Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Shelly Palmer condems HDTV.. claims "we're just not there ..

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 8:35:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

So who is Shelly Palmer and why did this get media attention on
SlashDot? You can check out his bio here:
http://advancedmediacommittee.typepad.com/about.html

You can read his blog-entry in context, here:
http://advancedmediacommittee.typepad.com/

Shelly's experience mirrored my own, but his perspective is completely
different. If you read his article, his bad experience begins when he
realize that a number of the ports on the box (DVI, RCA, etc...) have
been disabled. Who's fault is this? Time Warner Cable. Who's fault
isn't it that Mr. Palmer didn't know.. Timw Warner Cable! Moving on,
he point out "... Keeping my reputation as an ubergeek, I just
happened to have an RCA/RGB to D-sub 15 cable lying around (don't
ask). ". His point being 1. that he's knows how to obtain the needed
adapter cables and 2. The box couldn't accomodate his HDTV without
this. Who's fault is this? Again, TimeWarner cable for not
understanding HDTV product. Let's expore more of his comments:

".... Why does the box use gray letterboxing for 4:3? Why is my 1080i
picture so blurry? How could 480p SD look this bad? If I thought that
switching a digital cable channel was painful, just add the aspect
radio adjustment for an extra two seconds to make the channel switch
weigh in at an impressive 3.5 seconds per. How is this experience
worth the $10,000+ I spent to achieve it?"

Wine, wine, wine. Mr. Palmer is trying to get on the side of the
little guy here, his point is that the technology is too complicated.
Hey, guess what Shelly Palmer, if you want to own a real sports car
you have to learn how to drive a stick! Let's look at each of his
complants here in detail:

1. Q: Why does the box use gray letterboxing for 4:3?
A: Because the majority of televisons (including his $10,000
Plasma) is prone to screen burn-in and gray bars are easier on the
burn than black. A couple of clicks on the menu button and gray bars
can be added. Going into the 8000HD advanced menu and selecting 480i
will allow you to get rid of those black bars and use the stretch
modes of your set. Again, this is TimeWarner's failure. He could have
paid to have a TimeWarner tech come out and install the box, but since
he's a cheap bastard he decided to pick up the box from a TimeWarner
outlet. Why is it that he can afford a $10,000 plasma and then he goes
cheap on getting the HD boxes installed. What a moron. To his credit,
had he experienced a TimeWarner install he would have found a cluess
rep in most cases.

2. Q: Why does my 480p SD picture look so bad?
A: Because you have a HD television that's capable of revealing all
the defects of that ugly standard definition signal. Least we forget
why we spent the $10,000 in the first place. Did the sales rep not
explain HD technology to you? This is Mr. Palmer's own fault for being
ignorant of the technology. I actualy have even less respect for him
given the amount he paid for his set and the type of wokr he does (he
should know better)

3. Q: Why does at take 3.5 seconds to switch from SD to HD (and back)?
A: Because the box is buffering an HD stream and switching to a
different
resolution mode takes time for the video display to transition
to a
different mode.

Closing thoughts:
This moron doesn't deserve HDTV. He doesn't give us consumers the
credit they deserve. In the information age, anyone with a high school
deploma under the age 30 is not going to have a problem setting up an
HDTV. Teenagers will have even less of a problem getting acustom to
all the little strange tib-bits, but in the end, the HDTV market will
continue to grow, because one look at the picture and you understand.
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 12:06:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

JDeats wrote:

> [some rants]
>
> Closing thoughts:
> This moron doesn't deserve HDTV. He doesn't give us consumers the
> credit they deserve. In the information age, anyone with a high school
> deploma under the age 30 is not going to have a problem setting up an
> HDTV. Teenagers will have even less of a problem getting acustom to
> all the little strange tib-bits, but in the end, the HDTV market will
> continue to grow, because one look at the picture and you understand.


