Hi!

My parents are upgrading their TV set, but to be frank, we are pretty confused. The shock first: They use an old TV (not flat), no HD, I'm not sure about digital, and there's also still a VHS recorder connected with Scart.

I think I never really understood the new technologies and those implications for real. I'll write what I understand, but clarifications would be great:
I don't understand the point about digital vs. analog at all, I always thought digital meant HD, but apparently not so. So what is the point?
And I understand HD - higher resolution -, but will television ever (in the next five years or so) be in HD?

The truth is, we wanted to buy a new normal 80" LCD flat TV, which apparently is also HD now and not very expensive (and reviewed well, so...), but we also wanted to buy a DVD recorder. Does that make sense? If TV is in HD in the future, how about DVD recording? I haven't seen any Blu-ray recorders. And how do the connections work? Could I, for instance, connect the old VHS recorder - somehow - to the TV set?
And, last but not least, how about not HD quality on these TVs? I thought LCD always meant fixed resolutions, in the reviews I found they said normal resolution would work okay as well... Puh...

Help! Thanks!
Pete

[subego]

The standard way to record HDTV these days is onto a hard drive. I'm not sure of the options in Germany, but here you can get them from your cable provider, buy your own from a company like TiVo, or roll your own with a computer. If you're only talking about over the air (you get it with an antenna), you have to buy/roll your own unit.

As for how "old tv" looks, that depends. You're right about the LCD having a fixed resolution, so what happens is it gets upconverted to HD. How that looks depends on the quality of the upconvertor built into whatever device is doing the upconverting.

For your VCR, every TV is going to have a legacy input or two for things like your VCR or DVD player. You can plug the VCR straight into the TV and the TV will upconvert it to HD.

[subego]

Feel free to ask questions. I'm leaving details out so I'm not crushing you with info right off the bat.

[subego]

I'm a little stymied by your question "will TV become HD".

Here in the states, almost every real station is in HD. Cable companies keep SD versions of stations around to retain compatibility with old TVs.

Local stations send signals over-the-air in HD, which you pick up with an antenna, (just like the old days). These are in fact, some of the best looking images you can get. Better than your cable, which has an extra layer of compression.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by PeterParker 

And I understand HD - higher resolution -, but will television ever (in the next five years or so) be in HD?

HD broadcast has been available for all public (öffentlich-rechtliche) stations in Germany via cable and satellite for several years now.

[subego]

Do you have local over-the-air stations?

[Spheric Harlot]

Over-the-air is DVB-T (analog was switched off a few years ago), but not HD. Some of it's 16:9, which is marginally better than regular standard-definition.

[subego]

Interesting. What's the rationale for the low-bandwidth OTA?

[Spheric Harlot]

Cost?

[P]

No, the point is fitting more channels into a narrower frequency band. In Europe, some of the old TV frequencies will be used for 4G LTE networking. Note that PAL is 576i (and potentially 576p if the relevant flag is set in the stream for a movie), which is better than the 480i of NTSC.

[Spheric Harlot]

True. But the private stations have substantially lower-quality (higher compression) signals than the public stations. An those differences almost always come down to cost.

Broadcasting a higher-bandwidth signal over the air at the same signal strength is sure to cost substantially more to achieve the same coverage, no?

Vs. cable, where signal loss over distance isn't as much an issue.

[P]

The way it works is that one analog channel is used by multiple digital programs at the same time - good old time multiplexing. With the compression we use in Sweden, you can fit 8 SD programs on one channel, but if you go to HD, that number drops significantly (I think to 2, but don't quote me on that). Moving to a better compression improves things again (from MPEG2 to MPEG4 AVC), and so on.

[subego]

I feel like I'm only half understanding this. I mean, I get the technology, I don't get the business model.

What's the ratio of private to public stations? In the US, in a major market, it's something like 6:1.

Local network affiliates each get bandwidth for 2 HD streams. One is pristine 1080p, the other gets multiplexed into four SD channels.

Hi!
Alright, I'll try, as there are some questions left...

