James Gattuso

Video Placebo: Is that Really HDTV You Are Watching?

News of the video bizarre: According to a just-released survey by Scientific-Atlanta, millions of people who have HDTV sets apparently think they are watching high definition television, but aren’t. The survey was spurred by an earlier Forrester Research projection that by the end of the year some 16 million U.S. households will have HDTV sets, but only seven million wll have HDTV reception. The Scientific Atlanta survey found that, yes, some 49 percent of households were not taking advantage of their HD equipment. About a quarter found that their HD set itself provided better reception, without taking the additional steps necessary to view HD. Eighteen percent said they didn’t even know needed additional equipment, such as a set-top box or antenna. A quarter admitted they thought they were watching HD video because, after all, the programs said at the beginning that they were broadcast in HDTV.

The survey confirms the long-standing prejudice of many of us non-videophiles that HDTV really isn’t all that impressive. Still, it is milding shocking that so many people plunk down money for an HD set, but never catch on that it isn’t actually turned on.

This could open up a slew of innovative policy options for the digital transition. Perhaps, instead of actually allocating spectrum to HDTV broadcasts, the FCC could just say it has done so, saving the spectrum for more valued uses. And instead of requiring HD tuners on sets, the FCC could just require a sticker saying the set has an HD tuner. The possibilities are endless.

December 7, 2005 | Comments |

Viewing 29 Comments

    • ^
    • v


    Heh, amusing idea.



    That said, we got a new HD-ready 30" CRT about 6 months ago. We aren't getting HD signal yet, but we needed a new TV and figured that anything worth getting should be HD-ready. And damned if this sucker doesn't display regular, standard-def TV sharper than I've ever seen it. Yeah, it's 480i, but it looks a helluva lot better than my mother-in-law's 2-year-old non-HD-ready TV.



    So I don't think this is entirely placebo. This HD-ready set has better video quality even at SD resolution.

    • ^
    • v
    Just to be clear. The FCC is mandating digital transmission not HDTV. Digital and HD are two different things. Standard definition can be, and is being, broadcast over a digital signal. There is no end to the confusion over these two technologies.
    • ^
    • v
    In fact the FCC is mandating HDTV, not just "digital" transmission. By March 1, 2007 all TVs of all sizes must be only receive HDTV signals. SDTV will be eliminated. Older TV sets will need a converter to convert the signal from DTV to analog.

    http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5108580-3.html?...
    • ^
    • v
    Confusion... By March 1, 2007, all new TVs must be able to receive digital signals. To repeat an earlier comment, digital signals are NOT necessarily HDTV. SDTV (standard definition TV) can be, and is being, broadcast over a digital signal.

    In 2009, broadcasters must stop using analog signals and only use digital ones. Some stations may choose to continue broadcasting SDTV instead of HDTV over their digital signal.

    At this point (2009) older TV sets will need a converter to convert the signal from digital to analog.
    • ^
    • v
    Broadcast? Broadcast?


    I rather doubt the majority of HDTV owners will be bothering with set-top boxes, ever -- because they're getting their HDTV feeds from satellite sources. If you've got the money (and sense) to pick up an HDTV unit, wouldn't you understand that the lame local programming you suffer through is best ignored for the tens of HD channels offered by satellite providers?


    Set top boxes, my aching whatever. I have HDTV, have had for a long time, and I have no plans, ever, to get an on-air decoder. I don't even have a standard TV antenna. Satellite TV is bad enough; local broadcast television is intolerable.

    • ^
    • v
    "The survey confirms the long-standing prejudice of many of us non-videophiles that HDTV really isn't all that impressive"
    HUH? Have you ever SEEN a real HD broadcast. It's phenomenal compared to the same thing broadcast in standard def,,,at least it is on my 46" HDTV that is getting (admittedly few) HDTV channels (damn you Time Warner).
    • ^
    • v
    Why in the hell is the FCC doing this? No one really needs HDTV. How about getting fiber to low income neighborhoods, making sure everyone has high speed internet access seems more important than being able to see better skin tones on television.
    • ^
    • v
    Reading these comments is funny because some of you posters claim to be informed, yet spew out another misunderstanding.

    Let's call it what it is. The digital broadcasts you're talking about is called ATSC as opposed to NTSC, which is the analog feed that will eventually get phased out.