It's really easy to take the intellectual high road and just blame all
problems with technology on the stupid people that don't get it. But
that is not the right way to look at new technology. I write
software, and it's easy to blame the stupid users when they have
problems navigating some buttons or interfaces, but the fact of the
matter is that perhaps the design is just bad! All of this technology
does not have to be so complicated (it's just a TV, right?). Sure,
you have to expect the users of the new technology to at least
understand some fundamentals, but you cannot just justify *all* bad
design flaws using this same argument.

The 480 SD signal looking bad in HD: Completely just a result of the
higher resolution television displaying to you just how bad the SD
stream is. Nothing really can be done about that.

The wiring and the cables: It is complicated, and DVI tried to solve
some of the problems, but they screwed that up bad. Now there are
different DVI standards. Great, thanks! Take what is a good idea and
just mess it up.

Aspect ratio and black bars: Okay, this is a user education issue. I
just don't get why people whine all day long to "get rid of the black
bars". Getting rid of black bars is not the end game; it's watching a
correctly framed and non-skewed picture. This is where more education
will help, and I think the tide is slowly turning. More widescreen
DVDs sell than full-frame now. I go into a local Best Buy or wherever
and all the Widescreen Star Wars DVD sets are sold out, but there are
plenty of the full-frame versions around. That restores some of my
faith in humanity ;) .
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 8:43:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Michael,

I develope (engineer) software professionally as well. I have
considered the "user friendliness" factor here, and I while I think HD
technology could definately use from UI tweaking I'm looking at this
in context to the SA8000HD DVR enabled HD cable box and TimeWarner
cable. This is the service provider and the box Mr. Palmer is
complaining about and this is the service provider and cable box I
have.

All of his valid "issues" were with disabled features of the box and
in-adaquit cables provided. They were all mishaps of the cable
provider for not providing better service/information to their
customers. The 8000HD box itself, isn't bad. He makes a point about a
3.5 second delay when chaning from a SD channel to an HD channel. I
guess that could be viewed as a faulty user interface, but honestly-
knowing the technology involved to record and playback HD in real-time
(the 8000HD can actually record two HD simultaneously
and allows for real-time switching between recordings and real-time
pausing, rewind, fast forward, etc..). This is an amazing box. It's
not perfect, but it's better suited for "prime time" than most
computer operating systems today.

I just get tired of this notion that US consumers can't handle
anything complex and that we demand our technology be simple. There
have been some manufactuers who have even stripped features away from
Cell phones and PDAs for the US market just because they assume our
consumers won't "get it". I think this is true for the older crowd,
but most younger people (I'll set this demographic to the majority of
people under 30) love features and love gadgets.

-Jeremy





"Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message news:<0vts32-htg.ln1@developers.dsbox.com>...

> It's really easy to take the intellectual high road and just blame all
> problems with technology on the stupid people that don't get it. But
> that is not the right way to look at new technology. I write
> software, and it's easy to blame the stupid users when they have
> problems navigating some buttons or interfaces, but the fact of the
> matter is that perhaps the design is just bad! All of this technology
> does not have to be so complicated (it's just a TV, right?). Sure,
> you have to expect the users of the new technology to at least
> understand some fundamentals, but you cannot just justify *all* bad
> design flaws using this same argument.
>
> The 480 SD signal looking bad in HD: Completely just a result of the
> higher resolution television displaying to you just how bad the SD
> stream is. Nothing really can be done about that.
>
> The wiring and the cables: It is complicated, and DVI tried to solve
> some of the problems, but they screwed that up bad. Now there are
> different DVI standards. Great, thanks! Take what is a good idea and
> just mess it up.
>
> Aspect ratio and black bars: Okay, this is a user education issue. I
> just don't get why people whine all day long to "get rid of the black
> bars". Getting rid of black bars is not the end game; it's watching a
> correctly framed and non-skewed picture. This is where more education
> will help, and I think the tide is slowly turning. More widescreen
> DVDs sell than full-frame now. I go into a local Best Buy or wherever
> and all the Widescreen Star Wars DVD sets are sold out, but there are
> plenty of the full-frame versions around. That restores some of my
> faith in humanity ;) .
Related resources
October 13, 2004 3:19:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:06:35 -0400, "Michael J. Sherman"
>
>, but the fact of the
>matter is that perhaps the design is just bad!

