# What's the big fuss over HD?



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

Just wondering..... What is the big deal over HD?

So many people get so hyped up on "must have HD"... i guess my questions would be...

Is it really that much better??

Is it worth it to upgrade my TVs?

Personally, i think Directv's SD is pretty damn good... so what am i missing?? or is it just cause its new?


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

firefighter4evr said:


> Just wondering..... What is the big deal over HD?
> 
> So many people get so hyped up on "must have HD"... i guess my questions would be...
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here (which is hard, because I most certainly am one), but if you think DirecTVs sd picture is damn good, then I doubt your vision is good enough to warrant moving to HD.

The only technological comparison I can think to make might be decades ago when someone probably asked: "what's the big deal with this 'stereophonic' sound?"...


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

HD is well worth the hype and pretty much everything it is said to be. If you think your picture now is good, then you will be blown away by a true HD channel on a good HDTV.


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

BattleScott said:


> I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here (which is hard, because I most certainly am one), but if you think DirecTVs sd picture is damn good, then I doubt your vision is good enough to warrant moving to HD.
> 
> The only technological comparison I can think to make might be decades ago when someone probably asked: "what's the big deal with this 'stereophonic' sound?"...


You also have to take into consideration that my thinking of Directv's SD good is after 5 years of putting up with crappy cable..


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

firefighter4evr said:


> Just wondering..... What is the big deal over HD?
> 
> So many people get so hyped up on "must have HD"... i guess my questions would be...
> 
> ...


SD looks fantastic on a 4-6" screen.
As the screen size grows the "space between the dots" gets bigger.
SD is 640 x 480 "dots".
"Somewhere around" 40+" the dots are few and far between.
HD comes in two forms:
1280 x 720 & 1920 x 1080. With "more dots" the picture looks fantastic [again].
This may be an over simplification, but is to give a "HDTV 101" idea.


----------



## sore_bluto (Mar 15, 2007)

firefighter4evr said:


> Just wondering..... What is the big deal over HD?
> 
> So many people get so hyped up on "must have HD"... i guess my questions would be...
> 
> ...


While the higher resolution is a big part of HD, in my opinion, it is the reproduction of color that is the "big deal". HD images are so very much more vibrant than SD. I could go on, but what you really need to do is carry yourself somewhere that you can see HD in action. Look at HD side by side with SD and you'll know instantly why a bunch of us whine about not being able to get this or that in HD. And if you don't see it, then yes, a visit to an opthamologist is in order.


----------



## cforrest (Jan 20, 2007)

HD is like the jump from Black & White to Color. You see TV differently afterwards and you want everything to be HD. A reason why you see lots of people wanting every channel in HD carried by D*.


----------



## SMMC1 (Sep 22, 2007)

When I got my HD receiver my first reaction was “this isn't much better than I had before”.
I think DTV is a victim of it's own good quality. When I finish my 2 yr. commitment I may switch back to SD.


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

sore_bluto said:


> While the higher resolution is a big part of HD, in my opinion, it is the reproduction of color that is the "big deal". HD images are so very much more vibrant than SD. I could go on, but what you really need to do is carry yourself somewhere that you can see HD in action. Look at HD side by side with SD and you'll know instantly why a bunch of us whine about not being able to get this or that in HD. And if you don't see it, then yes, a visit to an opthamologist is in order.


I'll have to do that just to see what its all about.... really i wont be doing any upgrading till something blows up.. may be soon though cause the living room TV is 12 years old, just wanted to get an idea whats out there and it its really worth the money to get it..

Of the group that has HD, do you have it on all your TVs ( living room, bedroom, kids room, etc) or is it just a good HDTV in the living room?


----------



## Mertzen (Dec 8, 2006)

Once you go HD you never go back.

My GF calls me the "HD snob" since I don't watch anything that isn't HD.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

firefighter4evr said:


> Of the group that has HD, do you have it on all your TVs ( living room, bedroom, kids room, etc) or is it just a good HDTV in the living room?


 You seem to start with the main viewing room and then change the others "as needed". I no longer have an SD TV in my house.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

firefighter4evr said:


> I'll have to do that just to see what its all about.... really i wont be doing any upgrading till something blows up.. may be soon though cause the living room TV is 12 years old, just wanted to get an idea whats out there and it its really worth the money to get it..
> 
> Of the group that has HD, do you have it on all your TVs ( living room, bedroom, kids room, etc) or is it just a good HDTV in the living room?


Since I got my first HDTV, in the living room, I've replaced every TV in the house with one. Now its even hard for me to watch SD programming.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Going from SD to HD is kind of like going from VHS to DVD, only better. Not only the video but just about all the HD channels have DD5.1 audio which also IMHO makes the switch worth it. 

My brother in law had a 50 some odd inch SD Mits rear projection set and is a big NASCAR fan. He came for a visit last fall and put up a cup race in HD on my Mits 73" rear projection. Before he went to go back home he had ordered the same set to be delivered to his house and called DirecTV and ordered three HD receivers.


----------



## SMMC1 (Sep 22, 2007)

At one time I had both DTV and the local cable co. attached to my HD TV. I put the same program on PiP, one HD one SD. There was some difference, but not much. I had several people ask if my picture was HD when I still had only SD.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

you can see the moisture glistening in someones eyes, you can see individual strands of hair in a normal shot.
this is above and beyond what lighting and closeups provide.
hd program on hd tv is great.


----------



## rhipps (Apr 7, 2008)

firefighter4evr said:


> Just wondering..... What is the big deal over HD?
> 
> So many people get so hyped up on "must have HD"... i guess my questions would be...
> 
> ...


Go to Best Buy or a similar store and check out the picture quality on a big HD screen. Then you will see what the fuss is about  However, I haven't rushed out to replace ALL my SD sets. Too expensive (sigh).

One point, my DTV SD channels look better on my SD sets than they do on my HD sets. Not sure why.


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

Mertzen said:


> Once you go HD you never go back.
> 
> My GF calls me the "HD snob" since I don't watch anything that isn't HD.


haha... that's a good one..... Way back in early 2000's when HD first came out (or atleast the first i ever hear of it:sure a friend of mine rented a HDTV for the super bowl and got HD service though the cable company. I was not really that impressed... to me the only thing i noticed was that the picture was brighter.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

firefighter4evr said:


> I'll have to do that just to see what its all about.... really i wont be doing any upgrading till something blows up.. may be soon though cause the living room TV is 12 years old, just wanted to get an idea whats out there and it its really worth the money to get it..
> 
> Of the group that has HD, do you have it on all your TVs ( living room, bedroom, kids room, etc) or is it just a good HDTV in the living room?


Have an HD 26" LCD in the bedroom but no HD DVR as it is mainly a nightlight and I don't want to re-up for 2 more years to get an HD receiver for it. Do have the OTA antenna connected to it though just in case...

My suggestion is to leave it alone, unless you are willing to spend...


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

firefighter4evr said:


> haha... that's a good one..... Way back in early 2000's when HD first came out (or atleast the first i ever hear of it:sure a friend of mine rented a HDTV for the super bowl and got HD service though the cable company. I was not really that impressed... to me the only thing i noticed was that the picture was brighter.


Then it really wasn't HD. There is no way you can mistake it. Just go to a store and take a look or go to a friends house. Got HD in 2002 and have never looked back. Wife refuses to watch hockey or football if it's not HD. Heck, she refuses to watch her CSI reruns if they aren't in HD.

By the nature of your question to me it's obvious you have never actually seen HD (properly configured anyway).


