Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HDTV - after one year, I'm unimpressed

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 3:04:49 PM

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

After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of HDTV
has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.

The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
anamorphic display of NTSC.

Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary digital
satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH, costs 1000
dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of commercials, and
you want to be able to record shows to watch when convenient, then HDTV is a
poor value. Because most of the programming you want to record isn't even
HDTV.

Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.

The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a computer
monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight than myself to
look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or simply a DVD, and in
most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the better image quality of
HDTV really comes down to it being a digital standard with no analog noise-
as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why was there a movement to push
for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with a
16:9 aspect ratio?

With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to this
bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to lower-income
people and a shrinking middle-class.

I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
already has widespread use.

More about : hdtv year unimpressed

Anonymous
November 30, 2004 3:10:21 PM

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

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
> HDTV
> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>
> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>
> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary digital
> satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH, costs 1000
> dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of commercials, and
> you want to be able to record shows to watch when convenient, then HDTV is
> a
> poor value. Because most of the programming you want to record isn't even
> HDTV.
>
> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>
> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a
> computer
> monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
> difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight than myself
> to
> look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or simply a DVD, and in
> most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the better image quality
> of
> HDTV really comes down to it being a digital standard with no analog
> noise-
> as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
> wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why was there a movement to push
> for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with
> a
> 16:9 aspect ratio?
>
> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to
> this
> bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to
> lower-income
> people and a shrinking middle-class.
>

Stagflation? Do you even know what that is?

> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
> already has widespread use.
>
>
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 4:03:27 PM

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

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
HDTV
> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.

Low end HDTV results in low satisfaction.

>
> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality.

With a small screen you are obviously missing the key benefit.

> And to watch
> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
> anamorphic display of NTSC.

Plus progressive scan, which is a step up from NTSC. Also, try getting the
same resolution of DVD on any other NTSC source.


>
> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary digital
> satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH, costs 1000
> dollars.

It does now. It will come down as most electronics items do. It costs more
to be an early adopter.

> If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of commercials, and
> you want to be able to record shows to watch when convenient, then HDTV is
a
> poor value. Because most of the programming you want to record isn't even
> HDTV.

Most of the programming I record is movies. I would love to be able to
record them in HD. The rest of the programming will come with time.

>
> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.

It will take time. This has nothing to do with the quality or the concept.

>
> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a
computer
> monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
> difference.

Try a large screen, say 60" to 100" and you won't ever want to watch NTSC at
that size again. You can't get a family to huddle around your 17" screen and
get the full impact of HDTV.


> I've also got other people with better eyesight than myself to
> look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or simply a DVD, and in
> most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the better image quality
of
> HDTV really comes down to it being a digital standard with no analog
noise-
> as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
> wanting a set smaller than 40 inches.

Not necessarily, but your point is valid, there is less benefit at smaller
sizes.

> So why was there a movement to push
> for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with
a
> 16:9 aspect ratio?
>

You seem to be mistaken. The push for ATSC is Digital TV, 18 formats, one of
which is the digital version of NTSC (two if you count progressive scan).


Brad Houser
Related resources
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 4:44:07 PM

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

"Mudd Bug" <muddbug@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qG2rd.61585$_g6.33956@okepread03...
> Stagflation? Do you even know what that is?
>

Yes, high inflation coupled with slow economic growth.

The US economy is growing slowly, wages are not growing for middle and
lower class people relative to overall economic growth (GDP), and there in
price inflation, especially for fuel. Sounds like stagflation to me.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 8:16:49 PM

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

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
> HDTV has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>
> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>
> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary
> digital satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH,
> costs 1000 dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of
> commercials, and you want to be able to record shows to watch when
> convenient, then HDTV is a poor value. Because most of the programming
> you want to record isn't even HDTV.
>
> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>
> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a
> computer monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to
> tell the difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight
> than myself to look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or
> simply a DVD, and in most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the
> better image quality of HDTV really comes down to it being a digital
> standard with no analog noise- as near as I can tell the extra resolution
> will be waisted on anybody wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why
> was there a movement to push for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital
> version of NTSC, perhaps with a 16:9 aspect ratio?
>
> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to
> this bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to
> lower-income people and a shrinking middle-class.
>
> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
> already has widespread use.

Bob, it that you?
Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 8:28:59 PM

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

magnulus wrote:
> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of HDTV
> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>
> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>
> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary digital
> satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH, costs 1000
> dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of commercials, and
> you want to be able to record shows to watch when convenient, then HDTV is a
> poor value. Because most of the programming you want to record isn't even
> HDTV.
>
> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>
> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a computer
> monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
> difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight than myself to
> look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or simply a DVD, and in
> most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the better image quality of
> HDTV really comes down to it being a digital standard with no analog noise-
> as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
> wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why was there a movement to push
> for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with a
> 16:9 aspect ratio?
>
> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to this
> bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to lower-income
> people and a shrinking middle-class.
>
> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
> already has widespread use.
>
>
And Europe will have HDTV via satellite.

