HDTV vs color television
 

after living throught the birth of both technologies, I find litte comparison in the two. HDTV was a natural progression from analog. Color television had no predicessor. The hard work, the network battles between NBC an CBS would make for a hit mini-series. but after all is said and done, I don't find the same passion or feeling watching my HDTV as I do any one of my 6 roundies.

as an after thought, one of the reasons RCA had such a hard time selling color was the way it left many of the contributors to color in the dust and took basically full credit for the NTSC system, although I you look back in history, there were other companies that made major contributions to the NTSC system. and then there was the battle between GEN Sarnoff and William Palley of CBS.

For me, ATSC HD today is every bit as much of a jaw dropper as the first time I saw color TV in 1957.

I believe HDTV parallels the early days of NTSC color in this way— the technology behind the picture is amazing and awe inspiring. The same six megahertz of NTSC bandwidth that found space for chroma information in 1953 now contains an ATSC 1080i, 16x9 video with five discrete full-bandwidth audio channels plus a subwoofer channel. In the first NTSC color sets, the bandwidth of their video amplifiers was about 3-MHz, and the picture looks good. In an ATSC HD set, the video-amplifier bandwidth is about ten times as much as a CT-100.

There are a lot of variables, and television manufacturer’s shuffle designs to fit marketing strategy. But when you view high-definition video generated with the best HD cameras on a CRT with a dot pitch fine enough to reproduce what the system can deliver, for me it’s worth looking at even though the content doesn’t always measure up to the technology.

As for the behind-the-scenes developers of analog color television: These are some of the companies who contributed to the 1953 NTSC color television standard.

• American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation
• Farnsworth Television and Radio Corporation
• General Electric Company
• Hazeltine Research, Inc.
• N. V. Phillips’ Gloeilanpamfabricken
• Philco Corporation
• Westinghouse Electric Corporation

It’s a list that was compiled by RCA and appears on a label inside the cabinet of every CT-100 made.

Here’s a link to a page on my CT-100 site discussing the Hazeltine and Philco contributions to NTSC color television.

http://home.att.net/~pldexnis/potpou...12-5-1950.html

Pete

The big difference Pete is that HDTV was much easier for the designers to bring to the marketplace, than back in the late 40's and early 50's when all inventions had to be designed from the ground up, sometimes with no path to follow, the biggest decision that they had with HDTV was which system to go with I saw a report that still considers the tri-color crt to be considered one of the modern marvels of the 20th century

BobGary, I'll second that! I've got a 25" BPC TV in my listening room with a VCR and every single year there are fewer and fewer shows to tape and watch. Literally, days can go by and I'll not even turn on the set. Other family members watch TV far, far more than I do. HDTV was nothing more than the NAB's attempt to hang on to spectrum space. Ironic, since (in my area at least) 90% of all sets in my area are hooked up to cable. There's so little worth watching now, that when the analog stations go off the air I just might not even bother replacing the set or getting a pricey set-top converter.

Tom

The ONLY reason I have cable TV is because I cannot have cable internet without it. There isn't any option other than SBC DSL service, which is slower and higher in price. If it wasn't for National Geographic, The Weather Channel some PBS programming, I'd probably never turn the damn thing on. Every once in a great while I'll watch a DVD, but even that doesn't happen much. Like radio, TV has seen better days.

I agree with Pete pretty much on this. But to appreciate the value of HDTV, the display needs to be much larger than a 21" roundie. I have a projector in my basement that displays about 11' x 7' high on the wall. And at that size there is a glaring difference between analog and true HD (1920 x 1080i). Just to give you an idea there is 5 times the amount of resolution for HD as there is coming from a standard progressive scan dvd (720 x 480p). And a dvd is much better resolution than an old style standard analog broadcast at 240i. It is much more than resolution alone, the color pallet is way higher as well and it is obvious. Some HD scenes look so real it is as though you are fooled into thinking you are looking out a window instead of a mere projection on the wall.

The remarkable difference is definately there but you will not see or notice the quality difference at the smaller screen sizes IMO. But screen sizes on sets are now getting progressively bigger as well.

