rant: HDTV! (or, how TV went to Hell)

[arch_angel16]

(warning, this is a rant)

Is it just me, or is the world of TV fractured, and ugly these days?

First:CRT televisions gave way to LCD TVs, in effect, gaining slim sexiness in exchange for dropping color clarity, black levels, contrast, ghosting, narrow viewing angle, harder to see in daylight, etc. Also, most LCD TVs are widescreen, while almost ALL broadcast content is NTSC 4:3. What happens? Most people auto-stretch their broadcast cable signal to a deformed version to fit widescreen.

Second: LCD TVs gave way to larger, and higher resolution LCD TVs. Yay! More resolution! Good, right? *wrong*. Broadcast TV upscaled looks like pixellated monkey ass. In fact, if you watch nature channel, you GET pixellated monkey (or maybe babboon) ass. And what's completely unforgivable, these new LCD TVs don't even conform to a standard HDTV spec! Since when is 1366x768 an HDTV resolution? 1280x720, you asses. Those extra pixels you use make your TV resize the input signals, which end up (surprised?) looking like ASS.

Third: DLP - digital light projection. A "pretty cool" idea, definitely an evolutionary step in the right direction from LCD. Too bad the spinning color wheel creates world-ending headaches in the people who are sensitive to the "rainbow" effect. The rainbow effect can be eliminated by using 3 DLP chips (one for each of the R,G,B portions of the spectrum), but so far, 3-chip DLPs are only used in $25,000 projectors. *yeah, right*. And DLP is still single-resolution by design, meaning broadcast NTSC signals look like ASS when displayed on a high-res widescreen DLP TV, whether they're stretched or not!

Fourth: Plasma. The "slightly better technology, but more expensive LCD".

Now, on top of this, there's the HD media. Anti-piracy, anti-fair-use rights aside, bluray titles are supposed to come out in 1080i now. To this I respond "what the ****?" Most LCD TVs are 720p! Great, we have to resize it...(again, pixellated monkey ass). Moreover, why the HELL are studios still bothering with interlacing? *shudders*

In terms of image quality, it seems the absolute best solution we have available to us is the venerable CRT computer monitor. Ultra-high-res, and aspect ratio issues are solved by software scaling, which looks a LOT better than what the TVs do. Too bad they're limited to 22.5" diagonal viewable screen, and bulky/heavy as sin. Still, they are the *best* display on all technical image characteristics, and especially versatility.

If you want to get bigger, the best image quality is obtained by a 720p (1080p is still largely non-existent) 3-DLP projector, fed by a computer. You get software video resizing so that the "pixellated ass" effect doesn't happen, and the 3-DLP chips eliminate the need for a spinning cover wheel, eliminating mister rainbow effect. Too bad it's bloody $25,000.

SED displays promise to solve the various "problems" with current HD displays. However the problem still remains that, mostly due to the broadcasters being bandwidth misers, broadcast HDTV signals are still 480p or 1080i and compressed to hell, and, no matter what kind of display you have, look like ass.

We were promised 1280x720 (well, 1920x1080 as well, but I won't ask for the moon) 30fps progressive, high-efficiency codec video. What we're getting is a gamut of display resolutions that don't resize nicely, rainbow-generating earth-shattering headaches, and recordable media / broadcast signals that, DRM aside, are completely failing to live up to their promised performance.

/rant

Disclaimer: I'm not a luddite. I went to school for computer science out of personal interest, and work in a job I love for a technology company. I'm just fed-up with the home theatre industry. I've evaluated just about every display tech myself, and I've ended up eschewing standard home theare and going with an XGA LCD projector, fed its signal by my computer, which has TV, DTV, and DVD fed through it so that the resized images end up looking as good as intelligent resizing is capable of.

I think I'm going to go to sleep for a few years. Wake me up when SED or 3-DLP displays, 720p or 1080p have completely eclipsed interlaced specs, and MPEG-4AVC is the standard for broadcast signals and optical media.

[Revgen]

I totally agree with you on every statement.

However, I do recall awhile ago that Samsung came out with a Thin-CRT. It was a CRT made to be as thin as possible in order to compete with the Plasma and LCD market while offering the advantages of CRT. I haven't followed up on it for awhile.

[Morte66]

I think I'm going to go to sleep for a few years.

Yep. I'm going to curl up with Zoom Player and my 21 inch CRT monitor...

{edit} and another thing, I'll just quote an email I got from a friend a few minutes ago...

It was interesting, watching a TV programme called Rome, recently, how
"source first" pans-out. Shot in hi-def (by HBO, I presume that means
1080i) but broadcast in the UK at 576i it looked "gorgeous" compared to
essentially everything else, despite being broadcast at a rather grim 1GB
per hour or so.

I'm sure it'd look a lot better broadcast with more res, but really the
point is that the vast majority of stuff being broadcast right now falls way
below what the system is capable of. Doesn't make me especially hopeful for
the future.

[TJeR]

Ugh... I felt alone in the dark, but now I know I am not....

