Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HD or ED: That is the question...

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 9:58:23 PM

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

I have between $2000 and $3500 I'm willing to spend on a new TV. It
needs to be between 37 and 42 inches and receive a very good SD picture
because that's probably what we watch 80% of the time until all the
stations are finally converted to HDTV (God knows when). We watch
maybe one or two DVDs a month. I don't want a refridgerator sized tube
TV in my living room because it's a narrow living room. We'll probably
sit 6 or 7 feet from the TV.

Any recommendations on whether we should get a plasma EDTV, plasma
HDTV, or a LCD/DLP projecton TV? Also, which brands are best for SD
picture?

THanks.

More about : question

Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:32:00 AM

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

On 11 Apr 2005 17:58:23 -0700, richmosar@gmail.com wrote:

>I have between $2000 and $3500 I'm willing to spend on a new TV. It
>needs to be between 37 and 42 inches and receive a very good SD picture
>because that's probably what we watch 80% of the time until all the
>stations are finally converted to HDTV (God knows when). We watch
>maybe one or two DVDs a month. I don't want a refridgerator sized tube
>TV in my living room because it's a narrow living room. We'll probably
>sit 6 or 7 feet from the TV.
>
>Any recommendations on whether we should get a plasma EDTV, plasma
>HDTV, or a LCD/DLP projecton TV? Also, which brands are best for SD
>picture?
>
>THanks.


After a lot of looking at sets, I'm thinking of going with a NTSC 27"
Sony for basic TV watching, and a 42" ED plasma primarily for DVDs.
I'm keeping a eye out for a good HDTV combo cable tuner/OTA tuner set
top box that'll output 480i or 480p for those sets. But I'm not
overwhelmed by HDTV enough to subscribe or put up with SD on a HDTV
set.

Frankly HDTV isn't my thing as I'm not into broadcast network TV that
much. I'm impressed when I see the sharp, in focus, HDTV close ups,
but it can look pretty unimpressive with less stellar camera work or
broadcasting. SD on HDTV sets is mostly just bad. I think there's a
lot of potential in HDTV, but it's going to be years down the line.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 5:02:24 AM

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

<richmosar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113267503.818095.138310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I have between $2000 and $3500 I'm willing to spend on a new TV. It
> needs to be between 37 and 42 inches and receive a very good SD picture
> because that's probably what we watch 80% of the time until all the
> stations are finally converted to HDTV (God knows when). We watch
> maybe one or two DVDs a month. I don't want a refridgerator sized tube
> TV in my living room because it's a narrow living room. We'll probably
> sit 6 or 7 feet from the TV.
>
> Any recommendations on whether we should get a plasma EDTV, plasma
> HDTV, or a LCD/DLP projecton TV? Also, which brands are best for SD
> picture?
>
> THanks.
>

It's my understanding that ED resolution is closer to DVD than HD, so ED
will tend to look better with DVD material. Also, I would think that SD is
closer to EDD in resolution so SD should look better on ED type tvs.
Related resources
April 12, 2005 2:43:36 PM

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

In your situation where you will be viewing programs from 6 feet away,
why not
get the best television currently in the history of the world?
That would be of course, the moderately priced 34" Wide Screen High
Definition Cathode Ray Tube televisions. If you don't believe me, ask
your salesperson and demand that he/she be honest.

As for Standard Definition broadcasts, the 1941 NTSC board never
envisioned televisions bigger than 19". As a result, 480i SD
broadcasts will always look dreadful on larger screens.

As for the choice of whether to purchase an EDTV? Anyone who would
ever conceive of buying one
has simply never seen an HDTV broadcast on an HD TV before? The FOX
broadcasting company made
the mistake of thinking that retooling their system to 480p EDTV
broadcasts was 'good enough'. It turns out that this was not the case
and FOX had to hurriedly re-upgrade their broadcasting system to 720p
true High Definition.
As a result their wide screen NFL broadcasts went from bland to
spectacular. In essence, EDTV televisions are obsolete even before
their blueprints are completed.

