Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HDTV: Most people do not get it!

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
April 26, 2005 6:51:27 PM

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

Of my family and friends, only five families own HDTV capable sets.
Of these five HDTV sets three have integrated tuners. However, until
December of this year, only ONE of us (me) watched anything in HD!
Why? because no one had HD cable or HD satellite.

Now, if you are like me, you are probably wondering why in the world
would anyone bother with an HD set and NOT watch HD? The answer was
adding an HD cable or satellite service was too expensive and/or
installing an outdoor antenna was JUST TOO MUCH TROUBLE!!!!

Do you think these people are the exception to the rule? Not
according to a local HD retailer TV ad. The ad states, and I
paraphrase here, that "many people who buy an HDTV believe they are
watching HD when in fact they are just watching a standard
broadcast!!" I had someone comment to me how much better the HD
broadcasts looked than regular broadcast TV. The problem was that
this person has an old SD TV!!

When I read here how everyone is receiving great HD signals with no
problems, it makes me laugh. Talking with local installers paints a
very different picture than much of what is posted here.
The average person does not even understand what HD is or what it
should look like. I even had one viewer in my home watching an HD
broadcast of golf ask if he was watching HD and this was a college
graduate AND a very bright person.

I love HDTV but I can tell you that most people do simply do not get
it. No pun intended.

Richard

More about : hdtv people

April 26, 2005 6:51:28 PM

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

I have the same observation. I have actually gotten in arguments with
people who "swear" they are watching HDTV, because their TV says HDTV
on the front of it, and on the broadcast, it also says "broadcast in
HDTV where available". They do not understand that they have to
RECEIVE the HDTV signal.
I have had other people tell me their Sony "Trinitron" picture tube
has the best picture, and claim they will match it to my HDTV tube any
day! This person obliviously has never seen HDTV.
Those that do finally see HDTV, always seem amazed, and awestruck. I
often hear that "it looks like you are looking through a window".
The bad part of HDTV is that now I am spoiled. Watching regular TV
seems disgusting, and even DVD's don't have quite the resolution.

Another HUGE factor about HDTV and DVD's that many people do not
understand is the SURROUND SOUND. If you do not have a DD 5.1 or DTS
system (or better), you are missing 1/2 the show. It's all about the
great picture AND great sound. Crank it up!

Oh, and one other thing... this makes me crazy too- When people have
their 16:9 or 4:3 TV's in the wrong display mode. The people look tall
and skinny, or short and fat. And people tell me, "that's because it's
HDTV". If people really think that is what HDTV will do to their
picture no wonder they don't want it! I even see this in the stores.
Even the people running the store do not understand!

Don't even get me started on people who prefer "fullscreen" over
"widescreen" DVD's.


On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:51:27 GMT, Richard <rstaples312@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Of my family and friends, only five families own HDTV capable sets.
>Of these five HDTV sets three have integrated tuners. However, until
>December of this year, only ONE of us (me) watched anything in HD!
>Why? because no one had HD cable or HD satellite.
>
>Now, if you are like me, you are probably wondering why in the world
>would anyone bother with an HD set and NOT watch HD? The answer was
>adding an HD cable or satellite service was too expensive and/or
>installing an outdoor antenna was JUST TOO MUCH TROUBLE!!!!
>
>Do you think these people are the exception to the rule? Not
>according to a local HD retailer TV ad. The ad states, and I
>paraphrase here, that "many people who buy an HDTV believe they are
>watching HD when in fact they are just watching a standard
>broadcast!!" I had someone comment to me how much better the HD
>broadcasts looked than regular broadcast TV. The problem was that
>this person has an old SD TV!!
>
>When I read here how everyone is receiving great HD signals with no
>problems, it makes me laugh. Talking with local installers paints a
>very different picture than much of what is posted here.
>The average person does not even understand what HD is or what it
>should look like. I even had one viewer in my home watching an HD
>broadcast of golf ask if he was watching HD and this was a college
>graduate AND a very bright person.
>
>I love HDTV but I can tell you that most people do simply do not get
>it. No pun intended.
>
>Richard
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 6:51:28 PM

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

"Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p als61ths3vb8eii99r4oke3r4up5m92lk@4ax.com...
> Of my family and friends, only five families own HDTV capable sets.
> Of these five HDTV sets three have integrated tuners. However, until
> December of this year, only ONE of us (me) watched anything in HD!
> Why? because no one had HD cable or HD satellite.
>
> Now, if you are like me, you are probably wondering why in the world
> would anyone bother with an HD set and NOT watch HD? The answer was
> adding an HD cable or satellite service was too expensive and/or
> installing an outdoor antenna was JUST TOO MUCH TROUBLE!!!!
>
> Do you think these people are the exception to the rule? Not
> according to a local HD retailer TV ad. The ad states, and I
> paraphrase here, that "many people who buy an HDTV believe they are
> watching HD when in fact they are just watching a standard
> broadcast!!" I had someone comment to me how much better the HD
> broadcasts looked than regular broadcast TV. The problem was that
> this person has an old SD TV!!
>
> When I read here how everyone is receiving great HD signals with no
> problems, it makes me laugh. Talking with local installers paints a
> very different picture than much of what is posted here.
> The average person does not even understand what HD is or what it
> should look like. I even had one viewer in my home watching an HD
> broadcast of golf ask if he was watching HD and this was a college
> graduate AND a very bright person.
>
> I love HDTV but I can tell you that most people do simply do not get
> it. No pun intended.
>
> Richard
>

no offense, but your friends and family are dumb.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:14:45 PM

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

What I take from this post is the opinion that most people are stupid,
ignorant or both. Hey, stop the presses! You are talking about the same
people who never figured out how to set the clocks on their VCR's. It's not
hard for me to imagine people being confused about digital TV, HDTV and so
on -- or unable to tell what kind of TV picture they are watching.