[lexor]

Third: DLP - digital light projection. A "pretty cool" idea, definitely an evolutionary step in the right direction from LCD. Too bad the spinning color wheel creates world-ending headaches in the people who are sensitive to the "rainbow" effect. The rainbow effect can be eliminated by using 3 DLP chips (one for each of the R,G,B portions of the spectrum), but so far, 3-chip DLPs are only used in $25,000 projectors. *yeah, right*. And DLP is still single-resolution by design, meaning broadcast NTSC signals look like ASS when displayed on a high-res widescreen DLP TV, whether they're stretched r not!

That is not true, when I saw my Samsung DLP in store I saw a boat load of rainbows, especially on night scenes of CSI show they were showing, and I did see those rainbows when I first put it in my house, but after about a week I couldn't see any anymore without trying really hard, and after a month I couldn't notice any even when I wanted to, I even researched the topic on the web and tried every trick to seeing them for people who can't (and remind you, I could see them in the beginning)

So if your only argument agains DLP is rainbow, you have no argument agains DLP :)

The problem with HDTV isn't the technology of TV's, its lack of content and channels that are actually HD. There are about 5 true HD channels in Canada, while all those providers advertise thousands digital channels (counting on joe sixpack to assume that digital = HD, which it isn't, in fact some digital channels are reencoded analog channels, which makes them even worse)

[dwflo]

My 2 cents,

I have a Sony 52" CRT/RP HDTV, and I am pleased with the video I see in high-def. All HD reception is excellant, no rainbow effect, pixallation or any other artifacts.
Lexor is correct, stating it is the content, not the technoligy that is the problem. Most broadcasts in the 4:3 format are terrible, even though some digital signals are better than their analog counterparts.
Until the broadcasters improve their facilities and studios improve the productions, I do not see any gains soon. Mind you, HDTV is good, but until more is offered in HD format, it doesn't matter how good the hardware is.

[arch_angel16]

*shrugs* A friend of mine has a 62" DLP TV and I found that I was uncomfortable watching it for more than a couple hours at a time. But then again I suffer from rather easily-triggered migraines.

The one technology that really, truly interests me is SED:

http://marketnews.ca/news_archive_detail.asp?nid=430

1ms response time. Black that's truly black (no light). Better color reproduction than any other display. Skinny too. AND AND AND the *first* units coming out are 50" 1080p.

However, apparently for at least this year, SED displays are "ferrari" priced.

[Revgen]

My 2 cents,

I have a Sony 52" CRT/RP HDTV, and I am pleased with the video I see in high-def. All HD reception is excellant, no rainbow effect, pixallation or any other artifacts.
Lexor is correct, stating it is the content, not the technoligy that is the problem. Most broadcasts in the 4:3 format are terrible, even though some digital signals are better than their analog counterparts.
Until the broadcasters improve their facilities and studios improve the productions, I do not see any gains soon. Mind you, HDTV is good, but until more is offered in HD format, it doesn't matter how good the hardware is.

I believe the rant was against LCDs and Plasmas, not CRT's like what you have.

[Doobie]

It's still going to be a while before I buy a HDTV. And, if I were to buy one today, it would still probably be a CRT. It might be heavy, but once you get it home and plugged in, it's bulk doesn't matter any more.

[Jim82]

Ive always said this and its great ti see someone with the same opinion. I agree with you totally. Granted, there are better solutions people speak of etc etc but theres no denying with TV broadcasts being mainly good old 4:3 (PAL for me), the high resolutions result in that terrible blocky effect, It looks shite! Its more of a style thing with these high tech displays, best leaving for the mean time.:goodpost:

[random asshat]

excellent rant.

Humorous and with some decent insight.
The only thing that keeps it from going prime time is excessive
use of the word ASS

I'm kinda partial to some ass now and then myself, but
there is such a thing as overkill.

;)

[MaXiMuS]

110% agree

[Backwoods]

Personally I love exporting 1080i or 720p footage to my normal Samsung TV that is 10 years old. Looks a million times better than DVD and never have a problem with pixelation. I see no reason to upgrade to a newer HDTV unless you want a 16:9 box.

[foxyshadis]

It does sadden me that most resolution scaling is some fuzzy, lame bilinear algorithm. I don't understand why if they can put bilinear on an asic, why not lanczos? Sigh.

