Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is HDTV all it's cracked up to be?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 10:01:23 AM

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

Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is just
not all it's cracked up to be...

I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and recently
bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that if one
wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it does not
have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this size.
Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I honestly
don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines as I
had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks awful
altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail, a
good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a real
good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are mountains
of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.

Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain my sets
are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good if
not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than what
I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).

Comments?

More about : hdtv cracked

Anonymous
January 23, 2005 10:01:24 AM

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

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06...
> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is
> just
> not all it's cracked up to be...
>
> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and recently
> bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that if one
> wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it does not
> have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this
> size.
> Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I
> honestly
> don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines as I
> had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks
> awful
> altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
> kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail, a
> good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a real
> good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are
> mountains
> of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.
>
> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain my
> sets
> are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
> impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good if
> not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than what
> I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).
>
> Comments?

Can you see a significant improvement when going from DVD to HDTV?
If not, your eyes or your set needs help.

You're not going to see a rich black on a LCD set. Get a CRT rear
projection
for that.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 10:11:14 AM

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

To elaborate a bit...I often wonder if what I am complaining about may be
that a lot of programming is just not really being done in HDTV but being
upscaled instead. Sometimes I see something on something like PBS and feel
that it looks very good indeed. However more often I watch something like
say CSI Miami, or ER or a lot of the situatuion comedies in HDTV and am
disturbed by lack of shadow detail or lack of what I am looking for as a big
resolution jump over regular ntsc programming..it just aint there!


"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06...
> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is
just
> not all it's cracked up to be...
>
> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and recently
> bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that if one
> wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it does not
> have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this
size.
> Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I
honestly
> don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines as I
> had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks
awful
> altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
> kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail, a
> good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a real
> good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are
mountains
> of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.
>
> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain my
sets
> are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
> impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good if
> not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than what
> I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).
>
> Comments?
>
>
Related resources
January 23, 2005 10:11:15 AM

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

As I see it HDTV is really a new media that will eventually change the
landscape of TV. HD doesn't help much with sitcoms and other typical OTA TV
shows. HD also offers no improvement if you sit too far from the screen or
use too small or too low resolution. Where HD shines is when the scene being
shot contains considerably more information that is possible with SDTV.
Nature programming and stadium games really need HD but still only work if
you sit close enough to a good screen.

Evad




"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:m6IId.8818$CI6.3175@trnddc06...
> To elaborate a bit...I often wonder if what I am complaining about may be
> that a lot of programming is just not really being done in HDTV but being
> upscaled instead. Sometimes I see something on something like PBS and feel
> that it looks very good indeed. However more often I watch something like
> say CSI Miami, or ER or a lot of the situatuion comedies in HDTV and am
> disturbed by lack of shadow detail or lack of what I am looking for as a
> big
> resolution jump over regular ntsc programming..it just aint there!
>
>
> "Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06...
>> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is
> just
>> not all it's cracked up to be...
>>
>> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and recently
>> bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that if
>> one
>> wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it does
>> not
>> have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this
> size.
>> Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I
> honestly
>> don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines as
>> I
>> had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks
> awful
>> altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
>> kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail,
>> a
>> good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a
>> real
>> good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are
> mountains
>> of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.
>>
>> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain my
> sets
>> are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
>> impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good if
>> not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than
>> what
>> I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 10:11:15 AM

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

No way can I agree with you that HDTV is overated. I am picky and also
a tech geek so I absolutely love it. The real testimonial to how great
HD can be is my wife, her sister, and her friends. Just friday night I
came home from work and her sister was over and they were watching
TIVO'd Discovery channel stuff. She said "HD kicks ass". This from a
girl who probably wouldn't know how to switch the TV/Video inputs to
get to the DVD player if she spent 10 minutes trying to figure it out.


And as <b>Schooner</b> said, once you watch a sporting event...no going
back.
January 23, 2005 11:19:21 AM

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

See in-line comments:

Jay A wrote:
> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla
is just
> not all it's cracked up to be...
>
> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and
recently
> bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that
if one
> wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it
does not
> have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this
size.
> Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I
honestly
> don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines
as I
> had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks
awful
> altogether.

I'm not going to argue your experience, but I will throw out some
reasons why you may have formed this perspective 1. There's a great
deal of variance in the quality of "HD" content being broadcast today,
the primary reason for this (I believe) is because the source material
varies in quality and is often "up converted" to 1080i (from some lower
grade source) piror to being broadcast.
Many of the movies I see broadcast on TNT HD and INHD are often
unimpressive quality wise (I don't have any of the subscription movie
channels, but I imagine the same holds true).

However, live events, documentaries and sporting events (things
commonly recorded in HD these days) look fantastic to me and much
better than their NTSC counterparts. Even if you don't like the show
just tune in to FOX this tuesday and watch a few minutes of American
Idol (being broadcast in HD for the first time this season), then tune
in to the non-HD FOX and if you can't find some appriciation for your
HD set then I don't know what to tell you. But I agree, there should me
more HD content to wow us like that and there just isn't. We'll
continue to see more and more of it as time goes on.

For me, I don't watch a lot of cable TV stations. Most of what I watch
is prime time network TV and the majority of my viewing is HD.
Everybody Loves Raymond, Lost, ER, C.S.I, etc... After a year of
viewing these shows in HD regularly, I don't even think about them
being HD anymore, but over the holidays I was watching C.S.I on a SD
CRT TV at a family members house and I was reafirmed just how bad NTSC
is.

I'm not so happy with the gainy look of NTSC on my HD set (and I have
upconversion and filtering being applied), but the reality NTSC is just
that bad. If I hook and analog TV tuner card up my PC and try to watch
TV full screen on my SVGA monitor at 1280x1024 it looks gainy too. NTSC
format was designed for NTSC televisions, NTSC televisions are low
resolution devices.

All these "problems" will go away gradually as everything transitions
over to HD and as the older content is up coverted at the source.

I didn't even touch on DVD movies, but if you can't see a difference in
quality watching DVD movies on your HD set, maybe you don't have a
progressive scan DVD player or maybe there is something wrong with your
set or the cabling... The DVD watching experience alone almost
justifies an HDTV purchase. I promised not to argue, but I'll gladly
argue that with anyone.



> and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
> kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow
detail, a
> good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a
real
> good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are
mountains
> of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.

I've noticed these "problems" with LCD as well. Even Sony's models (and
IMO Sony makes the best consumer grade LCD based RP sets). What can I
say, I have a CRT based RP set.

>
> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain
my sets
> are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
> impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as
good if
> not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than
what
> I've seen on any HDTV set

If you're watching a NTSC signal on a HD set then yes and comparing
that same signal to a NTSC set, it may look better on an NTSC set
because the technology in the box is designed around displaying an
analog NTSC signal. To display that same signal on HDTV, their has to
be analog to digital conversion process. If you have digital cable or
sat that process is taking place at broadcast source and they will
often compress the hell out of a signal (making it look even worse)
because they know on NTSC televisions the additional compression won't
be noticed, however on HD sets it is noticable. The comparison I like
to use when discuss NTSC qualoty on an HDTV set is that it's a lot like
putting a magnifying glass up to a newspaper comic strip. So the comic
strip looks fine from a distance, but when you see the ugly up close
details you can see the print quality isn't good at all.


> (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).
>
> Comments?


-Jeremy
http://hdtv.0catch.com
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 12:48:53 PM

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

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:11:14 GMT, Jay A <cajay@verizon.net> wrote:
> To elaborate a bit...I often wonder if what I am complaining about may be
> that a lot of programming is just not really being done in HDTV but being
> upscaled instead. Sometimes I see something on something like PBS and feel
> that it looks very good indeed. However more often I watch something like
> say CSI Miami, or ER or a lot of the situatuion comedies in HDTV and am
> disturbed by lack of shadow detail or lack of what I am looking for as a big
> resolution jump over regular ntsc programming..it just aint there!

