# HELP - I think my wife is blind!



## bairdjc (Sep 22, 2005)

She claims that she sees NO DIFFERENCE between HD and SD programming other than "the one seems bigger than the other". :lol:

Well, I can see a HELL of a difference, even between the OTA SD and the Dish locals SD, let alone between HD and SD. I've even tried finding a program which was available in SD and HD simultaneously and switching back and forth to see if she notices the differences but NO...

Has anyone encountered someone like this before?

I even went through the trouble to reprogram some of her timers (stupid stuff I dont watch like stupidman (superman), heroes, etc) to record both the OTA HD (dish doesn't offer locals in HD here) and the dish SD version just to show her the difference, and she doesn't see one!


----------



## davethestalker (Sep 17, 2006)

When TV Land and Soap Network go HD by wife will be gitty with joy. It sucks when your spouse does not enjoy some of the same programming as you do. There is a ton of quality "modern" TV on, but she wants to watch old stuff all the time.

She does like watching Unwrapped on Food Network though  mmmmmm, HD food...


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> She claims that she sees NO DIFFERENCE between HD and SD programming other than "the one seems bigger than the other".


Time for a new wife. :lol:


----------



## bruin95 (Apr 23, 2006)

I have a friend who is EXACTLY the same way. He sees no difference. And this is coming from a guy who had lasik surgery.  He tells people who are thinking of getting an HDTV to not waste their money because it's nothing but a scam.:nono2:


----------



## emathis (Mar 19, 2003)

bruin95 said:


> I have a friend who is EXACTLY the same way. He sees no difference. And this is coming from a guy who had lasik surgery.  He tells people who are thinking of getting an HDTV to not waste their money because it's nothing but a scam.:nono2:


That's funny. I tell people the same thing about lasik surgery.


----------



## sbturner (Jul 24, 2002)

emathis said:


> That's funny. I tell people the same thing about lasik surgery.


My wife is the same way, she sees no difference, and that goes ditto for my mother. Has there been studies on this? Why some people can't see the difference?


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

bairdjc said:


> She claims that she sees NO DIFFERENCE between HD and SD programming other than "the one seems bigger than the other". :lol:
> 
> Well, I can see a HELL of a difference, even between the OTA SD and the Dish locals SD, let alone between HD and SD. I've even tried finding a program which was available in SD and HD simultaneously and switching back and forth to see if she notices the differences but NO...
> 
> ...


Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. If she could see she might not be with you.


----------



## Miggity (Aug 10, 2007)

Cognitive Dissonance?


----------



## zlensman (Jan 15, 2006)

I have come to accept this as a difference in how we process information. In general, women are more interested in the content instead of the presentation. Men are visual creatures and we find the presentation _very _important. Our wives have no problem with their eyesight. In an A-B comparison of a still image from an SD video and the same video in HD, they can certainly spot the differences. However, when it comes time to sit down and watch a TV show, the difference in HD _does not matter_ to them.

I'm making broad generalizations here, but it is a gender thing. There are things that we don't notice that the wives can't believe. Do you notice when a woman changes her hair, what kind of shoes she is wearing at all times, and what her emotional state is? No?!? She will probably be shocked by _your _blindness to these obvious details.

Here is the ultimate test, and I have confidence that this will work well in a forum made up primarily of couch potatoes. Go look at yourself in the mirror. That woman married you and stays married to you. Do you think visual presentation was her top criterion?

Vive le difference! :kisscheek


----------



## Paradox-sj (Dec 15, 2004)

What kind of TV do you have and how big is it + how far way do you sit?

all are significant factors...

my inlaws pick up the cheapest HDTV the could find ($600.00) and thought they were watching HD....they come to my place and see my 60 kuro"Elite and now they are not sure they even bought an HDTV.....


----------



## tedb3rd (Feb 2, 2006)

My wife can see the difference between HD and SD. She can't seem to notice the difference between a dishwasher that is filled with dirty dishes or clean dishes.


