http://www.twice.com/article/CA6455975.html

Some interesting information is presented in this study

Here is an article that was written 5 months ago on the same subject so a comparison can be made as to what has happened concerning this issue in the last 5 months:

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/070122/0205964.html

It's probably less.

It's probably less.

Yeah, I would bet a decent % of that 44% *thinks* they are watching HD and do not realize what you have to do to get actual HD programming.

Yeah, I would bet a decent % of that 44% *thinks* they are watching HD and do not realize what you have to do to get actual HD programming.
Precisely. I always like to throw out the stat from a few years ago that over 60% of SD digital cable viewers who had an HDTV thought they were watching HD.

If I had to put a % on how much HD I'm watching.

75% HD
24% DVD
1% SD

The only SD channel we ever watch is Court TV. It doesn't amount to a hell of a lot.

If I had to put a % on how much HD I'm watching.

75% HD
24% DVD
1% SD

The only SD channel we ever watch is Court TV. It doesn't amount to a hell of a lot.
Not the point.

We're discussing viewers with HDTV sets that have no HDTV sources, and some of them who still think they are watching HDTV.

Not the point.

We're discussing viewers with HDTV sets that have no HDTV sources, and some of them who still think they are watching HDTV.

Or wrong cables, cables hooked up wrong, watching the SD version of the channel, etc.

I'm not sure if it's shows how dumb the general public is or how poorly this is all implimented by the hardware companies, probably a little of both.

I do like how Costco has signs under pretty much every HDTV saying that you must get an HD source to view HD programming.

Probably doesn't help any anyhow.

I'm not sure if it's shows how dumb the general public is or how poorly this is all implimented by the hardware companies, probably a little of both.
I'd place the majority of the blame on the hardware manufactures & the cable co's.
They've done little to nothing in the way of educating the public about HDTV and what's required (beyond buying a HDTV set) to view it. Some HDTV manufactures make it very difficult to ascertain weather their sets have ATSC and or QAM tuners built in. The cable co's have also been less then helpful with all sorts of encryption thrown which makes a new HD STB necessary- not to mention random encryption of HD locals by some non compliant cable co's too.
It's kind of like "go buy a HDTV, turn it on..... OK- you got HD now!" :confused: :(

I'd place the majority of the blame on the hardware manufactures & the cable co's.
They've done little to nothing in the way of educating the public about HDTV and what's required (beyond buying a HDTV set) to view it. Some HDTV manufactures make it very difficult to ascertain weather their sets have ATSC and or QAM tuners built in. The cable co's have also been less then helpful with all sorts of encryption thrown which makes a new HD STB necessary- not to mention random encryption of HD locals by some non compliant cable co's too.
It's kind of like "go buy a HDTV, turn it on..... OK- you got HD now!" :confused: :(
I'd bet most customers have no need for either of those. The majority of those confused souls are probably digital cable or satellite customers that have a set top box.

Most OTA-only viewers that know they can (or wish to) get HD that way probably know what they need to get it.

A friend of mine is educated but still doesn't have HD into his HDTV. He has DirecTV for NFL-ST because his favorite team is not in this market, and he did not want to get the HD DVR option from DirecTV (is there even one that is a decent price?), so he felt like Dave made him choose between HD and a DVR, so he chose DVR and got a TiVo.

Even though it's not my TV and I never see it, just the whole thought of someone consciously choosing to pass on HD for their HDTV (even if the option was HD-lite) makes me cringe.

Do others of you get that missionary feeling? Where you feel like you have a duty to spread the love of HD? I get that way with HD and commerical DLP (see my sig below). Some people say I should get paid for this, but that would take away my credability.

You know ... with the start of local news in (varying degrees of) HD on two of our local stations ... loudly trumpeted as "Newsfirst in TrueHD," for example, I wonder how many folks around here think they're watching HDTV even when all they have is a 10 year old 20" analog set. ;) :D

Do others of you get that missionary feeling? Where you feel like you have a duty to spread the love of HD?

Nope, I got over that a few years ago, right around the time when the phrase "HD-Lite" was minted. :)

I've been in three hotels in the past two months that had HDTV's. Two of them had stretched SD analog but the third one had real high definition programming including HDNet and even the local channels. I was flabbergasted!

I've been in three hotels in the past two months that had HDTV's. Two of them had stretched SD analog but the third one had real high definition programming including HDNet and even the local channels. I was flabbergasted!

I just stayed at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas and got that same flabbergasted feeling when the 42" plasma in the room had real HD channels. It was overly processed and edge-enhanced, but still a lot better than no HD.

I think all you who "sell the consumer short" should reread the article:

The main reasons consumers stated for not receiving the programming was that it was too expensive or they were not interested. Yet, while there is some confusion among HD owners as to whether they are receiving HD programming, the vast majority of owners understand what programming they receive and do not receive

They don't want it!

I sell HDTVs for a living. I always ask the customer what their signal source is going to be and explain the options for getting real HD to the set. A large percentage of people shelling out 1k or much more for an HDTV balk at having to pay Comcast an extra $5 or 10 a month for an HD box.

Nope, I got over that a few years ago, right around the time when the phrase "HD-Lite" was minted. :)

So you mean to say you enjoy HD and never tell anyone about it?

