# HDTV - What's the Big Deal?



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Every now and then I drop into a Best Buy and check out the HDTV's to see what's up. And my reaction is still the same --

*What's the big deal???!!!* 

Yes, the picture is somewhat clearer than what i get on my 3-year-old 32-inch GE. But I paid a friend $200 for that set, and the colors are clear and so is the picture. And I ask myself if it's worth spending sixteen hundred bucks for a TV with a screen nowhere as large that's also going to cost me additional money in hardware and programming fees and mt answer is always the same --

No effingway!

I mean, what is the big deal about HDTV? And yes, I've watched football and hockey on it. What am I missing? :eek2:


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

If you can't tell the difference, HD isn't for you.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Mikey said:


> If you can't tell the difference, HD isn't for you.


Uhh . . . that's a good Alitoesque answer.

What's supposed to be better about it? I mean, the hype is that it's movie-screen clear, like watching thru a picture window. It isn't! Of course, if you're accustomed to watching a snowy cable picture on a crappy 10-inch set, anything would seem better.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Okay, watch CSI on an HD set sometime, or stop in this weekend while a football playoff game or a basketball game is on in HD. Go back and forth between the SD and HD. If the color, clarity, increased depth, resolution and Dolby sound don't appeal to you, then HD isn't for you.

Wait another 3 years, and maybe your friend will sell you his old 32" HD set for $200.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Mikey said:


> Okay, watch CSI on an HD set sometime, or stop in this weekend while a football playoff game or a basketball game is on in HD. Go back and forth between the SD and HD. If the color, clarity, increased depth, resolution and Dolby sound don't appeal to you, then HD isn't for you.
> 
> Wait another 3 years, and maybe your friend will sell you his old 32" HD set for $200.


Yeah no kidding, if you can't tell the difference or think there isn't a big difference then you either aren't watching something in true HD next to something that isn't, or maybe its time to get your eyes checked. They are as different as color is from black and white. But if you can't tell the difference then stick with the set you have. You may also want to trade in your dolby 5.1 system for a cheaper monoral system, there isn't much difference between those either. You could save money too on not having central air conditioning, an ocillating fan will probably do the trick. You might want to use an Apple 2e with a 2400 baud modem while you are it, instead of the Pentium 4, there isn't much difference there either.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

ebaltz said:


> Yeah no kidding, if you can't tell the difference or think there isn't a big difference then you either aren't watching something in true HD next to something that isn't, or maybe its time to get your eyes checked. They are as different as color is from black and white. But if you can't tell the difference then stick with the set you have. You may also want to trade in your dolby 5.1 system for a cheaper monoral system, there isn't much difference between those either. You could save money too on not having central air conditioning, an ocillating fan will probably do the trick. You might want to use an Apple 2e with a 2400 baud modem while you are it, instead of the Pentium 4, there isn't much difference there either.


BTW, I have traded in my horse . . . 

Maybe that is the problem -- that the 50-odd HD sets I've looked at over the last two years or so are just bad sets. :hurah:


----------



## AcuraCL (Dec 12, 2005)

That may not be the stretch you think it is.

Not a single HD set I have seen in stores looks half as good as mine at home. Better signal, better connection, better calibration. Each is an important factor.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

The environment that is used to show televisions at the typical Best Buy type joint isn't the best place to do such comparisons. I don't have HD yet, but I do have an ED (Enhanced Definition) projector and the difference between that and my SD 35" Toshiba is night and day. After seeing the projectors at the CES show I am ready to do the upgrade to a full HD projector and one will be in my near future. It is night and day.


----------



## Achtunger (Jan 14, 2006)

Ira Lacher said:


> Every now and then I drop into a Best Buy and check out the HDTV's to see what's up.


That's it right there. Best Buy rarely uses the proper cables, nor do they get good HD feeds going into their televisions. If you really want to see what the big deal is, go to a place that specializes in home theater. *That* is the best way to really appreciate HDTV.


----------



## gajit21 (Dec 24, 2004)

You also might want to make sure that the source of the signal is in HD.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Well and good. But aren't we talking about a significant increase in investment for what many of you say seems an "improvement" whose impact depends on just the right factors being realized just so?