----------



## ClaudeR (Dec 7, 2003)

My wife can see the difference, but it's too much bother to change the aspect ration when changing channels. She also records her soaps in SD because the HD takes up too much space. Apparently they just don't care about picture quality. It's weird because she could not stand the picture quality on cable during my 2 week experiment. This may be frustrating, but they find so many other ways to make our lives miserable.

Zlensman - very well put on the differences.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

wives are like that....just show her a show on the sd channel...then move up to the same show on HD...she should see


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

texaswolf said:


> wives are like that....just show her a show on the sd channel...then move up to the same show on HD...she should see


Umm.. if you read his post he said he tried that. Maybe you're going blind too? 

But seriously. I know my preference is to first watch something good, then to watch something in HD.

I'd rather watch good and new in SD than good and old in HD. I'm not going to refuse to watch something I like just because it isn't HD.

Now for sports I am a little pickier, and will watch HD games over SD games most of the time... but I would still rather watch a competitive contest in SD over a blowout in HD.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> Umm.. if you read his post he said he tried that. Maybe you're going blind too?
> 
> But seriously. I know my preference is to first watch something good, then to watch something in HD.
> 
> ...


oops...sorry...guess i am blind

Im the opposite...after having HD...i can't stand to watch SD..unless i have to. I guess i am to picky with movies and stuff...my buddy bought transformers on DVD, and wanted to watch it...but I told him not until i pick it up on HD DVD...lol


----------



## rphillips187 (Oct 14, 2007)

+1

My wife sees no difference whatsoever. I've tried switching back and forth between the same show in SD and HD and I get nothing from her.

What bothers me is that she refuses to even watch the HD channels, even when a local is actually broadcasting in HD. I'll get home from work and, sure enough, the TV is on the same old SD channels she always watches. Her excuse is always the same anyways: "The SD channels are easier to find and I can't even notice a difference anyways." 

Maybe I'll block the SD channels...hmm....


----------



## bairdjc (Sep 22, 2005)

well she does watch soaps but none of them are in HD (even though the OTA feed is FAR better than the E* feed). Actually I should thank D* for taking that POS "Passions" so it doesn't contaminate my DVR anymore :lol:

On several occasions I've come into the room to find her watching something in SD when it's in HD on another channel and told her to switch.

We're about 12' away from the TV when viewing and it's a Westy 37" w/720p (yes I know not a top end TV but compared to a 27" CRT there's no comparison!). To me, the biggest difference can be seen in sports, but of course she doesn't watch sports so......


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

I would tell her: No sex until you can explain to me why the HD channels are better. If she stars jumping full of joy, then you have a more serious problem.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

> Maybe I'll block the SD channels...hmm....


Thats what I did!



> I would tell her: No sex until you can explain to me why the HD channels are better. If she stars jumping full of joy, then you have a more serious problem.


then he will have to watch SD *and* get no sex!


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

bairdjc said:


> We're about 12' away from the TV when viewing and it's a Westy 37" w/720p (yes I know not a top end TV but compared to a 27" CRT there's no comparison!). To me, the biggest difference can be seen in sports, but of course she doesn't watch sports so......


Bairdjc,

If you are sitting 12 feet away from a 37 inch display, it means you are watching WAY outside of the best viewing distance for that size of Television.

The optimum Distance for viewing HD programing is to multiple the Actual Display measurement by about 1.5 that will give you the best distance from the display for HD viewing. 37 inches times 1.5 gives you 55.5 inches or about 5 feet away.

The reason your Wife can't really see a big difference between SD and HD in your home, with normal 20/20 visual Acuity, is the farthest you should sit away from your 37 inch display (with 20/20 Eye sight) to fully resolve all the detail of a 1080i 1920x1080 picture is 4.8 feet.

