Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

High Def DVR ?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 6:33:59 PM

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

Is there a DVR receiver that will record in high def ? with Dish Network ?

More about : high def dvr

Anonymous
January 19, 2005 6:34:00 PM

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

In article <1106166835.ce859dced83734a1d37ff28d06d66f88@teranews>,
"Apothecon" <sailer.ny@netzero.net> wrote:

> Is there a DVR receiver that will record in high def ? with Dish
> Network ?

Yes. The DVR 921.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 9:52:00 PM

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

Yes. Its the Dish Player DVR-921. If you're a current customer, they'll
charge you $550. If your are going to sign up as a new customer, then they
will work out a deal, but still not free like their other equipment. Here
is the site.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/products/receivers/H...

-Biz
Related resources
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 12:10:57 AM

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

"Apothecon" <sailer.ny@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1106166835.ce859dced83734a1d37ff28d06d66f88@teranews...
> Is there a DVR receiver that will record in high def ? with Dish Network ?

As the others have mentioned, the 921 will do it.

Costco had it for $479.

By the way, it's slightly buggy. Hopefully they'll get the bugs worked out
soon.

Pagan
January 20, 2005 7:21:19 PM

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

"Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
news:10uufcjqsj577cb@corp.supernews.com...
> "Apothecon" <sailer.ny@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:1106166835.ce859dced83734a1d37ff28d06d66f88@teranews...
>> Is there a DVR receiver that will record in high def ? with Dish Network
>> ?
>
> As the others have mentioned, the 921 will do it.
>
> Costco had it for $479.
>
> By the way, it's slightly buggy. Hopefully they'll get the bugs worked
> out
> soon.
>
> Pagan
>


Why is it that Directv still wants a grand for theirs?? I have been a DTV
customer since the beginning, but I refuse to pay that much for a receiver.
When we moved to our new house I put my DTV account on hold and had time
warner put in their HD PVR..Boy, it ain't no tivo that's for sure! :-) I
have been waiting for DTV to offer the HD Tivo for a better price like Dish
has...But, maybe the DTV box is more advanced?
Thanks!
John
January 20, 2005 9:16:50 PM

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

I had (actually still temporarily have) the Dish 921. It is the single
most undependable, poorly supported, unreliable, piece of consumer
electronics I've seen in years. If you never need to use the OTA
tuner, it's great. However, it locks up, requires reboots constantly,
often needs to be unplugged and plugged back in, and is already
discontinued in favor of the new 942 which is not really yet available.
The 921 has been out for a year, so there has been ample time to fix
it, but it's never been fixed. The reason mine is still at my home is
because the RMA kit to return it for a full refund is enroute but has
not arrived.

The 921 was so bad for me, that because Dish has no locals in HD, and
only CBS as a network HD feed (which isn't available everyone and is
broadcast from either NY or CA) I am getting rid of Dishnet, and have
gotten Adelphia Cable, which has a very inexpensive HD DVR. The
Scientific Atlanta 8300HD is certainly not perfect, but it's really
reliable. I get way more HD content, and it's cheaper. I get all my
local networks in HD except for Fox.

Be careful.


--
wmhjr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was posted via http://www.satelliteguys.us by wmhjr
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 9:38:59 PM

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

John wrote:
> "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
> news:10uufcjqsj577cb@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Apothecon" <sailer.ny@netzero.net> wrote in message
>> news:1106166835.ce859dced83734a1d37ff28d06d66f88@teranews...
>>> Is there a DVR receiver that will record in high def ? with Dish
>>> Network ?
>>
>> As the others have mentioned, the 921 will do it.
>>
>> Costco had it for $479.
>>
>> By the way, it's slightly buggy. Hopefully they'll get the bugs
>> worked out
>> soon.
>>
>> Pagan
>>
>
>
> Why is it that Directv still wants a grand for theirs??

Probably because it actually works.

> I have been
> a DTV customer since the beginning, but I refuse to pay that much for
> a receiver. When we moved to our new house I put my DTV account on
> hold and had time warner put in their HD PVR..Boy, it ain't no tivo
> that's for sure! :-) I have been waiting for DTV to offer the HD
> Tivo for a better price like Dish has...But, maybe the DTV box is
> more advanced? Thanks!
> John

--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 11:00:26 PM

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

"John" <jonjon.winn@TAKETHISOUTmail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:cspat3$5q3$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
>
> "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
> news:10uufcjqsj577cb@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Apothecon" <sailer.ny@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:1106166835.ce859dced83734a1d37ff28d06d66f88@teranews...
> >> Is there a DVR receiver that will record in high def ? with Dish
Network
> >> ?
> >
> > As the others have mentioned, the 921 will do it.
> >
> > Costco had it for $479.
> >
> > By the way, it's slightly buggy. Hopefully they'll get the bugs worked
> > out
> > soon.
> >
> > Pagan
> >
>
>
> Why is it that Directv still wants a grand for theirs??

This thing was a grand when it first came out, and some stores (Fry's
Electronics) still have them for that price. Of course, these are JVC, and
for the extra $500, you have "JVC" stamped on the front in bold letters.
Same exact unit.

> I have been a DTV
> customer since the beginning, but I refuse to pay that much for a
receiver.
> When we moved to our new house I put my DTV account on hold and had time
> warner put in their HD PVR..Boy, it ain't no tivo that's for sure! :-) I
> have been waiting for DTV to offer the HD Tivo for a better price like
Dish
> has...But, maybe the DTV box is more advanced?

If you are looking for an HD receiver, don't pay anything for one. As
another observant poster pointed out, the 'fanatics' here in this newsgroup
watch maybe 5 or less HD shows a week, and that's if you really look for
them. HDTV has yet to hit anything like a mainstream, and frankly, the
picture doesn't seem all that much better than POTV (Plain Old TV).

On the other hand, I am hooked on the PVR experience, and if I had to go
back to live TV, I'd probably soil myself. I bought the 921 because it has
a ridiculous amount of storage, roughly 160 hours of shows that I can store
and watch whenever, plus two tuners. It is a bit buggy, so for important
stuff I use the 508, but I like it.

I would, and did, buy an HDTV set, not so much for HD but for the wide
screen, DVD, as well as the fact that for $1,500, I want this thing to work
when HD programming does take hold.

The biggest rip off right now is HD DVD players. They have an HDMI
connection for HDTV sets, but you aren't getting the resolution. The HD
standard for DVD's isn't out yet, and when it does come, you'll see another
VHS vs. Betamax war over two competing HD DVD formats.

HD receivers also have several copy protection gigs in there. One annoying
system is that while you have two HD outputs (DVI and component), only one
works at a time, giving me a healthy headache when hooking up my home
theater system.

Pagan
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 2:49:51 AM

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

>John wrote:
>> "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
>> news:10uufcjqsj577cb@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "Apothecon" <sailer.ny@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1106166835.ce859dced83734a1d37ff28d06d66f88@teranews...
>>>> Is there a DVR receiver that will record in high def ? with Dish
>>>> Network ?
>>>
>>> As the others have mentioned, the 921 will do it.
>>>
>>> Costco had it for $479.
>>>
>>> By the way, it's slightly buggy. Hopefully they'll get the bugs
>>> worked out
>>> soon.
>>>
>>> Pagan

I'm holding off a while to see how the blue light dvd player will work
out. It's for Hi def dvd's but may also play the regular dvd's.
I'm sure it will be rather high priced when it hits the market. If
the prices fall enough, could it be a dvd recorder would follow
that would record Hi def dvd's.

I wish the 921 or 922 prices would come down to about $299.

hdtvfan
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 3:11:24 AM

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

Pagan (DirtySanchez@chonch.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> As
> another observant poster pointed out, the 'fanatics' here in this newsgroup
> watch maybe 5 or less HD shows a week, and that's if you really look for
> them.

ROFLMAO...5 shows a week, that's funny.

I can barely find enough time to watch all the HD shows my HD DirecTiVo
records before they are overwritten by new recordings. Typical week:

Monday: 4 shows, 3 hours
Tuesday: 4 shows, 3 hours
Wednesday: 4 shows, 3.5 hours
Thursday: 4 shows, 2.5 hours
Friday: 3 shows, 3 hours
Saturday: nothing regular
Sunday: 4 shows, 3 hours

Add in sports (football playoffs, basketball) plus whatever movies catch
my eye on the HD movie channels, plus whatever PBS and Discovery-HD put up
that is interesting to me, and *most* of my viewing is in HD.

But, I'm not even scratching the surface of what I could watch in HD if I
had the time and liked the show...I don't watch any "CSI" flavor, nothing
on WB at all, etc. With 4-10 *new* HD shows every *day* on just the OTA
networks, it's easy to find 5 a week to watch.

> HDTV has yet to hit anything like a mainstream,

Counting people owning HDTVs and receivers, yeah, it's not mainstream.
Counting broadcast hours of the highest rated shows and most popular
channels (i.e., what most people want to watch), yeah, it's way beyond
mainstream...it's universal.

> and frankly, the
> picture doesn't seem all that much better than POTV (Plain Old TV).

More ROFLMAO.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/BrokenInterne...
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 6:27:29 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> I can barely find enough time to watch all the HD shows my HD
> DirecTiVo records before they are overwritten by new recordings.
Now here's a man who is serious about watching TV.
January 21, 2005 11:34:58 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c5a590ad5cfe58f989ac2@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...
> Pagan (DirtySanchez@chonch.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > As
> > another observant poster pointed out, the 'fanatics' here in this newsgroup
> > watch maybe 5 or less HD shows a week, and that's if you really look for
> > them.
>
> ROFLMAO...5 shows a week, that's funny.

You can't seriously think you are representative of 'most'? I sure don't
think you are.

> I can barely find enough time to watch all the HD shows my HD DirecTiVo
> records before they are overwritten by new recordings. Typical week:

Most HD owners don't even have HD-PVRs, your are definately not
representative of 'most'.

> Monday: 4 shows, 3 hours
> Tuesday: 4 shows, 3 hours
> Wednesday: 4 shows, 3.5 hours
> Thursday: 4 shows, 2.5 hours
> Friday: 3 shows, 3 hours
> Saturday: nothing regular
> Sunday: 4 shows, 3 hours



> Add in sports (football playoffs, basketball) plus whatever movies catch
> my eye on the HD movie channels, plus whatever PBS and Discovery-HD put up
> that is interesting to me, and *most* of my viewing is in HD.

ROFLMAO. Now its my turn for a gut buster. :)  You've almost admitted you
choose your shows by whether or not they're in HD, scouring the HD
channel guide looking for stuff to 'catch your eye' to record. If it was
in SD would you have the same interest in watching it?

I'd bet you anything that if the whole gamut of what is on TV was in HD,
you'd probably be choosing to watch something other than that you are.

