I've noticed people talking about high def tv in the US. My question is, what is the US definition of high def?
In the UK high def television is usually used describe a television system comprising of over 1000 lines resolution and at least a 16:9 aperture. I was over in NY last week working on an installation for a TV channel and asked about this, their answer was that it mean't widescreen and very little else.

I am not sure of the actual definition, but I know it means more then widescreen. I have an HDTV, but I also have TiVo. Tivo doesn't support HDTV currently, so my TV is not being used to it's potential.

As for the 1000 lines bit, my TV supports something like 1080 lines interlaced. If I'm not mistaken, this is very high and most US HD broadcasts are in 480 lines progressive (or somehting in that range). There is talk of the HDTV spec being abandoned, so who knows if I'll ever see my TV display anything by NTSC.

PS- Check out this site for video captures of US HDTV signals from various networks.

EDIT: After looking around (instead of talking out my ass), it seems HDTV is considered 1080i or 720p. NTSC is 480i. Fox doesn't conform to HighDef and broadcasts it's "digital" content in 480p. That's where I got confused.

The progressive scan stuff sounds familiar, I know current plans for HDTV in the UK rely on having enough bandwidth available which I don't think will happen. When the DSAT and DCable providers have a choice between loads of standard quality channels or a few HDTV ones I know which way they'll go.

My high-definition television runs at 1080 lines interlaced, with a 16:9 aspect ratio.

There is a competing standard of 720 lines progressive-scan, with a 16:9 aspect ratio. My TV doesn't display this rez, but my high-def-decoder box will automatically convert a 720p image to 1080i on-the-fly so that my TV can display it (with slight loss of quality in the process).

There are also variations on these standards such as 540 lines progressive (same scanrate for the CRTs as 1080i).

When receiving high-def signals (both from satellite and from over-the-air highdef broadcasts), you will often get a "mix" of these formats. Either your TV will display all of the possible resolutions, or your high-def decoder box will allow you to set a switch which forces it to convert all of the content to 1080i.

As i understand it, 1080i and 720p are not ``competing'', but, in fact, two elements of the same standard. One of the important features of US-based HDTV or DTV (Digital TV) is that the broadcasting station can determine the distribution of the data they send out on their channel. Remember that data other than a video signal can be sent. I participated (shortly) in a trial that, as it turned out, had a lot more to do with distributing data than video, and, while I didn't really care that much, it worked pretty well.

They were originally competing standards, and when no one could agree on which one to use, they decided to just use both.

Weenie move, if you ask me.

The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them.

What do you think of hi def? I saw a demo whilst at uni of an old hi def system which used four modified betaSP machines running in sync. The only thing I remember was that the hi def picture tube was really deep. Oh, and material they were showing was really boring (something to do with the queen).Other than that it was just a very nice picture, devoid of interlacing artefacts.

What do you think of hi def?

I like it. I just wish there were more available programming.

My main purpose for owning a widescreen high-def projection TV is so that I could watch widescreen DVDs in a more theater-like way. For this purpose, it delivers in spades. Widescreen DVDs look incredible on this set (46" Mitsubishi RPTV). Pop some popcorn, turn the lights down, crank the surround sound up, and it's better than a movie theater.

HDTV looks to be about 2-3 times as sharp and detailed as a really good anamorphic DVD print. I have often A/B compared a widescreen DVD movie directly to the same movie playing on HBOhd, and the HD version is much more film-like. It's very similar to watching a 35mm film, it's that detailed. Actually, it's a little better than watching 35mm film because the color balance and vibrancy is a little better. In the theater, I've noticed that movies tend to be too dim, and to have a yellowish/brownish cast, which isn't a problem on my HDTV.

The only problem is the available programming. Right now I get HBOhd (east and west coast), SHOhd (east and west coast), and for now (until they get wise and encrypt it), a test-feed of DiscoveryHD. That's it. If I wanted to buy a different receiver, I could probably also get CBS in HD, and the HDnet sports channel in HD.

But even then, not all of the programming on those channels is shot and broadcast in HD. A lot of it is standard-def programming that's been "upconverted" to high-def. For instance, the HBOhd feed is exactly the same shows as the standard-def HBO feed, it's just that some of the movies come in as HD when you're watching the HD channel. The rest of the shows don't look any better than regular TV.

ya i played with hdtv quite often when i used to work at good guys, its really amazing but lacking in avaliablity, which in a few years shouldnt not be a problem. i think 2005 they are going t require everythign to be broadcasted in HD, but i some how doubt that. At least that what the BS poster they had aroudn the store said.

i think 2005 they are going t require everythign to be broadcasted in HD

If that's true, DirecTV and Ecostar (Dish Network) will be forced to merge to solve bandwidth issues. Even at that point, they will have to launch a bunch of satellites. Cable systems are probably in trouble as well.

In reply to:

---

If that's true, DirecTV and Ecostar (Dish Network) will be forced to merge to solve bandwidth issues. Even at that point, they will have to launch a bunch of satellites. Cable systems are probably in trouble as well.

