Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I put off getting HDTV

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 4:08:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection, blah
blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?

Thanks,
joe

More about : put hdtv

Anonymous
August 31, 2004 5:17:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Willie Nelson wrote:
> I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection, blah
> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
> adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?

It's unfortunate that there is that perception from this newsgroup. I
bought my HDTV last year and have been enjoying it frequently. I
would highly recommend jumping in. The TVs are adhering to the ATSC
DTV standard, so I'm not sure what you're going to wait for.

You can say you'll keep waiting for any technology... Are you going to
wait to buy a computer because you see new memory standards, chip
speeds, hard drive storage specs every month? No, you buy what you
think you'll use at the time and get a lot of use out of it.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 7:52:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Willie Nelson" <willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote in message
news:Vn1Zc.587$Ae.118@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net...
>I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection,
> blah
> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
> adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> joe
>
>

I got my HDTV, and its ok, but not really worth it. I love the fact its a
plasma and takes little room, but I am still not convinced that I like the
16:9 ratio format..
Related resources
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 9:12:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Willie Nelson wrote:
>I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
>seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
>different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection, blah
>blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
>adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?

I'd hold off until HD broadcasting is the rule and not the exception. I
bought before I had sufficiently researched the topic and found that
there was, if I may use a vulgarity, dick-all once you tire of Sunday
Night Baseball, Discovery Barrier Reef, and Discovery Sand Dune.

Couple that with some tech issues and I'd have to say that returning my
SamDLP was one of the better decisions I've made the past couple of
years.


Jim
--
"I'm Jim Hill, and I approved this message."
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 10:09:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

There is lots of good programming out there already, I would not wait. I
use Voom satellite HD, it rocks, I can't get cable HD in my city. Do you
have the option of cable HD? How about broadcast HD? Check your area with
TitanTV.com and see if you get HD broadcast in your area. If you can get
the signal, why not?

Trust me, this stuff isn't going to get any easier no matter how long you
wait. Some things may smooth out a bit, but I can't see home theater in
general EVER being easy.

--Dan

"Willie Nelson" <willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote in message
news:Vn1Zc.587$Ae.118@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net...
> I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection,
blah
> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
> adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> joe
>
>
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 10:56:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

If you are going to use Cable and can get HD Network programming, go
for it now!

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:08:06 -0400, "Willie Nelson"
<willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote:

>I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
>seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
>different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection, blah
>blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
>adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
>
>Thanks,
>joe
>
September 1, 2004 12:04:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Willie Nelson" <willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote in message news:<Vn1Zc.587$Ae.118@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net>...
> I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection, blah
> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
> adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> joe

Actually, for me its more like putting off getting a big sceen 16x9
TV. I watch very little TV but go through DVDs like candy. However,
I am still using my old 32 inch TV. The problem is that, due to a
tight u-turn, a 40"-50" widescreen RPTV will not be able to be moved
into my TV room. So I need one of the DLPs, LCDs, or plasmas for a
bigger TV. But its my understanding that the picture quality on these
TVs is not yet equal to a CRT TV. Until the picture quality improves
I can't see buying one. Of course, by the time the picture quality is
improved the price will also be lower.

Bud Beacham
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 1:29:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I love my widescreen RPTV. I'm a big baseball fan, and baseball in HD is
awesome. I also watch tons of dvds and they are tremendous with a good
progressive scan player even though they aren't HD. Finally to see BIG
widescreen movies at home !!! I can't tell you to wait or not, but it was
worth it for me !!

-Ken


"Willie Nelson" <willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote in message
news:Vn1Zc.587$Ae.118@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net...
> I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection,
blah
> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
> adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> joe
>
>
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 8:02:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dan J.S. wrote:
> I got my HDTV, and its ok, but not really worth it. I love the fact
> its a plasma and takes little room, but I am still not convinced that
> I like the 16:9 ratio format..

Yet you don't complain about Widescreen at the movie theater do you?

--
Brian The Demolition Man Little
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 4:30:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

If you have doubt, you should wait. I have bought into HDTV almost
two years ago (since Nov 2002). As of today, I still don't think HDTV
is ready for prime time.

I didn't mean the technology is not ready. The problem is that the
broadcasters do not put HDTV as their priority, they are all waiting
for the government to twist their arms. Even when they are doing HD,
they don't care about quality. Recent examples: the Olympics HD was
24 hours behind SD broadcast; they played background audio recording
on the 5.1 surround channel during the closing ceremony; during the
CSI: Miami show couple days ago, the signal dropped out several times
(I was watching on cable feed, so it was not due to reception
problem.) As an early adoptor, you'll be frustrated at the level and
quality of HD programming.

First off, you only get a few hours of HD every day. Even the
primetimes are not completely filled with HD yet. For those channels
that do HD 24/7, most of the shows are just rerun over and over again.
After you've watched them the fifth time, they become boring despite
how nice the picture looks. I found myself watching SD almost 90% of
my time now, that is not good use of my HDTV.

This is a chicken and egg problem. If you hold on to your purchase,
the broadcaster will hold on to their commitment even longer. So if
your old 4x3 TV is dying, or you have spare money to spend, or want to
show off to your friends and families, buy now and enjoy the eye
candies until the HDTV turns mainstream. If you are pinching pennies
and your old TV is still working great, then you'll probably get a
better deal a few years later on cheaper and yet better hardware when
HD programming picks up.



