You love the idea! Admit it!
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.
1) Cost. Why pay $3,000 for a tv set when you can get a great standard tv for $300?
False. HD sets do not cost $3000. I bought an HD set over a year ago for $600. You can't compare a 50" plasma flat screen HDTV to a 27" CRT SDTV.
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.
False. Anamorphic DVDs are optimized for the 16:9 format. "Full screen" DVDs are a waste of money. Additionally, a 480p, anamorphic widescreen DVDs play very well on most HDTVs, when played on most progressive DVD players built in the last three to four years. The TVs include scale converters to upscale the image, and do so quite well. I recently viewed a 60" Sony 1080p SXRD TV displaying Black Hawkdown from a cheap, portable DVD player at a Sony Style store. Granted, it did not look as good as the BluRay Disk content in the next room, but it looked far superior to anything presented on an SDTV.
As for VHS, all I can say is, that's so 80s.
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.
Fair point. And if that is what you spend most of your time watching, so be it. However, I have moved some VHS content over to DVD, and the HDTV handles it better than if it came from the tape directly.
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?
That depends. I was in a Magnolia AV store last night and saw a horrible site: Keith Richards in HD! However, I thought American Idol looked much better in HD.
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.
Try watching something like CSI, 24, or Law and Order in HD. Solidly produced drama, filmed by directors who know how to use HD, definately looks better.
$3000?
next year, 42" HD plasmas (name brand) will be under $1000.
Why pay $40,000 for a car when you can get one for $11,000? Why pay $50 for a sweater, when you can get one for $9.99. IT'S THE QUALITY. Some of us are willing to spend the money we earn on some of the nicer things in life.
You love the idea! Admit it!
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.
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.