into HD boxes free of charge.

When I told my friends that all they had to do was call the cable company to make the conversion they declined saying that it was too much of a hassle and they were happy with the way their TV looked now.

HD programming is also confusing when you're not a real tech savvy person (which they're not) and I know they would of had a difficult time making sure the channel was on HD and that their TV was set to the right component.

Then you have to explain that not every channel is HD and not every program on an HD channel is actually in HD.

Those are problems the average person can't be bothered with; they just want to turn on the TV and start watching immediately.

I get especially frustrated when I check into a hotel and find the room has a nice flatscreen LCD (usually) that is being fed SD only, through a coax cable, and stretched. Then they have a proprietary remote that brings up their in-house VOD/PPV/pay-your-bill channel and won't let you into the set-up menu.

I found the setup on an LG once since it was the same as my STB, and managed to fix the stretch. Then the next time I turned it on, it defaulted back to strech-o-vision. This was a brand new Marriott.

I was in a B&B about a year ago that was sending the DVD signal to their LCDs by composite even though both devices were equipped with HDMI jacks. The picture was so bad everything had a green tinge to it. Then the screen was mounted in a corner above the fireplace and the heat interfered with IR signals from the remote...

I laugh every time I'm watching one of those travel shows that feature the most expensive hotels and hotel rooms; they're all decked out with plasma and LCD TVs touting their luxory...

But I'm sure that all of those TVs are not equipped with HD programming.

I don't blame these hotels for not offering HD programming considering that 99% of guests probably won't take advantage of it because its too complicated.

I do believe that every hotel in America will eventually have HDTVs in all of its rooms... But considering most hotels have been too stingy to even provide basic cable after all these years, the odds of any of them ever offering HD cable are not very good.

12 feet back for a 42" television is too far...you will miss some of the detail, especially if your vision is not 20/20.My point exactly. You won't see the details unless you have perfect vision. My family room is 15x20. Most couches are 10+ feet away, that's just an average for a comfortable room.
But even in the Theater at 110", my glasses show more detail for anything in HD, more realism, more of the 3D effect, depth, and WOW factor. Like the "looking through a window" effect.

What do people with less than perfect vision, see ?...they're not seeing the WOW factor, period.

I've been pleasantly surprised personally. My 72 year old grandfather has a 50" Samsung plasma on a swing mount in his bedroom. He has a 52" Samsung LCD in the living room with 5.1. He has HD via two DCH6416 DVR's with Comcast and a large roof mounted antenna for OTA. He only watches the HD channels and knows more about it than the Comcast techs when they come to his home at times for repair. Incredible...

The man even has a permenant power generator out in the garage in case of a storm. The generator is not wired to the entire home. In case of a power outage, it will ONLY power the living room LCD and the refridgerator. I'm not kidding...

This is the same man who had a large satellite dish before they turned remotely. You had to go outside and turn it by hand and it was huge. He built a motor and attached it to the dish. He then built a remote control and was able to turn it from his recliner. He should have patented the damn thing. Pretty soon...this is how they were being sold.

I have faith in more and more people. If my grandparents can handle it...there is hope.

I stayed at a Hilton hotel that had HDTV, and it actually had a few HD channels! ESPN-HD, ESPN2-HD, and the major networks via local affiliates in HD. I was surprised.

I stayed at a Hilton hotel that had HDTV, and it actually had a few HD channels! ESPN-HD, ESPN2-HD, and the major networks via local affiliates in HD. I was surprised.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn!

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

So, jrcorwin, does HI give the same intellect-enhancement that HI Express claims? Did you wake up knowing all the intricacies of ATSC broadcasting?

A general rule of thumb is if a Sports bar uses a dish they will have only SD.

Disagree.

What bothers me more than anything is going into a sports bar with lots of nice big flat screen TVs.. and all of them are being fed by SD sources. It really makes me wonder A) why they bothered to get nice flat-panel TVs in the first place...Because just as we've observed that many (most?) people don't know or care if they are watching HDTV, the difference between being out in public or at home makes no difference in the perception. Those of us who like HD are disappointed, the rest don't care, including bar owners. All they want is dollars in the till.

The only salivation for HD is that in most cases, once you get used to it, you never want to go back.

Disagree.

Agree. :-) I've really noticed in the last year or year in a half, most bars and restauarants have made the switch in my area. If they haven't, it's because they have the old tube analog TVs and are waiting for them to croak.

So, jrcorwin, does HI give the same intellect-enhancement that HI Express claims? Did you wake up knowing all the intricacies of ATSC broadcasting?

It didn't help me one damn bit. I'm considering a lawsuit.

The only salivation for HD is that in most cases, once you get used to it, you never want to go back.

