I never thought that I'd be able to afford an HDTV in my lifetime, but as all emergent technologies tend to do after several years (remember when DVD players cost +$1000 when they first hit the market in the mid-1990's?), I was happily proven wrong. Last month I bought a 26" Toshiba 26HF85 to replace an older irreparable 25" non-HD TV in my bedroom that finally went kaput (Sony is probably a bit better, but more expensive). All I can say is wow! Watching HD programming on an HDTV (as opposed to on a non-HD TV, which is what I did with my previous TV) is really something else, particularly sports programming. Watching the 49ers, Warriors and Sharks in HD has been amazing, and I can't wait to see the Giants in HD this coming spring. I connected the HDTV to the Comcast HD-DVR (set to 16:9) I already had via DVI-to-HDMI connection (since the DVR doesn't have an HDMI slot). Because DVI only transmits video but not audio, I still had to also connect the HD-DVR to the stereo receiver via digital optical audio cable, though regular stereo cables could've been used as well either to the receiver or to the TV itself. Someday I'll be able to afford a bigger HDTV to replace the non-HD Sony bigscreen attached to a second Comcast HD-DVR via S-video set to 4:3 letterbox (so I can at least watch the HD channels there), but for now I suppose that I'll have to settle for the Toshiba for pure HDTV goodness. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
Something about that image quality freaks me out, though. I hadn't really taken long looks at such TVs until they were a work distraction/something that technically I could say I was supposed to be watching. Usually on weekend afternoons, when many channels had outdoor sporting events like NASCAR, football, or soccer on Telemundo, it looked like the image was weirdly BETTER than reality.
I've noticed the same thing, though I didn't know how quite to put it. I'm glad that it wasn't just me. Do the HD cameras and/or TV's "enhance reality", so to speak? GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
I suppose the only "problem" with the HDTV is how much it emphasizes how inferior the picture for non-HD programming is. At least for Comcast, the channels seem to fall into three levels of picture quality: the HD channels, the digitial non-HD channels (i.e. triple-digit non-HD cable channels) and the analog channels (i.e. single-digit and double-digit cable channels). The Toshiba upconverts all the channels to 1080i (the current standard for HDTV's, though 1080p sets did recently emerge), which has the weird side-effect of bringing out how inferior the non-HD channels' picture is. The digital non-HD channels' picture is still fairly decent, but the analog channels' picture is pretty bleh (though they were noticibly bleh even on non-HD TV's). Thankfully, Congress had passed a bill about a decade ago stating that all analog channels will be shut down by 2009 or 2010, so hopefully those channels currently on analog can find their way onto HD and/or non-HD digital by then (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, ESPN and certain sports programming from such channels as Fox Sports Net and OLN already have). Another weird side-effect is that all the theatrical movies made before the late 1990's that are shown on such HD channels as INHD and INHD2 have a slight, previously-unnoticed graininess to them, while theatrical films from after that time-period are very clear - I suppose that filmmakers already had HD in mind by the late 1990's. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
If you are viewing all of your channels through your comcast DVR, you are watching digital TV on all of your channels. The problem you are seeing is due to a choice made by Comcast to limit the bandwidth available for each of the lower tier channels (essentially basic cable). They usually give alot of bandwidth to the subscription channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.) and very little to locals.
So those lower tier channels are going to receive the current amount of bandwitdth indefinitely? GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
Well, at the risk of being wrong through supposition, my guess would be that they won't change unless enough people complain, not that complaining will change their mind (based on "on-topic" experience ). You might see improvements due to technology, but that would require a new set-top box.
Since my HDTV only broadcasts in 1080i resolution, it won't be able to air 1080p HD programming to its fullest potential once such programming becomes available. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
I just got HD a little over a month ago. I have a Panasonic 52" LCD rear projection TV with HD programming through my local cable company (Service Electric). I get 8 channels in HD: ABC, FOX, PBS, TNT, Discovery, ESPN, HDnet, and HDnet movies. I was told by my friend at the cable co. that CBS and NBC and some others will be coming after the first of the year. My TV has the HD tuner built in so I could just hook up an antenna to get CBS and ABC but I'll just wait instead of having to buy an antenna and mount it on my roof in the snow. The picture quality of the HD channels is outstanding. But the "regular channels" are grainy looking. I don't think it's because the cable co. limits the bandwidth, the analog and basic digital channels are getting all the bandwidth they need. I just think once you "get used to" that HD image, the inferiority of the regular channels just becomes more apparent. I also went from a 32" CRT to a 52" projection so I figure it's like blowing up a wallet photo to 8x10. Another thing that I don't care for is the stretching of the 4:3 content. I mostly use the progressive stretch which leaves the center as you would see it on a 4:3 set but stretches the picture progressively within the outer 2 thirds. This give the picture a slight "fishbowl" effect. My Panasonic does tis better than my friends 50" Samsung DLP. I'm pissed that originally the FCC mandated all channels be broadcast in HD by 2006. Then the republicans changed it to 2009. The media, which is owned by the right wing BTW, didn't want to spend the money to buy the new cameras and such.
There is no mandate for HDTV. The dates given are when NTSC (old school analog broadcasts) would cease and all broadcasts would be exclusively digital. Broadcasters can choose to broadcast in HDTV, EDTV or SDTV (which is essentially equivilent to the quality of current NTSC broadcasts). Some are choosing to broadcast 4 SDTV channels rather than one HDTV channel in their 19MHz bandwidth allotment.