It all depends upon your point of view, location, and what you are used
to. I came from from an old 20" CRT with poor reception (snow or
interference 37 miles from stations), scan lines, interlace shimmer.
Even using DVE CD, contrast and picture adjustments are too limited to get
shadow detail. A digital OTA receiver gave me a better picture (TV only
has composite inputs) with no interference, and more channels (some
stations have multiple channels). So digital was an improvement even for
an old TV that could not take advantage of HD.

I could not afford a big screen TV, so I got a relatively inexpensive 27"
widescreen LCD TV (Apex) which has better sharpness, color, contrast, and
shadow detail than my CRT, even if black is a little light if room light
is too dim. It works best with VGA or DVI input at 720p to match its
1280x720 pixels. Component is less sharp because it is not pixel perfect
(5% overscan).

Admittedly the HD channel with the most HD content is our local PBS (which
is nice for concerts), but I imagine there will be more HD content as
NTSC is phased out.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 1:45:48 PM

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

It really depends on what you are watching.


I bought a 30" hdtv crt for primarly xbox and gamecube games.

The extra clarity is a huge jump up from just standard NTSC.


HDTV is just like video games/stereo equipment/computers. Software
or content should drive what and when to purchase. You don't need a
fast computer if you run old software. You don't need the latest and
greatest
video hardware to play old games. You don't need a HDTV unless you plan on
primarly watching content that uses the higher res modes.




--
Mickster

Visit my website and see my arcade!!

http://mickster.freeservers.com

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06...
> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is
> just
> not all it's cracked up to be...
>
> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and recently
> bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that if one
> wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it does not
> have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this
> size.
> Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I
> honestly
> don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines as I
> had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks
> awful
> altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
> kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail, a
> good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a real
> good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are
> mountains
> of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.
>
> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain my
> sets
> are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
> impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good if
> not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than what
> I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).
>
> Comments?
>
>
January 23, 2005 2:26:25 PM

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

> You are arguing that NTSC 480i is very good. DVD is only SD 480i
> information. You say that " The DVD watching experience alone almost
> justifies an HDTV purchase." As it does for most Americans. So far
> most buyers of HDTV sets have done so for watching DVDs not HD
> surprising as it may seem.
>
> Your progressive DVD player only upconverts 480i SD to 480P. It is
NOT
> 480P it only looks better than 480i. What if all your SD broadcast
> signals were upconverted to 480P? They would then be the equivalent
of DVDs.
>
> Then ask yourself this question. If DVD quality is good enough and
> "justifies an HDTV purchase" what does true 480P add to the equation?

> True 480P is twice as good as DVD since it has twice the information.
>

As others have pointed out filmed content and live content are
different. I think for movies it is more difficult to see a visual
difference. At this point I've watched quite a few movies on HD
channels and for some of them I have done frame by frame comparisons
(thanks to an HD-DVR and DVD) and honestly there isn't enough
difference that I would care. However, I only have a 57" set.

I have a associate who has a home theater room with a Mitsubishi HC2000
projector (720p native) and on a 100" screen you most certainly can see
the difference between DVD quality and HD quality (even on movies) so
if we have to move forward with standards I would rather the quality be
adapted (since so much effort has already been put into 1080i and 720p
as standards and have something that we can grow into over the next
several years instead of a format that just meets or expectations for
today.

Also, while I agree HD movies don't look that much better than DVD
movies (afer upconversion, progressive scanninig and filtering is
applied), the live content does look much better. I've seen concert
footage that was recorded in HD (downcoverered to DVD), some examples
would be Dave Matthews Band Central park concert and Matchbox Twenty's
recent concert. I own both of these on DVD and the HD broadcast
provides a noticable difference in quality. The same applies to the
quality of "live" HD as seen on sports events, et al.



> True 480P would match the screen of a 42" EDTV plasma and looks
better
> than HD does on a 42" HD plasma IMO. In fact I would suggest that the

> difference between 480P, 480i upconverted to 480P and 1080i on either
a
> 42' ED or HD plasma is in the same ballpark. HD doesn't really start
> showing its stuff till you get over 42" IMO.
>

Can you explain this? how does 480p match the screen of a 42" set? What
equation are you using to determine this? Another question here would
be at what (minimum) screen size does HD (1920x1080i or 1280x720p)
become possible. My guess would be 60". Then the question becomes how
are HDTV makers getting away with stamping HDTV 1080i compliant on sets
that can't really do 1080i, this has come up before and no one has a
clear answer....


-Jeremy
January 23, 2005 4:20:13 PM

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

One thing you need to learn: the difference between live/tape hdtv and
filmed hdtv. Two VERY different looks...both HDTV, but the difference
between how the 6 o'clock news looks and how Raiders of the Lost Ark looks.

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:m6IId.8818$CI6.3175@trnddc06...
> To elaborate a bit...I often wonder if what I am complaining about may be
> that a lot of programming is just not really being done in HDTV but being
> upscaled instead. Sometimes I see something on something like PBS and feel
> that it looks very good indeed. However more often I watch something like
> say CSI Miami, or ER or a lot of the situatuion comedies in HDTV and am
> disturbed by lack of shadow detail or lack of what I am looking for as a
> big
> resolution jump over regular ntsc programming..it just aint there!
>
>
> "Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06...
>> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is
> just
>> not all it's cracked up to be...
>>
>> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and recently
>> bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that if
>> one
>> wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it does
>> not
>> have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this
> size.
>> Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I
> honestly
>> don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines as
>> I
>> had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks
> awful
>> altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
>> kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail,
>> a
>> good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a
>> real
>> good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are
> mountains
>> of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.
>>
>> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain my
> sets
>> are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
>> impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good if
>> not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than
>> what
>> I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 4:22:22 PM

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

Once you've watched a sporting event in HD like NFL you wouldn't want to go
back. Night and day difference in quality.

"Evad" <evad@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:35hm4jF4idvsdU1@individual.net...
> As I see it HDTV is really a new media that will eventually change the
> landscape of TV. HD doesn't help much with sitcoms and other typical OTA
> TV shows. HD also offers no improvement if you sit too far from the screen
> or use too small or too low resolution. Where HD shines is when the scene
> being shot contains considerably more information that is possible with
> SDTV. Nature programming and stadium games really need HD but still only
> work if you sit close enough to a good screen.
>
> Evad
>
>
>
>
> "Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:m6IId.8818$CI6.3175@trnddc06...
>> To elaborate a bit...I often wonder if what I am complaining about may be
>> that a lot of programming is just not really being done in HDTV but being
>> upscaled instead. Sometimes I see something on something like PBS and
>> feel
>> that it looks very good indeed. However more often I watch something like
>> say CSI Miami, or ER or a lot of the situatuion comedies in HDTV and am
>> disturbed by lack of shadow detail or lack of what I am looking for as a
>> big
>> resolution jump over regular ntsc programming..it just aint there!
>>
>>
>> "Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06...
>>> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is
>> just
>>> not all it's cracked up to be...
>>>
>>> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and recently
>>> bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that if
>>> one
>>> wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it does
>>> not
>>> have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this
>> size.
>>> Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I
>> honestly
>>> don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines as
>>> I
>>> had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks
>> awful
>>> altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
>>> kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail,
>>> a
>>> good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a
>>> real
>>> good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are
>> mountains
>>> of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.
>>>
>>> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain my
>> sets
>>> are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
>>> impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good
>>> if
>>> not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than
>>> what
>>> I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
January 23, 2005 4:22:23 PM

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

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:22:22 GMT, "Schooner" <schooner@accesswave.ca>
wrote:

>Once you've watched a sporting event in HD like NFL you wouldn't want to go
>back. Night and day difference in quality.
>

You know it's just pro wrestling, don't you ?
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 5:10:49 PM

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

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06...
> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is
> just
> not all it's cracked up to be...
>
> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and recently
> bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that if one
> wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it does not
> have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this
> size.
> Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I
> honestly
> don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines as I
> had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks
> awful
> altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
> kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail, a
> good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a real
> good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are
> mountains
> of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.
>
> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain my
> sets
> are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
> impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good if
> not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than what
> I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).
>
> Comments?

Your experience runs completely counter to my own... but then again I have a
CRT-based RP and not LCD's.