About the only SD channels I'll watch are Comedy Central and some Spanish station that is broadcasting my soccer team's games, and viewing of those programs is few and far between. In my system the Comcast cable guide hardly if ever goes below the HD tier of channels. You're right on there Ken. Can't go back to SD unless I have no choice. (No Comedy Central or Mexican soccer in HD :mad:)

Through constant badgering I've gotten my sister to watch her programs (Desperate Housewives, CSI) on the HD channels.

My point exactly. You won't see the details unless you have perfect vision. My family room is 15x20. Most couches are 10+ feet away, that's just an average for a comfortable room.
That's another thing I see a lot. People have been watching their old analog set from a long distance so they won't see how bad the picture is. Unfortunately this also works for brand new HDTVs displaying blurry analog channels. People put their new sets far far away where the old ones were and everything looks great. If you sit six feet from a 37" HDTV, many people will figure you're blind or going blind yet they look best at that distance.

The subject of television distance has some fun history. Parents of my generation were told that their children would "go blind" if they let us sit too close to the television and to never never never let us watch television in a dark room (for some reason they let us go to dark movie theaters). Many people still feel that watching television close up is bad for your eyes, yet they stare at a computer screen two feet from their faces all day.

The "high definition" of HDTV does not squeeze six times the number of pixels into the same visual angle! Instead, the entire image can potentially occupy a much larger area of the viewer's visual field. (From Charles Poynton's 2003 "Digital Video and HDTV," Elsevier Science.)

Ideally the visual field is ~33 degrees for HD (~1.5 X screen diagonal). For SD it's typically only 11 degrees. And for NHK's upcoming 7680X4096 ultra-HDTV the format makes 100-degree visual fields possible without being able to resolve scan/row lines. Back in 2000, I asked installers to plunk down my 340-lb 64" CRT RPTV at 8' from my viewing location. Have enjoyed this ~33-degree immersive viewing angle since then. -- John

The subject of television distance has some fun history. Parents of my generation were told that their children would "go blind" if they let us sit too close to the television and to never never never let us watch television in a dark room (for some reason they let us go to dark movie theaters). Many people still feel that watching television close up is bad for your eyes, yet they stare at a computer screen two feet from their faces all day.
Movie screens and TV are two different technologies. TV is transmissive while movie screens are reflective. Staring into the light eminating from your TV in a dark room really isn't good for your eyes. It can cause eye strain that in large doses can affect your vision.

Sitting up close to a TV isn't so much bad for your eyes, it's more or less bad for your brain - at least when it comes to interlaced video. It's the flicker rate. It actually shuts down the reasoning parts of your brain by essentially putting you into a semi-trance. Computer screens, while tending to cause eyestrain from being so close, nearly always operate at a much higher scan rate and don't share the same problem.

There have been several studies over the years that show that Mom was sort of right: TV kind of does rot your brain. Luckily, there's no physical damage. It's merely putting certain parts of it in standby mode. Doing something that requires actual thinking (doing a puzzle or reading a book) will wake things back up.

Some newer studies have noted higher test scores from children exposed to learning programing at an earlier age since there is reasoning involved while viewing the programming.

I'll see if I can find one of the studies. It should be noted that this involved CRTs, not flat panel displays. I don't think anyone has done a new study involving them. I would suspect the effects might not be the same since many of these displays run at a higher refresh rate than CRTs.

Here are some reports related to the above:

http://www.seattlechildrens.org/home/pdf/early_television_and_attentional_problems.pdf
http://www.numbers1317.org/file_23_television_01.html
http://www.brainy-child.com/article/tvonbrain.html
http://www.cyc-net.org/today2001/today010907.html

In fairness, I'll throw out one that claims the opposite:

http://www.dcmp.org/caai/nadh174.pdf

Movie screens and TV are two different technologies. TV is transmissive while movie screens are reflective. Staring into the light eminating from your TV in a dark room really isn't good for your eyes. It can cause eye strain that in large doses can affect your vision.
How do transmitted photons differ from reflected photons?

Sitting up close to a TV isn't so much bad for your eyes, it's more or less bad for your brain - at least when it comes to interlaced video. It's the flicker rate. It actually shuts down the reasoning parts of your brain by essentially putting you into a semi-trance.
Looking at the fish swimming around in my aquarium also puts me in a semi-trance. I like it. Is this harming my brain?

There have been several studies over the years that show that Mom was sort of right: TV kind of does rot your brain. Luckily, there's no physical damage. It's merely putting certain parts of it in standby mode. Doing something that requires actual thinking (doing a puzzle or reading a book) will wake things back up.
In my opinion, "rots your brain" and "no physical damage" contradict each other. I think Dad was doing more physical damage with his gin and tonic than I was sitting in front of the television!