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

My extended family has had DIRECTV since 2004 and has really enjoyed the SD pictures on their TVs, with no TV larger than 27". When I got HD in 2006 and had them over to look at it on my widescreen HD TV, they were impressed and observes that the picture was "wider" so they got to see more, but they really did compare the picture quality to what they were seeing on their SD TVs, because the SD was "that good". To my eye I think the SD quality has dropped a bit since 2004, so looking at SD on a 27" SD TV today and comparing to HD there is a huge difference. Needless to say my entire extended family now has widescreen TVs and has moved up to HD...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

firefighter4evr said:


> Just wondering..... What is the big deal over HD?
> 
> So many people get so hyped up on "must have HD"... i guess my questions would be...


For me there are 2 reasons .. (1) the picture is much more crisp and defined and (2) the widescreen provides, well a wider picture, giving you more to look at.



> Is it really that much better??


IMHO, definitely.



> Is it worth it to upgrade my TVs?


Well, this of course depends on your ability to pay for a new TV. I don't regret for a second having purchased a new TV to get HD. I believe the difference is as significant as going from black and white to color, but that is me.



> Personally, i think Directv's SD is pretty damn good... so what am i missing?? or is it just cause its new?


Most of DIRECTV's SD I'm happy with .. there are some channels that I wish were better, but I don't watch them often. Still, HD is much better than any SD. Why watch SD at all? Unfortunately, not all content is available in HD. SD content on an HD channel even looks better than SD content on an SD channel.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Let me help with a few points:

- With standard definition, at best, you could go with about a 32" CRT; anything larger than that and you start seeing the effects of the limited resolution all the time. In the early 90s, I knew a couple of people who were so proud of their 60" Mitsubishi rear-projectors, but they looked HORRIBLE. Sure they were BIG, but without quality, big is worthless.

- With HD, you can get a much larger screen size and still have plenty of information to full it properly. A 70" HDTV with a 1920x1080 image still has more pixels per inch than a 32" SDTV at (at best) 720x480 resolution. Keep in mind that DirecTV's SD is down-rezzed to only 480x480. This looks fine on CRTs, especially 27" and smaller, but bad on modern fixed-pixel displays, expecially the larger ones typical of today.

- A Full-HD signal (1920x1080) has SIX TIMES the pixels as the best standard-definition (720x480) pictures, and more than TWENTY TIMES what a VCR can reproduce. The difference is huge.

- When your friend rented that "HDTV", it was almost certainly hooked up to a standard-definition source, which means there was virtually no benefit. Back in 2000, getting an HD feed was very difficult. A whole lot has changed since then.

Bottom line: go to an electronics store, find a 50" or larger HDTV that's directly hooked up to a Blu-Ray player, and take a look. Then, take out the Blu-Ray disc and put in a DVD. If you can't tell the difference in quality, well, maybe HD isn't for you.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

It depends on the content.
HD will not make a bad show good. I'd much rather watch a good show in SD than drivel in HD.

Where the content isn't a question like Sports than non-bit starved HD is a very nice upgrade. Bad HD will make your eyes water when you get blur and pixelation during heavy movement. For the most part DirecTV's MPEG4 system doesn't suffer from that issue.

Movies also tend to benefit from HD in that they can be shown in a format much closer to the original movie theater letter-box format. When movies are broadcast for SD they are generally clipped to fit the 4:3 screen. They are pretty good at this clipping as it has been done for years...and in some cases the director himself actually has a hand in it.

Now, is HD worth the cost? That's up to you. It's an entertainment product....go with what makes you happy. Best thing to do might be to go to a couple of stores and look at the picture...watch for a bit and see if it makes that big a difference to you.


----------



## wilsonc (Aug 22, 2006)

SD is so hard on the eyes after you've been watching HD for a while.


----------



## sore_bluto (Mar 15, 2007)

firefighter4evr said:


> I'll have to do that just to see what its all about.... really i wont be doing any upgrading till something blows up.. may be soon though cause the living room TV is 12 years old, just wanted to get an idea whats out there and it its really worth the money to get it..
> 
> Of the group that has HD, do you have it on all your TVs ( living room, bedroom, kids room, etc) or is it just a good HDTV in the living room?


HD is in the family room, master bedroom and on the computer.



SMMC1 said:


> When I got my HD receiver my first reaction was "this isn't much better than I had before".
> I think DTV is a victim of it's own good quality. When I finish my 2 yr. commitment I may switch back to SD.


It sounds like something in the chain is wrong. You say "when I got my HD receiver", but is it connected to a HD set and in HD mode on an HD channel. If you can't see a radical improvement between true HD and SD, something is wrong.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

firefighter4evr said:


> Just wondering..... What is the big deal over HD?
> 
> So many people get so hyped up on "must have HD"... i guess my questions would be...
> 
> ...


One important thing to remember is that there is a big difference between watching SD on an SD TV and SD on an HD TV. Those of us with HD have HD TVs. Watching SD programming on an big HD TV looks like crap.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

firefighter4evr said:


> haha... that's a good one..... Way back in early 2000's when HD first came out (or atleast the first i ever hear of it:sure a friend of mine rented a HDTV for the super bowl and got HD service though the cable company. I was not really that impressed... to me the only thing i noticed was that the picture was brighter.


It probably wasn't in HD. Just because it was being watched on an HD TV through cable, does not make the program HD. I have seen several times in which people are watching a stretched SD program on an HD TV believing that what they are watching is HD.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

We have season tickets to NFL Carolina Panthers and went to every home game since they started. . . (no comments about the team record needed - just the NFL experience)

The first weekend we got HD two seasons ago was an away game.

The next week we sold and continue to sell the season tickets. NFL is so much better in HD!

As is ANY other program, sports event, movie . . .


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Also, if HD doesn't look good, it could be the cables. Not cheap vs overpriced Monster, but you really need HDMI for the best quality. Also remember things have changed over the years. I have a friend who just replaced his old HDTV with a new one, difference is remarkable.

HD is definitely worth it. Blu-ray movies as well, using a PS3. We have HD in the living room and bedroom. One thing on Blu-ray, some don't look much better than DVD. I saw Total Recall on Blu, didnt look much better than DVD. But Baraka, Planet Earth, Wall-E looked spectacular.


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

DodgerKing said:


> It probably wasn't in HD. Just because it was being watched on an HD TV through cable, does not make the program HD. I have seen several times in which people are watching a stretched SD program on an HD TV believing that what they are watching is HD.


That's very true, especially if someone doing setup didn't hook it up properly.

My parents donated their old analog projection TV to my grandparents, who have digital cable now&#8230; and the cable company only hooked it up using the coax instead of using the S-VHS jack and stereo audio cables. Stuff like that is _very _common when no one knows/cares enough to do it the right way.

To the OP, if you've seen HD and still wonder what the big deal is, then I would simply suggest you wait until your current TV quits working to upgrade. Due to the high cost of new, higher performance widescreen sets, sometimes it's better to stick with what you've got.

I've got an HDTV in the living room with HD service, but also have an HD box on an SD set in my bedroom, hooked up with component cables (yes, a SDTV with component_!_) and the difference between the SD and HD version of channels is quite obvious, even on an SDTV. With both a native SD and a downconverted to 480i HD feed, it becomes obvious how much the SD channel is losing to video compression_!_


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

dennisj00 said:


> We have season tickets to NFL Carolina Panthers and went to every home game since they started. . . (no comments about the team record needed - just the NFL experience)
> 
> The first weekend we got HD two seasons ago was an away game.
> 
> ...


the very reason i got directv was to get sunday ticket so i could see my panthers games... not to many aired here in PA.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

I've also noticed that a number of SD channels can look somewhat like HD in their quality usually they are live sporting events that are no doubt broadcast using HD cameras and facilities. Specifically the colors are very vibrant and the edging is very sharply defined.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

HD is much better than SD.

Course there are different levels of HD quality.

There's Blu-Ray quality--a few steps down there' VOD 1080p/24 quality--there's HD quality before DirecTV and DISH altered it down quality--there' HD quality like you'd see from the Smithsonian Channel or MGM movies HD quality--there's MPEG-4 ordinary HD quality that you'd see on some HD channels on DirecTV--and there's the old MPEG-2 HD quality.