"Willie Nelson" <willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote in message news:<Vn1Zc.587$Ae.118@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net>...
> I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection, blah
> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
> adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> joe
September 1, 2004 7:44:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message
news:eeoe02-mpd.ln1@developers.dsbox.com...
> Willie Nelson wrote:
>> I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group,
>> it
>> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read
>> of
>> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection,
>> blah
>> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
>> adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
>
> It's unfortunate that there is that perception from this newsgroup. I
> bought my HDTV last year and have been enjoying it frequently. I would
> highly recommend jumping in. The TVs are adhering to the ATSC DTV
> standard, so I'm not sure what you're going to wait for.
>
> You can say you'll keep waiting for any technology... Are you going to
> wait to buy a computer because you see new memory standards, chip speeds,
> hard drive storage specs every month? No, you buy what you think you'll
> use at the time and get a lot of use out of it.

I completely agree here. I got a widescreen HDTV and I will never go back.
I guess it depends on where you live, but I get OTA-HD as well as the HD I
receive via Voom and Dish. This gives quite a few choices. Not to mention
the fact that widescreen movies on DVD are much more pleasurable to watch
now. Like the previous poster said, if you keep waiting that's all you'll
ever do. Technology is always changing. You just have to pick a point and
jump in.

Later,

Duke
September 1, 2004 7:48:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"bb" <bbeacham@desanasystems.com> wrote in message
news:f6e067a2.0408311904.3a9cfbe2@posting.google.com...
> "Willie Nelson" <willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote in message
> news:<Vn1Zc.587$Ae.118@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net>...
>> I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group,
>> it
>> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read
>> of
>> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection,
>> blah
>> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
>> adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> joe
>
> Actually, for me its more like putting off getting a big sceen 16x9
> TV. I watch very little TV but go through DVDs like candy. However,
> I am still using my old 32 inch TV. The problem is that, due to a
> tight u-turn, a 40"-50" widescreen RPTV will not be able to be moved
> into my TV room. So I need one of the DLPs, LCDs, or plasmas for a
> bigger TV. But its my understanding that the picture quality on these
> TVs is not yet equal to a CRT TV. Until the picture quality improves
> I can't see buying one. Of course, by the time the picture quality is
> improved the price will also be lower.
>
> Bud Beacham

The price will be lower on the TV's with the lesser picture quality. The
TV's with the highest picture quality will always cost the most. There is
always going to be something better and it is almost always going to cost
more.

Duke
September 2, 2004 3:27:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

caloonese@yahoo.com (Caloonese) wrote in message news:<ee67c74a.0409011130.2b66b5dd@posting.google.com>...
> If you have doubt, you should wait. I have bought into HDTV almost
> two years ago (since Nov 2002). As of today, I still don't think HDTV
> is ready for prime time.
>
> I didn't mean the technology is not ready. The problem is that the
> broadcasters do not put HDTV as their priority, they are all waiting
> for the government to twist their arms. Even when they are doing HD,
> they don't care about quality. Recent examples: the Olympics HD was
> 24 hours behind SD broadcast; they played background audio recording
> on the 5.1 surround channel during the closing ceremony; during the
> CSI: Miami show couple days ago, the signal dropped out several times
> (I was watching on cable feed, so it was not due to reception
> problem.) As an early adoptor, you'll be frustrated at the level and
> quality of HD programming.
>
> First off, you only get a few hours of HD every day. Even the
> primetimes are not completely filled with HD yet. For those channels
> that do HD 24/7, most of the shows are just rerun over and over again.
> After you've watched them the fifth time, they become boring despite
> how nice the picture looks. I found myself watching SD almost 90% of
> my time now, that is not good use of my HDTV.
>
> This is a chicken and egg problem. If you hold on to your purchase,
> the broadcaster will hold on to their commitment even longer. So if
> your old 4x3 TV is dying, or you have spare money to spend, or want to
> show off to your friends and families, buy now and enjoy the eye
> candies until the HDTV turns mainstream. If you are pinching pennies
> and your old TV is still working great, then you'll probably get a
> better deal a few years later on cheaper and yet better hardware when
> HD programming picks up.
>
>
>
> "Willie Nelson" <willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote in message news:<Vn1Zc.587$Ae.118@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net>...
> > I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
> > seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
> > different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection, blah
> > blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
> > adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > joe

I am waiting for lower plasma prices and more content in digital
widescreen format. My local cable co does not yet even offer local
nbc/cbs/abc.

I took the same approach with DVDs - as soon as I could go down to my
local rental store and rent a DVD (with the same release date as VHS)
- I purchased the DVD player. It took some time for DVDs to be that
readily available.

I am hopefull the content will continue to improve and I can make a
move by 2005 or early 2006.


JCPZero
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 3:53:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I live in San Jose metro area. The comcast service here currently
carries 9 HD channels.

KGO for ABC
KNTV for NBC
KPIX for CBS
KQED for PBS
ESPN HD
INHD
INHD2
KRON, an independent carrying HDNet program
Discovery HD Theater

I get 9 channels and not enough HD to see. If your area does not
offer the major networks in HD, you will definitely get less. When SD
programming is totally out of primetime, then it may be a right time
for the general public to consider. At this time, leave it to the
early adoptors if you don't want to deal with frustration.


jcpzero@yahoo.com (JP) wrote in message news:<6f915d52.0409021027.4c58245c@posting.google.com>...