Of course you know you are a heretic doomed to be burned at the stake if
anyone finds out where you live.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 8:40:58 PM

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

On 30-Nov-2004, "magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
> HDTV has alot of drawbacks.

> The picture quality of HDTV... on a lower-end set or a computer
> monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
> difference.

Most folks would probably agree with you that on a 17" monitor it is hard to
tell the difference but HDTV was not developed for small screens.

On a good RPTV 50" or 70" set there is a huge difference although you are
correct in saying that may not be so with some 'lower-end' sets.

--
John in Sun Prairie
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 8:45:04 PM

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

You're criticizing HDTV based on trying to watch it on a 26" computer
monitor? Maybe you should invest in a decent HDTV set and see what you
think then. As for watching DVD's, one of the things HDTV is no better for
is watching DVD's, since they are not HD.

mack
austin


"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
HDTV
> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>
> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>
> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary digital
> satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH, costs 1000
> dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of commercials, and
> you want to be able to record shows to watch when convenient, then HDTV is
a
> poor value. Because most of the programming you want to record isn't even
> HDTV.
>
> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>
> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a
computer
> monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
> difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight than myself
to
> look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or simply a DVD, and in
> most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the better image quality
of
> HDTV really comes down to it being a digital standard with no analog
noise-
> as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
> wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why was there a movement to push
> for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with
a
> 16:9 aspect ratio?
>
> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to
this
> bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to
lower-income
> people and a shrinking middle-class.
>
> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
> already has widespread use.
>
>
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 8:45:05 PM

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

LOL
I was like huh??? DVD's are only 480i or 480p aren't they??
(not counting the upcoming HD-DVD)

Mack McKinnon wrote:

>You're criticizing HDTV based on trying to watch it on a 26" computer
>monitor? Maybe you should invest in a decent HDTV set and see what you
>think then. As for watching DVD's, one of the things HDTV is no better for
>is watching DVD's, since they are not HD.
>
>mack
>austin
>
>
>

--
Ric Seyler
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 8:54:23 PM

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

On 30-Nov-2004, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Of course you know you are a heretic doomed to be burned at the stake if
> anyone finds out where you live.

Not likely--at least until the people who do such things find and finish you
off!

--
John in Sun Prairie
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 9:02:08 PM

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

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and
> a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
> HDTV has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>
> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For
> everything
> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>
> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary
> digital
> satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH, costs
> 1000 dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of
> commercials, and you want to be able to record shows to watch when
> convenient, then HDTV is a poor value. Because most of the
> programming you want to record isn't even HDTV.
>
> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is
> very
> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV
> and analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is
> rather mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>
> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a
> computer monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to
> tell the difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight
> than myself to look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or
> simply a DVD, and in most cases they cannot tell the difference. All
> the better image quality of HDTV really comes down to it being a
> digital standard with no analog noise- as near as I can tell the extra
> resolution will be waisted on anybody wanting a set smaller than 40
> inches. So why was there a movement to push for HDTV in the US
> instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with a 16:9 aspect
> ratio?

I'm in Canada and there is still very little OTA HDTV here. And my
location is about 70 miles up the Fraser Valley from the nearest analog
transmitters (I don't think there's any digital even on the air here yet,
though I'll have a chance to see what I can find when I have a digital
tuner on hand near the end of next week).

Like yours, my TV is a Samsung direct view (27 inch 4:3 tube) and it did
not cost me an arm and a leg. I paid about twice what my brother paid
for a Panasonic 27 inch top-of-the-line flat screen TV with no HD. And,
looking at both units, I'll have to say that I got twice the TV. Mine
has much better audio including Prologic. It upconverts the component
signals from by non-progressive DVD player exceedingly well, much better
than the Panasonic and displays all SD and HD pictures without a trace of
horizontal lines. It has aspect ratio control right on the remote, so
it's easy to play anamorphic DVD's and the extended resolution available
from my DVD player makes those quite watchable.

Star Choice now has 9 channels devoted to 28 megabit HDTV streams and my
receiver (which cost over $500 Cdn when new) displays those extremely
well in 1080i. Now, maby my eye is a little sharper than yours, as I
have been able to see a difference between the 1080i and the DVD stuff.
I have all three Lord of the Rings movies on DVD and they have also been
aired in high definition. The difference is not as radical as the jump
from composite video and my old 20 inch Citizen TV to the new TV, but it
is still visible.