[SirCanealot]

My dad has a 50" DLP (or something; I think it's a technology that sprung from DLP and is very new or something), and the image is amazing considering the price he paid (£1400 with a 3-year gaurantie).
No sign of any rainbows here, and I'd be pretty sure I'd spot them if there was.
You make a lot of valid points, but I can't agree with them all totally. There are some good displays out there, at any rate. I can't really comment on broadcasters since I live in PAL land where normal TV generally looks pretty good anyway :P

But I've been thinking about buying an LCD to replace my aging (and breaking) old-ass 32" CRT, and I'm very tempted to spend £200-500 on a decent SD CRT and just wait another few years till the technology matures some more... I mean, my current SD TV still looks very sharp when fed with a good S-Video input, or an RGB input, and SD TVs blur out all the noise in an image, so it's all good :D

[LarryLL]

My 2 cents,
30" widescreen crt HDTV with pixelation, see my post. HDTV also occassionally jerks,skips frames, sometimes on stream info. due to HDTV spec or my pc card ?
Do not believe most people get WS for broadcast TV. They also do not get it for cable at least HD. They get it for DVDs. Then they can not wait for a legal copy to rent or buy and get bootleg for $5, that is worse quality than VHS on STD TV.
I beleive only a few people will buy their DVDs over in HD. I am not sure I can tell the difference between HD and DVD especially on computer monitor. If yuu want HD DVDs there 2 stand alone players now. Do not even have to make Vob since will play avi. Burn your own HD DVDs. Only problem is -can not fit entire movie on 4.7GB unless you compress. I split my movies anyway- do not have dual layer burner yet. HD cmpression takes probably at least 20 hrs if you have a 4000+ Athlon or longer if you do not depending on movie length. Ah ha you know they real problem ? Will not be compatible to new std.
Watched HD on 21" computer monitor-too small and still jerky but sharpest of all. Watched HD on STD 32" no ghosting -better than STD broadcast. I beleive STD TV broadcast on computer monitor the worst.
Happy with most DVD viewing on Progressive scan HDTV- better-less grainy than STD TV. STD broadcast on HDTV (upconverted to 1080) better than on STD TV.
Why 1440x720p ? Wider than WS 16x9.
Most prime time and what I watch is 16x9
Not sure why resizeing is pixelation problem. If it was I would have pixelation on all and not just indoor and poorly lit scenes and backgrounds.

Thought Bikini Destinations broadcast last summer was good quality HD.

[*.mp4 guy]

HDTVs have pixelation problems because their built-in resizers are usually nearest neighbor or if your lucky really bad billinear.

[Incast]

My biggest issue here in non HDTV (for the next few weeks anyway) PAL Land is the deinterlacing all these new flat panels introduce.

The most often interlaced material is action sports with a large amount of motion added to static graphic overlays. This leads to disastrous deinterlacing results.

Given how slow the TV industry has proved thus far to adopt progressive my only hope is that deinterlacing makes some huge steps forward soon, or some form of interlacing appears on a future flatscreen technology.

[markrb]

My biggest complaint of the HDTV world around here is the compresssion, on cable, of the signal. Where I live I don't have any other options for the source. I hate the macro blocks on faster moving scenes. Concerts are almost unwatchable.
So it seems there are issues in all areas of HDTV.

1. Hardware is lacking (in the case of what they are pushing)
2. Content is often shot poorly
3. Delivery further ruduces an already poor(compared to what it could be) image

When it's done at least half right it's awsome. When done wrong it's hard to watch.

Mark

[Mug Funky]

a note on interlace versus progressive (and HD in general really, as they're related somewhat):

broadcast equipment is really, really expensive. a simple VTR can be up to $100,000 AUD. processors and standards-converters range from the 10 grand to half a million mark (give or take). and that's just for SDTV gear.

also bear in mind that for any 1 TV show that gets made, there are several links in the chain between production and actual showing on TV (or putting on DVD). each of these places has an ongoing investment in the above equipment.

now, consider that all of the above stuff works with interlaced video, and if a source is standards-converted it will end up interlaced whether the input was or not. the only exception to that is IVTC, but that's more a software thing which doesn't come up often at all.

now bear in mind the history of television. there's a lot out there, and it's not getting any less interlaced (without incurring inevitable loss from even the best deinterlacing processes, and besides, it doesn't help the picture at all when the extra information was never there to begin with).

so unless you only watch new stuff, you're not going to see progressive programs any time soon. also the shows will be crap, because one can count the number of current programs that are any good on the fingers of one hand, when said hand has had a run-in with the mafia. doesn't give you much TV enjoyment...

so that means if you want to enjoy television, and care about the image, then you'll need a very good deinterlacer built into your progressive screen. or you could just stay with an SD CRT screen and not worry about it.

of course, HDTV is the future, good or bad.. IMHO there are only rare situations where it will actually bring greater enjoyment to TV. considering that ~3m away from my teev my eyes are blurry even with glasses on. if my eyes have lower definition than even an SDTV, it seems a tad unnecessary except for the non-flickering screen a plasma or LCD will give.

i see HDTV to be as necessary as SACD or DVD-A... completely unnecessary (though DVD-A would be good as an editing format, as would 1080p for lower budget film work).

[Backwoods]

HDTVs have pixelation problems because their built-in resizers are usually nearest neighbor or if your lucky really bad billinear.

How can we tell what resizer it uses if we were looking to buy? Are there sites that test this or know before hand?

[*.mp4 guy]

Well I was going to tell you to go to the manufacturers website, but I checked one (Samsung (http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/LNR329DXXAA.asp?page=Specifications)) and the tv's resolution wasn't even mentioned. So the only way to reliably check is probably going to a retail store and checking for yourself.