Do you agree that HD era is just a hype and it will go away?

[UNCjigga]

The HD displays are fine, but its the content that's missing. The problem is over-the-air will limit what content you can get, and cable spectrum is still largely analog (they'll boost content capacity once they stop carrying analog signals and convert to pure digital.) I don't think the real HD era will arrive until every Dish, DirecTV and cable channel is digital H.264 encoded and the receivers are under $50 (no DVR) or a small pittance of a monthly fee to own. Even then most of the content will be 480p standard or widescreen format.

edit: FreshPrince is dead wrong with a lot of what he said.

First off, most HDTVs that are not CRT-based (plasma, LCD, DLP or LCoS) all have a fixed native resolution. For the vast majority of installed HDTVs that resolution is 1280x720 or 1366x768. Its only the newer or more expensive sets that support 1920x1080. Whether the content you are watching is 1080i or 1080p makes no difference, as almost any HDTV that is not CRT will upconvert on its own to progressive scan. This won't really degrade quality since its not the same as stretching an image in photoshop--there is no stretching. Its just using previous and next frames to fill in the gaps in interlaced frames. On a 720p native res screen, all the content is downsampled to 720p, and you don't lose 'quality' when you downsample, only when you upsample. Very few stations broadcast in 720p--most do 1080i. So the instance where 720p content will be converted to 1080p is rare.

 

[Blayze]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
why do you think they pushed it back from 2005 to 2009?

there isn't a standard yet...and people don't want to throw away perfectly good TV's for inferior technology. yes, that's right, I said it. It's inferior because there isn't a standard.

you can buy a 1080p model now, but there won't hardly be any channels that support this resolution.

now if the TV can somehow magically upscale/upconvert 1080i to 1080p and increase the picture's quality, then it's superior technology.

right now 1080i will look like crap on a 1080p set because you either get the black bars, or you upscale, but lost quality/perspective.

widescreen and HD are the two biggest SCAMS every created by mankind. Oooh, look, it's wide screen so it must be better. Remember WS movies on standard 4:3 TV sets? there weren't any widescreen TV's out yet, but they started the scam. what a joke.

now they want to force HD and we don't even have a standard yet. If all TV stations broadcast in 1080p and that's the only resolution they broadcast, then yes, getting a "HD" set will make sense. But they don't all do that do they? some broadcast in 1080i, some in 720p. Until all channels broadcast in one res., I will not get an HD set, it's pointless. Unless like I said they come out with a TV that magically upconverts all lower quality sources into its higher quality native resolution. we all know that will never happen...it's like trying to convert a 640x480 72dpi pic into a 1920x1200 1200dpi pic in photoshop and expect the quality to stay the same...LMAO!

I watch widescreen movies on my 4:3 set all the time. I don't have a widescreen TV, and don't have any plans to buy one anytime soon. However I do like my movies to be OAR. If that means its 1.33:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc...

As I understand the only way to get true HD is OTA. Dish Network, DirecTV, and cable companies (some may) do not display full HD. They use "HD Lite" instead.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: jelkukipik

Originally posted by: IGBT
..average tv viewer doesn't care and is upset their tv will be only good for watching jelly beans very soon..when the FuCC makes broadcasters give up existing spectrum.

Why would they stop broadcasting LD content in a few years? Why? over 75% of the planet wont be able to afford HD and will want to stick with they old technology.Do you really think they will pull the plug on LD content?

Cmon.Think about it. 70% of the people still can't fvckin understand why 4:3 content is not good compare to widescreen content( i hate the two black bar is my favorite comment..)

Doesn't really help the rest of the planet but wasn't the government planning to set aside money for "vouchers" for people who only have over the air reception? Cable/ sat companies would likely take care of the rest. But really....its only $50 to make your TV work. Those that can't afford that probably shouldn't be sitting on their @sses watching TV anyway. Especially since they have plenty of time to save up..........


Edit: Not talking about HD

 

[UNCjigga]

Originally posted by: Blayze
As I understand the only way to get true HD is OTA. Dish Network, DirecTV, and cable companies (some may) do not display full HD. They use "HD Lite" instead.

Sort of. OTA and cable/satellite encode HD differently. OTA and cable are both capable of the same quality and resolution, but currently cable/satellite HD channels are more compressed because of bandwidth limitations, so you may notice a few more compression artifacts here and there with current and older tuners. Newer tuners offer a better picture.