Check this website out with regard to Display sizes, and display placement;

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

John


----------



## bairdjc (Sep 22, 2005)

JohnL said:


> Bairdjc,
> 
> If you are sitting 12 feet away from a 37 inch display, it means you are watching WAY outside of the best viewing distance for that size of Television.
> 
> ...


thanks for the input but sitting 5 feet away is not feasible and would likely give me a headache :lol:


----------



## Taco Lover (Jan 8, 2007)

bairdjc said:


> thanks for the input but sitting 5 feet away is not feasible and would likely give me a headache :lol:


The only cure for that headache is getting a bigger HDTV! :up:

It's true, though, sitting distance matters. A certain size screen (say your 37") will look better the further you are away. But, too far won't look as great either. We sit 11.5 feet away from our 55" Sony SXRD. Awesome picture.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Another thing to consider is what we are used to in picture quailty

IE (now I will give my age away) when I worked retail in the early days of VCR most of the customer I sold the darn thing to returned the unit because of bad picture quailty. Two years forward and the same customers would swear they could not see the difference between the picture from a vcr or over the air tv.

Have your wife watch HDTV programs for two months and then show her programs in SD and watch as she complains about how bad sd picture is.


----------



## bairdjc (Sep 22, 2005)

Taco Lover said:


> The only cure for that headache is getting a bigger HDTV! :up:
> 
> It's true, though, sitting distance matters. A certain size screen (say your 37") will look better the further you are away. But, too far won't look as great either. We sit 11.5 feet away from our 55" Sony SXRD. Awesome picture.


I completely know what you're talking about - distance works in our favor when SD comes up and a few feet closer you start to notice the blotchiness (pixelation) of the picture.

When I bought the 37" the size was primarily dictated by the fact that it had to fit in an armoire. I could go to a 42" but that would be pushing it.


----------



## DStroyer (May 9, 2007)

bairdjc said:


> She claims that she sees NO DIFFERENCE between HD and SD programming other than "the one seems bigger than the other". :lol:


Unfortunately, she's with the majority. I know about 8 people who can't tell the difference between SD and HD.

Ever hear those commercials on the radio (I know, everybody hates radio, blah blah blah) where they're screaming about a bar night at a local establishment? "Catch ALL the games on our 25 plasma TV's!!!!" After going to some of these bar nights, those commercials should scream, "CATCH ALL THE GAMES ON OUR 25 PLASMA TV's WITH BASIC, BLURRY, STANDARD-DEFINITION CABLE CHANNELS STRETCHED TO FILL THE SCREEEEEEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Same old thing. I'll sometimes ask, "Don't you guys have this channel in HD?" And get, "Ummmmm, yeah. They're plasma TV's. They're HD." And, that's when I say, "Just leave the bottle here" :nono2:


----------



## DStroyer (May 9, 2007)

bairdjc said:


> When I bought the 37" the size was primarily dictated by the fact that it had to fit in an armoire. I could go to a 42" but that would be pushing it.


Yeah, that's another campaign the HDTV camp has to get behind... Husbands have to encourage their wives to sell that beautiful armoire that's been handed down through the family since the early 1800's, and get a big screen-appropriate TV stand


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

DStroyer said:


> Yeah, that's another campaign the HDTV camp has to get behind... Husbands have to encourage their wives to sell that beautiful armoire that's been handed down through the family since the early 1800's, and get a big screen-appropriate TV stand


DStroyer,

You got that right. My wife wanted to get rid of the Entertainment center in our living room. So I got a 50 Inch Plasma, mounted to the wall, with a small cabinet for the electronics. WOW, my wife loves our living room now, it seems much bigger even with the 50 inch display, BTW our last TV was a 26 inch CRT.

John


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

JohnL said:


> DStroyer,
> 
> You got that right. My wife wanted to get rid of the Entertainment center in our living room. So I got a 50 Inch Plasma, mounted to the wall, with a small cabinet for the electronics. WOW, my wife loves our living room now, it seems much bigger even with the 50 inch display, BTW our last TV was a 26 inch CRT.
> 
> John


i was in the same boat brother...went from 27" CRT to 56" DLP...sooooo niiiiiiicccee:grin:


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Until you get larger than 50 inches, the visual acuity of most people truly cannot see that much difference.