If you really would like to have a larger screen size than the direct
view CRT 34" than the next best televisions
are the bulkier 42" DLP or LCD rear projection units, which still sell
in your price range. These 42" units come very close to reproducing
the clarity of direct view CRT screens. However
you noted that your room is narrow, thus these rear projection sets
might not have ideal viewing angles in your seating environment. In
that case I would still re-recommend the trusty 34" CRT direct view
units which still retain their ‘Gee Whiz' factor at any viewing angle.

The thin flat screen LCD and plasma units are simply expensive
emotional purchases that do not provide the best picture performance
when compared to the bulkier ( but handsome) televisions mentioned
above. In other words you'd be paying a premium for thin ‘cool'
whereas I think it's way cooler to have the best television picture
quality currently available.

Kent
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:28:21 PM

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

On 12 Apr 2005 10:43:36 -0700, johnston@nrcan.gc.ca (Kent) wrote:

>...
> I think it's way cooler to have the best television picture
>quality currently available.
>
>Kent

That's why I'd go with the 27" NTSC set and the ED plasma.

the best picture for SD and DVDs ;) 

I'll get a HDTV set in four or five years when the industries are out
of beta mode and there's more than a couple of hours of HDTV to watch.

Went through all this with COLOR TV's a long time ago. Trust me, the
first ten years are forgettable and it's all there in the reruns and
dvds for watching later on better sets if you still care.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:16:24 PM

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

<richmosar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113267503.818095.138310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I have between $2000 and $3500 I'm willing to spend on a new TV. It
> needs to be between 37 and 42 inches and receive a very good SD picture
> because that's probably what we watch 80% of the time until all the
> stations are finally converted to HDTV (God knows when). We watch
> maybe one or two DVDs a month. I don't want a refridgerator sized tube
> TV in my living room because it's a narrow living room. We'll probably
> sit 6 or 7 feet from the TV.
>
> Any recommendations on whether we should get a plasma EDTV, plasma
> HDTV, or a LCD/DLP projecton TV? Also, which brands are best for SD
> picture?
>
> THanks.
>

I sit about 7 feet away from a 44 inch dlp. since I don't have my hd cable
box yet, all I have been able to watch is SD via cable, the SD digital
channels look better than they did on my old SDTV. the analog channels
(1-67 or so on Comcast) can look a bit grainy (still watchable though), but
that's to be expected at this scale. DVDs look much better. I paid $22xx
with tax and a 5 year service contract...
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:53:03 PM

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

Having a narrow and small room, I don't want a big bulky tube TV. I
have a 7 year old 27" right now and that's bulky enough for me. I
can't keep 2 TV's in there either, so one TV has to fit the bill.

Why can't TV manufacturers create a single TV that can show both good
SD TV and HDTV in a single unit. I'm sure that HDTV purchases would
have doubled if that was the case. The bad SD picture is the only
thing preventing me from buying an HDTV.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:53:24 PM

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

Having a narrow and small room, I don't want a big bulky tube TV. I
have a 7 year old 27" right now and that's bulky enough for me. I
can't keep 2 TV's in there either, so one TV has to fit the bill.

Why can't TV manufacturers create a single TV that can show both good
SD TV and HDTV in a single unit. I'm sure that HDTV purchases would
have doubled if that was the case. The bad SD picture is the only
thing preventing me from buying an HDTV.
April 13, 2005 12:43:46 AM

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

And get one with the black and white picture tube....that color stuff's got
a long way to go before it's up to snuff.

