So? You still need a larger one than you do of a 4:3 for decent viewing (Due to the reduced vertical dimension, where you'd need a 36" or 42" unit to match a 27" 4:3 CRT). And larger costs more. I've no interest in a large 4:3 unit either (even bigger waste of money than HD, since it doesn't even look better than my 27")
A pricetag of around $2000 still isn't a bargain. Especially given the 5x cost difference between that and the $400 I'v already spent on the current, thoroughly acceptable, unit. It's also seriously not worth it for someone who doesn't watch much TV. Given a 10 year lifespan for my current TV(lowballing here), I might be ready to buy a new one in 2011 or so. So, for my TV budget I can have a tiny (20" or so) HD unit without all the good stuff (It will be 720p at most) or my current much larger 27" CRT. Hmm, think about it for a moment. My 27" is large enough for what I watch (When I actually watch something). I don't need a larger TV. I don't need more resolution. It does nothing for me. NTSC is more than adequate for my limited use. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > 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
