No HDTV For me

I couldn't help but post a reply on this subject.

http://www.hdbeat.com/2006/01/07/congratulations-you-dont-have-an-hdtv-heres-your-cookie/

I read an interesting piece on Bit-tech today, in it the author goes to great length to tell the world how well off he is without an HDTV and how he doesn't really need one even for the Xbox 360 that he doesn't have yet. Why buy an HDTV?, thardly any programming and the games look just fine on the TV he proudly bought 6 years ago.

First, there are several things i agree with him on. There has been much misinformation spread about how HDTV works, whether or not you'll see a benefit to your next generation games without an HDTV, etc. Anyone who tells you they can't tell the difference between Xbox and Xbox 360 games no matter what the TV, is blind or simply trying to attract attention. Comparing screenshots of ports is only relevant if you are planning on buying your next gen console to play last gen games. Also, there is somewhat limited HDTV programming available, especially in England where the writer appears to be from, which besides being overrun by wolves is also only just recently starting to have HD broadcasts become available.

With all that, you might start to think, why should I buy an HDTV? Here's why.
Even going back to Xbox and PS2, in the games that support it, the higher resolution of HDTV really makes things pop off the screen at you. Microsoft making HDTV support standard on 360 games doesn't kill the SDTV, it just makes sure people with HDTV's get what they are paying for and should be applauded.With bigger and better games on the horizon, the benefit of HDTV will only increase as programmers add even more detailed visual effects to games. For people with big screen TV's the difference is even more stark, the higher resolution allows you to sit closer and enjoy the picture more. When you're reading the advertisements in NYC through the glass roof of your Koenigsegg CCR, you'll thank me.



Yes some game companies have had issues, but what has not been mentioned is that other games like Condemned and PGR3 included sample images to assist gamers in adjusting their settings for the best possible viewing, HDTV or not. It all comes back to the same thing, support well designed games and the game makers will get it together.

As far as programming goes, I'm sure that once the World Cup rolls around our European friends will be singing a different tune, what Janet Jackson's breast did for high definition in the US, "real" football will do over there. If you live in the US, your favorite program probably is recorded in high definition, and may include an Easter Egg or two. High definition movies are a must for any movie buff, HD brings the theater home, you can pour sticky pop and crumbs beneath your seat just to get the full effect.

I'm rather saddened that he feels people with HDTV's have said he "sucks" for not having one, thats certainly not HDBeat readers. We know the many challenges SD people face in their day to day life and have no wish to pile on. I used to be the same way, after seeing smeary pixelated HDTV broadcasts of the NCAA Mens Basketball tournament 5 years ago, I was impressed by how much more I could see, but not moved to purchase one. I only bought my TV two years ago because I got a great deal.

The fact is, today, if your argument against purchasing an HDTV is the price, then that is simply inaccurate, as CRT prices continue to plunge, and LCD prices will do the same next year. Anyone who can afford to buy an Xbox 360 premium system, can afford to buy an HDTV, you don't have to spend $2000, perfectly good TV's can be had for less than $1000 or even $500 depending on your preferred technology. Market penetration will go up markedly as people become amazed at what they can buy for less.



Once you have one, there is no question. One episode of Sunrise Earth on Discovery and it is a wrap; with home improvement, detective shows, and increasing use of HD by independent filmmakers there is no doubt that this year you'll see what you're looking for in high definition.

HDTV's time is now, and I'd like to cordially Mr. Caines across the pond for a visit, if he can go back to life without high definition after drinking the 1080i kool-aid (it's red, the best flavor), then more power to him. 2006 is going to be the year that everyone says "wow, I didn't know high definition made such a big difference, but now I understand", just wait.

 

The problem with the UK is that we're lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of content. There isn't any now.

Sky is trialing the World Cup in HDTV and that'll be our first HD broadcasting as far as I am aware. However, there's no word on exactly how many channels will be in full HD after that date. Until there is a considerable number of channels in HD, I don't see the point in getting something better. I've got a 42" Sony rear projection TV that is superb - great lighting, great blacks and great colour.

I'd rather wait a few years and get a HDR HDTV like this puppy: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/1.html

I've watched HDTV when I've visited America and I was impressed, but not anywhere near as impressed as watching streams on the BrightSide display. I literally sat watching the same streams over and over for about 2 1/2 hours. They had to pack up at that time, otherwise I would have carried on watching streams. Words cannot describe just how good the content looked on the BrightSide display - you really have to see it to believe it.

The difference between HDTV and HDR HDTV was like going from Analogue TV to Digital TV - quite simply, it's amazing. If I had US$49,000, I'd be buying one of the BrightSide prototypes today - they are that good.

I think Geoff's final comment sums up a lot of Chris' thoughts too:

"If you are yet to make the jump to High Definition, we would strongly urge you to consider waiting until HDR models become available, or at least buy today in the knowledge that you will upgrade in 12-18 month's time. It really does make that much of a difference."