This is the situation: We want to buy a new LCD flat TV, 80 cm diagonal, nothing totally special, but it's HD of course. I wanted to buy a DVD recorder and a Blu-ray player, as both are not very expensive. I found a good DVD recorder which also has a hard drive recorder. Can I record any TV in the future to DVDs if many stations are in HD? And I found a list of German stations that are HD, and they are not all of them I think, but - true - many. And I have another question on the converting... the LCD I'm pndering with has 1920x1080 - so what does that mean and when do I have to upconvert anything? I thought, ideally, all HD programs would have this resolution, but apparently not, so is upconverting happening all the time or ...? Sorry, really beginner with HD...

Thanks!
Pete

[subego]

No apologies necessary!

What's the DVD recorder manufacturer/model?

Originally Posted by subego 

No apologies necessary!

What's the DVD recorder manufacturer/model?

That might have been a bit of an overstatement... I found a great test article (there is test.de in Germany, which, as print magazine, is extraordinary) and there I found various models I like, I haven't any preferences yet -- still thinking about what to do, the best combination... hmm... times are still a bit ahead of me, I believe... I'm trying to understand, for instance, why there are no blu-ray drives on new Mac models (afaik), my parents always liked watching DVDs on their Macs...

Thanks for all the help, getting started, I believe!
Pete

[subego]

Well, I'd say if it was possible, avoid a DVD recorder.

To put it simply, the max resolution a DVD can do is about 700x480 pixels. The best quality HD is 1920x1080. So, if you record HD to a DVD, you're throwing away 3/4 of your resolution.


What do you think Spheric? Are there any TiVo-like (i.e. carrier independent) options in Germany?

[P]

If you're buying a TV anyway, consider one that can record to an external HD without having an external recorder. The Sharp I got can do that, although my model seems to be limited to only a basic PVR function rather than recording for posterity.

(BTW: PAL DVDs are 720*576, if we're being picky, and broadcast media will not be 1080p as that is not a broadcast standard. It is possible to broadcast 1080i video with the progressive flag set to effectively emulate it if the source is film, but that is not the same as the true progressive broadcasts on 720p - which is what HD is in Europe anyway. Further, you have to sit closer than twice the diagonal width of the screen to even see an improvement over 720p, which for an 80cm display is 160 cm == very close.)

[Spheric Harlot]

T-Home offers something like a DVR as part of their subscription service. I admit that I never really saw the point, as I'd much rather just record to the Mac using an elgato stick.

DVD recorders aren't the future; they're the past.

Getting one now seems really silly.

[subego]

That's what I do too. No elgato, but Netflix, and I give Mythbusters and Fareed Zakaria some dough through iTunes.

That's two votes for roll your own, and three votes to avoid a DVD recorder.

[subego]

Originally Posted by P 

Further, you have to sit closer than twice the diagonal width of the screen to even see an improvement over 720p, which for an 80cm display is 160 cm == very close.)

Two things.

He said inches, and I find the viewing distance equations to be suspect.

I'm 11" away from my 55" and I can tell the difference between 720 and 1080.

I can also see aliasing on a retina display.

My vision is 20/20, but 20/20 isn't actually that fantastic. I could use glasses IMO.

Hey!

Alright, let's see: My parents are 66 (mom) and 73 (dad), they had a 10 or 12 years old tube 50cm 4:3 Philips TV and they are moving. They are looking to buy a 80cm (sry here) LCD 16:9 HD TV, maybe again from Philips. They have a DVD collection of 40+ DVDs and they enjoy watching DVDs on both TV and their iMacs.

First I looked into buying a DVR and a Blu-Ray-Player - - but the truth is, I think that's too early. I have read your objections and this is what I think: With a DVD recorder, they can record whatever they want, store it at wish forever, watch it on their Macs. The change to the new TV will be huge, in terms of quality, sound etc. They don't want to rebuy their movie collection nor change their habits too much.
If a DVD recorder works for 5 years and if they buy new iMacs then with Blu-ray-drives, maybe the situation changes and they can still buy something else for the TV, as the TV supports HD. And until then, they will watch all TV stations in HD as long as they support it.