When I installed my Sony D50Q in my office with an 84 inch HD picture on the wall, one night my wife walked in while I was watching Leno and said, "Wow, it's just like being there". Two months later we had a 57" RPCRT in the living room and she watches it with me all the time and we can definitely tell the difference in HD and SD.

Unfortunately our local ABC is still digital SD only so when NASCAR switched from ESPN to ABC she was not a happy camper having to watch NASCAR in SD for "THE CHASE".


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

tomcrown1 said:


> Have your wife for two months just watch HDTV programs and then show her programs in SD and watch as complains about bad picture.


I think this comment is spot-on. When one doesn't really pay attention to the quality of the image, one may not really notice the difference. However, one will slowly become acclimated to the higher quality signal, and when suddenly forced to watch the same content in standard definition, will immediately ask, "Why is the picture quality so bad?".


----------



## rsaforjm (Jan 28, 2007)

When I first got HD, I turned on NBC, ABC and felt that that there is no big difference. Then I watched sports and felt there is a big difference. Now I go back to NBC, ABC etc and feel that there is a big improvement. Watching sports, you actually use the extra information and you recognize a face or see the ball. It is great when you see a foul as it is called. In Regular shows the extra resolution doesn't make a big difference, the main character faces are already big. The colors and sound are a little better. But in sports the difference is day and night.


----------



## HD AV (Nov 22, 2006)

A recent study found approx. 80% of the persons who purchased a new HDTV did not know they were not watching HD because they had not upgraded to digital cable and/or subscribed to the HD programming. I find this astounding. SD looks worse on most (not all) HDTVs. I guess that's why many people are not impressed by HDTV, they really don't have it.


----------



## JigSawMan (Apr 18, 2006)

While it may be true that some people don't perceive the difference between SD and HD content, I'd like to point out another likely scenario. Your wife really does see the difference, but is messing with your head by stating the opposite. The more wound up you get about her not seeing the obvious difference in quality may be more amusing to her than anything on the TV itself.


----------



## TP715 (Jan 15, 2007)

I bought my HDTV (Sony 60" SXRD) based on the instore demo. It was a loop of Hawaii and it looked spectacularly sharp. No HD that I have seen on Dishnetwork comes even _remotely_ close to the visual quality of that demo loop, despite us having exactly the same TV. The reason is clear: the demo was playing from a special Sony HD hard drive at an enormous bit rate (something like 40 Mbps I think, beyond even the max for BluRay). Dishnetwork HD, on the other hand, is downresd to 1440 and heavily compressed (I think some HD channels are as low as 6 Mbps).

Yes, both my wife and I can see the minor difference between SD and HD on Dish, but that is more because the SD stinks than the HD being spectacularly clear.

Note- I don't have access to OTA, which, at 19 Mbps and 1920, is undoubtedly much better than the Dish feeds. Also, I'm not complaining per se, all the satellite and cable operators downres and/or compress their feeds; they wouldn't have the bandwidth to deliver all those PPV if they didn't


----------



## davidord (Aug 16, 2006)

rphillips187 said:


> +1
> 
> My wife sees no difference whatsoever. I've tried switching back and forth between the same show in SD and HD and I get nothing from her.
> 
> ...


This whole thread is hilarious... because it is true. My wife is the same way. She is more concerned about content than picture quality.

Now for my troll comment: I have DirecTV and the HR20 DVR, so the HD and SD channels share the same number. For example, if ABC is channel 7 there are two channels listed in the guide one HD and one SD. On the latest software update, I now have the option of hiding the SD channels that have HD duplicates, so only the HD channel shows up.

Very cool wife tool.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Oh- boy - we got 2 problems here

HD viewing - I'll have to defer to those of you who have much more experiance than I do - as we just recently got our 32" LCD 720P less than a month ago, and the only HD viewing we get right now is OTA (which looks damn good to me with a viewing distance of 5-13 feet). Someday, we may get the 722 HD-DVR but that is not in the cards right now.

