Yes, but the more interesting question is how many of those 28% actually have hi-def content being delivered to their home? Many people have an HD display, but still only watch DVD and standard def TV on it.

I love my High Def plasma. It's an awesome techonology...but as the last guy says....there is no content. I can get 8 channels...only 6 are ones I watch with any regularity.

Four of those stations only have high def content on very infrequently as well! So unless I'm watching nascar, NBA or PGA major....most of all the shows are in regular def on the high def stations (cbs, nbc, abc, fox...etc)

THAT's the big disappointment with high def...there isn't any! Come on, bring on the content.

Who buys an HDTV to watch standard def on it?

Seriously.

That may be but how many of us 28% can watch HDTV content. Unless you are willing to pay a premium to your cable company or satellite provider there is no HDTV for you. I live in the Seattle area and getting off air HDTV is next to imposable with all the hills and trees. At the time DISH network came out with HD locals I had a HD DVR that was less then 6mo old. And had just got my HDTV so I could watch my local HD networks. Only problem was DISH is only broadcasting the local HD stations in the new Mpeg4 format and of course my new unit they sold my for watching HD content doesn’t support that. So after being screwed over by DISH Network I looked into Direct TV and Comcast to get HD content. Only to find they are all making people pay extra to get HD. So for now my HD DVR doesn’t get much use and my HDTV watches a lot of DVD’s.

Typo - "he" Consumer Electronics. WTF?

I would guess that many people get an HDTV to play their xbox 360/PS3... That's why I got one, and believe me, there's plenty of hi def content for gamers.

-Andy

I also live in Seattle.. and I get all the network's HD feeds over the air. Maybe you should experiment some more?
Im sure you've visited http://www.antennaweb.org.

It will help you choose the right kind of antenna.

Being as how high-def is still very overpriced. Just means 28% of americans have too much money to burn.

I pay $65 for basic digital cable plus $5 for 6 HD channels, half of which are not HD most of the time,and if I want movie channels in HD I have to pay $50 more, not to forget I still pay $35 for High Speed Internet, Comcast is a horrible Monopoly and should have a price ceiling that is reasonable.

HDTV, in my opinion, is just another way for the electronics companies to sell a better mousetrap. I can't see paying $1500 for a television that will show me about 10 channels in great clarity (which I'll have to also pay extra monthly for) when I have a big standard definition TV that shows me 150 channels really clear already.

It just seems like more recycling in society. Nothing is original anymore but instead built upon established ideas that already work well or have worked well in the past. Look at movies and music these days... It's all a re-hash of what's been done before. HDTV makes things a little clearer, a little brighter, and they even give you some extra real estate to look at (mostly just extra background anyway) but it's not worth the thousands in intial investment and then the monthly fee that comes after.

HDTV is a case of competing with the Jones' and that's really all it is. All about status.

I get standard cable for about 8$ 5& extra content plus some 4-5$ HBO. The internet connection is about 12$ for 1Mbit external. Bearing in mind i'm from Romania, these these prices are still a lot lower from what you guys have to pay.
Of course, we make up with all the other stuff that is way more expensive than in the States and extra small wages.

@Jeremy

Have you ever seen HD (1080p) compared to 480i? It's not just a little clearer and brighter. The difference is amazing! My mother-in-law can even notice the difference. is it worth the money maybe not, but when I need to replace an old TV there was no way I was wasting my money on a TV that wasn't 16:9, HD, 1080p that I'd have to replace or upgrade in 2 years.

Only reason I bought a HDTV was for my gaming enjoyment, and also for the fact that I may pick up a PS3 sometime in the future and will be able to enjoy watching some Blu-Ray DVDs.

The reason there is little HD content is that the cable companies can fit 6 channels with advertising into that same space. That makes them more money and most people are happy having the additional selection.

1080p HD TV's are a complete waste if the screen is below 50-60" in a normal room, because you are too far away to resolve the detail. In a 42" set 768 vertical lines is plenty.

HD set offer better contrast and color which is what people notice the most.

The other reason there "appears" to be such a big difference between SD and HD on HD TV's is that the less expensive HD sets have very poor interpolation which makes SD look much worse than it does on a good SD set.

What people don't like to hear is that a good 42" set costs about $4000 and makes SD look fantastic and most $1500 sets only look good when showing their native resolution.

the higher the resolution, the bigger the tv you can project it on without losing clarity, and the closer you can be to the screen without losing clarity...

i dont think it's a bad think for screen resolution to go up... the higher it gets, the bigger our tv's can get and still look crisp... which really adds to immersion.

there's going to be bumps in the road... just because you go hd doesnt mean it's smart to throw out your old tv.

dvd's on my 1080 p pc monitor look like shit, but on my 36 inch tube they look absolutely gorgeous.

eventually everything will be HD and thus, the problem will be resolved as years pass.

