I was just watching a football game on a new high definition TV set, and I was outraged at the way the broadcaster was using excessive edge enhancement that actually degraded the picture. A movie that was recorded commercially on a standard DVD and played on a good upconverter player actually made a better looking picture. Go figure.

I've noticed that too.

Also, on analog standard res TVs, many HDTV signals look like the gamma's been boosted way up, to be almost unwatchable. In additional, one of the local (what else?) Fox stations is apparently making no effort to modify the HD screen ratio such that on the aforementioned sets, the horizontal image component is squeezed. Of course the benefit there is it makes overweight TV people look thin, but the drawback is everyone else looks like scarecrows.

A ploy to get (read "force") everyone to buy the new technology ASAP?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

There's probably a setting to convert the incoming signal so it widescreens on an analogue monitor. (the black bars top and bottom)

For myself, I've chosen to bypass the annoyance altogether and spent $150 on a TV card for my computer so I can watch analogue, HDTV, and cable on either my 20" widescreen LCD monitor or 19" flat CRT.

It does a pretty good job of dithering the image to run analogue cable at 1680x1050 resolution on the big monitor.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

within a couple of years, everyone in the US gets the honor of buying a digital converter box just so we will be able to watch tv. even those of us that still use an antenna on the roof for signal reception will now have to have a converter box.

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

Win DVD recently came out with a home theater version which runs pretty much everything. Just bought upgraded to Platinum 8.0 this evening, and I've been a fan since ver 2.0.

I don't even use my TV any more, except when entertaining guests. My 21 inch monitor is plenty big for all the viewing I need to do.

You've always had to buy a converter box in order to watch television. That's what a television is.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

*shrugs* I have standard cable, and a 42" plasma tv, but it's ED, not HD (so I'll still need the box eventually). I love the picture we get. Technically speaking, it's not as impressive as those expensive HD set-ups, but it's more than enough for me.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

you know what i meant.
how long before all channels require a subscription just to watch 20 minutes of commercials an hour?

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

Yes, I know what you meant.

But honestly, I don't think what you meant really means what you think it means.

Over-the-air television broadcasts use public spectrums, and those are controlled by the government. When television broadcasting first started, the government (via the NTSC) defined the standards for those broadcasts, and both transmitters and receivers needed to meet those standards. Now, because of the transition from analog to digital, the standards are changing.

But it has always been true that you needed a receiver which fit the government-mandated standards. The only thing that's changing now is what those standards are.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

When the digital standards were first set, there was a time limit after which there would be no more analog broadcasting. It was something like 1999, which obviously didn't happen. Is there still such a plan?

It's also my recollection that the NTSC intentionally set the resolution standards different from any existing computer standard in order to prevent people using existing hardware. Anyone else remember this? I seem to recall Bill Gates complaining of it.

__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

Yes; but it seems to be a politically moving target.

Last solid numbers I remember was broadcasters must have digital by 2006 and keep analog until 2009.

Although; I think it has moved since then.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

In the US, analog television transmission was originally supposed to go away in early 2007. That requirement was dependent upon 85% of the TVs being capable of receiving digital signal, which was not met. The current cut-off date is February 19, 2009 - and I believe that's a hard date. There's no percentage criteria or anything to be met.

There was never a requirement that television stations must keep analog. Likewise, there is no requirement that they must have digital. Whether they have one, the other, or both, is entirely up to them and how badly they want customers. As of Feb 19, 2009, though, no more analog broadcasts.

And this is (AFAIK) strictly over-the-air signals, because the FCC controls the radio frequencies; cable TV can continue to be analog as long as they want.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

It is a hard date. The old analog TV band is going to be auctioned off for other uses. That will yield big revenue for our national treasury, which is one reason the FCC has set the deadline.

Of course, as with all things governmental, "hard date" is a somewhat fuzzy term. There's still an effort to get the government to at least subsidize set-top boxes for low-income folks. If that doesn't happen you can be sure there will be pressure to postpone the date yet again.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

I wonder what the justification would be for providing set-top boxes to people who have analog TVs if we're not going to provide TVs to people who don't have them? But then that's probably getting into politics, eh?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Probably the difference between taking something away from people and providing them with something they didn't have before.

__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

This thread is digressing from my OP, which is about the violence done by gadgeteering geeks to otherwise splendid visual coverage of a football game on good HD equipment.

I reduced some of the ill effects of this excessive edge enhancement by turning the sharpness control on the TV set all the way down. It had been factory preset at the midpoint of its range. That gave me the best look on the upconverted playback of the DVD movie, and it somewhat reduced the harshness of the edge-enhancement artifacts on subsequent football, baseball and tennis excerpts on ESPN Sports Center. I can see now that I was getting a double whammy on that Sunday night game.

Edge enhancement, when used with restraint, can give pleasing snap to a fuzzy but smooth original. When overdone on a picture that is tack sharp to start with, it gets gross in a hurry.