Why buy an HDTV when there's something as ground breaking as the move from Analogue to Digital Television Signals?

The beauty of HDR HDTV is that it doesn't require the content to be optimised for HDR (it obviously benefits if it is optimised) but I could see massive differences when watching the animated film, Madagascar, on the BrightSide display. You think the characters jump to life on an HDTV, you aint seen nothing - it's on another level on the BrightSide display.

 

I also noticed your article on HDR, and I think that really could be the next big jump, however I have doubts about whether or not it really is 12-18 months away and how much it will cost.

 

So basicly "I love HDTV, I have enough money and desire to upgrade my system whenever a new technology is released, and because I love it everyone else who doesn't rush out and get it because its better is stupid"? Jeez, show me a better example of a fanboy then someone whos heavily into either Hi-Fi(sorry dom ) or Home Cinema and I'll give you either a lollypop or an HDTV depending on if my wallets been eating well recently.

edit: Sorry if that post seems too harsh, I could probably phrase it better, but I won't try, because I suck at being nice. Welcome to bit-tech though

 

I suck at being nice also, my main point is that no, i don't have an extroadinary amount of money, and the perception that you need to in order to get an HDTV, or to get a good one, is misguided.

If you have enough mony to afford the $400 xbox 360 premium system, you can afford an HDTV, if you can't, you're probably skipping meals to afford a 360, which while i can relate to it, prolly isn't the wisest choice.

You can get good CRT's for 500-800 bucks, you can even get LCD's for as little as $800. And once you start watching all your movies on them and get a few HD channels, whether cable or OTA, you'll never go back to watching the regular ones.

edit: I don't think people without HDTV's are stupid, but I'm pretty sure they won't be picked up by the spaceships when the Hale-bopp comet comes back through.

 

I wouldn't know. THis house has 7 computers and zero TVs, HD or otherwise.

I suppose it's like displays. Sure, LCDs are the wave of the future, but I can buy a 22" CRT for the price of a 14" LCD. The LCD is thin and light weight, but unless you pick it up on a regular basis, whats the point.

 

But it's not, if you watch TV. Well, it improves the quality of your TV watching experience. How much do you people think HDTV's cost really? I got my Sony 32" set for $800 two years ago, which wasn't much more than a SD Wega of the same size would have cost. Prices have dropped since then.

 

how about this,

you pay for my new 36"+ HD ready screen, the subscription charges for my cable, all the new sh** ill need to hook it all up, and get me whatever optical media standars there are for HD.... and ill go out and buy a 360 and tell you what i think.

otherwise, im not getting a 360, or any of that other crap. my PS2 will be just as happy as anything else for the next few years hahah.

because not everyone on the freggin planet can splurge on that kind of hardware like the MINORITY you rich *******s are.

 

QFT.

Even if I had the spare cash, I wouldn't bother. Programming is limited, and what's available isn't the slighest bit intersting to me. Computer monitors have a much better pixel pitch and anyone who's used a 17" TFT has been running at 720p (plus some extra space on the top and bottom). Granted it's not quite the same as a 60" plasma, but considering the resolution is as good or better on a $250 flat panel... I'll talke the smaller size and better picture. I'd much rather spend $900 or so on the 24" Dell WS and have five inputs, including component (so I could run full 1080p) and call it big enough, not to mention very versatile.

But then again, I don't care much for console gaming. Still, the 360's graphics, in 720p, do NOT impress me in the slightest. Bring TVs to the sharpness of computer LCDs and call me back. Heck, just make it so 30" panels can run at 1080p (not 50+" at that screwey 1366x768 or whatever or 720p). Meanwhile, I too will wait for the HDR displays, and laugh my arse off at all the suckers to get screwed over my HDCP in a few months when they find out their "new" ubertastic plasma screen won't display their legal HD content due to an idiotic antipiracy measure (out of the few dozen HDTVs at my local best buy, I saw *one* saying it was hdcp-compliant, and that was the $6000 rear-protection 62" thing)

 

Come on guys, whilst Rjcc and myself might have different viewpoints, he's being perfectly reasonable in his conduct.. could you all at least show him the same respect.

 

Hey dude, my comment wasn't necessarily aimed at you, I was merely ading another perspective to the discussion, However, I'm not sure whether we'll see it on the market in 12-18 months - that'll depend on one of the big boys taking it on and making a marketable/sellable screen. The tech is damn cool though, so I can't see why a commercially viable HDR HDTV can't be produced.

Welcome to the forums.