So, this is my recommendation so far, it is not expensive and, I believe, most appropriate. My main concern is if all of that actually works! Can you record with a DVD recorder during the next years, even if everything goes HD? And, practically, how do you connect all that? I understand you use HDMI for connecting the DVD recorder to the TV. Do I need two TV cables (don't know exact term) for the DVD player and the TV? Does the DVD player have to have an own tuner?
Some good advice would be excellent!

Something else: Two weeks ago I knew not so much about HD or Blu-ray, it all just happened and I'm still getting over it :-)
I was happy enough so far (and their moving is lots of work, a new car, new environment, I'm trying to get my mum to switch from 10.5 to 10.7; and they are still wondering how switching from 50 Mbit internet to 3 Mbit internet will feel (they lived next to a hotel and got it cheap, you see... and it's T-Home for real btw!).
I wonder: What will happen during the course of time? Won't they eye adapt entirely to HD and doesn't look SD (if that is correct) totally old-fashioned, perhaps even 'ugly' after a few months/years? I thought that even people who switched for the most part won't be able to see all stations in HD and probably still watch old DVDs every once in the while, as the situation seems to move somewhat slowly, but consequentially; probably done in 5 years, though.

Some thoughts for the nite, thanks everyone so far!
Pete

[Spheric Harlot]

Several problems in your line of thought.

Originally Posted by PeterParker 

First I looked into buying a DVR and a Blu-Ray-Player - - but the truth is, I think that's too early. I have read your objections and this is what I think: With a DVD recorder, they can record whatever they want, store it at wish forever, watch it on their Macs. The change to the new TV will be huge, in terms of quality, sound etc. They don't want to rebuy their movie collection nor change their habits too much.

They wouldn't.

In fact, their DVD collection, and ALL DVDs that they record, will within five to ten years be relegated to exactly the same status as the VHS collection they have sitting around, so they wouldn't have to change their habits at all.

DVDs will be around for a while, but there is very little sense in investing in that tech NOW, anymore.

Originally Posted by PeterParker 

If a DVD recorder works for 5 years and if they buy new iMacs then with Blu-ray-drives,

Macs are about to ship without any optical drives AT ALL across the line, and you're speculating on Blu-Ray support in five years?

Blu-Ray is not the next booming format. Blu-Ray is a niche that hardly anybody cares about. It will probably stay around as a high-quality niche product, in much the same way that vinyl is still around and not going anywhere, but the rest of the world is bypassing it completely or has already moved on.

It makes some sense to go with a DVD-recorder, as it's familiar tech. But have no illusions about the future-compatibility of that: It's a dead end, and will sit right alongside the old VHS tapes, and even the quality difference of DVD recordings vs. HD broadcast is comparable to the difference between standard-definition TV and those old VHS tapes.

Have you looked at the T-Home Entertain offerings?
I think Alice and Kabel Deutschland offer similar packages.
The T-Home Entertain interface is grotty, and Alice has really gone down the shitter as an internet provider (I was one of the first customers back when they were still a local ISP called HanseNet; boy, did they change). But it might be worth looking into these.

[P]

Originally Posted by subego 

Two things.

He said inches, and I find the viewing distance equations to be suspect.

Actually he said inches first and cm later.

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm 11" away from my 55" and I can tell the difference between 720 and 1080.

I can also see aliasing on a retina display.

My vision is 20/20, but 20/20 isn't actually that fantastic. I could use glasses IMO.

(I assume you mean 11' away, not 11".)

720 was picked to generate a picture that was the best you could see at a distance of 4 times the height of the display. For a 16:9 display, this becomes almost exactly twice the diagonal number, which makes it a nice rule of thumb for calculating. 1080 was picked for sitting at a distance of 3 times the height of the display. If you want complete movie immersion, you will likely sit closer than that and need a higher resolution, but that's the basis of the calculation. Note that the math is for regular programming, not for reading still text or running silly test patterns.