---

I still think HDTV is a reasonably good idea, I suppose, but an answer to a question nobody asked. I've seen demos of HDTV, yeah, its got a GREAT picture, whoopty doo, yadda, yadda, yadda. Pisses me off come Jan 2007 or 2008, 2009, 2010, take yer pick, all my old tvs are gonna be obsolete & won't work. John Q. Public is prolly gonna be pretty steamed, too that he won't be able to watch his beloved new year's day football games. If HDTV was as golly-gee-whiz as color TV was then, they'd have made it backwards compatible...But WTF do I know...-Sandy G.

I have no desire to see HDTV. If the programming was worth something, I may rethink that. As long as the nets are shoveling shit, my sets will be showing DVD's of Archie Bunker, Hogan's Heroes, etc. I could care less about all this reality stuff. Is ther a sitcom that is actually funny anymore? When i turn on the news, i don't care about what that dumb prettyboy Brad Pitt is doing (if it were up to me, that dumbass would get drafted and traded for hostages in Iraq). Other than some PBS offerings, I watch little TV.

I will never have the passion of seeing HDTV, like the passion I have of firing up a restored roundie and watching Archie blowing a raspberry at Meathead.

Seems like the opposite to me - color tv was really just 'colored television' and used the same basic system, resolution, transmission etc. HDTV is totally new and non-compatible. Analog to digital may be a natural progression but it is more uphill to get people to switch to it as to color.
I remember getting my bigscreen HDTV about a year and a half ago and I don't know how fantastic color looked at first but I was truly astounded by how good it looked when showing broadcast HDTV. And after watching something in HDTV for a little while, if you immediately look at analog again it almost gives you a headache the quality difference is so stark. That didn't happen between BW and color (still doesn't!)...Frenchy

Yeah, Everybody Loves Raymond, but now it's in reruns only so forget in HDTV after CBS finishes up the rest (it looks pretty close to it when broadcast by KTLA out here in Los Angeles.) This is the only sitcom that I have actually watched regularly in 10 years and thought was genuinely funny where I love to watch it over and over.

When people complain about TV being lousy nowadays it is necessary to point out that TV has ALWAYS been like this, a few good shows on in the schedule and the rest sub-par or junk. All the dumptruck loads of crap shows that used to be on disappear and nobody even remembers they existed. Crap shows on now are ON now so we see them and think, gee tv stinks now but used to be all great. Sorry, but that's rose-colored bunk.

<<<I still think HDTV is a reasonably good idea, I suppose, but an answer to a question nobody asked. I've seen demos of HDTV, yeah, its got a GREAT picture, whoopty doo, yadda, yadda, yadda. >>>

If that's the case do we really need widescreen 70mm movies? Isn't what they were using in 1940 good enough? Look, people have been wanting bigger TV screens since tv came out. There comes a point where after you blow up analog shows up start to look like crap. So the only answer to that problem is HDTV. Now they can watch giant screens and still have the picture look sharp similar to a movie screen.

<<Pisses me off come Jan 2007 or 2008, 2009, 2010, take yer pick, all my old tvs are gonna be obsolete & won't work. John Q. Public is prolly gonna be pretty steamed, too that he won't be able to watch his beloved new year's day football games.>>>

We will be able to buy cheap little boxes that downconvert it to analog and watch our old tv sets forever, so don't start taking them down to the Salvation Army yet ; )

<<If HDTV was as golly-gee-whiz as color TV was then, they'd have made it backwards compatible...But WTF do I know...-Sandy G.[/QUOTE]>>>

There comes a point where something new is so much newer (50+ years newer) and better (10x the resolution) than the old you can't do the compatibility thing. Color was just black and white with color squeezed into the signal and the big technology hurdle was making the color picture tube. Plus it was only separated from the beginning of BW by about 15 years.

One wonders how much of this is the programming and how much of it is us? I hardly watch anything on TV nowadays either but used to watch a ton. They put shows on that young people watch. I ain't young anymore (45 ain't old but it ain't young either!) : 0 I venture to guess it has been like that for a LONG time, perhaps since TV began. I was reading a book about Jackie Gleason and it said that part of CBS's reasoning for finally dumping him in 1970 was they wanted the younger viewers that he was not bringing in. This is not a new phenomenon.

Remember when CBS dumped all of the country and rural shows in one fell swoop in 1971? We lost most of my favorite shows then. I've got several modluators for my NTSC sets ready to go when they all fall silent. I'm not looking forward to that day.

