Journal Sentinal Sunday December 8 [Archive]

kjnorman

12-09-2002, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Joseph S:
And here's part two:

link (http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/dec02/101347.asp)

He went for the cable and magically made it to the top of the list. My guess is that in part three he'll complain about the annoying pops on 504, 512, and PBS. http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/wink.gif No dropouts on the Sopranos tonight whatsoever. Seems the problem is a TW Milwaukee production issue.

There's a mention of Fox' inadequate signal in about the most positive light around.

Update for those watching at home:
Patriots:27
Bills:17
Alias: Not on the air http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/frown.gif

The pops should hopefully be fixed tomorrow morning. The TW headend engineer found that there is a software fix from Scientific Atlanta for a digital audio prodlem that was on the box. This is being applied on Tuesday morning. There is a thread on the technical forum regarding this.

Kerry

kjnorman

12-09-2002, 07:34 AM

For an article intended for the Joe-six-packs out there, I think this is a pretty well written article.

Kerry

Pat

12-09-2002, 08:24 AM

I agree it was a good job. I am amazed at how well he's done -- he's obviously good at his job. Writing thousands of words in a clear and understandable way is no mean feat.

He is recommending a cable solution. I agree with his reasoning, but it pi$$es me off anyway because TWC is so big, arrogant, and deceptive. Somebody here mentioned a good example: their ad for i-control (I guess) shows 16:9 TVs exclusively, but it almost certainly won't support HDTV, the only source for 16:9. (Does anybody know?)

They also routinely plug their digital service deceptively, implying it is the same as HDTV; using the phrase "digital quality" as if its wonderful, when all along they know they compress it so much that its a worse than a good analog signal, and is offered only on some channels. The real reason they offer it is to offer more PPV options.

I hate to support them.

Tom Snyder

12-09-2002, 10:44 AM

A year or two ago, they ran an ad that had the crust to claim:

"Why spend all that money on those expensive new Hi Defintion TV sets, when you can get digital quality on your current set with Time Warner digital cable?"

I almost drove off the road. Someone must have complained, because I only heard it that one time...

kjnorman

12-09-2002, 11:10 AM

I may be a TW cable customer, but I am certainly no supporter of their service.

mr_yeti

12-09-2002, 11:16 AM

Agreed. They are the most cost-effective means to attain an HD signal right now, and until a reasonably priced next-generation DirecTV HD box exists, I will stick with Time Warner. I have occasional pangs of guilt when I consider the huge, homogenizing corporation I am supporting with my subscription, but for now, they are, for me, the way to go.

mcq

12-09-2002, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by kjnorman:
For an article intended for the Joe-six-packs out there, I think this is a pretty well written article.

Kerry

Part two is especially good. (My only quibble is that I hate cable, and hate even worse the prospect of getting it for local channels. I am sure that we will not see HDTV locals on satellite!?)

I musta missed the sidebar marking our site. I apologize to Tim for missing this sidebar. I felt really goood about his commentary.(This local site is the hangout for the techno-pioneers who were the first to buy into the new technology. Its forum offers a great place to get online help from hobbyists who know their HDTV.) It appears very sincere and complimentary!

brewtownska

12-09-2002, 03:51 PM

Kerry,

Earlier in this thread you mentioned that the head engineer at Time Warner found that there is a software upgrade for the ScientificAtlanta box. What I didn't quite understand from your post is if that upgrade is something they do on THEIR equipment, or if it's meant for the boxes in our homes. If it's for the boxes in our homes, do they know yet if the upgrade can happen over the cable system, or if we need to order a service call? I looked for the post you said you put in the Technical problems forum, but didn't see it, hence why I'm asking here.

Mike

------------------
**********
TWC 3100HD box on both
50" Toshiba 4:3 HDTV &
Sony 1272Q CRT Projector

Gregg Lengling

12-09-2002, 04:01 PM

The upgrade is with the OS (operating system) for their cable system...it is not a box problem...it is a system problem.

------------------
Gregg R. Lengling
RCA P61310 61" 16x9
(Built in DTC100 w/Directv)
HiDTV Pro 2 computer reciever card
glengling@ameritech.net

Joseph S

12-09-2002, 04:22 PM

Anxiously awaiting the system upgrade, however I definitely don't find HD Locals on TW all that appealing other than as a second STB. The quality of OTA picture is superior to the Cable and costs are equalled after 6mths and then Cable just keeps charging.

I wish TW would offer an HD only package. More than likely I'll drop it again until Season 5 of the Sopranos. There is too high a cost for the 400+ stations I don't ever watch. Give me the low tier w/ESPN add HBOHD, ShowtimeHD, and the other HDs for $30 a month. I don't need any analog, any of the butchered P&S HBO and Showtime, PPV, Analog stations, Music Only, etc. There's too much fluff I don't want to pay for. I'd pay $10 more for what I want if I didn't have to pay $25 more for all that I don't want.

Getting a HiPix or MyHD is clearly the best option for HDTV now. You get timeshifting options, a STB, and no re-occurring fees plus superior quality. It may cost $850 including the PC and VGA->Component transcoder, but you can use the machine for other purposes if you choose. Mine is for Multi-region DVD, rare PC-specific madated apps, and HiPix.

Kevin Arnold

12-09-2002, 04:57 PM

Getting the HD signal via cable rankels me too. It takes a long time for TW to get these signals on the system (where is fox 6) and you pay the premium. With the STB and antenna its a one time charge and you get it as soon as its up and running.

Gregg Lengling

12-09-2002, 04:59 PM

Joseph I don't know why you would want a transcoder..unless you wanted to run your computer on the big screen. The HiDTV and the others all have component and RGB outputs...so all you need is a computer...you can watch on the computer and/or feed it to the HD set.

------------------
Gregg R. Lengling
RCA P61310 61" 16x9
(Built in DTC100 w/Directv)
HiDTV Pro 2 computer reciever card
glengling@ameritech.net

rnelson

12-09-2002, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by kjnorman:
I may be a TW cable customer, but I am certainly no supporter of their service.