Don't you think you are doing a disservice to yourself if you don't tell others? After all, don't you stand to benefit as more HDTV's (being properly used) hit the marketplace?

That's why I feel that sense of duty/missionary work. I'd hate to see hd television, a superior technology, die out because consumers flat out reject it. This kind of thing has happened before.

I sell HDTVs for a living. I always ask the customer what their signal source is going to be and explain the options for getting real HD to the set. A large percentage of people shelling out 1k or much more for an HDTV balk at having to pay Comcast an extra $5 or 10 a month for an HD box.

So I assume that means people REALLY balk at paying hundreds of $$$ to buy an HD or HD DVR box from DirecTV or Dish, right? Hell I wouldn't even pay those amounts for HD-lite!

But this comcast issue is the problem: We have people who are willing to buy $1000+ TV's but refuse to pay for an HD box. Do these people not understand there are incidental costs to ownership, like a car?

Your name says you are in Fresno. Do you find a certain demographic balks more at this than others? I'm not trying to be racist, but I could see hispanic people in the farming industry in the region (I know the Central Valley well) saving up to buy an HDTV and then refuse to get an HD source of any kind because they don't want to incur additional cost.

I also think older people of any ethnicity may balk as well, as they are more likely to save up and buy these TV's cash than take advantage of lucrative 0% financing offers. When they realize they can't afford to enjoy HD properly, they still used their saved cash to buy the TV, perhaps for status?

It's a lot less then that. So many people that have digital cable and an HDTV set think they are watching *everything* in HD. They are pretty suprised when I tell them they aren't watching a single thing in HD.

The problem is that QAM is way too complicated. My brother is an intelligent college educated man, but when I got over to his house he's always watching SD. It's easier to hit channel 5 and watch NBC where it's always been, than to remember that NBC HD is mapped to 89.3.

In my opinion QAM shouldn't even exist. It is an absurd notion that ATSC won't work over a cable.

And the satellite companies should be ashamed of themselves for even offering SD receivers. HD boxes don't cost that much anymore. People with regular TVs could still hook up to an HD box with composite.

Hopefully this mess gets worked out in 2009 when they stop broadcasting analog, but I doubt it...

I'd hate to see hd television, a superior technology, die out because consumers flat out reject it. This kind of thing has happened before.

This is NOT going to happen. We have choosen a standard to replace NTSC. Almost ALL TV's being sold are HDTV's today from 30" and above. We are going to HDTV whether we like it or not.

But because it is an added "feature" that the CBL/SAT and Telco's can make money off of - they will charge for it. If you don't want HD on your new HDTV - you don't have to get it. Just stick with SD programming and save the extra money.

For most, their Service bills are very high to begin with so that $10 to $15 a month just may be the deal breaker. Others care less about PQ or AQ.

HDTV will not die out in any way matter shape or form. The only question is will it be adopted by all and the answer to that after 9 years of existance is . . . NO.

The problem is that QAM is way too complicated. My brother is an intelligent college educated man, but when I got over to his house he's always watching SD. It's easier to hit channel 5 and watch NBC where it's always been, than to remember that NBC HD is mapped to 89.3.

In my opinion QAM shouldn't even exist. It is an absurd notion that ATSC won't work over a cable.

Would ATSC work over cable? I don't think they would be able to cram all that info (up to 19.2 mbps) unless they used some sort of modulation, right?

Anyways, if the point of getting ATSC to work over cable is one of convenience, then it's no less complicated than QAM. Your brother will still have to press the decimal button to get the ATSC channel. (aside - if your cable system has the same channel assignments as the broadcast network, then OK, I'll concede. However, my cable system has different assignments for the local networks ... i.e. NBC10 is on analog 5 and QAM 10.1; Fox29 is on analog 9 and QAM 29.1)

Alternatively, he could get a TV that has a good way to save favorites. My Sharp has 4 favorites buttons on the remote, each with 4 slots. So I can surf through my 8 HD channels using buttons A and B. Button C has G4-digital and a Spanish-digital channel. Button D is unused.

ft

Nothing rubs my rhubarn the wrong way, as when I see someone have a glitzy Plasma hanging on the wall, viewing a SD signal in "Stretch O Vision", and trying to tell me its "HD"......

I think those people should be castrated.

Not the point.

We're discussing viewers with HDTV sets that have no HDTV sources, and some of them who still think they are watching HDTV.

Sorry, didn't mean to upset you.

I think all you who "sell the consumer short" should reread the article:

The main reasons consumers stated for not receiving the programming was that it was too expensive or they were not interested. Yet, while there is some confusion among HD owners as to whether they are receiving HD programming, the vast majority of owners understand what programming they receive and do not receive

They don't want it!

I guess there is no hope for mankind. :( I wonder if some people bought color TV's 40 years ago, and turned down the color to watch in B/W. :D

Those people are intellectually challenged, at best. Many times SD looks worse on an HD set than an analog TV. If they don't want to fork over a few bucks for an HD cable box, etc., they can always go OTA instead. That's what my manager did, and he wouldn't go back to SD only.

art

I guess there is no hope for mankind. :( I wonder if some people bought color TV's 40 years ago, and turned down the color to watch in B/W. :D

iPods and MP3 players in general, constitute a big move towards lower sound quality.