> I am waiting for lower plasma prices and more content in digital
> widescreen format. My local cable co does not yet even offer local
> nbc/cbs/abc.
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 1:12:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

That's quite different. At the movie theater, you don't have to watch 4:3
programs on a 16:9 screen.

"Brian The Demolition Man Little" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:TvWdnYx2q5gzEqjcRVn-vQ@giganews.com...
> Dan J.S. wrote:
>> I got my HDTV, and its ok, but not really worth it. I love the fact
>> its a plasma and takes little room, but I am still not convinced that
>> I like the 16:9 ratio format..
>
> Yet you don't complain about Widescreen at the movie theater do you?
>
> --
> Brian The Demolition Man Little
>
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 6:24:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:08:06 -0400, "Willie Nelson"
<willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote:

>I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
>seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
>different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection, blah
>blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
>adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?


my solution was to by the OTA receiver, and view the programsl on the
existing compostie video input on the TV

Looks great, and gives a good feel for what is available in
programming. I agree with you that the monitor technology is in flux
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 7:02:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I did the same thing. For $99 I got a SIR-T151 to 'play with' and see
what channels I can get. As OTA gets better (more stations + high power)
I will begin to look for a HDTV. For now I get some HDTV (with
sub-channels) and the old analog OTA channels. They all look good on my
old Zenith SDTV using the composite input from the T515.

Hello wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:08:06 -0400, "Willie Nelson"
> <willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
>>seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
>>different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection, blah
>>blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
>>adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> my solution was to by the OTA receiver, and view the programsl on the
> existing compostie video input on the TV
>
> Looks great, and gives a good feel for what is available in
> programming. I agree with you that the monitor technology is in flux
>
>
>
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 7:23:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Duke" <sorry@spam.com> wrote in message
news:_amZc.4179$Of3.1196@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "bb" <bbeacham@desanasystems.com> wrote in message
> news:f6e067a2.0408311904.3a9cfbe2@posting.google.com...
>>
>> Actually, for me its more like putting off getting a big sceen 16x9
>> TV. I watch very little TV but go through DVDs like candy. However,
>> I am still using my old 32 inch TV. The problem is that, due to a
>> tight u-turn, a 40"-50" widescreen RPTV will not be able to be moved
>> into my TV room. So I need one of the DLPs, LCDs, or plasmas for a
>> bigger TV. But its my understanding that the picture quality on these
>> TVs is not yet equal to a CRT TV. Until the picture quality improves
>> I can't see buying one. Of course, by the time the picture quality is
>> improved the price will also be lower.
>
> The price will be lower on the TV's with the lesser picture quality. The
> TV's with the highest picture quality will always cost the most. There is
> always going to be something better and it is almost always going to cost
> more.

For plasmas that may remain true, and to a large extent the LCD panels. But
I can see LCD and especially LCDoS and DLP projectors coming down a LOT in
price over the next couple of years, to a level probably very competitive
with conventional (CRT) RPTV. Once manufactured in quantity, these
chip-based technologies have the potential to become quite inexpensive, even
while the quality continues to improve. I would almost be surprised if in a
couple of years 40-50" DLP (and perhaps LCD/LCDoS) projectors weren't
selling in the $1000-2000 range, with better quality and features than any
available today.
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 7:23:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Duke" <sorry@spam.com> wrote in message
news:T7mZc.4178$Of3.1197@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> I completely agree here. I got a widescreen HDTV and I will never go
> back. I guess it depends on where you live, but I get OTA-HD as well as
> the HD I receive via Voom and Dish. This gives quite a few choices. Not
> to mention the fact that widescreen movies on DVD are much more
> pleasurable to watch now. Like the previous poster said, if you keep
> waiting that's all you'll ever do. Technology is always changing. You
> just have to pick a point and jump in.

I just wonder how many people are really interested in properly setting up a
rooftop antenna in addition to subscribing to TWO different satellite
systems (and dealing with switching amongst them all) just to get an
adequate number of HD channels...
September 3, 2004 11:29:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Willie Nelson" <willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote in message news:<Vn1Zc.587$Ae.118@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net>...
> I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection, blah
> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
> adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> joe

A lot of shows on TV don't benefit from high-def. It's like listening
talk radio on 384bps mp3. It's nice but really, do you need it? I
don't see talk show, news, or even half hour comedy improve greatly
with higher resolution. Now Sports, one-hour drama, movies, will
definitely benefit from HDTV. And I personally think there are alot
of content on the HD channels. I can use more HD nature channels,
just becuase the water and mountains look so freakin' good on HDTV.

I keep pushing off buying a HDTV becuase I told myself to wait for the
HD-DVR box from Time Warmer Cable. Now that the box is available
since mid-Aug in NYC, I am going to buy one. Also to me, the meat of
HDTV is playing driving games on the 50+ screen and watch movies on
it. And the technology of both are matured. Actually the currect
technology of HDTV is ahead of DVD and video games. You probably need
to use HD-DVD and PS3/XBox2 to push the limit of HDTV.
HD-DVD/Blue-ray only has 50GB capacity at best, you know it need to
work very hard to satisfy current HDTV's resolution. In other words,
whatever you buy now will good for a very long time, long after the
warrenty expire.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 1:55:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Movie theaters don't show 4.3 movies unless they are showing old
films. There hasn't been a true 4.3 film made in Hollywood since the
mid 1950's.