SD viewing (especially of SD DBS) - OK - Here I do have some experiance. We picked that 32 inch set specifically because the SD 4:3 images (in correct aspect ratio) look very close in size (also in quality) to the old 27" CRT TV that it replaced . Ideally - SD DBS should be viewed at 3-5 times the screen size, and our usual sitting /viewing positions are right in the sweet spot for this. We do not see horrendous amounts of pixelating/etc. viewing problems. It may help that we took the time to adjust the set with Video Essentials - not that there was much adjusting to do.

So in summary - it seems we have a couple of conflicting advice on how far to sit while watrching - 
HDTV at 1.5 - 3 times the screen, and
SDTV at 3-5 times the screen size

I'd say choose your distance based on what you're watching.

And yes - my wife sees the difference, but she isn't as crazy about the HD picture as I am - she likes the convience of the locals on DBS (which, fortunately for us - almost approach OTA analog in quality). I think I'm slowly getting her to watch the HD shows in the evening when I'm at work (but NASCAR in HD is great !). I prefer to watch our local station that does HD news (you really CAN tell the difference).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I can second some of Scooper's comments regarding my own 32" SD set. I do not see the flaws there with SD channels even sitting a few feet from the set. On my HD set in the living room I can see problems... but with the 32" SD set things look good. I think this is probably the target area of where Dish and DirecTV set their compression for SD channels.. to still look nice with older/smaller SD sets.

Actually, even downconverted HD looks pretty sharp on my 32" SD set. Definately not as good as HD.. but some really nice stuff.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HDMe said:


> I can second some of Scooper's comments regarding my own 32" SD set. I do not see the flaws there with SD channels even sitting a few feet from the set. On my HD set in the living room I can see problems... but with the 32" SD set things look good. I think this is probably the target area of where Dish and DirecTV set their compression for SD channels.. to still look nice with older/smaller SD sets.
> 
> Actually, even downconverted HD looks pretty sharp on my 32" SD set. Definately not as good as HD.. but some really nice stuff.


Same here...when i watch CW or Sci Fi on my 27" SD they look pretty good....but on the 56" DLP...they look like complete junk


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

davidord said:


> This whole thread is hilarious... because it is true. My wife is the same way. She is more concerned about content than picture quality.
> 
> Now for my troll comment: I have DirecTV and the HR20 DVR, so the HD and SD channels share the same number. For example, if ABC is channel 7 there are two channels listed in the guide one HD and one SD. On the latest software update, I now have the option of hiding the SD channels that have HD duplicates, so only the HD channel shows up.
> 
> Very cool wife tool.


And so she should be more concerned about content, garbage is garbage in SD or HD.

You just finally got the mapping of HD channels to the same channel as their SD version?

I know dish has had that for a while and that entering 2 for example takes me to Channel 2 (WCBS NYC,NY) in HD and I have to make a concious effort to select the SD version. Which is as it should be


----------



## davidord (Aug 16, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> And so she should be more concerned about content, garbage is garbage in SD or HD.
> 
> You just finally got the mapping of HD channels to the same channel as their SD version?
> 
> I know dish has had that for a while and that entering 2 for example takes me to Channel 2 (WCBS NYC,NY) in HD and I have to make a concious effort to select the SD version. Which is as it should be


On D* the mapping to the same channel started when the MPEG-4 local in locals were launched. All of there other HD content was on MPEG-2 and had different channel numbers. Finally, after being short-changed on HD for some time the new over-publisized satellite has launched and the mapping of the same channel is more prevalent with the launch of the new MPEG-4 channels.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

I am glad for DirecTv subs that they finally got more HD. OTOH I get frustrated with the few that seem to feel that they have more now and need to knock E* subs that had more for a long time for not changing to D* right away.

I take the view that both services have their place. As of now I feel that the E* MPEG4 DVR is a more mature product and that as I have more HD and SD that I'd like to watch than time to watch it I'm happy where I am.

As it is I have 13 hours of storage left in my DVR and approx 900 gigs of video waiting to be watched on two external drives. I expect that sooner or later I'll get to watch those video. As is I'm looking to put a 320Gb drive in a external enclosure to have more room. 