---

Well, You'll notice that Justin said broadcast. Cable companies aren't broadcasting their chanels. What Justin is talking about is the FCC's mandate to give up the current spectrum and migrate to new spectrum designated for digital broadcasts. This issue is far to complex for me to understand half of. Eseentially, no one thinks it's gonna happen in the time frame orginally given. (everyone in the US buy new televisions within 5 years? Sony just doesn't have the lobbyists in washington to pull that one off). It's also beleived that instead of offering HD content, stations are instead going to opt for broadcasting multiple different low res channels -- something which the FCC forgot to prohibit in their rush towards high definition.

It's all a mess. I've got to say I loved watching the olympics in HD at my lunchtime pizza place in berkeley, so I can't wait for it to all come down in price...

Matthew

OK, gotcha

So... I can get some stuff in HD now, but need an antenna to get it. In 2005 if all these stations have to conform, I will feel left out. I can only get ABC and some UHF stations off rabbit ears. I cannot get CBS, NBC, Fox, UPN (no loss), WB (no loss), or PBS. ABC comes in really crappy as it is.

It's my understanding that you either get signal with HD, or you don't. It's my impression that I cannot get HD in any form as it is right now. So, if I am still in this appartment in 2005, I will still be stuck in 20th century. This annoys me and I may start looking for a house in the sticks with land to put up a BUD. Yes, TV rules my life.

I wouldn't be ashamed, When I bought my house one of the most important things I looked for was broadband internet availability. The thought of going back to dialup would be like throwing my Pentium away and going back to my Acorn Electron!

Who knows what will happen in 2005, considering the first deadline wasn't enforced. The FCC's HD plan had several steps, one involving the major markets broadcasting both signals, then that working it's way down to smaller markets. Then eventually the normal signals would be shut off. The deadline for that first step was Jan 2002 if I remember right. We all saw how well that happened.

Sounds very similar to what is happening in the UK. Our digital terrestrial provider has just gone bust! This means that people who already have DTT boxes only get the BBC and ITV channels. The government are still trying to get everyone on digital (i think the figure was 2008).

Our digital terrestrial provider has just gone bust

Indeed. Because of this I have now been forced to take Mr. Murdock's sizable shilling (when I signed up to Sky I couldn't resist the Sky+ PVR).

I'm currently on cable, but when I move, cable isn't available in the new house so I'm thinking of going for Sky+. Is it any good, I assume it's not a flexible as a Tivo, but what's it like?

I'm thinking of going for Sky+. Is it any good, I assume it's not a flexible as a Tivo, but what's it like?

Firstly I should say I have never used Tivo, but I do understand how it works and what it does.

I am very happy with the Sky+ box. My main problem with multi channel TV is not finding something to watch, it's finding that the things I want to watch are always on too late or at the same time as something else I want to watch.

The good points about it are:

- quality of the recordings is exaclty the same as live TV (because the digital stream gets saved)
- it is very easy to use (because it is indentical to a normal digi box with half a dozen extra buttons, which is good because my wife is resistant to learning new stuff and she knows how to use a digibox)
- it is very stable I have had no hangs or crashes yet (I get less than friends with normal digiboxes)
- it doesn't require any of the Tivo oddities of having the Tivo controlling the digibox via the remote (I understand that is not always 100% successful)

Another good thing about the Sky+ box is that it is far faster than all the other Sky digiboxes. On a normal digibox paging up and down in the EPG takes nearly two seconds, on the Sky+ box it is instant. Other parts of the interface are also faster, I think it must have a much faster main processor. This makes a big difference to usability.

The Sky+ box isn't perfect by any means:

- it's equivalent of Season Passes (called Series Links) don't work as well as the Tivo ones and they rely on the channel owners sending the right data
- the EPG data only looks forwards 7 days
- you can't record two things at once (there are only two tuners, one of which is needed to receive EPG data and live TV)
- the live pause feature doesn't have a constantly filled buffer (i.e. it only starts buffering when you press pause, you can't turn on the TV, find you are half way through a program on the current channel and back up to the start)
- the live pause feature only fills the buffer to the end of the current program

The last two live pause issues are due to be fixed in a software update to make them behave more like the Tivo buffer. Overall there is the problem that Sky are trying to make it easy for everyone to use, rather than giving power users the features they want (though they have made changes after being prompted in the past).

If there had been a Tivo box available with two Sky digital tuners in it then I probably would have bought the Tivo instead as I appreciate the extra Tivo features are worthwhile. But there isn't, in the UK, so for me the Sky+ box is better.

I wouldn't be ashamed, When I bought my house one of the most important things I looked for was broadband internet availability. The thought of going back to dialup would be like throwing my Pentium away and going back to my Acorn Electron!

HAHA that was my concern to when i moved out, i accully turned down a really great condo at a really great price becuase i count get dsl or cable modem there, and dont think i could deal with that.

In reply to:

---

Yes, TV rules my life.

---

I went 6 months with only having one channel and it didn't even come in very good. I can live without TV but not my broadband connection.