Most cable companies take the 8VSB over the air HD channel convert it to ASI then mix it with one or two other HD channels then send it out as 256 qam. It would be the same as the over the air channel it just might not have the standard def mulicast channels.
The HD content would be the same. For sometime after the cutoff most cable systems and dish too will have NTSC available. Most of their customers still just have NTSC sets.

Actually since I will still be able to watch OTA stuff on the old sets with the convertors, and I always watch them using a VCR tuner and channel 3 anyway, it isn't going to bother me much. (I don't have cable.) I think I'll do like a commemorative vigil thing where I have all my sets turned on to some vhf channel at the moment they pull the plug and watch them go to static. I wonder if all the vhf/uhf stations are all supposed to be pulled at the same time and day or what?

missing the point
 

Understand I,m not disputing the natural progression to Digital television, my point of the thread was that I have lived through the introduction of both, and in my mind there is little comparison between the excitment of seeing color tv for the first time vs seeing digital television, keep in although the picture quality has improved, the program material has not, i still wonder why I spend the money I do to subscribe to directv with 160 channels and nothing on.

one of the main reasons for the transistion to dtv was the turning back of analog frequencies to the FCC for other purposes. ALso as time goes by your digital television will become more of any information center, displaying multi-function screens

One thing I don't see a lot of talk about is some stations don't plan on having any HD programming on. They will just have five or 6 channels of the same stuff they have today. There is no rule that says HD TV it's just digital TV that they must transmit.
Also even if they do have HD programming (the major networks will) they may limit the data so they can have 2 or 3 other channels on. ABC and some PBS stations have been testing this. I think one of the reasons to move to didgital was to sell sets and equipment. Cable and dish have been using digital for sometime now.

What did you first view HDTV on? (I mean HDTV, not just 'digital television', which could just be plain old standard definition). I don't think you can really see the full effect of HDTV unless it is on a newer plasma or other recent screens and on a BIG one, the bigger the better (50 inches and bigger), and something in 1080i.
I remember when I first started thinking about HDTV, the sets were a lot smaller and not nearly as good as they are now and I didn't bite. Would have been same with color for me probably too. I wouldn't have bought HDTV when I first saw it any more than I would have bought a CT-100 with that dinky little screen roundish screen compared to the much biger rectangular b/w 'big' screens.
The bigger the set, the better and better HDTV looks than standard def, and the more standard def starts to look very cheesy looking, akin to a kinescope.
Again I point out comparing to HDTV to standard def on a big screen, if you watch hdtv for an hour and then put it back on regular tv, you will squint and say "eeeewwwww!" I guarantee it, if you have good eyes. You will NOT do that switching between color and b/w no matter how much you look at color. That indicates HDTV is not some minor improvement in TV compared to color introduction.

Bingo. IMHO, the real test therefore would be to put one HDTV of a size as similar as possible to a standard def set side by side, with both sets fed the same signal. Just like speakers where louder is perceived as "better", so bigger is perceived as "better" for television pictures. I've tried this in stores with sets around the 27" size, and the differences are (while admittedly marginally better)simply not worth the massive price premium that HDTV commands. When HDTV sets of a similar size drop in price to within around ten percent more than what a standard def set costs, THEN talk to me! Otherwise I will let other suckers... I mean early adopters... subsidize the cost of R&D and marketing and profits.

Tom

---

Frenchy makes a good point about tv always being full of crap. I've got some video tapes recorded (by other people) in the 80s. Looking back to that time I think of it as good television-hey, I was a kid! But some of the shows that these folks taped our unwatchable. (and totally forgotten now) There is some police drama that they liked, one tape is almost nothing but that show (I forget the name) but today's CSI, NCIS & Cold Case (my wife's current favorites) make this old thing look like high school drama club.

I'm a fan of Everybody Loves Raymond myself but even that isn't enough to get me to turn on a tv. I could go weeks at a time without finding a reason to flip the switch, except to tinker with it! I did watch some PBS last night with decent shows on Hot Dogs, Ketchup & Sandwiches. Only half payed attention to it while I was reading the paper.

It also seems like the junk-i-fication of TV has crept into cable networks too...used to be that networks like the discovery channel, TLC, American Movie Classics, Cartoon Network, TV Land even the Food network used to really focus in on the best types of programming that characterized that network...seems now that these networks have turned to I don't know what kind of stuff to try and get a different audience, like a lot of reality shows or adding commercials.