HDTV has a clarity, a depth of color, and the sound quality that completely
changes the viewing experience.

There is simply no comparison with either NTSC or even DVD.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 5:29:45 PM

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

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06:

> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is
> just not all it's cracked up to be...
>
> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and
> recently bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would
> agree that if one wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but
> only in that it does not have the horizontal lines that would make an
> NTSC TV look bad at this size. Other than that, I am not sure I really
> see an advantage to HDTV. I honestly don't think that the resolution
> (other than the handling of the lines as I had mentioned) is very
> impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks awful altogether, and
> while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look kind've nice,
> at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail, a good rich
> black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a real good
> CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are
> mountains of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.

And now you know why I bought a direct view HDTV! CRT technology is
pretty mature. The people engineering those sets know how to make it
work! And the SDTV programming on my screen looks a bit blurry compared
with HDTV programming, but can you really say it shouldn't be? I'll take
my TV at SD resolution any time over my brothers equal size standard box.
For one thing, as you mention, there is a distinct set of horizontal
lines on his box, whereas mine is just picture from top to bottom. The
only "lines" you can see in it are the vertical lines of the trinitron
picture tube if you get up close.

> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain
> my sets are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all,
> not very impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set
> looks as good if not better (again, other than the scan lines on a
> large display) than what I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own,
> or have viewed in stores).

How does your LCD equipment compare on DVD signals? That's the real
bottom line for me as I own a lot of DVD's and watch them a lot. Again,
I'm satisfied with the performance of my direct view HDTV for that,
though I can notice a good increase in sharpness between even the best
DVD and a genuine HDTV broadcast over satellite.

In the stores, the large sets that impress me most are the DLP sets.
But, since I'm not in the market for a TV at the moment, I haven't really
spent a LOT of time watching them.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 5:32:20 PM

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

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote
>I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good if
> not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than what
> I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).

Hard for me to imagine how anyone with normal vision could come to this
conclusion. Only if you compare an unusually good SD picture, such as you
might get from HBO, to a mediocre HD picture -- AND you watch it on a small
screen AND discount the 4:3 vs. 16:9 comparison -- could you see it this
way, IMO.

I watch HD on a 60" 16:9 screen and have the opportunity, from time to time,
to compare those pictures to SD pictures on a very good Sony 32" CRT set. I
find the difference to be dramatic. With football and other events where
there are little people running around far away, as distinct from dramas
with mostly faces shot closeup, the difference is most pronounced.

mack
austin
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 6:36:06 PM

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

I think you've brought up some very interesting points. See below.


"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06...
> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is
> just
> not all it's cracked up to be...

Right now, you are absolutely correct, it's not "all it's cracked up to be".
But maybe not for the reasons you're saying. Sort of. My thoughts...

First, programming. The ratio of HD-only channels to all-channels is
extremely small. Worse, the ratio of original-HD programming-on-HD-channels
to up-converted-programming-on-HD channels is also very small. Bottom line,
the amount of original HD programming out there is very small right now.

Second, resolution and connectivity is not "at it's best" yet. Most (maybe
all, I'm not sure) of the plasma HD sets sold so far have native resolution
of 720p or less. You haven't seen it "as good as it gets" until you've seen
original digital HD programming transmitted camera-to-TV over a 100% digital
link on a 1080i (or ideally an 1080p) connection. Hardly anyone has had the
opportunity to see how good the video is going to get. Most HD sets sold so
far have component video instead of a digital hookup like DVI or HDMI.

Third, personal experience. Most people can easily distinguish the
profoundly improved quality of digital HDTV over standard analog TV, but a
few people out there need a little bit of time to comprehend the
differences, for whatever reasons. (For example, I've got a ten-year old 27"
RCA television and I think it's one of the best-looking TV's I've ever seen
in my life. Clear, crisp, vibrant colors, easy to read text.) Many people
can not easily distinguish the quality of HDTV from EDTV, it takes practice
and knowing "what to look for".

We're at the very beginning of this technology, it will take time.

--
"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06...
> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is
> just
> not all it's cracked up to be...
>
> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and recently
> bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that if one
> wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it does not
> have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this
> size.
> Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I
> honestly
> don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines as I
> had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks
> awful
> altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
> kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail, a
> good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a real
> good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are
> mountains
> of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.
>
> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain my
> sets
> are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
> impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good if
> not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than what
> I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).
>
> Comments?
>
>

email wachs eight four at yahoo dot com (but don't spell out the numbers)
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 8:10:17 PM

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

Jay A wrote:

> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is just
> not all it's cracked up to be...
>
> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and recently
> bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that if one
> wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it does not
> have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this size.
> Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I honestly
> don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines as I
> had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks awful
> altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
> kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail, a
> good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a real
> good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are mountains
> of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.
>
> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain my sets
> are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
> impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good if
> not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than what
> I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).
>
> Comments?

Well, if you are very unhappy with your purchase, return it. Where's
the problem?
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 8:13:00 PM

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

Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
news:Xns95E74202F60DDdoldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159:

> "Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06:
>
>> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla
>> is just not all it's cracked up to be...
>>
>> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and
>> recently bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would
>> agree that if one wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but
>> only in that it does not have the horizontal lines that would make an
>> NTSC TV look bad at this size. Other than that, I am not sure I
>> really see an advantage to HDTV. I honestly don't think that the
>> resolution (other than the handling of the lines as I had mentioned)
>> is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks awful
>> altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities
>> look kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow
>> detail, a good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as
>> compared to a real good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar
>> reception there are mountains of issues with regard to pixelation,
>> artifacts, etc.
>
> And now you know why I bought a direct view HDTV! CRT technology is
> pretty mature. The people engineering those sets know how to make it
> work! And the SDTV programming on my screen looks a bit blurry
> compared with HDTV programming, but can you really say it shouldn't
> be? I'll take my TV at SD resolution any time over my brothers equal
> size standard box. For one thing, as you mention, there is a distinct
> set of horizontal lines on his box, whereas mine is just picture from
> top to bottom. The only "lines" you can see in it are the vertical
> lines of the trinitron picture tube if you get up close.
>
>> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain
>> my sets are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all,
>> not very impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set
>> looks as good if not better (again, other than the scan lines on a
>> large display) than what I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I
>> own, or have viewed in stores).
>
> How does your LCD equipment compare on DVD signals? That's the real
> bottom line for me as I own a lot of DVD's and watch them a lot.
> Again, I'm satisfied with the performance of my direct view HDTV for
> that, though I can notice a good increase in sharpness between even
> the best DVD and a genuine HDTV broadcast over satellite.
>
> In the stores, the large sets that impress me most are the DLP sets.
> But, since I'm not in the market for a TV at the moment, I haven't
> really spent a LOT of time watching them.
>

Why do people respond to these trolls???
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 8:58:19 PM

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

jeremy@pdq.net wrote:

>
> I'm not so happy with the gainy look of NTSC on my HD set (and I have
> upconversion and filtering being applied), but the reality NTSC is just
> that bad. If I hook and analog TV tuner card up my PC and try to watch
> TV full screen on my SVGA monitor at 1280x1024 it looks gainy too. NTSC
> format was designed for NTSC televisions, NTSC televisions are low
> resolution devices.
>
> All these "problems" will go away gradually as everything transitions
> over to HD and as the older content is up coverted at the source.
>
> I didn't even touch on DVD movies, but if you can't see a difference in
> quality watching DVD movies on your HD set, maybe you don't have a
> progressive scan DVD player or maybe there is something wrong with your
> set or the cabling... The DVD watching experience alone almost
> justifies an HDTV purchase. I promised not to argue, but I'll gladly
> argue that with anyone.
>

>
> -Jeremy
> http://hdtv.0catch.com
>

You are arguing that NTSC 480i is very good. DVD is only SD 480i
information. You say that " The DVD watching experience alone almost
justifies an HDTV purchase." As it does for most Americans. So far
most buyers of HDTV sets have done so for watching DVDs not HD
surprising as it may seem.