It's easy to hear the difference between mono and stereo and to see the difference between B&W and color. IMHO you shouldn't have to tweak and adjust and tweak and natter to get a substantial and obvious improvement from standard TV to HD!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ira Lacher said:


> Well and good. But aren't we talking about a significant increase in investment for what many of you say seems an "improvement" whose impact depends on just the right factors being realized just so?
> 
> It's easy to hear the difference between mono and stereo and to see the difference between B&W and color. IMHO you shouldn't have to tweak and adjust and tweak and natter to get a substantial and obvious improvement from standard TV to HD!


You almost answered your own questions here.

Yes, you can tell the difference between mono and stereo... but only when playing a stereo recording.

Take state-of-the-art surround sound 5.1 audio equipment, but play an old 45 rpm mono recording... and you probably won't hear much difference in audio equipment either.

Same goes for TV... show an old I Love Lucy black & white episode on a color TV and it may not look noticably better than on an old black & white TV!

What several of the other posters are trying to point out is that if you feed an HD TV a standard definition signal and/or don't adjust it properly... then you won't see as obvious a difference. You have to actually give it what it is designed to receive before you can tell.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Ira Lacher said:


> Well and good. But aren't we talking about a significant increase in investment for what many of you say seems an "improvement" whose impact depends on just the right factors being realized just so?
> 
> It's easy to hear the difference between mono and stereo and to see the difference between B&W and color. IMHO you shouldn't have to tweak and adjust and tweak and natter to get a substantial and obvious improvement from standard TV to HD!


Didn't Ben Franklin (your avatar) invent bi-focals. Maybe you should try some. Watch something on DiscoveryHD on an HD set and then something on just Discovery on a regular set. Its a stunning difference worth every penny.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Since it sounds to me that you want us to try to change your mind, here's my .02.  

Regarding cost, in 2003 I bargained-down to around $1,000 a Panny 53" HD RPTV initially sale-priced at $1,400. To my extreme pleasure, the set has produced an absolutely beautiful picture ever since. Being a lifelong videophile, the sharp, clear image produced by my HD display has provided me with many hundreds of hours of pure viewing pleasure. IMO, the price I paid for admission to the wonderful world of HDTV was one of the most worthwhile and satisfying investments in personal entertainment that I've ever made.

If you can't afford to upgrade or don't think you can appreciate the breathtaking beauty of the larger, wider high-definition image rendered by a well-calibrated HDTV, then you should probably stay with what you've got. After all, standard definition on a smaller set can be quite good.

But, if you're really not satisfied with what you've got, by all means, take a serious look at HD, perhaps somewhere other than Best Buy.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

Our minds eye isn't always accurate. In a store the best comparison will not convince many folks. There is 7 times as much picture information, the image is the shape our eyes find more comfortable, but I have heard folks say time and again their TV looks much better than the SD comparison side by side you would show. Even with analog tv most folks think their old tv looks great, until it's replaced by a new one. HDTV in your home will make you wet your pants at an age when you shouldn't. You'll watch network tv with its 23 minutes of commercial in wonder. You won't switch stations during an HD commercial and will often not switch stations during commercial breaks in hopes of seeing another HD commercial. College basketball is not like being at the game, its like being on the court. HDTV is like a DVR. We have a VCR, why have a DVR. You won't get the idea until you make the switch and it is glorious


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

Ira Lacher said:


> ...I mean, what is the big deal about HDTV?...


I don't see the value for the cost, either. In a couple years when prices drop and setting them up isn't a job for a technician, I'll probably get one.

BTW, thanks to all the early-adopters who will eventually make the sets more affordable.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

AllieVi said:


> I don't see the value for the cost, either. In a couple years when prices drop and setting them up isn't a job for a technician, I'll probably get one.
> 
> BTW, thanks to all the early-adopters who will eventually make the sets more affordable.


Well setting mine up included, plugging it in and hit power on the remote. I hear there are some villiages in Papau New Guini where they don't wear clothes, have power and eat food off of trees. Maybe I can suggest a move there.

An early adopter of HDTV would have bought one in about 1999-2000 or so, we are long past that stage. Nearly every network show is broadcast in HDTV and in case you haven't noticed prices are probably about 30% what they were just 3 or 4 years ago. HDTV sets will never cost $250 like your K-mart brand 19''. Its like anything, the longer you wait the more you miss, enjoy those pinched pennies, I hope they provide hours of enjoyment stuck between your thumb and forefinger.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

AllieVi said:


> I don't see the value for the cost, either. In a couple years when prices drop and setting them up isn't a job for a technician, I'll probably get one...