*Anybody* who can honestly say **most** of their viewing is HD is
watching HD for its own sake. Personally I'd be hard pressed to find 3
hours of TV per day that I'd 'choose' to watch. And scouring channels
for reruns of movies I've already seen to TiVo because they are in HD
isn't my thing, and is hardly representative of most people.

Here's an interesting question: how much PBS & Discovery channel did you
watch before you got it in HD? Do you watch more now? Why is that?

Your viewing choices have been affected by the signal resolution. That's
akin to when DVD first came out, and then going to the video store and
renting a different movie on DVD because the one you actually wanted was
only stocked in VHS. :) 

> But, I'm not even scratching the surface of what I could watch in HD if I
> had the time and liked the show...

Sure don't let finite time and good taste get in the way. ;) 

> I don't watch any "CSI" flavor, nothing
> on WB at all, etc. With 4-10 *new* HD shows every *day* on just the OTA
> networks, it's easy to find 5 a week to watch.

If that is your goal, absolutely, and with a pvr, that much easier. But
many of us don't spend time, 'looking for stuff to watch'.

> > HDTV has yet to hit anything like a mainstream,
>
> Counting people owning HDTVs and receivers, yeah, it's not mainstream.
> Counting broadcast hours of the highest rated shows and most popular
> channels (i.e., what most people want to watch), yeah, it's way beyond
> mainstream...it's universal.

Some people have a lot more HD to choose from. I have 5 channels. 2 I
don't tune into at all, I don't have a PVR yet (waiting for my local
cable co to support the next version of the box, with dual tuners) so
odds are pretty good that there isn't anything I want to watch when I
flip through the channels. Its *far* from universal.

> > and frankly, the
> > picture doesn't seem all that much better than POTV (Plain Old TV).
>
> More ROFLMAO.

On this at least we agree. :) 

cheers.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 11:47:23 AM

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

Pagan wrote:

> As
> another observant poster pointed out, the 'fanatics' here in this newsgroup
> watch maybe 5 or less HD shows a week, and that's if you really look for
> them. HDTV has yet to hit anything like a mainstream, and frankly, the
> picture doesn't seem all that much better than POTV (Plain Old TV).

Nonsense. We watch a dozen or so here at my house each week, at least
in the cold weather. I have some favorites, my kids do as well, and my
wife (who hates all television) has even found one that she likes
(Desperate Housewives). I'm amazed at how much more we enjoy television
now that we have the HD A/V setup. Some of the shows are on the HD
networks, others on the regular broadcast nets, but in general it is the
better, higher budget, shows that get the HD treatment.

I'm reasonably choosey about the shows that we watch, but still there
are many that we consider worthwhile. And there are more coming along
all the time - for example Fox just introduced Point Pleasant this week.
And, as always with TV, there are lots more that I wouldn't watch if
you paid me - but obviously someone enjoys them.

Let's see, tonight I can choose from these HD shows:

PBS: Smart Travels or The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson
NBC: Third Watch or Medical Investigation
CBS: Joan of Arcadia, JAG, or CSI
ABC: 8 Simple Rules, Complete Savages, Hope and Faith, Less Than Perfect
UPN: Enterprise
Fox: Bernie Mac or Jonny Zero

The cable networks are showing several college basketball games in HD,
some interesting concerts, and also several three-star movies. That's
just an abbreviated list - there are lots more HD shows on that I
haven't mentioned, and I don't have any premium channels (HBO, Showtime,
etc), so I haven't included those either.

It's unfortunate that we don't have a WB station here in HD yet, because
my kids would love to be able to watch Gilmore Girls, Smallville, Jack
and Bobby, Summerland, Everwood, and others in HD. Most markets get
those, but we're still waiting here in Cleveland.

Of course, Smallville is carried on HDNet, so we do get to watch some of
the reruns in HD. HDNet carries some other good network shows in HD as
well: The Agency and The Handler are the two that I enjoy, but there
are quite a few others.

The funny thing about it is that I bought my HD set mostly so I'd have a
widescreen set for DVDs. The high quality HD shows on broadcast and
cable were just icing on the cake. I've had HD for a year now, and I
definitely consider it money well spent.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 2:07:17 PM

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

42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > ROFLMAO...5 shows a week, that's funny.
>
> You can't seriously think you are representative of 'most'? I sure don't
> think you are.

When it come to how little work I have to do to find HD.

> > Add in sports (football playoffs, basketball) plus whatever movies catch
> > my eye on the HD movie channels, plus whatever PBS and Discovery-HD put up
> > that is interesting to me, and *most* of my viewing is in HD.
>
> ROFLMAO. Now its my turn for a gut buster. :)  You've almost admitted you
> choose your shows by whether or not they're in HD, scouring the HD
> channel guide looking for stuff to 'catch your eye' to record. If it was
> in SD would you have the same interest in watching it?

Sure. I watch a lot of stuff from Turner Classic Movies.

My point (that you obviously missed) was that there are many channels with
a wide variety of HD programming: movies, sports, drama series, sitcoms,
reality TV, documentaries, etc. So, somebody who says they can't find
something they like just isn't looking at all.

> *Anybody* who can honestly say **most** of their viewing is HD is
> watching HD for its own sake.

Most of the series I watch are on network TV, so that makes them HD right
there. To some, watching network TV is unusual, but the ratings say it
is what most people do, so I'm actually quite typical.

> Here's an interesting question: how much PBS & Discovery channel did you
> watch before you got it in HD?

4-5 hours/week total between the two.

> Do you watch more now?

A little less PBS.

> Why is that?

Because the schedule is so freaking inaccurate now that they have multiple
sub-channels. It makes it even more annoying when you try to record
something you really want to watch.

> Your viewing choices have been affected by the signal resolution.

The only time this was true was with NFL Sunday Ticket. There were two
weeks where a game I was really interested in wasn't on the HD channels,
and flipping over to SD was painful. That's not typical SD quality,
though.

> > I don't watch any "CSI" flavor, nothing
> > on WB at all, etc. With 4-10 *new* HD shows every *day* on just the OTA
> > networks, it's easy to find 5 a week to watch.
>
> If that is your goal, absolutely, and with a pvr, that much easier. But
> many of us don't spend time, 'looking for stuff to watch'.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Before HD, "Law & Order" was a hit, and
so was "Everybody Loves Raymond", "American Idol", "Trading Spaces" (for
a cable channel), etc. If people just keep watching the shows they watched
before HD, they can watch 10 shows a week in HD. There isn't any trick
to *finding* HD shows, and there isn't any trick to finding HD shows that
you *like*, at least not for the typical US viewer: all the shows that US
viewers like most are available in HD.

> > Counting people owning HDTVs and receivers, yeah, it's not mainstream.
> > Counting broadcast hours of the highest rated shows and most popular
> > channels (i.e., what most people want to watch), yeah, it's way beyond
> > mainstream...it's universal.
>
> Some people have a lot more HD to choose from. I have 5 channels.

Then, you are definitely in the "HD deprived" category, but that's not
really the point. Almost everybody in the US can get the big 4 networks
in HD plus 3-5 *more* channels. They may not be able to get it with the
carrier of their choice (i.e., local cable may not be as good a choice
as DirecTV and OTA), but they *can* get that many channels.

> Its *far* from universal.

No, you are looking at the "owning the equipment" end. From the point of
view of what should be available to you if you wanted to work a little
harder (maybe put up an antenna), every high-rated show (which means every
show that people want to watch the most) is available in HD. That's
"universal".

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/BabyBlues/TVDistance.gif
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 5:40:16 PM

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

I agree -- what surprised me is how MANY shows are available in HD now.
Here is a list of shows that either I or my wife watch at present, at least
occasionally. A few of them we watch regularly.

FOX, CBS, ABC & ESPN Football
HBO Carnivale
FOX "24"
NBC Law & Order CI
ABC Desperate Housewives
NBC Law & Order
NBC Law & Order SVU
WB Smallville
NBC Medical Investigation
CBS Without a Trace
ESPN Sports Center
PBS Various
INHD 1 & 2, Discovery HD, HDMOV, HDNET, TNTHD & others in "HD Tier" Various

That's a LOT of HD programming! A hell of a lot more TV than anybody should
be watching, IMO!

mack
austin

"Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:41f106b7$0$71551$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Pagan wrote:
>
>> As
>> another observant poster pointed out, the 'fanatics' here in this
>> newsgroup
>> watch maybe 5 or less HD shows a week, and that's if you really look for
>> them. HDTV has yet to hit anything like a mainstream, and frankly, the
>> picture doesn't seem all that much better than POTV (Plain Old TV).
>
> Nonsense. We watch a dozen or so here at my house each week, at least in
> the cold weather. I have some favorites, my kids do as well, and my wife
> (who hates all television) has even found one that she likes (Desperate
> Housewives). I'm amazed at how much more we enjoy television now that we
> have the HD A/V setup. Some of the shows are on the HD networks, others
> on the regular broadcast nets, but in general it is the better, higher
> budget, shows that get the HD treatment.
>
> I'm reasonably choosey about the shows that we watch, but still there are
> many that we consider worthwhile. And there are more coming along all the
> time - for example Fox just introduced Point Pleasant this week. And, as
> always with TV, there are lots more that I wouldn't watch if you paid me -
> but obviously someone enjoys them.
>
> Let's see, tonight I can choose from these HD shows:
>
> PBS: Smart Travels or The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson
> NBC: Third Watch or Medical Investigation
> CBS: Joan of Arcadia, JAG, or CSI
> ABC: 8 Simple Rules, Complete Savages, Hope and Faith, Less Than Perfect
> UPN: Enterprise
> Fox: Bernie Mac or Jonny Zero
>
> The cable networks are showing several college basketball games in HD,
> some interesting concerts, and also several three-star movies. That's
> just an abbreviated list - there are lots more HD shows on that I haven't
> mentioned, and I don't have any premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc), so
> I haven't included those either.
>
> It's unfortunate that we don't have a WB station here in HD yet, because
> my kids would love to be able to watch Gilmore Girls, Smallville, Jack and
> Bobby, Summerland, Everwood, and others in HD. Most markets get those,
> but we're still waiting here in Cleveland.
>
> Of course, Smallville is carried on HDNet, so we do get to watch some of
> the reruns in HD. HDNet carries some other good network shows in HD as
> well: The Agency and The Handler are the two that I enjoy, but there are
> quite a few others.
>
> The funny thing about it is that I bought my HD set mostly so I'd have a
> widescreen set for DVDs. The high quality HD shows on broadcast and cable
> were just icing on the cake. I've had HD for a year now, and I definitely
> consider it money well spent.
January 22, 2005 7:51:45 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c5af2bc3af8ddff989ac4@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...

> My point (that you obviously missed) was that there are many channels with
> a wide variety of HD programming: movies, sports, drama series, sitcoms,
> reality TV, documentaries, etc. So, somebody who says they can't find
> something they like just isn't looking at all.