This only goes to show how important it is do to you're homework beforehand as I did. I divorced myself from TW and didn't want to get back into bed with them so I made sure that I purchased a TV that had the digital tuner built in that wouldn't require the STB or TWC.
Spread the word spend the extra cash to get a true HDTV that will not require either a STB or TWC.

Joseph S

12-09-2002, 06:08 PM

Joseph I don't know why you would want a transcoder..unless you wanted to run your computer on the big screen.

That's exactly what I do. I used it prior for region free DVD, now I use it for both DVD and HDTV. I can play DVD s at 1440 X 540P or better. If only I had the time to finally get the red push, geometry, and convergence correct. I did correct HDTV overscan, but it is overcompensated for the Gamecube and PS2. Suggestion: buy DVI enabled sets and projectors and avoid this mess.

Joseph S

12-09-2002, 11:25 PM

Here's Part 3:

link (http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/dec02/102048.asp)

I think this piece needed far more research.

1)More of the "Black Bar" garbage with zero explanation on aspect ratio.

For my set, there's a button on the remote that lets you widen the picture to fill the screen, which is recommended to prevent those bars from being burned into the picture.

[Insert Puking smiley] Who made this recommendation? He's using a direct view set not plasma or RPTV, this shouldn't be an issue with appropriate contrast settings.

2) A push of another button puts DVD pictures on the screen.

I sure hope he set up the DVD player for a WS set and isn't getting unintended distorted AR.

3)As for the programming, he completely left out CBS which is unacceptable. PBS may not have much, but they do have content. Just because he can't see them doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned as the alternative if you don't go the cable route. He also failed to mention that Showtime HD almost always broadcasts programs in their Original Aspect Ratio unlike HBOHD. In a bizarre comment on the programming available on Showtime he mentioned that their original programming is 4x3. I don't see what the problem is. The Showtime HD content is superior to all others and the fact that their original stuff isn't HD doesn't take away from all that it offers. He mentions the movies, but not that Showtime has a fairly strict OAR policy. HBO is known for their original stuff, Showtime isn't.

HDNET was also not mentioned and neither was DiscoveryHD. This sort of information deserves mention if a customer is to make an informed decision on whether they go OTA, Satellite, or Cable. Just because he went one way doesn't mean you don't inform people of the benefits or pitfalls of the other paths.

4)Zero mention of the pops, blips, etc in the Time Warner Locals and PBS station. Either he got a new box or we're all hearing things. This has to be mentioned. Quality of service is just as important as the quantity.

Part 1 was mediocre. Part 2 was good. Part 3 is a hack job at best. It's one thing to give your experiences, but those of us with TW HD know that there are serious problems as of today and none were mentioned. I find it hard to believe that this was a story of his true experience with HD. As a columnist, I believe he had an obligation to state what other programming is available to the community. This comes across as a TW puff piece with little to no facts involved.

[This message has been edited by Joseph S (edited 12-10-2002).]

ReesR

12-09-2002, 11:55 PM

I was going to wait until part 4 to comment but decided to say a few words now.

What I found most interesting was the word "experimental" was so far totally missing. As most of us know from his "interactive chat" a number of weeks ago, he was saying that HDTV was simply for the early adopters etc. Does this mean that when Tim puts his money on the table then it is no longer experimental? Hmmmmm.

Also, he spent 996 words giving a somewhat positive approach to the whole world of HDTV. The wow factor etc. Then in the last 22 words he kills it by saying:

"But is all this enough to justify plunking down a couple thousand bucks just to have a clearer view through that window?"

Yes Tim, that is what High Definition is all about. He himself said it quite well when he said:

"That loop of public TV video keeps pulling me back to Channel 710."

Well, DUH.

Let's see what he says in installment #4.

Maybe that is where we will see the word "experimental".

http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/smile.gif Stay Tuned http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Rees Roberts
Racine, WI
reesr@wi.net

HDTV Receiver: Sony KD-34XBR2 16X9
Bi-directional AntennaCraft VHF Yagi Model #2260P
+
2 Winegard PR9022 UHF yagi's pointing N & S
Antennas at about 30 feet
Samsung SIR-TS160 HD Directv receiver

kjnorman

12-10-2002, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by lummox:
The upgrade is with the OS (operating system) for their cable system...it is not a box problem...it is a system problem.

This is not correct Gregg. The problem is supposed to be specific to the SA 3100HD decoder box, and the fix is in the OS for the box and is from Scientific Atlanta, not TW. TW can remotely update the boxes through the cable system are are doing this this morning (may even be done).

It will be interesting to see if there is any improvement tonight (though I may not notice as I'll be watching Live from Bagdad on HBOHD rather than the locals tonight).

Kerry

mr_yeti

12-10-2002, 07:33 AM

Alright kids, let's give the man a little breathing room. He's a journalist, not an experimenter. His job is to review television, not praise everything he watches, and as a reviewer, he is primarily concerned with content.

I should note at this point that I use Time Warner cable to receive my HD signals, and let's be honest with ourselves here: the content leaves something to be desired. Yes, HBO HD is nice when there's a movie worth watching on, but I can only watch "Summer Catch" a certain number of times (that number is zero, if you're wondering). The Sopranos is truly wonderful in HD, and Mr. Cuprisin says as much in this article. And, yes, the loop on channel 710 is absolutely gorgeous, but it hardly qualifies as "content." As a showcase for what HDTV can do, it is exemplary, and I don't understand why retail chains in the area don't have that playing on at least some of their HD-capable TVs at all times. But, honestly, who sits down with a bowl of popcorn and watches footage of flower gardens and trains (always with the trains. why?)?

As for CBS, you cannot review that which you cannot see. I agree that it is important to mention CBS as something available to those who choose to receive their signals OTA, but beyond that, our friend is not even remotely qualified to say anything about the content aside from the fact that it exists. The same goes for HDNet and Discovery HD. He does not have access to these channels, so he does not comment on them. Is there a better way to have done this? Yes, but would you want a journalist covering the U.S. Congress to be reporting from Seattle? Perhaps an informative sidebar listing all available HD stations would be helpful, but links were included in the sidebar to several sites (including this one) where an interested party can find all the information they want, and then some, about HDTV.