All of the above are better than any SD.

The gap between down rezzed quality such as you'd see from DirecTV on one of its SD channels and the HD quality you'd see on some of its HD channels is smaller than the gap you'd seen between those two sets of channels when DISH and DirecTV and the content providers didn't squish down the content.

And since non squished SD quality on say a 27-inch Direct-view OTA might be compared to squished down DirecTV HD quality--and since most people don't see such comparisons side by side but have to remember what they saw--it is understandable why SOME people are not BLOWN away by the difference.

The difference is easily visible however!

So if you really want the best HD quality available buy a set that refreshes at a perfect multiple of 24--say a Pioneer plasma at 72 or a Panasonic upcoming V series plasma at 96 or an LCD that does 5:5 pulldown and refreshes at 120.

That's about as good as you can get.

If you don't want to buy Blu-ray try VOD DirecTV movies if you have one of those sets. If you don't want to do that watch any HD from DirecTV or FIOS if it is available.

As long as you don't see the difference ANYTHING is good enough.

Once you are able to see the difference you will know the difference.

It may BUG you--on the other hand your viewing tastes might have just become more discriminating.

For some people around here that is a good thing--for others even talking about it is a bad thing.

Bottom line--buy HD! It's great and you'll love it!


----------



## ciurca (Apr 14, 2009)

For me, making the HD switch can be compared to switching to broadband from dial-up. I remember thinking that I didn't need DSL or Cable bandwidth back around 1999-2000. Well, once I made the switch, I couldn't ever imagine not having adequate bandwidth. Then websites became so content rich, broadband access is almost a requirement.

For me, sports in HD really show it's difference. I can't watch NFL without it. A few seasons back CBS was still only broadcasting half their weekly games in HD. At the time, it seemed like my team, the Ravens, got stuck with the SD feeds a lot. I was so used to HD for games, it almost ruined the games for me.


----------



## ARKDTVfan (May 19, 2003)

SD like looking through glass with soap scum on it
HD like looking through nothing but thin air


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

Hopefully D* will offer a basic HD package for less $. As it stands I simply cannot afford to justify the extra dollars to view HD, especially when you'll need to shell out at least 700$ just for the new TV alone.


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> The only technological comparison I can think to make might be decades ago when someone probably asked: "what's the big deal with this 'stereophonic' sound?"...


I think a better comparison is when someone asked "what's the big deal with this new color TV thing-a-ma-gig. Isn't black and white good enough?"

To me, going from SD to HD is like going from B&W to color.


----------



## GodisGreat79 (Jun 12, 2006)

I agree I am happy with my SD TV sets and this is coming from a 29 year old also.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I'll give you my experience. I only have 1 HDTV - and it's not that big - 32". But after we got it, and we had some family over (it's important to note that I was the only one there who had an HDTV at the time). I flipped around on TV and settled on a hockey game. My brother and father in law both said the same thing at the same time: "wow! I can see the puck!"

I do agree with the comments - it's more than just the sharper picture - it's the vibrancy of the picture too. It just looks more natural - more realistic.


----------



## REDSKINSFAN47 (Sep 2, 2007)

firefighter4evr said:


> You also have to take into consideration that my thinking of Directv's SD good is after 5 years of putting up with crappy cable..


i too have suffered a few years of comcast,to me D* s sd picture looks fine on my 1 remaining sd dtv,but it looks bad on hd tvs and true hd there is no going back


----------



## REDSKINSFAN47 (Sep 2, 2007)

ciurca said:


> For me, making the HD switch can be compared to switching to broadband from dial-up. I remember thinking that I didn't need DSL or Cable bandwidth back around 1999-2000. Well, once I made the switch, I couldn't ever imagine not having adequate bandwidth. Then websites became so content rich, broadband access is almost a requirement.
> 
> For me, sports in HD really show it's difference. I can't watch NFL without it. A few seasons back CBS was still only broadcasting half their weekly games in HD. At the time, it seemed like my team, the Ravens, got stuck with the SD feeds a lot. I was so used to HD for games, it almost ruined the games for me.


+1 and welcome to dbs talk


----------



## Tallgntlmn (Jun 8, 2007)

REDSKINSFAN47 said:


> i too have suffered a few years of comcast,to me D* s sd picture looks fine on my 1 remaining sd dtv,but it looks bad on hd tvs and true hd there is no going back


I'd venture to say that my SDTV with a HR22 looks better than my buddy's HDTV on Comcast.

Aside from the picture, the DD 5.1 makes all the difference. When they do "crank it up" on Nascar, it is SO much better in 5.1 than fake pro-logic. Even baseball is better.

Speaking of HD picture, I never knew that the Ravens had blue in their uniforms. I thought it was purple all these years. Saw it on a D* feed on a 50" 120Hz Sammy the year the Pats went undefeated. Made me really want that TV.


----------



## TEN89 (Jun 27, 2003)

SMMC1 said:


> At one time I had both DTV and the local cable co. attached to my HD TV. I put the same program on PiP, one HD one SD. There was some difference, but not much. I had several people ask if my picture was HD when I still had only SD.


Bull! lol And I bet you think dial up is way better than broadband


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

Tallgntlmn said:


> I'd venture to say that my SDTV with a HR22 looks better than my buddy's HDTV on Comcast.
> 
> Aside from the picture, the DD 5.1 makes all the difference. When they do "crank it up" on Nascar, it is SO much better in 5.1 than fake pro-logic. Even baseball is better.
> 
> Speaking of HD picture, I never knew that the Ravens had blue in their uniforms. I thought it was purple all these years. Saw it on a D* feed on a 50" 120Hz Sammy the year the Pats went undefeated. Made me really want that TV.


Do a lot of sporting events really take advantage of 5.1 though? I'm not a NASCAR fan but in the past the audio seemed to only be monaural through the center speaker. Same with many college and pro football games on ESPN and ABC. Have they gotten better? I've always thought football and NASCAR could benefit from some sound quality investments to really make the audio pop.


----------



## Maui (Feb 17, 2009)

If you can't see the difference between SD and HD should just stick with SD. I find HD to be remarkable just as I found DVD to be superior to VHS. But, it really depends on what you're watching. If you're watching old sitcoms the difference won't be worth it, but if you watch Discovery the difference is incredible.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

rhipps said:


> Go to Best Buy or a similar store and check out the picture quality on a big HD screen. Then you will see what the fuss is about


And the nice thing is that nowadays, unlike when I bought my first HDTV in 2005, stores have an HD source feeding to their TVs.

Bottom line, if you're heavy into Sports, Movies, and really TV in general, you'll benefit from and enjoy the leap to HD.


----------



## Tallgntlmn (Jun 8, 2007)

Tom Servo said:


> Do a lot of sporting events really take advantage of 5.1 though? I'm not a NASCAR fan but in the past the audio seemed to only be monaural through the center speaker. Same with many college and pro football games on ESPN and ABC. Have they gotten better? I've always thought football and NASCAR could benefit from some sound quality investments to really make the audio pop.


I don't know if they really take advantage of it like movies and regular shows do. I can just say what I hear now compared to what I heard on my old D-TiVo. The sound is much, much better than it was in plain stereo with surround effects turned on, IMHO.

This is what I can tell so far. When watching MLB, I can hear the crowd in the rear surround, people yelling "you suck" is more evident from where it should be coming from. I'm just waiting for a ball to hit a foul pole when I am watching it. The cardinals that lurk around Augusta National were more evident. Nascar has more pop when Fox uses Digger Cam. The sub pops when the cars go over it. For basketball, the ball hitting the rim will give you a good LFE. I haven't had the HR22 for football yet so can't speak to that. That's just what I've noticed so far. Given the sound, I really want the HD display now more than ever.


bidger said:


> And the nice thing is that nowadays, unlike when I bought my first HDTV in 2005, stores have an HD source feeding to their TVs.