Remember when TLC showed stuff like The Secret Life of Machines? Now they have shows like a Baby Story or a Wedding story or some such.
I have noticed that on DirectTV there are some subsidiary networks that cropped up to take on some of the original programming of, say Discovery (Like Discovery Home channel, the Military channel, the Science Channel) which have some good stuff but these too seem like there is less on them.

It seems now that you have to have a system like Direct TV with a lot of channels to really catch good shows.

---

You won't see much difference at 27". You'll start to see somewhat more difference between the formats at 48-60". And you will see a huge unbelievable breathtaking difference at 120".

Comparing HDTV to NTSC at 27" is like comparing a Wal-Mart Sampo special to a Pioneer Elite reciever while listening to both examples through a set of cheap headphones. You won't hear much difference through headphones.

So if your only goal is to only watch at 27" then I agree with you that the difference would not be worth a massive premium. But then again, HDTV is probably going to come down in price a great deal before it is all over with.

<<<So if your only goal is to only watch at 27" then I agree with you that the difference would not be worth a massive premium. But then again, HDTV is probably going to come down in price a great deal before it is all over with>>

Too me it was only worth it because I don't have cable and finally wanted a big screen tv. I didn't see any huge price premium for HDTV, it just seemed like a price premium for a big set capable of much sharper pictures. To me, buying a cheaper 50 inch tv that doesn't do HD and only does standard def is just blowing a OK picture up to look rotten and would be flushing the money down the toilet. If that's what I wanted to see I would have just stuck with my 27" Sylvania. So I went with an HD bigscreen with built-in HD tuner, and I love the thing to death. I will agree that some tv stations are REALLY good at broadcasting their standard def content and it looks pretty damn good on 50 inches., i.e. as good as you could possibly get standard def to look... but standard cable shows? Yuck, too low quality, pixelization, compression artifacts, etc.

[QUOTE=bgadow]Frenchy makes a good point about tv always being full of crap. I've got some video tapes recorded (by other people) in the 80s. Looking back to that time I think of it as good television-hey, I was a kid! But some of the shows that these folks taped our unwatchable. (and totally forgotten now) >>>

Check out that Jumped The Shark site that talks about when different shows became lousy. Tons of shows listed there that I totally forgot about or never knew existed. People always remember the good stuff. Back in the 80's the only show I watched and was totally hooked on was... Crime Story?? Yup.

2007 digtal standard needs to be backward compatible
 

HDTV looks greatest on smaller screen as pixels are closer together as so does NTSC.

1 year ago Sears had a $500 HDTV, 25" or 27" that had one of the BEST HD pictures I had ever seen for TWO important reasons over sets costing ten times as much. Screen size was big enough to watch, but NOT too large to dilute high definition picture qualities. Two, this was a direct view CRT that cannot be rivaled in Contrast, shapness , and brightness(DLP rear projection sets are close but no cigar), also limited viewing angle of DLP set.

I have two front projectors HDTV resolution compatible--DLP and high quality LCD video projectors that produce fantastic pictures --- until screen reaches a certain size that drags down picture quality down. HD resolution can be kept on larger screens, but line doubler is expensive and most people not familiar with. Front projectors also can be viewed at any angle like regular TV . Rear projection sets are still lacking in theatre quality for HDTV unless outragious amount of money is spent on upscale model. My point is---- HDTV isn't the same unless you are actually watching HDTV resolution on your final screen size.


Early color roundies with a DVD video signal and video amplifier in between TV and DVD player from Rat Shack will reduce noise in signal to give tuner a strong signal. This shows full quality of NTSC as DVD resolution is greater and doesn't take away NTSC picture quality. It's weird to watch a 50 year old color TV and see such a great picture as same standard used for many years. It feels liked I'm not watching shows on old technology or an "antique TV". Color roundie still feels state of the art ---and a marvel of modern technology.


:D :D

I don't see public accepting Digital that instantly makes their current sets obsolete if not backward compatible to NTSC. Home theatre owners have small fortunes invested in video setups as so do Plasma TV people. Television stations I'm sure will do a gradual transition to Digital as has happened with color in 50s/60s. IT HAS GOT TO BE NTSC backward compatible for this reason. Most will be reluctant probaly since just spent money for HDTV conversion. ANY standard will be abandoned if costs public too much/ not feasable anyways.


Both topics are rehash of other threads .

