Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

Jim Mack wrote:
HiC wrote:
Went into a local Circuit City and took a good long look at their HDTV
selections. They had several including 2 1080p sets that I was told
were set up correctly and what I was seeing was as good as it gets.
Everything HD from the cams to the screen. Both the 1080p's were
running some sort of hard drive unit, not off a broadcast.

As many have said, it isn't just the set that's off. If it's coming from a hard drive then it's likely that it's re-compressed at a bit rate around 12-15Mb/s, maybe even from an original off-air signal that was broadcast at 18Mb/s. When you consider that the prime source used maybe 400Mb/s, you can see why it might suffer.

If you'd seen original film transfers or studio-quality video on a decent monitor you'd know why HD is praised. But then, if you'd seen high-end SD in the same environment you would probably have thought you were seeing HD, so poor is the current delivery of TV to the home.

Unfortunately, what you saw _is_ as good as it gets for most people. Squeezing high-bitrate video down a soda straw delivery 'pipe' robs HD of what makes it shine. "Digital" in home TV terms means low-bitrate MPEG. Yeah, it's noise-free. It's also quality-free.

I had a similar reaction when CDs arrived; they just didn't sound as
natural as vinyl records.

When I got my HDTV home I set it up to be more natural; but my wife said
it looked too dull and much preferred the Vivid setting. Of course we
went with what she preferred and I am now used to it.

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

Jim Mack wrote:
HiC wrote:
Went into a local Circuit City and took a good long look at their HDTV
selections. They had several including 2 1080p sets that I was told
were set up correctly and what I was seeing was as good as it gets.
Everything HD from the cams to the screen. Both the 1080p's were
running some sort of hard drive unit, not off a broadcast.

As many have said, it isn't just the set that's off. If it's coming from a hard drive then it's likely that it's re-compressed at a bit rate around 12-15Mb/s, maybe even from an original off-air signal that was broadcast at 18Mb/s. When you consider that the prime source used maybe 400Mb/s, you can see why it might suffer.

If you'd seen original film transfers or studio-quality video on a decent monitor you'd know why HD is praised. But then, if you'd seen high-end SD in the same environment you would probably have thought you were seeing HD, so poor is the current delivery of TV to the home.

Unfortunately, what you saw _is_ as good as it gets for most people. Squeezing high-bitrate video down a soda straw delivery 'pipe' robs HD of what makes it shine. "Digital" in home TV terms means low-bitrate MPEG. Yeah, it's noise-free. It's also quality-free.



Heresy!! Very dangerous to talk like that in this venue. MPEG2 and 19.34
Mbps 8-VSB as used with over the air broadcasting are beyond criticism
here.

It has been suggested that capturing at 720P, down converting to 480P,
transmitting at 480P and then upconverting at the set might be an option
that would offer a better experience for most at screen sizes 42" or
under. No one wants to hear anything but 1080i/p here.

The combination of MPEG2, 1080i and 8-VSB is going to kill free OTA TV
for channels 2-51 IMO.

Bob Miller

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

"HiC" wrote in
ink.net:

Went into a local Circuit City and took a good long look at their HDTV
selections. They had several including 2 1080p sets that I was told
were set up correctly and what I was seeing was as good as it gets.
Everything HD from the cams to the screen. Both the 1080p's were
running some sort of hard drive unit, not off a broadcast.

I've been hearing how amazing HDTV is. Well....while there's a certain
"pow" when you first see them, I get the sense it's due to some
artifically induced phenomena. The colors seem vivid, but it seems to
me in an enhanced - i.e. forced way. There seems to be an excessive
"whiteness" to the image that adds a certain kind of
sparkle/sharpness, but again it seems artificial. The real world as
viewed by eyeballs doesn't seem that "sharp" or vivid. The demos that
were showing were clearly intended to take advantage of this, all
these closeups of brightly colored flowers, snowboarders on glaring
snow etc. I don't believe a sky exists anywhere the shade of blue they
were depicting in that demo.