Oh I'm sure there is something on. But without a PVR, there isn't
necessarily something likely to be on -now- (ie starting at the next
half hour interval)

> > *Anybody* who can honestly say **most** of their viewing is HD is
> > watching HD for its own sake.
>
> Most of the series I watch are on network TV, so that makes them HD right
> there. To some, watching network TV is unusual, but the ratings say it
> is what most people do, so I'm actually quite typical.

The largest subgroup isn't necessarily a majority.

California has the highest population. That doesn't mean most people
live in California.

Similiarly the show with the most people watching it gets the highest
ratings...(just as california gets the highest population) but that
doesn't mean most people are watching it (or live in california).

In the case of California, 12 out 100 American people live there... and
that's higher than any other state. But 88 out of 100 don't live there,
and thats most of em :) 

> > Some people have a lot more HD to choose from. I have 5 channels.
>
> Then, you are definitely in the "HD deprived" category, but that's not
> really the point. Almost everybody in the US can get the big 4 networks
> in HD plus 3-5 *more* channels.

Even that is only 7-9 HD channels vs over 100 SD channels. Not to
mention that all but one of the 50+ channels dedicated to PPV are SD
too. And the 'video on demand' stuff is SD too.

> > Its *far* from universal.
>
> No, you are looking at the "owning the equipment" end. From the point of
> view of what should be available to you if you wanted to work a little
> harder (maybe put up an antenna),

Sadly not an option... life in the city. Us folks in highrises, strata
condos, apartments, and other signature dwellings of dense urban life
have much less control over what we put on the roof :) 

Basically it looks like the thrust of your argument for 'most' is based
on the presumption that HD broadcasts the highest rated content
therefore it should appeal to most people.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:02:38 PM

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

42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Oh I'm sure there is something on. But without a PVR, there isn't
> necessarily something likely to be on -now-

....which is why recording became popular in the first place. I bought
my HDTV (integrated with DirecTV HD tuner) in August of 2002, and by
October I found out that although there were quite a few shows that I
already watched available in HD, I wasn't watching any because of my
schedule. So, I bought a PC HDTV card and haven't looked back.

The way I see it, if you have spent $2000 on HDTV, spending some more
money so you can actually watch HD seems better than just tossing the
HDTV into the trash.

> > Most of the series I watch are on network TV, so that makes them HD right
> > there. To some, watching network TV is unusual, but the ratings say it
> > is what most people do, so I'm actually quite typical.
>
> The largest subgroup isn't necessarily a majority.

In this case, however, it is. Network TV typically sums to a 50 share, and
if you add in the 5 highest rated cable channels, it's always more than
half the viewers who are watching TV at that moment.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ShermansLagoon/OtherWhiteM...
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:09:48 PM

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

Pagan (DirtySanchez@chonch.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > But, I'm not even scratching the surface of what I could watch in HD if I
> > had the time and liked the show...I don't watch any "CSI" flavor, nothing
> > on WB at all, etc. With 4-10 *new* HD shows every *day* on just the OTA
> > networks, it's easy to find 5 a week to watch.
>
> Here's something to ponder. Just how many of those shows your watching do
> you think are truly HD?

All of them. I didn't count upconverts of any kind.

Everything I listed is either filmed on 35mm film (which has more than
HD resolution) and converted via HD telecine or else is filmed directly
with HD cameras and stored digitally in the first place.

> > > and frankly, the
> > > picture doesn't seem all that much better than POTV (Plain Old TV).
> >
> > More ROFLMAO.
>
> I've heard the same reaction from folks with Monster Cables, even more
> expensive speaker wires, and $600 power cables. "Oh, the sound is SO much
> better without all that 'skin effect', but only after the wires are 'broken
> in'.

Boy, you really are a looney, aren't you?

The "can't be measured but can only be heard" claims of "magic" cable
companies is nothing like the difference between 1440x1080 and as little
as 480x480.

> I watch Carnivale. Switching from HD to SD, I noticed little difference.

I suspect you have things connected wrong, then, because the difference
between HD and SD is so vast that it's impossible not to see.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Sins.jpg
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 5:02:27 PM

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

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote

> Similiarly the show with the most people watching it gets the highest
> ratings...(just as california gets the highest population) but that
> doesn't mean most people are watching it (or live in california).

Shows are rated in terms of ratings (percentage of all households -- or
particular demo -- who own a TV who are watching that show) and share
(percentage of households or particular demo who are watching TV then and
are watching that show). While a large rating and share doesn't mean that
most people are watching the show -- although it would if the rating were
over .50 -- it does mean that a person chosen at random is more likely to be
watching that show.

> Basically it looks like the thrust of your argument for 'most' is based
> on the presumption that HD broadcasts the highest rated content
> therefore it should appeal to most people.

This may not be true for any individual show, but I imagine if you add
together the ratings and/or shares of all the big network shows and events
that are broadcast in HD, you will find that it is quite reasonable to say
that those are the shows that most people watch most of the time.

mack
austin
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 1:47:36 AM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5c60f95720444b989ac6@news.nabs.net...
> Pagan (DirtySanchez@chonch.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > But, I'm not even scratching the surface of what I could watch in HD
if I
> > > had the time and liked the show...I don't watch any "CSI" flavor,
nothing
> > > on WB at all, etc. With 4-10 *new* HD shows every *day* on just the
OTA
> > > networks, it's easy to find 5 a week to watch.
> >
> > Here's something to ponder. Just how many of those shows your watching
do
> > you think are truly HD?
>
> All of them. I didn't count upconverts of any kind.
>
> Everything I listed is either filmed on 35mm film (which has more than
> HD resolution) and converted via HD telecine or else is filmed directly
> with HD cameras and stored digitally in the first place.

That is a whole lot of research.

> > > > and frankly,
the
> > > > picture doesn't seem all that much better than POTV (Plain Old TV).
> > >
> > > More ROFLMAO.
> >
> > I've heard the same reaction from folks with Monster Cables, even more
> > expensive speaker wires, and $600 power cables. "Oh, the sound is SO
much
> > better without all that 'skin effect', but only after the wires are
'broken
> > in'.
>
> Boy, you really are a looney, aren't you?

Quite. Then again, I'm in good company, as I'm currently having a
discussion with a guy who goes around investigating which cameras and film
are used to record his many favorate shows. heh

> The "can't be measured but can only be heard" claims of "magic" cable
> companies is nothing like the difference between 1440x1080 and as little
> as 480x480.

True, but seriously, just how much better is it?

> > I watch Carnivale. Switching from HD to SD, I noticed little
difference.
>
> I suspect you have things connected wrong, then, because the difference
> between HD and SD is so vast that it's impossible not to see.

Vast, huh? Well, looking strictly at the numbers, one would guess that
nobody even knew what was going on watching a set with such low resolution.

Get real. Is there a difference? Sure. Is it "vast", as in "Wow, I can't
believe I even bothered watching TV before HD came out!" vast? Not hardly.
It's more of the placebo effect, where folks who spend thousands of dollars
on gear (such as Monster Cables?) notice a huge, defining difference that
justifies all the money spent, regardless of what's sitting in front of
them.

As for the connections, back before I abandoned the HDMI cable in favor of
component, I tried very hard to see a huge difference, and there was only
one cable. It's pretty hard to get that wrong.

Pagan
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 2:52:55 AM

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

"Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
news:10v6i35agfeko44@corp.supernews.com...
> "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c5c60f95720444b989ac6@news.nabs.net...
>> Pagan (DirtySanchez@chonch.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> > > But, I'm not even scratching the surface of what I could watch in HD
> if I
>> > > had the time and liked the show...I don't watch any "CSI" flavor,
> nothing
>> > > on WB at all, etc. With 4-10 *new* HD shows every *day* on just the
> OTA
>> > > networks, it's easy to find 5 a week to watch.
>> >
>> > Here's something to ponder. Just how many of those shows your watching
> do
>> > you think are truly HD?
>>
>> All of them. I didn't count upconverts of any kind.
>>
>> Everything I listed is either filmed on 35mm film (which has more than
>> HD resolution) and converted via HD telecine or else is filmed directly
>> with HD cameras and stored digitally in the first place.
>
> That is a whole lot of research.
>
>> > > > and frankly,
> the
>> > > > picture doesn't seem all that much better than POTV (Plain Old TV).
>> > >
>> > > More ROFLMAO.
>> >
>> > I've heard the same reaction from folks with Monster Cables, even more
>> > expensive speaker wires, and $600 power cables. "Oh, the sound is SO
> much
>> > better without all that 'skin effect', but only after the wires are
> 'broken
>> > in'.
>>
>> Boy, you really are a looney, aren't you?
>
> Quite. Then again, I'm in good company, as I'm currently having a
> discussion with a guy who goes around investigating which cameras and film
> are used to record his many favorate shows. heh


Actually there are quite a few people who read these groups who are
interested in the sources of what we watch. Pretty simple to do a search at
www.imdb.com to come up with basic information. This is after all a
technical newsgroup for HDTV afficianodos.



>
>> The "can't be measured but can only be heard" claims of "magic" cable
>> companies is nothing like the difference between 1440x1080 and as little
>> as 480x480.
>
> True, but seriously, just how much better is it?


The difference is marked. At least as obvious as the difference between VHS
and DVD. Quite frankly you would have to have pretty poor eyesite not to see
the difference at any usable distance from your monitor.





>
>> > I watch Carnivale. Switching from HD to SD, I noticed little
> difference.
>>
>> I suspect you have things connected wrong, then, because the difference
>> between HD and SD is so vast that it's impossible not to see.
>
> Vast, huh? Well, looking strictly at the numbers, one would guess that
> nobody even knew what was going on watching a set with such low
> resolution.
>
> Get real. Is there a difference? Sure. Is it "vast", as in "Wow, I
> can't
> believe I even bothered watching TV before HD came out!" vast? Not
> hardly.
> It's more of the placebo effect, where folks who spend thousands of
> dollars
> on gear (such as Monster Cables?) notice a huge, defining difference that
> justifies all the money spent, regardless of what's sitting in front of
> them.

No placebo effect at all. It's like night and day. Sure we all watched SD TV
in the past and we still do today, but given a choice there's not a chance
in hell that ANY test/focus group wouldn't pick out the HD picture 100% of
the time.



>
> As for the connections, back before I abandoned the HDMI cable in favor of
> component, I tried very hard to see a huge difference, and there was only
> one cable. It's pretty hard to get that wrong.