Your progressive DVD player only upconverts 480i SD to 480P. It is NOT
480P it only looks better than 480i. What if all your SD broadcast
signals were upconverted to 480P? They would then be the equivalent of DVDs.

Then ask yourself this question. If DVD quality is good enough and
"justifies an HDTV purchase" what does true 480P add to the equation?
True 480P is twice as good as DVD since it has twice the information.

True 480P would match the screen of a 42" EDTV plasma and looks better
than HD does on a 42" HD plasma IMO. In fact I would suggest that the
difference between 480P, 480i upconverted to 480P and 1080i on either a
42' ED or HD plasma is in the same ballpark. HD doesn't really start
showing its stuff till you get over 42" IMO.

If a broadcaster delivered 480i to be upconverted to 480P in your home
or TRUE original 480P he could deliver 3 (480P) to 6 (480i) times the
programming that he can deliver with an HD signal and if he were to use
MPEG4 instead of MPEG2 he could deliver from 6 to 12 times the
programming as with an HD signal.

And beyond that MPEG4 still will improve a lot over just the next few
years so those numbers will likely settle at 8 (480P) and16 (480i) times
the programming as with HD.

I say this because broadcasters could easily replicate cable or
satellite and in any given market there is the capacity for 30 digital
TV channels. 30 times 8 = 240 and 30 times 16 = 480 program channels ALL
at that progressive DVD quality you mention or BETTER true 480P.

Would you be willing to settle for that progressive DVD or even better
480P experience and sacrifice OTA HD instead of paying a cable bill
every month if you could get that many channels OTA? You could still get
all the HD you want from a smaller cable of satellite subscription
offering or over broadband or megaband Internet on an ala carte basis.

That is what broadcasters are thinking about. Competing with cable sans
HD. I have always expected that to happen. The next Congress is
considering going over the head of the FCC and giving broadcasters what
they have been DEMANDING for the last 7 years. MUST CARRY of all the
programming they can deliver in a 6 MHz DTV OTA channel by cable. They
don't talk to the public about it but that is ALL they think about
believe me.

That should tell you that they are going to multicast because they think
that you will be satisfied and they can sure make a lot more money on
480 channels than on a few HD ones.

You are saying in your post that you would be satisfied I think. Most will.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 11:49:01 PM

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

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:%ARId.3483$r27.1761@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not so happy with the gainy look of NTSC on my HD set (and I have
>> upconversion and filtering being applied), but the reality NTSC is
>> just that bad. If I hook and analog TV tuner card up my PC and try to
>> watch TV full screen on my SVGA monitor at 1280x1024 it looks gainy
>> too. NTSC format was designed for NTSC televisions, NTSC televisions
>> are low resolution devices.
>>
>> All these "problems" will go away gradually as everything transitions
>> over to HD and as the older content is up coverted at the source.
>>
>> I didn't even touch on DVD movies, but if you can't see a difference
>> in quality watching DVD movies on your HD set, maybe you don't have a
>> progressive scan DVD player or maybe there is something wrong with
>> your set or the cabling... The DVD watching experience alone almost
>> justifies an HDTV purchase. I promised not to argue, but I'll gladly
>> argue that with anyone.
>>
>
>>
>> -Jeremy
>> http://hdtv.0catch.com
>>
>
> You are arguing that NTSC 480i is very good. DVD is only SD 480i
> information. You say that " The DVD watching experience alone almost
> justifies an HDTV purchase." As it does for most Americans. So far
> most buyers of HDTV sets have done so for watching DVDs not HD
> surprising as it may seem.
>
> Your progressive DVD player only upconverts 480i SD to 480P. It is NOT
> 480P it only looks better than 480i. What if all your SD broadcast
> signals were upconverted to 480P? They would then be the equivalent of
> DVDs.
>
> Then ask yourself this question. If DVD quality is good enough and
> "justifies an HDTV purchase" what does true 480P add to the equation?
> True 480P is twice as good as DVD since it has twice the information.

That's not exactly true, since upconversion is able to infer a good deal
of the information by interpolating between frames (depending on the
upconversion algorithms being used).

> True 480P would match the screen of a 42" EDTV plasma and looks better
> than HD does on a 42" HD plasma IMO. In fact I would suggest that the
> difference between 480P, 480i upconverted to 480P and 1080i on either
> a 42' ED or HD plasma is in the same ballpark. HD doesn't really start
> showing its stuff till you get over 42" IMO.

That's probably true, depending on distance from the screen. I can
easily see the difference on my 21" computer monitor, but I'm only 20
inches from the screen and it has an extremely fine dot pitch.

> If a broadcaster delivered 480i to be upconverted to 480P in your home
> or TRUE original 480P he could deliver 3 (480P) to 6 (480i) times the
> programming that he can deliver with an HD signal and if he were to
> use MPEG4 instead of MPEG2 he could deliver from 6 to 12 times the
> programming as with an HD signal.

True, but all that content costs money to produce and fees to air. And
the FCC is still handing out channel space one channel to a broadcast
entity. It's probably just as sensible to produce and broadcast HD,
since the channel will handle one HD plus at least one SD and some audio.
Besides, the bulk of broadcasting in the North American market (and
probably much of it elsewhere) is moving to satellite or cable.

Also, there is the element of horizontal resolution. My DVD recorder has
a high definition mode that, while it will only record an hour on a DVD+R
upconverts very nicely. The colors at that bandwidth might not register
very well on an SD set. I just don't know as the only SD set I have left
in the place is a little 13 inch RCA in the bedroom that hasn't been on
in over a year!

> And beyond that MPEG4 still will improve a lot over just the next few
> years so those numbers will likely settle at 8 (480P) and16 (480i)
> times the programming as with HD.

> I say this because broadcasters could easily replicate cable or
> satellite and in any given market there is the capacity for 30 digital
> TV channels. 30 times 8 = 240 and 30 times 16 = 480 program channels
> ALL at that progressive DVD quality you mention or BETTER true 480P.
>
> Would you be willing to settle for that progressive DVD or even better
> 480P experience and sacrifice OTA HD instead of paying a cable bill
> every month if you could get that many channels OTA? You could still
> get all the HD you want from a smaller cable of satellite subscription
> offering or over broadband or megaband Internet on an ala carte basis.
>
> That is what broadcasters are thinking about. Competing with cable
> sans HD. I have always expected that to happen. The next Congress is
> considering going over the head of the FCC and giving broadcasters
> what they have been DEMANDING for the last 7 years. MUST CARRY of all
> the programming they can deliver in a 6 MHz DTV OTA channel by cable.
> They don't talk to the public about it but that is ALL they think
> about believe me.
>
> That should tell you that they are going to multicast because they
> think that you will be satisfied and they can sure make a lot more
> money on 480 channels than on a few HD ones.
>
> You are saying in your post that you would be satisfied I think. Most
> will.

I would be a very UNSATISFIED customer if I lost the HD material that I
have now. While my DVD player is very smart at upconverting to 480p
(which my TV does a really marvellous job of displaying), there is still
no real comparison, even with all the bells and whistles going for it
between my DVDs of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and the HD broadcasts
I've seen. If those were upconverts, then they are being upconverted by
much better equipment than I have and mine is as good as most home
equipment can offer. I'm going to have a look in the near future at some
home-generated genuine 1080i stuff, since my new computer's video card
can produce it via an adapter from its DVI port. I can then put a
genuine picture on that screen at full screen resolution that I have
personally rendered from 3D mesh to 1920x1080 pixels.

I'll let you know how it compares with what the TV channels are
broadcasting. Right now I watch CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, PBS, CityTV
(Toronto), and Movie Central HD (they have a dedicated HD channel but not
a LOT of HD movies to play on it so they do the DVD thing. Their
equipment is as good as mine, so I get to watch a lot of movies I don't
have in DVD quality as good as if they were in my collection.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 4:20:54 AM

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

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:m6IId.8818$CI6.3175@trnddc06...
> To elaborate a bit...I often wonder if what I am complaining about may be
> that a lot of programming is just not really being done in HDTV but being
> upscaled instead. Sometimes I see something on something like PBS and feel
> that it looks very good indeed. However more often I watch something like
> say CSI Miami, or ER or a lot of the situatuion comedies in HDTV and am
> disturbed by lack of shadow detail or lack of what I am looking for as a
big
> resolution jump over regular ntsc programming..it just aint there!