I see all kinds of artifacts in the images. Yeah, okay, they're not
meant to be viewed from 6 inches away. But when I back off to 8 - 10
feet, I still see this odd graininess, especially when the image pans.
Plus all these other odd things that happen to the image. Overall I
find it harder on my eyes than a sharp picture on a good analog tv.

As I understand it, in a few years we're getting all digital whether
we like it or not. Is the whole HDTV thing just a bill of goods we got
sold/crammed down our throats?

When I bought an HDTV-ready TV, I bought a CRT model. CRT and rear
projection CRT are proven technologies that can reproduce signals at
these resolutions. They've been in use for some time in the computer
industry, doing just that.

The difference is not HUGE, but my SD signals are actually received,
often, at EDTV resolution from a satellite, so what I'm actually
comparing is the line-doubled 480p signal from the satellite to the 1080i
signal from the same source. My estimate is that the picture clarity is
3db better on the HDTV signals, especially the good ones.

That's about twice as good as the SDTV signals.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

I've been hearing how amazing HDTV is. Well....while there's a certain "pow"
when you first see them, I get the sense it's due to some artifically
induced phenomena. The colors seem vivid, but it seems to me in an
enhanced - i.e. forced way. There seems to be an excessive "whiteness" to
the image that adds a certain kind of sparkle/sharpness, but again it seems
artificial. The real world as viewed by eyeballs doesn't seem that "sharp"
or vivid. The demos that were showing were clearly intended to take
advantage of this, all these closeups of brightly colored flowers,
snowboarders on glaring snow etc. I don't believe a sky exists anywhere the
shade of blue they were depicting in that demo.

Much of what you're complaining about is because the set is adjusted
improperly.

I've had HD for 4 years, and I still get amazed on how realistic stuff
looks.

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

HiC wrote:
Went into a local Circuit City and took a good long look at their HDTV
selections. They had several including 2 1080p sets that I was told were set
up correctly and what I was seeing was as good as it gets. Everything HD
from the cams to the screen. Both the 1080p's were running some sort of hard
drive unit, not off a broadcast.

I've been hearing how amazing HDTV is. Well....while there's a certain "pow"
when you first see them, I get the sense it's due to some artifically
induced phenomena. The colors seem vivid, but it seems to me in an
enhanced - i.e. forced way. There seems to be an excessive "whiteness" to
the image that adds a certain kind of sparkle/sharpness, but again it seems
artificial. The real world as viewed by eyeballs doesn't seem that "sharp"
or vivid. The demos that were showing were clearly intended to take
advantage of this, all these closeups of brightly colored flowers,
snowboarders on glaring snow etc. I don't believe a sky exists anywhere the
shade of blue they were depicting in that demo.

I see all kinds of artifacts in the images. Yeah, okay, they're not meant to
be viewed from 6 inches away. But when I back off to 8 - 10 feet, I still
see this odd graininess, especially when the image pans. Plus all these
other odd things that happen to the image. Overall I find it harder on my
eyes than a sharp picture on a good analog tv.

As I understand it, in a few years we're getting all digital whether we like
it or not. Is the whole HDTV thing just a bill of goods we got sold/crammed
down our throats?

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Jim Mack wrote:
As many have said, it isn't just the set that's off. If it's coming from
a hard drive then it's likely that it's re-compressed at a bit rate
around 12-15Mb/s, maybe even from an original off-air signal that was
broadcast at 18Mb/s. When you consider that the prime source used maybe
400Mb/s, you can see why it might suffer.

There is also a very real possibility that the set is being fed an analog
signal and thus is not HD at all. Not much attention is paid in these
mass market stores to proper grounding either.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"HiC" wrote in
ink.net:

Went into a local Circuit City and took a good long look at their HDTV
selections. They had several including 2 1080p sets that I was told
were set up correctly and what I was seeing was as good as it gets.
Everything HD from the cams to the screen. Both the 1080p's were
running some sort of hard drive unit, not off a broadcast.