FYI, the HDMI cables came long after component cables were around. You'd
probably be hard pressed to even tell us what HDMI stands for or does
compared to component, composite, or S-Video,



>
> Pagan
>
>
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 2:03:45 PM

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

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:zsednWzHO8NDym7cRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>
> "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
> news:10v6i35agfeko44@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1c5c60f95720444b989ac6@news.nabs.net...
> >> Pagan (DirtySanchez@chonch.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >> > > But, I'm not even scratching the surface of what I could watch in
HD
> > if I
> >> > > had the time and liked the show...I don't watch any "CSI" flavor,
> > nothing
> >> > > on WB at all, etc. With 4-10 *new* HD shows every *day* on just
the
> > OTA
> >> > > networks, it's easy to find 5 a week to watch.
> >> >
> >> > Here's something to ponder. Just how many of those shows your
watching
> > do
> >> > you think are truly HD?
> >>
> >> All of them. I didn't count upconverts of any kind.
> >>
> >> Everything I listed is either filmed on 35mm film (which has more than
> >> HD resolution) and converted via HD telecine or else is filmed directly
> >> with HD cameras and stored digitally in the first place.
> >
> > That is a whole lot of research.
> >
> >> > > > and
frankly,
> > the
> >> > > > picture doesn't seem all that much better than POTV (Plain Old
TV).
> >> > >
> >> > > More ROFLMAO.
> >> >
> >> > I've heard the same reaction from folks with Monster Cables, even
more
> >> > expensive speaker wires, and $600 power cables. "Oh, the sound is SO
> > much
> >> > better without all that 'skin effect', but only after the wires are
> > 'broken
> >> > in'.
> >>
> >> Boy, you really are a looney, aren't you?
> >
> > Quite. Then again, I'm in good company, as I'm currently having a
> > discussion with a guy who goes around investigating which cameras and
film
> > are used to record his many favorate shows. heh
>
>
> Actually there are quite a few people who read these groups who are
> interested in the sources of what we watch. Pretty simple to do a search
at
> www.imdb.com to come up with basic information. This is after all a
> technical newsgroup for HDTV afficianodos.
>
>
>
> >
> >> The "can't be measured but can only be heard" claims of "magic" cable
> >> companies is nothing like the difference between 1440x1080 and as
little
> >> as 480x480.
> >
> > True, but seriously, just how much better is it?
>
>
> The difference is marked. At least as obvious as the difference between
VHS
> and DVD. Quite frankly you would have to have pretty poor eyesite not to
see
> the difference at any usable distance from your monitor.

You are correct, from what I see, the difference is about the same from VHS
and DVD, maybe a little better. Is this a "vast" difference? I say not.
Is it worth getting excited about, or even probable that most folks will
pick shows to watch simply because they are HD? No.

> >> > I watch Carnivale. Switching from HD to SD, I noticed little
> > difference.
> >>
> >> I suspect you have things connected wrong, then, because the difference
> >> between HD and SD is so vast that it's impossible not to see.
> >
> > Vast, huh? Well, looking strictly at the numbers, one would guess that
> > nobody even knew what was going on watching a set with such low
> > resolution.
> >
> > Get real. Is there a difference? Sure. Is it "vast", as in "Wow, I
> > can't
> > believe I even bothered watching TV before HD came out!" vast? Not
> > hardly.
> > It's more of the placebo effect, where folks who spend thousands of
> > dollars
> > on gear (such as Monster Cables?) notice a huge, defining difference
that
> > justifies all the money spent, regardless of what's sitting in front of
> > them.
>
> No placebo effect at all. It's like night and day. Sure we all watched SD
TV
> in the past and we still do today, but given a choice there's not a chance
> in hell that ANY test/focus group wouldn't pick out the HD picture 100% of
> the time.
>
>
>
> >
> > As for the connections, back before I abandoned the HDMI cable in favor
of
> > component, I tried very hard to see a huge difference, and there was
only
> > one cable. It's pretty hard to get that wrong.
>
>
> FYI, the HDMI cables came long after component cables were around. You'd
> probably be hard pressed to even tell us what HDMI stands for or does
> compared to component, composite, or S-Video,

I think it's hardly necessary to explain to you or anybody else in this
newsgroup what an HDMI cable does, or any of the others, and if so, a quick
two second Google search can solve that.

Seems you missed the point of what I said. HDMI is a cute concept, however,
with copy protection, I can only get one out of two HD outputs from my
satellite receiver. Not wanting to juggle remotes every time I switched
from DVD to Sat or VCR, I simply use component through my A/V receiver. The
only reason I mentioned it was as a response to the implication that my
system could not be connected properly for me not to be floored by the
"vast" difference between HD and SD. As it's practically impossible to get
a connection wrong with HDMI, the point was my set was connected properly,
and while a difference was seen, was not great enough by itself, in my
opinion, to justify the cost of upgrading.

Furthermore, my system is set up in such a way where, if powering up the A/V
receiver is not desired, all outputs go directly to the TV, however, they
are sent through either composite or S-video. In those cases, the picture
is SD. At no time have I or anyone else complained about picture quality.
Sure, the difference Was noticeable, but not to the extent where we felt the
need to switch to HD.

Pagan
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 4:46:00 PM

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

Pagan (DirtySanchez@chonch.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > All of them. I didn't count upconverts of any kind.
> >
> > Everything I listed is either filmed on 35mm film (which has more than
> > HD resolution) and converted via HD telecine or else is filmed directly
> > with HD cameras and stored digitally in the first place.
>
> That is a whole lot of research.

Not really. All the work has already been done and is available in various
threads at AVS Forum.

--
Jeff Rife | "As usual, a knife-wielding maniac
| has shown us the way."
|
| -- Bart Simpson
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 7:49:47 PM

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

"Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
news:10v7t7ui460ufa4@corp.supernews.com...
> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:zsednWzHO8NDym7cRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
>> news:10v6i35agfeko44@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.1c5c60f95720444b989ac6@news.nabs.net...
>> >> Pagan (DirtySanchez@chonch.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> >> > > But, I'm not even scratching the surface of what I could watch in
> HD
>> > if I
>> >> > > had the time and liked the show...I don't watch any "CSI" flavor,
>> > nothing
>> >> > > on WB at all, etc. With 4-10 *new* HD shows every *day* on just
> the
>> > OTA
>> >> > > networks, it's easy to find 5 a week to watch.
>> >> >
>> >> > Here's something to ponder. Just how many of those shows your
> watching
>> > do
>> >> > you think are truly HD?
>> >>
>> >> All of them. I didn't count upconverts of any kind.
>> >>
>> >> Everything I listed is either filmed on 35mm film (which has more than
>> >> HD resolution) and converted via HD telecine or else is filmed
>> >> directly
>> >> with HD cameras and stored digitally in the first place.
>> >
>> > That is a whole lot of research.
>> >
>> >> > > > and
> frankly,
>> > the
>> >> > > > picture doesn't seem all that much better than POTV (Plain Old
> TV).
>> >> > >
>> >> > > More ROFLMAO.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've heard the same reaction from folks with Monster Cables, even
> more
>> >> > expensive speaker wires, and $600 power cables. "Oh, the sound is
>> >> > SO
>> > much
>> >> > better without all that 'skin effect', but only after the wires are
>> > 'broken
>> >> > in'.
>> >>
>> >> Boy, you really are a looney, aren't you?
>> >
>> > Quite. Then again, I'm in good company, as I'm currently having a
>> > discussion with a guy who goes around investigating which cameras and
> film
>> > are used to record his many favorate shows. heh
>>
>>
>> Actually there are quite a few people who read these groups who are
>> interested in the sources of what we watch. Pretty simple to do a search
> at
>> www.imdb.com to come up with basic information. This is after all a
>> technical newsgroup for HDTV afficianodos.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> The "can't be measured but can only be heard" claims of "magic" cable
>> >> companies is nothing like the difference between 1440x1080 and as
> little
>> >> as 480x480.
>> >
>> > True, but seriously, just how much better is it?
>>
>>
>> The difference is marked. At least as obvious as the difference between
> VHS
>> and DVD. Quite frankly you would have to have pretty poor eyesite not to
> see
>> the difference at any usable distance from your monitor.
>
> You are correct, from what I see, the difference is about the same from
> VHS
> and DVD, maybe a little better. Is this a "vast" difference? I say not.
> Is it worth getting excited about, or even probable that most folks will
> pick shows to watch simply because they are HD? No.
>
>> >> > I watch Carnivale. Switching from HD to SD, I noticed little
>> > difference.
>> >>
>> >> I suspect you have things connected wrong, then, because the
>> >> difference
>> >> between HD and SD is so vast that it's impossible not to see.
>> >
>> > Vast, huh? Well, looking strictly at the numbers, one would guess that
>> > nobody even knew what was going on watching a set with such low
>> > resolution.
>> >
>> > Get real. Is there a difference? Sure. Is it "vast", as in "Wow, I
>> > can't
>> > believe I even bothered watching TV before HD came out!" vast? Not
>> > hardly.
>> > It's more of the placebo effect, where folks who spend thousands of
>> > dollars
>> > on gear (such as Monster Cables?) notice a huge, defining difference
> that
>> > justifies all the money spent, regardless of what's sitting in front of
>> > them.
>>
>> No placebo effect at all. It's like night and day. Sure we all watched SD
> TV
>> in the past and we still do today, but given a choice there's not a
>> chance
>> in hell that ANY test/focus group wouldn't pick out the HD picture 100%
>> of
>> the time.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > As for the connections, back before I abandoned the HDMI cable in favor
> of
>> > component, I tried very hard to see a huge difference, and there was
> only
>> > one cable. It's pretty hard to get that wrong.
>>
>>
>> FYI, the HDMI cables came long after component cables were around. You'd
>> probably be hard pressed to even tell us what HDMI stands for or does
>> compared to component, composite, or S-Video,
>
> I think it's hardly necessary to explain to you or anybody else in this
> newsgroup what an HDMI cable does, or any of the others, and if so, a
> quick
> two second Google search can solve that.
>
> Seems you missed the point of what I said. HDMI is a cute concept,
> however,
> with copy protection, I can only get one out of two HD outputs from my
> satellite receiver. Not wanting to juggle remotes every time I switched
> from DVD to Sat or VCR, I simply use component through my A/V receiver.
> The
> only reason I mentioned it was as a response to the implication that my
> system could not be connected properly for me not to be floored by the
> "vast" difference between HD and SD. As it's practically impossible to
> get
> a connection wrong with HDMI, the point was my set was connected properly,
> and while a difference was seen, was not great enough by itself, in my
> opinion, to justify the cost of upgrading.
>
> Furthermore, my system is set up in such a way where, if powering up the
> A/V
> receiver is not desired, all outputs go directly to the TV, however, they
> are sent through either composite or S-video. In those cases, the picture
> is SD. At no time have I or anyone else complained about picture quality.
> Sure, the difference Was noticeable, but not to the extent where we felt
> the
> need to switch to HD.
>
> Pagan


I guess I was late to the thread. Now I get it... a blind troll with a blind
family. Plonk
January 25, 2005 3:52:49 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c5c5f44f530698f989ac5@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...
> 42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Oh I'm sure there is something on. But without a PVR, there isn't
> > necessarily something likely to be on -now-
>
> ...which is why recording became popular in the first place. I bought
> my HDTV (integrated with DirecTV HD tuner) in August of 2002, and by
> October I found out that although there were quite a few shows that I
> already watched available in HD, I wasn't watching any because of my
> schedule. So, I bought a PC HDTV card and haven't looked back.