I'd hate to see hd television, a superior technology, die out because consumers flat out reject it. This kind of thing has happened before.
Look up "Super Audio CD".

I guess there is no hope for mankind. :( I wonder if some people bought color TV's 40 years ago, and turned down the color to watch in B/W. :D



Had cable been around then, they would have charged extra for color, so maybe they would have. OTA, the price was the same, FREE.

Those people are intellectually challenged, at best. Many times SD looks worse on an HD set than an analog TV. If they don't want to fork over a few bucks for an HD cable box, etc., they can always go OTA instead. That's what my manager did, and he wouldn't go back to SD only.

art

Not to defend the idiots who buy an HDTV without first thinking about and figuring out how they will feed it an HD signal, but not everyone can go OTA. Some people live too far away from the towers to get the OTA signal properly, or are in apartments in which it is not an option.

Nevertheless, these (foolish) people still want their HDTV sans HD programming.

Would ATSC work over cable? I don't think they would be able to cram all that info (up to 19.2 mbps) unless they used some sort of modulation, right?
Yes, it does work over cable. In fact they also invented a 38.4 Mbps version of ATSC for cable but they chose QAM because allegedly that isn't patented.

I guess there is no hope for mankind. :( I wonder if some people bought color TV's 40 years ago, and turned down the color to watch in B/W. :D

Those people are intellectually challenged, at best. Many times SD looks worse on an HD set than an analog TV. If they don't want to fork over a few bucks for an HD cable box, etc., they can always go OTA instead. That's what my manager did, and he wouldn't go back to SD only.

art

They did not buy an HDTV for HD. They bought a hang on the wall TV - just like The Jetsons had 40 years ago.(it just happens to be an HDTV that is all.) WAF - up 200% because of this.

Hitachi just announced no more RPTV's - all FPD's now only.

But this comcast issue is the problem: We have people who are willing to buy $1000+ TV's but refuse to pay for an HD box. Do these people not understand there are incidental costs to ownership, like a car?

Eh, it could just be marginal cost versus marginal benefit. HDTV's have value beyond their ability to display HD. Like I said in the other thread, most consumers are attracted to HDTVs because of the big screens not the picture quality. The marginal benefit of going from 20 in. to 46 in. or 52 in. or 60 in. is enormous. The marginal benefit of going from SD to HD is simply outweighed by the marginal cost of shelling out well over $100 a year just to watch a limited number of channels with a select amount of programming in HD.

Just as HD penetration has risen from a few years ago, it will continue to rise as more channels and more programming go HD, but there will always be a subset of consumers who are perfectly happy with their SD big screen television.

As far as I can tell, DVD didn't win on improved sound and picture quality. It won because it was cheaper.

Eh, it could just be marginal cost versus marginal benefit. HDTV's have value beyond their ability to display HD. Like I said in the other thread, most consumers are attracted to HDTVs because of the big screens not the picture quality. The marginal benefit of going from 20 in. to 46 in. or 52 in. or 60 in. is enormous. The marginal benefit of going from SD to HD is simply outweighed by the marginal cost of shelling out well over $100 a year just to watch a limited number of channels with a select amount of programming in HD.


Aren't 4:3 Standard definition big screen RPTV's cheaper to make than 16:9 HDTV RPTV's? (Generally speaking?)

If so, if you are correct, this means that Samsung, Sony, etc are foolish for not selling these TV's. But the reality is these TV's have vanished.

Yes people want bigger, but they don't understand HD when they go to buy a TV. They don't understand what we mean by "Stretch O Vision," and nobody who sells these HDTV's (I don't know about Steve S, but I would curious) would refer to it as such, in fear of not making the sale. I doubt most people would still buy an HDTV with no plans to feed it HD if Stretch O vision was properly explained AND demonstrated.

If anything, I think Joe Schmo is drawn the look of the TV. yes, the aesthetic appeal that comes with these TV's, not the functionality. Much like all the iphone hype. I heard someone on the local (SF Bay Area) news last night say they want an iphone because it is the "in thing," but they don't know anything about it.

People see something that looks sleek and then buy it for the wrong reasons.

Aren't 4:3 Standard definition big screen RPTV's cheaper to make than 16:9 HDTV RPTV's? (Generally speaking?)

To say nothing of obscenely large, impossibly heavy, and (to most women) an unacceptable eyesore. There was also the serious picture degradation problem you get by 50 in. Besides, they're only cheap now that they're vastly inferior and outdated. They weren't cheap in the pre-HDTV era.

If we went out onto the street and did a straw poll asking people what's the first thing that comes to mind when you say "HDTV", I'd wager 50+ percent of responses will be "big screen."

But, regardless, Sony and Samsung have no incentive to sell 4:3 RPTVs. Aside from the fact that widescreen is "in," Sony and Samsung need you to buy expensive electronics, not cheap ones. Like you said yourself, "incidental costs." That's just good business sense.

By the way, I definitely agree that many people are buying HDTVs to keep up with the Joneses or to have their iPhone moment. They're impulse, feel-good purchases. They aren't an investment or a necessity like a car.

I didn't get a hd box for a few months after i got my first hdtv. I was having enough fun watching widescreen dvds (and back then there wasn't a whole lot of programming to make it worthwhile for em, and I couldn't get OTA)

but once football season rolled around, I had to get hooked up.