But it is hard for me to imagine someone going out and spending 2 or 3
thousand dollars on an HDTV set and then not watching any HD on it because
they don't want to pay a few extra bucks a month for an HD cable box or hook
up a set of rabbit ears. I am doubtful about that happening very often.

One fact that is probably not lost on advertisers right now is that the
viewing demographic that has the discretionary income to pay several
thousand dollars for an HDTV set is a very valuable demographic to reach
with advertising. That should be enough to ensure that there are more and
more HDTV shows to watch as the general public slowly gets the hang of it.

An example of how that can work is the show "24" on FOX. The first year it
was on, despite being a great show right out of the box, the viewing
audience was very small. But it was brought back because the demographic
that DID watch it turned out to be exceptionally affluent and was therefore
valuable to advertisers.

mack
austin


"Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p als61ths3vb8eii99r4oke3r4up5m92lk@4ax.com...
> Of my family and friends, only five families own HDTV capable sets.
> Of these five HDTV sets three have integrated tuners. However, until
> December of this year, only ONE of us (me) watched anything in HD!
> Why? because no one had HD cable or HD satellite.
>
> Now, if you are like me, you are probably wondering why in the world
> would anyone bother with an HD set and NOT watch HD? The answer was
> adding an HD cable or satellite service was too expensive and/or
> installing an outdoor antenna was JUST TOO MUCH TROUBLE!!!!
>
> Do you think these people are the exception to the rule? Not
> according to a local HD retailer TV ad. The ad states, and I
> paraphrase here, that "many people who buy an HDTV believe they are
> watching HD when in fact they are just watching a standard
> broadcast!!" I had someone comment to me how much better the HD
> broadcasts looked than regular broadcast TV. The problem was that
> this person has an old SD TV!!
>
> When I read here how everyone is receiving great HD signals with no
> problems, it makes me laugh. Talking with local installers paints a
> very different picture than much of what is posted here.
> The average person does not even understand what HD is or what it
> should look like. I even had one viewer in my home watching an HD
> broadcast of golf ask if he was watching HD and this was a college
> graduate AND a very bright person.
>
> I love HDTV but I can tell you that most people do simply do not get
> it. No pun intended.
>
> Richard
>
April 26, 2005 7:53:40 PM

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

See my responses inserted below:


"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com>
wrote:

>What I take from this post is the opinion that most people are stupid,
>ignorant or both. Hey, stop the presses! You are talking about the same
>people who never figured out how to set the clocks on their VCR's. It's not
>hard for me to imagine people being confused about digital TV, HDTV and so
>on -- or unable to tell what kind of TV picture they are watching.

Ill informed maybe but all of them can not be so easily labeled as
stupid. Most people just do not understand technology and many are
frustrated by it.
I used to have to connect and set up a VCR and stereo system for a
college graduate who worked at IBM in quality control! He was just
one of many.

>But it is hard for me to imagine someone going out and spending 2 or 3
>thousand dollars on an HDTV set and then not watching any HD on it because
>they don't want to pay a few extra bucks a month for an HD cable box or hook
>up a set of rabbit ears. I am doubtful about that happening very often.

An HD cable box I can agree with but use of a rabbit ears type antenna
is a bad joke! This is NOT reliable in my location (around 2 miles to
two of the HD channels and 10 miles to 2 others) and also not reliable
in at least one other major city in my state where my brother lives.

I was told by my satellite dealer that he just used rabbit ears, but
if you do, you get constant dropouts. I am happy for you if it works
where you are but it is totally unusable here. I have a background in
amateur radio so it has been helpful in my antenna setup difficulties,
but it has, by no means, been easy getting reliable HDTV reception
here. I can totally understand why others with little or no knowledge
of antenna installation would not want to take on this task.

>One fact that is probably not lost on advertisers right now is that the
>viewing demographic that has the discretionary income to pay several
>thousand dollars for an HDTV set is a very valuable demographic to reach
>with advertising. That should be enough to ensure that there are more and
>more HDTV shows to watch as the general public slowly gets the hang of it.

You would think so and yet I have never even seen an ad for TV antenna
installation and NONE of the local HDTV broadcasters even offer
suggested antenna setups on their web sites to help users with
reception problems.

>An example of how that can work is the show "24" on FOX. The first year it
>was on, despite being a great show right out of the box, the viewing
>audience was very small. But it was brought back because the demographic
>that DID watch it turned out to be exceptionally affluent and was therefore
>valuable to advertisers.