We're already there -- you won't see prices dropping much lower as long as consumer demand for HDTV is growing. Today's HD displays are much easier to set up and are pretty much self-adjusting out-of-the-box.

All this time you're waiting for nothing and you are missing out on such a wonderful viewing experience.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

AllieVi said:


> I don't see the value for the cost, either. In a couple years when prices drop and setting them up isn't a job for a technician, I'll probably get one.
> 
> BTW, thanks to all the early-adopters who will eventually make the sets more affordable.


HDTV sets are now at a price equal to or below that of analog TV sets a few years back. Consider this: a 20 inch RCA "Election Special" color TV cost $450 in 1968. In terms of today's dollars, it would be over $2,000! (1968 was 12 years after networks began color broadcasting). 
You can buy 32 inch tube type HDTV's with built in ATSC tuner for around $600. 50 inch rear projection CRT HDTV monitors can be had for less than $1,000, as can 32 inch LCD flat panel TV's with built in ATSC tuners. 50 inch RP DLP's can be had for under $1800.
The big price drops for HDTV have, for the most part, already occured. Granted, as yields improve on big screen LCD's, prices for these sets will decrease radically.
As to setup, It took my son and I all of 15 minutes to unbox our 55 inch Sony RP LCD receiver, set it on its stand, connect power and OTA antenna, turn the set on and acquire some local stations. What more could you ask for?


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Thanks to all those who have made cogent comments on this topic. Your points on cost, subjectivity, etc., are well taken. The rude comments are ignored.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

Nick said:


> We're already there -- you won't see prices dropping much lower as long as consumer demand for HDTV is growing. ...


I expect prices to keep dropping as demand increases. The many set manufacturers will be tripping over themselves as they attempt to beat each other out on price, performance and features. Also, as newer models are introduced with even more advanced features, today's "state of the art" ones will be deeply discounted to move them out of the stores.

Consider the DVD player market. A few years ago they cost multiples of today's prices. Demand has been strong, but that hasn't kept prices from falling.

The sets I would most like to have are priced at or above $4,000. I expect them (or something better) to be much cheaper in a year or so.

Let's re-visit this topic in a year to see what happens...


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

Even if you don't notice the increased sharpness, detail, and color fidelity, the wider 16:9 field of view is still a dramitic difference. A cropped 4:3 movie or sporting event just doesn't compare to the widescreen experience hdtv brings.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Ira Lacher said:


> Every now and then I drop into a Best Buy and check out the HDTV's to see what's up. And my reaction is still the same --
> 
> *What's the big deal???!!!*
> 
> ...


The question comes in were you really looking at HD? Most Best Buys and Circuit Cities will show the same analog signal on their HDTV's that you are use to seeing at home.

Look at a true HD Signal and you can see the differences..

If you were looking at a true HD signal, you could see the difference.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

One point worth mentioning: The difference between a HD and SD signal on a 32" set at normal viewing distance may not be very great. On a 50" or 61" set the difference is spectacular.


----------



## Art (Sep 10, 2003)

dave1234 said:


> One point worth mentioning: The difference between a HD and SD signal on a 32" set at normal viewing distance may not be very great. On a 50" or 61" set the difference is spectacular.


i have a 34" Sony XBR and the difference between HD and SD is... well, let's put it this way, I'm crying every time I have to watch something on SD channels.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Even my wife can tell the difference. 

Like others have said, if you can't tell the difference, then maybe HD isn't for you and that's fine. From a purely scientific and technological viewpoint, HD provides a far superior picture.


----------



## rickfromthesticks (Sep 22, 2004)

durl, I think you've hit the nail on the head. My wife, who did not see the point to 5.1 sound, Hdtv, HD receiver, etc. now tunes the NY CBS HD station and turns on the surround sound when I'm gone. She will play a DVD of the same movie that's on an SD channel (even though it involves changing the input on the tv!).

That's the proof, someone who was totally disinterested at the onset now is seeking HD sources. I even caught her watching KUNGFU HD this weekend when she didn't find something she'd rather watch! That's incredible to me. I thought she'd never come around.

Rick


----------



## DaveTinNY (Nov 8, 2004)

I still amuse myself by switching between a program being shown in 4:3 SD and then back to the HD 16:9 program and the difference in clarity of the picture (and the Dolby Digital signal through the home theater) is simply night and day.

I honestly feel the diffence is akin to the old dial up modem connection speeds vs Fiber Optic speeds. Dramatic change.