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:12:28 -0400, "HDC" <dcchan2@hotmail.com> wrote:

>That's quite different. At the movie theater, you don't have to watch 4:3
>programs on a 16:9 screen.
>
>"Brian The Demolition Man Little" <x@y.z> wrote in message
>news:TvWdnYx2q5gzEqjcRVn-vQ@giganews.com...
>> Dan J.S. wrote:
>>> I got my HDTV, and its ok, but not really worth it. I love the fact
>>> its a plasma and takes little room, but I am still not convinced that
>>> I like the 16:9 ratio format..
>>
>> Yet you don't complain about Widescreen at the movie theater do you?
>>
>> --
>> Brian The Demolition Man Little
>>
>
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 3:31:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Exactly, the technology is there, but the content is not. It is like
spending thousands of dollars to buy the most powerful PC on market,
while you can only do textual email with it. You can wait till your
ISP support boardband before you spend on that powerful machine.

You can buy a HDTV when the broadcaster are really doing it as a rule,
not exception. By then the price of hardware will drop, PC and TV
alike.


name0000@yahoo.com (tino) wrote in message news:<b83b91de.0409031829.72b02391@posting.google.com>...
> Actually the currect
> technology of HDTV is ahead of DVD and video games. You probably need
> to use HD-DVD and PS3/XBox2 to push the limit of HDTV.
> HD-DVD/Blue-ray only has 50GB capacity at best, you know it need to
> work very hard to satisfy current HDTV's resolution. In other words,
> whatever you buy now will good for a very long time, long after the
> warrenty expire.
September 4, 2004 9:16:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Willie Nelson wrote:

> I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection, blah
> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
> adhering to the same standards/technology.

That's why I limited my present investment to the smallest
16:9 HD CRT model I could find (26"). I have no HD content yet,
but the wide screen and high picture quality makes watching
DVD's and tapes a much better viewing experience than I had
expected, especially tapes.

Sean
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 6:27:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, HDC <dcchan2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That's quite different. At the movie theater, you don't have to watch 4:3
> programs on a 16:9 screen.

That's exactly the reason I bought a 4x3 big screen. I figured that I'd
take the letterboxing for the DVD watching, and for regular TV, I'd enjoy
a huge picture.

I looked at 34 inch 16x9's, which have the same picture size as a
letterboxed image on a 36" 4x3, but they were a lot more expensive. I
also looked at 16x9's that were about the same price as my 36" 4x3, but
the picture was much smaller on them.

I couldn't figure out why the 16x9 made any sense. The salesman told me
that some folks were driven crazy by letterboxing, but I don't notice it
a bit.

--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...

- The Who
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 6:35:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Mike Ray" <mer1@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:4138BFB2.1010605@cornell.edu...
>
>I did the same thing. For $99 I got a SIR-T151 to 'play with' and see what
>channels I can get. As OTA gets better (more stations + high power) I will
>begin to look for a HDTV. For now I get some HDTV (with sub-channels) and
>the old analog OTA channels. They all look good on my old Zenith SDTV using
>the composite input from the T515.

Another suggestion I make for people who want a new TV, but don't want to
spend TOO much, and are looking for a set in the 27-30" or so range, is to
get a 4:3 HDTV (conventional direct-view CRT -- a standard TV with a higher
resolution display). They're just a few hundred dollars more than a
conventional TV of the same size, these days usually with improved picture
quality even on SD (at least they can usually eliminate visible scanlines in
the SD image), as well as HD display capability (even though it will show up
letterboxed, and may or may not display the full potential resolution in
that letterboxed area). They are much better than widescreen sets for most
existing TV and cable/satellite programs, and tend to be a lot more compact
and lighter (not to mention less expensive) than widescreen CRTs with
comparable height (and thus comparable 4:3 area). And for people already
accustomed to watching movies letterboxed, they may not really miss the
widescreen until such time as most of their TV watching is HD/widescreen
(and even then won't miss it THAT much until they actually own a widescreen
TVand get used to it), whereas a lot of people do seem bothered by
pillarboxing of 4:3 material on a widescreen set.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 9:34:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"tino" <name0000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b83b91de.0409031829.72b02391@posting.google.com...
> "Willie Nelson" <willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote in message
> news:<Vn1Zc.587$Ae.118@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net>...
>> I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group,
>> it
>> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read
>> of
>> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection,
>> blah
>> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
>> adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> joe

Buying an HDTV set has been one of the stupidest things I have done. I
bought my set a couple years back and have just now started watching some
HDTV programming. In the meantime, the price of comparable sets have
dropped around $1000. Also, I bought a STB awhile back. It is already an
obsolete version so that money is wasted. I switched from cable to dish not
too long ago. Now it takes forever to change changes and I have to weed
through 100s of PPV changes when I channel surf. I have the HDTV package
for $9.95 but it really isn't worth the money. Also, because I have a 16:9
set I have to always switch the screen format to fit what I am watching.