I remember going into Fry's and looking at an HD set that had football on. It was using a SD signal from NFLN and it was so bad that if anyone bought one based on that, they would need their head examined.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Tallgntlmn said:


> I remember going into Fry's and looking at an HD set that had football on. It was using a SD signal from NFLN and it was so bad that if anyone bought one based on that, they would need their head examined.


The only store I stopped in that had an HD feed going to their big screen HD sets was Sears. Since they were the only outlet that could show me what HD looked like on the set I was considering I bought from them.


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

Question like this makes me think the OP might have inhaled a little too much smoke! 
Take a good look at a HD setup and you will see that there is really no comparison!! If there was no difference in the quality of HD to SD do you think D* would have spent all the money on new Sats? Seems to me I would have investigated a little further before going public with a statement like " What's the big fuss over HD"? I thought all you FF's had all the coolest newest toys, every station that I ever went to was HD equipped along with enough lazy boys for the entire crew.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Alebob911 said:


> Question like this makes me think the OP might have inhaled a little too much smoke!
> Take a good look at a HD setup and you will see that there is really no comparison!! If there was no difference in the quality of HD to SD do you think D* would have spent all the money on new Sats? Seems to me I would have investigated a little further before going public with a statement like " What's the big fuss over HD"? I thought all you FF's had all the coolest newest toys, every station that I ever went to was HD equipped along with enough lazy boys for the entire crew.


"The smoke" may have been blown in his face by those in "the blue vests".
I can't tell you how hard it was to find "true HD" being displayed the last time I looked for a new TV.
"To see HD": it needs to be from an HD camera, fed through and HD feed, and displayed on an HDTV.
"Skip" any part of the chain, and it isn't HD, no matter what the guy in the blue vest is telling you.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

firefighter4evr said:


> Of the group that has HD, do you have it on all your TVs ( living room, bedroom, kids room, etc) or is it just a good HDTV in the living room?


Everyone of them is HD at our house. I avoid SD at all costs.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

Anyone want to predict the year that DirecTV will drop the last SD channel? Will it happen by 2030?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

firefighter4evr said:


> Just wondering..... What is the big deal over HD?
> 
> So many people get so hyped up on "must have HD"... i guess my questions would be...
> 
> ...


Yeah, its night and day difference to most, and if you can afford it, I'd say go for it.. but remember one thing, if you don't watch anything that is ever broadcast in HD, there is no point, yet. because eventually it all will be.. someday... probably...

Oh, and one other thing, SD from Directv on an HD tv, especially if its a LCD tv, will not look as good as it does today on your current tv, and will look so awful in comparison to the HD you'd be watching...


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Artwood said:


> Anyone want to predict the year that DirecTV will drop the last SD channel? Will it happen by 2030?


I'm betting that by 2015, all non-MPEG4-capable receivers will have been replaced and all SD mirrors of HD channels will be turned off. Customers who still have SDTVs will use an HD-capable receiver which will down-convert as necessary, just as it's done with the R22 in former 72.5-locals DMAs.

And all of that space formerly used by SD/MPEG2 mirrors will then be re-tasked to provide MPEG4 HD.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

My 12 year old nephew asked me this a couple of years ago (he was 10 at the time) when we were up at the cabin and he was asking about my HDTV and how it was different that what I had before (a 35" SDTV).

I rolled up a piece of paper and had him look down at the boat tied to the dock. I said, "See how the boat looks. Now remember that and look using these." I handed him a basic pair of binoculars and had him look at the boat again. He understood.

The next time I had him over to watch a football game he said, "Wow, Uncle Mike. Your boat would look even more awesome on this!"


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

Yeah I agree with that, maybe back when it was first being rolled out to those in the "blue vests". But now its pretty main stream and every display that I have seen in most stores are showing a HD picture like discovery channel. At least we know why we invested the money into all of this and then spend hours here field testing CE'ing and helping others, cause HD ROCKS!!:hurah:


veryoldschool said:


> "The smoke" may have been blown in his face by those in "the blue vests".
> I can't tell you how hard it was to find "true HD" being displayed the last time I looked for a new TV.
> "To see HD": it needs to be from an HD camera, fed through and HD feed, and displayed on an HDTV.
> "Skip" any part of the chain, and it isn't HD, no matter what the guy in the blue vest is telling you.


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

Artwood said:


> Anyone want to predict the year that DirecTV will drop the last SD channel? Will it happen by 2030?


Honestly? I think it'll be "nineteen-ninety-never".


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

BattleZone said:


> I'm betting that by 2015, all non-MPEG4-capable receivers will have been replaced and all SD mirrors of HD channels will be turned off. Customers who still have SDTVs will use an HD-capable receiver which will down-convert as necessary, just as it's done with the R22 in former 72.5-locals DMAs.
> 
> And all of that space formerly used by SD/MPEG2 mirrors will then be re-tasked to provide MPEG4 HD.


I highly doubt that. I don't doubt that at some point SD will be obsolete but I think that date is much farther into the future. Just look at the problems and controversy concerning the digital conversion.


----------



## cmtar (Nov 16, 2005)

I dont think HD is worth it unless its on a big screen. We only have HD on our big screen in the den. All other tvs are SD and they look fine.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

cmtar said:


> I dont think HD is worth it unless its on a big screen.


I'd agree and I think the smallest screen folks should consider for their main TV is 40". People freak out when they hear that and think of the 32" CRT they have/had, but when you go HD/Flat Screen Panel, it's best to throw out all you know about screen size because it's a whole new ball game. Actually I think 46" is an ideal size for most folks sitting 6-12' away from the HDTV.


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

MLBurks said:


> I highly doubt that. I don't doubt that at some point SD will be obsolete but I think that date is much farther into the future. Just look at the problems and controversy concerning the digital conversion.


I agree. DirecTV just picked up a new local channel that runs ME-TV and I enjoy watching hours of those old BLACK AND WHITE shows like "Naked City", "Perry Mason", "The Untouchables" and "You Bet Your Life" a lot more than some of the current crop of HD-STEREO-DOLBY 5.1 crap shows airing in prime time. SD obsolete? Not in my lifetime.

Incidentally, you can't even watch CBS in HD over DirecTV in Milwaukee yet. You have to get it over-the-air. And it's the most-watched network. Hmmm.

I think with all the alphabet soup nowadays we need a new TV definition abbreviated "EV". It stands for Entertainment Value!!


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

BattleZone said:


> I'm betting that by 2015, all non-MPEG4-capable receivers will have been replaced and all SD mirrors of HD channels will be turned off. Customers who still have SDTVs will use an HD-capable receiver which will down-convert as necessary, just as it's done with the R22 in former 72.5-locals DMAs.


Well, if I was stuck in one of those places where the locals were in MPEG4 only and I had to put up with those annoying GRAY bars like you presently can't get rid of on the R22, I would no longer be a DirecTV customer!!!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> SD is 640 x 480 "dots".


If you're talking about modern SD, most carriers are running 480x480 at best. The SD format is typically sourced at resolutions closer to 752x480.

Along with the reduced resolution, many carriers run high gamma (for "crispness") and/or reduced palettes.

The best comparison would be asking the OP if they can tell the difference between full-screen computer videos rendered in 320x240 and 640x480 and then go from there as the difference is substantially greater than that when taking into account the greater color gamut and range of brightness.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Back when TV was analog,then went digital you could really see the difference.Then when TV went from SD to HD again you could really see the difference.Now alot of the SD channels you are seeing on DirecTV are "downrezzed HD"SD channels.These channels are different from regular SD channels because the colors in the picture look deeper, the faces and objects have a little more definition.So while there still is a difference for some it is less noticeable than before.