What's wrong with a good "gin and tonic"? :)

What bothers me more than anything is going into a sports bar with lots of nice big flat screen TVs.. and all of them are being fed by SD sources. It really makes me wonder A) why they bothered to get nice flat-panel TVs in the first place and B) if they are even aware that what's on the screens is not HD. Fortunately for me I live in Manhattan so there's always options, but there's at least a couple of places near where I live that I would otherwise consider good sports bars except for the complete lack of HD. As such, I'll always look elsewhere, even if it means going further away from my apartment than I'd like.

It's probably a case of the bar buying flat screen TV's because flat screens take up less room and (usually) don't stick out with sharp corners, just waiting for a large, bald man to run right into them (yes, this happened to me once). In other words, they're not buying HDTV's, they're buying flat-screen TV's that happen to have the ability to show HD programming.

What's wrong with a good "gin and tonic"? :)

After a few decades they can catch up with you.

But a few decades of watching TV two feet from the screen hasn't affected my... well I can still see well enough to get around.

The only salivation for HD is that in most cases, once you get used to it, you never want to go back.

salivation for HD abounds -- Jennifer Connelly, Kate Beckinsale, Kate Winslet, the jailbaits on the CW. I could go on.....

How do transmitted photons differ from reflected photons?
Go stare at a light bulb, then go stare at a light bulb reflected off something. It's the difference between direct and reflected light.

Looking at the fish swimming around in my aquarium also puts me in a semi-trance. I like it. Is this harming my brain?Anything that shuts your brain down should be done in moderation. However, unless you never did anything else, it's not going to cause any permanant harm.

In my opinion, "rots your brain" and "no physical damage" contradict each other. I think Dad was doing more physical damage with his gin and tonic than I was sitting in front of the television!
Read my post again. I never said it actually "rots your brain". However, the effects are somewhat similar if you don't use those parts of the brain to counteract it. Those synapses aren't active when you watch a passsive medium like TV. However, unlike the effects of alcohol, nothing is being destroyed physically.

The only "permanant harm" that could potentially occur is if you sat in front of the TV all day and pretty much never did anything that used logic, reasoning or similar skills. Just counting out money for the pizza delivery guy will accomplish that.

Does the average person even want or know they have HD on their HD set?
Depends on the size of the display...
On our 26" bedroom LCD TV I often find my wife watching network prime-time programming on the Std Def channels rather than watching on the HD QAM channels. When I mention it... she says "I doesn't matterrrrrr to meeeee" :rolleyes:

Go stare at a light bulb, then go stare at a light bulb reflected off something. It's the difference between direct and reflected light.
OK I looked at a light bulb and a light bulb reflected off of a mirror. They look the same to me. I guess photons are photons to my eyes no matter where they come from.

Anything that shuts your brain down should be done in moderation. However, unless you never did anything else, it's not going to cause any permanant harm.
I'm not the kind to zone out in front of the tube. If anything, television makes my brain more active. I'm constantly evaluating what's going on in the story, the acting, the cinematography, the sets, the color accuracy, the grain, MPEG artifacts and so on. HD has given my brain a lot more stuff to evaluate.

OK I looked at a light bulb and a light bulb reflected off of a mirror. They look the same to me. I guess photons are photons to my eyes no matter where they come from.
You know what I meant. When was the last time you went to the movies and they projected them on a mirror? Since the original basis for my bringing it up was you disputing the difference between projected movies and TV, I would have hoped you would have considered the "something" to be a screen or a wall, not a mirror.

Apparently half the people on this forum are related to Amelia Bedelia. They take everything so literally, they can't read any intent with someone's post. :rolleyes:

I'm not the kind to zone out in front of the tube. If anything, television makes my brain more active. I'm constantly evaluating what's going on in the story, the acting, the cinematography, the sets, the color accuracy, the grain, MPEG artifacts and so on. HD has given my brain a lot more stuff to evaluate.
That's the crux of the issue: many people don't realize they're zoning out a bit. You start out being active, but the brain eventually goes into cruise control unless you're bringing in external stimuli, like posting on this forum while you watch Lost.

Granted, someone who works in the industry will tend to do what you do more often (I often do, myself), but most people don't think about any of that stuff at all when watching TV.

BTW: people do that while driving, too. Have you ever driven somewhere (like your normal route to work), then realize you don't remember most of the drive?


Honestly, though, the whole zoning out thing is probably why so many people don't care whether they are watching HD or stretched SD: after a while, they simply don't notice anything is wrong with it. After jiggling the toilet flusher becomes a habit, you find yourself doing it with every toilet without thinking about it...