 

Yeah, I'm sorry for that post of mine, it was unnessesarily rude in the face of someone who's being perfectly civil and polite in response, sorry

 

Who said you had to splurge? You already own a PS2. I've been gaming in 480p and higher for the last two years, many PS2 games support HDTV's and look much better for it. Play Shadows of the Colossus, God of War, GT4, any 2Ksports games? You've got plenty of content there already. Plus, if your PS2 is was made in the last two years, it probably supports progressive scan DVD playback as well.


Don't want to pay for cable? Cool, hook up an antenna and get all your locals for free. No need for new optical standards, all your DVD's will look better in 480p.

There you go, enhanced playback of the stuff you already have or can get without subscription OTA.

 

I think maybe, something to note is the difference in prices across the pond(looking from either direction). While Rjcc says you can pick up an HDTV for $800 over in the states, I very much doubt you can get one for £450 here, or if you can, it'll be rock bottom quality.

Since the technology is much less popular over here, and also because us brits get screwed on prices just for being brits, your going to need to spend significantly more to get the same sorta kit.

I had a quick look at circuitcity(US) and Comet(UK). It was impossible to compare exact matches since TV's have different product names in the US and UK, but comparing the cheapest HDTV panasonic 42" Plasmas, the cheapst Circuit City has is $1999, the cheapest Comet has is £2,299. Thats 4047 USD, over $2000 more for what is basicly the same product.

Now I'm not suggesting anyone who wants HDTV would need to buy a 42" Plasma, I'm just illustrating that massively increased cost that people over here incur compared to the states, when buying high end kit in general, but especially when buying HDTV kit.

 

Theres alot of people in the general public who are very mis-informed on the whole hd-tv thing. People who know a little are worse than those who know nothing IMO. They know that higher resolution is better but dont understand they need the content to view on it.

Hi-Res Screens dont show a better picture with as a Standard ETV screen when both are showing ETV. Oh, and while im having a moan about the un-informed general public, they LOVE to stretch the picure so it fills the screen, we cant have any of those black lines at the top or the bottom. DVD's have a narrower ration than widescreen but they dont half complain when we show it in its standard aspect ratio/res.

sorry if this has gone a bit off topic

oh and rjcc 480p != HDTV

HD Ready isnt HDTV as well, the HD Ready screens only have DVI connection on them. With somethings you will need the content protection which is sent though the HDMI (i think, im not 100% sure on the content protection side, i know you need it both on the source and the tv for it to work, and DVI connecitons on hd ready tvs wont have this)

 

Any TV which is marked as HDTV ready within the UK has to be able to support HD content through a component YPbPr connection and through DVI or HDMI. It must also support HDCP (the content protection) on the DVI or HDMI input.

 

lcd kicks CRT here you have a guide why:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=71226

and im going to wait for big SED displays before upgrading again or perhaps HDR but i dont think they are coming cheap.

 

meh, its a personal preference thing
lcd's have CRAP resolution
19" tft = ~1" more viewable space than a 19" crt but 1280x1024 instead of 1600x1200? **** that tbh.

 

That's all well and good leviathan, but the fundamental problem with an LCD is that its blacks quite frankly suck. Many gamers like seeing real black, rather than the artificial dark grey that you see on an LCD. I'm an LCD user myself, but I prefer gaming on a CRT - the only thing that limits me is the size of my desk.

Also, you're resolution limited, too. If you don't stay at native resolution, it looks blurred and crap. Use a high-quality CRT and you don't get any of that.

 

HDTV is a funny thing as at the CORRECT viewing distances 90% of people can not tell the difference between an SD and HD screen being fed the same HD source. Move closer to the screen and the difference is apparent. It is also a chicken and egg scenario where people wont buy the screens if there is no content and broadcasters dont want to broadcast HD if there is no screens to view it on.

Lets get some things clear though, DVI CAN and does support HDCP, it just depends on the manufacturers implementation of the hardware. If you look in the products specs it will tell you if it supports HDCP or not. Sky are due to start broadcasting HD in the UK this spring with 4 channels, running parallel to their existing line up, e.g. Sky One HD, Sky Sports HD etc. The BBC had originally planned to start their HD broadcasts in 2010 but they are apparently thinking of bringing this forward to 2008 now to coincide with the switch off of analogue signals.

I was in a discussion with a representative from Philips at a trade show and in his opinion the main factor preventing HD adoption in the UK was Sky TV's monopoly of satelite TV. Their prices are already as high as the UK public is willing to pay and they will not pay more for HD. He also voiced the opinion that in the industry the next gen consoles where the great unknown and it was felt that they would be the main driving force for HD in europe. Gamers tend to have a lot of disposable income and as shown with PC gamers are preapred to spend large amounts of cash on things like graphics cards. Decent sized HD screens are now availalble for the same price as high end graphics cards.

It is also worth asking how many of the people saying HD is a technology not worth adopting now are running 64bit or dual core CPUs or even SLI? All of which are either not fully supported yet or offer little improvement for a high expenditure.