>
> Frankly HDTV isn't my thing as I'm not into broadcast network TV that
> much. I'm impressed when I see the sharp, in focus, HDTV close ups,
> but it can look pretty unimpressive with less stellar camera work or
> broadcasting. SD on HDTV sets is mostly just bad. I think there's a
> lot of potential in HDTV, but it's going to be years down the line.
>
>
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 1:42:28 AM

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

<richmosar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113267503.818095.138310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I have between $2000 and $3500 I'm willing to spend on a new TV. It
> needs to be between 37 and 42 inches and receive a very good SD picture
> because that's probably what we watch 80% of the time until all the
> stations are finally converted to HDTV (God knows when). We watch
> maybe one or two DVDs a month. I don't want a refridgerator sized tube
> TV in my living room because it's a narrow living room. We'll probably
> sit 6 or 7 feet from the TV.
>
> Any recommendations on whether we should get a plasma EDTV, plasma
> HDTV, or a LCD/DLP projecton TV? Also, which brands are best for SD
> picture?

forget "ED" that is just a marketing name for "Standard definition" - you
will not be happy with it

Your local stations have undoubtedly already converted to HD, ABC, NBC, CBS
are virtually 100% HD at night, even PBS, Fox, and UPN are doing HD shows.

Avoid plasma unless you have the money to move up-market where the decent
picture quality units are available, the low end stuff tends to be ugly -
particularly on darker scenes.

low-depth DLP/LCD RP HDTV's are well available in your price range.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:20:26 AM

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

<salesman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fskm51d9efdjp1366h8mql80bvu94k3tik@4ax.com...
> On 11 Apr 2005 17:58:23 -0700, richmosar@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >I have between $2000 and $3500 I'm willing to spend on a new TV. It
> >needs to be between 37 and 42 inches and receive a very good SD picture
> >because that's probably what we watch 80% of the time until all the
> >stations are finally converted to HDTV (God knows when). We watch
> >maybe one or two DVDs a month. I don't want a refridgerator sized tube
> >TV in my living room because it's a narrow living room. We'll probably
> >sit 6 or 7 feet from the TV.
> >
> >Any recommendations on whether we should get a plasma EDTV, plasma
> >HDTV, or a LCD/DLP projecton TV? Also, which brands are best for SD
> >picture?
> >
> >THanks.
>
>
> After a lot of looking at sets, I'm thinking of going with a NTSC 27"
> Sony for basic TV watching, and a 42" ED plasma primarily for DVDs.
> I'm keeping a eye out for a good HDTV combo cable tuner/OTA tuner set
> top box that'll output 480i or 480p for those sets. But I'm not
> overwhelmed by HDTV enough to subscribe or put up with SD on a HDTV
> set.
>
> Frankly HDTV isn't my thing as I'm not into broadcast network TV that
> much. I'm impressed when I see the sharp, in focus, HDTV close ups,
> but it can look pretty unimpressive with less stellar camera work or
> broadcasting. SD on HDTV sets is mostly just bad. I think there's a
> lot of potential in HDTV, but it's going to be years down the line.

I think the best reason to consider not going with HD is that the SD
material seems so bad in comparison, you find it becomes difficult to watch.
You don't miss what you don't have. But for myself, there's enough in HD
available it was worth the switch and I couldn't go back now.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:49:06 AM

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

<salesman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fskm51d9efdjp1366h8mql80bvu94k3tik@4ax.com...
> After a lot of looking at sets, I'm thinking of going with a NTSC 27"
> Sony for basic TV watching, and a 42" ED plasma primarily for DVDs.
> I'm keeping a eye out for a good HDTV combo cable tuner/OTA tuner set
> top box that'll output 480i or 480p for those sets. But I'm not
> overwhelmed by HDTV enough to subscribe or put up with SD on a HDTV
> set.
>
> Frankly HDTV isn't my thing as I'm not into broadcast network TV that
> much. I'm impressed when I see the sharp, in focus, HDTV close ups,
> but it can look pretty unimpressive with less stellar camera work or
> broadcasting. SD on HDTV sets is mostly just bad. I think there's a
> lot of potential in HDTV, but it's going to be years down the line.
>

Personally I just couldn't bring myself to buy a new TV that was not an
HDTV. Especially an "EDTV" as the prices on the EDTV (plasma or LCD) I
have seen are in the multi thousand dollar range and for that price a guy
should be getting a HDTV. For Xbox if nothing else, HD is sweet. I have a
nice small 30" CRT set and it is incredible, best money ever spent.