Once you've gone HD, you cannot go back. I have a 38" RCA tube HDTV... not LCD, not Plasma. I honestly believe my tube has an equal or better picture than the best plasmas sets out there. Maybe you weren't seeing a truly great HD signal - such as what they carry on HDNET or DISCOVERY HD Theater.

Consider upgrading, you won't regret it, IMO.

Regards.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Walked into a local "TV boutique" type place. They have viewing rooms, not a wall of TVs, and a VERY knowledgeable staff. I will admit that the picture -- of a concert on the local PBS station -- looked very good. Changed to the Senior Bowl game that was being shown. Didn't notice anything nearly as good as the concert. Lot of smudginess. Guess it depends on the source as well?


----------



## bulldog200024 (Jan 27, 2006)

I would rather watch paint dry in HD than watch anything in SD. 



Ok, so thats not entirely true, but HD is absolutely amazing. If you cant tell the difference, go get an eye exam.


----------



## Capmeister (Sep 16, 2003)

It does depend on the source. But usually with HD you're talking about a big screen and when you get home and see an SD picture on a giant screen and then compare to an HD picture--it's quite noticable how much better HD is.


----------



## ChrisPC (Jun 17, 2003)

DaveTinNY said:


> I have a 38" RCA tube HDTV... not LCD, not Plasma. I honestly believe my tube has an equal or better picture than the best plasmas sets out there.


Tell me about it. I found a 30" Sony Trinitron Wega CRT for $600 that looks better than a $2000 plasma!


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

ChrisPC said:


> Tell me about it. I found a 30" Sony Trinitron Wega CRT for $600 that looks better than a $2000 plasma!


Well, a $2000 plasma is going to be an EDTV receiver, not HD, so PQ isn't going to be any better than progressive scan DVD. Good HDTV plasma receivers cost considerably more. Also, regareing your 30" Sony -- it isn't an HD receiver, so you can't really comment on it insofar as HD reception is concerned. My 32 inch Sony HD monitor receiver has an awesome picture on HD and great analog as well, because it does a good job of upconverting the signal.:grin:


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Art said:


> i have a 34" Sony XBR and the difference between HD and SD is... well, let's put it this way, I'm crying every time I have to watch something on SD channels.


Try watching a comedy every now and then!!


----------



## ChrisPC (Jun 17, 2003)

Cholly said:


> Also, regareing your 30" Sony -- it isn't an HD receiver, so you can't really comment on it insofar as HD reception is concerned. My 32 inch Sony HD monitor receiver has an awesome picture on HD and great analog as well, because it does a good job of upconverting the signal.:grin:


I can comment on HD reception; my Sony does 1080i. I have an HD receiver connected to it, and it looks great. It also works really well with SD. I guess I should say it looks at least as good as a $2000 RPTV.


----------



## sbturner (Jul 24, 2002)

You are missing the point. HD was made for large screen tvs. I have a 46 inch Samsung DLP with a HD receiver and the picture is outstanding. But I was watching the same picture on a 26 inch SD it wouldn't look all that much better. I never liked nor wanted a big screen tv, because it was blurry, and you saw all the imperfections in the picture that a smaller tv doesnt' show. Of course HD adds 16:9 and better colors but the main thing that it does is makes a big screen tv clear. If you are going to buy a directview crt I would agree that you should not.


----------



## DFDureiko (Feb 20, 2006)

I too thought "what's the big deal"
Then I stopped at Bernies at Exit 47, I-91, Enfield, CT. This store is a "highline" showcase store for the chain, SubZero, Wolf etc.
happend to walk past the HDTV's and was absolutely blown away. Now I am chomping at the bit for the HR20 and our HD locals.
I am guessing all the other stores I had seen HDTV's at had them hooked up incorrectly, Sears, BestBuy, CircuitCity, and even other Bernies. I can't imagine why they would be like this, seems they would sell alot more if they had them hooked up right and had the correct HD signals.
also, it did seem the lighting in the TV department in that store was not as bright as a normal store, not dim, but not glaringly bright.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

DFDureiko said:


> ...I am guessing all the other stores I had seen HDTV's at had them hooked up incorrectly, Sears, BestBuy, CircuitCity, and even other Bernies...