And I put this whole system together for less than the price of most rear
projection HDTV's, simply by making careful purchases on eBay and by
incorporating good speakers I already owned in a good home theater sound
system.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 10:04:56 PM

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

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
HDTV
> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.

Wow, after maybe 1 minute of hooking up my HDTV I was hooked. I do think
that they still have a way to go (like HBOHD having 4:3 SD content between
movies). But overall, its awesome!

--Dan
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 10:11:29 PM

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

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
> HDTV
> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.


So essentially, you bought the cheapest, smallest TV you could find (which
BTW has a maximum horizontal resolution of 800 lines according to Samsung),
watch TV on a small computer monitor and, can't see any difference and then
declare HDTV a failure.

Much like buying a Yugo and declaring that all automobiles are unreliable,
underpowered, and uncomfortable..

If you can't afford a decent HDTV, don't buy one.
But stop whining... please.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 10:13:05 PM

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

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:D 93rd.738$Ch2.425@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Mudd Bug" <muddbug@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:qG2rd.61585$_g6.33956@okepread03...
>> Stagflation? Do you even know what that is?
>>
>
> Yes, high inflation coupled with slow economic growth.
>
> The US economy is growing slowly, wages are not growing for middle and
> lower class people relative to overall economic growth (GDP), and there in
> price inflation, especially for fuel. Sounds like stagflation to me.

Are you SURE you live here?
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 10:14:41 PM

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

"Brad Houser" <bradDOThouser@intel.com> wrote in message
news:coin5g$uee$1@news01.intel.com...
>
> "magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
>> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
> HDTV
>> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>
> Low end HDTV results in low satisfaction.

That Samsung is SO low end, it will only display 800 horizontal - no where
near HD.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 10:15:52 PM

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

It's clear that you are not what they call a videophile or you would be able
to tell the difference. You also would not have bought that Samsung. I was
thinking about a Samsung for the price, but when I saw them next to a
Toshiba and as Sony, the difference was clear.

Yes, the channels are not all there and they do not always show real HDTV.
Since they are upconverted, once everything is set in place, the picture
quality should only get better. While I do agree that the sets seem to be
mostly good for watching DVD's, that is cool with me as I only like to watch
widescreen.

--
This site exposes them all!

www.unclet.netfirms.com

Damn toms!
"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
HDTV
> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>
> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>
> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary digital
> satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH, costs 1000
> dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of commercials, and
> you want to be able to record shows to watch when convenient, then HDTV is
a
> poor value. Because most of the programming you want to record isn't even
> HDTV.
>
> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>
> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a
computer
> monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
> difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight than myself
to
> look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or simply a DVD, and in
> most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the better image quality
of
> HDTV really comes down to it being a digital standard with no analog
noise-
> as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
> wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why was there a movement to push
> for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with
a
> 16:9 aspect ratio?
>
> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to
this
> bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to
lower-income
> people and a shrinking middle-class.
>
> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
> already has widespread use.
>
>
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 10:54:24 PM

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

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:D 93rd.738$Ch2.425@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Mudd Bug" <muddbug@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:qG2rd.61585$_g6.33956@okepread03...
>> Stagflation? Do you even know what that is?
>>
>
> Yes, high inflation coupled with slow economic growth.
>
> The US economy is growing slowly, wages are not growing for middle and
> lower class people relative to overall economic growth (GDP), and there in
> price inflation, especially for fuel. Sounds like stagflation to me.
>
>
Try again.

You got the inflation part correct, but does not apply to the current
economy.

There is no inflation in the HDTV market in this country (U.S.), prices are
dropping and fast.

Hint: The other part of stagflation does not apply to this economy either.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 11:39:23 PM

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

you must not watch sports...especially football...and i have a 32" set and
can definitely tell the difference


"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
HDTV
> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>
> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>
> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary digital
> satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH, costs 1000
> dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of commercials, and
> you want to be able to record shows to watch when convenient, then HDTV is
a
> poor value. Because most of the programming you want to record isn't even
> HDTV.
>
> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>
> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a
computer
> monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
> difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight than myself
to
> look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or simply a DVD, and in
> most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the better image quality
of
> HDTV really comes down to it being a digital standard with no analog
noise-
> as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
> wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why was there a movement to push
> for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with
a
> 16:9 aspect ratio?
>
> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to
this
> bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to
lower-income
> people and a shrinking middle-class.
>
> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
> already has widespread use.
>
>
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 4:43:46 AM

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

either top post or trim.