And that's a fair comment, but it hardly reflects most HDTV owners, at
least not yet. Your statement that "I wasn't watching any because of my
schedule" rings particularly true.

Suffice it to say, you've succeeded in convincing me that a PVR is a
virtual necessity to get real value out of HDTV programming, but failed
to convince me that most HDTV people have one.

I think HD-PVRs will sell extraordinarily well in the next couple years,
that along with HD-DVD burners will become as ubiquitous as VCRs were in
the 90s... but it hasn't happened yet. HD-recording is still on most
HDTV owners wish list.

> The way I see it, if you have spent $2000 on HDTV, spending some more
> money so you can actually watch HD seems better than just tossing the
> HDTV into the trash.

/shrug

Sort of like arguing that the only way to enjoy a Porsche is on a track.
Sure its fun to drive on the highway...way better than the Honda Civic
you used to drive... but you'll never be able to open it up like you
could on a proper speedway.

Of course, having said that, most Porsche owners haven't been on one,
never mind do it regularly. Similiarly, most HDTV owners don't watch a
lot of HDTV.

> > > Most of the series I watch are on network TV, so that makes them HD right
> > > there. To some, watching network TV is unusual, but the ratings say it
> > > is what most people do, so I'm actually quite typical.
> >
> > The largest subgroup isn't necessarily a majority.
>
> In this case, however, it is. Network TV typically sums to a 50 share, and
> if you add in the 5 highest rated cable channels, it's always more than
> half the viewers who are watching TV at that moment.

Technically 49% in 2003-2004 according to the FCC, ... and falling. But
that's a very minor issue... so: fair enough.

My point, as I said, was not to disagree with you, but merely to point
out the fallacy of using ratings to talk about share.

Today, yes, they do happen to coincide, but as cable continues to
fragment and erode the nets ... it might not be true in the near future.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 3:52:50 AM

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

42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > ...which is why recording became popular in the first place. I bought
> > my HDTV (integrated with DirecTV HD tuner) in August of 2002, and by
> > October I found out that although there were quite a few shows that I
> > already watched available in HD, I wasn't watching any because of my
> > schedule. So, I bought a PC HDTV card and haven't looked back.
>
> And that's a fair comment, but it hardly reflects most HDTV owners, at
> least not yet. Your statement that "I wasn't watching any because of my
> schedule" rings particularly true.

....and this has exactly what to do with HDTV? If your schedule doesn't
allow you to watch the shows you want to watch, recording is basically
your only choice (ignoring the mindless drones that don't care what is
on in front of them).

> Suffice it to say, you've succeeded in convincing me that a PVR is a
> virtual necessity to get real value out of HDTV programming

A recording system is a virtual necessity to get real value out of TV of
any kind.

> but failed
> to convince me that most HDTV people have one.

If people spend thousands of dollars on an HD display and HD tuner, it's
not my fault they won't spend a little more to get a recorder. But, if
they haven't spent the money on a recorder, then they don't get to whine
about there being "nothing on in HDTV". There's very little on in *SD*
at any given moment, even though there are 20 times more SD channels than
HD channels available to most people.

> I think HD-PVRs will sell extraordinarily well in the next couple years,
> that along with HD-DVD burners will become as ubiquitous as VCRs were in
> the 90s... but it hasn't happened yet. HD-recording is still on most
> HDTV owners wish list.

That's because *any* PVR is on most people's wish list. This falls under
the category of "people are stupid", or else "people are sheep". It's not
the fault of the *hundreds* of hours of good programming that people are
too stupid to buy a recorder to allow them to watch it.

> > The way I see it, if you have spent $2000 on HDTV, spending some more
> > money so you can actually watch HD seems better than just tossing the
> > HDTV into the trash.
>
> /shrug
>
> Sort of like arguing that the only way to enjoy a Porsche is on a track.

No, that's not even close.

It's more like saying the only way you can enjoy a Porsche is to actually
take the time to *drive* it, instead of letting it sit in your garage and
look cool.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Workaholic.gi...
January 25, 2005 4:15:59 AM

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

In article <T1tId.59564$Z%.41147@fe1.texas.rr.com>,
MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com says...
> "42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > Similiarly the show with the most people watching it gets the highest
> > ratings...(just as california gets the highest population) but that
> > doesn't mean most people are watching it (or live in california).
>
> Shows are rated in terms of ratings (percentage of all households -- or
> particular demo -- who own a TV who are watching that show) and share
> (percentage of households or particular demo who are watching TV then and
> are watching that show). While a large rating and share doesn't mean that
> most people are watching the show -- although it would if the rating were
> over .50 -- it does mean that a person chosen at random is more likely to be
> watching that show.

Agreed. But the debate is on what 'typical people do'. If you had a 30
people in a room, and 5 of them had a last name starting with 'A', while
the remainder each was on a remaining letter, then its clearly true that
the A's are the largest subgroup, and its also true that its more likely
that a person from the group chosen at random will be an A....

BUT... that is no basis to justify the statement that "I can see most
people here have a last name that starts with A". Further since 25/30, a
huge majority, do not start with 'A'... if you were to add a new person
ot the room it would be foolish to assert that their name most likely
starts with 'A'.

Now, Jeff Rife clarified the issue, with the nets at 50%, and then the
top5 cable channels pushing that into clear dominance... and gave his
argument some credibility... but of course... that credibility came from
a clarification of viewership share not ratings (although they -are-
related, they are not the same.)
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 10:56:58 AM

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

A Super-VHS VCR makes acceptable widescreen recordings from HDTV
broadcasts which look about like Fox's widescreen sorta-HD
programming from
last season.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 3:11:44 PM

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

burwil wrote:

> Perhaps those unimpressed with HDTV haven't watched enough HDTV.

To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of it. The difference between
SD and HD is so huge that it's almost inconceivable to me that someone
would claim to be unimpressed. But, as I commented earlier, it seems
that there are some people who are simply oblivious to this sort of
thing - like the guy who can't hear the difference between a boombox and
a high-end stereo. Or who can't tell stereo from mono, or can't tell
when his speakers are wired in reverse polarity. That sort of thing is
quite glaring to me, but many people simply don't notice it. For those
folks, HD is probably a waste of money.

On the other hand, I suspect that some of these folks may really not
know how to get HD from their sets. There are still many people out
there who expect HD to come in on the same channel as SD, or to come
from the same tuner, or to be carried through the same S-Video cable.
I've noted instances where some of them really think they're watching HD
when they really are watching nothing but SD on an HD set. So there may
be some of that going on, too.

Also, some of the broadcasts that claim to be HD don't always maintain
the same high quality throughout. Like a sporting event where the main
cameras are HD, but some of the audience shots or blimp shots are
upconverted from SD. Or the sportscaster who is shot in HD against a
bluescreen, but with an upconverted SD image dropped in behind him.
That sort of thing gives HD a bad name.

Finally, some of the local broadcasters and cable companies will
shortchange the bandwidth requirements for HD, leaving an image that is
damaged by compression artifacts. That makes HD look bad, too.

So I suspect we're seeing a mixture of 1) people who have seen a few bad
HD presentations, 2) people who are simply insensitive to the
difference, and 3) people who don't know how to get a true HD signal
through their systems.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 11:02:29 PM

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

Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote (in part):

>Also, some of the broadcasts that claim to be HD don't always maintain
>the same high quality throughout. Like a sporting event where the main
>cameras are HD, but some of the audience shots or blimp shots are
>upconverted from SD. Or the sportscaster who is shot in HD against a
>bluescreen, but with an upconverted SD image dropped in behind him.
>That sort of thing gives HD a bad name.

I just checked the PBS HD schedule on TitanTV. Tomorrow (Wednesday
1/26) they have only 11 hours of shows that are actually HD, none of
which are in prime time (8:00-11:00 Eastern). And only 6.5 hours of
HD in prime time for the whole week. How many people tune in to
"Nature" and think they're watching HD?

Del Mibbler
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 11:02:30 PM

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

Del Mibbler wrote:

> How many people tune in to "Nature" and think they're watching HD?

I keep picturing some guy or gal looking at that fancy new widescreen
HDTV and watching, say, "Wheel of Fortune" on it. Then holding the
remote and pressing Aspect button - switching the set back and forth
between "Wide" format and "Normal" format, all the time thinking that
"Wide" equals "HD". <g>
January 26, 2005 1:40:10 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c5f810b932d70ba989acc@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...
> 42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > ...which is why recording became popular in the first place. I bought
> > > my HDTV (integrated with DirecTV HD tuner) in August of 2002, and by
> > > October I found out that although there were quite a few shows that I
> > > already watched available in HD, I wasn't watching any because of my
> > > schedule. So, I bought a PC HDTV card and haven't looked back.
> >
> > And that's a fair comment, but it hardly reflects most HDTV owners, at
> > least not yet. Your statement that "I wasn't watching any because of my
> > schedule" rings particularly true.
>
> ...and this has exactly what to do with HDTV? If your schedule doesn't
> allow you to watch the shows you want to watch, recording is basically
> your only choice (ignoring the mindless drones that don't care what is
> on in front of them).
>
> > Suffice it to say, you've succeeded in convincing me that a PVR is a
> > virtual necessity to get real value out of HDTV programming
>
> A recording system is a virtual necessity to get real value out of TV of
> any kind.

Obviously I disagree. I happily to float from the Simpsons or the Daily
Show on Comedy Central, to Law & Order on ShowCase, to an old Vincent
Price movie on Scream. Though I have a VCR, I haven't recorded anything
on it in years... in fact its not even hooked up to the cable box
anymore; i just use it to play the odd rented vhs movie.

> > but failed
> > to convince me that most HDTV people have one.
>
> If people spend thousands of dollars on an HD display and HD tuner, it's
> not my fault they won't spend a little more to get a recorder.

Nobody said it was your fault. But the fact remains they haven't done it
yet.

> But, if
> they haven't spent the money on a recorder, then they don't get to whine
> about there being "nothing on in HDTV".

The comment was: "Most HDTV owners don't watch very much HDTV now".

The comment wasn't that "Most HDTV owners *can't* watch very much HDTV
now"... its that they *don't*. We agree they probably 'could' if they
bought extra equipment, and spent time organizing their recordings...
but the fact remains that right now most of them still aren't doing it.