That is entirely possible. I notice that the video shot directly in HD, not
transferred from film, SEEMS to look a LOT better. For example, live sports
or documentaries are awesome. Films transferred to HD sometimes don't SEEM
any better than DVD. I do agree the source can make a huge difference.

I have to say that next to digital cameras, an HDTV is the best money I have
ever spent. I can never buy another SD set again.

--Dan
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:00:31 AM

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

Thanks for all the comments (even the arrogant ones). If I may elaborate a
bit more...I am not complaining about HDTV. There IS a difference and an
advantage, but what I am saying is that I don't think the broadcasters are
necessarily taking advantage of the technology yet...and many of you have
agreed. Watching the Buffalo/Pittsburgh game on CBS today blew me away but
watching that new series called "Number" on CBS after the game left me cold.
I agree...live programming looks very good indeed in HD. Programs though
such as that Numbers show or CSI, ER etc look very muddy, lacking shadow
detail (at least on my LCD). NTSC shows look far inferior to the same shows
on an NTSC set. I understand an HD set was not designed for this kind of
show, but it's still a shame, just the same. Basically, it's all compromise
though...the reason I went with LCD was due to the burn-in problems of CRT
and Plasma sets. I figured that in the next several years, there is still
going to be an awful lot of SD 4:3 shows out there and I didn't wany any
bars or anything burning into my set. In addition, if I was going to get a
large TV, I had no desire to purchase a 200+ pound CRT set. Enough of those
monsters in this lifetime already.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:50:30 AM

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

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06...
> Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is
just
> not all it's cracked up to be...
>
> I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and recently
> bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that if one
> wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it does not
> have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this
size.
> Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I
honestly
> don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines as I
> had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks
awful
> altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
> kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail, a
> good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a real
> good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are
mountains
> of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.
>
> Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain my
sets
> are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
> impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good if
> not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than what
> I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).

I feel the same way. Yes, the picture is better, but by itself does not
justify the expense.

LCD displays, though they are 'hot' right now, have limitations, one of them
being they don't do too well with fast action. They are slow, and this
results in blurring when watching a lot of movement. They also have issues
with black.

Another poster suggested watching a DVD on your set. While it's not going
to be as good as HDTV (at least on paper), it'll give you a good baseline,
as well as suggesting what you will be able to see in the future.

Be prepared for nasty comments and insults. Some folks believe that if you
don't drop dead from the shock of seeing how much greater HD is over SD, you
are either blind, you can't hook up your set properly, or your lying.

Despite what some folks say, it's not the end of the world if you don't find
HD all that impressive. The fact is regular SD transmissions will
eventually be phased out, and it'll be a bigger pain and expense to keep
using old sets to receive programming. Personally, I'm going to keep my
other sets until they either they or SD transmissions die out. The only
reason I own an HDTV at all is because I wanted a big screen, and finally
had the money and WAF (Wife Approval Factor) to get one.

Pagan
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 3:23:47 PM

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

Jay A (cajay@verizon.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Programs though
> such as that Numbers show or CSI, ER etc look very muddy, lacking shadow
> detail (at least on my LCD).

That explains it. Your LCD (like all LCDs) doesn't do a good job with
different shades of "near-black". Some LCDs seem to have improved their
"true black" at the expense of "near black". Everything below a certain
light level disappears.

I don't have this problem on my CRT HDTV.

--
Jeff Rife | "I'm reading a great John Grisham novel...it's
| about a young Southern lawyer who fights an
| evil corporate giant."
| -- Dick Solomon, "3rd Rock from the Sun"
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 7:20:25 PM

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

"Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote

> Be prepared for nasty comments and insults. Some folks believe that if
> you
> don't drop dead from the shock of seeing how much greater HD is over SD,
> you
> are either blind, you can't hook up your set properly, or your lying.

But I don't that's just because those people have spent so much money on
HDTV that now they defend it at all costs. I think its because most of us,
apparently, actually see such a stupendous difference between HD and SD that
we just can't imagine how someone else would not.

Sure, I can see how someone comparing a very good SD picture from, say, HBO,
of mostly close-ups so that the subjects are large, as distinct from
something like a "booth cam" shot of a football game, with an HD picture,
might say the difference is not that dramatic. Sometimes I see very good SD
pictures that do, in fact, almost rival HD. But that is not typical.

It is also true that viewing the TV picture on a large screen -- 50" or
larger 16:9 -- is different from viewing on a small screen. On a 27"
screen, the difference between HD and SD is going to be a lot less than on a
big screen.

But you really have to put it all together. Put any 4:3 SDTV set beside a
60" 16:9 HDTV set and tune in last night's CBS Patriots/Falcons game on
both. If the difference between the two pictures is not
knock-your-socks-off dramatic, then, yes, there is something wrong with
either your hook-up, your eyes or both. (Or you're looking at the network's
"blimp shot" which looks BETTER on the SDTV!)

mack
austin
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 7:20:26 PM

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

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in
message news:D f9Jd.49133$_56.28328@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote
>
> > Be prepared for nasty comments and insults. Some folks believe that if
> > you
> > don't drop dead from the shock of seeing how much greater HD is over SD,
> > you
> > are either blind, you can't hook up your set properly, or your lying.
>
> But I don't that's just because those people have spent so much money on
> HDTV that now they defend it at all costs. I think its because most of
us,
> apparently, actually see such a stupendous difference between HD and SD
that
> we just can't imagine how someone else would not.
>
> Sure, I can see how someone comparing a very good SD picture from, say,
HBO,
> of mostly close-ups so that the subjects are large, as distinct from
> something like a "booth cam" shot of a football game, with an HD picture,
> might say the difference is not that dramatic. Sometimes I see very good
SD
> pictures that do, in fact, almost rival HD. But that is not typical.
>
> It is also true that viewing the TV picture on a large screen -- 50" or
> larger 16:9 -- is different from viewing on a small screen. On a 27"
> screen, the difference between HD and SD is going to be a lot less than on
a
> big screen.

I think part of is is also what type of set some of these folks are
replacing. If you've got a Curtis Mathis set from 1969, and you replace it
with an $8k set, sure, you are going to see a huge difference. Perhaps it's
because my last set was a pretty high-end CRT, and I went from that to a RP
HD set, I'm not seeing as much difference. I'm more impressed with the
larger image than anything.

Pagan

> But you really have to put it all together. Put any 4:3 SDTV set beside a
> 60" 16:9 HDTV set and tune in last night's CBS Patriots/Falcons game on
> both. If the difference between the two pictures is not
> knock-your-socks-off dramatic, then, yes, there is something wrong with
> either your hook-up, your eyes or both. (Or you're looking at the
network's
> "blimp shot" which looks BETTER on the SDTV!)
>
> mack
> austin
>
>
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 8:54:24 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:

> Jay A (cajay@verizon.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>> Programs though
>>such as that Numbers show or CSI, ER etc look very muddy, lacking shadow
>>detail (at least on my LCD).
>
> That explains it. Your LCD (like all LCDs) doesn't do a good job with
> different shades of "near-black". Some LCDs seem to have improved their
> "true black" at the expense of "near black". Everything below a certain
> light level disappears.
>
> I don't have this problem on my CRT HDTV.

Yep, you hit the nail on the head. The network crime dramas such as
CSI (Vegas and NYC version especially), all the L&O variants and a lot
of other drama shows have a lot of dark scenes or are just entirely
dimly light which his LCD TV does a poor job on. West Wing - looks like
people should be using flashlights to read in the offices. I personally
think the studios have gone overboard going for certain looks on these
gritty dramas - prime example being CSI - Vegas: mostly neutral but
dark, Miami: orange hue on all outdoor shots, NYC: way too gray. Wonder
if the producers and cinematographers are all looking at these shows on
their professional grade CRTs or plasmas and not considering how they
look on Joe Six-pack's SD TV or a LCD TV. But these shows look fine on
my Panasonic plasma, so I think HD TV looks great.