On 30 Nov 2004 17:16:49 GMT, cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:

>"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
>> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
>> HDTV has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>>
>> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
>> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
>> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
>> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>>
>> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary
>> digital satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH,
>> costs 1000 dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of
>> commercials, and you want to be able to record shows to watch when
>> convenient, then HDTV is a poor value. Because most of the programming
>> you want to record isn't even HDTV.
>>
>> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
>> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
>> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
>> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>>
>> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
>> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a
>> computer monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to
>> tell the difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight
>> than myself to look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or
>> simply a DVD, and in most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the
>> better image quality of HDTV really comes down to it being a digital
>> standard with no analog noise- as near as I can tell the extra resolution
>> will be waisted on anybody wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why
>> was there a movement to push for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital
>> version of NTSC, perhaps with a 16:9 aspect ratio?
>>
>> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
>> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
>> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to
>> this bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to
>> lower-income people and a shrinking middle-class.
>>
>> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
>> already has widespread use.
>
>Bob, it that you?
>Chip
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 4:44:22 AM

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

either top post or trim.



On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:28:59 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>magnulus wrote:
>> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
>> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of HDTV
>> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>>
>> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
>> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
>> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
>> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>>
>> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary digital
>> satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH, costs 1000
>> dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of commercials, and
>> you want to be able to record shows to watch when convenient, then HDTV is a
>> poor value. Because most of the programming you want to record isn't even
>> HDTV.
>>
>> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
>> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
>> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
>> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>>
>> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
>> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a computer
>> monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
>> difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight than myself to
>> look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or simply a DVD, and in
>> most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the better image quality of
>> HDTV really comes down to it being a digital standard with no analog noise-
>> as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
>> wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why was there a movement to push
>> for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with a
>> 16:9 aspect ratio?
>>
>> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
>> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
>> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to this
>> bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to lower-income
>> people and a shrinking middle-class.
>>
>> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
>> already has widespread use.
>>
>>
>And Europe will have HDTV via satellite.
>
>Of course you know you are a heretic doomed to be burned at the stake if
>anyone finds out where you live.
>
>Bob Miller
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 4:47:40 AM

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

either top post or trim.



On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:10:21 -0600, "Mudd Bug" <muddbug@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
>> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
>> HDTV
>> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>>
>> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
>> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
>> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
>> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>>
>> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary digital
>> satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH, costs 1000
>> dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of commercials, and
>> you want to be able to record shows to watch when convenient, then HDTV is
>> a
>> poor value. Because most of the programming you want to record isn't even
>> HDTV.
>>
>> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
>> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
>> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
>> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>>
>> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
>> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a
>> computer
>> monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
>> difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight than myself
>> to
>> look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or simply a DVD, and in
>> most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the better image quality
>> of
>> HDTV really comes down to it being a digital standard with no analog
>> noise-
>> as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
>> wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why was there a movement to push
>> for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with
>> a
>> 16:9 aspect ratio?
>>
>> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
>> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
>> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to
>> this
>> bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to
>> lower-income
>> people and a shrinking middle-class.
>>
>
>Stagflation? Do you even know what that is?
>
>> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
>> already has widespread use.
>>
>>
>
December 1, 2004 5:02:01 AM

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

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:04:49 -0500, "magnulus"
<magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
>HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of HDTV
>has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>
> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
>else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
>DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
>anamorphic display of NTSC.
>

Agreed. It's way too early for HDTV if you're a VCR junky.

HDTV shines the more money you pour into it.

Rich people will wallow in it.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 5:55:40 AM

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

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Brad Houser" <bradDOThouser@intel.com> wrote in message
>news:coin5g$uee$1@news01.intel.com...
>>
>> "magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
>>> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
>> HDTV
>>> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>>
>> Low end HDTV results in low satisfaction.
>
>That Samsung is SO low end, it will only display 800 horizontal - no where
>near HD.

Sounds like there's a problem with the legal definition of HDTV.
If a company can get away with claiming that it's product is a HDTV
even if the set is incapable of displaying HDTV, then "HDTV", as
marketed here is certainly not worth the money to those who are
deceived.



joemooreaterolsdotcom
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:50:07 AM

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

L230j@charter.net wrote in message news:<vg2rd.271$Gy5.204@fe04.lga>...

> On a good RPTV 50" or 70" set there is a huge difference although you are
> correct in saying that may not be so with some 'lower-end' sets.

My set is "lower end" and I can certainly tell the difference between
DVD and HD content, despite my set being not very big and not nearly
as sharp as the real expensive ones. The difference is most
noticeable in nature scenery. A lot depends on the quality of a
particular broadcast, though... some sports broadcasts look worse than
DVD.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:57:32 AM

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

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<z4idnVYY0ZipkTDcRVn-uQ@comcast.com>...

> So essentially, you bought the cheapest, smallest TV you could find (which
> BTW has a maximum horizontal resolution of 800 lines according to Samsung),
> watch TV on a small computer monitor and, can't see any difference and then
> declare HDTV a failure.