    ATSC does not necessarily equate to High Definition. You can view standard definition programs with a digital (ATSC) broadcasts with your HDTV screen, and most of it is still standard definition.

    The guy who didn't understand the comment about non-videophiles not finding HDTV impressive is obviously missing the point of the article that these people are under the impression they're viewing HDTV when they're not...so why would they be impressed?

    Yes, true HDTV is superior, but watching standard definition via your HDTV's NTSC tuner is like sticking a wad of gum on a gold band and calling it a diamond.
    • ^
    • v
    Most people buy their technology not because they need it, not because it is better than what they have been useing.. But because they are TOLD they should get it, or their keeping up with the Jones's - yes it is the fashion. Many capable of posting here would know and appreciate the difference, many more the fact that you can see the ball in the football game makes the picture Hi Def.
    What many people Call a Good picture wont even pass as poor Standard def digital.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't see how you can state that the fact that a third of people are actually not viewing shows in HD supports your prejudice that HD content is not that impressive. It seems just to prove that people buy new technology and don't RTFM. Could it be that perhaps you watched "HD" w/o it being turned on? ;)
    • ^
    • v
    I don't see how you can state that the fact that a third of people are actually not viewing shows in HD supports your prejudice that HD content is not that impressive. It seems just to prove that people buy new technology and don't RTFM. Could it be that perhaps you watched "HD" w/o it being turned on? ;)
    • ^
    • v
    "In fact the FCC is mandating HDTV, not just "digital" transmission. By March 1, 2007 all TVs of all sizes must be only receive HDTV signals."

    Miguel Nunez, you just contradicted yourself. Merely because the FCC is mandating that TVs can receive HTDV signals, does NOT mean that broadcasters must transmit in HD. Those are two entirely different concepts.

    And in fact, there is no law or statute of any kind that says broadcasters must transmit in HD at any time. All broadcasters are going to lose are their analog transmissions. What they do with their allotted digital spectrum is up to them.
    • ^
    • v
    We recently bought an HD TV, and just for fun pluncked down an extra $50 bucks for an HD antenna. To say the least, we were absoulutly blown away. In our market, (Raleigh Durham) every network station and public TV station is broadcasting in HD. Additionaly, there are smaller community stations broastcasting a digital signal.We receive eight different stations in HD. Additionaly, most of these stations broadcast from two to four different channels with different programing and at different resolutions. We are seroiusly rethinking why we would need HD cable.And let me also say that a SD signal is far superior to any analog broadcast. At least on our TV.

    We are going to get a converter for our Sony analog TV, just because there is so much more programing in broadcast digital.
    • ^
    • v
    "and just for fun pluncked down an extra $50 bucks for an HD antenna"

    Got news for you: an HD antenna is *just* an antenna. HD signals are carried on the UHF spectrum, and you can pick them up just as easily with a 30-year old UHF antenna than something that is marked "HD ready." A lot of the "HD" stuff you see out there is marketing hype created to make you pay extra for stuff, much like the "digital ready" speakers that were being pushed when CD's came out. Speakers are still analog and there is nothing special about designing them for music from CD's. Same thing with antennas--just get a good UHF antenna and if you don't have too many trees or too much multipath, you'll be very pleased with off-the-air HDTV.

    That being said, for those of you who have never seen a true HD signal, you owe it to yourself to see what your TV can do. And as some have pointed out, the digital broadcast of standard definition content tends to look much better than the analog version of the same thing. That is because with digital transmission, there is no "snow" or "ghosting"--you either have it or you don't (or if you have a weak signal, the whole picture drops out). Not only that, but the audio is much better. Ultimately, as transmitters come up to full power and the receivers get better, people are going to want digital broadcast because the picture is better--HD or not.

    Also, if you own a nice set, you should really go out and get the Avia DVD and use it to calibrate your set. TV sets are manufactured to look best under the bright showroom lights, and by properly setting your contrast particularly, you will not only improve the picture but add life to the TV (especially if it is a CRT-based set).
    • ^
    • v
    Originally posted by Benn: "Set top boxes, my aching whatever. I have HDTV, have had for a long time, and I have no plans, ever, to get an on-air decoder. I don't even have a standard TV antenna. Satellite TV is bad enough; local broadcast television is intolerable."

    Are you kidding me? You obviously have not actually explored what is available in terms of digital transmission from your local carriers. Even here in the relative backwater of Roanoke, VA every single station is broadcasting in digital and have an array of HD programming that easily rivals what's available on digital cable and basic HD satellite packages.