Alan F
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 8:54:25 PM

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

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1OKdnfIacO904WjcRVn-vg@comcast.com...
> Jeff Rife wrote:
>
>> Jay A (cajay@verizon.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>
>>> Programs though
>>> such as that Numbers show or CSI, ER etc look very muddy, lacking shadow
>>> detail (at least on my LCD).
>>
>> That explains it. Your LCD (like all LCDs) doesn't do a good job with
>> different shades of "near-black". Some LCDs seem to have improved their
>> "true black" at the expense of "near black". Everything below a certain
>> light level disappears.
>>
>> I don't have this problem on my CRT HDTV.
>
> Yep, you hit the nail on the head. The network crime dramas such as
> CSI (Vegas and NYC version especially), all the L&O variants and a lot
> of other drama shows have a lot of dark scenes or are just entirely
> dimly light which his LCD TV does a poor job on. West Wing - looks like
> people should be using flashlights to read in the offices. I personally
> think the studios have gone overboard going for certain looks on these
> gritty dramas - prime example being CSI - Vegas: mostly neutral but
> dark, Miami: orange hue on all outdoor shots, NYC: way too gray. Wonder
> if the producers and cinematographers are all looking at these shows on
> their professional grade CRTs or plasmas and not considering how they
> look on Joe Six-pack's SD TV or a LCD TV. But these shows look fine on
> my Panasonic plasma, so I think HD TV looks great.

I think it will be very sad indeed if cinematographers start dumbing down
their lighting and camera work to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
We are entering a new era of image making and many of these shows will be
with us for generations to come in re-runs or purchasable as a download for
whoever may be interested. Let's not limit the artistic expression of these
programs forever to suit the needs of present day early adopter devices.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:56:37 PM

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

Jay A wrote:
>
> To elaborate a bit...I often wonder if what I am complaining about may be
> that a lot of programming is just not really being done in HDTV but being
> upscaled instead. Sometimes I see something on something like PBS and feel
> that it looks very good indeed. However more often I watch something like
> say CSI Miami, or ER or a lot of the situatuion comedies in HDTV and am
> disturbed by lack of shadow detail or lack of what I am looking for as a big
> resolution jump over regular ntsc programming..it just aint there!

The HD Programming quantity & quality is affected by 'Where you
live'..

Yes, and I agree with you that 'dark' movie like scenes do not
WOW the HD viewer.. The Bright colored HD nature or HD Sport
event
can bring out the full detail, contrast, & Color that makes
HD strut its stuff..............




>
> "Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:7ZHId.8815$CI6.6699@trnddc06...
> > Is it me, or does anyone agree when I say that all this HDTV hoopla is
> just
> > not all it's cracked up to be...
> >
> > I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and recently
> > bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that if one
> > wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it does not
> > have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at this
> size.
> > Other than that, I am not sure I really see an advantage to HDTV. I
> honestly
> > don't think that the resolution (other than the handling of the lines as I
> > had mentioned) is very impressive, NTSC TV on one of these sets looks
> awful
> > altogether, and while the LCD sets do make gradations of tonalities look
> > kind've nice, at the same time there is a genuine lack of shadow detail, a
> > good rich black, and images tend to look a bit muddy as compared to a real
> > good CRT display. Plus, unless one has stellar reception there are
> mountains
> > of issues with regard to pixelation, artifacts, etc.
> >
> > Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am certain my
> sets
> > are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not very
> > impressed and I do think that a good, crt based ntsc set looks as good if
> > not better (again, other than the scan lines on a large display) than what
> > I've seen on any HDTV set (that either I own, or have viewed in stores).
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> >
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 1:06:31 AM

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

Alan Figgatt (afiggatt@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I personally
> think the studios have gone overboard going for certain looks on these
> gritty dramas - prime example being CSI - Vegas: mostly neutral but
> dark, Miami: orange hue on all outdoor shots, NYC: way too gray.

The latest "look" is on "NUMB3RS", which has a very "green" hue to it when
it's in a "crime" scene (as opposed to a "story" scene like in the home of
the brothers, or at the college). Inside the FBI offices or at anyplace where
there is criminal investigation going on, there is a greenish tint to the
picture.

--
Jeff Rife | "Because he was human; because he had goodness;
| because he was moral they called him insane.
| Delusions of grandeur; visions of splendor;
| A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."
| -- Rush, "Cinderella Man"
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 1:48:35 AM

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

If you notice the difference between VHS and DVD on a regular
TV...about double
the quality....you'll notice the difference of 4 to 5 times greater
quality of HDTV compared
to standard broadcast TV.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 2:06:36 AM

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

Plus all the shows like NYPD Blue where they purposely jiggle the
camera.
This drastically increases the visible compression artifacts since
MPEG
(Motion picture EXPERTS group) was designed to ASSUME someone would
use a tripod or a steadicam if they couldn't hold the friggin camera
steady.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 2:06:37 AM

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

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:06:36 GMT, "Frank Provasek"
<frank@frankcoins.com> wrote:

>Plus all the shows like NYPD Blue where they purposely jiggle the
>camera.
> This drastically increases the visible compression artifacts since
>MPEG
>(Motion picture EXPERTS group) was designed to ASSUME someone would
>use a tripod or a steadicam if they couldn't hold the friggin camera
>steady.
>

I was watching battlestar Galactica the other day and they were doing
some awful camera work to try and look arty. Just terrible work,
constantly zooming in and out and tilting the camera. jackasses.

It's too easy to feel contempt for a lot of professionals these days.

Don't even get me started on the mess they make of a simple football
game.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 4:46:25 AM

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

All in all, I really think it depends on several factors...the 2 sets you
are comparing, the way the program you are watching was produced, the sizes
you are comparing etc.

My CRT was a 32 inch Sony wega (very good set). My current HD is a Sony 42
inch LCD RP. As someone said, it looks very very good when watching live
events, and any SD set at 42 inches just would not cut the pie. Where I am
beginning to see more and more of the shortcomings is in the above mentioned
crime scene shows like CSI. Yes, the problem is in the low key lighting
being used. An LCD just does not do this kind of lighting justice.

BTW, I have watched several DVDs since getting the set and am rather
impressed by them.

At any rate, given all the advantages and disadvantages, I am still happy I
chose the LCD mainly due to the non burn-in risk. Plus it helps that it's an
incredibly light set, so I can move it around very easily if I need to.

Getting back to my original post and suggestion that HD is not all it's
cracked up to be...I guess it depends on what you watch and what you are
looking for. One of my main reasons was for pro sports, and I know I will be
very happy with this set on that basis. The CBS braodcast on Sunday was
proof of that.

I do wish that SD looked better, but as time goes on I guess that won't be
much of an issue as more and more HD programming comes into play.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 11:45:05 AM

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

> > I have had a 26 inch JVC LCD monitor for about 6 months now and
recently
> > bought a 42 inch Sony rear projection LCD. While I would agree that
if one
> > wants a larger screen, HDTV is the way to go, but only in that it
does not
> > have the horizontal lines that would make an NTSC TV look bad at
this
> size.

> > Yes, I am cetain I am viewing HDTV programming, and yes I am
certain my
> sets
> > are set up properly...but what can I say...I am all in all, not
very

Get your eyes checked. Seriously. I'm not being a smart ass. If you
can't tell the difference and you know for a fact that your TV is
really showing HD, there's something wrong in your brain. I've never
had ANYONE that's seen the HD pic on my set walk away without the "Wow"
factor.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 11:49:24 AM

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

> Getting back to my original post and suggestion that HD is not all
it's
> cracked up to be...I guess it depends on what you watch and what you
are
> looking for. One of my main reasons was for pro sports, and I know I
will be
> very happy with this set on that basis. The CBS braodcast on Sunday
was
> proof of that.
So now you admit that the HD *was* better. Whatever.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 12:27:50 PM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

>Alan Figgatt (afiggatt@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> I personally
>> think the studios have gone overboard going for certain looks on these
>> gritty dramas - prime example being CSI - Vegas: mostly neutral but
>> dark, Miami: orange hue on all outdoor shots, NYC: way too gray.
>
>The latest "look" is on "NUMB3RS", which has a very "green" hue to it when
>it's in a "crime" scene (as opposed to a "story" scene like in the home of
>the brothers, or at the college). Inside the FBI offices or at anyplace where
>there is criminal investigation going on, there is a greenish tint to the
>picture.