That ability is one thing I like about the E* DVR the core recording settings stay in the DVR and I can swap in external drives and move shows to it and organize that way even. I could have a drive designated Movies, another called network shows, another called music, another called Mythbusters and so on. D* has chosen a different path for external drives and for some that may be a better way.

I'm also sure that all the HD channels D* is advertising isn't causing a great big sucking sound from D* picking up Cable subs changing to D*.

I've always liked letterboxing on SD in the past as I could see the whole movie. Other complain that the screen isn't full. I suspect that they are the majority and that is why we see Stretch-O-Vision on some of the HD channels. Bottom line is Videophiles want the best HD, Joe average wants a full screen and is happy with the fuzzy picture and sound from the 3" speaker on his 20 year old SD TV. My brother fits that category/. He watches News12 a cable only channel that repeats every 1/2 hour and the occasion race and that is it.

I am sure both services and Fios and Cable will end up with pretty much the same HD content over time.


----------



## DStroyer (May 9, 2007)

Yes, E* will find a way to add more HD channels eventually, in order to stay competitive. Unless they decide to become "the lower-priced/low-budget alternative", and not add channels in order to keep prices down. That was the case about 15 years ago, when I lived in Philadelphia. We had 2 choices for cable TV: There was the full-fledged wired service that "everybody" had, that was around $40 a month for 60 or 70 channels; and then there was the "wireless cable" service that my family went with. For around $15 a month, they would come out and put an antenna on the roof, hook it up to a set-top box, and we'd get around 10-15 of just the most popular cable channels.

Back then, I always complained about how we didn't have as many channels as everybody else in the neighborhood. But now, looking back on it, I kind of respect their business model of intentionally keeping prices low. Of course, then, they went bankrupt in 2001. Dad didn't want to go with the regular cable company, for various reasons mostly having to do with the fact that city council insisted that the company that would serve our area would have to be run by *only* minorities. So, we went with DirecTV, and our monthly TV bill went up from $15 a month to around $80 a month :nono2:

I hate to sound like an old codger, but... I miss the days of free (or nearly-free) TV. I think, for financial reasons, I will eventually ween myself off of pay TV and go back to the ollllll' bunny ears. Or at the very least, I'll get the Tivo Series 3, take the hit for the equipment for a few years, and then just pay $8.33 a month with the 3 year committment.

Oh, and I forgot to mention... Before the wireless cable service, we had JUST wireless HBO service! Antenna on the roof and a set-top box... Turn to channel 2, flip the switch, and get HBO. $10 a month


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

With the new Digital channel offerings - that could very well be a good alternative. I prefer watching network programming via the HD when possible. A little bit of channel shuffling or the ability to create my own "programming package" would make me quite happy.


----------



## bairdjc (Sep 22, 2005)

well I walked in on her last night...


AND SHE WAS WATCHING HD [email protected]!!!!!

Of course it might have been a mistake though... :lol:


----------



## bairdjc (Sep 22, 2005)

scooper said:


> With the new Digital channel offerings - that could very well be a good alternative. I prefer watching network programming via the HD when possible. A little bit of channel shuffling or the ability to create my own "programming package" would make me quite happy.


me too - even OTA locals (digital) look better than the dish feed, but that's to be expected


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> I am glad for DirecTv subs that they finally got more HD. OTOH I get frustrated with the few that seem to feel that they have more now and need to knock E* subs that had more for a long time for not changing to D* right away.
> 
> I take the view that both services have their place. As of now I feel that the E* MPEG4 DVR is a more mature product and that as I have more HD and SD that I'd like to watch than time to watch it I'm happy where I am.


I have to agree with the DVR being a much more MATURE Product. I was really, really, really thinking about moving over to D* for a few of the channels as well as the ablity of getting FoxNW, some of the other 20 RSN's would have been nice, but I really Want FoxNW, (Mountlake Terrace Transplant)
Took the wife and kids over to a Friend that has a D* HR20, 10min's later wife and kids looked at me and said NO WAY, and I had to agree that were D* has the right HD package at the moment, they have a LONG way to go on DVR features.
I understand why TIVO took E* to court, HOW DARE E*, take there idea and IMPROVE IT.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

I wouldn't worry about it if it isn't causing too much marital strife. Most girls aren't into things technical.