    Additionally, locally broadcast HD doesn't suffer from the compression issues encountered with satellite and cable providers, so the image is actually higher quality and relatively free from motion artifacts.

    I'm fully in support of the broadcast digital revolution... why pay a huge monthly fee when you can get the exact same content over the airwaves for free?

    Many families pay for cable and then primarily watch the networks anyway. The only reason they do this is because their memory of poor analog reception has made "cable" synonymous with television reception. That day is over, and people have no reason to pay a cable company for what they can receive for free at higher quality. That's the reason for the legislation... empowering the consumer. I think it's great.
    • ^
    • v
    Some of you all really need to go do some reading at:
    ---
    www.dtv.gov
    ---
    Which is an FCC site with excellent background material and the real legislation and regulations. A very few of you either did so or got good info but most of you and the public as a whole misunderstands, and what's worse, sincerely believes they know what they need to.
    • ^
    • v
    Most HDTV sets are not capable of displaying the HD signal due to reduced resolution of the display. To view all that HD is capable of you need a screen that can display 1920x1080 pixels. There are very few sets that can do this. The next level down shows a little over half of the available definition. For comparison, HD should look like a 2M digital photo blown up to the size of your TV screen, Vieweing a 5x7 held at arms length shuold give you some idea of what to expect.
    • ^
    • v
    I disagree with the first poster who said SD broadcasts look better on his HD TV,

    "And damned if this sucker doesn't display regular, standard-def TV sharper than I've ever seen it. Yeah, it's 480i, but it looks a helluva lot better than my mother-in-law's 2-year-old non-HD-ready TV. So I don't think this is entirely placebo. This HD-ready set has better video quality even at SD resolution."

    I have a Samsung 1080P set and SD looks horrible, much worse than on my original non-HD set - using HD set-top connected by HDMI. It may have to do with the size of my new set being twice as large, so the video is scaled to fit the screen...
    • ^
    • v
    "Set top boxes, my aching whatever. I have HDTV, have had for a long time, and I have no plans, ever, to get an on-air decoder. I don't even have a standard TV antenna. Satellite TV is bad enough; local broadcast television is intolerable."

    Offense intended, your Satellite receiver is considered a set-top-box, guy. As for cable being a good add-on for HD reception, there are only a few channels that broadcast HD that arent networks.
    • ^
    • v
    Humerous article, thanks.
    • ^
    • v
    Originally posted by Nate: I have a Samsung 1080P set and SD looks horrible...

    Do a search on the web or look around avsforums.com, there are some settings you can change in the factory service menu (technician menu) that disable some of the video processing for SD signals and improve the SD video quality pretty significantly. Best of luck.
    • ^
    • v
    my head hurts. Someone wake me when its over.
    • ^
    • v
    If an HDTV set has a scaler (analogus to interpolation of a digital photo) standard signal will look much better on an HDTV.


    Spend some time at www.avsforum.com
    • ^
    • v
    When the cable guy came to install our new HD/DVR decoder box for us, he hooked up the TV to it and verified that we got a signal. I asked "Um, why are those black bars there on the edges?" He said "I don't know, it's always like that when I install these things." He really had no idea what it was supposed to look like. (Our issue was the wrong type of cable in the wrong input, easily resolved after he had left)
    • ^
    • v
    Benn must be a troll to say the things he/she said.



    "Set top boxes, my aching whatever. I have HDTV, have had for a long time, and I have no plans, ever, to get an on-air decoder. I don't even have a standard TV antenna. Satellite TV is bad enough; local broadcast television is intolerable."



    What channels were included in the "tens of HD channels offered by satellite providers?"
    If it was the network stations, they were probably being picked up using a terrestial antenna. Those are "local broadcast television."



    In my experience, it is those local HD feeds that provide the clearest picture. I've been watching HD OTA for some time now, even before I got VOOM almost 2 years ago. Don't confuse the multiplexed or upconverted SD feeds found on many locals with true HD. Those upconverted feeds resulting the in the pillarboxing (aka black bars on the side of the picture.



    BTW, this is something I know more than a little about, having been a broadcast engineer since the '80s and even a chief engineer in cable. I'm now working on the manufacturer side of the system, and the number of customers with misperceptions about what is HD isn't surprising.

    • ^
    • v