Hey, don't dis the Sam. It may have only 800 color triplets per line
horizontally, but that still leaves its picture quality far ahead of
most of the smaller LCD TVs I've looked at. Plenty good enough to
show a dramatic improvement from DVD to HD content. For one fifth the
price of plasma, I'll take it.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 8:04:53 AM

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

> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of HDTV
> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.

During any technology transition, late adopters get the best value and
avoid years of instability while standards and compteting interests
duke it out.

There will not be a variety of HD sources (outside of sports and
Discovery channel) until this process works itself out, or HD-DVD goes
mainstream.

In either case Joe Sixpack will be waiting at least another 5 years to
capture the full promise of HD.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 10:08:16 AM

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

bzzzzz wrote:

> either top post or trim.

Why are you offering a false choice?

Matthew
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 10:39:29 AM

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

magnulus wrote:
> as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
> wanting a set smaller than 40 inches.

HD content looks great on my 38" HDTV.
December 1, 2004 10:39:30 AM

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

"Steve K." <steve@nodamnspam.com> wrote in message
news:Ryerd.8473$NU3.2337@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> magnulus wrote:
>> as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
>> wanting a set smaller than 40 inches.
>
> HD content looks great on my 38" HDTV.

Our 34" Philips looks wonderful with HD, as well as DVD.
It replaced an old 32" RCA.

At a normal viewing distance, you'd have to be almost blind not to
immediately see the enormous improvement.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:12:08 AM

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

You guys do realize that this joker was here about a year ago telling
us how he enjoyed watching a small SD TV with poor reception from
across the living room. As I recall, he was too lazy to put up a
decent antenna or pay for cable to have something decent to watch.

Now, he proclaims HDTV a failure and the economy suffering from
stagflation. Apparently, he knows about as much about economics as he
does HDTV. No economist that I've heard of, nor even any of the
ususal chronic whiners have used that term, because it's simply not
true. As the link a previous poster provided showed, the economy grew
at a 3.9% rate in the third quarter, definitely nowhere near
stagnating. As for inflation, the price of oil has gone way up, but
the price of a few items alone doesn't determine the rate of
inflation, which remains fairly low. Anyone who live through the 70's
knows what stagflation really is.
December 1, 2004 2:53:19 PM

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

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:43:46 -0800, bzzzzz wrote:

>
>either top post or trim.
>
do not top post

>
>
>On 30 Nov 2004 17:16:49 GMT, cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
>
>>"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
>>> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
>>> HDTV has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>>>
>>> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
>>> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
>>> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
>>> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>>>
>>> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary
>>> digital satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH,
>>> costs 1000 dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of
>>> commercials, and you want to be able to record shows to watch when
>>> convenient, then HDTV is a poor value. Because most of the programming
>>> you want to record isn't even HDTV.
>>>
>>> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
>>> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
>>> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
>>> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>>>
>>> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
>>> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a
>>> computer monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to
>>> tell the difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight
>>> than myself to look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or
>>> simply a DVD, and in most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the
>>> better image quality of HDTV really comes down to it being a digital
>>> standard with no analog noise- as near as I can tell the extra resolution
>>> will be waisted on anybody wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why
>>> was there a movement to push for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital
>>> version of NTSC, perhaps with a 16:9 aspect ratio?
>>>
>>> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
>>> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
>>> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to
>>> this bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to
>>> lower-income people and a shrinking middle-class.
>>>
>>> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
>>> already has widespread use.
>>
>>Bob, it that you?
>>Chip

To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 2:53:20 PM

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

Thumper wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:43:46 -0800, bzzzzz wrote:
>
>
>>either top post or trim.
>>
>
> do not top post
>

Please do trim.

Matthew
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 3:57:44 PM

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

While I agree with that there should be more HDTV content, I
categorically
disagree with you regarding the HDTV picture quality and DVD. I have a
57in
widescreen toshiba and Comcast HD service gives a far superior video
quality than DVD. In fact if the wait time between renting DVDs and
watching
them on HD HBO was not so great, I would cancel my netflix
subscription. With
the prices of HDTV dropping and good credit deals at leading
electronics stores (e.g. 24 months interest free), I can see many
buying HDTVs this year and next.