> There's very little on in *SD*
> at any given moment, even though there are 20 times more SD channels than
> HD channels available to most people.
>
> > I think HD-PVRs will sell extraordinarily well in the next couple years,
> > that along with HD-DVD burners will become as ubiquitous as VCRs were in
> > the 90s... but it hasn't happened yet. HD-recording is still on most
> > HDTV owners wish list.
>
> That's because *any* PVR is on most people's wish list. This falls under
> the category of "people are stupid", or else "people are sheep". It's not
> the fault of the *hundreds* of hours of good programming that people are
> too stupid to buy a recorder to allow them to watch it.

You are saying most people want a PVR but are too stupid to buy one.
That doesn't even make sense.

Furthermore, the PVR situation is not as simple as you make it sound.
Good PVRs aren't cheap and people really don't just want a timeshifter
box, they want a PVR that can save to DVD and/or export to their PCs.
And there is a ton of uncertainty there as the content providers are
seriously constricting the ability of consumers to do what they want
with their HD recordings.

> > > The way I see it, if you have spent $2000 on HDTV, spending some more
> > > money so you can actually watch HD seems better than just tossing the
> > > HDTV into the trash.
> >
> > /shrug
> >
> > Sort of like arguing that the only way to enjoy a Porsche is on a track.
>
> No, that's not even close.
>
> It's more like saying the only way you can enjoy a Porsche is to actually
> take the time to *drive* it, instead of letting it sit in your garage and
> look cool.

Merely driving a Porsche is like watching a DVD on your HDTV. Damn sight
more fun than the Civic... but its no speedway.

Most people who buy an HDTV don't watch much HDTV programming, but the
set isn't sitting in their living room looking cool. They're definately
using it: watching upscaled SDTV and DVDs and, yes, even the odd HDTV
program.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 1:40:11 AM

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

42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > A recording system is a virtual necessity to get real value out of TV of
> > any kind.
>
> Obviously I disagree. I happily to float from the Simpsons or the Daily
> Show on Comedy Central, to Law & Order on ShowCase, to an old Vincent
> Price movie on Scream.

Then, you should have no complaints about the amount of HDTV available.
If what is on *now* is good enough for you, then there is plenty of HDTV...
you just choose not to watch any of it.

> The comment was: "Most HDTV owners don't watch very much HDTV now".
>
> The comment wasn't that "Most HDTV owners *can't* watch very much HDTV
> now"... its that they *don't*. We agree they probably 'could' if they
> bought extra equipment, and spent time organizing their recordings...
> but the fact remains that right now most of them still aren't doing it.

From what you say, it seems to be that people are now getting picky about
what they watch. Previously, the average person was a sheep that was
willing to watch anything that was on when they sat down. This is despite
the fact that there hasn't been a reason to have to live with the way
broadcasters schedule things for 20 years.

Now, though, you seem to say that people can't find any HD to watch. Well,
there's plenty of it...24 hours a day, 7 days a week there is something
on in HD. People who don't watch very much do so simply because they
choose not to, not because they don't have any choices.

> > That's because *any* PVR is on most people's wish list. This falls under
> > the category of "people are stupid", or else "people are sheep". It's not
> > the fault of the *hundreds* of hours of good programming that people are
> > too stupid to buy a recorder to allow them to watch it.
>
> You are saying most people want a PVR but are too stupid to buy one.
> That doesn't even make sense.

Well, yes, but this (again) falls into the "people are stupid" category.
VCRs have been available for 20 years now, yet most people (including
people who supposedly lead others in technology) didn't used them to record
TV shows for later viewing. Many people who love TiVo and now record
*everything* never recorded anything before because "it was too hard".

Now, people have become so used to just dealing with watching stuff when
it is on, they don't think a PVR would be worth the value. Yet, if you
gave them one, they wouldn't know how they lived without it.

> Furthermore, the PVR situation is not as simple as you make it sound.

Yes, it is. Really.

> Good PVRs aren't cheap

As long as we are talking PVR in general and not "HD PVR", this is so wrong
as to be funny. If $99 isn't "cheap", then I really don't know how low
prices have to go before a PVR becomes "cheap".

As for HD PVRs, free ones are available from most major cable companies.
Most aren't nearly as good as I would like, but they do all work fairly
well when in "digital VCR" mode (i.e., record by time and channel instead
of fancy automatic recording options).

But, so what if a "good" HD PVR costs $850? Two years ago, people spent
thousands on HD-capable displays and then whined about spending $600 on
an HD tuner. Today, they can spend $250 more and get two tuners *plus*
recording capability. If you spend $3-5K on HDTV and then complain about
not having any HD shows to watch when an $850 device will solve the
problem, it seems foolish not to spend that money. But then, people are
stupid.

> and people really don't just want a timeshifter
> box, they want a PVR that can save to DVD and/or export to their PCs.

No, they don't. About 1% of people care about archiving, and about 1% of
*those* people care about PC connectivity.

That said, every HD digital cable box (which includes PVRs) is required to
have FireWire output activated (and has been so required since April 2004).
This can be used to send content to various devices (although not straight
to a standalone DVD burner, because none accept HD as input) including PCs.

Also, every PC HDTV card has this already...all you need is DVD burning
software (you don't need export to the PC because it's already there).

> And there is a ton of uncertainty there as the content providers are
> seriously constricting the ability of consumers to do what they want
> with their HD recordings.

Let those content providers consider all they want. There is nothing that
they can do that will stop the ability to record...only the ability to
move to a PC might be stopped.

> Most people who buy an HDTV don't watch much HDTV programming,

This would be because they don't have any HDTV source. The vast majority
of people with HD displays think they are watching HD even though though
have no HD tuner/receiver/etc. But, of the people who *have* actual HD
sources, they watch a *lot* of HD.

> but the
> set isn't sitting in their living room looking cool. They're definately
> using it: watching upscaled SDTV

If they aren't watching HDTV, they also aren't watching "upscaled" SDTV.
They might be watching "re-scaled" SDTV that is required of fixed-pixel
displays, but it's not an improvement in resolution.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/TechSupport.gif
January 26, 2005 3:22:16 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c60a30e3f14205c989ad1@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...
> 42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > A recording system is a virtual necessity to get real value out of TV of
> > > any kind.
> >
> > Obviously I disagree. I happily to float from the Simpsons or the Daily
> > Show on Comedy Central, to Law & Order on ShowCase, to an old Vincent
> > Price movie on Scream.
>
> Then, you should have no complaints about the amount of HDTV available.
> If what is on *now* is good enough for you, then there is plenty of HDTV...
> you just choose not to watch any of it.

I am not complaining. I said most HDTV owners aren't watching much HDTV.
Full stop. I never said they were complaining about it.

> > The comment was: "Most HDTV owners don't watch very much HDTV now".
> >
> > The comment wasn't that "Most HDTV owners *can't* watch very much HDTV
> > now"... its that they *don't*. We agree they probably 'could' if they
> > bought extra equipment, and spent time organizing their recordings...
> > but the fact remains that right now most of them still aren't doing it.
>
> From what you say, it seems to be that people are now getting picky about
> what they watch. Previously, the average person was a sheep that was
> willing to watch anything that was on when they sat down.

Sure given 120 channels, yeah, they by and large choose to watch
something thats on now on one of them. Given that <10 are HD, more often
than not what they'd want to watch, out of what is on is not HD.
(although we've already agreed that the proportion of 'popular content'
on HDTV is much greater than their raw percentage of the channel-verse).

> This is despite
> the fact that there hasn't been a reason to have to live with the way
> broadcasters schedule things for 20 years.

VCRs were not convenient. That's a good reason.

> Now, though, you seem to say that people can't find any HD to watch. Well,
> there's plenty of it...24 hours a day, 7 days a week there is something
> on in HD. People who don't watch very much do so simply because they
> choose not to, not because they don't have any choices.

/shrug. Again, I just said, most people aren't watching much HD. I never
said there weren't ways for them watch more.

That said, lets not be misleading... they arent choosing not to watch HD
within the normal meaning of the word. Ie they aren't sitting down and
thinking... nope... I'm not gonna watch HD.

>
> > > That's because *any* PVR is on most people's wish list. This falls under
> > > the category of "people are stupid", or else "people are sheep". It's not
> > > the fault of the *hundreds* of hours of good programming that people are
> > > too stupid to buy a recorder to allow them to watch it.
> >
> > You are saying most people want a PVR but are too stupid to buy one.
> > That doesn't even make sense.
>
> Well, yes, but this (again) falls into the "people are stupid" category.
> VCRs have been available for 20 years now, yet most people (including
> people who supposedly lead others in technology) didn't used them to record
> TV shows for later viewing. Many people who love TiVo and now record
> *everything* never recorded anything before because "it was too hard".
>
> Now, people have become so used to just dealing with watching stuff when
> it is on, they don't think a PVR would be worth the value. Yet, if you
> gave them one, they wouldn't know how they lived without it.
>
> > Furthermore, the PVR situation is not as simple as you make it sound.
>
> Yes, it is. Really.
>
> > Good PVRs aren't cheap
>
> As long as we are talking PVR in general and not "HD PVR", this is so wrong
> as to be funny. If $99 isn't "cheap", then I really don't know how low
> prices have to go before a PVR becomes "cheap".

Obviously I'd be referring to HDPVR... not much point to an SDPVR if you
want to use it to watch more content in HD.

> As for HD PVRs, free ones are available from most major cable companies.

Really? Interesting. Not mine. Damn.

> Most aren't nearly as good as I would like, but they do all work fairly
> well when in "digital VCR" mode (i.e., record by time and channel instead
> of fancy automatic recording options).
>
> But, so what if a "good" HD PVR costs $850?

That's what my CableCo is offering... $798.00

> Two years ago, people spent
> thousands on HD-capable displays and then whined about spending $600 on
> an HD tuner. Today, they can spend $250 more and get two tuners *plus*
> recording capability. If you spend $3-5K on HDTV and then complain about
> not having any HD shows to watch when an $850 device will solve the
> problem, it seems foolish not to spend that money. But then, people are
> stupid.

Ok. Regardless of whether or not they are stupid or not, or whether they
are complaining or not... they still aren't watching much HD.

> > and people really don't just want a timeshifter
> > box, they want a PVR that can save to DVD and/or export to their PCs.
>
> No, they don't. About 1% of people care about archiving, and about 1% of
> *those* people care about PC connectivity.

Nothing like numbers out of the old ass. :)  Seriously, archiving was
probably the wrong word, but they do want more portability of content
and versatility than is currently being made easily available. Be the
application to watch it in their bedroom... take it to a friends
house... email it to mom... whatever.

> That said, every HD digital cable box (which includes PVRs) is required to
> have FireWire output activated (and has been so required since April 2004).
> This can be used to send content to various devices (although not straight
> to a standalone DVD burner, because none accept HD as input) including PCs.
>
> Also, every PC HDTV card has this already.