When I got my HDTV hooked up, there were many around the office and amongst my friends who had no idea what I was talking about or why I was so excited. They didn't even know what HD was. This article is for those people. In order to get excited about something, you need to know what it is without, in the case of people not as technologically savvy as many of the members here are, an overload of information.

Baby steps, friends, baby steps. This thing isn't going to happen overnight, and I think we should all root for Time Warner to get their act together with CBS 58, and hopefully HDNet, Discovery HD, and ESPN HD in the spring. Then, perhaps, HD will have won over Mr. Cuprisin's heart, and there will be a high-profile advocate for HD in the Milwaukee Area.

I can't wait to read his review of the Super Bowl in HD. Sports is the killer app for HD, and every TV columnist has to watch the big game, right?

[This message has been edited by mr_yeti (edited 12-10-2002).]

mr_yeti

12-10-2002, 07:37 AM

Kerry:

Live from Baghdad was outstanding in HD. Be sure to turn it up when the bombs start dropping. The sound quality is wonderful, and Helena Bonham Carter is just too cute.

mcq

12-10-2002, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by mr_yeti:
As for CBS, you cannot review that which you cannot see. I agree that it is important to mention CBS as something available to those who choose to receive their signals OTA, but beyond that, our friend is not even remotely qualified to say anything about the content aside from the fact that it exists. The same goes for HDNet and Discovery HD. He does not have access to these channels, so he does not comment on them. Is there a better way to have done this? Yes, but would you want a journalist covering the U.S. Congress to be reporting from Seattle? Perhaps an informative sidebar listing all available HD stations would be helpful, but links were included in the sidebar to several sites (including this one) where an interested party can find all the information they want, and then some, about HDTV.

As THE TV reporter for the entire MKE-Metro area in the largest single medium, it is his job and responsibility to put himself in the position of getting and watching everything that is available. Shame on the JS Company for not giving him the tools.

By far, the best HDTV series are the CSI stories. I know that these are converted from film, but WOW. The action shots, slow motion shots and scenery is simply out of this world...(well in the other worlds of Miami and Las Vegas anyway http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/smile.gif ). I feel bad that Tim cannot watch these on a regular basis. Maybe he shoulda invested in HD computer card so that he may record these shows. He is absolutely correct about SHREK though. That was more than amazing!

mr_yeti, I expect the Seattle journalist to get off his butt and get to Washington so that he may do his readers a better service. Your analogy only supports my argument!?

I suspect that TWC "comps" Tim's Column and that other technology's would have to come out of Tim's own pocket. I hope that I am wrong on this.

mcq

12-10-2002, 08:40 AM

HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would it be a violation of "Fair Use" if I emailed CSI to Tim C???????

mr_yeti

12-10-2002, 09:07 AM

My point was that this article can only serve to heighten awareness of HDTV. As for the Seattle reporter going to Washington, DC, there are budgetary constraints involved in any such venture. Newspapers are not the most profitable of businesses, and oftentimes do not have the budget to do everything they'd like to. It would be nice if they could provide the equipment for him to see everything there is to see, but the simple fact is that they did not.

I should also bring up the point that this article is written from the perspecive of a person who wants HDTV, but needs to have it meet certain financial and practical criteria. Mr. Cuprisin is sharing his experiences going through this process with a fairly wide audience who would otherwise have no idea (or worse, a wrong idea) what you were talking about when you mention HD to them.

[This message has been edited by mr_yeti (edited 12-10-2002).]

Gregg Lengling

12-10-2002, 09:07 AM

Yes I think you could construe it to be illegal. Besides how would he play it back...I don't think he has any equipment to play the transport stream.

mcq

12-10-2002, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by lummox:
Yes I think you could construe it to be illegal. Besides how would he play it back...I don't think he has any equipment to play the transport stream.

Do you lose quality when you convert the TP files to MPEG ?? I've never converted anything so I would not know.

If I record the same shows to tape and "loan" it to my brother, is this a violation?? What's the difference if I record them vs he records them himself. Isn't the spirit of the law to reward the owner of the copyright? Maybe if he fast forwards through the commercials he is vioalting the spirit of of the law. This "Fair Use" is going to get real dicey over the next several years!

mcq

12-10-2002, 10:33 AM

My point was that this article can only serve to heighten awareness of HDTV.

-->Agreed, and pretty much doing a fine job.

As for the Seattle reporter going to Washington, DC, there are budgetary constraints involved in any such venture. Newspapers are not the most profitable of businesses, and oftentimes do not have the budget to do everything they'd like to.

-->Serve your customers or get out of the business. See that's the problem with one major metro newspaper, the masses get just one point of view.

It would be nice if they could provide the equipment for him to see everything there is to see, but the simple fact is that they did not.

--> Again Shame on the JS company. They make money (Well not yet) from the same HDTV medium Tim is paid to follow/review.

I should also bring up the point that this article is written from the perspecive of a person who wants HDTV, but needs to have it meet certain financial and practical criteria.

-->Those are fairly subjective criteria. While Tim's experience is a good one, it only relates to one person...Tim. Unfortunately, many of the unsuspecting public will take his word as gospel and blindly make some of the same decsions. He really needs to have, and have reviewed all of the viewing options and choices if he is going to be the "representative" of the industry. I am not blaming him. As a matter of fact I have been painting him in the most positive light, lately. After all he's "one of us" now http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/smile.gif This is a continuation of the dialog we have had earlier. I am begining to see the some enthusiam in our single largest media role model. I am just confused as to why a person in his position isn't addicated to this new medium. If it were me, it would be less of a job and more of a vocation.

Mr. Cuprisin is sharing his experiences going through this process with a fairly wide audience who would otherwise have no idea (or worse, a wrong idea) what you were talking about when you mention HD to them.

-->As good as an effort Tim is making, as I said above, it's one point of view. And I totally agree that his efforts may bring the general awareness up. The more people ask or do research the better for society collectively.

BTW weekending 12/4/02, CBS had 13 of the top twenty rated TV shows. Many of those are in HD, as CBS is the most committed and dedicated network regarding HDTV. Am I only person to see irony, (hipocrisy?) in this. What does the "TMJ" in WTMJ stand for....hmmmm???

[This message has been edited by mcq (edited 12-10-2002).]