However NTSC has a little problem that HD content often tries to work around, and that workaround is only implemented on 1080. Most Bluray players these days can play a movie at 1080p24, and if the TV supports it, that eliminates the distortion from 3:2 pulldown created when trying to shove that recording onto 60 interlaced fields. That problem is less severe on 720p than on 1080i, which is likely why noone bothered implementing 720p24. If you truly notice a real difference between 720p and 1080p at 11', I think that that is what you're seeing. PAL never had 3:2 pulldown, even on analog SD broadcasts, so that feature is pointless. Not sure if anyone has bothered to do it for high-end PAL players, to eliminate that tiny speedup in PAL.

[subego]

You are right on multiple accounts. I did mean 11', and I missed the 80 cm.

As for 720 vs 1080, I've done tests with 30p material, so no pulldown.

If I'm going to pin it on anything other than a resolution difference, I'd say it was the compression effects.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Blu-Ray is not the next booming format. Blu-Ray is a niche that hardly anybody cares about. It will probably stay around as a high-quality niche product, in much the same way that vinyl is still around and not going anywhere, but the rest of the world is bypassing it completely or has already moved on.

This is false. More than a quarter of all North American homes has Blu-ray, with an installed base in the US of 40 million players. Blu-ray disc sales in 2011 were over $2 billion, and is still increasing. Not as big as DVD, and growth may stall sooner rather than later, but it's hardly niche.

[subego]

May stall?

Physical media is dead.

[Eug]

Physical media is in its golden years but it is still alive and kicking. $2 billion a year just in the US is nothing to sneeze at.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

This is false. More than a quarter of all North American homes has Blu-ray, with an installed base in the US of 40 million players. Blu-ray disc sales in 2011 were over $2 billion, and is still increasing. Not as big as DVD, and growth may stall sooner rather than later, but it's hardly niche.

2 billion of what total? And what percentage of those 40 million players are in regular use? Because all those game consoles count as "installed base", but I doubt that most of them are ever used for Blu-Ray playback.

Also, do note two things: streaming/non-physical sales accounted for 3.4b vs. BD's 2b, and that's growing at 2.5 times the rate.

Second, Peter is talking about investing into DVD now, and BD in five years. That's the proposition and time-frame my post was aimed at.

[angelmb]

Sadly, not everyone has a speedy internet access to rely on iTunes or the AppleTV. Download caps don't help either.

I am happy paying for the story, not for the pixels but we should give credit where credit is due, Blu-ray has to be the best thing to ever happen to classic cinema. The outcome compared to DVD's is night & day difference. Proper restorations do help, and so does Blu-ray' specs.

Upfront costs seems similar to me, what I had to pay for a good Blu-ray player might buy you two or three hard disks you are going to need, then we pay onwards a given amount for every movie we buy.

The key to me is simple: how much for the disks.? The irony is that you can usually get the same content cheaper and at a higher quality on Blu-ray media than on iTunes, (at least this was the case until now) which I suspect is all based on iTunes pushing so hard on media consumption and those with a speedy internet access making good use of it.

I am not cheering for anyone, it is just that for some of us, Blu-ray is the only feasible option to enjoy the virtues of HD.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Physical media is in its golden years but it is still alive and kicking. $2 billion a year just in the US is nothing to sneeze at.

Get off my lawn!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Sadly, not everyone has a speedy internet access to rely on iTunes or the AppleTV. Download caps don't help either.

I am happy paying for the story, not for the pixels but we should give credit where credit is due, Blu-ray has to be the best thing to ever happen to classic cinema. The outcome compared to DVD's is night & day difference. Proper restorations do help, and so does Blu-ray' specs.

[...]

I am not cheering for anyone, it is just that for some of us, Blu-ray is the only feasible option to enjoy the virtues of HD.

Yeah, all wonderful and true, and completely irrelevant to this thread.

Peter is looking for a current alternative for his aging parents, and he's considering looking at Blu-Ray in five years' time. By which time Blu-Ray will very likely be almost completely irrelevant to the consumer market (outside of Spain).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

2 billion of what total?

$2 billion for Blu-ray, and increasing. (19% increase in sales y/y)
$6.8 billion for DVD, and decreasing. (20% decrease in sales y/y)

For digital downloads, it was $3.4 billion, but that's mostly rentals. AFAIK, digital purchases were well under $1 billion. That's less than half of Blu-ray, and actually probably close to 1/3 of Blu-ray.