 

[EightySix Four]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
why do you think they pushed it back from 2005 to 2009?

there isn't a standard yet...and people don't want to throw away perfectly good TV's for inferior technology. yes, that's right, I said it. It's inferior because there isn't a standard.

you can buy a 1080p model now, but there won't hardly be any channels that support this resolution.

now if the TV can somehow magically upscale/upconvert 1080i to 1080p and increase the picture's quality, then it's superior technology.

right now 1080i will look like crap on a 1080p set because you either get the black bars, or you upscale, but lost quality/perspective.

widescreen and HD are the two biggest SCAMS every created by mankind. Oooh, look, it's wide screen so it must be better. Remember WS movies on standard 4:3 TV sets? there weren't any widescreen TV's out yet, but they started the scam. what a joke.

now they want to force HD and we don't even have a standard yet. If all TV stations broadcast in 1080p and that's the only resolution they broadcast, then yes, getting a "HD" set will make sense. But they don't all do that do they? some broadcast in 1080i, some in 720p. Until all channels broadcast in one res., I will not get an HD set, it's pointless. Unless like I said they come out with a TV that magically upconverts all lower quality sources into its higher quality native resolution. we all know that will never happen...it's like trying to convert a 640x480 72dpi pic into a 1920x1200 1200dpi pic in photoshop and expect the quality to stay the same...LMAO!

Not true at all... 1080i looks just as good on a 1080p screen as it does on a 1080i only screen.

720p looks great and any 1080i/1080p can display it. A 720p set can down convert 1080i and 1080p to look fine.

This is coming from experience with many tv's, my current LCD 1080p, a mitsubishi 65inch 1080i screen, and many 480p (edtv) and 480i (SDTV) sets.

 

[Baked]

Eventually, all programs will be broadcasted in HD.

 

[Shadowknight]

I only watch OTA signals, haven't paid for cable since 1998. I looked into getting a digital receiver, not wanting to buy a new tv set, happy with my 19-inch CRT also from 1998. The new rabbit ears and some type of converter box I would need would cost over $200. When everything is finally converted to digital broadcasting, I'll get a new tv then. And only because I would rather have an integrated tuner. Many current HD sets are "HD ready". meaning they don't have the tuner built in. If in 2009 (or whenever) the converter still costs $200, the HD sets should be cheaper by then, and I'll just kick in a couple hundred extra bucks for a new tv.

Given how cheap I am, coupled with the relative lack of HD shows/channels, the price for HD sets aren't worth it right now. When I do go HD, I'll stick with CRT if it's still available. Supposedly, I've heard the industry wants to eliminate it entirely. The beauty of CRT is I don't have to worry about a super expensive bulb I might have to replace if it dies (DLP), dead pixels (LCD), or screen burn in (plasma). There's also been talk about which technology gives the best color of plasma, LCD, or DLP, and hopefully that won't be an issue with the CRT designs.

 

[ponyo]

I'll let you folks subsidize my future HDTV. You keep on buying. Someone has to fund R&D.

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: RossMAN

Originally posted by: tontod

Originally posted by: RossMAN

Originally posted by: crazySOB297
I just got mine today... Extremely happy with it. Westinghouse 37 inch LCD, 1080P and it was on sale for $1300 😀

You're kidding me, wow that's an awesome price.

A few months ago it was $1899 or $1749 "on sale".

I love my Westinghouse 32" LCD for $809 sure it can't do 1080p but $809 OTD 🙂

I'm pretty happy with my 44" LCD Panasonic for $1300. Same thing, it cant do 1080p. Is there much of a noticeable difference between 1080i and 1080p?

Yes but AFAIK there isn't currently any 1080p content unless you download it on your PC. What I have seen so far with 720p/1080i is 100x better than my boob toob 27" Toshiba.

1080p content isn't far away......

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
> Your HD channels are good, but you need an expensive set to get then, expensive receiver

Get a job hippie!

> Your old channels look like crap on your new set.

Mostly because you're looking at SD on a much larger display than your old 27" blurry tube TV. The picture was just as bad, you just couldn't see it as clearly.

> There is no standar yet with this HD-DVD Blue Ray war( WHAT WAR ANYWAY???

So what. For now you have HD dish or cable, and Xbox360. By the end of the year you'll have PS3 and blu-ray.

Blu-ray will win because HD-DVD will still be an optional, external add-on for Xbox360 that costs almost as much as a PS3.

Microsoft given a price for the drive? Link???

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Naustica
I'll let you folks subsidize my future HDTV. You keep on buying. Someone has to fund R&D.

hd is so expensive u can get a cheap tube 27" for 399 these days. or a pc tuner for $150
what kind of rich folks can afford such things? someones drunk or something to create a thread like this. clearly color tv is so teh hype with beta/vhs wars and lack of home video for decades after release.. meh

hd is here. its freakin sold at costco. people buy it along with their giant bags of trail mix.

