Posted on 10/26/2006 7:20:25 PM PDT by Snickering Hound
Agreed. You don't foster an innovative environment by dismissing progress. The fact that he'd publicly do so is terrible management.
"...but earlier you wrote: "HDTV of at least 16.5 inches in height" which sounds like a 27" TV (27" is diagonal, that divided by square root of 2 is 19" high). Now you're talking about a 57" HDTV. Huge price difference there."
The 27" TV is about 16.5 high (not square). I figure if I'm going to go to HD, the height of the images has to be at least as tall as what I am looking at now.
I did the math and came up with a minimum of a 34" HD set. Since there don't seem to be any non-tube 34" sets (190 pounds for a 34" tube HD set), it seems that the 37" model is the one that meets my needs. They are in the $1400-$2500 range.
Assuming I want to spend the money, I then would like to get the programming and the DVR capability that I have now. It doesn't seem to be available.
What's the point of spending all of that money when I'll be watching the same old 4:3 standard TV programs? I don't get it. I've been to sports bars and watched the HD versions of football and baseball games. It's OK, but how much sports can one watch?
My evaluation is that unless you have broadcast HD in your area or are a heavy sports watcher (with HD channels for your favorite teams), it's going to be a good long while before converting makes sense. Additionally, since the price of HD is going to drop exponentially over the next few years, the wait will be painless and will save money with the loss of only a few hours a week of actual HD programming that you might watch.
Going from a 17"TV to a 57" HDTV. Yeah, you're really making a fair comparison there to complain about prices.
Go back under your bridge, troll.
I concur.
I see no reason to jump now when you have competing formats, poor choice of programing (Big One There), and new tech is going to be even better than plasma or LCD sets.
I do remember passing by a Discovery HD picture of some vultures picking apart a bloody carcass with flies buzzing all around and entrails hanging from the animal.
That really made me appreciate low def.
We have HD TV....and once you watch it, you'll see the difference....the HD TV has a much sharper focus to the point that the picture looks "real"....when you return back to your regular TV, you won't be able to see the fine detail.....and the picture will look fuzzy and out of focus....
16:9 scales way down to 16:6 when they start running the scrolls.
Can you really see their goosebumps?
I don't think it is the cost as much as the "why bother" factor.
The quality is awsome. However the content is poop.
I don't drift down to the lower end of the channel spectrum. (path to 9/11 was the only time in years)
People buy big screens before superbowl I imagin HDTV's have the same cycle.
Some how I don't feel the incentive to see Catie Kouric on CBS or Rosane Bar on Showtime or last years Politically Correct movies that are on the non-premium channels in HDTV.
Particularly when as people point out next year it will be FAR less money. I will switch, just not today and not at the price presently offered.
Try my approach, I don't have a TV of any kind. When a game is on that I want to watch I go to the local bar. I either read a book or turn on the Radio (XM Radio). Can anyone tell me what I am missing on TV?
>>>I don't know anything about HDTV. To me a TV is a TV
There are things that just have to be seen in HD to understand why it's so much better. One of them in Nikki Cox on NBC's "Las Vegas". And I find I'm watching more sports than I used to on HD - NFL, World Series, even golf.
"Going from a 17"TV to a 57" HDTV. Yeah, you're really making a fair comparison there to complain about prices."
I would be going from a 27" 4:3 to a 37" HD. You need to read the whole thread before you jump in with both feet in your mouth.
That's a fair argument. The only really phenomenal HD programming option comes from Dish network (which, again, is a non-option for me).
For your purposes waiting is a good deal.
For *my* purposes I get good value out of a HDTV presently. I have a moderate number of HD channels (fortunately including TNT, as my wife likes Law and Order). Standard DVDs are more enjoyable on a widescreen display; I've saved a bit of money and a lot of grief by not going to movies. Lastly, the set we chose (a Panasonic LCD rear-projection) has 4 component, 1 DVI-HDCP, some S-Video and two VGA inputs so it makes a great computer monitor.
the better question: who needs nbc?
The whole subject seems anaphoric to me; who wants to look at black bars?
Who needs NBC? Broadcast news is obsolete.
Well, not networks whose editorial biases are putting them out of business, anyway. ;)
"fortunately including TNT, as my wife likes Law and Order"
Are Law and Order reruns in HD or are you watching 4:3 TV in HD?
Just wait until you see them side by side during the Super Bowl.
True of VHS but not DVD. If you have any DVD's that currently play in 16 X 9 with the bars at the top and bottom, they'll fill up the whole screen on an HDTV. And while the picture is NOT high definition, with a progressive-scan 480p DVD player the picture is MUCH better.
I don't have an HDTV yet either, I'm waiting for prices to come down. Once they hit the $600 range I'll take the plunge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.