I've been hearing how amazing HDTV is. Well....while there's a certain
"pow" when you first see them, I get the sense it's due to some
artifically induced phenomena. The colors seem vivid, but it seems to
me in an enhanced - i.e. forced way. There seems to be an excessive
"whiteness" to the image that adds a certain kind of
sparkle/sharpness, but again it seems artificial. The real world as
viewed by eyeballs doesn't seem that "sharp" or vivid. The demos that
were showing were clearly intended to take advantage of this, all
these closeups of brightly colored flowers, snowboarders on glaring
snow etc. I don't believe a sky exists anywhere the shade of blue they
were depicting in that demo.

I see all kinds of artifacts in the images. Yeah, okay, they're not
meant to be viewed from 6 inches away. But when I back off to 8 - 10
feet, I still see this odd graininess, especially when the image pans.
Plus all these other odd things that happen to the image. Overall I
find it harder on my eyes than a sharp picture on a good analog tv.

As I understand it, in a few years we're getting all digital whether
we like it or not. Is the whole HDTV thing just a bill of goods we got
sold/crammed down our throats?

When I bought an HDTV-ready TV, I bought a CRT model. CRT and rear
projection CRT are proven technologies that can reproduce signals at
these resolutions. They've been in use for some time in the computer
industry, doing just that.

The difference is not HUGE, but my SD signals are actually received,
often, at EDTV resolution from a satellite, so what I'm actually
comparing is the line-doubled 480p signal from the satellite to the 1080i
signal from the same source. My estimate is that the picture clarity is
3db better on the HDTV signals, especially the good ones.

That's about twice as good as the SDTV signals.

Might that suggest that if the EDTV signal was actually true 480P and
had been captured with a good 720P camera that it might be as good as
the 1080i signal?

Bob Miller

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Bob Miller wrote:
Heresy!! Very dangerous to talk like that in this venue. MPEG2 and 19.34 Mbps
8-VSB as used with over the air broadcasting are beyond criticism here.

It has been suggested that capturing at 720P, down converting to 480P,
transmitting at 480P and then upconverting at the set might be an option that
would offer a better experience for most at screen sizes 42" or under. No one
wants to hear anything but 1080i/p here.

The combination of MPEG2, 1080i and 8-VSB is going to kill free OTA TV for
channels 2-51 IMO.

For the benefit of the other newsgroups: this is Psycho Bob Miller, the
official crackpot of alt.tv.tech.hdtv. Sometimes he posts under his own
name, other times he uses sock puppets that loudly "agree" with him.

Psycho Bob wages a lonely FUD crusade in an increasingly futile attempt to
convince people that North America is far behind the rest of the world
because we choose the 8-VSB modulation and HDTV instead of COFDM
modulation with SD.

Years ago, Psycho Bob bet his company's future on piggy-backed datacasting
on broadcast TV channels, based upon the assumption that the US would
choose COFDM. He lost a lot of money, and now has nothing better to do
than to post nonsense on alt.tv.tech.hdtv.

His basic message comes down to: don't buy an HDTV, because HDTV will die.

According to Psycho Bob:
. there are no impulse noise issues with COFDM modulation
. Europe, which has no over-the-air HDTV, is more advanced than the US
whose digital stations are primarily HDTV.
. everybody in the UK and Australia watches perfect digital TV in their
homes with rabbit ear indoor antennas
. 480p is the highest video quality that any consumer actually wants
. nobody other than a "few fanatics" in the USA actually watches or cares
about HDTV.
. Japan's "one-seg", which is a service for low-resolution video to
mobile phones that is piggy-backed on digital TV signals, constitutes
broadcast digital television to cell phones.
. all US broadcasters currently broadcasting in HDTV will abandon HDTV
or only offer it as a pay-TV service.
He makes many other absurd claims, but this gives you a taste.

For a while, Psycho Bob was posting some foreign language press releases
with pretty pictures that seemed to back up his claims, but that stopped
when people who could read those languages came back and reported what the
text actually said.

No matter how many times he is debunked and made to look foolish, he's
like one of these stupid whack-a-mole games at a carnival; he keeps on
coming back for more. It's amusing when you have some free time to kill,
although eventually you put it aside for a while and let someone else have
the fun.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:42:53 -0400, HiC wrote
(in article . net):

Went into a local Circuit City and took a good long look at their HDTV
selections. They had several including 2 1080p sets that I was told were set
up correctly and what I was seeing was as good as it gets. Everything HD
from the cams to the screen. Both the 1080p's were running some sort of hard
drive unit, not off a broadcast.