ReesR

12-10-2002, 10:33 AM

I have to agree with mcq. Tim C's reporting on just a portion of the options does not give ALL the readers the overview required of the subject. He should get satellite and over the air so he would understand the differences first hand.

He also does not explain what "could" happen in the future. How multicasting could provide programming based on your zip code etc. Different communities, for example, could get different newscasts based on their zip code. Different advertising models could be provided likewise providing broadcasters with yet more opportunity for revenue increases for the same programming. And so it goes. Maybe this will be in installment #4.

mr_yeti, I understand your wanting to give him some room. But please understand that there has been less than steller understanding coming from his camp in recent memory. He just doesn't want to become "one of us". He appears to want to be "above us" preaching from his pulpit. Why else would he insult his viewers (my opinion) by making their own minds up for them when he says "But is all this enough to justify plunking down a couple thousand bucks just to have a clearer view through that window?"

Those of us who have made the investment are overjoyed by what it provides.

Rees

mcq

12-10-2002, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by ReesR:
"But is all this enough to justify plunking down a couple thousand bucks just to have a clearer view through that window?"

Those of us who have made the investment are overjoyed by what it provides.

Rees

We paid $5000 for new clearer windows....

I do want to cut Tim some slack. I just wish he would show up once in a while and engage in some lively conversation. Maybe he's just too busy?

All in all, I would have to admit, that I am 100% envious of him! Who wouldn't want to watch TV (especially HDTV)for a living. Yeah that's it for me..."Once again jealousy rears it's ugly head!" And to think I use to laugh at the MassComm geeks as I walked to my Argumentation and Debate class in Merril Hall.

[This message has been edited by mcq (edited 12-10-2002).]

Matt Heebner

12-10-2002, 04:12 PM

I have to agree with some of the above posters. I am very glad that Tim C. is getting into the HD "way of life" and I am very glad that he is doing an article that, up till today, was pretty good and at the very least is getting HD "out there". But....

Todays installment was flawed. I understand that we are kind of "following" his journey in HD Land with TWC, but I thought the purpose of the article was to inform readers what is availible BE IT on cable, satellite, and OTA. He should have talked about what's available on TWC, but then also made mention of CBS(I mean come on, this is a local OTA broadcasting station with the most programming of all the networks and it didn't even get a mention?????), HDNet, DiscoveryHD, etc. He could have said that even though TWC doesnt yet offer these channels, they do have possible plans for the future.
I think the biggest flaw of his article was that he did not include what those stations have already broadcast(Olympics, NCAA play-offs, college football etc) and what they have already announced for the future like the FREAKIN SUPERBOWL, Monday Night Football, more NCAA Play-offs, possible NFL play-off games (CBS). What beter way to get the masses interested by taunting them with what's ahead!!!
I dont think he should judge for others whether or not the price of all this is worth it, but rather present ALL the facts and evidence, and let people decide for themselves. I will bet dollars to doughnuts all it would take for some people is HD football and Bikini Destinations, and they'll be hooked for life!!
Anyways, I look forward to the "verdict" article tomorrow.

Matt

Greg Oman

12-10-2002, 05:30 PM

Overall, I'd say a good set of articles. As one of the original "dirty dozen" we've seen a lot of progress in the past year here in Milwaukee. And the top billing under "On the web" section certainly doesn't hurt!

It's been one heck of a year...

Greg O.

Matt Heebner

12-10-2002, 05:45 PM

Dirty Dozen...thats a good one. http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Matt

mcq

12-10-2002, 09:26 PM

Can I be Victor Franco (John Cassavetes)?????

RRP

12-11-2002, 08:31 AM

I read part IV of TC's series and I have to agree with his conclusion. The price is still pretty steep and after putzing around with my antenna for over a week I still can't get all channels broadcasting(living in Shorewood).
My take on when to get in?: When any 3 of the following four events occur:

* When all local stations are broadcasting at full power (ahhm, 6,18,24)

* When all HD channels are available on cable and perhaps Satellite.

* When at least one HD sporting event is shown per weekend and primetime HD programming reaches 75%

* Prices fall another 25%

My estimate as too when this will happen? Sept. 2003 (New fall season and I predict HD NFL each Sunday like FOX does it now: A&B games.)

Note: I'm totally talking out of my a-- and have no basis for my conclusions! http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by RRP (edited 12-11-2002).]

mr_yeti

12-11-2002, 09:12 AM

I think the most important thing to consider here is what I like to call the "futz factor." OTA reception requires a fair amount of trial-and-error, and a reasonable degree of technical ability, not to mention the expense of the box and antenna. Granted, the programming is free when the initial investment is made, but many people would be unwilling to go through all this trouble and expense to receive (at the current time) 4.1 channels.

For example: my parents recently bought their first DVD player. I stopped by their house shortly after they purchased it, and the were complaining that it didn't work. Now, before I reveal what the problem was, I must point out that these are both educated people with degrees from our state schools. They're just not so savvy with electronics.

They had the audio and video wires running from the output on their DVD player to the output on their TV. The connections look they same, they reasoned, so why not just plug them in? Do these people sound like they're ready to take on the occasionally daunting task of receiving OTA HD?

The solution: make HDTV truly plug-and-play, and get some sporting events worth watching. Disney's plan to air all of the major sports championships (aside from baseball, of course. We'll NEVER see that.) in HD is a start, and MNF will be great next season. This will make people hungry for more.

Gregg Lengling

12-11-2002, 09:27 AM

I think because it's been so long since TV first started that no-one seems to remember what it took to receive TV back in the 40's and 50's and just for 1, 2 or 3 stations. Everyone invested (almost everyone who didn't want a lot of ghosting) in an outdoor antenna, then I remember having to buy a STB...yes a STB...actually it was a UHF receiver/tuner that down-converted to channel 2 or 3 on your TV so you could receive those new UHF stations.

If you are investing $600 or more..what is an extra $100.00 for antenna/mount/coax and a couple hours of time. Maybe we're getting to be a lazier society and want to spend $300.00 to have the antenna installed, but when I was a kid I watched all the fathers in the neighborhood on the weekend, one time or another, up on the roof putting a TV antenna up.