If you have a large screen SD RPTV and have had it cleaned and calibrated regularly the difference is even less noticeable,even though there still is a difference.So I would guess the question is up to the viewer"Do you want to see every freckle and mole on people's faces and bodies"?.For some this can be too much to see.The decision is up to you if you decide to accept it.:eek2:


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

MLBurks said:


> I highly doubt that. I don't doubt that at some point SD will be obsolete but I think that date is much farther into the future. Just look at the problems and controversy concerning the digital conversion.


The only problems are political in nature. Leave the government out of it and it would have happened on its own, over time, and more smoothly.


----------



## DrummerBoy523 (Jan 9, 2007)

firefighter4evr said:


> I'll have to do that just to see what its all about.... really i wont be doing any upgrading till something blows up.. may be soon though cause the living room TV is 12 years old, just wanted to get an idea whats out there and it its really worth the money to get it..
> 
> Of the group that has HD, do you have it on all your TVs ( living room, bedroom, kids room, etc) or is it just a good HDTV in the living room?


All I can afford is just one really good TV. I bought a Sony 1080p LCD in Dec 2007 and haven't upgraded any other TVs in the house yet. So, only one HDTV and 2 SDs.

But, it was worth the investment!


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

MLBurks said:


> I highly doubt that. I don't doubt that at some point SD will be obsolete but I think that date is much farther into the future. Just look at the problems and controversy concerning the digital conversion.


I'm not saying that there won't be SD channels, or that there won't be SD shown on HD channels, but DirecTV will have purged all of the SD-only equipment from the field and re-tasked the transponders that are currently MPEG2/SD to MPEG4. There are a couple of dozen SD MPEG4 channels in operation right now, that require HD/MPEG4-capable receivers to receive. They are the local channels that were moved from 72.5 to 99 or 103 that aren't yet carried in HD.

The point is that right now, DirecTV has to waste transponder space by duplicating feeds; one in SD and one in HD. By eliminating the SD duplicates, a ton of space will be freed up for HD channels without having to launch more sats or replace millions of dishes.


----------



## randyk47 (Aug 21, 2006)

My wife was more or less ambivalent about HDTV when we first started changing over from SD. Television, at least the technology side, is my thing and the equipment is more or less my toys. I first started a little over three years ago with the theater and dumped a Sony rear projection monster for a 50" Sony SXRD now replaced by the Samsung LCD. She noticed the difference but no particular interest until I finished all the upgrades and we were pretty much HD across the board in the theater. Then one day she comes in from her crafts room where a Sony EDTV had gone to serve out its last days and says "It's fuzzy....is there something wrong with it?" There wasn't anything wrong other than it really was just SD with a boost but she'd just finally caught the difference and now all our set ups are HD.


----------



## dshu82 (Jul 6, 2007)

Am down to one in the garage not HD.

Pick a sporting event, and see if you can get a neighbor or friend to show you while it is on. The best comparison is flipping from SD to HD while game going on, and you will notice immediately. Blades of grass, drips of sweat, individual hairs in someone's beard.... try it, you will like it.

We switched gradually all of our TV's, but got a jump start 3 years ago when movers messed up all our stuff........


----------



## Prince Oz (Jan 15, 2009)

Another way to compare SD to HD is like this;
I had an old SD TV. It was 53" Toshiba. Weighted 800 lbs. was 30" deep, was 59" tall took up a lot of room. (Weight may be a little lower but not much)

I went HD. Sammy 52" wide screen. 4" thick, 32" tall, got half of my house back. 
Oh, try moving a 53" SD TV compaired to a 4" thick TV. If not for the picture, it is well worth just getting rid of the ole Fred Flintstone TV.


----------



## ciurca (Apr 14, 2009)

bidger said:


> I'd agree and I think the smallest screen folks should consider for their main TV is 40". People freak out when they hear that and think of the 32" CRT they have/had, but when you go HD/Flat Screen Panel, it's best to throw out all you know about screen size because it's a whole new ball game. Actually I think 46" is an ideal size for most folks sitting 6-12' away from the HDTV.


I couldn't agree more. I considered a 52" Samsung for my family room, but was worried that it would actually be too big. I went with the 46" model and it is perfect.



> Oh, try moving a 53" SD TV compaired to a 4" thick TV. If not for the picture, it is well worth just getting rid of the ole Fred Flintstone TV


I had a 36" RCA CRT I bought in the mid 90's. I thought it was cutting edge. I moved it around by myself, up and down stairs until I was 33 years old. Last summer, I took it out of the house to sell it at a yard sale, and my creaky almost 40 year old body couldn't hold it long enough to make it down 3 steps. I dropped it on the sidewalk and it became trash. That day was a wake up call to start working out!


----------



## AMike (Nov 21, 2005)

I have only 1 SD television left in my home. I have 3 active SD receivers and will be decommissioning 1 or 2 of them (depends on how I will redo my theater room). I just purchased a new 19" HDTV for my home office which doubles as a monitor which I hooked up to an HD DVR.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

firefighter4evr said:


> Just wondering..... What is the big deal over HD?
> 
> So many people get so hyped up on "must have HD"... i guess my questions would be...
> 
> ...


If you don't know what the hype over HD is, you obviously have never watched an HDTV and HD programming. Give it a try and you'll say "ohhhhh".


----------



## MartyS (Dec 29, 2006)

cmtar said:


> I dont think HD is worth it unless its on a big screen. We only have HD on our big screen in the den. All other tvs are SD and they look fine.


Gotta tell you, I put a 22" Visio HD LCD in my office, replacing a 27" SD set. The difference is night and day, even on the small 22" Screen. Well worth the $249 I paid for the 22" Vizio.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

firefighter4evr said:


> Just wondering..... What is the big deal over HD?
> 
> So many people get so hyped up on "must have HD"... i guess my questions would be...
> 
> ...


Yes, it's that much better.
Yes, it's worth it to upgrade your TVs.

This is like comparing old 1950's b&w tv to Technicolor. Or a 78 RPM record with scratches to a DVD-Audio production.


----------



## TheDurk (Mar 8, 2007)

I have three TV's: Den (formerly 33"' SD and now 52" HD), Bedroom (27" SD) and Kitchen (13" SD really a mirror of Den feed via RF modulator so I can cook during Yankee games.) Verdict: 33" and up--difference is night and day. 27" is borderline, only worth it if it is your main TV. 13" I defy you to tell the difference while cooking at the same time. Although I might put an HD receiver on my 27", the digital OTA SD converter is WAY better than the SD signal from DirectTV. The 480i output off the HR20 is also far better than DirectTV SD in an SD TV. It's what she said: "Size does matter!"


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

cmtar said:


> I dont think HD is worth it unless its on a big screen. We only have HD on our big screen in the den. All other tvs are SD and they look fine.


I have a 34" picture tube HDTV. Reference quality, and simply beautiful picture.

I also have a 60" LCD HDTV. ISF calibrated too.

The 34" is A-OK with me.

Key think to keep in mind is that you can sit a LOT closer to a HDTV than an SDTV. Go big, but don't let the picture size be out of scae with your room.


----------



## Horsefan (Jul 17, 2004)

MartyS said:


> Gotta tell you, I put a 22" Visio HD LCD in my office, replacing a 27" SD set. The difference is night and day, even on the small 22" Screen. Well worth the $249 I paid for the 22" Vizio.


+1


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

cmtar said:


> I dont think HD is worth it unless its on a big screen. We only have HD on our big screen in the den. All other tvs are SD and they look fine.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I respectfully disagree. We have 26" HD sets in each bedroom and they're awesome. Matter of fact we still have a 50" SD dinosaur and I'd much rather watch one of the bedroom HD sets.


----------



## firefighter4evr (Sep 17, 2008)

GodisGreat79 said:


> I agree I am happy with my SD TV sets and this is coming from a 29 year old also.


I am not 29 yet.... almost there... but, not there yet


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

I think SD will probably go away right around when they get rid of all mpeg2, maybe 10 years. Imagine the number of additional HD channels if they could use the transponders on the 101 location. Maybe an additional 140 (28 transponder x 5 channels per transponder).