The total combining all purchases and rentals was $18 billion, including physical media and digital.

----

So, again, saying Blu-ray is dead or niche in 2012 is gross misinformation, especially when you consider that Blu-ray disc sales outnumber digital purchases by a factor of close to 3:1.

And what percentage of those 40 million players are in regular use? Because all those game consoles count as "installed base", but I doubt that most of them are ever used for Blu-Ray playback.

The increase in Blu-ray players in 2011 was 38%. That corresponds to roughly 11 million BD players sold in the US in 2011.

There were less than 4.5 million PS3 consoles sold in the US in 2011, which means about 6.5 standalone Blu-ray players in 2011.

Also, do note two things: streaming/non-physical sales accounted for 3.4b vs. BD's 2b, and that's growing at 2.5 times the rate.

Yes, it's growing faster than Blu-ray sales, but the point here is Blu-ray is still growing and still accounts for a very significant portion.

Second, Peter is talking about investing into DVD now, and BD in five years. That's the proposition and time-frame my post was aimed at.

Nothing wrong with getting a DVD recorder now and a Blu-ray player now. The Blu-ray player will also stream Netflix too.

[Spheric Harlot]

It will NOT stream Netflix in Germany.

Have you read this thread, and in particular, PeterParker's posts?

Because this thread is about his parents, not about the beauty of an optical disk format that will never be implemented by Apple.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It will NOT stream Netflix in Germany.

Because this thread is about his parents, not about the beauty of an optical disk format that will never be implemented by Apple.

No it won't stream Netflix in Germany, but it will stream video from other sources in Germany.

On a bang-for-the-buck basis, personally I think a Blu-ray player often has more practical use in 2012 than Apple TV (and yes, I own an Apple TV... which I never use).

But if he wants to buy a DVD recorder for his parents, I think it's fine, although kinda expensive these days. However, in terms of complexity, they're about the same complexity as a VHS recorder, and the discs will play fine in the shiny new Blu-ray player, esp. if you get the same brand.

P.S. Why should his parents care if Apple implements Blu-ray or not?

[subego]

He said they liked watching DVDs on their Mac.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

P.S. Why should his parents care if Apple implements Blu-ray or not?

The only reason I talked about Blu-Ray at all is this:

Originally Posted by PeterParker 

First I looked into buying a DVR and a Blu-Ray-Player - - but the truth is, I think that's too early. I have read your objections and this is what I think: With a DVD recorder, they can record whatever they want, store it at wish forever, watch it on their Macs. The change to the new TV will be huge, in terms of quality, sound etc. They don't want to rebuy their movie collection nor change their habits too much.
If a DVD recorder works for 5 years and if they buy new iMacs then with Blu-ray-drives, maybe the situation changes

And my point was precisely that his parent's shouldn't care about Blu-Ray, at all.

Hello (again)!

Still thinking and trying to understand all this... There are some open questions... And I'm still wondering if we shouldn't get a Blu-Ray-player/DVR combo for real... well, no decision yet, still discussing. Perhaps someone can me help me a bit:

1. DVR: Can I save recorded movies for long, externally (USB sticks, USB-HDs; or is that unusual now?)?

2. Buying movies online: Where do you save movies you bought online? Directly to the DVR, or are these streaming offerings? If to the DVR, what happens when the DVR fails? Do I have to buy everything again, does the store know I bought that and can I just redownload it? And, again, is there an option to save downloaded movies on external media (is that necessary?)?

3. Buying movies online: I still find it strange to type text with the normal remote, is there an alternative? I thought there might be tiny wireless keyboards; but I found many recommendations for iPhones/iPads/iPods, which I find very expensive (and they don't need that, otherwise). Do modern TVs hat Bluetooth?

4. HD (Question not important): Is HD equivalient to 'Retina' on the PC? I thought, as the viewing distance is so much larger with TVs, that it would look identical to reality. True? (If not, isn't there going to be a change again in 10 years? hm)

Any advice? Thanks!
PeterParker