 

[Fritzo]

Seeing as all stations in the US will need to be brodcast in HD soon, no, it's not going away. If anything it's expanding.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: jelkukipik
Cmon.Try to explain to your 50 years old grand mother what HD is and she will laugh in your face.

What...it's TV that is so much clearer than normal TV that it looks like you're looking though a window.

Wow, that was hard.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Naustica
I'll let you folks subsidize my future HDTV. You keep on buying. Someone has to fund R&D.

hd is so expensive u can get a cheap tube 27" for 399 these days. or a pc tuner for $150
what kind of rich folks can afford such things? someones drunk or something to create a thread like this. clearly color tv is so teh hype with beta/vhs wars and lack of home video for decades after release.. meh

hd is here. its freakin sold at costco. people buy it along with their giant bags of trail mix.

HD is not here. This is the whole point of the thread. If you think couple channels of HD is proof HD is here, well I guess the hype worked on you.

HD is not cheap. When it's similar price as SD or cheaper, then it's cheap. We're still ways off no matter how much the marketing has you to believe.

Costco sells lot of upscale things. It's may be warehouse but it's considered luxury retailer. Not in the traditional sense but by Wall St and research people.

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: jelkukipik
Cmon.Try to explain to your 50 years old grand mother what HD is and she will laugh in your face.

My grandmother doesn't have a DVD player either. She has a VCR because someone gave it to her, but she doesn't use that either.

Guess VCRs should never have been invented since my grandmother doesn't use one.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Captante
In a few years HDTV will be commplace... folks saying its not going to catch on remind of the same comments directed towards the internet in the early to mid 1990's. Also if you do your homework theres no reason standard TV needs to look bad on an HDTV... it looks better on my Sony then any other TV I've ever owned & HD stuff looks amazing.

My family thought I was "strange" for using email and chat back in 1992. "Why wouldn't you just call them?"

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
why do you think they pushed it back from 2005 to 2009?

there isn't a standard yet...and people don't want to throw away perfectly good TV's for inferior technology. yes, that's right, I said it. It's inferior because there isn't a standard.

you can buy a 1080p model now, but there won't hardly be any channels that support this resolution.

now if the TV can somehow magically upscale/upconvert 1080i to 1080p and increase the picture's quality, then it's superior technology.

right now 1080i will look like crap on a 1080p set because you either get the black bars, or you upscale, but lost quality/perspective.

widescreen and HD are the two biggest SCAMS every created by mankind. Oooh, look, it's wide screen so it must be better. Remember WS movies on standard 4:3 TV sets? there weren't any widescreen TV's out yet, but they started the scam. what a joke.

now they want to force HD and we don't even have a standard yet. If all TV stations broadcast in 1080p and that's the only resolution they broadcast, then yes, getting a "HD" set will make sense. But they don't all do that do they? some broadcast in 1080i, some in 720p. Until all channels broadcast in one res., I will not get an HD set, it's pointless. Unless like I said they come out with a TV that magically upconverts all lower quality sources into its higher quality native resolution. we all know that will never happen...it's like trying to convert a 640x480 72dpi pic into a 1920x1200 1200dpi pic in photoshop and expect the quality to stay the same...LMAO!

Wow....do some research before you come onto ATOT and make yourself look stupid.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Naustica

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Naustica
I'll let you folks subsidize my future HDTV. You keep on buying. Someone has to fund R&D.

hd is so expensive u can get a cheap tube 27" for 399 these days. or a pc tuner for $150
what kind of rich folks can afford such things? someones drunk or something to create a thread like this. clearly color tv is so teh hype with beta/vhs wars and lack of home video for decades after release.. meh

hd is here. its freakin sold at costco. people buy it along with their giant bags of trail mix.

HD is not here. This is the whole point of the thread. If you think couple channels of HD is proof HD is here, well I guess the hype worked on you.

HD is not cheap. When it's similar price as SD or cheaper, then it's cheap. We're still ways off no matter how much the marketing has you to believe.

Costco sells lot of upscale things. It's may be warehouse but it's considered luxury retailer. Not in the traditional sense but by Wall St and research people.

sorry, prices are clearly dropping like a rock. as i said there are tube hd capable tvs for 400 dollars now. that is not high end or expensive. and the trend will continue. more and more buy flat screens, with lcd hdtv's dropping to 600 dollars already. there is rabid competition by the asian manufacturers and that wiill not end. its like claiming lcd's for computers are just hype because they cost more and most people were happy with crt😛 15" lcd used to cost almost 400 dollars and 19" lcd's costing atleast double that. now we have 19" lcd and minimum and standard with most store bought pc's.

and only a few channels? basically anything worth watching is already broadcast in hd.

