I'd be willing to bet at anywhere for 30-85% of the people with HDTVs don't even watch programs in HD, have an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player, or have their game system outputting in HD. Of everyone I know with an HDTV, most of them don't know what the hell they're doing.
Treeloot on
0
Options
Moe FwackyRight Here, Right NowDrives a BuickModeratormod
edited December 2007
No, but it proves that 50% of households are prepared for the big switch to HD, which, IIRC, is in 2012. Another four years and that number will probably be around 90%.
Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but it doesn't say that that 50% of all households have a HDTV. It says that 50% of all households have a digital television.
It also says that some 32 million DTVs will be shipped next year, with 80% of them being HDTVs. That means that if all shipped HDTVs were bought next year, there would be an additional 11% of the US population that own an HDTV.
Barrakketh on
Rollers are red, chargers are blue....omae wa mou shindeiru
No, but it proves that 50% of households are prepared for the big switch to HD, which, IIRC, is in 2012. Another four years and that number will probably be around 90%.
The analog to digital switch will only effect over the air broadcasts and not cable or satellite TV. Most people with the money for an HDTV probably already have cable or satellite TV, and won't be effected by the switchover. Poor people watching over the air broadcasts on their old TVs will be the ones most effected by the switch.
Treeloot on
0
Options
Moe FwackyRight Here, Right NowDrives a BuickModeratormod
edited December 2007
I was talking about the Standard Def to High Def switch, not the analog to digital switch.
I was talking about the Standard Def to High Def switch, not the analog to digital switch.
I've heard that some companies will offer more HD channels in 2012 when the analog switch off occurs, but i've never heard of an enforced standard to high definition switch, nor can I find any evidence such a thing exists on google.. That aside there are 4 high def Tvs in my house, the only one that has any kind of high def signal is the one in my room with a 360 and ps3 attached to it, its actually very sad
There is no forced switched to any "high definition", just a change from NTSC broadcasts to ATSC. Broadcasters aren't required to supply content in 1080i or 720p, but most broadcasters will probably offer one of the two, or even both, since one ATSC 'channel' allows for multiple simultaneous video streams (six at a time if they're standard definition, less at higher resolutions.)
You will recieve 5.1 channel Dolby Digital AC-3 audio on all channels though, since that's part of the ATSC standard.
I'd be willing to bet at anywhere for 30-85% of the people with HDTVs don't even watch programs in HD, have an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player, or have their game system outputting in HD. Of everyone I know with an HDTV, most of them don't know what the hell they're doing.
Word. Add in "have 4:3 images stretched out and 4:3 letterboxed images stretched out."
I walked into a Best Buy a week ago and they had four widescreen HDTVs lined up at the entrance doing that (4:3 letterboxed stretched out) looping previews for stuff like The Simpsons Movie.
It's a bit generous to suggest that most broadcasters will be supplying HD content in the next few years. There's ~25 years of Betacam and ~15 years of Digi Beta/D-1/D-2 recordings in tape libraries all over the country. I'm betting the ratio of SD to HD broadcasts will be somewhere around 20:1 for the next several years simply due to the huge base of syndicated SD content. For the next ten years HDTVs will only be displaying mostly SD content (unless you only watch HD broadcasts and Blu-ray movies).
I wish to god their was a standard format for HD movies. I'm scared shitless to buy either format player in case a major movie I want comes out on the other one or one eventually flops. The whole thing is retarded. It hurts the consumers and is slowing down the HD movement as a whole.
I wish to god their was a standard format for HD movies. I'm scared shitless to buy either format player in case a major movie I want comes out on the other one or one eventually flops. The whole thing is retarded. It hurts the consumers and is slowing down the HD movement as a whole.
Get that Samsung dual-format player coming out soon.
I wish to god their was a standard format for HD movies. I'm scared shitless to buy either format player in case a major movie I want comes out on the other one or one eventually flops. The whole thing is retarded. It hurts the consumers and is slowing down the HD movement as a whole.
Get that Samsung dual-format player coming out soon.
I wish to god their was a standard format for HD movies. I'm scared shitless to buy either format player in case a major movie I want comes out on the other one or one eventually flops. The whole thing is retarded. It hurts the consumers and is slowing down the HD movement as a whole.