Cgnus
The Bringer of Balance


"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of HDTV
> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>
> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>
> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary digital
> satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH, costs 1000
> dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of commercials, and
> you want to be able to record shows to watch when convenient, then HDTV is a
> poor value. Because most of the programming you want to record isn't even
> HDTV.
>
> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>
> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a computer
> monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
> difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight than myself to
> look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or simply a DVD, and in
> most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the better image quality of
> HDTV really comes down to it being a digital standard with no analog noise-
> as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
> wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why was there a movement to push
> for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with a
> 16:9 aspect ratio?
>
> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to this
> bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to lower-income
> people and a shrinking middle-class.
>
> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
> already has widespread use.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 4:16:44 PM

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

magnulus wrote:
> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a computer
> monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
> difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight than myself to
> look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or simply a DVD, and in
> most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the better image quality of
> HDTV really comes down to it being a digital standard with no analog noise-
> as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
> wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why was there a movement to push
> for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with a
> 16:9 aspect ratio?
>

The HDTV setup I often use is a Samsung SIR-T150 terrestrial only ATSC
digital tuner connected to a 19 inch computer monitor, 1600 x 1200 pixel
resolution. When the monitor's vertical size is adjusted for 16x9 and
with an HDTV video source the image is razor sharp. The image is even
sharper then my 56 inch RPTV; for example, small lettering is easier to
read. There is no question if the image is HDTV, the difference is
obvious. I have had many "WOW" comments from visitors who happen to see
the picture. Also since the monitor is multisync, the monitor can
directly display 480p, 720p and 1080i resolutions.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:39:25 PM

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

Even with line doubling, DVD cannot beat real HDTV in picture quality
when view on a big screen TV e.g. 65". I cancelled HBO HD months ago
because their HD is not real HD, HBO's quality is only comparable to
DVD with line doubling. Remember, not all HD program are produced the
same way, you will drop your jaw when you see a real HD show.



L230j@charter.net wrote in message news:<vg2rd.271$Gy5.204@fe04.lga>...
> On 30-Nov-2004, "magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> > HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
> > HDTV has alot of drawbacks.
>
> > The picture quality of HDTV... on a lower-end set or a computer
> > monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
> > difference.
>
> Most folks would probably agree with you that on a 17" monitor it is hard to
> tell the difference but HDTV was not developed for small screens.
>
> On a good RPTV 50" or 70" set there is a huge difference although you are
> correct in saying that may not be so with some 'lower-end' sets.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:43:49 PM

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

Yes, it is like saying no one needs 5.1 surround sound because you
only listen to the music through a 2" mono speaker.


"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in message news:<Ak2rd.60615$g21.32822@fe1.texas.rr.com>...
> You're criticizing HDTV based on trying to watch it on a 26" computer
> monitor? Maybe you should invest in a decent HDTV set and see what you
> think then. As for watching DVD's, one of the things HDTV is no better for
> is watching DVD's, since they are not HD.
>
> mack
> austin
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 10:20:44 PM

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

"Joe Moore" <munged@bad.example.com> wrote in message
news:3bcqq0l310gi32tnf04iui9cmh6u8lp7hk@4ax.com...
> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brad Houser" <bradDOThouser@intel.com> wrote in message
>>news:coin5g$uee$1@news01.intel.com...
>>>
>>> "magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and
>>>> a
>>>> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
>>> HDTV
>>>> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>>>
>>> Low end HDTV results in low satisfaction.
>>
>>That Samsung is SO low end, it will only display 800 horizontal - no where
>>near HD.
>
> Sounds like there's a problem with the legal definition of HDTV.
> If a company can get away with claiming that it's product is a HDTV
> even if the set is incapable of displaying HDTV, then "HDTV", as
> marketed here is certainly not worth the money to those who are
> deceived.

I agree

The CEA had this problem with the plasma guys a while back.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 10:32:17 PM

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

Definitely top post.

"Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k0crq0p1l367lp1d4ciaqhm6ljtl6kde8j@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:43:46 -0800, bzzzzz wrote:
>
>>
>>either top post or trim.
>>
> do not top post
>
>>
>>
>>On 30 Nov 2004 17:16:49 GMT, cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
>>
>>>"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and
>>>> a
>>>> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
>>>> HDTV has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>>>>
>>>> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For
>>>> everything
>>>> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
>>>> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
>>>> anamorphic display of NTSC.
>>>>
>>>> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary
>>>> digital satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH,
>>>> costs 1000 dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of
>>>> commercials, and you want to be able to record shows to watch when
>>>> convenient, then HDTV is a poor value. Because most of the programming
>>>> you want to record isn't even HDTV.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is
>>>> very
>>>> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
>>>> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is
>>>> rather
>>>> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>>>>
>>>> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
>>>> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a
>>>> computer monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to
>>>> tell the difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight
>>>> than myself to look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or
>>>> simply a DVD, and in most cases they cannot tell the difference. All
>>>> the
>>>> better image quality of HDTV really comes down to it being a digital
>>>> standard with no analog noise- as near as I can tell the extra
>>>> resolution
>>>> will be waisted on anybody wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So
>>>> why
>>>> was there a movement to push for HDTV in the US instead of just a
>>>> digital
>>>> version of NTSC, perhaps with a 16:9 aspect ratio?
>>>>
>>>> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak
>>>> job
>>>> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs
>>>> too
>>>> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to
>>>> this bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to
>>>> lower-income people and a shrinking middle-class.
>>>>
>>>> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and
>>>> it
>>>> already has widespread use.
>>>
>>>Bob, it that you?
>>>Chip
>
> To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 10:32:18 PM

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

Archie Drell wrote:

> Definitely top post.
>

Please don't top post.

