I will respond to one thing, and its not to "win" its on the topic. I have already stated this about 10 times, these sets are now CHEAPER than they were 10 years ago with way better picture quality which give you ( I think I forgot to mention this) way better VIEWING EXPERIENCE. I remember when I first started viewing really good HD sources, that now only was the the picture better than I expected, it was better than I could even imagined was possible. That was my first impression of it all.
Secondly, you get fairly easily get a whole bunch of HDTV feeds for no monthly fee at all by buying a good antenna for around $100. As for the "stupid comments" I didnt say anyone was stupid, I asked the question, WHY would you stick with analog when you can now get something much much better for very low cost? Its like sticking with dialup even after DSL came way down in price, or sticking with an old PC just because it still works. If the new product is cheap enough to be affordable, who cares if its 100 times the price of the old one if it does things the old one cant? NTSC cant do for you what HD can. Trust me on this, the difference is not subtle and I am not talking about specs, I am talking about the difference in the viewing experence. I not only wouldnt watch an old analog NTSC set even if you gave me the best one ever made and for free. that means HD would be infinately more costly, but it not the "cost factor" that counts, its the entertainment value that counts. jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 5:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Please everyone set up an email filter On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I forgot something, THE PICTURE (quality) IS NOT > IMPORTANT "for a lot" of people? Are you crazy? I am posting this > stuff in a photo forum inhabited by mostly photographers. They should > know better than that unless all they watch is hillbilly shows like > COPS, Pro Wrestling, AND Fear Factor. Thats not the demographic of > this group I dont think makes any sense to say that. Vastly improved > picture quality enhances motion pictures just as much it does > still pictures...Come on with this stuff! > jco > For a factor of 2-3x in price to replace a TV set, followed with (often significantly) higher costs for high-def feeds? Most people I know don't spend 5 hours a day watching TV. I personally watch about 3 hours, but it's on my homebrew Tivo (MythTV, actually), so I can watch 3 hours of network television (documentaries, mostly) in about 1.5 hours. No commercials and sped up a few percent. You stated a few facts. High-def is better, technically, yes. HD sets have gotten cheaper, yes. Imposing your OPINION that everybody who hasn't bought a new set and upgraded their service is stupid is, well, stupid. State your facts, correct others' incorrect facts in a polite way, state your opinions, and then respect the fact that others may not agree. I'm sure you will find the need to rebut this response to "win," so feel free. I will not reply anymore. You have already "won." Cheers. -Cory -- ************************************************************************ * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************************************ * -- 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