I've been hearing how amazing HDTV is. Well....while there's a certain "pow"
when you first see them, I get the sense it's due to some artifically
induced phenomena. The colors seem vivid, but it seems to me in an
enhanced - i.e. forced way. There seems to be an excessive "whiteness" to
the image that adds a certain kind of sparkle/sharpness, but again it seems
artificial. The real world as viewed by eyeballs doesn't seem that "sharp"
or vivid. The demos that were showing were clearly intended to take
advantage of this, all these closeups of brightly colored flowers,
snowboarders on glaring snow etc. I don't believe a sky exists anywhere the
shade of blue they were depicting in that demo.

I see all kinds of artifacts in the images. Yeah, okay, they're not meant to
be viewed from 6 inches away. But when I back off to 8 - 10 feet, I still
see this odd graininess, especially when the image pans. Plus all these
other odd things that happen to the image. Overall I find it harder on my
eyes than a sharp picture on a good analog tv.

As I understand it, in a few years we're getting all digital whether we like
it or not. Is the whole HDTV thing just a bill of goods we got sold/crammed
down our throats?

I bought a 16:9, 34" glass Sony WEGA just before the Utah winter olympics
4-5 years ago and have been watching the D channels ever since. That
broadcast was amazing. One night, I'm watching ice hockey and the picture
looks like crap...well like normal video. Five minutes later NBC put up a
lower third saying they didn't have the "good cameras" in the hockey venue.

1. The color space is very different than NTSC. Much more vivid.
2. The Greek Olympic games sucked in comparison. Don't know if they used
cheap cameras, had bad satellites or multicasting at the stations was
reducing bandwidth.

My fear is that by the time enough HD sets are bought by consumers, the good
video I saw in the Utah games will be a distant memory.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Do you really like the way HDTV looks?
 

"HiC" wrote:

I've been hearing how amazing HDTV is. Well....while there's a certain
"pow"
when you first see them, I get the sense it's due to some artifically
induced phenomena. The colors seem vivid, but it seems to me in an
enhanced - i.e. forced way. There seems to be an excessive "whiteness"
to
the image that adds a certain kind of sparkle/sharpness, but again it
seems
artificial.

As others have suggested, you can almost be guaranteed that the color in
display sets in stores is misadjusted. The first thing I had to do when
setting up my LCD monitor was to crank the color intensity control way
down.

I see all kinds of artifacts in the images. Yeah, okay, they're not
meant to
be viewed from 6 inches away. But when I back off to 8 - 10 feet, I
still
see this odd graininess, especially when the image pans. Plus all
these
other odd things that happen to the image. Overall I find it harder on
my
eyes than a sharp picture on a good analog tv.

After watching a well adjusted digital TV image, I don't think you can
go back to analog very easily. It's very much the same as trying to go
back to AM radio, after listening to FM or CDs. Analog TV looks grainy,
fuzzy, the raster is obvious, it's just unacceptable.

But not all DTV is alike. Some Standard Def digital programs, for
example, are sharp and clear. Others look just about as grainy and fuzzy
as analog TV. The nice thing about HDTV is that *finally* you can see TV
pictures that are as sharp and clear as the best images on a PC monitor.
(Which is not to say that all programs will be that way, of course.) And
the audio is excellent as well. Much better than even than the stereo
analog audio in the best analog programs.

As I understand it, in a few years we're getting all digital whether
we like
it or not. Is the whole HDTV thing just a bill of goods we got
sold/crammed
down our throats?

Supposedly, 18 Feb 2009. We'll see. Overall, it would be a good thing,
in the sense that DTV will work a lot better if the spectrum isn't
overcrowded with the much more powerful analog transmitters, digital
should have an easier time of it. I think if you take it home and adjust
it properly, you'll not regret going to DTV. And you'll not be able to
enjoy analog TV any longer.

Bert