I don't know anything about HDTV. To me a TV is a TV.
I've had HDTV for a year and a half, and I think the difference is worth it. I find it hard to believe that 60% of the people who have bought HDTV's don't have HDTV signals going into them, but it could be true, I guess. What puzzles me is that, even when the show is in HDTV, most of the commercials aren't. Even if few people have HDTV yet, I'd think the commercial producers would want to appeal to customers who spend more than average. I doubt that it would cost much more to film the commercials in HDTV.
This guy is braindead. I routinely turn off television fare because it's not in HD in favor of something that is.
You can't polish a turd anyway.
As I've written before, my 17" color TV with DirecTV has a good picture and I'm in no hurry to spend a couple of thousand bucks for HDTV.
It appears that I am not alone. $200 with a good picture vs. $2,000 with a slightly better picture... It looks like it's going to be a good long while before I get HD.
On another note, I have the whole Dolby 5.1 thing hooked up, but I hardly ever use it. The whole surround sound thing is annoying. The wide range of volumes guarantees that I'll have the TV way too loud in order to hear the quiet parts. With the straight stereo TV speakers, that isn't a problem.
My house isn't a theater and I would like to be able to carry on a conversation during the commercials. With the 5.1 on and the LOUD commercials, it's just plain irritating.
HD is a better picture but there are two major problems:
1) Cost. Why pay $3,000 for a tv set when you can get a great standard tv for $300?
2) Conversion. All the old standard programming you have on VHS and DVD will not look any better in high def than they did on standard and may even be distorted in the new 16:9 format. I have decades' worth of sporting events in low def 4:3 standard format that are either unplayable or look like crap on a high def tv.
Additionally, a lot of programming isn't worth watching in high def. Are talk shows or news shows any better when you can see people's age spots and warts more clearly?
I'll go to HD kicking and screaming when the government makes me do it but, until then, I'm happy with the quality of what I'm watching now even if it is inferior to the high def picture. Other than for sports programming, I don't even care to see the difference.
I don't watch TV, so I shouldn't talk, but I think it's too early to buy HDTV. The standards are still being fought over for the DVDs, and the consoles are still very expensive. I'll wait a few years.
If I buy it, it will be to watch movies on. That might make it worth while.
Hi def big screens run from $1000 to 50,000, but smaller size high def screens can be had for way under $1000, closer to $500-$300. The government is not forcing HD viewing, just digital over the air. There is a difference.
Of Larry King. Larry King's giant monster nose on a 60 inch screen 5 feet away.
No thanks.
No snow, no ghosting and no flipping is good enough for me.
The real problem is that there is virtually no one left in Hollywood who can still write scripts.
They used to crank 'em out by the bushel years ago (particularly in the radio/serial days), but it's largely a lost art.
I'm not in any rush for HDTV, to put it mildly. But I do enjoy television. 10% of what I view is Fox News, the Weather Channel, and local news. The remaining 90% is comprised of dvd's of older series (like "Rawhide," "Combat," "I Spy," and such), as well as a few old classic films, here and there.
I view these on a 27-inch Sony Trinitron, and I'm quite happy with the results. No reason for me to go HDTV or anamorphic/widescreen, considering the vintage of the fare I tend to view. I haven't the slightest inclination to go for any of these upgrades. They really have nothing to offer me.
The difference between standard-def and HD (even 720p) is stunning; no matter the show it's like cleaning the fry oil off your glasses.
(Sidebar: most if not all widescreen HDTVs can display SD content either stretched (ugh, but some prefer the picture to fill the screen) or in the original aspect ratio - there's no reason your old tapes/DVDs have to look bad).
(Sidebar2: widescreen versions of good movies look much better than fullscreen versions. The immersion into the scene is much more present when you're viewing (most of) the original scene as opposed to a porthole-view into just the actor's face. HD widescreen is good enough that I don't see any reason to set foot in a theatre even for good films any more.) The content providers themselves have fought kicking and screaming to avoid a) going all-digital and b) going HD -- these are separate, and only a) is mandated by the FTC. What little they've put in HD they fight doubly hard to wrap with layers of inconvenience in the form of content protection (HDCP).
The reason IMO is that again, everything becomes very very clear in HD. A "perky" anchor or actress' makeup job might become clearly visible to the audience where it wasn't in low-rez. Studio sets have to be higher-quality to look good. The technical equipment is higher-cost of course, but that's a depreciating cost as the tech becomes mainstream.
On our end, the cost of the set has already dropped; you can get a 27" HD set for ... $375. (quick search through a popular brick-and-mortar store's listing).
Upshot is that those content providers that adopt the new tech will set the pace (and get to define the standards to their benefit); fools like Zucker who crawl backwards will find themselves in bad shape when HD is everywhere. It's analogous to the US automakers trudging along selling the same-old while their competitors pursue R&D; eventually the bill comes due.
Those without HD have not seen a movie or sporting event displayed on a 100" screen by a decent video projector in a light controlled room. It's vivid and three dimensional, like looking out of a window.
Given a choice you will subsequently seek out HD over standard fare.
BUMP
When I want HDTV I put my glasses on.
Who the Hell needs more than 64K of memory, anyway?
the better question: who needs nbc?
Who needs NBC? Broadcast news is obsolete.