Actually if you want to keep up with the Joneses, a TV antenna or Satellite dish is the cats meow nowadays.

------------------
Gregg R. Lengling
RCA P61310 61" 16x9
(Built in DTC100 w/Directv)
HiDTV Pro 2 computer reciever card
glengling@ameritech.net

veyj

12-11-2002, 09:32 AM

Part IV - http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/dec02/102290.asp

Too funny. You can stop looking Rees. I like how Tim doesn't use THE word, but he certainly couldn't resist quoting:

Bromberg - "I might be saying something differently a year or two from now, but I haven't gone out and bought one myself. I think we really are still in the experimental stage."

Steinmetz - "It's a sign that we're still very much in a transition to a new technology. There's experimenting and testing going on."

I was pleasantly surprised to see Tim writing on the subject of HDTV. For what's it's worth, I'll take some exposure over no exposure.

PS - Meow, Meow Gregg

[This message has been edited by veyj (edited 12-11-2002).]

RRP

12-11-2002, 09:41 AM

Yes lummox, we've become a lazier society that demands convience and rightly so. I like tinkering with my HT setup up to a point but this antenna thing has put me just about over the edge. I've been reluctant to put my antenna on my roof because 1) I'm only 2-4 miles from most of the transmitters and 2) It just looks bad http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/redface.gif

PS: It might be the cats meow, but my little kitten (wife) wouldn't be purring if I had put that thing on the roof http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by RRP (edited 12-11-2002).]

mr_yeti

12-11-2002, 10:09 AM

Notice that these people installing antennas (antennai?) on their roofs did so BEFORE they had television to watch? After the antenna is installed, you just sit on the couch and watch. That was the beginning. Now we don't need to do even that much anymore. The cable or satellite installer shows up and does the work for us. In my case, it involved working LESS, since I took half a day off of work for the occasion.

Television = incitement to laziness, physical and otherwise. Expecting people to be as industrious as they were in getting a signal initially when easier choices abound for receiving numerous channels, albiet of poorer quality than HD, is unrealistic.

Getting HDTV must be easy and low in cost before it can become viable.

mcq

12-11-2002, 02:39 PM

Darn it Tim, I was just starting to warm up to you. I am sorry but you lost all credibility with me after Part IV. It's become obvious that in general, when it comes to HDTV you have not checked your facts and/or you have some sort of agenda. Get with the program (inappropriate language and namecalling deleted)!

CBS SHINES IN HDTV, SAYS ACADEMY OF DTV PIONEERS CBS, HDNet and House Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin Claim Top Honors at 2001 Academy of DTV Pioneers Awards Washington, D.C., April 25, www.CE.org (http://www.CE.org)

"CBS, the first television network to broadcast the majority of its primetime schedule in HD, was rewarded with three awards for blazing the HDTV trail. The network was recognized as "Best DTV Network," and CBS affiliate WRAL in Raleigh, NC, was announced "Best Local DTV Broadcaster." The network also received recognition for providing the "Best DTV Sporting Event" for its HD broadcast of the 2001 Superbowl. "

It's obvious that the opening salvo in your final part was a total fabrication, and that you have no regard for determing the truth in what you write.

And your handling of Fox 6 Milwaukee... what a coward. This was an opportunity to do an expose on the sleazy "FCC compliance manuveur" at WITI. The Packer game was broadcast.... yada yada yada... give me a break. I wonder how many people on this board, admittedly a collection of HDTV-intoxicated techo-geeks, can receive this crappy signal. Didn't we have a show of hands lately???

To all of you who asked for us (me) to "take it lite" with Tim C...I am sorry, I have no use for anyone who has the ear of such a large number of readers (read potential buyers) and at worse makes things up!?

Yeah, I am patient and digital broadcasting will be here and everyone will live in OZ and have hundred thousand dollar TV sets. But is ain't gonna happen with (I can't even come up with an age appropriate adjective) journalists causing obstacles through incompetence.

I'm Done!

------------------
Patrick K. McHugh MBA MCSE
mcq@mc-hugh.com
Sony 61HS10 (4x3!!!!)
RCA DTC100
Pioneer VSX-D710S Receiver
Infinity 5.1 (passive) Speakers

Intel 1.8ghz P4 w/ 512mb Memory
Digital Stream HiDTV Pro
ATI Radeon 8500 Dual Monitor Video
Viewsonic (Analog!) 19" monitor
ADI 17" MicroScan Panel
SB Live Platinum
Cambridge Soundworks Desktop 5.1 Speakers

I must be a real techno-geek as I have two full HDTV setups, one acting as a DVR!

[This message has been edited by mcq (edited 12-11-2002).]

Kevin Arnold

12-11-2002, 03:43 PM

Think about this. From the start when fiddling with your black and white set to get a good picture and endless tuning of a UHF converter box to get channel 19 cartoons on a Sat. morning to endless trips to the television to adjust the color in the early 60's as it changed with each program telecast we now have come to the point where there's money to be made selling once free products. Bottle some water and charge $1.50 for it, repackage over the air television on a cable and throw in 50+ re-run stations and a few movie services and get $50+ per month for it. Yet most people watch the network stuff anyway - they just pay big bucks to get it. If I'm Zenith or Samsung or Sony I want to get the price of the STB down as fast as I can - subsidize it or subsidize the tuner in the TV. In fact if I were a broadcaster I would figure out a way to get HDTV ready owners to buy this with rebates, incentives or whatever. This gives them a direct pipline to my product without all the middlemen.

As soon as there is something that people really want to see on in HD there will be a blip in sales. The Packers in the Superbowl would do it. (Closed circuit to Tim C. - There have been previous superbowls in HD!)

Matt Heebner

12-11-2002, 03:52 PM

I too am kinda unhappy with the way he ended these articles. I don't want to nit-pick over things he wrote about, but I feel it is important that people (especially ones who might be interested in gettin into HD) get all the complete facts. The last two parts of the series didn't tell the whole story.

I really feel he didn't completely fill people in on what is all out there to get. He made it sound as though he could hardly find stuff to watch. Some days I have to actually decide what to watch. There is actually quite a bit on any given time during prime time.