Yes, I've actually seen HD displays hooked up with composite connections - DUH - the worst possible advertising for an otherwise more expensive TV set.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Nick said:


> Yes, I've actually seen HD displays hooked up with composite connections - DUH - the worst possible advertising for an otherwise more expensive TV set.


Even high end stores often "cheat" on the program material they feed to their HD receivers. Many just use a DVD player with a demo DVD looping, connected to a series of daisychained distribution amps. To make matters worse, they don't use an upconverting DVD player, and often use an S-Video feed rather than component. Sheesh!:grrr: :bang


----------



## n8wrl (Mar 6, 2006)

gajit21 said:


> You also might want to make sure that the source of the signal is in HD.


That is exactly what I was going to suggest - I don't think much content used to 'show off' HD monitors in those stores is actually HD. Most of the time they're playing DVD's and that's not HD...

We went to D* from Dish for the HD deal after buying a 50" plasma monitor. Discovery HD is simply stunning - one of those 'why didn't we do this a long time ago' moments.

Having said all that, I do think it matters more for the larger screen sizes. I'm not so sure the difference would be as stunning on a smaller monitor because the 'lower resolution' wouldn't be as apparent.

-Brian


----------



## muledoggie (Dec 6, 2004)

Mikey said:


> If you can't tell the difference, HD isn't for you.


If you can't tell the difference:

1. Get an eye exam

2. Get a shot of adrenaline straight into your heart

or

3. sue BestBuy


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

muledoggie said:


> If you can't tell the difference:
> 
> 1. Get an eye exam
> 
> ...


4. Fillabuster Sam Alito's nomination.

5. Claim that it is the fault of motorcyclists who don't wear helmets.


----------



## Proc (Jan 19, 2006)

Ira Lacher said:


> Every now and then I drop into a Best Buy and check out the HDTV's to see what's up. And my reaction is still the same --
> 
> *What's the big deal???!!!*
> 
> ...


I won't try to convince you that HD is better. Its pretty obvious you have made up your mind and are looking more for an argument than convincing.

FWIW, in a few years, you'll have it whether you like it or not.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Proc said:


> ...FWIW, in a few years, you'll have (HDTV) whether you like it or not.


<sigh> one more time: DTV ≠ HDTV :nono2:


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Proc said:


> I won't try to convince you that HD is better. Its pretty obvious you have made up your mind and are looking more for an argument than convincing.
> 
> FWIW, in a few years, you'll have it whether you like it or not.


I'm not looking for an argument. I am trying to get the knowledgeable people who post on this board to communicate to me what they are seeing that I am not. Mostly, what I have gotten are numerous posts questioning my intelligence and my eyesight. This has been very helpful.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ira Lacher said:


> I'm not looking for an argument. I am trying to get the knowledgeable people who post on this board to communicate to me what they are seeing that I am not. Mostly, what I have gotten are numerous posts questioning my intelligence and my eyesight. This has been very helpful.


To some extent... beyond arguing the technical differences between HD and standard TV... we end up arguing something that cannot be argued.

It's like if you were to ask me to convince you why you should like to eat grapes. All I can do is tell you why I like them, and technically what they are made of... but ultimately you have to eat some grapes and decide for yourself. I could suggest that maybe you ate grapes that were not yet ripe or were spoiled... and ask that you make sure you are eating ripe and fresh grapes... but beyond those suggestions, it's really up to you to eat some grapes.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

HDMe said:


> To some extent... beyond arguing the technical differences between HD and standard TV... we end up arguing something that cannot be argued.
> 
> It's like if you were to ask me to convince you why you should like to eat grapes. All I can do is tell you why I like them, and technically what they are made of... but ultimately you have to eat some grapes and decide for yourself. I could suggest that maybe you ate grapes that were not yet ripe or were spoiled... and ask that you make sure you are eating ripe and fresh grapes... but beyond those suggestions, it's really up to you to eat some grapes.


Actually, this is more like someone trying to convince me that a newly developed grape -- which is much more expensive per pound -- is juicier, sweeter, and all-around better than every kind of grape that's ever been. But when I bite into one of those, I find that claim to be rather questionable.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Proc said:


> I won't try to convince you that HD is better. Its pretty obvious you have made up your mind and are looking more for an argument than convincing.
> 
> FWIW, in a few years, you'll have it whether you like it or not.


They might set the date back again because average people aren't buying these overpriced toys, or they just do not care.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

Paul Secic said:


> They might set the date back again because average people aren't buying these overpriced toys, or they just do not care.