But I do know other people who have simply taken their time. It is sad when they go the stretch-o-vision route though. I can't handle watching that.

So you mean to say you enjoy HD and never tell anyone about it?

Don't you think you are doing a disservice to yourself if you don't tell others? .

No I'm saying that for the most part, to date, HDTV has proven to be something of a disappointment especially in terms of cost vs. "enjoyment." I've considered it a "service" to actively *not* encourage folks to jump in.

That having been said ... with hardware prices finally falling out of the stratosphere, and realistic options for HD programming sources "imminent," I might put my evangelical hat back on. ;)

The reason for DVD's wildly successful growth was based on the foundation that DVD was a revolutionary product over VHS. And people wanted it.

HDTV took almost 10 years to actually get into the market, then another 6 years before it became affordable to all. I was here at AVS back in 1999 when we had 5000 members with about 300 active. It was HDTV that grew AVS.

Buy an HDTV, buy a cheap upconverting DVD player and . . presto - HD on your HDTV! Or at least it looks a hell of a lot better than stretched or zoomed SD on that fancy HDTV. And they are selling tons of these UP DVD players - many at the price of a brand new A2 which will both Upconvert DVD and play an HD DVD.

The only thing we have failed to do is to educate the consumer on the benefits of HD on an HDTV. FAB - ever heard of it? If the consumer doesn't want it, then no big deal. He got what he wanted. An HDTV to hang on the wall that upscales SD.

We don't make NTSC TV's because we are trying to get away from NTSC. It took 14 years before all programming was in color - with 12 channels! Many of you are expecting miracles when it comes to HDTV.

HDTV is fine and doing well. The object is to get the displays into peoples homes so we can shut down NTSC. Then all programming will be in 16x9 and 1920x1080.

I have also found that many people do not care about picture quality at all. If they have a bigger picture and they are watching the shows they like, that is all that matters.

I have also found that many people do not care about picture quality at all. If they have a bigger picture and they are watching the shows they like, that is all that matters.
But when given the choice, I think everyone will pick the HD version over the SD version of a show. Provided the cost is the same.

If you're an OTA guy, would you watch SD Lost or HD Lost on your HDTV?

If you're a cable guy, would you watch SD Lost or QAM HD Lost on your HDTV?

Now, if they are charging for ESPN-HD, DiscoveryHD, etc , then there's a choice to be made. And it seems that people may not be willing to pay more for HD when it comes to basic cable channels. People like me ... I will not upgrade to digital+HD tier to get ESPN-HD, TNT-HD, etc. when the SD channels are available under my existing subscription plan.

ft

I have also found that many people do not care about picture quality at all. If they have a bigger picture and they are watching the shows they like, that is all that matters.I think you're mistaken about "at all". I think, rather, than many people, perhaps the vast majority of people, have a set of thresholds with regard to PQ. For me, PQ from DVDs is a quantum leap better than PQ from OTA analog or even cable analog channels. I feel the jump from DVDs to 720p or 1080i is smaller than the jump from analog to DVD (though still significant). And I'm actually interested enough in HD to be here in this forum, so I figure most people probably feel that the improvement from DVDs to 720p or 1080i is even smaller than I see it, in contrast to the remarkable difference between analog cable and DVD.

One thing I've noticed: NTSC receivers have never had better display quality. I'm really impressed at how digital technology has made analog reception look amazingly clean, especially compared to receivers from ten years ago. Obviously the latest generation of NTSC receivers are using a lot of clever processing. The display technology that gives us stunning HDTV pictures works great for analog to some degree too. You can't blame the average person for being impressed by these TVs and thinking they might be that HDTV everyone is talking about.

The problem is that QAM is way too complicated. My brother is an intelligent college educated man, but when I got over to his house he's always watching SD. It's easier to hit channel 5 and watch NBC where it's always been, than to remember that NBC HD is mapped to 89.3.

That has nothing to do with QAM per say. That is the lack of knowledge of your cable company. They obviously don't know how to program virtual channel tables.
Most cable companies would move 89.3 (EIA channel frequency) to virtual channel 5.1.
...or less likely, the TV isn't processing the tables correctly...

People here are giving little credit to the market research professionals. There are easy ways of checking whether people actually get HD or just think they do. Infact if you see the detailed stats you can see these stats (not this one in particular, I've not yet read this, but many earlier ones). The % that do get HD programming of somekind hovers around 50%.

BTW, places like Costco advertise with the HDTV that consumers need HD programming too ...

BTW, places like Costco advertise with the HDTV that consumers need HD programming too ...

I wouldn't be surprised if all the B&M stores paper ads and a few signs in store say something to the effect of "HD signal required to view HD programming."

They need to say this so no one can say they were misinformed when buying the TV.

What I am curious is if salespeople, upon learning from a potential customer that they have no plans to get an HD signal of any kind, steer the customer away from an HDTV. I highly doubt it. Salespersons have no incentive to explain "Stretch O Vision" properly and demonstrate it so the customer can see in store with their very own eyes that they should wait to get an HDTV until they are willing to get an HD signal, and by HD signal I am not just including OTA, cable, sat, but also Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, and (although I don't want to), an upcoverting DVD player.