Get that Samsung dual-format player coming out soon.
i'm assuming price is the mitigating factor, or else he'd just buy one of each type of player...and the dual format players do/will cost more than buying a separate player of each type, so yeah..not a smart buy
edit: and to answer yodas question, 800$
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
I'm calling BS. I find that hard to believe on the level of being almost assuredly false.
Edit: Oh, I see, it's just DTV. I still find that sketchy. It implies that 50% of people have replaced their TV in the last, what, 5 years since DTV became commonly available for semi-reasonable prices? I'm sure most DTV are HDTV, and HDTV is only about 15% last time I checked, which was a few months ago.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
I wish to god their was a standard format for HD movies. I'm scared shitless to buy either format player in case a major movie I want comes out on the other one or one eventually flops. The whole thing is retarded. It hurts the consumers and is slowing down the HD movement as a whole.
Get that Samsung dual-format player coming out soon.
i'm assuming price is the mitigating factor, or else he'd just buy one of each type of player...and the dual format players do/will cost more than buying a separate player of each type, so yeah..not a smart buy
edit: and to answer yodas question, 800$
FUCK THAT! I'm pretty much just waiting to buy a PS3 at this point and pray to god that Star Wars comes to Bluray.
YodaTuna on
0
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
I wish to god their was a standard format for HD movies. I'm scared shitless to buy either format player in case a major movie I want comes out on the other one or one eventually flops. The whole thing is retarded. It hurts the consumers and is slowing down the HD movement as a whole.
Get that Samsung dual-format player coming out soon.
i'm assuming price is the mitigating factor, or else he'd just buy one of each type of player...and the dual format players do/will cost more than buying a separate player of each type, so yeah..not a smart buy
edit: and to answer yodas question, 800$
FUCK THAT! I'm pretty much just waiting to buy a PS3 at this point and pray to god that Star Wars comes to Bluray.
Dunno man, backing Sony formats has historically been a pretty bad idea.
I too am holding off buying an HD disc player until one format becomes clearly dominant. Even then I don't feel either of the HD disc formats really offers me much more than DVD does. DVD was a clear win over VCD, LaserDisc, and VHS. Several hours of high-quality video and audio could be stored on an easily handled and relatively durable disc. With the HD disc formats the only real end user benefit is more pixels to feed an HDTV. For most people that's not a big enough improvement to spend money on.
I'd love to feed my TV with HD movies but my DVDs already look pretty good and I already have a PS2. I can watch movies I own or my Netflix rentals for $0 extra dollars. I'd have to spend a nice chunk of change on a dual format player and hope it would play future revisions Blu-ray discs (player profile 1.1? 2? WTF Sony, write a spec and then make products, not the other way around). I'd rather have downloadable HD content and forget about discs entirely. Blu-ray's 50GB discs are cool but 1TB HDDs have crossed the $300 barrier. I would rather download movies than buy a plastic disc.
The other way around). I'd rather have downloadable HD content and forget about discs entirely. Blu-ray's 50GB discs are cool but 1TB HDDs have crossed the $300 barrier. I would rather download movies than buy a plastic disc.
As of early last year the yields on those 50 GB discs were horrendously low. Like, one in five hundred dual-layer discs manufactured were usable. That little tidbit was taken from AVSforums, so you'd have to dig around there if you're interested in the source.
Barrakketh on
Rollers are red, chargers are blue....omae wa mou shindeiru
I'm calling BS. I find that hard to believe on the level of being almost assuredly false.
Edit: Oh, I see, it's just DTV. I still find that sketchy. It implies that 50% of people have replaced their TV in the last, what, 5 years since DTV became commonly available for semi-reasonable prices? I'm sure most DTV are HDTV, and HDTV is only about 15% last time I checked, which was a few months ago.
Actually, the estimate is pretty reasonable. Nielsen's current semi-official estimate of HDTVs in the U.S. is (I'm giving a wide margin of error here) about 20-30%.
Since all HDTV are DTV, I wouldn't be surprised at all that the penetration of DTV is around 50% or so.
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
I don't know. It just seems kind of ridiculous considering I only know one person, at all, who has an HDTV, and they are very well off anyway. And I don't know anyone who has just a regular DTV.
I mean, these things are still almost a thousand dollars. They're still well outside the budget of most people. I still think of HDTV as being a niche market.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
0
Options
jackalFuck Yes. That is an orderly anal warehouse.Registered Userregular
edited January 2008
Man, for $800 I could just duct tape an HD-DVD player onto a PS3. Dual format all up ins!