--Dan
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:47:03 AM

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

salesman@nospam.com wrote:

>On 12 Apr 2005 10:43:36 -0700, johnston@nrcan.gc.ca (Kent) wrote:
>
>>...
>> I think it's way cooler to have the best television picture
>>quality currently available.
>>
>>Kent
>
>That's why I'd go with the 27" NTSC set and the ED plasma.
>
>the best picture for SD and DVDs ;) 
>
>I'll get a HDTV set in four or five years when the industries are out
>of beta mode and there's more than a couple of hours of HDTV to watch.
>

You must live in a much different environment than I do. I'm in NYC
on cable TV, and virtually every primetime show on the four major
networks is in HD (some sitcoms excepted). Additionally all Yankee
games, about half the Mets games, many football games, two premium
movie channels, and several miscellaneous channels: PBS, Discovery
(Discovery in HD is a really exceptional experience), HDNET
(embarrassingly, I love Hogan's Heroes in HD), and ESPN (only some of
their stuff is HD).


>Went through all this with COLOR TV's a long time ago. Trust me, the
>first ten years are forgettable and it's all there in the reruns and
>dvds for watching later on better sets if you still care.
>

HD shows are not perfect, but they are really a pleasure to watch.
The main downside is that after a few weeks, I find myself
disappointed when I have to watch something in SD.

Watching documentaries and travel shows in HD is like a whole new form
of entertainment.

-barry
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:50:25 AM

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

It sounds like an ideal room for a rear projection set. The
narrowness will help keep people towards the center or the screen.

One problem, to me, with rear projection sets is that they do not have
quite as much contrast as other sets. If your room has lots of
windows, and you plan to do lots of daytime watching, then RPs are not
your best bet.

I find that SD picture quality is not so bad on an HD set. The key,
for me, is to set the TV to use sidebars. When you stretch an SD
image you distort an already iffy picture and, to my eyes, make it
unwatchable.

-barry

richmosar@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Having a narrow and small room, I don't want a big bulky tube TV. I
>have a 7 year old 27" right now and that's bulky enough for me. I
>can't keep 2 TV's in there either, so one TV has to fit the bill.
>
>Why can't TV manufacturers create a single TV that can show both good
>SD TV and HDTV in a single unit. I'm sure that HDTV purchases would
>have doubled if that was the case. The bad SD picture is the only
>thing preventing me from buying an HDTV.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 4:00:39 AM

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

salesman@nospam.com wrote:

>On 11 Apr 2005 17:58:23 -0700, richmosar@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>I have between $2000 and $3500 I'm willing to spend on a new TV. It
>>needs to be between 37 and 42 inches and receive a very good SD picture
>>because that's probably what we watch 80% of the time until all the
>>stations are finally converted to HDTV (God knows when). We watch
>>maybe one or two DVDs a month. I don't want a refridgerator sized tube
>>TV in my living room because it's a narrow living room. We'll probably
>>sit 6 or 7 feet from the TV.
>>
>>Any recommendations on whether we should get a plasma EDTV, plasma
>>HDTV, or a LCD/DLP projecton TV? Also, which brands are best for SD
>>picture?
>>
>>THanks.
>
>
>After a lot of looking at sets, I'm thinking of going with a NTSC 27"
>Sony for basic TV watching, and a 42" ED plasma primarily for DVDs.
>I'm keeping a eye out for a good HDTV combo cable tuner/OTA tuner set
>top box that'll output 480i or 480p for those sets. But I'm not
>overwhelmed by HDTV enough to subscribe or put up with SD on a HDTV
>set.
>

Don't write off HDTV yet. I too was not overwhelmed at first, and I
was even beginning to feel a bit of buyers remorse about buying the
big HD set (well 37" isn't big, but it's big for me). But, after a
couple of weeks I found that I really liked the HDTV better than SD.
And now, a couple of months later, I will only watch an SD show if
it's something I really want to see.