Do any PC HDTV cards accept HDTV aside from OTA?

> ..all you need is DVD burning
> software (you don't need export to the PC because it's already there).
>
> > And there is a ton of uncertainty there as the content providers are
> > seriously constricting the ability of consumers to do what they want
> > with their HD recordings.
>
> Let those content providers consider all they want. There is nothing that
> they can do that will stop the ability to record...only the ability to
> move to a PC might be stopped.

You say this as copy protected compact discs are being gradually phased
in. The ability to record at will is currently being threatened and
constricted. I fully expect it to be nearly impossible eventually to
record an unfettered unencumbered full quality HD broadcast without
breaking a law and/or circumnavitaging an anti-copy feature.

> > Most people who buy an HDTV don't watch much HDTV programming,
>
> This would be because they don't have any HDTV source. The vast majority
> of people with HD displays think they are watching HD even though though
> have no HD tuner/receiver/etc. But, of the people who *have* actual HD
> sources, they watch a *lot* of HD.

So you agree that most HDTV owners aren't watching much HD... because
most HD owners don't even have HDTV sources. Great.

I'd go further and say that most HDTV owners including those with HD
sources don't watch a *lot* of HD... excepting the minority that have
both a PVR (HD) *and* the inclination to use it.

> > but the
> > set isn't sitting in their living room looking cool. They're definately
> > using it: watching upscaled SDTV
>
> If they aren't watching HDTV, they also aren't watching "upscaled" SDTV.
> They might be watching "re-scaled" SDTV that is required of fixed-pixel
> displays, but it's not an improvement in resolution.

/shrug

First time I've seen anyone make a real distinction, and the first time
I've seen what your TV does called 're-scaling'.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 3:48:51 PM

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

42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Then, you should have no complaints about the amount of HDTV available.
> > If what is on *now* is good enough for you, then there is plenty of HDTV...
> > you just choose not to watch any of it.
>
> I am not complaining.

You sure seemed to do a lot of "commenting" about how little HDTV you
have available to you, and how hard it is to find anything to watch. Not
calling this "complaining" is just semantics.

> I said most HDTV owners aren't watching much HDTV.

To which I probably agree, but it has everything to do with having *zero*
HDTV choices because they don't have a receiver. People who have receivers
watch a *lot* of HDTV.

> > This is despite
> > the fact that there hasn't been a reason to have to live with the way
> > broadcasters schedule things for 20 years.
>
> VCRs were not convenient. That's a good reason.

Oh, bullshit. The biggest inconvenience between a VCR and a "plain" DVR
is that the VCR has a smaller "tape". People who can't use a VCR to record
because "it's too complicated" are just idiots who are waiting for a
Darwin Award.

In particular, if you don't care about whether a show is a re-run or not,
you set a VCR to record every Wednesday at 9pm on NBC (if you are a "West
Wing" fan) and you just let it go.

> > As long as we are talking PVR in general and not "HD PVR", this is so wrong
> > as to be funny. If $99 isn't "cheap", then I really don't know how low
> > prices have to go before a PVR becomes "cheap".
>
> Obviously I'd be referring to HDPVR... not much point to an SDPVR if you
> want to use it to watch more content in HD.

Correct, but my point was that *any* PVR was on people's wish list, and
that's what you responded to.

> > As for HD PVRs, free ones are available from most major cable companies.
>
> Really? Interesting. Not mine. Damn.

Then, you don't have a "major" cable company.

> > But, so what if a "good" HD PVR costs $850?
>
> That's what my CableCo is offering... $798.00

If they are offering it for purchase, then you can get it for free with
a monthly rental fee, just like every other cable box. Ask.

> Ok. Regardless of whether or not they are stupid or not, or whether they
> are complaining or not... they still aren't watching much HD.

Well, duh! People who don't have HD displays aren't watching much HD,
either (i.e., none), but are you counting them, too? People who have
actual HD capability *are* watching a lot more HD than you think. You
don't because you fall into one of those "I don't care...I just have a lot
of money and can afford my Porsche, so I have it...I just don't drive it
outside the parking garage".

I watch my HD recorded because I watched my SD recorded. All of it (except
for live sports), for 15 years. I couldn't change my schedule to match
TV back then, and HD isn't enough to do it for me now. Obviously, many
other people *can* change their schedule enough to watch "CSI" when it
airs, so watching the HD version isn't a big deal for them.

> > No, they don't. About 1% of people care about archiving, and about 1% of
> > *those* people care about PC connectivity.
>
> Nothing like numbers out of the old ass. :) 

Do some research some day. The company I work for has done the research,
and these things just aren't important to people. Those numbers aren't
far off from precise.

> Seriously, archiving was
> probably the wrong word, but they do want more portability of content
> and versatility than is currently being made easily available.

Prove it. Where were the portable SD video players 5-10 years ago? There
were lots of ways to do that (4mm tape, VHS-C, CD-Video, Video-CD, DVD),
yet *no* portable players were manufactured.

> Be the
> application to watch it in their bedroom... take it to a friends
> house...

Was that video tape too heavy to move from the living room to the bedroom?
If so, I guess moving it to a friend's house was out of the question,
right?

That worked before, and you can do it *today* with HD. What's the problem?

> email it to mom...

Nobody wants to do this. Really.

> > Also, every PC HDTV card has this already.
>
> Do any PC HDTV cards accept HDTV aside from OTA?

There are ones that handle unencrypted digital cable today, and if the
cable companies stop trying to block/overturn CableCard, there should be
CableCard PC HDTV cards in the next 6 months. Still, unencrypted gives
you all the OTA networks, since those are required to be "in the clear".

> > Let those content providers consider all they want. There is nothing that
> > they can do that will stop the ability to record...only the ability to
> > move to a PC might be stopped.
>
> You say this as copy protected compact discs are being gradually phased
> in.

One has nothing to do with the other. Unlike CDs, there are laws about
what can be blocked from recording, and what cannot, and the current laws
say that *nothing* can be blocked on any device that stores the data in
an encrypted form. All the cable DVRs do this, thus you can record and
watch anything. Whether you can get it to a PC via FireWire...not yet, but
there will be an 5C-compliant FireWire implementation for the PC sometime.

> The ability to record at will is currently being threatened and
> constricted. I fully expect it to be nearly impossible eventually to
> record an unfettered unencumbered full quality HD broadcast without
> breaking a law and/or circumnavitaging an anti-copy feature.

This is just wrong, because of the way the laws are written. You will
be able to record and watch with no problem. Recording != copying
according to the law.

Your post is the sort of FUD that has kept people from buying into HDTV.

> I'd go further and say that most HDTV owners including those with HD
> sources don't watch a *lot* of HD...

You'd be wrong. Just because you don't doesn't mean that most people
don't.

> First time I've seen anyone make a real distinction, and the first time
> I've seen what your TV does called 're-scaling'.

Because "up-scaling" at the source results in a far better picture than
what fixed-pixel displays can do. Since most people don't have this
capability (although there are a very few up-scaling DVD players out
there), they end up with a scaling that is a requirement of their fixed-
pixel display, which is rarely that good. Analog displays don't *ever*
up-scale (they show 480i as 480p at best), but that actually results in
a better picture than the fixed-pixel displays.

--
Jeff Rife | "The Babylon Project was our last, best hope
| for peace.... It failed."
|
| -- Commander Susan Ivanova, 2260
January 26, 2005 10:54:52 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c61a20e1c7c4bfc989ad5@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...

> > VCRs were not convenient. That's a good reason.
>
> Oh, bullshit. The biggest inconvenience between a VCR and a "plain" DVR
> is that the VCR has a smaller "tape". People who can't use a VCR to record
> because "it's too complicated" are just idiots who are waiting for a
> Darwin Award.

People *can* use a VCR, but they *don't* because its inconvenient. If
you think that makes them all braindead morons, fine. Its still most
people.


>
> > > As for HD PVRs, free ones are available from most major cable companies.
> >
> > Really? Interesting. Not mine. Damn.
>
> Then, you don't have a "major" cable company.
>
> > > But, so what if a "good" HD PVR costs $850?
> >
> > That's what my CableCo is offering... $798.00
>
> If they are offering it for purchase, then you can get it for free with
> a monthly rental fee, just like every other cable box. Ask.

Did. Nope. Purchase only. Although, it appears most cable companies do
offer a rental. Mine is truly gimped.

That aside, paying a rental fee isn't 'free', and in most cases ends up
costing more.


> >
> > Nothing like numbers out of the old ass. :) 
>
> Do some research some day. The company I work for has done the research,
> and these things just aren't important to people. Those numbers aren't
> far off from precise.
>
> > Seriously, archiving was
> > probably the wrong word, but they do want more portability of content
> > and versatility than is currently being made easily available.
>
> Prove it. Where were the portable SD video players 5-10 years ago? There
> were lots of ways to do that (4mm tape, VHS-C, CD-Video, Video-CD, DVD),
> yet *no* portable players were manufactured.

Portability means the ability to move it, not the ability to play it
while moving it.

> > Be the
> > application to watch it in their bedroom... take it to a friends
> > house...
>
> Was that video tape too heavy to move from the living room to the bedroom?
> If so, I guess moving it to a friend's house was out of the question,
> right?

With a PVR, essentially yes, they aren't really portable.

> > I'd go further and say that most HDTV owners including those with HD
> > sources don't watch a *lot* of HD...
>
> You'd be wrong. Just because you don't doesn't mean that most people
> don't.

You may be more correct than I expected. Given that my cable company is
in the distinct minority by not offering a rental HDPVR, and the fact
that as a result most people I encounter are using the same cable
company will have skewed my perspective.

Then again, there are a *large* number of people who's only access to HD
is OTA, and they mostly won't have HDPVRs yet. Nor people who have
elected to go with cablecards I expect.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:54:53 PM

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

42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Oh, bullshit. The biggest inconvenience between a VCR and a "plain" DVR
> > is that the VCR has a smaller "tape". People who can't use a VCR to record
> > because "it's too complicated" are just idiots who are waiting for a
> > Darwin Award.
>
> People *can* use a VCR, but they *don't* because its inconvenient.

What, exactly, is inconvenient about a VCR? How is it more complicated
than driving a car (something which *everybody* seems to be able to do,
although not very well in many cases)?

There just isn't any excuse other than stupidity that explains buying
a VCR, wanting the results/advantages you get by using it to record things,
but not doing doing so.

> > Prove it. Where were the portable SD video players 5-10 years ago? There
> > were lots of ways to do that (4mm tape, VHS-C, CD-Video, Video-CD, DVD),
> > yet *no* portable players were manufactured.
>
> Portability means the ability to move it, not the ability to play it
> while moving it.

Then, there is no difference in the "portability" of HD and SD today, by
your definition of "portability".