>mack
>austin

I never knew that Mack. My wife and I watched several episodes of 24
but it began to seem as if we were watching the same episode over an
over so I stopped watching. Maybe we are just not affluent enough.
(Grin)

Richard

>"Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:p als61ths3vb8eii99r4oke3r4up5m92lk@4ax.com...
>> Of my family and friends, only five families own HDTV capable sets.
>> Of these five HDTV sets three have integrated tuners. However, until
>> December of this year, only ONE of us (me) watched anything in HD!
>> Why? because no one had HD cable or HD satellite.
>>
>> Now, if you are like me, you are probably wondering why in the world
>> would anyone bother with an HD set and NOT watch HD? The answer was
>> adding an HD cable or satellite service was too expensive and/or
>> installing an outdoor antenna was JUST TOO MUCH TROUBLE!!!!
>>
>> Do you think these people are the exception to the rule? Not
>> according to a local HD retailer TV ad. The ad states, and I
>> paraphrase here, that "many people who buy an HDTV believe they are
>> watching HD when in fact they are just watching a standard
>> broadcast!!" I had someone comment to me how much better the HD
>> broadcasts looked than regular broadcast TV. The problem was that
>> this person has an old SD TV!!
>>
>> When I read here how everyone is receiving great HD signals with no
>> problems, it makes me laugh. Talking with local installers paints a
>> very different picture than much of what is posted here.
>> The average person does not even understand what HD is or what it
>> should look like. I even had one viewer in my home watching an HD
>> broadcast of golf ask if he was watching HD and this was a college
>> graduate AND a very bright person.
>>
>> I love HDTV but I can tell you that most people do simply do not get
>> it. No pun intended.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>
April 27, 2005 12:12:10 AM

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

"Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote:

(SNIP)
>
>no offense, but your friends and family are dumb.
>

No offense taken Khee since you obviously gave your comment a great
deal of thought. (Grin)

Actually, you are quite wrong or you did not read my other post
carefully. We are talking about bright; college educated people as
well as those that have had, what most of us would agree on, as
success. The common denominator here is that they are very much
technology challenged. Many of these people long for the simple on/off
TV set with a volume control and HATE having to learn all about
setting up surround sound and mount huge TV antennas etc.

Technology that seems simple to you and I mystifies these people and
yet they do challenging work in other fields.
I fear that much of the industry may exhibit your attitude and ignore
these people. This is a huge mistake!

It was Albert Einstein who said: "Everything should be made as simple
as possible, but not simpler."

I try to do this when I create Ghost images or setup procedures at the
school system I work for. I.e., I make things as simple and hassle
free as possible and yet each individual _IS_ responsible for learning
the basics.

While I see some changes coming, I think the Industry is missing the
boat by not providing simple hookups that do not require a maze of
wiring to work properly. Please do not try and tell me that everyone
that uses multiple devices in their home theater system has not had to
untangle wires to hookup that new piece of gear. No matter how hard
you try to keep it simple and straightforward, the fact is that there
are just too many different KINDS of connections to be made and this
begs for trouble and creates what becomes spaghetti like maze.

So Khee, I took no offense, as it seems to be you and those like you
who do not understand the problem.

Richard
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 3:14:31 AM

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

Some of the smartest people I have known watch little to no TV. I am sure
many of the very high IQ could tell you next to nothing about HD TV, it's
not worth their time. It's not called the boob tube for nothing.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 3:14:32 AM

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

RobH wrote:
> Some of the smartest people I have known watch little to no TV. I am sure
> many of the very high IQ could tell you next to nothing about HD TV, it's
> not worth their time. It's not called the boob tube for nothing.

And that's basically the answer. It's not always a question of whether
or not someone is smart enough to understand these issues. Instead, it
is a question of whether or not they are willing to invest the amount of
time and energy that it takes to learn this stuff for the limited return
(in their view) of HDTV. Some people just don't place much value on
television. So they aren't likely to bother learning to recognize the
difference between SD and HD, or between 8VSB and QAM, or between a NTSC
receiver and and ATSC receiver, or between DLP and LCD and Plasma. They
certainly aren't going to bother doing the research necessary to learn
how to hook up a cable box, an HD monitor, a set-top box, a DVD player, a
surround sound receiver, an antenna, a sophisticated remote, etc.

They could, but why should they? They have better things to do with
their time.

Obviously, I'm not among that crowd, but I know plenty of people who are.

And, btw, that doesn't change the fact that some people really aren't
smart enough to figure it all out. But that's certainly not all of them,
and may not even be the majority.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 3:14:33 AM

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

"Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:426ef53a$0$7485$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> RobH wrote:
>> Some of the smartest people I have known watch little to no TV. I am sure
>> many of the very high IQ could tell you next to nothing about HD TV, it's
>> not worth their time. It's not called the boob tube for nothing.
>
> And that's basically the answer. It's not always a question of whether or
> not someone is smart enough to understand these issues. Instead, it is a
> question of whether or not they are willing to invest the amount of time
> and energy that it takes to learn this stuff for the limited return (in
> their view) of HDTV. Some people just don't place much value on
> television. So they aren't likely to bother learning to recognize the
> difference between SD and HD, or between 8VSB and QAM, or between a NTSC
> receiver and and ATSC receiver, or between DLP and LCD and Plasma. They
> certainly aren't going to bother doing the research necessary to learn how
> to hook up a cable box, an HD monitor, a set-top box, a DVD player, a
> surround sound receiver, an antenna, a sophisticated remote, etc.
>
> They could, but why should they? They have better things to do with their
> time.
>
> Obviously, I'm not among that crowd, but I know plenty of people who are.
>
> And, btw, that doesn't change the fact that some people really aren't
> smart enough to figure it all out. But that's certainly not all of them,
> and may not even be the majority.


