Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,360 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm only a casual TV fan--got a couple of shows I watch regularly, plus pro football this time of year, but otherwise only a few hours a week. We're going to need a new television pretty quick, and I'm trying to figure out whether buying a non-HD set (much cheaper) is throwing money away with the switch coming.
Picture quality isn't a major issue--I know HD is better, but I'm happy with the existing system, so arguments that I'll get a far better picture for my extra $750 or whatever miss the point. I'd rather have the money in my pocket than be able to count Angelina Jolie's pores.
Everybody out there probably knows more about this than I do, so: Any opinions?
Thanks
 

·
Strained coccyx etc etc
Joined
·
21,050 Posts
Cory said:
I'm only a casual TV fan--got a couple of shows I watch regularly, plus pro football this time of year, but otherwise only a few hours a week. We're going to need a new television pretty quick, and I'm trying to figure out whether buying a non-HD set (much cheaper) is throwing money away with the switch coming.
Picture quality isn't a major issue--I know HD is better, but I'm happy with the existing system, so arguments that I'll get a far better picture for my extra $750 or whatever miss the point. I'd rather have the money in my pocket than be able to count Angelina Jolie's pores.
Everybody out there probably knows more about this than I do, so: Any opinions?
Thanks
"with the switch coming"?

i don't watch any tv. what am i missing?

btw i have three tv's in the house, but only watch vids/dvds.
 

·
Government Mule
Joined
·
1,326 Posts
Got Hd with a 65" screen. Its all good and getting better with the gradual addition of more channels, but money in my pocket is worthless, so why am I riding a 1200 instead of a Madone? Gettin ready to upgrade my 1997 computer thanks to a Christmas gift of a digital camera from a overly generous and dear friend. Probably gonna spend a little extra and get somethin good that will not be obsolete overnight. In retrospect I kinda wish that I had watched todays football game on the 5" black and white the SO won at a party!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
Since you don't really seem to care about HDTV the other thing you may want to consider is the difference between a 16:9 and 4:3 screen. More programing in HDTV and with most DVD's using a 16:9 format means that if you buy a 4:3 set you'll be losing screen size to letterbox bars.
With a 16:9 screen you can always use a stretch mode to fill the entire screen with a 4:3 program but with a 4:3 screen you won't be able to do anything about having a smaller 16:9 view of a letterboxed program or DVD. There are a number of smaller CRT widescreen tv's.
 

·
Soon to be banned
Joined
·
14,475 Posts
Prices are still way too high.

I don't get how/why the goberment feels the need to force people to adopt this technology? Granted it has been in Japan for like 15+ yrs, but let the free market determine if it's actually worth the extra money. :rolleyes:

Of course, I never feel the need to be the first on the block to own anything.
 

·
Strained coccyx etc etc
Joined
·
21,050 Posts
spyderman said:
Prices are still way too high.

I don't get how/why the goberment feels the need to force people to adopt this technology? Granted it has been in Japan for like 15+ yrs, but let the free market determine if it's actually worth the extra money. :rolleyes:

Of course, I never feel the need to be the first on the block to own anything.
so can i still watch this with my regular tv's or what?
 

·
Government Mule
Joined
·
1,326 Posts
spyderman said:
Prices are still way too high.

I don't get how/why the goberment feels the need to force people to adopt this technology? Granted it has been in Japan for like 15+ yrs, but let the free market determine if it's actually worth the extra money. :rolleyes:

Of course, I never feel the need to be the first on the block to own anything.
Hard for me to imagine the gov fostering osbolescence having witnessed the manufacture of old telephones and the today's crap regardless of it's expanded capabilities. Airwaves are an interesting thing and I think I should be able to keep them off my property if I don't want them there, or don't tell me what I should be doing with them.
 

·
Adorable Furry Hombre
Joined
·
30,676 Posts
Cory said:
I'm only a casual TV fan--got a couple of shows I watch regularly, plus pro football this time of year, but otherwise only a few hours a week. We're going to need a new television pretty quick, and I'm trying to figure out whether buying a non-HD set (much cheaper) is throwing money away with the switch coming.
Picture quality isn't a major issue--I know HD is better, but I'm happy with the existing system, so arguments that I'll get a far better picture for my extra $750 or whatever miss the point. I'd rather have the money in my pocket than be able to count Angelina Jolie's pores.
Everybody out there probably knows more about this than I do, so: Any opinions?
Thanks
What kinda tv service do you have/watch-most programming on lower # reg networks isn't shown in HD, last I knew.
 

·
Beetpull DeLite
Joined
·
12,748 Posts
Common confusion

Cory, the "switch" doesn't really have anything to do with HDTV. Instead, it's referring to going from analogue standard-definition over-the-air broadcast to digital. That's all.

So, if you do buy a new TV now, make sure it has the ability to tune into digital broadcast channels. It doesn't have to be HDTV-ready or not - that's a whole 'nother thing.
 