No. I'm not singling you out.

>Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
>> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
>>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
>>> quoting.
>>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
>>>> mean?
>>>>> A: Top posters.
>>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Matthew
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 10:34:39 PM

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

I've prefer one to top post as well
Russ

"Archie Drell" <adrell@sweetwater.net> wrote in message
news:5%ord.54573$Oc.30409@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
: Definitely top post.
:
: "Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message
: news:k0crq0p1l367lp1d4ciaqhm6ljtl6kde8j@4ax.com...
: > On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:43:46 -0800, bzzzzz wrote:
: >
: >>
: >>either top post or trim.
: >>
: > do not top post
: >
: >>
: >>
: >>On 30 Nov 2004 17:16:49 GMT, cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
: >>
: >>>"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: >>>> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26
inch), and
: >>>> a
: >>>> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole
concept of
: >>>> HDTV has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
: >>>>
: >>>> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For
: >>>> everything
: >>>> else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And
to watch
: >>>> DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more
than an
: >>>> anamorphic display of NTSC.
: >>>>
: >>>> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up
ordinary
: >>>> digital satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR,
OTOH,
: >>>> costs 1000 dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the
onslaugh of
: >>>> commercials, and you want to be able to record shows to watch
when
: >>>> convenient, then HDTV is a poor value. Because most of the
programming
: >>>> you want to record isn't even HDTV.
: >>>>
: >>>> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and
satellite is
: >>>> very
: >>>> poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their
HDTV and
: >>>> analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content
is
: >>>> rather
: >>>> mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
: >>>>
: >>>> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite
(often
: >>>> digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set
or a
: >>>> computer monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it
hard to
: >>>> tell the difference. I've also got other people with better
eyesight
: >>>> than myself to look and see if they can tell if something is
HDTV or
: >>>> simply a DVD, and in most cases they cannot tell the
difference. All
: >>>> the
: >>>> better image quality of HDTV really comes down to it being a
digital
: >>>> standard with no analog noise- as near as I can tell the extra
: >>>> resolution
: >>>> will be waisted on anybody wanting a set smaller than 40
inches. So
: >>>> why
: >>>> was there a movement to push for HDTV in the US instead of just
a
: >>>> digital
: >>>> version of NTSC, perhaps with a 16:9 aspect ratio?
: >>>>
: >>>> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation,
weak
: >>>> job
: >>>> market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply
costs
: >>>> too
: >>>> much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody
switch to
: >>>> this bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is
unfair to
: >>>> lower-income people and a shrinking middle-class.
: >>>>
: >>>> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more
modest, and
: >>>> it
: >>>> already has widespread use.
: >>>
: >>>Bob, it that you?
: >>>Chip
: >
: > To reply drop XYZ in address
:
:
:
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 10:34:40 PM

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

kw5kw wrote:

> I've prefer one to top post as well
> Russ
>
> "Archie Drell" <adrell@sweetwater.net> wrote in message
> news:5%ord.54573$Oc.30409@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> : Definitely top post.
> :

Can either of you learn to trim?

Matthew
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:27:35 PM

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

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:04:49 -0500, "magnulus"
<magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a



To get maximum HDTV experience on a 26 inch you have to view from 3.4
feet.
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancec...




>HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of HDTV
>has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>
> The only good thing HDTV is good for is watching DVD's. For everything
>else, there's a bigger cost and decreased functionality. And to watch
>DVD's, you aren't really using the HDTV set as anything more than an
>anamorphic display of NTSC.
>
> Right now you can get a satellite DVR that will pick up ordinary digital
>satellite signals for 99 dollars. The Hughes DTV DVR, OTOH, costs 1000
>dollars. If, like me, you are tired of the onslaugh of commercials, and
>you want to be able to record shows to watch when convenient, then HDTV is a
>poor value. Because most of the programming you want to record isn't even
>HDTV.
>
> Also, the selection of HDTV material on networks and satellite is very
>poor. Many channels are not showing the same content on their HDTV and
>analog channels. For Direct TV, the selection of HDTV content is rather
>mediocre- often it's just the same shows over and over.
>
> The picture quality of HDTV is better than digital satellite (often
>digital satellite is very compressed), but on a lower-end set or a computer
>monitor (I have a 17 inch, 1280x1024 LCD), I find it hard to tell the
>difference. I've also got other people with better eyesight than myself to
>look and see if they can tell if something is HDTV or simply a DVD, and in
>most cases they cannot tell the difference. All the better image quality of
>HDTV really comes down to it being a digital standard with no analog noise-
>as near as I can tell the extra resolution will be waisted on anybody
>wanting a set smaller than 40 inches. So why was there a movement to push
>for HDTV in the US instead of just a digital version of NTSC, perhaps with a
>16:9 aspect ratio?
>
> With the increasing economic problems in the US (stagflation, weak job
>market), I don't see how HDTV will catch on quickly. It simply costs too
>much money for the average person. Demanding that everybody switch to this
>bloated giveaway to consumer electronics companies is unfair to lower-income
>people and a shrinking middle-class.
>
> I really like Europes DTV plan much better. It is more modest, and it
>already has widespread use.
>
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:37:08 PM