I guess some people just have more money than sense...the way I see it, if
people drop 2+ thousand dollars on a tv marketed and sold as
"high-definition" when there are plenty of other "standard-definition"
models on the sales floor in the $200-400 range, then get it home only to
realize that the picture actually looks worse on their "high-definition" tv
than on their old "standard-definition" tv, one would think, if these folks
weren't some combination of dumb, dumb, and dumb, that they'd either return
their expensive "high-definition" tv for a better looking and less expensive
"standard-definition" tv or splurge the whopping $20 extra per month to get
a "high-definition" source.


I guess the old saying, that no one ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of the American consumer, is as true today as it ever was.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 4:05:38 AM

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

this does not only apply to hdtv, but technology in general

I work for a computer tech firm, you would be surprised (maybe not) the
amount of people that are techno phobes, if thats the right word. I fix
something on a computer and they think I am god, wow, how did you do that,
is what most of them say.

I would like to see linux become more mainstream, specifically on the
desktop, but until they improve the interface people will not be using it.
Sure you can buy it pre-installed with HP and probably other vendors
hardware, but people will stick with windows, not because its better, but
because they don't know any better and are too busy to learn the difference.
Linux is alot cheaper than windows, and better.

"Khee Mao" <big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D 4mujl$ppf$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> "Jim Gilliland" <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> news:426ef53a$0$7485$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> RobH wrote:
>>> Some of the smartest people I have known watch little to no TV. I am
>>> sure many of the very high IQ could tell you next to nothing about HD
>>> TV, it's not worth their time. It's not called the boob tube for
>>> nothing.
>>
>> And that's basically the answer. It's not always a question of whether
>> or not someone is smart enough to understand these issues. Instead, it
>> is a question of whether or not they are willing to invest the amount of
>> time and energy that it takes to learn this stuff for the limited return
>> (in their view) of HDTV. Some people just don't place much value on
>> television. So they aren't likely to bother learning to recognize the
>> difference between SD and HD, or between 8VSB and QAM, or between a NTSC
>> receiver and and ATSC receiver, or between DLP and LCD and Plasma. They
>> certainly aren't going to bother doing the research necessary to learn
>> how to hook up a cable box, an HD monitor, a set-top box, a DVD player, a
>> surround sound receiver, an antenna, a sophisticated remote, etc.
>>
>> They could, but why should they? They have better things to do with
>> their time.
>>
>> Obviously, I'm not among that crowd, but I know plenty of people who are.
>>
>> And, btw, that doesn't change the fact that some people really aren't
>> smart enough to figure it all out. But that's certainly not all of them,
>> and may not even be the majority.
>
>
> I guess some people just have more money than sense...the way I see it, if
> people drop 2+ thousand dollars on a tv marketed and sold as
> "high-definition" when there are plenty of other "standard-definition"
> models on the sales floor in the $200-400 range, then get it home only to
> realize that the picture actually looks worse on their "high-definition"
> tv than on their old "standard-definition" tv, one would think, if these
> folks weren't some combination of dumb, dumb, and dumb, that they'd either
> return their expensive "high-definition" tv for a better looking and less
> expensive "standard-definition" tv or splurge the whopping $20 extra per
> month to get a "high-definition" source.
>
>
> I guess the old saying, that no one ever went broke underestimating the
> intelligence of the American consumer, is as true today as it ever was.
>
April 27, 2005 5:20:50 AM

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

>>One fact that is probably not lost on advertisers right now is that the
viewing demographic that has the discretionary income to pay several
thousand dollars for an HDTV set is a very valuable demographic to reach
with advertising. <<

And when was the last time you saw a commercial in HD?!?!? That's how
impressed and "hungry" for HD viewers advertisers are.

It's also why local HD stations are on low power. They can't attract nearly
enough ads to pay the power bill for the tranmitter....and that is NO
exaggeration.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 11:14:17 AM

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

I agree with Richard. I understand the comment about people spending 2 or 3
thousand dollars for the tv and not willing to get satalite or the hd cable
box, but case in point, - my brother in law spent a couple thousand on a HD
tv, but he thought by spending that much for the tv, he would have HD tv
just by pluging the thing up and turning it on lol. I think a lot of people
fall into that catagory.