----------



## Brennok (Dec 23, 2005)

I keep debating on making the HD jump but have yet to find a real reason to especially one that justifies the cost. Mind you I also watch more tv than most. I may make the jump to HD when the new Tivo comes out at least on my main tv which is only a 36" CRT which would then replace my 32" CRT in my bedroom. 

Also the thought of paying additional for HD on top of SD turns me off. Since everyone likes the dial-up to broadband comparison, to me it is like paying for dial-up and then paying for broadband on top of it or paying for cable and directv. I understand on the channels not in HD but I shouldn't have to pay for both. I already feel I pay more than I should for Directv and then on top of it they want more to give me duplicate channels. 

I will be curious also if DTV requires people to get HD if they want the new Tivo.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Brennok said:


> I will be curious also if DTV requires people to get HD if they want the new Tivo.


Yes, the new TiVo will be HD, and HD programming is required for all accounts with (modern) HD receivers. It's only an extra $10/month.


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

Brennok said:


> Since everyone likes the dial-up to broadband comparison, to me it is like paying for dial-up and then paying for broadband on top of it or paying for cable and directv.


Well, look at it this way: broadband is usually more expensive than dial-up. You pay more, you get more. You still can access dial-up friendly content, but also new rich media you couldn't wait on before.

The same thing is true of the HD channels: you pay for the low res fuzzy SD pictures (fuzzy only cause D* compresses the crap out of them) and you pay more to get more, in this case more pixels and more color.

If you happen to leave DirecTV out of the equation, the HD content is available for free for many people by just tossing up a cheap antenna. I put a cheapo in the attic, and despite being 45-55 miles from towers in two markets, I get a few HDTV channels (ABC, PBS, NBC) pretty reliably and all for free.


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

DodgerKing said:


> The only problems are political in nature. Leave the government out of it and it would have happened on its own, over time, and more smoothly.


I agree with that. But unfortunately I see our government getting bigger and bigger. So I don't see the government ever staying out of it.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Brennok said:


> I keep debating on making the HD jump but have yet to find a real reason to especially one that justifies the cost. Mind you I also watch more tv than most. I may make the jump to HD when the new Tivo comes out at least on my main tv which is only a 36" CRT which would then replace my 32" CRT in my bedroom.
> 
> Also the thought of paying additional for HD on top of SD turns me off. Since everyone likes the dial-up to broadband comparison, to me it is like paying for dial-up and then paying for broadband on top of it or paying for cable and directv. I understand on the channels not in HD but I shouldn't have to pay for both. I already feel I pay more than I should for Directv and then on top of it they want more to give me duplicate channels.
> 
> I will be curious also if DTV requires people to get HD if they want the new Tivo.


+1. I see a difference but not a $4000 (3 TVs plus Blu-Ray player) + $15/month difference. I mean, why HD? So I can marvel at each of Elmo's individual red strands of hair? So I can count the eyelashes on Jon Stewart? If I want to see individual blades of grass move, I can look out the other square appliance I have in my living room. It's called a "window" and it shows a view of "outside". You all should try being "outside" sometime -- you can access it through a device called a "door".

For all that money I would spend in equipment, I could just GO there. I hear being there in person is even better than HD. 

(FYI, I only pay $20/month for broadband.)


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> For all that money I would spend in equipment, I could just GO there. I hear being there in person is even better than HD.


 HDTV may not be for everyone, but "I've been places" that I'd never be able to go.
PBS HD & Discovery HD Theater have shown me a few.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> +1. I see a difference but not a $4000 (3 TVs plus Blu-Ray player) + $15/month difference. I mean, why HD? So I can marvel at each of Elmo's individual red strands of hair? So I can count the eyelashes on Jon Stewart? If I want to see individual blades of grass move, I can look out the other square appliance I have in my living room. It's called a "window" and it shows a view of "outside". You all should try being "outside" sometime -- you can access it through a device called a "door".
> 
> For all that money I would spend in equipment, I could just GO there. I hear being there in person is even better than HD.
> 
> (FYI, I only pay $20/month for broadband.)


It is not necessary to replace "everything" to go HD. You can spend as little as $600.00 now a 42" 720p set and update just your main viewing location and leave the rest SD. Add $99 for an HD DVR if you are a DVR user, a cheap upconvert DVD player if you want for another $50.00 (optional). 
Add all that up and the additional $10 / month for HD access (not $15) and you can be HD for 2 years for around $1000.00. 
CAN you spend a whole lot more upgrading to HD? Sure, but there's no reason to unless you want to.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

braven said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I respectfully disagree. We have 26" HD sets in each bedroom and they're awesome. Matter of fact we still have a 50" SD dinosaur and I'd much rather watch one of the bedroom HD sets.


I couldn't agree more;

Since I'm only about 5 1/2 feet from the screen I bought a 26" Samsung LCD, the "SyncMaster T260HD" for my bedroom and the picture is like night and day from the old 4:3 20" CRT SDTV it replaced. And at only 26" it is still full HD at 1080P and even accepts 1080P/24 Hz inputs with no problems.

Specifically though it's WUXGA resolution at 1920 x 1200 as it is derived from Sammy's popular "SyncMaster" computer monitor series, so as to be expected the aspect ratio is actually 16:10. Therefore to fully fill the screen without any matte bars (the "wide" setting) it has to crop the HD signal back by ~10% from 16:9-->16:10.

But even with this minor drawback, I never want to go back to SD television sets again!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> I couldn't agree more;
> 
> Since I'm only about 5 1/2 feet from the screen I bought a 26" Samsung LCD, the "SyncMaster T260HD" for my bedroom and the picture is like night and day from the old 4:3 20" CRT SDTV it replaced. And at only 26" it is still full HD at 1080P and even accepts 1080P/24 Hz inputs with no problems.
> 
> ...


"dot pitch" can be a big differance. I used a HDTV tuner card on my PC's CRT 1600x1200 monitor, and the image was outstanding.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> +1. I see a difference but not a $4000 (3 TVs plus Blu-Ray player) + $15/month difference. I mean, why HD? So I can marvel at each of Elmo's individual red strands of hair? So I can count the eyelashes on Jon Stewart? If I want to see individual blades of grass move, I can look out the other square appliance I have in my living room. It's called a "window" and it shows a view of "outside". You all should try being "outside" sometime -- you can access it through a device called a "door".


You can make the same arguments against watching TV at all. Why watch movies on TV when you can go to the theater and see them on a huge screen?

Most folks enjoy watching TV at home, and HD makes doing so a more enjoyable experience for most people. And while we still think of HDTV has "special", it is very quickly becoming just "TV", while standard-def is becoming "bad TV."

When they were first released, 386 computers were EXPENSIVE and blazing fast by the standards of the day, and those same computers do the same job at the same speed they always did, but no one uses them anymore. Why? Because today, we expect our computers to do so much more.

The difference between computers and TVs is that TVs tend to have a much longer usable lifespan...


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> "dot pitch" can be a big differance. I used a HDTV tuner card on my PC's CRT 1600x1200 monitor, and the image was outstanding.


I actually still have a set-up like that on the main family computer (an upgraded Dell 9100 desktop) with an HDTV tuner card. However while the monitor, a Dell 20" Ultra Sharp 2007FP, produces an outstanding picture for computer related imagery at 1600 x 1200 (UXGA) as you say, it's rather ridiculously slow 16 ms response time makes it totally inappropriate for watching television.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> I actually still have a set-up like that on the main family computer (an upgraded Dell 9100 desktop) with an HDTV tuner card. However while the monitor, a Dell 20" Ultra Sharp 2007FP, produces an outstanding picture for computer related imagery at 1600 x 1200 (UXGA) as you say, it's rather ridiculously slow 16 ms response time makes it totally inappropriate for watching television.