Yep.

I wouldn't pay corporate CEO's 2cents for what they do.
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 11:41:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"gerry" <gerry_m@spam_this.com> wrote in message
news:h4ipm01iqk3ofjse9l019tmhuntpkkpkt3@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:06:35 -0400, "Michael J. Sherman"
> >
> >, but the fact of the
> >matter is that perhaps the design is just bad!
>
> Yep.
>
> I wouldn't pay corporate CEO's 2cents for what they do.

I blame the FCC! What screwups! Does Japan have all these
problems with their HDTV format? I also seem to recall their
pic quality is inherently much higher too.
....tonyC
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 8:10:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Anthony Cerrato (tcerrato@optonline.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I blame the FCC! What screwups! Does Japan have all these
> problems with their HDTV format?

No, because only the very rich can afford HDTV in Japan. There are
more US HDTV viewers than in Japan, which shows just how *not* screwed
up our system is.

Just because one US cable company doesn't care enough about their HDTV
customers to do things right doesn't mean HDTV in the US has major
problems. The number of success stories far outweighs the number of
failures, and when many of the failures aren't the fault of the design
(but rather some 3rd party that just doesn't get it), that's a pretty good
system.

> I also seem to recall their
> pic quality is inherently much higher too.

It's about the same. They did a slightly different give and take with
all the various factors that are a result of finite bandwidth, and so
they have slightly more pixels but the quality per pixel (I know, that's
a subjective thing) is lower.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ArloNJanis/manure.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 8:25:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

>
> It's about the same. They did a slightly different give and take with
> all the various factors that are a result of finite bandwidth, and so
> they have slightly more pixels but the quality per pixel (I know, that's
> a subjective thing) is lower.
>

The major resolution defect of the Japanese analog HDTV system is a 50%
reduction in horizontal resolution during camera pans. I've posted the
reference to that many times, so google will probably find it for those
that are interested.

Matthew
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 2:34:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The major resolution defect of the Japanese analog HDTV system is a 50%
> reduction in horizontal resolution during camera pans.

Although quite true, the analog system is on the way out in Japan. Right
now, they have digital HDTV delivery via satellite, and have *some*
terrestrial digital HDTV coverage that is eventually supposed to replace
the analog system.

--
Jeff Rife | "Why the hell did you stuff yourself like that?"
SPAM bait: | "Hey, Lowell threw down the gauntlet...I just
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | poured gravy on it and ate it."
spam@ftc.gov | -- Joe and Brian Hackett, "Wings"
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 4:15:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, JDeats wrote:
> So who is Shelly Palmer and why did this get media attention on ...
>
>
> Closing thoughts:
> This moron doesn't deserve HDTV. He doesn't give us consumers the
> credit they deserve. In the information age, anyone with a high school
> deploma under the age 30 is not going to have a problem setting up an
> HDTV. Teenagers will have even less of a problem getting acustom to
> all the little strange tib-bits, but in the end, the HDTV market will
> continue to grow, because one look at the picture and you understand.

....Anyone with a high school "deploma" would know how to properly spell diploma
if their paper were worth anything. It seems that there may have been more
than one moron referred to above....
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 9:25:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Anthony Cerrato (tcerrato@optonline.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>I blame the FCC! What screwups! Does Japan have all these
>>problems with their HDTV format?
>
>
> No, because only the very rich can afford HDTV in Japan. There are
> more US HDTV viewers than in Japan, which shows just how *not* screwed
> up our system is.

There must be a lot of rich people in Japan. They started broadcasting
ISDB-T (terrestrial) HDTV digital last December in three cities. The
number of cities will increase dramatically next year. But with only
three cities and only 9 months of sales they already are at 1.6 million.
And 1.3 million of those were fully integrated HDTV sets. Unlike the US
where 9 out of 10 HDTV buyers reject an OTA receiver and integrated HDTV
sets are rare, Japan seems to have done something right.