I live in Chicago and get like a dozen HD stations (NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, PBS, CW, Univision, Telemundo, etc) plus a dozen more that are digital although SD. Love getting a WAY better picture than through analog without having to pay for overpriced cable or satellite (which were SD anyhow). I am hoping as over the air HD expands it might put more pressure on Comcast to lower its prices for HD eventually. Till then I will just watch the networks for free.

I work in the home A/V industry and have advised many consumers about the in's and out's of HD video. Yes when SD is up-converted by the set some softening of the picture occurs from interoplation of an interlaced signal to progressive. Also a marginal signal is being expanded by a large factor depending on the new larger screen size being purchased, which leads most customers to the" gee it doesn't look as charp as my old TV" comment. What some of you seem to be missing is that in a short 2 years analog signals wil not be transmitted any longer and will require either a new set with digital receiver or purchase a settop box to convert digital to analogue so older sets will be useful. And yes at the moment HD content is lacking but more and more channels are becoming available the closer we get to 2009. Be patient, things are progressing smoothly, save for the hi-def dvd war still ongoing between Sony Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

HD is great in theory. The reality is that so much data compression is used that the final image often looks like a mpeg with a quality setting of 1. Gibbs Effect, blocking artifacts, color banding etc. are extreme even on some HD broadcasts. Standard definition programs are unwatchable IMOHO. Analog transmission of standard definition programming looks MUCH better than the same shows in digital over an HD content provider (in this case COX). I am completely amazed that this problem with rampant overcompression isn't front and center in the press.

I'm no HD basher. I have been looking forward to HD for at least a decade. After seeing how poor the image quality is on my fathers 52" HD plasma screen, I am sorry to say I have no interest in HD until providers are willing to dedicate enough bandwidth per channel to make the visual experience worthwhile.

To see what I'm talking about, check out this link:

http://www.videsignline.com/howto/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=180207350

as well as others that can be found by searching 'compression artifacts'.

I am laughing out loud at the nay sayers in the earlier posts. I happen to work for a "monopoly" cable company that "over compresses" all of our content. We are a nation of TV watchers are in a period of flux. There isn't a lot of content in HD right now. Heck, HD cameras just went below the 10,000 dollar mark 3 years ago. That is why we don't have more HD channels, there are simply not enough quality channels to put on. Also r of the market doesn't even have an HD TV. We aren't going to screw our majority for the minority...

As the cable company we make very little of our revenue off of the 200 channels we offer. Which means that we are not concerned with dropping 6 SD channels for 1 HD. In fact we are in a war with Dish and Direct TV to add more channels. (Direct TV claims over 1000 HD channels in 3 years.) We want to add more, but it is up to forces we can't control to develop more quality content.

As for compression, we (cable) compress HD with Mpeg 2 compression, Direct TV/ AT&T Uverse Mpeg 4. Mpeg 4 is newer but much more highly compressed, so I am not sure what Mr. Cole is complaining about. Compare the 2 services side by side and tell me that we don't have an advantage.

Also all video needs to be compressed, even the all powerful Blue Ray disk, most movies are compressed in Mpeg 2. Mr. Cole I hate to say this but, that is the same compression we use.

Finally, TV's will be dropping by 0 in the next 5 months with 3 new technologies about to be unveiled. Expect the 28% numbers to increase to 39% by next superbowl. SORRY guys, HD is about to own you. Prepare to submit. Get out your wallet, lol.

To N8, I should have titled my post 'Digital TV Ruined by Compression Artifacts' as both standard and high definition content is ruined by digital compression.

The codec used, 'Mpeg 2' in the case of cable as you say, does not ensure a quality image. Mpeg 2 can look great (as in Blue Ray with a high bit rate), or it can look terrible (as in a typical Cox Cable transmission). If you "don't know what I'm complaining about", I'll give you some examples.

On large areas of uniform color, such as sky or a grass field, superpixels or 'blocks' are clearly visible. Grass looks like oatmeal. Gibbs effect is evident around all objects, blurring the fine details that digital providers brag about. Motion can cause objects to stutter. And then there are the effects that are simply comical:

When wood with visible grain is being shot with a hand held camera that shakes slightly, the grain in the wood will remain stationary (the image of the grain is not updated due to compression). This creates the illusion that the grain is moving on the wood. The same artifact happens with faces. When someone moves their head slightly (which everyone does) the features of the face will remain stationary while the head itself moves. This looks utterly ridiculous. The entire image looks like a jigsaw puzzle of layers sliding around on top of one another.

Sorry to say, as soon as all transmitions go digital, we're probably stuck with this. Content providers don't care, nor do most consumers apparently. MP3's sound poor compared to WAV files, but they are as popular as ever despite better, lossless compression codecs that are available.