Also he mentions that it's hard to find a HD TV under $1000....HUH????????
The last two or three weeks Best Buy has had an ad for a 27" Samsung HD-Ready TV for $688!!! A 30" Samsung wide-screen, or a 32" 4:3 HD Ready Samsung set will set you back $999. Thats only slightly more than a similiar sized Sony Wega analog set! STB (also Samsung) can be had for as little as $399. Damn, thats about what I paid for my first DVD player in 1999. I also remember first getting satellite (about 5 1/2 years ago when systems were selling for about $499 for ONE room, two rooms almost put you into the thousand mark). It wasnt exactly as easy as cable to get it hooked up, aimed, and properly set-up (especially if you did it yourself) but the payout was excellent! It totally blew cable away back then. Well worth the extra effort. I feel the same way about High Definition.

Like I said before, I dont mind him writing about his viewpoint, but I wish he had presented all the evidence.

Matt

gparris

12-11-2002, 05:56 PM

You are correct in writing that not ALL the options were covered in writing about getting HDTV. The local productions unable to get off the ground due to cost was interesting, but I was not impressed in the explanation. I wanted his inputs on all the ways to get HD in the Milwaukee area, not just cable. In addition, no clarity on what we know as a group in what is upcoming in HD: it was just glossed-over as a positive reaction, but without any real research. You do more research, tell the more story, thereby adding a few more days to your report and I'll give you a "A" for your reporting, but until then... Do you really think "Joe six-pack" is really reading your article, anyway? He's on the Sports pages. The consumer that is getting a new TV for the holidays IS reading the story, and he got HALF the story. Journal Communications did its advertisers that sell HD sets a disservice and me, the subscriber, having Tim report the way he did...thanks a lot...for (almost nothing).

gyoung

12-12-2002, 11:45 AM

I think it was a decent article. You have to remember YOU are not the target audience for this. Cable is still the preferred way to receive television entertainment.

I'm not saying its the best, but it is what will drive HDTV. It's the cheapest solution for someone who isn't IN to all this high def stuff.

I also believe that investing in tuners and such is a bit much for the sporadic TV shows that are shown. Even TW doesn't have a good selection. They have HBO, Showtime, NBC, ABC, and PBS.

I honestly was watching only 1 show a week in HD (Sopranos). I don't have Showtime so that's out. I don't seem to watch much of what's on ABC. Of the shows that I watch on NBC, they aren't in HD. Why isn't the Thursday night (Must See TV) in HD? Frasier is.

The programming isn't there for the investment required to maximize the number of HD channels you can get.

I don't consider my investment in the HD monitor a waste because we get more than enough use watching DVDs. So it's great for that. Until more stations are broadcasting in HD AND there is a cheaper way to distribute that to the masses, HD will be there for us the experimentors.

I wouldn't recommend HD to my parents, they don't need to be spending that kind of money on something that isn't mainstream as of yet.

Matt Heebner

12-12-2002, 03:45 PM

Whether TWC is the "prefered" way for most to get HD or not is not the point. The point is/was that he should have at least mentioned the HD leader and all the programming CBS does. It's too bad that TWC doesnt carry it, but would that make for a somewhat convincing argument for an OTA STB? All you TWC HD people are missing some excellent HD programming including CSI, Everybody Loves Raymond, NCAA Football, etc. If TWC carried CBS, I think that you might think differently about "sporadic" programming. Every night of the week something is on! I think it was his resposibility to acknowledge it.

If my parents were shopping for a TV, I would definitly atleast recommend a HDTV to them. I guess it would depend on what type of money they were planning to spend. My sister-in-law asked me to go with her TV shopping a few months ago, and I didnt even mention HDTV's. The saleguy at American actually did, and we explained about digital carrriage in 2006, and how she might want to think a little about the future. She ended up buying the 27" HD Samsung. I felt kind of fooloish cause here I thought that she would never go for a HDTV, and she ended up buying one. So anytime that someone asks me for advice on TV, I always mention HDTV's just for the simple fact that they should atleast know about them whether they decide to get on or not.

Matt

oh yea.. E.R. is also in HD Thursday night. I would say that by next season, all NBC's prime-time lineup will be in HD.

[This message has been edited by Matt Heebner (edited 12-12-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Matt Heebner (edited 12-12-2002).]

mcq

12-12-2002, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by gyoung:

I think it was a decent article.

--> There were good points to this article. We all said that. However, I hope that Tim C.'s "errors and omissions" insurance is paid up because I am looking into a class action lawsuit.

You have to remember YOU are not the target audience for this.

--> If I were in Tim's shoes I woulda ran this by the more level headed of us for corrections and input. It's so obvious that he or his editor has no use for this new medium. To them it's just a "business" expense. How phony.

Cable is still the preferred way to receive television entertainment.

--> To whom??? Many Spanish folks in the city like DirectTV. 17% of all households prefer Satellite. Actually OTA is the most preferred, cause' it's free?!

I'm not saying its the best, but it is what will drive HDTV.

--> Cable... give me a break. Sports is what will drive HDTV regardless of the media. Women who seem to love ice-skating would drool if they could see it on this medium.

It's the cheapest solution for someone who isn't IN to all this high def stuff.

--> This is an idiotic statement. OTA is considerably cheaper!? Antennae were here loooonnnggggg before cable. You know, before HDTV was a dream.

I also believe that investing in tuners and such is a bit much for the sporadic TV shows that are shown.

--> I have said this before, digital TV which requires a digital tuner provides a much clearer and static-free picture than analog. This, to me, is as good, if not better than HDTV programming itself.

Even TW doesn't have a good selection. They have HBO, Showtime, NBC, ABC, and PBS.

-->So look at other alternatives OTA is FREE, and as all have said there are tons and tons of digital programming available--HDTV AND upconvert.

I honestly was watching only 1 show a week in HD (Sopranos). I don't have Showtime so that's out. I don't seem to watch much of what's on ABC. Of the shows that I watch on NBC, they aren't in HD. Why isn't the Thursday night (Must See TV) in HD? Frasier is.