Comcast here has those channels you listed in HD including CBS and NBC, but not TNT and HDnet (they instead have INHD and INHD2). Until last week, I was envious of those that had HDnet, but it now doesn't matter to me anymore. I was also fervently hoping that Comcast would get ESPN2-HD before this coming summer, but it also now doesn't matter to me anymore. It would still be pretty cool if they did, though. This is very true! It's similar to when I started only watching pre-recorded movies on DVD and, later, TV on TiVo (and then later Comcast HD-DVR). Some time later, when I finally watched a pre-recorded VCR tape and a show taped on VCR tape again, my only reaction to them was "yuck". Once I got used to the sweet, I just couldn't go back to the bitter. I think that's not the cable company so much as how your HDTV is set up. My Toshiba has the option to keep all broadcasts in their natural aspects and a few options for stretching the image out. I keep mine natural, so all broadcasts in the 4:3 aspect have black bars on the sides, while only the broadcasts in 16:9 fill up the screen (though I've noticed that a few newer movies on Showtime-HD that were originally filmed in anamorphic widescreen are broadcast in 16:9 but have slight black bars on top and bottom anyway). GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
Comcast in Northern California actually could carry TNT HD if it wanted. The Comcast HQ negotiated the rights to TNT HD over a year ago and it is carried by Comcast systems all over the country, but for some reason Comcast in Northern California hasn't put it on yet. A few of the Northern California systems have bandwidth problems, but 95% of them don't, so that's not an excuse. Next time you call Comcast, make a point of complaining that TNT HD hasn't been added yet even though it's available. The customer reps have a special electronic form for such complaints they can fill out quickly while you are on the phone. As to ESPN2 HD, if Comcast doesn't have it in time for the WC, I will be dropping Comcast and taking up DirecTV or Dish (assuming Dish has it by then; DirecTV has it now).
Actually, they aren't really "digital TV" just because they are watched through a DVR. Yes, there is a digital signal but it is converted from the analog TV signal. That is why the picture quality on the DVR isn't so hot for channels 2 through 82. It doesn't do a good job of converting analog to digital. Now, once Comcast starts digital simulcasting around here, the picture quality of the digitally simulcasted channels in the 2 through 82 range will improve tremendously. In digital simulcast, the DVR gets a digital version of the channel from the head end. There is no conversion from analog to digital. Much better picture quality since the DVR does not have to perform the conversion.
No, not exactly--oh, wait, I see cristoforo7 has already jumped in on this. S/He's correct in that Comcast in some cases has to convert an analog channel signal to digital, and for those channels the picture won't look as good as a digital channel. What's important to realize, besides the fact that AEG sucks, is that this situation is dependent on your city's cable system. So a blanket statement like "Comcast is not yet digital simulcasting" only applies on a city-by-city franchise basis. The best place I've seen to discuss this is at AVSForum's San Francisco Comcast thread at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=357896 . You may want to use the search tools to find any mention of your city. Correct. The transition is from analog to digital broadcasting, which uses much less bandwidth. The FCC's plan is to reclaim that bandwidth for "first responders", i.e. fire, police, etc. HDTV is simply claiming most of that bandwidth for one channel, but broadcasters can choose to broadcast up to six standard channels within their bandwidth allocation. Actually, it's not so much the broadcasters as it is the millions of people who still get their TV through a good old fashioned antenna who will be hurt by the switchover. Once analog broadcasting stops, their TVs become obsolete unless they get cable, satellite, or a converter box. And it's only now that even the cheapest digital TVs are becoming price-competitive with analog TVs, so (as much as I love to blame Republicans) waiting is a good thing in this case. World Cup, baby. All 64 matches in high-definition on ABC, ESPN, and ESPN2.
As far as digital simulcasting, here is good thread to keep track of where it's happening in Comcast's West region: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14311115 As you will see from reading the thread, it's happening in Denver, Spokane and Seattle, but nowhere else as of yet according to those who post in the thread.
My area's cable currently doesn't have ESPN2-HD, and no one at the local Comcast office can tell me if/when they'll eventually get it. In any case, I might catch a few World Cup games unless I have other plans at the time, though the prospect of not having ESPN2-HD by then gives me even one less incentive to watch WC games on that particular channel. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
As I patiently await the 49ers' penultimate game of 2005 today on FOX-HD, I contemplate how the Comcast HD-DVR first became available in this area just shortly after Super Bowl XXIX (as a matter of fact, it was only available later that month) and realize that this coming Super Bowl will be my first in HD. Though sadly, it'll be the final NFL broadcast on ABC. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
Speaking of Showtime-HD, I've recently caught up on some movies that I meant to see in the theaters the last 2-3 years but for some reason missed, and it's totally obvious that the filmmakers knew that their movies were gonna be shown on HDTV's at some point. Not that I'm complaining, of course. So far I've seen Mean Girls, Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, Super Size Me and The Manchurian Candidate (2004 version). Tonight I'll be recording School of Rock to watch tomorrow. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
Darn it, there seemed to have been an interruption in service while recording School of Rock, so it only recorded part of the movie. I guess I'll have to set the DVR for the next recording of it tomorrow (Tuesday). GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
So which of tonight's New Year's Countdown shows will be broadcast in 16:9 HD (as opposed to upconverted 4:3)? And which of them would be the best show to watch and/or record anyway? GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
Dick Clark's Rockin' Eve on ABC has been confirmed as a 16:9 HD broadcast. I don't know about the other networks' countdown shows yet. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G
And damn, Susanna Hoffs of The Bangles is still cute for her age - particularly in HD! Though it was bizarre to see a replacement for Michael Steele, who apparently had left the band last April or May. GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G