 I have the same monitor on this PC and it frankly doesn't hold a candle to The Viewsonic CRT, but then I do have a desktop I can use.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> HDTV may not be for everyone, but "I've been places" that I'd never be able to go.
> PBS HD & Discovery HD Theater have shown me a few.


Prior to my going HD posts/threads by those who already had used to irritate me. After I went HD I understood completely. Yes, it's an investment, but you can say the same about any form of entertainment. I fretted it before I did and made sure of the return policy, but within a few hours of my first HD set being in my house showing me HD content I'd recorded on the HR10-250, I realized there was no way I was taking that set back. And that's the bottom line, until you have an HD set in your house *connected to an HD source* you really have no point of reference.

And to return to my reason for quoting vos, when I watched travel shows on PBS-HD I realized the value of those shows. Smart Travels with Rudy Maxa for example, I felt like I was really seeing Hawaii for the first time, and I didn't have to pay for air fare, food, and lodging. Sure, it would be nice to go there in person, but I never felt like I was "there" when I watched travel shows in SD.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> It is not necessary to replace "everything" to go HD. You can spend as little as $600.00 now a 42" 720p set and update just your main viewing location and leave the rest SD. Add $99 for an HD DVR if you are a DVR user, a cheap upconvert DVD player if you want for another $50.00 (optional).
> Add all that up and the additional $10 / month for HD access (not $15) and you can be HD for 2 years for around $1000.00.
> CAN you spend a whole lot more upgrading to HD? Sure, but there's no reason to unless you want to.


Well, most everybody here has said that it was all HD or bust. "Once you go HD, you can never go back". So I priced what it would cost me to upgrade. What's the difference if I spend it in one year or five years? It's still the same money. Plus, $1000 is still quite a bit of money for a marginal upgrade in viewing experience. The still HD programs are nice, but high motion and SD programming tend to look worse.

FYI, for me, it's $10 HD + $5 DVR fee. I currently use a Tivo for my DVR.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

bidger said:


> Smart Travels with Rudy Maxa for example, I felt like I was really seeing Hawaii for the first time, and I didn't have to pay for air fare, food, and lodging. Sure, it would be nice to go there in person, but I never felt like I was "there" when I watched travel shows in SD.


When I actually went to Hawaii, I felt like I was seeing for the first time as well.  HD doesn't do it justice, either. Not even close.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> When I actually went to Hawaii, I felt like I was seeing for the first time as well.  HD doesn't do it justice, either. Not even close.


I think by now "we get your opinion", though it may not be shared by everyone else.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> Well, most everybody here has said that it was all HD or bust. "Once you go HD, you can never go back". So I priced what it would cost me to upgrade. What's the difference if I spend it in one year or five years? It's still the same money. Plus, $1000 is still quite a bit of money for a marginal upgrade in viewing experience. The still HD programs are nice, but high motion and SD programming tend to look worse.
> 
> FYI, for me, it's $10 HD + $5 DVR fee. I currently use a Tivo for my DVR.


Why would you price it out to do "what everyone else would do" when your opinion on the matter is clearly the opposite of most?
My suggestion would seem to make the most sense to someone like yourself who doesn't see a big benefit to it, but still might partake if the cost was low enough.


----------



## ndark (Dec 12, 2008)

bobcamp1 said:


> When I actually went to Hawaii, I felt like I was seeing for the first time as well.  HD doesn't do it justice, either. Not even close.


It must be nice to get to travel as much as you. I wouldn't consider HDTV either if i could just go there anytime I wanted to see it.

I am surprised that you talk to others on a message board when you could just interact with people face to face.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> I think by now "we get your opinion", though it may not be shared by everyone else.


Yeah, I'm done. I guess there's only so far you can go with someone who lists their location as "Planet Earth".


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

It's totally worth the extra $10 a month. I'm not sure its worth an extra $99 for superfan,but for $10 oh yea.


----------



## Brennok (Dec 23, 2005)

BattleZone said:


> Yes, the new TiVo will be HD, and HD programming is required for all accounts with (modern) HD receivers. It's only an extra $10/month.


Well my Directv bill currently runs 155.86 a month for the top package and 4 receivers plus the protection plan so paying an additional $10 plus tax for HD doesn't really appeal to me. If they do require I get the HD package then I will most likely end up on Fios since even with 4 Tivo subscriptions the cost is cheaper than Directv especially since Directv will want an additional fee for the new Tivo boxes not to mention the cost of getting the new Tivos from Directv.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Brennok said:


> Well my Directv bill currently runs 155.86 a month for the top package and 4 receivers plus the protection plan so paying an additional $10 plus tax for HD doesn't really appeal to me. If they do require I get the HD package then I will most likely end up on Fios since even with 4 Tivo subscriptions the cost is cheaper than Directv especially since Directv will want an additional fee for the new Tivo boxes not to mention the cost of getting the new Tivos from Directv.


Little confused here. With 4 stand alone Tivo's, you're paying $12.95 a month *each* (maybe a little less for each after the first). With DirecTV you simply pay $6 for DVR to cover them all and $4.99 each for 3 of them for program mirror. And with cable you'll have multiple cable card fees as well. So I'm not getting how it would be cheaper to have 4 stand alone Tivo's. I guess if you paid $1600 up front for lifetime on all of them you'd have no monthly fees....

And to not pay whole $10 to actually watch TV on my $1000-2000+ TV seems a bit silly. 

Premier - $110
DVR fee - $6
So that's $116.
4 receivers will be an extra $15.
So we're up to $131.
Protection plan $5.99

So the grand total I'm getting is $137. So where is $155.86 coming from?

Anyway...


----------



## turbobuick86 (Sep 7, 2006)

The big fuss over HD was 10 years ago. SOP now. 

I've been complaining for years about Directv packaging/billing a few HD channels at a time. Just stupid when it's the norm now, but they can extract maximum $$$ from subcribers by doing it that way.


----------



## Brennok (Dec 23, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> Little confused here. With 4 stand alone Tivo's, you're paying $12.95 a month *each* (maybe a little less for each after the first). With DirecTV you simply pay $6 for DVR to cover them all and $4.99 each for 3 of them for program mirror. And with cable you'll have multiple cable card fees as well. So I'm not getting how it would be cheaper to have 4 stand alone Tivo's. I guess if you paid $1600 up front for lifetime on all of them you'd have no monthly fees....
> 
> And to not pay whole $10 to actually watch TV on my $1000-2000+ TV seems a bit silly.
> 
> ...


Here locally taxes make up the extra $25 dollars or so.
I currently get home phone and internet for 79.99 or 91.51 after taxes so I currently pay just about $250 for phone, internet and directv.

Fios offers the same phone package, same internet, and all programming for 139.99. 4 M cable cards would be 3.99 a piece plus 12.99, 9.99, 9.99, and 9.99 for the 4 Tivos assuming I didn't just pay $100 every year per box for a bigger discount. This would still work out to be less than the $250 I pay now. Also since I will be paying either way for the receivers up front unless I can somehow convince DTV to upgrade all 4 of my active SD Tivos for free or the cost of shipping this cost would be equal.

Now your correct though if I already had invested $2000 in a HD set $10 wouldn't be as big of an issue but knowing it is one more cost when I haven't upgraded it is a more of a turn off.


----------



## GaryAZ (Jul 30, 2007)

KenS covered it earlier but for me the huge difference has been watching older movies in HD. I'm not a young man but I'm too young to have seen movies like "The Train", "Birdman of Alcatraz" and "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming" in the theater. Growing up I'd seen them many times on the "little screen" in pan & scan 4:3 with the sides of the picture chopped off. They were great on TV but how could you ever know what you're missing? 