I wholeheartedly agree. Large-screen HDTV's do look somewhat better. My problem is that I have a very small house. I simply do not have room for anything bigger than a 27" screen. I'd imagine that most people who live in small houses or apartments will be in the same situation.

Tom

Frenchy- Crime Story ?!? Awww, man, I KNEW there was a reason I like you !! I LOVED that show-I dunno what I liked the best, The women-they were about all a tad on the trashy side-Yeah, baby !, the cars, the music, or the fact about all the guys that played on it were UGLY-at least for TV-they looked like regular people. I loved the episode when Paulie takes Ray into the desert to hide-and almost gets incinerated in an A-bomb test...or any of the episodes that had Joseph Wisemam (Manny Wisebord) in 'em...And of course, who could fergit the opening/closing theme-a totally kick-ass version of "Runaway" by Del Shannon. Natcherly, since I liked that show, it had to die an early death...whereas dreck like "Friends" goes on forever and ever...-Sandy G.

[QUOTE=vintagecollect]HDTV looks greatest on smaller screen as pixels are closer together as so does NTSC. 1 year ago Sears had a $500 HDTV, 25" or 27" that had one of the BEST HD pictures I had ever seen for TWO important reasons over sets costing ten times as much. Screen size was big enough to watch, but NOT too large to dilute high definition picture qualities. Two, this was a direct view CRT that cannot be rivaled in Contrast, shapness , and brightness(DLP rear projection sets are close but no cigar), also limited viewing angle of DLP set. >>>

I have a Hitachi rear projection with the 3 crts in it, 51 inch (same crts and chassis that were in their 65 inch set so it is PLENTY bright on this sucker). It also lets you dial in the convergence of the beams perfectly with an electronic grid you can tweak, can basically make it perfect.
While a small screen and a large screen might be able to both create 1080i HDTV, I wanted a big screen to get the full effect at normal viewing distance. If I'd gottem a little 27 incher, I'd have had to set 3 feet away from the screen to even be able to pick out the detail that was there. And if I didn't sit that far, it would be too small for the picture to have any impact whether it was HDTV detail or not.

early color and HD startups
 

There's another parallel between early color and HDTV. Don't recall exactly in the early '60's when the Tonight Show went color, but last Monday Letterman went true HD (1920 x 1080i). Probably there were not many viewers for either advanced-format startup; he joked that eight or so were seeing him in HD. His show has been taped in HD for about two years, but not broadcast that way till now... maybe they wanted a backlog of shows to rebroadcast? The only advantage to HD were some jaw-dropping outdoor shots of Broadway, IMO.

Yeah, I know what you mean, I don't like to watch a lot of new stuff on TV, although I admit I have a guilty pleasure of watching CBS' Survivor, but reality TV beyond that just blows chunks. I saw an HDTV set at our local Comcast cable TV place and the picture is not as good as what I get on our current set, a 1982 Zenith System 3 25" model, then again, I'm terminally nearsighted so take that as you will. I do dislike how a lot of TV today is nothing but dumb sex jokes and insipid humor. I do like Cartoon Network's "Adult Swim" with its parodies on the old Hana-Barbera cartoons.

That, and now you can actually count how many hairs Dave has left >(: o)
I haven't watched Letterman in maybe 6 months, but just happened to turn it on on that very Monday and boom there he was in HD.
Only thing I would suggest is they maybe zoom in on him and his guest a bit more.

"No one expects the public to junk the more than 30 million monochrome sets now in our homes just because color television is available..."

- W. H Buchsbaum, Corlor TV Servicing, 1955

Actually I believe HDTV is catching on MUCH faster in sales than color TV did, and color WAS backwards compatible.

still no comparison
 

I agree with a lot of things you guys say, but for those of you who lived way back when, the distractions that exist today were non-existant back then, most families had one television the world outside television at the time was the movies, radio and a few events such as local sporting events, but for most of us kids we were left up to what we could invent to do, so I say that is why color back then for me was such an amazing event. Sure I watch HDTV, but there is also dvd's, computers, 500 channel cable systems, and so on and so on. I guess the magnitude of color back then with the intense hard core engineering was a marvel for the time.

I forgot back then you watched what was in color, now if you dont like what's on in hd, you can throw in a dvd and get a very good picture

Color at the time was much bigger then HD is today. People liked HD but it is no big deal.
Too many other channles and choices. Remember at the time a lot of citys only had 2 or 3 channels.