--- CHAS


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

texaswolf said:


> oops...sorry...guess i am blind
> 
> Im the opposite...after having HD...i can't stand to watch SD..unless i have to. I guess i am to picky with movies and stuff...my buddy bought transformers on DVD, and wanted to watch it...but I told him not until i pick it up on HD DVD...lol


That's ashame as the SD DVD of Transformers is probably one of the best transfers I've seen in a long time. In fact, the image looks damn near HD.


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

Highdef Jeff said:


> The distance you are referencing is NOT the optimum viewing distance, but the minimum viewing distance. From about 1.5 times the screen size (or specifically, far enough away to not see the individual pixels) begins the range of proper viewing distance. While it is not easy to know exactly how far you can sit, it is generally accepted that you may sit up to about 3 times screen size away and still be within proper range of viewing distance.
> 
> With your 37 inch display, you may sit up to 9'3" and still have good HD. Don't get me wrong here, that TV will still look great at 12 feet, but you won't see the detail which is what HD is all about.
> 
> ...


Well, in my case, I have a 42" Sharp AQUOS sitting on its stand in a built-in (to the wall) entertainment center which is a about 2" in-set from the edge of the wall. I sit about 8' from the TV. At that distance I can still make out the pixels on a 1080p up-converted DVD. But at about 9' the pixels go away and the picture really pops. Unfortunately that 9' distance is my bed. So I can get great picture while laying in bed, but not that great sitting in a chair right in front of the bed.

However, true HD broadcasts look great at that 8' distance.

Now regarding women and how they view TV...get a load of this.

My mother watches a lot of network TV. And with the last receiver we had, the locals were not mapped down to their actual channel numbers, but up in the 8000 range. So she watched them via antenae. Needless to say the quality was terrible. She didn't care. She watched them for the content. Not for the picture quality.

So even now that we swapped out the old receiver for one that does map them down, she STILL watches them via antenae.

Of course the TV in question on that receiver is a 27" SD Phillips CRT that only has co-axial input. It sits in a entertainment center that will only support a 26" HD set. And the viewing distance is well over 10'.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

That is known as technophobia. My parents were very much like that themselves but I have managed to pull them into the 21st century , screaming and kicking all the way. But they now have a new computer , dsl, DISH 622 hd dvr in the living room and run to the bedroom by wireless transmitter. My mom can finally watch what she wants to . They can use the dvr and like it. My dad still channel surfs like a fool and often will stop timers in play. Some people can't be retrained at all. He does like having the Houston locals and he uses the vcr to watch his ota channels for Beaumont,Tx. Now if I could just get him to buy a new hd tv instead of watching a 13 year old magnavox.


----------



## Grandude (Oct 21, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> TNow if I could just get him to buy a new hd tv instead of watching a 13 year old magnavox.


Mike,
Break out the wallet and buy him a new Vizio or something.

He sounds like my now long deceased father-in-law back in the 60s who turned down the color level on his new color TV, I guess so it would last longer. He had it almost down to black and white. But he was a good guy otherwise.


----------



## Will Munshower (Mar 4, 2007)

My wife is the opposite. We'll be watching something in HD on Dish, she'll turn to me and say "How compressed does this need to be"? Let's just watch an HD DVD. I consider myself VERY fortunate. She has also currently green lit a 'whole house' HD solution, which I, of course, have to plan and execute. Like I mind, at all!

She also loves slamming the know it all idiots at work who'll brag about how they have an EDTV, and then start throwing out incorrect terms and correct ones in the wrong context. My wife knows the lingo, buzzwords and acronyms. And she knows what she is talking about.

She knows quality HT equipment. I love her. She lets me upgrade...More than I should be allowed to!


----------