·
Government Mule
Joined
·
1,326 Posts
Agree to the three tiers and have one box HD two digital only. Local channels and PBS are on HD here. Currently I am going to say without being 100% sure that almost everything we receive on HD is available on other formats. There is a perceptible enhancement of video reception on HD tv and we chew aZZ when someone tunes to a lower resolution when HD is avail.
 

·
wut?
Joined
·
14,590 Posts
GirchyGirchy said:
Cory, the "switch" doesn't really have anything to do with HDTV. Instead, it's referring to going from analogue standard-definition over-the-air broadcast to digital. That's all.

So, if you do buy a new TV now, make sure it has the ability to tune into digital broadcast channels. It doesn't have to be HDTV-ready or not - that's a whole 'nother thing.
Even if your TV is not digital ready, you can get a top box when the change occurs for cheap. The gov't may even subsidize them for poor people. 'Cause poor people needs to dull their senses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
GirchyGirchy said:
Cory, the "switch" doesn't really have anything to do with HDTV. Instead, it's referring to going from analogue standard-definition over-the-air broadcast to digital. That's all.

So, if you do buy a new TV now, make sure it has the ability to tune into digital broadcast channels. It doesn't have to be HDTV-ready or not - that's a whole 'nother thing.
It's almost impossible now to buy a tv without a digital turner.
When HDTV becomes standard commercial programing rather than simultaneously broadcasted as it is now the 16:9 aspect ratio will also become standard. There is a digital bandwidth problem and commerical interests that is forcing that to happen. CBS and NBC have already committed to programing in 1080i and PBS, ABC and FOX in 720p. Both of those formats are 16:9. You will need to down convert that format to 480i for an older analog 4:3 tv and to 480p for a digital 4:3 tv to eliminate letterboxing. Depending on the quality of the down conversion and your tv's video interfacer you could get an even softer and less dynamic picture than you're getting now on a digital 4:3 tv with digital standard definition programs. If someone is planning on buying a new tv and plans to keep it for more than 4 years I would strongly suggest a 16:9 screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
don't worry about the switch in '09? The gov. will hand out free money to people for converter boxes. Money will come from the selling of the current analog TV frequencies to cellular and wireless broadband companies.

There are not many true HD sources. Yes the formating may be 16:9 but the resolution is still 480p. DVDs are also 480.

Get the largest screen size you can buy for the money you want to spend regardless of 16:9 or 4:3. It will probably be 4:3.

A 32" 4:3 tv when playing letter box is like a 29" 16:9 tv.

A 32" 16:9 tv when playing normal 4:3 content is like a 26" 4:3 tv.
 

·
wut?
Joined
·
14,590 Posts
kpcw said:
Just the fact that he even considers 4:3 set makes me wanna rip his goddam b*lls off and make hot and sour soup.

Edit: I meant wonton soup, wonton.
A 4:3 HD monitor is like a Porsche 911 in automatic. It just makes no sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
mellowman said:
don't worry about the switch in '09? The gov. will hand out free money to people for converter boxes. Money will come from the selling of the current analog TV frequencies to cellular and wireless broadband companies.

There are not many true HD sources. Yes the formating may be 16:9 but the resolution is still 480p. DVDs are also 480.

Get the largest screen size you can buy for the money you want to spend regardless of 16:9 or 4:3. It will probably be 4:3.

A 32" 4:3 tv when playing letter box is like a 29" 16:9 tv.

A 32" 16:9 tv when playing normal 4:3 content is like a 26" 4:3 tv.
If you want to pay for a 32" screen to watch a 29" picture that's okay with me.
With the excellent stretch modes now available a 32" 16:9 gives you a 32" 4:3 picture

I've seen the difference between straight 480p and both1080i and 720p downconverted by removing and blending scan lines to get to 480p. The resolution of a downconverted picture is not as good as the normal 480p picture. Like I said in my other post if you don't want either a smaller picture on your screen or a softer picture with even less resolution than you're getting now, get a 16:9
 

·
wut?
Joined
·
14,590 Posts
kpcw said:
If someone, anyone purchases a 4:3 set, they're making about as much sense as someone thinking that 'Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights' can be anything close to the original 'Dirty Dancing' even if you have Patrick Swayze IN 'Havana Nights' as a dance instructor (which they did do indeed) :rolleyes:
I think my Porsche analogy was sufficient.
 

·
Shirtcocker
Joined
·
60,639 Posts
spyderman said:
Prices are still way too high.

I don't get how/why the goberment feels the need to force people to adopt this technology? Granted it has been in Japan for like 15+ yrs, but let the free market determine if it's actually worth the extra money. :rolleyes:

Of course, I never feel the need to be the first on the block to own anything.
I'm with you--when I can buy a relatively large HDTV for $400-500 like I can now with a conventional TV I'll bite. Right now my 36" Panasonic TV works just fine and since I don't know what I'm missing I keep my money and remain blissful in my ignorance. I can remember after getting married having a tiny 20" color TV with a mono speaker and it seemed just fine at the time. Each size bigger was an improvement and made me wonder how I ever watched it on a smaller screen. The kicker though was my 5.1 sound system and DVDs--that made the watching/listening experience exponentially better than before.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top