I have also found that many people do not care about picture quality at all. If they have a bigger picture and they are watching the shows they like, that is all that matters.

As an avid fan of commercial DLP (see my sig below), I can attest that people don't care about PQ. Case in point: Ratatouille comes out today, but most people who see it and have the option to see it commercial DLP won't because they don't know or care about the difference in PQ.

IMHO, Commercial DLP is the only way to see animation in a movie theater, and beats the crap out of seeing animation even in the best HT set ups.

I wouldn't be surprised if all the B&M stores paper ads and a few signs in store say something to the effect of "HD signal required to view HD programming."


I think every store has this disclamer b/c in Sam's Clubs they have signs saying "HD signal required to view HD" near all of the HD sets. It's good that stores have these signs b/c it makes your average person more of aware of what it'll take to fully utilize the tv.

Had cable been around then, they would have charged extra for color, so maybe they would have. OTA, the price was the same, FREE.
The thing is, it still is....

I never saw any HD content until after I brought home my first HDTV (ordered online). I knew the PQ was better, but feared the SD would be worse with little HD content available. Part of the decision was the physical characteristics of the TV. But, once I got the TV and watched my favorite football team in HD, I became a believer. Normal TV looked like crap and within 6 months I bought 2 more HDTVs. My GF wasn't initially too impressed, now I see her switching to the HD channel, instead of watching the regular SD channel.

Reminds me of when we first started dating and I would take my down pillows with me when I spent the night at her apt. Her pillows felt like rolled up towels to me. She would make fun of me for doing it. Now after living with me for 3 yrs, she drags her down pillows everywhere she goes.

I think all you who "sell the consumer short" should reread the article:

The main reasons consumers stated for not receiving the programming was that it was too expensive or they were not interested. Yet, while there is some confusion among HD owners as to whether they are receiving HD programming, the vast majority of owners understand what programming they receive and do not receive

They don't want it!


That would be my dad. He doesn't wanna pay the extra $3 per month for the HD box, he'd rather keep the SD box even though we have a package that gives us some free HD channels.

Meanwhile, I'm using QAM on my TV.

Go figure...

What I am curious is if salespeople, upon learning from a potential customer that they have no plans to get an HD signal of any kind, steer the customer away from an HDTV. I highly doubt it.
If someone is buying a new TV today (perhaps because their old set died), then they should buy an HD TV, even if they do not plan to view HD channels.
This is because the price difference is minimal, and in a couple of years, they will be more interested in viewing HD, as it becomes the norm.

If someone is buying a new TV today (perhaps because their old set died), then they should buy an HD TV, even if they do not plan to view HD channels.
This is because the price difference is minimal, and in a couple of years, they will be more interested in viewing HD, as it becomes the norm.

My mother, God love her, has three TV's in her home:

1. 20" in Bedroom (10 years old)

2. 19" in living room (25 years old)

3. 15" in the kitchen (15 years old)

4. VCR in bedroom (10 years old)

She likes watching the news. Likes to discuss current events. Has plenty of money. So we are going somewhere and I suggest we stop at BB and see an HDTV - she has never seen one.

Go inside BB - she is dumbfounded; at the sizes of the screens and the fact that they are not square, but a rectangle - just like a movie theater (she goes about 3 times a month to the movies - foreign films -such like that) So I had measured the furniture in her bedroom and know that a 32" LCD will fit. So I show her one. And she says:

"Oh my . . . that's too big."

We left about 2 minutes after that.

"I wouldn't be surprised if all the B&M stores paper ads and a few signs in store say something to the effect of "HD signal required to view HD programming."

But, isn't that just a lead-in to selling you a subscription service. BB still runs a loop which says, "For HDTV, you'll need Digital HD Cable or DirecTV HD, and an HD TV set".

I wouldn't be surprised if all the B&M stores paper ads and a few signs in store say something to the effect of "HD signal required to view HD programming."

They need to say this so no one can say they were misinformed when buying the TV.

What I am curious is if salespeople, upon learning from a potential customer that they have no plans to get an HD signal of any kind, steer the customer away from an HDTV. I highly doubt it. Salespersons have no incentive to explain "Stretch O Vision" properly and demonstrate it so the customer can see in store with their very own eyes that they should wait to get an HDTV until they are willing to get an HD signal, and by HD signal I am not just including OTA, cable, sat, but also Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, and (although I don't want to), an upcoverting DVD player.

At our store we have an analog and an HD digital feed running the same loop. I always ask if the customer plans to get an HD source and show them the difference between HD and SD as well as the various stretch modes, then let them make their own decision.

The majority of the sets we sell are LCD flat panels. The customers are attracted by the form factor of the set at least as much as, if not more than, the HD picture quality. I show them SD on the set and the various stretch modes, andexplain what's necessary to get HD with their particular signal source, be it cable, satellite, or OTA. If they don't want to get an HD source, either because they don't want to pay a little more to the cable or sat company or because they appear overwhelmed by the complexity of doing so I warn them that they may be dissapointed with the new set and ask if they'd consider one of the few SD models we still carry. Most still go for the HD model, either because they don't care that much about pq or because they're convinced that they can steal some kind of HD service the same way they're currently stealing regular cable or satellite.