I noticed that. It seems many of the drama shows are determined to
outdo each other in producing intentionally bad video. I gave up on
Cold Case, which kept coming up with new ways to look bad every week.
I'll give NUMB3RS another try, but it's going to have to have better
stories than the first one to make me accept the pictures. I didn't
spend several thousand dollars on HDTV to watch bad video.

Del Mibbler
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 12:27:51 PM

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

"Del Mibbler" <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:el1cv05vbo1u39jr48lj19i7frj3u7fe78@4ax.com...
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
>>Alan Figgatt (afiggatt@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>> I personally
>>> think the studios have gone overboard going for certain looks on these
>>> gritty dramas - prime example being CSI - Vegas: mostly neutral but
>>> dark, Miami: orange hue on all outdoor shots, NYC: way too gray.
>>
>>The latest "look" is on "NUMB3RS", which has a very "green" hue to it when
>>it's in a "crime" scene (as opposed to a "story" scene like in the home of
>>the brothers, or at the college). Inside the FBI offices or at anyplace
>>where
>>there is criminal investigation going on, there is a greenish tint to the
>>picture.
>
> I noticed that. It seems many of the drama shows are determined to
> outdo each other in producing intentionally bad video. I gave up on
> Cold Case, which kept coming up with new ways to look bad every week.
> I'll give NUMB3RS another try, but it's going to have to have better
> stories than the first one to make me accept the pictures. I didn't
> spend several thousand dollars on HDTV to watch bad video.

So are you advocating that all video be lit and shot the same way? Come
on...there are different pallettes and looks for different circumstances and
moods. That's called "film making." Be thankful that everything on
television doesn't look like an overlit HD soap opera.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 1:25:32 PM

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

Jay A wrote:
> Maybe you should have read the entire thread first?
>
> I never said it wasn't better, I only feel that maybe it still has a
way to
> go.
>

I read the thread. And it's my contention you need your eye sight
checked. Seriously.
> Or do you feel that it's perfect?

Nothing is perfect.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 3:50:45 PM

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

Charles Tomaras wrote:
> "Del Mibbler" <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:el1cv05vbo1u39jr48lj19i7frj3u7fe78@4ax.com...
>
>>Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Alan Figgatt (afiggatt@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>>
>>>>I personally
>>>>think the studios have gone overboard going for certain looks on these
>>>>gritty dramas - prime example being CSI - Vegas: mostly neutral but
>>>>dark, Miami: orange hue on all outdoor shots, NYC: way too gray.
>>>
>>>The latest "look" is on "NUMB3RS", which has a very "green" hue to it when
>>>it's in a "crime" scene (as opposed to a "story" scene like in the home of
>>>the brothers, or at the college). Inside the FBI offices or at anyplace
>>>where
>>>there is criminal investigation going on, there is a greenish tint to the
>>>picture.
>>
>>I noticed that. It seems many of the drama shows are determined to
>>outdo each other in producing intentionally bad video. I gave up on
>>Cold Case, which kept coming up with new ways to look bad every week.
>>I'll give NUMB3RS another try, but it's going to have to have better
>>stories than the first one to make me accept the pictures. I didn't
>>spend several thousand dollars on HDTV to watch bad video.
>
>
> So are you advocating that all video be lit and shot the same way? Come
> on...there are different pallettes and looks for different circumstances and
> moods. That's called "film making." Be thankful that everything on
television doesn't look like an overlit HD soap opera.

I don't have a problem with different tones for different shows so
long as it does not distract from watching the show. But I think they
have gone overboard on the color tones, probably in large part because
it is easy to do digitally and is a relatively new toy. I found several
of the early episodes of CSI: NY to be so gray, that the actors looked
unhealthy with a pallid gray skin tone which, in real life, might get
people asking them have they seen a doctor lately?

Then there is the shaky camera bit which I agree with the other post
that they are using excessively on Battlestar Galactica. Distracts from
the story which is not a good thing. I assume NYPD Blue is still doing
it too, but I have not watched that show in years.

Alan F
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 7:32:17 PM

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

> So are you advocating that all video be lit and shot the same way? Come
> on...there are different pallettes and looks for different circumstances
> and moods. That's called "film making." Be thankful that everything on
> television doesn't look like an overlit HD soap opera.
>

Some call it "a gimmick"
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 8:21:15 PM

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

Maybe you should have read the entire thread first?

I never said it wasn't better, I only feel that maybe it still has a way to
go.

Or do you feel that it's perfect?



"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106671764.141879.172600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Getting back to my original post and suggestion that HD is not all
> it's
>> cracked up to be...I guess it depends on what you watch and what you
> are
>> looking for. One of my main reasons was for pro sports, and I know I
> will be
>> very happy with this set on that basis. The CBS braodcast on Sunday
> was
>> proof of that.
> So now you admit that the HD *was* better. Whatever.
>
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:44:12 PM

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

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lwuJd.11651$J6.7620@trnddc02...
>> So are you advocating that all video be lit and shot the same way? Come
>> on...there are different pallettes and looks for different circumstances
>> and moods. That's called "film making." Be thankful that everything on
>> television doesn't look like an overlit HD soap opera.
>>
>
> Some call it "a gimmick"

Some call it art. I guess I'm just tired of the attitude I often see on this
newsgroup where posters think that everything should be lit to the nines and
have depth of field from here to eternity. It's as though they do not want
to let the image makers tell a story save for dialog and acting. As far as
I'm concerned these desires are right up there with wanting the actors to
speak in monotone or using a limiter circuit so everything is the same
volume.

I've worked as a sound mixer in the film and video business for a number of
years and I've never been on a set or stage where the goal of the director
or DP was to foist a "gimmick" upon the end viewer. They aren't hitting the
"old time movie" button like on the home video cameras... these are creative
professionals plying their crafts in the pursuit of excellence.You don't
have to like someone's creative expression, but please don't fault them for
trying to be expressive.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 10:06:50 PM

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

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
>So are you advocating that all video be lit and shot the same way? Come
>on...there are different pallettes and looks for different circumstances and
>moods. That's called "film making." Be thankful that everything on
>television doesn't look like an overlit HD soap opera.
>
Not at all. I accept altered video quality when it serves a useful
purpose. "The Matrix" used a greenish tint to differentiate scenes in
the illusion of the matrix from those in "reality." A blue filter is
a cheap way to simulate a night scene, but if you're going to do a
whole movie at night you need a better method. "Dark City" didn't
resort to shooting everything in blue.

The mix of B&W and color in "The Wizard of Oz" was a stroke of genius;
that's the only way that movie should be seen (and WB's recent HD feed
of that was the best-looking version I've seen, even better than the
estored version I saw in a theater). It was used the same way in "The
Navigator" and with a different purpose in "Memento," to help sort out
a very confusing movie. It was used well and badly in the same movie:
In Kill Bill Vol. 1 it was appropriate for the wedding flashback but
inappropriate in the middle of a fight scene.

"Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" was trying for the look and
feel of the movie serials of the late 30s/early 40s and those
moviemakers' visions of the future. The use of color faded almost to
sepia tone helped to accomplish that. B&W might have worked as well,
but full color would have been wrong. Unfortunately most movie-goers
under 50 have never seen those serials and didn't appreciate the
movie.

Back to KBv1 for a moment. The "Our Feature Presentation" opening was
perfect: film scratches, bad audio, even the thump at the end
characteristic of a theater switching the sound source from one
projector to the other. But I wouldn't have wanted the whole movie to
be that way.

As I said in an earlier post, I'm not generally in favor of colorizing
monochrome movies, but I'd make an exception for "Minority Report."