Basically, HDTV is an expensive pain in the butt. If you like that kind of
thing go for it, otherwise, take the money you would spend on HDTV today,
spend half of it on other cool stuff, and a year or 2 from now you can take
that leftover money and buy an HDTV set up that costs less and is better
than what you can get today.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 9:34:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

GaryH (dontyouspamme@nospam.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Also, I bought a STB awhile back. It is already an
> obsolete version so that money is wasted. I switched from cable to dish not
> too long ago. Now it takes forever to change changes and I have to weed
> through 100s of PPV changes when I channel surf.

Well, this is obviously a troll. Every satellite receiver (for both DirecTV
and Dish) allows you to customize the channel list to remove anything you
don't want to see.

Secondly, I have a nearly 4 year old STB and it works just fine. That's the
great thing about "standards". Although newer STBs might have better
features, older ones still work, so the money wasn't "wasted" at all.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | "Resistance...is *futile*"
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov | -- Data, "Star Trek: First Contact"
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 1:20:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ba3f64876dd430098980b@news.nabs.net...
> GaryH (dontyouspamme@nospam.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Also, I bought a STB awhile back. It is already
>> an
>> obsolete version so that money is wasted. I switched from cable to dish
>> not
>> too long ago. Now it takes forever to change changes and I have to weed
>> through 100s of PPV changes when I channel surf.
>
> Well, this is obviously a troll. Every satellite receiver (for both
> DirecTV
> and Dish) allows you to customize the channel list to remove anything you
> don't want to see.

I'm not a troll. I just got the Dish Network so I am not sure how to set up
the channels list, yet. If I can hide channels I don't want then thats
cool.
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 1:41:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> GaryH (dontyouspamme@nospam.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>> Also, I bought a STB awhile back. It is already an
>>obsolete version so that money is wasted. I switched from cable to dish not
>>too long ago. Now it takes forever to change changes and I have to weed
>>through 100s of PPV changes when I channel surf.
>
>
> Well, this is obviously a troll. Every satellite receiver (for both DirecTV
> and Dish) allows you to customize the channel list to remove anything you
> don't want to see.
>
> Secondly, I have a nearly 4 year old STB and it works just fine. That's the
> great thing about "standards". Although newer STBs might have better
> features, older ones still work, so the money wasn't "wasted" at all.
>
It will be when 90% if the content is delivered with an advanced codec.
Your "non-obsolete" receiver will then only receive a single SD program
in MPEG2.
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 2:19:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>>>I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group,
>>>it
>>>seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read
>>>of
>>>different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection,
>>>blah
>>>blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
>>>adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?

Don't buy anything. Wait for Super-HD coming in 2015.
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 5:03:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:34:26 GMT, "GaryH" <dontyouspamme@nospam.org>
wrote:

>"tino" <name0000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b83b91de.0409031829.72b02391@posting.google.com...
>> "Willie Nelson" <willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote in message
>> news:<Vn1Zc.587$Ae.118@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net>...
>>> I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group,
>>> it
>>> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read
>>> of
>>> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection,
>>> blah
>>> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
>>> adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> joe
>
>Buying an HDTV set has been one of the stupidest things I have done. I
>bought my set a couple years back and have just now started watching some
>HDTV programming. In the meantime, the price of comparable sets have
>dropped around $1000. Also, I bought a STB awhile back. It is already an
>obsolete version so that money is wasted. I switched from cable to dish not
>too long ago. Now it takes forever to change changes and I have to weed
>through 100s of PPV changes when I channel surf. I have the HDTV package
>for $9.95 but it really isn't worth the money. Also, because I have a 16:9
>set I have to always switch the screen format to fit what I am watching.
>
>Basically, HDTV is an expensive pain in the butt. If you like that kind of
>thing go for it, otherwise, take the money you would spend on HDTV today,
>spend half of it on other cool stuff, and a year or 2 from now you can take
>that leftover money and buy an HDTV set up that costs less and is better
>than what you can get today.
>
>

I enjoy HDTV so far. Especially the football games. I also have dish
and the pay for view channels never bother me. Try punching in a
particular channel on your keypad then roam your channels.

I get all the networks including PBS in digital and HD from a off-air
antenna out in the back.

Your right Dish right now don't offer that many channels but should
have more in about a year. To me the $9.95 charge is cheap and a
incentive for Dish to get us more HD channels.

I understand that HDTV prices should fall about $200 to $250 or more
per year. A possibility the DLP sets may be the most popular in about
a year or so. If they do some contrast improvements with a longer
lasting bulb, and improve color wheel even more. Looking in the store
display the DLP sets seems to have a wider angle view.

hdtvfan
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 5:09:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Depends on what you like. If you watch a lot of regular tv
programming like CNN, Larry King or local tv channels the 4:3 would be
fine with the larger picture. I prefer the 16:9 as me and the wife
watch a lot of DVD's we rent. In widescreen its more like at the
movies for us.