But, isn't that just a lead-in to selling you a subscription service. BB still runs a loop which says, "For HDTV, you'll need Digital HD Cable or DirecTV HD, and an HD TV set".

Of course it would be possible for broadcasters to counteract some of that with regular on-air promos noting that their high definition signals are available over the air, for free, and providing a follow-up contact (url and/or phone number) for those wanting to know more about how to receive it.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see such an announcement on any of the Dallas/Fort Worth stations, although I did see a few announcements out of Seattle when visiting family up there a couple years back.

At our store we have an analog and an HD digital feed running the same loop. I always ask if the customer plans to get an HD source and show them the difference between HD and SD as well as the various stretch modes, then let them make their own decision.
You are a rarity in the sales world. Most people in your position are exactly what they're called: sales people. Their job is to sell, not inform - and they follow that model faithfully. Most sales people I run into know nothing about the products they sell if it's not on the price tag blurb or in the computer description.

The majority of the sets we sell are LCD flat panels. The customers are attracted by the form factor of the set at least as much as, if not more than, the HD picture quality. I show them SD on the set and the various stretch modes, andexplain what's necessary to get HD with their particular signal source, be it cable, satellite, or OTA. If they don't want to get an HD source, either because they don't want to pay a little more to the cable or sat company or because they appear overwhelmed by the complexity of doing so I warn them that they may be dissapointed with the new set and ask if they'd consider one of the few SD models we still carry. Most still go for the HD model, either because they don't care that much about pq or because they're convinced that they can steal some kind of HD service the same way they're currently stealing regular cable or satellite.
Again, while I think it's great you actually help a customer decide, your assertion that a customer who isn't looking to watch HD on their set is lokking to steal service is false. My parents are some of those customers that would balk at having to pay extra to watch TV over what they currently pay. It's TV. They can see it and hear it. That's enough for them. The only reason they might want a flat panel display is to lose the giant space hog of an entertainment center.

They pay for basic analog cable. They only have a TiVo because I bought it for them. They don't have a DVD player and have no interest in one. Their main goal is for my mother to be able to record and watch the soaps that air while she's at work and to be able to watch the local news.

My mother, God love her, has three TV's in her home:

1. 20" in Bedroom (10 years old)

2. 19" in living room (25 years old)

3. 15" in the kitchen (15 years old)

4. VCR in bedroom (10 years old)

She likes watching the news. Likes to discuss current events. Has plenty of money. So we are going somewhere and I suggest we stop at BB and see an HDTV - she has never seen one.

Go inside BB - she is dumbfounded; at the sizes of the screens and the fact that they are not square, but a rectangle - just like a movie theater (she goes about 3 times a month to the movies - foreign films -such like that) So I had measured the furniture in her bedroom and know that a 32" LCD will fit. So I show her one. And she says:

"Oh my . . . that's too big."

We left about 2 minutes after that.

Lee your mom has my parents beat; they are both gone now but they never even owned a VCR or a computer. Two fairly new TV's only because my brother and I bought them otherwise they would probably still be watching the old RCA ColorTrax.

If I had to put a % on how much HD I'm watching.

75% HD
24% DVD
1% SD

The only SD channel we ever watch is Court TV. It doesn't amount to a hell of a lot.

Is the 1% TNT-HD :D

I've been in three hotels in the past two months that had HDTV's. Two of them had stretched SD analog but the third one had real high definition programming including HDNet and even the local channels. I was flabbergasted!
Make that four hotels with brand new HDTV's displaying stupid stretched SD. These sets all have component inputs. It's almost enough to make me bring an ATSC receiver and a Silver Sensor.

But I don't have to. Right now I'm enjoying local superior PQ with USB ATSC receiver plugged into this tiny laptop. :rolleyes:

Most still go for the HD model....because they're convinced that they can steal some kind of HD service the same way they're currently stealing regular cable or satellite.I see you're in Cal.

I hear ya' - we have a lot of the same kind of people and problem here in the Chicago area, too. The last apartment complex I lived in, they kept breaking into the box in the back, no matter what the cable company tried to do to prevent it :rolleyes:.

I figure that also had something to do with why Comcast chose to cut out the expanded basic analog channels in the city here before anywhere else. (Good for 'em, I say ;))

It's not just the consumers. Even those in the business are clueless.
When calling DirecTV to connect my new HD DVR, the rep asked me "what channel number" do I use to for the connection !!!
(Anyone still remember the good old channel 3 for the good old VHS ??)

I would be careful about calling someone who picks up the telephone at DirecTV "in the business". For most telephone agents, in most consumer-facing companies in the country, it is just their job (answering telephones and reading from support scripts). Today they could be doing it for DirecTV; tomorrow they could be doing it for some cellular telephone company.

(Anyone still remember the good old channel 3 for the good old VHS ??)

Yep ... in fact I still use it to feed D* programming from my old E86 to my "spare room" analog set from the main room. (... RF remotes :) ) Beats paying another $5/mo for another STB.

I have two HDTVs (58 and 65) fed from an HD source (D*) I also have a number of decent quality analog TVs (Sony) from 20 to 32 inches. The D* signal to the analog TVs is pretty darn good (not HD by a long shot, but plenty good for the size of screen). Now, if I watch those same signals on the larger screens, they don't look so hot. I think it all boils down to screen size and the distance you are from the screen.