 

[Pakman]

Is the OP serious? This is a joke right? No way in hell is the US gonna let the rest of the world go HD/digital and we be the only ones stuck on SD. Not gonna happen. We're already behind the times as it is. Why don't we just go back to black and white TV. Because everyone knows you have better contrast in b/w. Geeez!

 

[SearchMaster]

When I went looking for a new TV about a year and a half ago, my budget allowed for a widescreen HDTV. However, I ended up getting a cheaper (but high quality Tao) SDTV. Reason? There just isn't enough content available for me. I am pretty much stuck with Dish Network, and their HD content is very limited. Plus, 99% of what we watch is DVR'ed, and that was another grand for a HD DVR. Plus, like has been mentioned before, HD displays in the large stores that I had seen were less than impressive, and SD content on a large HDTV looks terrible IMO (either stretched or risk of burn-in).

Then a few months ago, I purchased the EDTV InFocus 4805 projector. For the price I paid for the projector, screen, and the original SDTV I was STILL under my original budget. I feel I got the best of both worlds. SD content looks outstanding on the Tau, and when we want to watch a DVD or HD content, we go downstairs and fire up the projector. Even though it's EDTV, it has a really impressive picture and the 100" screen makes you feel like you're in a theatre. I don't regret my purchase path one bit - if there were more HD content, I would feel differently but HD isn't really ready yet, at least for me, with my limited content availability.

Now, I will also say HD is a bit overhyped. It is absolutely required for very large screens, but for smaller screens, it is not as earth-shattering as some people claim. I look forward to the day that SD is a thing of the past though.

 

[ZeroEffect]

Over the Air HDTV is amazing. I remember watching the SEC game of the week
a couple of years a go on my HDTV and just being blown away. That's why having
an HD disc will be so great - no manipulation from the cable or sat. companies.

Even with that said, i was watching Discovery HD last night on my cable and it looked
great 🙂

HD = hot beer comercial babes

does that help? LOL

 

[ZeroEffect]

Large stores have to split one HD signal out to like 100 TVs... and that degrades the signal.

 

[cavemanmoron]

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
go get yourself a new tv you crotchety old goat.

Hmm,
I am over 45.

I just bought a new TV,
an RCA TruFlat 27".

Not a high definition tv. I did not have $1,000+ to waste on a tv.

I paid $250 + tax for this one.ugh bad enough.
http://tv.rca.com/en-US/ModelDetail.html?PC=27-32&MN=27F520T

 

[GhostDoggy]

Originally posted by: jelkukipik
I do.Comon.Your HD channels are good, but you need an expensive set to get then, expensive receiver.Your old channels look like crap on your new set.There is no standar yet with this HD-DVD Blue Ray war( WHAT WAR ANYWAY??? ).
Ex- HD owner speaking here...
discuss

Two years ago I bought a used CRT projector from a friend who refurbs them. This is a front projection CRT projector projecting onto a 92" projection screen in a room that is my batcave. I typically watch a lot of football in there in HD, as well as some eye candy content from various providers, and also shows like CSI, etc.

I think you may wish to keep perspective about the entire 'HDTV' thing, which is separate from the DTV, or Digital TeleVision. HDTV is a marketing concept by the CEA and uses the extension of the NTSC delivery system known as ATSC, which got adopted in 1995. NTSC had been in-effect since the mid-1940's. That's a whopping +50 years before ATSC rolled around. Ok, its now 2006 and a decade has passed since the introduction of ATSC, but by far not HDTV.

While the ATSC specification and broadcast comes in 18 different formats, the CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) only use two (1920x1080i and 1280x720P). The forward-thinking is only now ramping up. Looks at today's standing much like one would look at NTSC in 1955, a decade or so after NTSC was introduced.

BTW, that CRT projector cost me $1500. Sure, it was used, but it was in fantastic shape (~600 on the tubes). I spent another grand on the screen and having a seasoned professional come in and spend 6-8 hours configuring and calibrating several inputs (for the various sources). The before and after were stunning.

Now, if you find yourself in a different viewing environment than the one I have your mileage will undoubtedly vary. Using a CRT projector in a batcave provides for some healthy contrast, very low black level, and beautiful color reproduction that the projector manufacture was known for. So, my investment was $2500 and I've been using it in glorious 92" display for two years.

 

[GhostDoggy]

Oops, and for the sake of the discussion ...

I watched both the Redskins & Bucs and Patroits & Jags games in HD yesterday. And I'll be watching the Steelers & Bengals today as well.