We find widescreen programs also on the Dish. We do get a smaller
picture when watching a standard tv shows. We were used to watching
a flat screen 27" tv. The screen measures 17" in height. The new 34"
set we now have measures 18" tall. So actually its slightly larger
when watching standard tv. I still prefer the wide screen especially
for the HD football games.

hdtvfan

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:27:50 +0000 (UTC), EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com
wrote:

>In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, HDC <dcchan2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> That's quite different. At the movie theater, you don't have to watch 4:3
>> programs on a 16:9 screen.
>
>That's exactly the reason I bought a 4x3 big screen. I figured that I'd
>take the letterboxing for the DVD watching, and for regular TV, I'd enjoy
>a huge picture.
>
>I looked at 34 inch 16x9's, which have the same picture size as a
>letterboxed image on a 36" 4x3, but they were a lot more expensive. I
>also looked at 16x9's that were about the same price as my 36" 4x3, but
>the picture was much smaller on them.
>
>I couldn't figure out why the 16x9 made any sense. The salesman told me
>that some folks were driven crazy by letterboxing, but I don't notice it
>a bit.
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 6:36:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I am not a troll, but I have exactly the same problem with Comcast's
motorola HD cable STB. How do I erase channels that I don't even
subscribe to? The damned machine just wants to show you the message
"Subscription Service, for ordering information, press OK". They
wouldn't miss a chance to advertise for more premium channels even
though they know consumers select their channel packages not based on
the annoying messages on screen. I have already used the "favorite
channels" button for the 9 HD channels I am getting. I still want to
channel surf with the SD channels, but like 75% are not watchable
because I didn't subscribe them. I can use my TV to erase unwanted
analog channels, but I couldn't find a way to make the motorola box to
erase the digital channels.

Anyone knows the trick?


Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ba3f64876dd430098980b@news.nabs.net>...
> GaryH (dontyouspamme@nospam.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Also, I bought a STB awhile back. It is already an
> > obsolete version so that money is wasted. I switched from cable to dish not
> > too long ago. Now it takes forever to change changes and I have to weed
> > through 100s of PPV changes when I channel surf.
>
> Well, this is obviously a troll. Every satellite receiver (for both DirecTV
> and Dish) allows you to customize the channel list to remove anything you
> don't want to see.
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 10:20:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Caloonese (caloonese@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I am not a troll, but I have exactly the same problem with Comcast's
> motorola HD cable STB. How do I erase channels that I don't even
> subscribe to?

You don't.

The satellite companies decided that scrolling through lots and lots of
channels that you don't care about would piss customers off, so their boxes
allow you to customize.

The cable companies hope that you will just give up and subscribe to
everything (and I guess buy every PPV) by forcing you to see all those
channels all the time.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/CDChristmasLi...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 10:21:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Secondly, I have a nearly 4 year old STB and it works just fine. That's the
> > great thing about "standards". Although newer STBs might have better
> > features, older ones still work, so the money wasn't "wasted" at all.
> >
> It will be when 90% if the content is delivered with an advanced codec.

Since this will only happen from channels that nobody watches anyway, it's
not all that important.

--
Jeff Rife | "I feel an intense ambivalence, some of which
SPAM bait: | doesn't border entirely on the negative."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov | -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 12:39:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I too, prefer watching DVD in widescreen mode. However, I still bought a
4:3 HDTV. When watching 16:9 programs (DVD or broadcast TV), I simply
ignore the top and bottom grey bars.

"hdtvfan" <hdtvfan@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:rvdlj0tb8u7q5a0rn1iecho67jur46m2ue@4ax.com...
> Depends on what you like. If you watch a lot of regular tv
> programming like CNN, Larry King or local tv channels the 4:3 would be
> fine with the larger picture. I prefer the 16:9 as me and the wife
> watch a lot of DVD's we rent. In widescreen its more like at the
> movies for us.
>
> We find widescreen programs also on the Dish. We do get a smaller
> picture when watching a standard tv shows. We were used to watching
> a flat screen 27" tv. The screen measures 17" in height. The new 34"
> set we now have measures 18" tall. So actually its slightly larger
> when watching standard tv. I still prefer the wide screen especially
> for the HD football games.
>
> hdtvfan
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 8:04:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ba3f64876dd430098980b@news.nabs.net...
> GaryH (dontyouspamme@nospam.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Also, I bought a STB awhile back. It is already
>> an
>> obsolete version so that money is wasted. I switched from cable to dish
>> not
>> too long ago. Now it takes forever to change changes and I have to weed
>> through 100s of PPV changes when I channel surf.
>
> Well, this is obviously a troll. Every satellite receiver (for both
> DirecTV
> and Dish) allows you to customize the channel list to remove anything you
> don't want to see.

I love it. You pick on one trivial point that has nothing really to do with
HD or widescreen as evidence for an otherwise totally reasonable post
reflecting a most-likely very common view as being a "troll".
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 8:04:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"GaryH" <dontyouspamme@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:p kq_c.560$yp2.179@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ba3f64876dd430098980b@news.nabs.net...
>> GaryH (dontyouspamme@nospam.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>> Also, I bought a STB awhile back. It is already
>>> an
>>> obsolete version so that money is wasted. I switched from cable to dish
>>> not
>>> too long ago. Now it takes forever to change changes and I have to weed
>>> through 100s of PPV changes when I channel surf.
>>
>> Well, this is obviously a troll. Every satellite receiver (for both
>> DirecTV
>> and Dish) allows you to customize the channel list to remove anything you
>> don't want to see.
>
> I'm not a troll. I just got the Dish Network so I am not sure how to set
> up the channels list, yet. If I can hide channels I don't want then thats
> cool.

Press the "menu" key on your remote. Go to "favorites". There you can set up
several different lists to choose from. When viewing the program guide,
press the "guide" button again to cycle through the available lists. When
you have a given list selected in the program guide, channel up and down
will skip any channels not on that list.
September 6, 2004 5:00:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

You make it sound difficult, but it's really not. I had an OTA antenna
installed - I wasn't climbing up there and killin myself. I have Dish and
their HD package, I use a splitter (diplexer) to split my coax at the
receiver and plug the OTA signal into the Dish receiver. I use my Dish
receiver to change channels (including my OTA channels). How hard is that?