[QUOTE=pappy97]Not to defend the idiots who buy an HDTV without first thinking about and figuring out how they will feed it an HD signal, but not everyone can go OTA. Some people live too far away from the towers to get the OTA signal properly, or are in apartments in which it is not an option.
[QUOTE]

Hey! We're workin' on it.

DTV Translator stations are being built. And, some of us even believe in MATV systems for apartments and such. :)

[QUOTE=pappy97]Not to defend the idiots who buy an HDTV without first thinking about and figuring out how they will feed it an HD signal, but not everyone can go OTA. Some people live too far away from the towers to get the OTA signal properly, or are in apartments in which it is not an option.
[QUOTE]

Hey! We're workin' on it.

DTV Translator stations are being built. And, some of us even believe in MATV systems for apartments and such. :)

The 6th gen LG and Samsung tuners should be able to get you HD in many apartments. Beyond 30 or 40 miles, it's a lot harder, of course. But in 2008, they'll mostly have very good to outstanding receiving quality.

Translator stations? In Utah, yes. East of the Missouri River, no (in general).

This topic is sort of like the Jehovah witness that come to your house with their books underline to present the gospel. Anyone can make numbers look the way they choose especially in this case it must be for boring fill.

Let's put it this way - HOW MANY DOES 44% EQUAL? How many friggin MILLIONS!

Now put it into perspective and BTW they have no way to measure all this - they are outdated GUESTIMATES! This is a sign of a State of BOREDOM when this forum hass little new to discuss and so someone post crap like this making it seem as if 44% isn't much when it's millions and growing daily. :cool:

GIVE US MORE FRIGGIN SOURCE AND THE NUMBERS WILL GO UP! :D

How do they count the hours spent when I view HD DVD or BD which I have both and I have four HDTV's in my home as others may so how they know all this if each person in a household has different viewing habits? They Don'T! It's an easy guess it's well into the tens of millions BTW.:)

The only people that I know that may choose SD over HD viewing may be members or employees of the Commision for the Blind! ;)

yeah it's much less than 44%, the study should prbably say...

"Only 44% think they are watching HD on their HD TV"

This topic is sort of like the Jehovah witness that come to your house with their books underline to present the gospel. Anyone can make numbers look the way they choose especially in this case it must be for boring fill.

Let's put it this way - HOW MANY DOES 44% EQUAL? How many friggin MILLIONS!

Now put it into perspective and BTW they have no way to measure all this - they are outdated GUESTIMATES! This is a sign of a State of BOREDOM when this forum hass little new to discuss and so someone post crap like this making it seem as if 44% isn't much when it's millions and growing daily. :cool:

GIVE US MORE FRIGGIN SOURCE AND THE NUMBERS WILL GO UP! :D

How do they count the hours spent when I view HD DVD or BD which I have both and I have four HDTV's in my home as others may so how they know all this if each person in a household has different viewing habits? They Don'T! It's an easy guess it's well into the tens of millions BTW.:)

The only people that I know that may choose SD over HD viewing may be members or employees of the Commision for the Blind! ;)

It is evident that your knowledge on this subject is lacking. Just do some searching on the number of subscribers that are getting HD from CBL and SAT.

Not everyone is interested in HD programming. I know that sounds ignorant - but it is the truth. People don't want to pay extra for it or are just not interested in it. The CEA does concise studies.

If you wish to refute it . . provide some facts with links attached. Your opinion is yours, but it is not correct.

I didn't realize the percentage is so low. I hardly watch any SD programming. Including network channels, I have 14-15 HD channels available on my cable system, and that is where I spend the majority of my TV viewing. If I were to put a percentage to my HD viewing, I would estimate almost 90%.

i fully understand the tech and methodology behind HD, but my viewing habits are probably 80% SD, 15%DVD, 5% HD. there's just no programming on D* and i can't get OTA. if a program is available in HD i'll watch it, but a lot of my favorite programming isn't available in HD

Yeah, I would bet a decent % of that 44% *thinks* they are watching HD and do not realize what you have to do to get actual HD programming.


LOL, funny you should say that.. My dad when he first got his HDTV had the HD box and programming but.......... When he watched his shows on ABC he thought it was in HD because when the show started it said "In HD" but little did he know it had to be on the HD channel..

Yeah, I would bet a decent % of that 44% *thinks* they are watching HD and do not realize what you have to do to get actual HD programming.

I saw another example of this yesterday. Nice flat screen set. Correct cable box on the correct channel. Bars at top and bottom and sides.

The owner is telling someone else that it's normal for an HD set to look like that and he can get an HDMI cable to make the bars go away, but he doesn't really mind the bars so it's not worth it.

No idea that, over the wrong cables, he's really watching SD and he'd have 5 times the resolution and the difference was night and day if he got that cable.

Yeah, but if he goes to Best Buy and sees that Monster wants ~ $100 for that 6 foot cable, can you blame him for putting it off? He doesn't know about Monoprice, Blue Jeans Cable, etc. like a board member here. Of course, he can always fall back to component.

Yeah, but if he goes to Best Buy and sees that Monster wants ~ $100 for that 6 foot cable, can you blame him for putting it off? He doesn't know about Monoprice, Blue Jeans Cable, etc. like a board member here. Of course, he can always fall back to component.
Actually, he said he saw an HDMI cable in Walmat for $30.