-->Your example suits one person...You. If you didn't see "Band of Brothers" on HDTV, you really lost out. (IMHO that even borders on unpatriotic.) Seeing it on DVD doesn't even come close. Saving P Ryan was skads better on HDTV than on the DVD. The Badgers in the NCAA tournament TWICE were spectacular.

The programming isn't there for the investment required to maximize the number of HD channels you can get.

-->There are multiple channels of digital stuff available OTA... 4,10,12, and 58 (I am sorry. I do not count 6.) That's more channels than were available when many people (Non-pioneers) plunked down equivalent to thousands of $$$$ in 1950's and 60's for Black and White/Analog/mono TV sets (Reals "sets" of tubes.)

I don't consider my investment in the HD monitor a waste because we get more than enough use watching DVDs. So it's great for that.

--> As it would also be great for many other people... Your point here doesn't make sense. If an HDTV monitor is great for merely DVD's, it's great!?

Until more stations are broadcasting in HD AND there is a cheaper way to distribute that to the masses,

--> Again.... WHAT??????...IT's F R E E

HD will be there for us the experimentors.

-->Are you Tim Cuprisin??

I wouldn't recommend HD to my parents, they don't need to be spending that kind of money on something that isn't mainstream as of yet.

--> My mom and her Fiance are dying to buy an HDTV RPTV. They would be disowned by me, if the wasted money on a RPTV that was not HDTV. I wonder when you "let" your folks by a microwave??

[This message has been edited by mcq (edited 12-12-2002).]

[This message has been edited by mcq (edited 12-12-2002).]

gyoung

12-13-2002, 07:02 AM

--> Again.... WHAT??????...IT's F R E ELet me know if these are free:
http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=11164158&m=1&cat=1761&scat=1763
http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=11180096&m=1&cat=1761&scat=1763

I didn't know $499 & $599 was free. You've got a great sense of economics. After you've spent at least a grand on the monitor you have to buy a tuner/receiver for another $300-$500. That is a great free treat!

This is an idiotic statement. OTA is considerably cheaper!? Antennae were here loooonnnggggg before cable. You know, before HDTV was a dream.I won't comment on your slander... But as to cheaper see above. Most people don't think a $300-$500 outlay is cheap. Given, the accumulated cost of cable and set-top box will be greater over time, cable is still the preferred choice for TV programming in the USA. This makes cable the best forum for HDTV to get a foothold. Make it easy and the people will come. That's not to say that cable won't screw it up.

Your example suits one person...You. If you didn't see "Band of Brothers" on HDTV, you really lost out. (IMHO that even borders on unpatriotic.) Seeing it on DVD doesn't even come close. Saving P Ryan was skads better on HDTV than on the DVD. The Badgers in the NCAA tournament TWICE were spectacular.Personal experiences are the easiest to relate. Now you are calling me unpatriotic. Nice.

Again.... WHAT??????...IT's F R E ESee above...

HD will be there for us the experimentors.

-->Are you Tim Cuprisin??No. But if you have ever taken a marketing class that is where HDTV is in the product life cycle. It will catch on, but yes we are the experimentors. We are the fine tuners, until it is ready for mass consumption.

My mom and her Fiance are dying to buy an HDTV RPTV. They would be disowned by me, if the wasted money on a RPTV that was not HDTV. I wonder when you "let" your folks by a microwave??Again with the insults. I just know that if my parents went now to HDTV, I would be over there every minute trying to get it to work for them. A lot a people can't even program their VCR let alone know which video in they need to choose. It seems trival to us, but the average user would be lost.

[This message has been edited by gyoung (edited 12-13-2002).]

[This message has been edited by gyoung (edited 12-13-2002).]

ReesR

12-13-2002, 10:05 AM

mcq gets the longest post award.

Tom, get it out of the closet and dust it off. http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Rees

Kevin Arnold

12-13-2002, 10:19 AM

Lets push this thread back on topic and stick to reviewing Tim Cuprisin's work. Passion is good as long as we don't take it to a personal level.

gyoung

12-13-2002, 10:46 AM

Agreed.

Joseph S

12-13-2002, 04:15 PM

$60 x 6 months = OTA for life of warantee or device + $20 Antenna

versus

$60 x number of months cable service for service only. At 6 months, cost is equal but ownsership established on OTA. At 1 year, OTA is $360 less. At 2 year, OTA is $1080 cheaper. At 3 years it is $1800 cheaper. They've just paid for the HDTV and Decoder at 3 years. After 3 years they just keep on paying Time Warner or service ends. If you are getting service for just 2 months you have earned the cost. If you decide not to continue you can sell the OTA decoder you will make back the difference.

There's not doubt in my mind what is a true bargain. Buy a HDTV PC card and enjoy recording + OTA. This also gives you the extra cash to pay 3 months cable for Sopranos or whatever and still have money to spare. At this point the quality of OTA is superior as well.

I just know that if my parents went now to HDTV, I would be over there every minute trying to get it to work for them.

How is this any different from Cable? Tuner Box + TV set. If they want separate ins then label them as VCR, DVD, and HDTV. At least component inputs are color coded. I've seen some pretty strange incorrect coax hookups. http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Joseph S (edited 12-13-2002).]

gyoung

12-14-2002, 08:16 AM

I stated that I understand that it may be cheaper over the long run, but you and I know that most people don't look at it that way. Most people will look at it as a $600 now or just $60 a month.

For example, the same thing applys in reverse for the discounts at Best Buy. How many people do you know that say "I got $200 off for subscribing to MSN!" Only that it turns out they are locked in at $19.99 a month for a year. So in the end they are out $40 and have a lousy service provider.

Most people (as the people the article was targeted at) aren't as proactive when it comes to stuff like this. That's the reality.

How is this any different from Cable? Tuner Box + TV set. If they want separate ins then label them as VCR, DVD, and HDTV. At least component inputs are color coded. I've seen some pretty strange incorrect coax hookups.As far as it goes with my HDTV tuner I have to change the video to the HD signal and the audio to the HD at the same time. Otherwise you are watching the HD picture but listening to the analog sound. When my parents have been over here they get to the point where they turn the TV off because the are getting a picture with no audio or audio with no picture. For a non-techie this is a headache.