All of these movies have been on MGMHD and HDNet Movies in the last couple of months. The experience is well, stunning - maybe better than seeing them in the theater in the 60s (but I'll never know!). In "Russians", the color and the panoramic shots of coastal Nantucket Island are fantastic. I didn't expect black and white movies to be that much better in HD but I was knocked out by "Birdman" and "The Train". They were remastered with lots of TLC. It's really a terrific visual experience to see the film as the director intended.


----------



## dfm914 (Mar 11, 2009)

All I can say is Night and Day difference assuming you have everything setup correctly and my eyes are not what they used to be. HD is so much better than SD to me that I would never buy another SD TV. Just my 5cents..


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

Even those old B&W movies look better. I didn't know it until recently, but a lot of older movies were shot in 4:3 native, which is where TV got its original aspect ratio from_!_ So a lot of old B&W movies will be 4:3 no matter what, but if restored with care they can still look stunning. Film really is an amazing medium and HDTV helps showcase what it can do.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

ThomasM said:


> I agree. DirecTV just picked up a new local channel that runs ME-TV and I enjoy watching hours of those old BLACK AND WHITE shows like "Naked City", "Perry Mason", "The Untouchables" and "You Bet Your Life" a lot more than some of the current crop of HD-STEREO-DOLBY 5.1 crap shows airing in prime time. SD obsolete? Not in my lifetime.


You completely misunderstand or are misstating what the transition to HD broadcasting means. Just because a video channel is broadcast exclusively in HD does not mean that it will no longer have any older SD source material on it.


----------



## MIMOTech (Sep 11, 2006)

I have been watching HD now for ten years. I find SD now hurts my eyes to watch it. There is no going back. Even some old BW movies and shows are fantastic in Hd. But of course there is good HD and bad HD. Production quality still has to improve on many shows. Most network shows and sports are good. Overall as production companies make more shows they are learning the fine points of great HD production.


----------



## renbutler (Oct 17, 2008)

I am also an HD snob. My DirecTV fave guide contains only HD channels. I watch SD maybe 2-3% of the time.

If anybody doesn't see a drastic difference between SD and HD, they have made a connection error. Either they aren't watching an HD source or they don't have a truly HD TV.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> You completely misunderstand or are misstating what the transition to HD broadcasting means. Just because a video channel is broadcast exclusively in HD does not mean that it will no longer have any older SD source material on it.


You're the one who completely misunderstood his post. He is saying that some of the old SD material is still better than the new HD stuff. Meaning, HD doesn't make a show good.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

firefighter4evr said:


> I'll have to do that just to see what its all about.... really i wont be doing any upgrading till something blows up.. may be soon though cause the living room TV is 12 years old, just wanted to get an idea whats out there and it its really worth the money to get it..
> 
> Of the group that has HD, do you have it on all your TVs ( living room, bedroom, kids room, etc) or is it just a good HDTV in the living room?


The difference is so dramatic that I don't record anything that isn't in HD any more, unless it is a news program.

As far as SD goes, it's kind of like the frog in the well asking the frog in the ocean how big the ocean is. It can't be explained...it has to be experienced. While I am tempted to agree with the other poster who said, "If you think SD looks fine, then you are so visually impaired that you won't be able to appreciate HD, so don't bother.". However, if you are currently watching on a small TV, SD can look fine. If you really do think that SD looks fine on a 42" or larger, then I resort to my frog analogy, not wanting to question your visual acuity.

All TVs in the house, with the exception of a rarely used TV in the basement are HD. Once I had it on one, I couldn't tolerate watching SD on the others.


----------



## rabit ears (Nov 18, 2005)

Like a lot of things, HD is dependent on both the equipment used and individual's visual acuity. My wife has never seen the HD on our 5 year old Philips LCoS as anything special. However, she does nothing but rave about the picture quality on our new HD.

The newer TV does provide more degrees of black (essential if you're a CSI fan) and the picture seems much sharper even to my eyes, but generally speaking, I like the older TV better.

Before making a decision for or against HD, I would suggest that an individual look at some of the newer sets in conditions similar to what you will have at home. I have an old 36" Toshiba that has a beautiful picture from D*, but when looked at in relation to either HD set you see a lack of depth and detail that's hard to describe.


----------



## Piratefan98 (Mar 11, 2008)

SD to HD is like hamburger to steak. They're both beef .... but one tastes quite a bit better. As others have said, on a quality HD TV, and a properly calibrated one, the difference is stunning. Night and day.

Jeff


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Now that DirecTV is reintroducing the MPEG2 R16 into the market looks like MPEG2 programming is here to stay a little longer.:sure:
http://forums.directv.com/pe/action/forums/displaythread?rootPostID=10531394


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> Now that DirecTV is reintroducing the MPEG2 R16 into the market looks like MPEG2 programming is here to stay a little longer.:sure:
> http://forums.directv.com/pe/action/forums/displaythread?rootPostID=10531394


DirecTV needs to come up with a sensible receiver strategy *and stick to it*. This is just stupid.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> DirecTV needs to come up with a sensible receiver strategy *and stick to it*. This is just stupid.


No believe it's economics,now is the economy stupid?you betcha!


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> DirecTV needs to come up with a sensible receiver strategy *and stick to it*. This is just stupid.


How is it stupid to not waste money on more expensive receivers? R22's cost more to produce than the R16. It seems to me they had a surplus of the R22 and now that they've gotten enough in the field they are going back to the R16.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> How is it stupid to not waste money on more expensive receivers?


DirecTV's stated plan was to consolidate their receiver lineup. This goes completely against that.


Shades228 said:


> It seems to me they had a surplus of the R22 and now that they've gotten enough in the field they are going back to the R16.


That doesn't even make sense...


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> DirecTV's stated plan was to consolidate their receiver lineup. This goes completely against that.
> 
> That doesn't even make sense...


It only wouldn't make sense if they continued to make other receivers. For all we know R15 production has stopped and now they're not producing anymore R22. Seems to be consolidation if that's the case as that would leave the R16 as the only SD DVR being manufactured.

Not sure why it wouldn't make sense. If they have XXX R22's on hand and know that they will need about XX to fill AK/HI and 72.5 markets then they can do a national distribution until they reach the level where they will have j enough in the warehouse to only support those markets with R22's. Even if this isn't the case if distributing R16's instead of R22 can bring SAC down $10 on average they would have saved 4.6 mil last quarter which would have covered adding another 6666 subscribers for the same cost (this is with the $-10 taken off of the SAC reported in the financial call).


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> Seems to be consolidation if that's the case as that would leave the R16 as the only SD DVR being manufactured.


The point of the consolidation was to have an SD DVR that is capable of being upgraded to HD, aka the R22. Going back to the R16 is taking a step backwards in their plan.


Shades228 said:


> If they have XXX R22's on hand and know that they will need about XX to fill AK/HI and 72.5 markets then they can do a national distribution until they reach the level where they will have j enough in the warehouse to only support those markets with R22's.


Again, this doesn't make any sense. The R22 is, for all intents and purposes, an HR22. It's not like major manufacturing changes needed to be implemented to produce it.

I guarantee you that they were not planning this the way you're saying.


----------



## Incompetent (Mar 26, 2008)

just from personal experience.

The r-22-xxx is about the biggest piece of crap they make. 

really that is all.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Incompetent said:


> just from personal experience.
> 
> The r-22-xxx is about the biggest piece of crap they make.
> 
> really that is all.


Aside from a couple well-known issues related to the lockout of any HD-related functions, if you have a problem with the R22, then you have a problem with the HR2x as well. The software is identical.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Watching Golf, MLB, and NFL games has been taken to a new level with HD, imo....especially Golf

For me at least


----------



## SatliteHD (Jun 9, 2008)

DawgLink said:


> Watching Golf, MLB, and NFL games has been taken to a new level with HD, imo....especially Golf
> 
> For me at least


Exactly Sports are meant to be in HD. I think movies are great in HD also. Heck I will take it all in HD! Hey love your DOG!!


----------