Jim

"Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:imos6116gn18928kua0plm5bmom6fslpjm@4ax.com...
> See my responses inserted below:
>
>
> "Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com>
> wrote:
>
>>What I take from this post is the opinion that most people are stupid,
>>ignorant or both. Hey, stop the presses! You are talking about the same
>>people who never figured out how to set the clocks on their VCR's. It's
>>not
>>hard for me to imagine people being confused about digital TV, HDTV and so
>>on -- or unable to tell what kind of TV picture they are watching.
>
> Ill informed maybe but all of them can not be so easily labeled as
> stupid. Most people just do not understand technology and many are
> frustrated by it.
> I used to have to connect and set up a VCR and stereo system for a
> college graduate who worked at IBM in quality control! He was just
> one of many.
>
>>But it is hard for me to imagine someone going out and spending 2 or 3
>>thousand dollars on an HDTV set and then not watching any HD on it because
>>they don't want to pay a few extra bucks a month for an HD cable box or
>>hook
>>up a set of rabbit ears. I am doubtful about that happening very often.
>
> An HD cable box I can agree with but use of a rabbit ears type antenna
> is a bad joke! This is NOT reliable in my location (around 2 miles to
> two of the HD channels and 10 miles to 2 others) and also not reliable
> in at least one other major city in my state where my brother lives.
>
> I was told by my satellite dealer that he just used rabbit ears, but
> if you do, you get constant dropouts. I am happy for you if it works
> where you are but it is totally unusable here. I have a background in
> amateur radio so it has been helpful in my antenna setup difficulties,
> but it has, by no means, been easy getting reliable HDTV reception
> here. I can totally understand why others with little or no knowledge
> of antenna installation would not want to take on this task.
>
>>One fact that is probably not lost on advertisers right now is that the
>>viewing demographic that has the discretionary income to pay several
>>thousand dollars for an HDTV set is a very valuable demographic to reach
>>with advertising. That should be enough to ensure that there are more and
>>more HDTV shows to watch as the general public slowly gets the hang of it.
>
> You would think so and yet I have never even seen an ad for TV antenna
> installation and NONE of the local HDTV broadcasters even offer
> suggested antenna setups on their web sites to help users with
> reception problems.
>
>>An example of how that can work is the show "24" on FOX. The first year
>>it
>>was on, despite being a great show right out of the box, the viewing
>>audience was very small. But it was brought back because the demographic
>>that DID watch it turned out to be exceptionally affluent and was
>>therefore
>>valuable to advertisers.
>
>>mack
>>austin
>
> I never knew that Mack. My wife and I watched several episodes of 24
> but it began to seem as if we were watching the same episode over an
> over so I stopped watching. Maybe we are just not affluent enough.
> (Grin)
>
> Richard
>
>>"Richard" <rstaples312@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:p als61ths3vb8eii99r4oke3r4up5m92lk@4ax.com...
>>> Of my family and friends, only five families own HDTV capable sets.
>>> Of these five HDTV sets three have integrated tuners. However, until
>>> December of this year, only ONE of us (me) watched anything in HD!
>>> Why? because no one had HD cable or HD satellite.
>>>
>>> Now, if you are like me, you are probably wondering why in the world
>>> would anyone bother with an HD set and NOT watch HD? The answer was
>>> adding an HD cable or satellite service was too expensive and/or
>>> installing an outdoor antenna was JUST TOO MUCH TROUBLE!!!!
>>>
>>> Do you think these people are the exception to the rule? Not
>>> according to a local HD retailer TV ad. The ad states, and I
>>> paraphrase here, that "many people who buy an HDTV believe they are
>>> watching HD when in fact they are just watching a standard
>>> broadcast!!" I had someone comment to me how much better the HD
>>> broadcasts looked than regular broadcast TV. The problem was that
>>> this person has an old SD TV!!
>>>
>>> When I read here how everyone is receiving great HD signals with no
>>> problems, it makes me laugh. Talking with local installers paints a
>>> very different picture than much of what is posted here.
>>> The average person does not even understand what HD is or what it
>>> should look like. I even had one viewer in my home watching an HD
>>> broadcast of golf ask if he was watching HD and this was a college
>>> graduate AND a very bright person.
>>>
>>> I love HDTV but I can tell you that most people do simply do not get
>>> it. No pun intended.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>
>
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 11:40:12 AM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:JdFbe.103408$f%4.14021@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> And when was the last time you saw a commercial in HD?!?!? That's how
> impressed and "hungry" for HD viewers advertisers are.
>
==============================
Last night.
Two for Target.
================================
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 5:05:22 PM

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

"Gogordo" <no.address@none.com> wrote in message
news:ncEbe.5141$BW6.694709@news20.bellglobal.com...
> this does not only apply to hdtv, but technology in general
>
> I work for a computer tech firm, you would be surprised (maybe not) the
> amount of people that are techno phobes, if thats the right word. I fix
> something on a computer and they think I am god, wow, how did you do that,
> is what most of them say.
>
> I would like to see linux become more mainstream, specifically on the
> desktop, but until they improve the interface people will not be using it.
> Sure you can buy it pre-installed with HP and probably other vendors
> hardware, but people will stick with windows, not because its better, but
> because they don't know any better and are too busy to learn the
> difference. Linux is alot cheaper than windows, and better.
>
>
>
you're absolutely correct...I do IT work for a major hospital, and you would
THINK that someone who completed a nursing degree would be able to figure
out that if the power supply for their device is unplugged and lying in the
middle of the doorway (where I almost tripped over it!), it MAY be the
reason their device isn't functioning.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 5:15:10 PM