>Frankly HDTV isn't my thing as I'm not into broadcast network TV that
>much. I'm impressed when I see the sharp, in focus, HDTV close ups,
>but it can look pretty unimpressive with less stellar camera work or
>broadcasting. SD on HDTV sets is mostly just bad. I think there's a
>lot of potential in HDTV, but it's going to be years down the line.
>

You say what you're not into, but you don't tell us what you do watch.
I do watch network TV, so I get a lot of my HD fix there. But, I
especially like HD documentaries, travel, and nature shows. And for
sports, it's like night and day. Unfortunately, the sports
broadcasters are lagging a bit, but they seem to be catching up this
year. On New York City cable, we have YESHD and ESPN HD as well as
some network HD sports shows.

I'm even find myself hooked on late night HD. I used to alternate
between Leno and Letterman, but now (Leno's in HD) I watch Leno almost
exclusively.

-barry
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 5:13:38 AM

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

<salesman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3veo51h0km0su852oerda9lnfp1jvrugeq@4ax.com...
> I'll get a HDTV set in four or five years when the industries are out
> of beta mode and there's more than a couple of hours of HDTV to watch.

Do you live on the moon? I have about 12 channels of OTA HDTV
with plenty of shows to watch. I have a 65 inch rear projection
HDTV in my living room and a 32 inch LCD HDTV here in my
computer room. If you want to be left out, go for it.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 6:56:23 AM

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

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fZOdne3oMcOR5MHfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
>
> <richmosar@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113267503.818095.138310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>I have between $2000 and $3500 I'm willing to spend on a new TV. It
>> needs to be between 37 and 42 inches and receive a very good SD picture
>> because that's probably what we watch 80% of the time until all the
>> stations are finally converted to HDTV (God knows when). We watch
>> maybe one or two DVDs a month. I don't want a refridgerator sized tube
>> TV in my living room because it's a narrow living room. We'll probably
>> sit 6 or 7 feet from the TV.
>>
>> Any recommendations on whether we should get a plasma EDTV, plasma
>> HDTV, or a LCD/DLP projecton TV? Also, which brands are best for SD
>> picture?
>
> forget "ED" that is just a marketing name for "Standard definition" - you
> will not be happy with it

Uhm, no it isn't.


>
> Your local stations have undoubtedly already converted to HD, ABC, NBC,
> CBS are virtually 100% HD at night, even PBS, Fox, and UPN are doing HD
> shows.

Though that may be true, there's still much of tv that is in SD.

>
> Avoid plasma unless you have the money to move up-market where the decent
> picture quality units are available, the low end stuff tends to be ugly -
> particularly on darker scenes.

You can get bgood picture and value in a lower priced plasma tv.

>
> low-depth DLP/LCD RP HDTV's are well available in your price range.
>
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 10:42:37 AM

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

Here in Oz the free to air networks broadcast all their programs in HD, SD
and Analog.
So its easy to compare and HD knocks the socks off everything else.
And the worst pictures come from the SD cable box.
April 13, 2005 6:38:13 PM

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

richmosar@gmail.com wrote in message news:<1113353604.762347.240110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...

Hi Rich

As to your question, "Why can't TV manufacturers create a single TV
that can show both good SD TV and HDTV in a single unit". The answer
is simply,
for the last 64 years it has not been possible to get a good SD 480i
picture through any means which is precisely why the television
industry lobbied so hard for the 720p\1080i High Definition
broadcasting standard.

Once you purchase a high definition televison and choose a method
of receiving HDTV signals (Over the air, cable, satellite ) if you
are like most HDTV converts, you will quickly
shun virtually any broadcast signal that is in Standard Definition
480i format.

As to the reverberating comments in this thread that EDTV is good
enough,
well actually it isn't. EDTV is 480p which is only Standard definition
DVD quality.
Yes of course DVD's look awesome. Anything in comparison to VHS
(240i)
or a noisy standard transmission broadcast would? High Definition
broadcasts on a High Definition
television look more than awesome, these HDTV broadcasts instead
virtually
mimic real life images albeit behind a pane of glass.

