High Definition TV question

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

i guess it not worth getting hdtv yet, if you have directv. not many channels yet.

Unless you watch football or baseball. I have an antenna for locals, plus my region has the ABC and NBC stations O&O (means the network owns and operates the station), so I get Sunday Night and Monday Night football over DirecTV, and the Fox and CBS games over my antenna through the DirecTV HD receiver. And I won't watch football in SD anymore if I can help it at all.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And I won't watch football in SD anymore if I can help it at all.

Same here. Once you get used to HD, it's really hard to go back. I can't even stand it when they show highlights from other games in SD during a HD game.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

i guess it not worth getting hdtv yet, if you have directv. not many channels yet.

DirecTV does not offer every HD channel available, that is for sure. But then again, (a) they aren't missing that many, and (b) nobody does.

I think the only major(?) national channels they are missing are TNT-HD and InHD (1 and 2).

I agree with your contention that there's not yet enough HD content to justify purchasing an HDTV. And I have owned my HDTV for two years. I don't think DirecTV is the major problem though, as most cable channels still are SD only. Also, I am not sure there is a carrier that carries everything DirecTV has, and everything they don't. There are some good channels set to launch in 2006 though, so by next holiday season, it may be worth it, if DirecTV (or Dish, or your local cable co.) gets their act together.

[JasonC23]

My plan was to buy either a PS3 or Xbox 360 next Christmas by combining my birthday (September) and Christmas presents into one big one.

Reading this thread, I'm seriously considering getting the HDTV + DirecTV HD DVR next year, and waiting until the following year for the gaming system...

[gstelmack]

I'd also add that if you watch many DVDs, they look MUCH better in progressive scan on a 16:9 HDTV.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bee

Same here. Once you get used to HD, it's really hard to go back. I can't even stand it when they show highlights from other games in SD during a HD game.

And it is precisely this reason that pisses me off about ABC with their college football! Afternoon games are important too! Put them on HD dammit!

[lighthousekeeper]

the thing that confuses me is that in my limited eperience of looking into getting and ed or hd tv, i've gone into places like circuit city a few times to browse. i feel like when I look at the hd tvs at circuit city, maybe 3-4 of the hd floor models look amazing, but the other 80% have a sub-par picture (and by subpar, I mean worse than my current 32 inch standard tv). is it just the goofballs at c.c. not configuring their floor models correctly, or it is that the screens are so large that when you stand 2 feet away they naturally look low-res?

those trips to c.c. really convinced my that it wasn't worth it, but then i always hear that standard line that hd-folks spew: "since i got hd, i can't watch any other tv!"

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

the thing that confuses me is that in my limited eperience of looking into getting and ed or hd tv, i've gone into places like circuit city a few times to browse. i feel like when I look at the hd tvs at circuit city, maybe 3-4 of the hd floor models look amazing, but the other 80% have a sub-par picture (and by subpar, I mean worse than my current 32 inch standard tv). is it just the goofballs at c.c. not configuring their floor models correctly, or it is that the screens are so large that when you stand 2 feet away they naturally look low-res?

those trips to c.c. really convinced my that it wasn't worth it, but then i always hear that standard line that hd-folks spew: "since i got hd, i can't watch any other tv!"

First, ED means the highest resolution they got is 780p while HD means 1080i is the highest (and soon 1080p). That makes a difference.

As for performance on the showroom, yeah, the people who configure the TVs are IDIOTS! I bought my TV at Best Buy, but they had it connected with a coaxil cable (instead of a digital connection or composite cables) and showing something that didn't seem to be in HD, but streached so it'd cover the TV.

And yes, after getting HD, it's hard to watch standard def stuff. It was well worth every penny I spent as well.

As for the low-res when you get close, that's because those huge TVs are probably projection TVs.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

the thing that confuses me is that in my limited eperience of looking into getting and ed or hd tv, i've gone into places like circuit city a few times to browse. i feel like when I look at the hd tvs at circuit city, maybe 3-4 of the hd floor models look amazing, but the other 80% have a sub-par picture (and by subpar, I mean worse than my current 32 inch standard tv). is it just the goofballs at c.c. not configuring their floor models correctly, or it is that the screens are so large that when you stand 2 feet away they naturally look low-res?

those trips to c.c. really convinced my that it wasn't worth it, but then i always hear that standard line that hd-folks spew: "since i got hd, i can't watch any other tv!"

One thing to keep in mind if you're looking at a 60" TV (whether it's HD capable or not) and watching regular television (aka non-HD programming or non-DVD feeds ) it most likely will look worse than your 32" television.

That's because the transmission qualty for non-HD/non-DVD programs is poor resolution and with a wider television you're just magnifying a bad picture. Think of it like a low resolution picture on your computer. If you zoom in on it you see the pixelation/imperfections. Smaller screen televisions should always look better given the same specs. With HD though you have a higher resolution picture, so even when the screens are larger it should still look good.

My guess is the crappy picture widescreens you see are either a) displaying regular television programs (non-HD or DVD feeds) or b) someone has monkeyed with the settings like cranked up the contrast or something. You also could just be standing too close to it. With a 60" HD the recommended viewing distance is like 10' away.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

First, ED means the highest resolution they got is 780p while HD means 1080i is the highest (and soon 1080p). That makes a difference.