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

curmudgeon wrote:
>>>One fact that is probably not lost on advertisers right now is that the
>
> viewing demographic that has the discretionary income to pay several
> thousand dollars for an HDTV set is a very valuable demographic to reach
> with advertising. <<
>
> And when was the last time you saw a commercial in HD?!?!? That's how
> impressed and "hungry" for HD viewers advertisers are.
>
> It's also why local HD stations are on low power. They can't attract nearly
> enough ads to pay the power bill for the tranmitter....and that is NO
> exaggeration.
> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
>
>
Both sides of the argument are true but the real problem at the moment
is that Nielsen is not counting digital households. Once they start
counting advertisers at least have a tool to evaluate whether the
demographics have value. At the moment every new HD household falls into
a black hole. The broadcaster totally loses that customer for all
intents and purposes which is to make money.

Until they start counting the two arguments above are moot.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 5:15:11 PM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:yfMbe.40$HL2.11@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> Both sides of the argument are true but the real problem at the moment is
> that Nielsen is not counting digital households. Once they start counting
> advertisers at least have a tool to evaluate whether the demographics have
> value. At the moment every new HD household falls into a black hole. The
> broadcaster totally loses that customer for all intents and purposes which
> is to make money.
>
> Until they start counting the two arguments above are moot.
>
> Bob Miller
>
===========================
Damn!
Bob actually posted something that makes sense and is accurate.
Is the end near?
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 8:48:22 PM

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

"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:vpSdnQ9DGPTNOfLfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> "curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
> news:JdFbe.103408$f%4.14021@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> And when was the last time you saw a commercial in HD?!?!? That's how
>> impressed and "hungry" for HD viewers advertisers are.
>>
> ==============================
> Last night.
> Two for Target.
> ================================

Every week, there are more national spots in 16:9 HD, running in HD
programming. The first ones I saw were during this year's Super Bowl but
now I see one or two almost every night. And there are others that appear
to be 4:3 HD.

We will see more as national ad agencies catch onto the fact that HDTV
viewers become addicted very quickly to the HD picture, forming an adversion
to SD. When the TV picture goes to an SD commercial, that is a negative for
the advertiser. It doesn't cost that much more to shoot in HD, and ad
agency execs are among the demo that is becoming addicted to HD, so we will
see many more HD commercials on the air in the coming weeks and months.

I know of at least one local advertiser here, who owns a jewelry store, who
went to a lot of trouble and added expense to have his spots shot in HD,
because they run in HD programming and his target demo is one that is likely
to watch HDTV. For the most part, though, local ads will be slow to go to
HD because most of them run in SD programming, anyway and most local
producers are not yet equipped (cameras and editing equipment) to handle HD.

mack
austin
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 11:52:14 PM

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

"Gogordo" <no.address@none.com> wrote in message
news:ncEbe.5141$BW6.694709@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Sure you can buy it pre-installed with HP and probably other vendors
> hardware, but people will stick with windows, not because its better, but
> because they don't know any better and are too busy to learn the
> difference. Linux is alot cheaper than windows, and better.

To get a regular person to run Linux on their computer is like getting them
to change their vehicle over to run vegetable oil as fuel.

--Dan
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 6:51:53 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:39:52 -0700, Randy <Randy@?.com> wrote:


>I have had other people tell me their Sony "Trinitron" picture tube
>has the best picture, and claim they will match it to my HDTV tube any
>day! This person obliviously has never seen HDTV.

You've obviously have never seen good NTSC on a real TV.

Don't blame NTSC for bad picture quality from broadcasters or your 13
year old junker that was the wrong buy on day one.


>
>Another HUGE factor about HDTV and DVD's that many people do not
>understand is the SURROUND SOUND. If you do not have a DD 5.1 or DTS
>system (or better), you are missing 1/2 the show. It's all about the
>great picture AND great sound. Crank it up!


LOL. yeah right. Why not 8.1 ? Why not 77.1 ?

If you can't do it with two speakers, you're just masturbating.


>Don't even get me started on people who prefer "fullscreen" over
>"widescreen" DVD's.
>

I'll take the big picture any day over a bunch of nothing squashed
down.
April 28, 2005 3:17:07 PM

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

born_yesterday wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:39:52 -0700, Randy <Randy@?.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I have had other people tell me their Sony "Trinitron" picture tube
>>has the best picture, and claim they will match it to my HDTV tube any
>>day! This person obliviously has never seen HDTV.
>
>You've obviously have never seen good NTSC on a real TV.
>
>Don't blame NTSC for bad picture quality from broadcasters or your 13
>year old junker that was the wrong buy on day one.
>
>
>>
>>Another HUGE factor about HDTV and DVD's that many people do not
>>understand is the SURROUND SOUND. If you do not have a DD 5.1 or DTS
>>system (or better), you are missing 1/2 the show. It's all about the
>>great picture AND great sound. Crank it up!
>
>
>LOL. yeah right. Why not 8.1 ? Why not 77.1 ?
>
>If you can't do it with two speakers, you're just masturbating.
>
>
>>Don't even get me started on people who prefer "fullscreen" over
>>"widescreen" DVD's.
>>
>
>I'll take the big picture any day over a bunch of nothing squashed
>down.
>

Now this is funny!! I enjoyed reading it very much so thanks for a
great laugh.
I love people with a sense of humor, it helps keep things in
perspective.