I think I may just order a cable from Monoprice and send it directly to him :)

This weekend I bought a new Vizio 32" 720p LCD for my sister. I then offered to help her and the boyfriend (who know nothing about TV's other than how to turn them on/off, change channels and adjust the volume) install their new HDTV and they agreed. After a good hour explaining to them the basics of 480i vs. 720p, HDMI price gauging and OTA HD antanna reception one of them asked (paraphrasing): 'now that our Pioneer V-400 upscaling DVD player is hooked through HDMI, can I buy Blu-ray movies and play them here?'. And even though I told them they weren't getting any HD from their SD D* satellite receiver hooked-up with S-Video to their new 720p LCD they were high-fiving each other saying 'We got HD!' I was ready to grab the Vizio and beat them both over the head with it! :rolleyes: After an hour they kind-of got the basics. It took a chance pick-up by an indoor antenna of some HD stations from NYC (which came through even though we were 50 miles Upstate!) to clearly show them how much better HD was to their D* SD signal. Watching HD "Cold Case" OTA and the same CBS channel on SD D* finally made them realize HD was much, much better on their new 720p HDTV than plain-old 48oi. Not that they're in any hurry to upgrade their D* package to an HD one or to buy an HD-DVD player. :(

CTAM: Cable HD Owners Double In 2007

The marketing trade group says 29 percent of cable customers now have high-def sets.

By Phillip Swann

Washington, D.C. (July 10, 2007) -- Twenty-nine percent of cable TV subscribers now own a High-Definition set, compared to just 15 percent a year ago.

That's according to a new survey from the Cable & Telecommunication Association.

CTAM, a marketing trade group for the cable TV industry, says 41 percent of Digital Cable subscribers now have a high-def set, up from 19 percent a year ago.

Thirty-two percent of premium cable subs -- those who subscribe to movie channels such as HBO -- now own HDTVs, compared to 23 percent last year.

"HD owners are realizing that having an HDTV set without a cable HDTV programming package is like driving around in a convertible with the roof up all the time,” said CTAM President and CEO Char Beales. “HD sets are flying off the shelves and digital cable consumers are getting an HDTV programming package to gain the full benefits of their new sets.”

CTAM also said 70 percent of cable households planning to purchase a high-def set in the 12 months are aware they need to subscribe to a HD programming package. (They also could get local HD channels with an antenna if their set has a HD tuner inside.)

http://www.tvpredictions.com/ctam071007.htm

Yeah, but if he goes to Best Buy and sees that Monster wants ~ $100 for that 6 foot cable, can you blame him for putting it off? He doesn't know about Monoprice, Blue Jeans Cable, etc. like a board member here. Of course, he can always fall back to component.

BUT I am trying to buy my first house now. Before I started, I knew jack about this process.

Of course I sought out other people who have done this before (or many times) and got advice.

What bugs me about Joe Schmo is that they don't seek out their tech/geek friend/someone they know (maybe in fear of not understanding them). if they did, and the geek friend was actually interesting in helping (as I am), they would tell them never ever to buy cables at bestbuy/cc/etc.

At the end of last year I heard my secretary was interested in a new TV, specifically HDTV. I told her I am really into this and she should ask for help/advice before shopping. Sure enough she did that, and I gave her the 411: Don't buy cables at BB/CC, don't buy impulsively, record the model number of a TV you saw that you like and bring it to me and I'll let you know what I think (or what you guys think :D), etc. I also explained 1080p/i, 720p, HDMI, component, all that jazz. I explained getting an HD signal and what that would incur.

It ended up being a big help to her. She told me how people tried to misinform her, confuse her, take advantage of her being a single female buying a TV.

One day she came back from TV hunting with a print out about a TV she saw in a store that she liked...turned out it was the same main HDTV I have and use (a Sammy 50" 1080p DLP). I explained I have it, love it, and it is a good buy.

She ended up getting it and got HD from Comcast and loves her TV. She was quite happy after it was all said and done to get the advice I gave her. If not for my help, she'd probably have a TV that didn't suit her needs and spent hundreds more on cables she shouldn't be buying from BB/CC.

I don't see why Joe Schmo can't swallow some pride and ask someone who isn't a salesmen for help/advice/etc BEFORE entering the store. I understand us AVS'ers are of the mindset that we'd like to become experts in the device we are going to buy before setting foot in a store and that most people are not like that, but still, this is a TV we are talking about here. Most people still consider it a major purchase, and everyone needs to do their homework on major purchases before hitting up BB/CC.

Actually, he said he saw an HDMI cable in Walmat for $30.

I think I may just order a cable from Monoprice and send it directly to him :)

There are HDMI cables at Walmart in the $25-30 range. Considering you want it right now, it isn't a bad idea. I've picked up a few of these.

Back in the pre-HDMI days when the best we had was DVI, you couldn't even get DVI cables anywhere in B&M stores except for BB/CC for their outrageous prices. At that time I bought many of those $1.00 + shipping DVI cables on ebay which worked out great.

I can understand the reluctance to buy on the internet, especially if you are like me and the cable is the final thing standing between you and HD pleasure. Who wants to wait?