WRONG WRONG WRONG. You obviously dont know a damn thing about HDTV and are nearly blind. On a large set, the difference between analog NTSC and true HD is HUGE and the HD is the better one of course. All you have to do is see them side by side or switch from a HD broadcast to the same analog channel counterpart to see the HUGE difference in picture quality that only HD allows.
Are you so stupid that you think that the entire video engineering world would change to a new DTV standard in 1998 after about 45 years (NTSC color standard dates to 1953) for no reason? The HD standard's picture quality simply blows away what you can get with the old NTSC standard, even broadcast quality NTSC coming right off the best cameras. Its not perfect, no, but its way way way better than NTSC ever was. One larger sets, the NTSC interlaced 480 lines are clearly visible and on HD they disappear. On NTSC, your watching a cropped 4x3 image of nearly all the prime time network TV shows, whereas on HD broadcasts of same shows you are seeing the whole image. NTSC is WORSE in every respect. By going to a NEW and completely incompatible DTV standard, they improved the picture quality without anything worse than before and mostly every key specification better and VISIBLY better too. As for blu-ray and HD-DVD, both of these formats are superior to DVD in all respects. I dont know where you get or got your information or eyeglass presription, but you couldnt be more wrong on all counts except maybe what you like and dont like in programming. BUT- EVEN THAT may be wrong too, because the HDTV picture quality is so much better and the viewing experience is so much different than NTSC that you will be surprised to find that you may even like more genres of what to watch once you UPGRADE to HD. I know I did. JCO -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:07 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: It's snowing in hell --OT Seen it, on several good sets. It's pretty. But the quality gain isn't all that much over a good analog set, certainly not enough to justify the massive increase in cost. And there is no quality gain over a good monitor playing back high-bitrate video. In fact, for quality, the HD sets (even the best) aren't up to a good widescreen LCD. Since I'd have at most 1 other person watching as I have a small apartment and rarely have anyone other than my GF over, a 21" or 24" widescreen is more than sufficient. And the DRM on HD broadcasts is obnoxious. Enough that I'll not get an HD tuner even for a PC. Frankly, I've seen some HD and Blu-Ray DVD's. So far most look actually worse than the plain DVD version and notably inferior to a Superbit DVD. This will change as they get native versions rather than poorly upsampled from DVD versions. But currently you'll get the best quality from a good DVD on a progressive scan set rather than an HD format, and 480i isn't all that far behind. Outside of gaming and maybe sports, HD offers absolutely nothing I value. And I don't watch much sports. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > ARE YOU BLIND? I have been enjoying > glorious HDTV for several years now and after > the first few months I couldnt even watch > the old analog signals anymore. Its incredible and > has approx 10 times the resolution of an > analog signal on a letterboxed 4:3 screen. > Even more if you want to compare to VHS > which is too absured to even mention. > > 1080i format is SIX times rez of DVD format and > you cant even get progressive scanning > with any old 4x3 sets. > > You are DEAD WRONG about HDTV being > "mostly a scam". Its the greatest > home entertainment product of all time > IMHO and I cant imagine ever going > back to crappy analog, it looks > so fake compared to what good HD > looks like. Your crediblity has > been seriously breached with these > comments, thats for sure because > these new HDTV sets simply BLOW AWAY > anything ever possible on the > old NTSC sets with analog signals. > Its not just defintion either, they > have better contrast range, less > electronic artifacts, less luminance > and chromanace noise, better color > accuracy, better color gamut, and > better sound too. Its a "blowout" > compared to ntsc. > > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Adam Maas > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 1:22 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: It's snowing in hell --OT > > > Seen HDTV, not worth the cost. A good HD set costs more than my > laptop, > for little benefit (unless you host several people at once and thus need > > a larger screen further from you). > > HD is mostly a scam to get you to buy new HD-DVD's or Blu-Ray DVD's to > replace your DVD collection, while ensuring you can't record TV > broadcasts for your archive. > > -Adam > Who *may* go HD when he gets an Xbox 360, but only for the games which > actually do benefit from more resolution. > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> My God, this is the HDTV era for 8 years >> already! Get yourself >> a good HDTV and get free DVDS ( they look >> way better on a progressive scan HDTV >> than any analog 4x3 set can ) from the >> library. You dont know what you're missing, >> especailly if you can appreciate good >> imaging/cinematography and being a photographer already kinda proves >> that. jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of graywolf >> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 12:16 PM >> To: PDML >> Subject: It's snowing in hell --OT >> >> >> Graywolf got a new pet, a television. There it was sitting in the >> thrift >> >> store looking all sad and abandoned, so he paid $15 + tax to spring >> it. >> It sulked at first shutting itself off after less than an hour, and >> graywolf thought he was going to have to turn it out on the streets. > But >> a thorough cleaning, wasn't filthy but 25 years of dust on its >> circuit boards mostly came off and a night to get used to its new >> home, and it > >> seems to be working nicely. >> >> Like any new pet graywolf is going to have to buy it some things, a >> remote, and a longer cable as the one he has is not long enough to >> tether it to the splitter and he has to change back and forth between > it >> and the modem in the mean time. And later a VCR so graywolf can watch >> movies from the local public library. Maybe an upgrade in cable > service. >> This could be a very expensive pet. >> >> OH? The breed? Magnavox 27in stereo console. By its tag it was born >> early in 1983 and cost $539.97 ($849.95 list). Does that make it an >> antique, or just an old TV? >> >> One would think the thing would take up a lot of space, but actually >> instead of taking up space it provides a table to place things like > the >> DVD player and the Epson printer on. >> >> Anyway as the subject line implies graywolf buying a TV is a very >> rare occurrence, it has only happened twice in 63 years. >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