[This message has been edited by gyoung (edited 12-14-2002).]

sp44again

12-14-2002, 08:58 PM

Getting HD OTA is nowhere near free. It's not just $300-500 either. You need to buy an antenna also. Plus if you want other channels you need Directv or TW still. So if I rent through TW I get all the channels at once and future upgrades like HD PVR. You buy a OTA receiver now and probably will buy a better one in the future so how much more is that. I have Directv now and would rather rent then drop the bucks for a Directv HD box. Sorry for the rambling. http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/smile.gif

By the way I thought Tom's article was pretty good for someone who hasn't been using the technology long.

[This message has been edited by sp44again (edited 12-14-2002).]

Joseph S

12-14-2002, 10:23 PM

You need to buy an antenna also. Plus if you want other channels you need Directv or TW still.

The antenna is $9.95-$20. What other channels? http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/wink.gif OTA nets me NBC, ABC, CBS+partial HDNET, and PBS. TWC has HBO and Showtime, but the other channels don't work so well. I'd be more than willing to keep TW longer as a second source if they would allow me not to receive all the "other" channels. You can't get HD without paying for the analog and digital P&S crap. Spend the extra money on some DVDs or DVHS.

I already have HD PVR with the HiPix at the cost of only Hard Drive space. A Time Warner PVR would be a worthless piece of equipment at a much higher monthly cost. Without the option to upgrade the Hard Drive, you'll fill it in no time. 1 Hr of HiDef is 8GB. The best deal are the old DISH Network STB that would allow recording onto DVHS of HBO/Showtime.

The only way Time Warner could keep me as a customer is to keep the rates the same as pre Jan 1, 2003 and to offer HDNET, Discovery HD, and all Locals in HD without technical glitches. Season 4 of the Sopranos is over and most likely so is my use of TW HD seeing as the pops are not getting fixed.

[This message has been edited by Joseph S (edited 12-14-2002).]

sp44again

12-14-2002, 11:20 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joseph S:
[B] The antenna is $9.95-$20. What other channels? http://www.milwaukeehdtv.org/ubb/wink.gif OTA nets me NBC, ABC, CBS+partial HDNET, and PBS. TWC has HBO and Showtime

I think there are a few more channels besides those to watch. I know you are hung up on HD but I watch other channels besides HD channels. The other thing about the antenna is trying to find a place to mount it that receives all the HD channels. The only HD channel dish has is HDNET. Big deal. I'm not buying a Directv HD box for that.

mcq

12-15-2002, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by kjarnold:
Lets push this thread back on topic and stick to reviewing Tim Cuprisin's work. Passion is good as long as we don't take it to a personal level.

I feel that it is important that if you want to make a contribution to this board, especially when you believe you are making a point or an argument, you should be prepared to defend your point or abandon it.

To gyoung....

First of all, it would have been a libelous comment, not slanderous. Libel is printed, slander is spoken. Secondly, calling you an idiot which I DID NOT! may or may not be libelous, while making a statment about an idiotic argument is merly an opinion. Because of the First amendment, I have the right to make comments (idiotic or otherwise) about your comments or points. Thirdly, how is it different that I question your points, yet YOU feel that you have the right to question the intelligence of "most people." Furthermore, you, yourself called into question... "It's the cheapest solution for someone who isn't IN to all this high def stuff" when you agreed that it may not be the cheapest, just the easiest, given the level of technological/fiscal competance of the masses (my interpretation of your words.)

"I stated that I understand that it may be cheaper over the long run, but you and I know that most people don't look at it that way"

Now who is patronizing?

But getting back to the point... You made a statement, "Until more stations are broadcasting in HD AND there is a cheaper way to distribute that to the masses." I am still extremely confused. Hd is broadcast in some form on 4,6,10,12,30,58 (I cringe counting 6). That leaves 18,24,36,55. How many more stations do you need???? YOU, not me, YOU used the word "distribute." The above stations who have lots of digital broadcasting and a fair amount of HD broadcasting all do so over the air (OTA). AND IT IS FREE, no matter how you slice it or dice it. It just ocurred to me, why are we making so much fuss over whether or not ANY stations are broadcasting OTA????? In your world, we do not need transmitting antennae. The above stations could merely connect via fiber right to the cable company.

I will concede that there is an initial investment for an OTA receiver. I couldn't imagine purchasing an HDTV-ready set with out considering into my budget some form of apparatus that will give me HDTV stuff. The single greatest flaw in Tim C's otherwise decent article, is that he doesn't have and won't acquire the gadgetry to comment or review on all of the HDTV stuff. And according to several people on this board, this is the guy who is guiding the inept masses. That reflects my most serious concern. I personally spent $650 for a DTC-100 over two years ago. Like an idiot I spent lots of money when there were NO digital or HD local stations. I do not consider myself an experimentor as the medium was FAR from experimentation. I would however consider myself an earlier adopter though, but that was 2.5 years ago.

I thouroghly and humbly apologize if you (gyoung) construed my patriotic comment as an insult. This was a.) meant for the you (collective), and b.) was intended to be sarcasm. For this, I am truly sorry.

As far as marketing classes, I could probably teach them. In graduate level marketing courses we learn that "being ready for the masses" means the market is prime for purchase. The question is, do we want a "push" or a "pull" market effort. I believe that you (gyoung) and Tim C. and others would prefer a "pull" market, i.e. you want the receiving devices to be so cheap (and easy!?) that everybody has to have them and therfore the stations will HAVE to develop and broadcast more digital and HD material. For many of us, we are hoping for a "push" market strategy. I dare our local stations to "push" more digital content down my throat (Well my DTC-100 anyway.)
Which of these is correct...That is the question. In a true free market economy, both will have to be in play. In this case, however, I would argue that us "push" folks have the "full faith and credit" of the US goverment, on our side. They (We the People) are legally mandating digital broadcasts because they realize that a "pull" market approach won't work.

Finally, you (gyoung) intimated that you have input into what your folks do or do not purchase. I admitted that I have some input also into what my family members purchase. I guess I was making an absurd comment to determine your criteria for technological purchases.

Bottom line, gyoung, Tim C. or any "pull" marketeers, when do you feel it will be right for the "masses" to be "smart" enough for HDTV?