I have just one suggestion though. In the future you may want to
change your name from born_yesterday before posting. It was a dead
give away.

Richard
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 5:12:22 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> curmudgeon wrote:
>
>>>> One fact that is probably not lost on advertisers right now is that the
>>
>>
>> viewing demographic that has the discretionary income to pay several
>> thousand dollars for an HDTV set is a very valuable demographic to reach
>> with advertising. <<
>>
>> And when was the last time you saw a commercial in HD?!?!? That's how
>> impressed and "hungry" for HD viewers advertisers are.
>>
>> It's also why local HD stations are on low power. They can't attract
>> nearly
>> enough ads to pay the power bill for the tranmitter....and that is NO
>> exaggeration.
>> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
>>
>>
> Both sides of the argument are true but the real problem at the moment
> is that Nielsen is not counting digital households. Once they start
> counting advertisers at least have a tool to evaluate whether the
> demographics have value. At the moment every new HD household falls into
> a black hole. The broadcaster totally loses that customer for all
> intents and purposes which is to make money.
>
> Until they start counting the two arguments above are moot.
>
> Bob Miller
>

If the Nielsen did count households that have HDTV and if I were a
Nielsen household they would find that since I got my HDTV my viewing
habits have changed such that I watch programs that are in HD more often.

I recently wrote an email to NBC, ABC, and FOX letting them know that I
am unable to receive their channels in HD (because my cable company
doesn't carry them in HD and I am not in a metro area so that I am
unable to receive them over the air. I told them that because of this I
am watching more of CBS just because I get CBS in HD from my cable company.

The picture quality of HD is so superior that it has affected my viewing
habits. I have been told that the main reason my cable company doesn't
have all the major networks in HD is because the networks are asking the
cable companies to pay a lot of money. I told them that this strategy
may backfire as they may be loosing viewers by not having their channel
in HD. But if Nielsen doesn't distinguish households having HD then
they would not know that HD has an effect on viewership.

Oh, also, I have a brother-in-law who has an HDTV but didn't have HD
channels. When he visited me I showed him what HD channel looked like
and he did say "WOW!".
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 7:36:57 PM

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

"Phil Pease" <ppease5@mchsi.com> wrote

> If the Nielsen did count households that have HDTV and if I were a Nielsen
> household they would find that since I got my HDTV my viewing habits have
> changed such that I watch programs that are in HD more often.

Our viewing of non-HD stations has declined precipitously in the months
since we got an HDTV. This includes cable news stations such as CNN, Fox
News, etc. I suspect that this phenomenon has been recognized by TV and ad
agency execs and is probably one factor driving TV networks to add HD
programming. It is going to be very clear to any TV executive (and all of
them certainly have HD sets at home by now) that after you watch one
football game, for example, in HD, you are never going to be satisfied to
watch one in SD again.

mack
austin
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 5:53:25 AM

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

Richard wrote:
> I love HDTV but I can tell you that most people do simply do not get
> it. No pun intended.

"Reality TV" has gone a long way to killing HDTV content. These cheap
excuses for entertainment have swallowed up an enormous amount of
airtime on all channels that might have been HD content if not for the
"air it cheap" mentality.
April 29, 2005 5:59:38 AM

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

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:53:25 GMT, "Steve K." <steve@nodamnspam.com>
wrote:

>Richard wrote:
>> I love HDTV but I can tell you that most people do simply do not get
>> it. No pun intended.
>
>"Reality TV" has gone a long way to killing HDTV content. These cheap
>excuses for entertainment have swallowed up an enormous amount of
>airtime on all channels that might have been HD content if not for the
>"air it cheap" mentality.

Let's not forget infomercials airing on broadcast channels on weekend
afternoons.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 6:01:03 AM

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

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:17:07 GMT, Richard <rstaples312@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>
>Now this is funny!! I enjoyed reading it very much so thanks for a
>great laugh.
>I love people with a sense of humor, it helps keep things in
>perspective.
>
>I have just one suggestion though. In the future you may want to
>change your name from born_yesterday before posting. It was a dead
>give away.
>
>Richard

Figures it would go right over your head.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 5:50:17 PM

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

curmudgeon (curmudgeon@buzzoff.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >>One fact that is probably not lost on advertisers right now is that the
> viewing demographic that has the discretionary income to pay several
> thousand dollars for an HDTV set is a very valuable demographic to reach
> with advertising. <<
>
> And when was the last time you saw a commercial in HD?!?!?

The Masters. Every commercial was in HD, at least for the last two
rounds.

