Your crazy. these HDTVS cost LESS than non HDTVS of the same size but far worse picture quality of 10 years ago. And I dont mean less adjusting for inflation, I mean a lower actual price tag. These are a home entertainment TRUE BARGAIN at todays prices. The life of these products is mostly based on hours, so if you dont watch a lot, they last longer in years so any way you look at it they are a great value, especailly when compared to the alternative which is watching an old tiny crappy boring ntsc picture year after year. No wonder you dont watch much. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 4:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: It's snowing in hell --OT Yes, there is a quality increase. No it doesn't justify spending 5x the money I spent on the old TV for a new TV. HD isn't affordable, it's expensive ($1500-2000CDN for a good set large enough to show any advantages, vs $3-400CDN for a decent 27" CRT). I'm fully aware of the technology (Note I've been debating this subject for years with a couple of HD-phile coworkers) And with playback tech, you judge it by what you actually get from it, not what it might be capable of once someone gets their shit together and starts producing the quality the format can technically provide. When that happens, then you re-evaluate. As to the programming, it may be pretty, but that doesn't save most of it from being crap. And apart from sports (Which seems to show the advantages of HD quite well) most of it dopesn't look all that much better in practice. I've compared. HD simply doesn't justify the cost currently unless you're either a home theater enthusiast (as you certainly appear to be) or a sports fanatic. I'm neither. And at current prices, HD is mostly a cash grab. Such things always are in the early adopter phase. Call me when I can get a ~32" HD set for $400CDN. Then I'll consider it (It will probably be time to replace my TV then anyways). -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Sir, I suggest you get and read up a lot more on HDTV > before you make these kind of statements. > The image quality is a quantum leap from > NTSC and really is far more noticable on large > screens ( just like big prints in digial > photography ) than he small ones you mentioned > earlier. > > As far as costs go, who care's if it costs > more than NTSC if it's way way better and > still very very affordable. Would you use > a shitty camera just because it was cheap > or free compared to a good one that was > still very very affordable? I wouldnt. > > Regarding the FCC, most local TV stations > were given a SECOND channel for HD broadcasting > and are now using duplicate space, one 6 MHZ > channel for analog, and one 6 MHZ channel for HD/DTV. > This is a huge waste of space for the analog > signal that hardly anyone watches via antenna > and thats being shut down in a couple of years > to use ALL the spectrum for HD/DTV channels. > > Regarding HD-DVD and BLU-RAY, like any other > format you dont judge the format by a few > or any particular titles you may have seen > or heard of, you judge the format by the > very best it is capable of doing. Even DVD > format took about 5 years before all titles > reached the limits of the format, but there > is no way you can say the these new formats > are the same or worse than DVD because they > are not. They are better. In the case of > 1080P format, its SIC TIMES the resolution > of DVD and about 10 times the resolution > of a letterboxed old NTSC broadcast. > > Finally regarding HD programming, there is tons > of it, including DVD, which I already explained > looks way better on 16x9 progressive scan > HDTVS than any analog sets, to see. I get > more now than I can even keep up with and I > watch a lot. These things you are posting > are all either false or just myths and are doing > no good to people on the fence missing out > on the great entertainment available because everyone > on the fence should be jumping over it immediately > based on low cost and incredible increase > in pleasure that HD provides compared to crappy > analog IMHO. > > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Adam Maas > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 3:08 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: It's snowing in hell --OT > > > Interspersed. > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> 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. > > Done so. Yes there's a quality difference. But frankly, TV (apart from > sports) is a place where 'good enough' suffices. And the quality > differences are less than those between NTSC and my computer monitor. > >> 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. > > Because the FCC wants the analog TV broadcast spectrum back, so it can > resell it for billions of dollars (Since digital broadcasts are far more > > efficient from a required amount of spectrum standpoint). Note that HD > broadcasts didn't start showing up until the FCC imposed deadlines on > termination of analog broadcasts. HDTV was dead in the water until then, > > nobody except a few Home Theater enthusiasts and a few TV > manufacturers > wanted it. Even then it didn't become mainstream until flat-panel TV's > became practical a couple years ago. > >> 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. > > And? > >> 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. > > No, NTSC is not worse. It's lower quality at (FAR) lower cost. In > other > words, it's a much better deal. > >> 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. > > Yeah, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are capable of giving better quality. But > until > > the actual data on them is giving the quality, it won't happen. I've > yet > > to see a Blu-Ray or HD disc which isn't poorly upsampled DVD content. > And I work with some media whores who have gone whole-hog into HD, so i > get to see this stuff on good equipment. > > Frankly, I care more about the quality of the programming than how > pretty it looks (or good it sounds). And there's sweet f all of good > content on broadcast TV these days. > > >> JCO >> >> > > > -Adam > -- 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