I don't expect the deadline to slip. Several things will probably happen between now and then:

1 - fierce competition among the sellers will cause the cost of digital sets to drop and finally seem reasonable
2 - CRT sets will (virtually) cease to be available
3 - people will be satisfied with more affordable mid-size screens and not buy the expensive behemoths in large numbers
4 - low-cost non-HD digital sets will be the norm


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Paul Secic said:


> They might set the date back again because average people aren't buying these overpriced toys, or they just do not care.


A lot of people I know who would be 'average' now have HD sets. Their current TV takes crap and they replace it with an HDTV. I have a few family members who have HD sets who can't program a VCR but have hi def. Hell one relative had a 27" Zenith he bought 10 years ago for a few hundred bucks from a clearance sale at Sears, it died a few weeks after Thanksgiving and he bought himself a $3K Sony Bravia. HDTV prices are very reasonable for the low end market, in my opinion, it's the cost of the programming and set top box that I don't like which is why I don't want to deal with satellite TV anymore.

I have a hard time watching SD programming, The Shield, South Park, Fox News and some of the shows on Sleuth TV are the only stand def content I watch now. I do channel surf quite a bit, but for actual viewing 21 out of the 23 shows I record on my DVR are HD.

High def is the only way to go. And if rumors hold true and we get ESPN 2 HD, Cinemax HD and The Movie Channel HD I will be happier yet.

I've been an HD viewer for almost two months now and that 42" Sony Grand Wega that sits up on my entertainment center looks awesome. I honestly thought nothing bigger then a 32" for my bedroom, but I was wrong. In fact I'm thinking for an extra $300 I should have got the 50" model of my TV. Now I'll I have to do is wait until the TV in the living room dies and get and Sony Grand Wega but this one will be 50"+.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

AllieVi said:


> I don't expect the deadline to slip. Several things will probably happen between now and then:
> 
> 1 - fierce competition among the sellers will cause the cost of digital sets to drop and finally seem reasonable
> 2 - CRT sets will (virtually) cease to be available
> ...


Hopefully you're right but personally my income forbids me from purchasing a HD set.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I think there's a bitt of apples/orages going here.

If I caught one of the lines right.. He's saying that he can't see paying $1600 for a set that's no bigger than than his 32" GE.

$1600 around here buys a set a LOT bigger than 32". And if you go a little further - like around $2K, you're talking HUGE screens over 50". And there, you can REALLY see the difference.

That being said, the thing that I'm looking most forward to is the aspect ratio. Seeing widescreen as widescreen, not letterbox. Seeing some of my favorite shows in 16x9 and going into my DVD collection and firing up the anamorphic versions of what I have.

Right now I'm 'dealing with' letterbox on a 27" 4:3 screen. I'm LOOKING to get to something over 50" on a 16:9 screen.


----------



## audiomaster (Jun 24, 2004)

Ira Lacher said:


> Every now and then I drop into a Best Buy and check out the HDTV's to see what's up. And my reaction is still the same --
> 
> *What's the big deal???!!!*
> 
> ...


----------



## auburn2 (Sep 8, 2005)

Ira Lacher said:


> Every now and then I drop into a Best Buy and check out the HDTV's to see what's up. And my reaction is still the same --
> 
> *What's the big deal???!!!*
> 
> ...


.... or you sit too far away.

To really see the full effect of HD you have to be close, have a big screen and have a good source (dish is OK, but not nearly as good as OTA in my area)

The bigger the screen and the closer you sit the bigger deal HD makes. I have a 92 inch screen (front PJ), and sit about 10 feet from it. Anyone who is not legally blind can see the difference between SD and HD on my setup.

If you really want to see the difference between HD and SD hook your SD TV up to your computer and browse the web with the TV about 12 inches or so from your eyeballs for a while. You will definately notice the difference. Your computer monitor is probably XGA, with a resolution comparable to high-def (with fewer pixels due to 4:3 size).


----------



## reddice (Feb 18, 2003)

They have to lower the prices on these TV's. I open up my sunday Circuit City and Best Buy ads and I see the analog TV's cost a few hundered dollars and then I see the HDTV's and they cost thousands of dollars. Some over $4000. HDTV or what I call it HETV (Highly Expensive Television).

To lie selling HDTV's too that are HD Ready that don't include a ASTC digital tuner but include a NTSC analog tuner. That is like buying a HD DVD Drive but it can only play standard DVD's and the HD part requires a sepearte purchase. What is the point of buying those TV's.