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:J%%Zc.11873$54.164077@typhoon.sonic.net...
> "Duke" <sorry@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:T7mZc.4178$Of3.1197@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> I completely agree here. I got a widescreen HDTV and I will never go
>> back. I guess it depends on where you live, but I get OTA-HD as well as
>> the HD I receive via Voom and Dish. This gives quite a few choices. Not
>> to mention the fact that widescreen movies on DVD are much more
>> pleasurable to watch now. Like the previous poster said, if you keep
>> waiting that's all you'll ever do. Technology is always changing. You
>> just have to pick a point and jump in.
>
> I just wonder how many people are really interested in properly setting up
> a rooftop antenna in addition to subscribing to TWO different satellite
> systems (and dealing with switching amongst them all) just to get an
> adequate number of HD channels...
>
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 10:26:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Willie Nelson" <willie@buymyrecords.com> wrote in message news:<Vn1Zc.587$Ae.118@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net>...
> I don't know, but with all the threads I've been reading on this group, it
> seems as if HDTV is still going through a lot of growing pains. I read of
> different native resolutions, HD2 or not, LCD or Plasma or projection, blah
> blah. Makes me think about holding off for a while until these TVs start
> adhering to the same standards/technology. Any thoughts?

Oh yeah, it's been real "painful" watching 2 years worth of HD. Game
after game, movie after movie, CSI after CSI.. real "painful".
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 10:28:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"HDC" <dcchan2@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<55_Zc.26377$7i2.1098801@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> That's quite different. At the movie theater, you don't have to watch 4:3
> programs on a 16:9 screen.

I'll never understand why people complain about parts of the screen they can't see.
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 3:58:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

You made the wrong assumption that a TV works like a movie project
screen, you can just project the picture in any shape and form without
affect the picture quality.

A TV has a finite number of pixels spread evenly on the screen. When
you are not using 50% of the pixels, your picture is not in its best
quality possible. I don't mind giving up those 50% when I am watching
SD 4:3 programming, you don't lose much given the source's quality. It
is not the same for HD pictures.

So you rather see huge SD and a small HD pictures. I chose the
opposite, I want huge HD and small SD.


EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote in message news:<chcjd5$bel$4@reader1.panix.com>...
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv, HDC <dcchan2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > That's quite different. At the movie theater, you don't have to watch 4:3
> > programs on a 16:9 screen.
>
> That's exactly the reason I bought a 4x3 big screen. I figured that I'd
> take the letterboxing for the DVD watching, and for regular TV, I'd enjoy
> a huge picture.
>
> I looked at 34 inch 16x9's, which have the same picture size as a
> letterboxed image on a 36" 4x3, but they were a lot more expensive. I
> also looked at 16x9's that were about the same price as my 36" 4x3, but
> the picture was much smaller on them.
>
> I couldn't figure out why the 16x9 made any sense. The salesman told me
> that some folks were driven crazy by letterboxing, but I don't notice it
> a bit.
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 3:02:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5db363e0.0409070528.2928ea50@posting.google.com...
> "HDC" <dcchan2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<55_Zc.26377$7i2.1098801@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> That's quite different. At the movie theater, you don't have to watch
>> 4:3
>> programs on a 16:9 screen.
>
> I'll never understand why people complain about parts of the screen they
> can't see.

I'm not sure what you're responding to exactly, but I think his meaning was
clear (from his earlier post): that so long as most programming is 4:3, a
4:3 TV is a more appropriate choice. And indeed, for whatever reason, most
people seem to complain more about "pillarboxing" than they do about
"letterboxing". But it depends on what you watch: people who only watch a
few prime-time shows that are already HD plus the few available
cable/satellite HD channels and DVD (but avoid any 4:3 programming) are
perfectly happy with their widescreen sets. Many people who watch TV for the
content, not the image quality or the widescreen-ness still watch
predominantly 4:3, and aren't so happy with their set being widescreen.
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 5:16:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0409071058.730805da@posting.google.com...
> A TV has a finite number of pixels spread evenly on the screen. When
> you are not using 50% of the pixels, your picture is not in its best
> quality possible. I don't mind giving up those 50% when I am watching
> SD 4:3 programming, you don't lose much given the source's quality. It
> is not the same for HD pictures.
>
SD TVs display widescreen programs by using 75% of the scan lines, leading
to a loss of resolution, e.g., they will be using 360 scan lines to display
a 480i picture. That's not the case with most (all?) 4:3 HDTVs, which have
the vertical compression feature. When receiving a 480p wide-screen signal,
the TV will use all 480 scan lines, but display them closer together (either
automatically or manually when selecting the 16:9 mode) to provide the
correct aspect ratio. The same principle applies for 720p and 1080i.
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 10:43:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Do you mean the phosphor physically squeeze tighter together when your
4:3 TV goes into the letter box mode? If not, I don't see how your
get better pictures.