The US will start doing better next year with 5th gen 8-VSB receivers
but any Japanese visiting the US in a couple of years will notice that
we are truly a third world country not only in cell phone service but
now in the TV world as well. US visitors to China and the 2008 summer
games are going to be even more impressed with how far China will lead
us in DTV by then at least in the big cities.

The US will have the most backward DTV system in the world by 2008 and
it will be apparent to all.

>
> Just because one US cable company doesn't care enough about their HDTV
> customers to do things right doesn't mean HDTV in the US has major
> problems. The number of success stories far outweighs the number of
> failures, and when many of the failures aren't the fault of the design
> (but rather some 3rd party that just doesn't get it), that's a pretty good
> system.
>
>
>> I also seem to recall their
>>pic quality is inherently much higher too.
>
>
> It's about the same. They did a slightly different give and take with
> all the various factors that are a result of finite bandwidth, and so
> they have slightly more pixels but the quality per pixel (I know, that's
> a subjective thing) is lower.
>
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 11:25:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <B5obd.2814$6k2.1733@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> The US will start doing better next year with 5th gen 8-VSB receivers
>
(Actual reason why the 5th generation 8VSB receivers might help make things
better is at the end of this response, right after my name.)

Note that previously, I had told you (and others) that the new 5th generation
8VSB tuner capabilities would likely mitigate many of the fixed reception
multipath problems, but a few people (maybe you) had poo-pooed it as 8VSB
couldnt' really even work as well as you appear to imply nowadays. Is your
apparent 'lead' in touting the 5th generation receivers meant to spin your
previous claims that 8VSB wasn't workable in some way? It is possible that
your mindset is so related to the silly mobile reception of HDTV in the SUV
full of children would solve parenting problems (hint, with so many
choices, there are always going to be problems given the situtation
with more than one child.) The best answer for the SUV/Kid problem
would better be DVD and wise choices (including necessary
remastering) by parents than the hit/miss of choosing TV shows and
dealing with the fact that TV coverage in the US isn't 100%, and we
do/will current require channel re-selection for trips that are even
only moderately long. Local TV schedules aren't even 100% consistent
between TV stations even of the same network. With the DVD solution,
given an affluent chauffer (e.g. parent/babysitter), it is even
possibly practical to provide two (2) or three (3) DVD/TV combos
along with a well selected (censored) remastered/advert removed
library of DVDs* in a large SUV.

*(I know that copying DVDs, even for protecting your children and
protecting the original DVDs is mostly illegal, but it would
be important to atone for the 'sin' by making sure that you give
your children an excellent ongoing education about ethics. If the
kids don't know that the DVDs were 'illegal', then the issue wouldn't
be problematical. MAYBE, the best choice is to let the kids use
the DVD, or even for the parent to keep physical custody.)

Subset of Bob's quote that appears to be mostly true:
"The US will start doing better next year with 5th gen 8-VSB receivers"

The above simple quoted statement will likely be true, especially for the
areas where dynamic multipath or previously difficult static multipath is a
serious problem. Sometimes, the problems of fixed dynamic multipath
can result from antennas with undesired lobes in the pattern, lousy
transmission line match (complicating the signal temporal distortion), and any
other problem that destroys the desirable temporal, gain, and spatial reception
characteristics of a properly designed and deployed antenna and its
transmission line.

John
(Answer to reason: If Bob and his friends truly quit FUDding US HDTV
and its components, then there'll be fewer frightened neophytes. Bob
does seem to be fudding 8VSB, but the result of capitulating to Bob's
demands would have caused the demise of HDTV in the US, with alienation
of many of the important early adopters.) As a middle-early adopter,
assuming that I would not have been able to fix the antenna/frontend
overload issues myself, there are most certainly individuals who can
fix the problems.
!