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

Randy Sweeney wrote:

> "Joe Moore" <munged@bad.example.com> wrote in message
> news:3bcqq0l310gi32tnf04iui9cmh6u8lp7hk@4ax.com...
>
>>Sounds like there's a problem with the legal definition of HDTV.
>>If a company can get away with claiming that it's product is a HDTV
>>even if the set is incapable of displaying HDTV, then "HDTV", as
>>marketed here is certainly not worth the money to those who are
>>deceived.
>
>
> I agree
>
> The CEA had this problem with the plasma guys a while back.
>

1`024x768 PDPs are being sold as "true HTDV", so the problem is still there.

Matthew
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 10:25:37 PM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message


>> The CEA had this problem with the plasma guys a while back.
>
> 1`024x768 PDPs are being sold as "true HTDV", so the problem is still
> there.

true... but this is not as bad as a 800 horizontal being sold as HD

and the original CEMA problem was people selling 852x480 as HD.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 4:55:29 AM

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

In article <8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of HDTV
> has alot of drawbacks.

What do you know about HDTV from a 26 inch TV? Nothing!

The beauty of HDTV is only evident on a large screen.

It's like saying the Mona Lisa from 100 feet away looks just as good as
a magazine picture of it.

m-m
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 10:57:33 AM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8I1rd.529$Ch2.490@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> After fooling around with a low-end HDTV set (Samsung 26 inch), and a
> HDTV card on my computer for over a year, I think the whole concept of
> HDTV
> has alot of drawbacks. It reflects misplaced priorities.
>
============================================
Your problem with HDTV is clearly stated.
With real HD equipment, your problem will go away.

HDTV is fantastic.
====================================
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 11:33:43 AM

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

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:o obsd.84433$jE2.76748@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> Again, perhaps the HDTV standard is overkill for the average person. Not
> everybody is a home theater nut.

Be careful, or they'll think you're Bob Miller. :) 
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 11:33:44 AM

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

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<HDesd.9331$_3.109005@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> "magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:o obsd.84433$jE2.76748@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > Again, perhaps the HDTV standard is overkill for the average person. Not
> > everybody is a home theater nut.
>
> Be careful, or they'll think you're Bob Miller. :) 


He's a real particular customer too. He won't sit 3.4 feet from a
small 27 inch set and won't put a 64 inch set in his living room.
Like there isn't anything in between?
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 8:34:48 PM

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

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in

> Note that movies give him motion sickness. So, actually, it's "screens
> can
> be too big for HIS good", not THEIR good or OUR good but he,
> narcissistically, thinks that because they affect him this way, they
> affect
> the rest of the world that way, too. Personally, movies do not give me
> motion sickness so I sit 13' away from my glorious 60" HDTV screen and
> LOVE
> it!
>
> mack
> austin


he's either a moron troll or Bob's evil twin... I kill-filed him.

not worth the time to even read
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 11:10:02 PM

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

Chet Hayes wrote:
> "Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<HDesd.9331$_3.109005@typhoon.sonic.net>...
>
>>"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>news:o obsd.84433$jE2.76748@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>> Again, perhaps the HDTV standard is overkill for the average person. Not
>>>everybody is a home theater nut.
>>
>>Be careful, or they'll think you're Bob Miller. :) 
>
>
>
> He's a real particular customer too. He won't sit 3.4 feet from a
> small 27 inch set and won't put a 64 inch set in his living room.
> Like there isn't anything in between?

Take two plasma's at 42" each setting next to each other. One ED, one
HD. With the same HD content on each the difference in quality can be
seen but is it big enough in most middle American minds to justify the
difference in price? Costco ED $1995, HD $3995.

In fact I would defy that average American to tell me which one is which
if I show them separately and then ask them which was the HD.

I love HD, hate 8-VSB but still do own three 8-VSB receivers at the
moment and one display. HD really demands a larger screen above 42".
When the 5th gen receivers are out I will have one with a 720P front
projector. But most of the time will watch TV on a 30 " CRT analog
hooked to cable.

Bob Miller
!