Lets see what will happen in 2009 but if the HD's still cost a mint by then I see them pusing back the date yet again because average Joe and Jane will not be able to afford them. Everytime I see a widescreen HDTV I think for the nitch and rich.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

How large is your current TV?


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

reddice said:


> ...Everytime I see a widescreen HDTV I think for the nitch and rich.


Don't I feel special now, with 3 HDTVs.  Well, two of the three cost less than $1K.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Mikey said:


> Don't I feel special now, with 3 HDTVs.  Well, two of the three cost less than $1K.


I have three, too! Costs" 26" Widescreen flat panel LCD HDTV Monitor - $700; 32" 4:3 CRT HDTV Monitor - $1499 (It's a Sony); 55 inch Widescreen RP LCD HDTV - $2600. Currently, all are using HD set top boxes (the 32 and 55 inch sets have HD DVR's, and 6.1 surround home theater systems.) Life is good! 

After working in retail electronics sales for over 13 years, and having three HDTV receivers with different screen sizes and three different screen types, I've been able to come to a few conclusions that agree with what some others here have said:

* On good sets smaller than 36 inches, you may not notice the difference between analog TV and HD Digital TV insofar as picture quality is concerned. The big differences crop up when you compare widescreen vs. 4:3 pictures and Dolby Digital 6:1 surround sound vs. stereo.

* The true visual impact of HDTV is realized with picure sizes of 50 inches and larger.

* The best picture quality in large screen sets is found on plasma and newer rear projection LCOS receivers.

* The most bang for the buck probably is found in rear projection CRT receivers.

* Most dealers doo a very poor job of demonstrating HDTV receivers because the feed they use generally isn't HD.

All this having been said, realize this: Television receivers with digital (ATSC) tuners andr a 27 inch 4:3 aspect ratio CRT are widely available for less than $300. That's a lower price than purely analog TV's of the same screen size a few short years ago. 30 inch widescreen direct view CRT HDTV's with ATSC tuners can be had for less than $700. 50 inch widescreen rear projection HDTV's with ATSC tuners can be found for less than $900.


----------



## MikeSoltis (Aug 1, 2003)

I think the biggest problem is Best Buy...
Go to a CC with the SXRD demo playing on one of the Sony HD-DVRs and tell me you don't think that's a better picture.
And they have widescreen HD CRT sets for under $1k pretty much every week.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

reddice said:


> They have to lower the prices on these TV's. I open up my sunday Circuit City and Best Buy ads and I see the analog TV's cost a few hundered dollars and then I see the HDTV's and they cost thousands of dollars. Some over $4000. HDTV or what I call it HETV (Highly Expensive Television).
> 
> To lie selling HDTV's too that are HD Ready that don't include a ASTC digital tuner but include a NTSC analog tuner. That is like buying a HD DVD Drive but it can only play standard DVD's and the HD part requires a sepearte purchase. What is the point of buying those TV's.
> 
> Lets see what will happen in 2009 but if the HD's still cost a mint by then I see them pusing back the date yet again because average Joe and Jane will not be able to afford them. Everytime I see a widescreen HDTV I think for the nitch and rich.


There will be lots of Joes & Janes watching snow on January 1st 2009, because: )1 they don't care/know, )2 can't afford HDTV sets )3 the government is doing a very poor job of informing the general public about HDTV. http://www.dtv.gov isn't being promoted on mainstream media.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

reddice said:


> To lie selling HDTV's too that are HD Ready that don't include a ASTC digital tuner...


That's the definition of "HD Ready." The display is capable of HD. It's up to you to provide the source, it just can't be a direct antenna hookup.

Sets that do include an ASTC digital tuner are advertised as "HD Built-in."


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

Why do so many people apparantly think that comparing the most expensive HDTV set in their Sunday circular to a 27" tube display unit on the clearance shelf is a valid comparison?


----------



## MikeSoltis (Aug 1, 2003)

GeorgeLV said:


> Why do so many people apparantly think that comparing the most expensive HDTV set in their Sunday circular to a 27" tube display unit on the clearance shelf is a valid comparison?


I actually wasn't implying to compare between the SXRD and the tube displays. I have observed that the SXRD sets seem to be the best sets in the place when I am in there.
So I am comparing apples to apples as well as to oranges (and mangoes


----------