Dola, I'm pretty sure ED is 480p.

780p is still considered high-definition - ABC and others broadcast their HD feeds in 780p (and many argue it is just as good if not better than 1080i). 1080p though should be the cats meow when they start broadcasting in it. For my money .. dont' buy an ED television.

[ISiddiqui]

Oops... yeah... 480p, making even worse.

[gstelmack]

There is no "780P". It's "720P". 720 vertical lines, progressive scan (meaning each frame has all 720 lines, not alternating interlaced fields).

The fun part is many LCD TVs are computer monitors with 768 vertical lines, so they are filtering either way...

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

There is no "780P". It's "720P". 720 vertical lines, progressive scan (meaning each frame has all 720 lines, not alternating interlaced fields).

The fun part is many LCD TVs are computer monitors with 768 vertical lines, so they are filtering either way...

Good point - I meant 720p.

[rafini]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Dola, I'm pretty sure ED is 480p.

780p is still considered high-definition - ABC and others broadcast their HD feeds in 780p (and many argue it is just as good if not better than 1080i). 1080p though should be the cats meow when they start broadcasting in it. For my money .. dont' buy an ED television.

I've got the Panasonic 42" ED and love it. HD and DVDs look great on it, and it is widely considered that SD signals look better on ED than HD (although obviously different people will have different opinions on this).

The best piece of advice you can get when looking into ED/HD TVs is to use your own eyes in determining what to get. Figure out what you're going to watch, and if only 5-10% of your viewing would be HD channels, then getting an ED and saving $1000 might be the way to go.

[Gallifrey]

Originally Posted by Bee

I wish I got the Sci-Fi channel in HD.

Right on. SG-1 in HD. That is heaven.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by rafini

I've got the Panasonic 42" ED and love it. HD and DVDs look great on it, and it is widely considered that SD signals look better on ED than HD (although obviously different people will have different opinions on this).

The best piece of advice you can get when looking into ED/HD TVs is to use your own eyes in determining what to get. Figure out what you're going to watch, and if only 5-10% of your viewing would be HD channels, then getting an ED and saving $1000 might be the way to go.

Just remember to consider what you'll be watching in a few years.

All ED is is progressive scan instead of interlace. That's a minor improvement. If you're buying a new TV, I'd think you'd want to spend your money on something that won't be obsolete in a year or two.

And the premium for an HD set can be well below $1000. The 34" Sony that I spent $1800 on 2 years ago is now around $1200, and you can get decent HD sets for $600 - $1000 easy. The premium is getting smaller all the time and is well below $1000 in most cases.

[rafini]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Just remember to consider what you'll be watching in a few years.

All ED is is progressive scan instead of interlace. That's a minor improvement. If you're buying a new TV, I'd think you'd want to spend your money on something that won't be obsolete in a year or two.

And the premium for an HD set can be well below $1000. The 34" Sony that I spent $1800 on 2 years ago is now around $1200, and you can get decent HD sets for $600 - $1000 easy. The premium is getting smaller all the time and is well below $1000 in most cases.

The way I approached it, I spent $1600 now for a 42" ED that works great with what's available on TV (especially SD signals and DVDs) now instead of $2600 for an HD. In two years when we might finally have a full slate of HD programing, we should be able to get 42" HDs in that $1600, or more likley less range. So in a couple years I can get an HD TV when it will really be worth it, plus already have a 42" ED for the bedroom or office at that point for roughly the same price as just a 42" HD now.
That's just the way I viewed it, and obviously not everybody will think the same way. To each their own.

[Mustang]

Just as a quick question, current I have directv and the combo receiver/tivo unit. I have a HD ready TV so.. upgrading to HD, I'd need the HD receiver and antenna.. In that setup, I don't think I could effectively rout any signals to the tivo system and use it the same.

Want to upgrade but, a combo dvr for HD is pretty pricey...

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Just as a quick question, current I have directv and the combo receiver/tivo unit. I have a HD ready TV so.. upgrading to HD, I'd need the HD receiver and antenna.. In that setup, I don't think I could effectively rout any signals to the tivo system and use it the same.

Want to upgrade but, a combo dvr for HD is pretty pricey...

The cable you would be routing into the tivo is not capable of carrying HD signals. The only way to digitally record HD off of satellite is to buy their HD TiVO reciever. I think they are offering it right now for like $199 or $249 (with an additional commitment). Pretty cheap compared to the $1000 price tag it carried on release. Note that it is an old style MPEG-2 unit, they have not announced details on the MPEG-4 capable HD TiVO. As I told my friend who is constantly pushing TiVO on me - I did not know it at the time, but when I went HD, I was essentially choosing between that and TiVO.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by rafini

The way I approached it, I spent $1600 now for a 42" ED that works great with what's available on TV (especially SD signals and DVDs) now instead of $2600 for an HD. In two years when we might finally have a full slate of HD programing, we should be able to get 42" HDs in that $1600, or more likley less range. So in a couple years I can get an HD TV when it will really be worth it, plus already have a 42" ED for the bedroom or office at that point for roughly the same price as just a 42" HD now.
That's just the way I viewed it, and obviously not everybody will think the same way. To each their own.

All I was saying is you could have spent $1200, got a 34" HDTV that will fit better in the office or bedroom in 2 years when you buy the $1600 larger HDTV, and still had $400 left over