"HDC" <dcchan2@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<xGR%c.25151$lP4.1569273@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> "Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ee67c74a.0409071058.730805da@posting.google.com...
> > A TV has a finite number of pixels spread evenly on the screen. When
> > you are not using 50% of the pixels, your picture is not in its best
> > quality possible. I don't mind giving up those 50% when I am watching
> > SD 4:3 programming, you don't lose much given the source's quality. It
> > is not the same for HD pictures.
> >
> SD TVs display widescreen programs by using 75% of the scan lines, leading
> to a loss of resolution, e.g., they will be using 360 scan lines to display
> a 480i picture. That's not the case with most (all?) 4:3 HDTVs, which have
> the vertical compression feature. When receiving a 480p wide-screen signal,
> the TV will use all 480 scan lines, but display them closer together (either
> automatically or manually when selecting the 16:9 mode) to provide the
> correct aspect ratio. The same principle applies for 720p and 1080i.
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 4:07:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

You statement regarding "A TV has a finite number of pixels spread evenly on
the screen" would be true for scan lines, but is *not* for phospher. There
is no arbitrary limit on the total "amount" of phospher that would make 4:3
worse than 16:9.

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0409091743.824afdf@posting.google.com...
> Do you mean the phosphor physically squeeze tighter together when your
> 4:3 TV goes into the letter box mode? If not, I don't see how your
> get better pictures.
>
>
> "HDC" <dcchan2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<xGR%c.25151$lP4.1569273@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> "Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ee67c74a.0409071058.730805da@posting.google.com...
>> > A TV has a finite number of pixels spread evenly on the screen. When
>> > you are not using 50% of the pixels, your picture is not in its best
>> > quality possible. I don't mind giving up those 50% when I am watching
>> > SD 4:3 programming, you don't lose much given the source's quality. It
>> > is not the same for HD pictures.
>> >
>> SD TVs display widescreen programs by using 75% of the scan lines,
>> leading
>> to a loss of resolution, e.g., they will be using 360 scan lines to
>> display
>> a 480i picture. That's not the case with most (all?) 4:3 HDTVs, which
>> have
>> the vertical compression feature. When receiving a 480p wide-screen
>> signal,
>> the TV will use all 480 scan lines, but display them closer together
>> (either
>> automatically or manually when selecting the 16:9 mode) to provide the
>> correct aspect ratio. The same principle applies for 720p and 1080i.
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 2:45:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Your argument may be true for CRT project TV where the image is
created by 3 monochromic CRT and three color filters.

However, on a CRT direct view color TV, the pixels are masked and
separated in groups of 3 colors, you cannot just scale the image onto
this "field" of pixels without sacraficing the picture quality or
physically moving the mask. The same problem will be true to the LCD
and DLP project TV where each pixel is a discrete position on the
chip. When your TV do letter box, some of these pixels will not be
used.


"HDC" <dcchan2@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<sM90d.29845$lP4.1904694@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> You statement regarding "A TV has a finite number of pixels spread evenly on
> the screen" would be true for scan lines, but is *not* for phospher. There
> is no arbitrary limit on the total "amount" of phospher that would make 4:3
> worse than 16:9.
>
> "Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ee67c74a.0409091743.824afdf@posting.google.com...
> > Do you mean the phosphor physically squeeze tighter together when your
> > 4:3 TV goes into the letter box mode? If not, I don't see how your
> > get better pictures.
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 5:52:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0409100945.7833aa37@posting.google.com...
> Your argument may be true for CRT project TV where the image is
> created by 3 monochromic CRT and three color filters.

projection CRT's don't use filters, they use tubes with single color
phosphors instead-- a red tube, a blue tube and a green tube

you can't afford to throw away over 2/3 the light from a crt in a filter
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 3:36:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee67c74a.0409100945.7833aa37@posting.google.com...
> Your argument may be true for CRT project TV where the image is
> created by 3 monochromic CRT and three color filters.
>
> However, on a CRT direct view color TV, the pixels are masked and
> separated in groups of 3 colors, you cannot just scale the image onto
> this "field" of pixels without sacraficing the picture quality or
> physically moving the mask. The same problem will be true to the LCD
> and DLP project TV where each pixel is a discrete position on the
> chip. When your TV do letter box, some of these pixels will not be
> used.

I am guessing that these TVs are set up more like multisync monitors, that
appearnatly have enough pixels in the properly alignment to handle either of
these settings. That is, the phosphor array is actually at higher resolution
than normal TV requires, with this capability more or less going to waste
when the picture is not vertically squeezed.
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 3:51:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I understand what you are saying. The TV that I bought 20 years ago
said it had enough pixels to do 800 lines of resolution. Everyone
knows it is more than NTSC ever need. The salesman said that would
make a difference when I watched Laser Disc. Of course, those extra
pixels comes in handy when the DVD came about later. When 400 some
lines of the resolution are projected on a 800 line TV, you get good
picture because the electrons will hit a phosphor cell one way or the
other. However, when you have a 1080 pictures project on a 1200 pixel
screen, you get terrible pictures when you scale. The same density
screen will handle the 350 SD picture just fine, but not the other way
round. That is the reason I said I rather to have a 16x9 TV to show a
shrinked SD picture than a 4x3 TV to show a shrinked HD picture.


"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<8rB0d.13182$54.185653@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> I am guessing that these TVs are set up more like multisync monitors, that
> appearnatly have enough pixels in the properly alignment to handle either of
> these settings. That is, the phosphor array is actually at higher resolution
> than normal TV requires, with this capability more or less going to waste
> when the picture is not vertically squeezed.
!