Del Mibbler
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 9:37:33 AM

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

Having been involved with imagery for over 40 years (as a professional
photographer and videographer) I can safely say my eyes do not need
checking. What I DO find and have seen all my life is that a lot of people
are caught up in a "wow" factor when it comes to image technology. Case in
point...in the early days of color television, the trend was to flood the
screen with colors and wow the viewer into the scene. Same thing during the
early days of Kodachrome film, and if I may extend this a bit, the early
days of stereo audio where the trend was to wow the listener into
recognizing sounds coming from different parts of the room.

What I see going on today is a similar thing with the big screen at home (42
inch, 50 inch etc displays). I think that people have been wowed into this
big screen thing to the effect that they like what they see and are not
being as critical as they could.

Yes there is a difference between ntsc sd and hdtv. However, all I have been
saying, and maybe I had not made myself clear enough, is that far too much
of what I am viewing just does not make the grade. Case in point...I was
watching a movie on HD HBO today and thought it looked absolutely aweful.
What came to mind was that it most likely was not even shot in HD but that
HBO merely took what it had and upscaled it to fit my 16:9 42" screen. It
looked like a program that sd looks like when you stretch with your tv's
conmtrols it to fit the large screen...not too swift. On the other hand,
the CBS broadcast last Sunday of the football game was something to behold.

When I used the phrase "not all it's cracked up to be" I was referring to
all of this. If all programming was on the order of that football game on
Sunday I would say that HDTV is the best thing that's come along since color
tv. Unfortunately there is such a wide variance of technology being thrown
around by the networks it's dizzying. That plus the fact that 1 - LCD
screens lack good blacks, 2 - Plasma and CRT screens suffer burn-in, 3 -
HDTV is extremely demanding when it comes to signal quality, 4 - Upcoming HD
DVD players are bringing yet another standards war, 5 - SD broadcasts look
pretty bad on HD screens.....all this makes me reiterate my statement that
HDTV may not be all it's cracked up to be.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 9:49:04 AM

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

Art my ass...
Take a look at a film like "Juliet of the Spirits" by Fellini or "Cries and
Whispers" by Bergman and compare how they use color in these films to what
the guys in Hollywood do.

Using a green filter on a camera is art? Geez!
Hollywood wouldn't know a work of art if it came and hit it in the face.




> Some call it art. I guess I'm just tired of the attitude I often see on
> this newsgroup where posters think that everything should be lit to the
> nines and have depth of field from here to eternity. It's as though they
> do not want to let the image makers tell a story save for dialog and
> acting. As far as I'm concerned these desires are right up there with
> wanting the actors to speak in monotone or using a limiter circuit so
> everything is the same volume.
>
> I've worked as a sound mixer in the film and video business for a number
> of years and I've never been on a set or stage where the goal of the
> director or DP was to foist a "gimmick" upon the end viewer. They aren't
> hitting the "old time movie" button like on the home video cameras...
> these are creative professionals plying their crafts in the pursuit of
> excellence.You don't have to like someone's creative expression, but
> please don't fault them for trying to be expressive.
>
> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA
>
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 9:49:05 AM

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

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:A3HJd.11910$J6.8845@trnddc02...
> Art my ass...
> Take a look at a film like "Juliet of the Spirits" by Fellini or "Cries
> and Whispers" by Bergman and compare how they use color in these films to
> what the guys in Hollywood do.
>
> Using a green filter on a camera is art? Geez!
> Hollywood wouldn't know a work of art if it came and hit it in the face.


I guess we will never know how those revered artists would have fared with a
shooting schedule of 7 day episodics shot at the pace of 9 pages a day. You
aren't comparing apples to apples here. There is a great deal of art and
talent in Hollywood...almost always has been and probably always will be.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 11:02:03 AM

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

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:NUGJd.16481$ef6.6827@trnddc07...
> Having been involved with imagery for over 40 years (as a professional
> photographer and videographer) I can safely say my eyes do not need
> checking.

WRONG! You must immediately gouge your eyes out and flush them in the
toilet. Then put some Bondo in the sockets so you don't gross everybody
out. heh

<snip>
> When I used the phrase "not all it's cracked up to be" I was referring to
> all of this. If all programming was on the order of that football game on
> Sunday I would say that HDTV is the best thing that's come along since
color
> tv. Unfortunately there is such a wide variance of technology being thrown
> around by the networks it's dizzying. That plus the fact that 1 - LCD
> screens lack good blacks, 2 - Plasma and CRT screens suffer burn-in, 3 -
> HDTV is extremely demanding when it comes to signal quality, 4 - Upcoming
HD
> DVD players are bringing yet another standards war, 5 - SD broadcasts look
> pretty bad on HD screens.....all this makes me reiterate my statement that
> HDTV may not be all it's cracked up to be.

I did some experimenting and found that my set couldn't do upconversions
worth a toot. I have a Dish 921 receiver that outputs either SD or HD, and
when I let the 921 do the upconversion as well as the wide screen
corrections, it looks much better, and contrary to what some others say,
there's little difference between HD and SD for casual viewing. Oh, I'm
sure if I zoomed in, or crawled up to the TV and held my eye six inches
away, I'd notice a huge difference, but that's hardly the way I want to
watch a movie.

As for burn-in, it can and sometimes does happen to both direct view TV's
and CRT PC monitors, including your Sony. However, you don't hear a lot of
bitching about it, because it's fairly rare, and the only time most of us
see it is on older ATM machines. We just replaced a 10 year old set with a
RP, and it had no burn in. I've got computer monitors as old as 15 years,
and a friend with a something like 40 year old set, the one that has the
picture tube sitting on top of a box, and no burn in. My main monitor is
about 7 years old, and around 98% of the time it's showing a Windows screen.
It doesn't have the slightest hint of burn in.

The screens I have seen with burn in are monitors where the computers were
improperly configured, forced to display a log-in screen 24/7 for years at a
time. Even then, it was barely noticeable.

The upcoming HD DVD wars have me a little spooked. I've got a good size
collection of DVD's, and I have no intention on re-buying them like I had to
do with cassette tapes/CD's. Then again, I don't anticipate HD DVD's
looking that much better than current DVD's.

Pagan
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 8:16:32 AM

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

I respectfully disagree. Hollywood is in the business of making
entertainment, not art. There have been very very few films shot in
Hollywood over the years that would qualify as genuine cinematic works of
art.

I am not degrading the efforts of those in Hollywood...some of them are by
far the best in the world at what they do...productions, special effects
etc. are far better than anywhere else in the world. But please don't
confuse what they do with 'art'...it's two different animals.




> I guess we will never know how those revered artists would have fared with
> a shooting schedule of 7 day episodics shot at the pace of 9 pages a day.
> You aren't comparing apples to apples here. There is a great deal of art
> and talent in Hollywood...almost always has been and probably always will
> be.
>
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 8:16:33 AM

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

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QO_Jd.2123$2i4.362@trnddc01...
>I respectfully disagree. Hollywood is in the business of making
>entertainment, not art. There have been very very few films shot in
>Hollywood over the years that would qualify as genuine cinematic works of
>art.

You were the one comparing Fellini movies to current episodics. As I said,
you aren't making a fair comparison. If you don't think that the DP's,
Gaffers and other craftsmen working on big budget episodics are not artists
I repectfully dissagree with you. These are people with many years of
experience at thier crafts in a highly competitive field. You may not
appreciate thier efforts but kids fresh out of film school they are not. It
seems in your world the art museums only feature the works of a few masters
and everything else is eye candy. If you can't appreciate what the camera
movement in a top notch episodic like NYPD Blue is communicating then I
think you are missing out on something very special. If you think that what
those craftsmen do is trivial or easy I once again dissagree with you and
will also ask what connection or experience you have with this industy that
gives you the background to make such judgements.


> I am not degrading the efforts of those in Hollywood...some of them are by
> far the best in the world at what they do...productions, special effects
> etc. are far better than anywhere else in the world. But please don't
> confuse what they do with 'art'...it's two different animals.
>
>
>
>
>> I guess we will never know how those revered artists would have fared
>> with a shooting schedule of 7 day episodics shot at the pace of 9 pages a
>> day. You aren't comparing apples to apples here. There is a great deal of
>> art and talent in Hollywood...almost always has been and probably always
>> will be.
>>
>
>
!