I hope Blu-Ray comes out on top, as it has more storage space, to my understanding.
At double layer, yes, blu-ray has 50GB compared to 30GB for HD DVD. But that is today. HD DVD has discs coming that will have 18GB layers, and will have triple layer discs in late 2008 that can hold 51GB.
I don't think space is really a factor for either format yet. It might be eventually, but not for years yet. By that time hopefully this'll all be sorted out anyway.
I want to buy HD DVD just for Tansformers....but I know I shouldn't.
Hahahaha. That'd be nice, wouldn't it? No, there were plenty of HDTVs made that don't have ATSC/QAM tuners and thus won't be getting digital broadcasts come 2009.
That said, every TV sold in stores for the past two years or so has been required to have an ATSC tuner, so 50% doesn't surprise me.
Hahahaha. That'd be nice, wouldn't it? No, there were plenty of HDTVs made that don't have ATSC/QAM tuners and thus won't be getting digital broadcasts come 2009.
That said, every TV sold in stores for the past two years or so has been required to have an ATSC tuner, so 50% doesn't surprise me.
Huh. I did not know that, and I work as a demographer for Nielsen (though to be fair I concentrate upon the "real" demography - "standard" households and persons therein estimates). I don't work on the "new" media estimates.
Do you have some sort of source for this info I could take a look at?
Hahahaha. That'd be nice, wouldn't it? No, there were plenty of HDTVs made that don't have ATSC/QAM tuners and thus won't be getting digital broadcasts come 2009.
That said, every TV sold in stores for the past two years or so has been required to have an ATSC tuner, so 50% doesn't surprise me.
Huh. I did not know that, and I work as a demographer for Nielsen (though to be fair I concentrate upon the "real" demography - "standard" households and persons therein estimates). I don't work on the "new" media estimates.
Do you have some sort of source for this info I could take a look at?
Hahahaha. That'd be nice, wouldn't it? No, there were plenty of HDTVs made that don't have ATSC/QAM tuners and thus won't be getting digital broadcasts come 2009.
That said, every TV sold in stores for the past two years or so has been required to have an ATSC tuner, so 50% doesn't surprise me.
Huh. I did not know that, and I work as a demographer for Nielsen (though to be fair I concentrate upon the "real" demography - "standard" households and persons therein estimates). I don't work on the "new" media estimates.
Do you have some sort of source for this info I could take a look at?
Ya, who uses a built-in tuner anyways? I thought you basically needed to rent an HD box from your cable/satellite provider. In Canada, Rogers gives you one as part of your subscription.
All of the above is why media measurement of this type is quickly becoming a nightmare.
Think about it - your average consumer will probably not be savvy to all of this - which means the information they provide to our surveyors might be a bit...odd.
I'm dreading the day (in the not so distant future) when I'll have to dream up ways to make universe estimates for TV receiving cell phones, iPods, PCs with TV tuners, etc., etc.
Ya, who uses a built-in tuner anyways? I thought you basically needed to rent an HD box from your cable/satellite provider. In Canada, Rogers gives you one as part of your subscription.
QAM tuners are highly underrated, at least in the US.
I don't know about Canada, but cable companies will often leave HD channels unencrypted. Run the cable to your QAM tuner and presto! - free HD. I'm in Time Warner Southern California right now, and they don't encrypt Discovery HD Theatre (Planet Earth) or TNT-HD (basketball). It's slightly annoying to move the cable line back and forth, though I suppose that's what splitters are for.
BubbaT on
0
Options
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
People who don't watch TV much, can't justify spending money on cable or satellite.
Thus...
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
Posts
Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but it doesn't say that that 50% of all households have a HDTV. It says that 50% of all households have a digital television.
It also says that some 32 million DTVs will be shipped next year, with 80% of them being HDTVs. That means that if all shipped HDTVs were bought next year, there would be an additional 11% of the US population that own an HDTV.
The analog to digital switch will only effect over the air broadcasts and not cable or satellite TV. Most people with the money for an HDTV probably already have cable or satellite TV, and won't be effected by the switchover. Poor people watching over the air broadcasts on their old TVs will be the ones most effected by the switch.