--
Jeff Rife | Coach: How's life, Norm?
|
| Norm: Not for the squeamish, Coach.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:38:58 AM

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

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in
message news:FVsbe.26583$AE6.8106@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> What I take from this post is the opinion that most people are stupid,
> ignorant or both. Hey, stop the presses! You are talking about the same
> people who never figured out how to set the clocks on their VCR's. It's
> not hard for me to imagine people being confused about digital TV, HDTV
> and so on -- or unable to tell what kind of TV picture they are watching.
>
> But it is hard for me to imagine someone going out and spending 2 or 3
> thousand dollars on an HDTV set and then not watching any HD on it because
> they don't want to pay a few extra bucks a month for an HD cable box or
> hook up a set of rabbit ears. I am doubtful about that happening very
> often.
>

I see it every day, in my area, Sarasota, Fl, the cost for a HD cable box is
$27 for digital and $5 for the HD box. That's not cheap. Then I've seen
the customer who had a HD box and had it hooked up to his tv with a RF
cable. He was paying for HD and not getting it! When I convinced him to
buy a set of cables and hooked it up for him he was floored at the
incredible picture he now had.

In my area we have 19 stations with 24 channels available with antenna.
This is the way I recommend at this time but most don't go for this as it
requires them to install an antenna.
May 2, 2005 1:21:12 PM

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

Sounds like a matter of not reading the instruction manuals. In our
area the Comcast technician is required to install the cable box, and
my HDTV/DVR capable box came with the proper component cables. I do
not believe that it came with the optical cable to connect DD5.1 sound
to my receiver.
I always try and tell people that the sound is half the experience
with HDTV. If you are watching HDTV (or DVD's for that matter) and
have the sound coming from the TV speakers alone, you really should
consider at least getting DD5.1 or DTS sound system.

Something else to look out for, and this somewhat relates to reading
the manuals... My DVD player also plays SuperAudio CD's. Since I had
my DVD player connected to my receiver with optical cable I figured I
was "set" to listen to SACD, but I could not hear the difference from
regular and SACD. After re-reading the manual over and over, I
discovered (I think in small print somewhere) that in order for SACD
to work properly you must also connect 5.1 cables. Once I connected
those, and selected 5.1 input on receiver you can REALLY hear the
difference. If your into music and have not listened to SACD you
should check it out. I'm not sure if all SACD player are like that or
not, but don't be fooled thinking you are listening to SACD when you
may not be.

>I see it every day, in my area, Sarasota, Fl, the cost for a HD cable box is
>$27 for digital and $5 for the HD box. That's not cheap. Then I've seen
>the customer who had a HD box and had it hooked up to his tv with a RF
>cable. He was paying for HD and not getting it! When I convinced him to
>buy a set of cables and hooked it up for him he was floored at the
>incredible picture he now had.
>
>In my area we have 19 stations with 24 channels available with antenna.
>This is the way I recommend at this time but most don't go for this as it
>requires them to install an antenna.
>
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 4:06:10 AM

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

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:21:12 -0700, Randy <Randy@?.com> wrote:


>Something else to look out for, and this somewhat relates to reading
>the manuals... My DVD player also plays SuperAudio CD's. Since I had
>my DVD player connected to my receiver with optical cable I figured I
>was "set" to listen to SACD, but I could not hear the difference from
>regular and SACD. After re-reading the manual over and over, I
>discovered (I think in small print somewhere) that in order for SACD
>to work properly you must also connect 5.1 cables. Once I connected
>those, and selected 5.1 input on receiver you can REALLY hear the
>difference. If your into music and have not listened to SACD you
>should check it out. I'm not sure if all SACD player are like that or
>not, but don't be fooled thinking you are listening to SACD when you
>may not be.
>
One listen to "Dark Side of the Moon" in SACD should convince anyone.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 4:06:11 AM

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

"Charlie9" <j@b.com> wrote in message
news:52gd71t226u0lujsb4ge8mkimvkdosr76m@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:21:12 -0700, Randy <Randy@?.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Something else to look out for, and this somewhat relates to reading
>>the manuals... My DVD player also plays SuperAudio CD's. Since I had
>>my DVD player connected to my receiver with optical cable I figured I
>>was "set" to listen to SACD, but I could not hear the difference from
>>regular and SACD. After re-reading the manual over and over, I
>>discovered (I think in small print somewhere) that in order for SACD
>>to work properly you must also connect 5.1 cables. Once I connected
>>those, and selected 5.1 input on receiver you can REALLY hear the
>>difference. If your into music and have not listened to SACD you
>>should check it out. I'm not sure if all SACD player are like that or
>>not, but don't be fooled thinking you are listening to SACD when you
>>may not be.
>>
> One listen to "Dark Side of the Moon" in SACD should convince anyone.


I'll give a big w00t to seeing The Wall on INHD the other
night...wow...wow...and wow...
May 3, 2005 10:46:11 PM

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

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:51:53 -0700, born_yesterday wrote:


>You've obviously have never seen good NTSC on a real TV.

I agree, the mpeg dvb video over cband on a coposite/svideo monitor is
fantastic
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 4:12:54 PM

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

On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:46:11 -0400, george1234 wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:51:53 -0700, born_yesterday wrote:
>
>
>>You've obviously have never seen good NTSC on a real TV.
>
> I agree, the mpeg dvb video over cband on a coposite/svideo monitor is
> fantastic

NTSC can make a good picture but I still prefer a 1080i picture.

--
Korbin Dallas
The name was changed to protect the guilty.
!