> > Was that video tape too heavy to move from the living room to the bedroom?
> > If so, I guess moving it to a friend's house was out of the question,
> > right?
>
> With a PVR, essentially yes, they aren't really portable.

So, get a HD VCR, too. That gives you portability, assuming there is a
player on the other end.

> Then again, there are a *large* number of people who's only access to HD
> is OTA,

This is also incorrect. The majority of people have both DBS and OTA,
because that's the #1 source of STBs that have been sold. Whether they
subscribe to HD channels on DBS *today*...well, that's unknown, but they
had to at one time, or else pay a very large penalty on the purchase of
the hardware.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Macarena.gif
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:54:54 PM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c61dc6eacb7c8d1989ad7@news.nabs.net...
> 42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> > Oh, bullshit. The biggest inconvenience between a VCR and a "plain"
>> > DVR
>> > is that the VCR has a smaller "tape". People who can't use a VCR to
>> > record
>> > because "it's too complicated" are just idiots who are waiting for a
>> > Darwin Award.
>>
>> People *can* use a VCR, but they *don't* because its inconvenient.
>
> What, exactly, is inconvenient about a VCR? How is it more complicated
> than driving a car (something which *everybody* seems to be able to do,
> although not very well in many cases)?
>
Let's see, what is inconvenient about a VCR ....

Program the VCR using a tedious series of button presses without overriding
someone else's programming.
Put in a tape that has nothing on it that you or anyone else wants to watch
ensuring that there is space left on the tape for your show and any shows
scheduled before or after yours.
Put the VCR in record mode.
Remove the tape label it and keep it safe until you are ready to watch it.
If you or someone else has recordings on the same tape this step gets
complex
Take care to ensure that by removing the tape you are not compromising
another recording.
Put a new tape in the VCR for a later scheduled recording
Put the VCR in record mode
Find tape to watch.
Find a time to watch tape when another recording is not scheduled
Remove tape already in VCR waiting for a recording to start
Find show on tape
Watch show with a significant loss in quality
Replace any tapes that were waiting to record
put VCR in record mode

If you have a cable or sat box and a VCR that don't talk to each other, you
will also need to ensure that the cable box is on the correct channel when
the recording is about to start - which pretty much screws you up for
recording more than one show without manual intervention. Of course you can
simplify by having a bunch of VCR's and cable boxes ......

This all seems pretty inconvenient to me!

With a PVR

Find show in guide on TV
press record
for a single show, press select, for a series press season pass
Go the "now playing list" when you a ready and watch the show

No tape juggling, no concerns about overwriting someone else's recording,
watching a recording do not conflict, space management is pretty much
automatic, recording quality (with a satellite DVR) is the same as comes
from the dish, many DVRs have 2 tuners or more which pretty much solves
recording conflicts and allows watching live TV and recording at the same
time. There is never any need to schedule time to watch TV or manual
operations to record a show that is not showing at a convenient time for
you.

Ah bliss .....

I had this conversation in my carpool when I first got my TiVo, now they all
have TiVo's and they understand!
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 11:42:34 PM

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

Fred Bloggs (SPAM@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Let's see, what is inconvenient about a VCR ....
>
> Program the VCR using a tedious series of button presses without overriding
> someone else's programming.

One person's "tedious" is my "simple 20-second task". People need to
learn how to read instructions and press buttons.

On standalone PVRs, it's even easier to override somebody else's
programming than it was with a VCR, and you can do it for many weeks
worth of programming with a couple of button-presses.

> Put in a tape that has nothing on it that you or anyone else wants to watch
> ensuring that there is space left on the tape for your show and any shows
> scheduled before or after yours.

Translation: insert a blank 8 *hour* tape into the VCR.

Unless you are planning on recording an entire day of one channel, 8 hours
is more than enough.

> Put the VCR in record mode.

Translation: don't unplug the VCR. Every modern VCR I have will record
scheduled recordings *unless* it is currently playing or paused.

> Remove the tape label it and keep it safe until you are ready to watch it.

A "first-in, first-out" stack works well with no requirement for labeling.

> Find show in guide on TV
> press record
> for a single show, press select, for a series press season pass
> Go the "now playing list" when you a ready and watch the show
>
> No tape juggling, no concerns about overwriting someone else's recording,

Uh, huh. When your important recording gets deleted because I told
the PVR to record *all* episodes of "Friends" no matter what channel it
may appear on, tell me just how a PVR is better than a VCR in this regard.
If the tape I care about isn't in the VCR, I'm sure it won't be used in
recording.

Likewise, "Keep until I delete" isn't an option because then your show
doesn't get recorded because everybody sets their recordings this way to
"protect" them.

The, too, when I set up the SP and it tells me "some episodes won't be
recorded" so I tell it to "get all" and it moves it up to the top of the
SP Manager and the series finale for "Alias" (or whatever) doesn't get
recorded, how upset will you be?

> watching a recording do not conflict

This VCR "problem" is easily solved by having an extra one or two. Since
VCRs are available at 7-11 as an impulse buy (OK, not quite, but close),
it's not a big deal to do this.

I have 3 DirecTiVos and love them, but you seriously underestimate the
problems that can happen whenever more than one person is allowed to
schedule recordings on one unit.

--
Jeff Rife | "I don't have to be Ray Liotta: movie star,
| anymore. I can be Ray Liotta: Maya's boyfriend.
| All I want to do is regular, boring, ordinary
| couple things."
| "Then you, sir, have hit the soul-mate lottery."
| -- Ray Liotta and Nina Van Horn, "Just Shoot Me"
January 27, 2005 1:45:48 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c61dc6eacb7c8d1989ad7@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...
> 42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > Oh, bullshit. The biggest inconvenience between a VCR and a "plain" DVR
> > > is that the VCR has a smaller "tape". People who can't use a VCR to record
> > > because "it's too complicated" are just idiots who are waiting for a
> > > Darwin Award.
> >
> > People *can* use a VCR, but they *don't* because its inconvenient.
>
> What, exactly, is inconvenient about a VCR? How is it more complicated
> than driving a car (something which *everybody* seems to be able to do,
> although not very well in many cases)?

You tell me. They don't do it. Standup comedians have made a fortune
talking about it and the flashing 12:00 on the thing is a cultural icon.
You and I both know its not rocket science, and yet it persists as
something that people just don't want to deal with.

> > Portability means the ability to move it, not the ability to play it
> > while moving it.
>
> Then, there is no difference in the "portability" of HD and SD today, by
> your definition of "portability".

PVRs aren't as portable as VHS tapes. You commented about HD-VCRs, and
I'd overlooked that... but think its a wash. D-VHS is not what the
public really wants either, imo; the tape is dying out. I think it HD
portability will become mainstream until HDDVD recording is readily
available.

> This is also incorrect. The majority of people have both DBS and OTA,
> because that's the #1 source of STBs that have been sold. Whether they
> subscribe to HD channels on DBS *today*...well, that's unknown, but they
> had to at one time, or else pay a very large penalty on the purchase of
> the hardware.

Having DBS doesn't imply having an *HD*PVR. And most importantly does
having a DBS PVR STB give you the ability to record OTA HD content?
(with or without a separate OTA tuner?)
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:45:49 AM

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

42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > What, exactly, is inconvenient abovt a VCR? How is it more complicated
> > than driving a car (something which *everybody* seems to be able to do,
> > althovgh not very well in many cases)?
>
> Yov tell me.

Althovgh there are easier systems ovt there, there's nothing inconvenient
abovt a VCR. For many years, it was the only choice.

> They don't do it. Standvp comedians have made a fortvne
> talking abovt it and the flashing 12:00 on the thing is a cvltvral icon.

Standvp comedians also made a fortvne talking abovt how cheap Jewish people
are, bvt that doesn't make it any less of a falsehood. I covld give a lot
more examples of stereotypes that are eqvally false.

> Yov and I both know its not rocket science, and yet it persists as
> something that people jvst don't want to deal with.

No, it's primarily becavse (say it with me) "people are sheep". They plop
down in front of the TV and watch whatever is there.

> > Then, there is no difference in the "portability" of HD and SD today, by
> > yovr definition of "portability".
>
> PVRs aren't as portable as VHS tapes. Yov commented abovt HD-VCRs, and
> I'd overlooked that... bvt think its a wash. D-VHS is not what the
> pvblic really wants either, imo; the tape is dying ovt.

I don't disagree that tape svcks (I have D-VHS as well as disc-based HD
recording), bvt that doesn't change the fact that recorded HDTV is jvst
as portable today as recorded SD has been for 20 years.

> I think it HD
> portability will become mainstream vntil HDDVD recording is readily
> available.

Unfortvnately, this won't happen anytime soon. HD-DVD relies on MPEG-4
compression to allow a disc to hold a reasonable amovnt of content. All
cvrrent HD is MPEG-2, and converting to MPEG-4 wovld reqvire *massive*
compvting power that we jvst won't see on a standalone box for many, many
years.

Althovgh there will be some MPEG-4 HD, it will only be from DBS. CableCard
reqvires that all digital cable be MPEG-2, and ATSC specs reqvire that
all OTA be MPEG-2.

So, there really won't be any "consvmer" portable HD system other than
tape anytime soon. Right now, I can move HD arovnd on dval-layer DVD-ROM
with 1 hovr per disc, bvt yov still need a compvter to play it back.

> > This is also incorrect. The majority of people have both DBS and OTA,
> > becavse that's the #1 sovrce of STBs that have been sold. Whether they
> > svbscribe to HD channels on DBS *today*...well, that's vnknown, bvt they
> > had to at one time, or else pay a very large penalty on the pvrchase of
> > the hardware.
>
> Having DBS doesn't imply having an *HD*PVR.

Which doesn't matter. I was merely refvting yovr incorrect statement:
"there are a *large* nvmber of people who's [sic] only access to HD
is OTA"

I'm jvst trying to point ovt all the things yov don't seem to know abovt
the things yov are argving so strongly abovt.

> And most importantly does
> having a DBS PVR STB give yov the ability to record OTA HD content?

Yes. Every HD PVR that records satellite HD also records OTA HD.

--
Jeff Rife | "Grab a shovel...I'm only one skvll
| short of a Movseketeer revnion."
|
| -- Bender, "Fvtvrama"
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 4:45:36 PM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Jay" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:VglKd.3299$u45.1002@trnddc08...
> When I switch between HD and SD shows on my HD set, I see a pretty big
> difference...however my HD set displays SD shows terribly (as I am sure an
> awful lot of HD sets do). However when I view SD shows on my older Sony
> wega, they look very good indeed...not quite as food as HD on the HD set
> but very close.
>
> To all you who keep insisiting that those of us who claim that HD isn't
> all THAT much better and that we either need to have our eyes checked, or
> our sets adjusted properly...well maybe YOU guys haven't seen much SD
> programming on very good sets!
>
>
============================
Or maybe you are just blind!
!