I've heard that some companies will offer more HD channels in 2012 when the analog switch off occurs, but i've never heard of an enforced standard to high definition switch, nor can I find any evidence such a thing exists on google.. That aside there are 4 high def Tvs in my house, the only one that has any kind of high def signal is the one in my room with a 360 and ps3 attached to it, its actually very sad
You will recieve 5.1 channel Dolby Digital AC-3 audio on all channels though, since that's part of the ATSC standard.
I walked into a Best Buy a week ago and they had four widescreen HDTVs lined up at the entrance doing that (4:3 letterboxed stretched out) looping previews for stuff like The Simpsons Movie.
Get that Samsung dual-format player coming out soon.
How much will that shit set me back?
edit: and to answer yodas question, 800$
Edit: Oh, I see, it's just DTV. I still find that sketchy. It implies that 50% of people have replaced their TV in the last, what, 5 years since DTV became commonly available for semi-reasonable prices? I'm sure most DTV are HDTV, and HDTV is only about 15% last time I checked, which was a few months ago.
FUCK THAT! I'm pretty much just waiting to buy a PS3 at this point and pray to god that Star Wars comes to Bluray.
Dunno man, backing Sony formats has historically been a pretty bad idea.
I'd love to feed my TV with HD movies but my DVDs already look pretty good and I already have a PS2. I can watch movies I own or my Netflix rentals for $0 extra dollars. I'd have to spend a nice chunk of change on a dual format player and hope it would play future revisions Blu-ray discs (player profile 1.1? 2? WTF Sony, write a spec and then make products, not the other way around). I'd rather have downloadable HD content and forget about discs entirely. Blu-ray's 50GB discs are cool but 1TB HDDs have crossed the $300 barrier. I would rather download movies than buy a plastic disc.
As of early last year the yields on those 50 GB discs were horrendously low. Like, one in five hundred dual-layer discs manufactured were usable. That little tidbit was taken from AVSforums, so you'd have to dig around there if you're interested in the source.
Actually, the estimate is pretty reasonable. Nielsen's current semi-official estimate of HDTVs in the U.S. is (I'm giving a wide margin of error here) about 20-30%.
Since all HDTV are DTV, I wouldn't be surprised at all that the penetration of DTV is around 50% or so.
BNet: StandrdError#1826
I mean, these things are still almost a thousand dollars. They're still well outside the budget of most people. I still think of HDTV as being a niche market.
At double layer, yes, blu-ray has 50GB compared to 30GB for HD DVD. But that is today. HD DVD has discs coming that will have 18GB layers, and will have triple layer discs in late 2008 that can hold 51GB.
I don't think space is really a factor for either format yet. It might be eventually, but not for years yet. By that time hopefully this'll all be sorted out anyway.
I want to buy HD DVD just for Tansformers....but I know I shouldn't.
Hahahaha. That'd be nice, wouldn't it? No, there were plenty of HDTVs made that don't have ATSC/QAM tuners and thus won't be getting digital broadcasts come 2009.
That said, every TV sold in stores for the past two years or so has been required to have an ATSC tuner, so 50% doesn't surprise me.
Huh. I did not know that, and I work as a demographer for Nielsen (though to be fair I concentrate upon the "real" demography - "standard" households and persons therein estimates). I don't work on the "new" media estimates.
Do you have some sort of source for this info I could take a look at?
BNet: StandrdError#1826
Here's a really long winded explanation on Engadget.
tl;dr: "HD-Ready" sets are capable of displaying a high definition image but do not include an ATSC tuner, only NTSC.
If even that. I've seen sets marketed as HD-Ready without a tuner at all.
Not that it matters a whole lot to me; my HDTV is used pretty much exclusively for video games and the occasional DVD.
If you want to pick up HDTV from an antenna, you need a tuner.
Think about it - your average consumer will probably not be savvy to all of this - which means the information they provide to our surveyors might be a bit...odd.
I'm dreading the day (in the not so distant future) when I'll have to dream up ways to make universe estimates for TV receiving cell phones, iPods, PCs with TV tuners, etc., etc.
BNet: StandrdError#1826
QAM tuners are highly underrated, at least in the US.
I don't know about Canada, but cable companies will often leave HD channels unencrypted. Run the cable to your QAM tuner and presto! - free HD. I'm in Time Warner Southern California right now, and they don't encrypt Discovery HD Theatre (Planet Earth) or TNT-HD (basketball). It's slightly annoying to move the cable line back and forth, though I suppose that's what splitters are for.
Thus...