Standard definition DVD's ( and EDTV's ) will be on the point of
obsolence in any case later this summer when two competing High
Definition DVD technologies ( HD-DVD and Blue-Ray ) will have HD
playback units on the store shelves.
Major film studios already have film titles ready to be released in
this new
HD DVD format.

I guess my main point would be that once you have a means to enjoy
HD broadcasts on an HD Television in your home, any current desire to
continue to watch Standard Definition broadcasts will be a long lost
memory.

Kent
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 7:41:56 PM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:13:38 GMT, "Mark Jones"
<noemail@mindspring.com> wrote:

><salesman@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:3veo51h0km0su852oerda9lnfp1jvrugeq@4ax.com...
>> I'll get a HDTV set in four or five years when the industries are out
>> of beta mode and there's more than a couple of hours of HDTV to watch.
>
>Do you live on the moon?

Nope, I live on the ground floor, in the back of a four story
building, surrounded by four story buildings as far as the eye can
see. This is all in the shadow of a high hill blocking out several TV
transmitters. It's called the big city.

I'd get better OTA reception on the moon.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 7:50:32 PM

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

On 12 Apr 2005 17:53:03 -0700, richmosar@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Having a narrow and small room, I don't want a big bulky tube TV. I
>have a 7 year old 27" right now and that's bulky enough for me. I
>can't keep 2 TV's in there either, so one TV has to fit the bill.
>
>Why can't TV manufacturers create a single TV that can show both good
>SD TV and HDTV in a single unit. I'm sure that HDTV purchases would
>have doubled if that was the case. The bad SD picture is the only
>thing preventing me from buying an HDTV.

I had the pleasure of finding a HDTV 34" sony XBR the other day in a
store that was picking up regular OTA NTSC broadcasts. I got a pretty
good look at SD on a good HDTV set with various levels of signal
strength. Wasn't as bad as the "grainy" issues some report, but it
did have a bad 60s set quality to it that I didn't care for. I was
very impressed with the Wide Zoom stretch mode. It seemed to work
pretty well. Almost looked better than Normal (4:3) mode. I'd guess
the set was in need of about $600 of expert calibrations.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:09:27 PM

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

richmosar@gmail.com Wrote:
> I have between $2000 and $3500 I'm willing to spend on a new TV. It
> needs to be between 37 and 42 inches and receive a very good SD
> picture
> because that's probably what we watch 80% of the time until all the
> stations are finally converted to HDTV (God knows when). We watch
> maybe one or two DVDs a month. I don't want a refridgerator sized
> tube
> TV in my living room because it's a narrow living room. We'll
> probably
> sit 6 or 7 feet from the TV.
>
> Any recommendations on whether we should get a plasma EDTV, plasma
> HDTV, or a LCD/DLP projecton TV? Also, which brands are best for SD
> picture?
>
> THanks.



Well since your only going to be 6 to 7 feet away I would suggest you
opt for the 37 inch especially if you go with the ED model. If you go
HD then you will be ok at 42 inch but keep in mind the closer you view
the more you can see the difference between an ED and HD set and also
bigger screen sizes tend to do the same thing.

As for type I am partial to plasma sets, they just cannot be beat over
37 inch widescreen size and you can get a nice plasma ED or HD in 42
inch upper side or HD 37 inch for the lower side of your budget.


--
DucTape, Posted this message at http://www.SatelliteGuys.US
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 6:37:41 AM

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

salesman@nospam.com wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:13:38 GMT, "Mark Jones"
> <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>><salesman@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:3veo51h0km0su852oerda9lnfp1jvrugeq@4ax.com...
>>
>>>I'll get a HDTV set in four or five years when the industries are out of beta mode and there's more than a couple of hours of HDTV to watch.
>>
>>Do you live on the moon?
>
>
> Nope, I live on the ground floor, in the back of a four story building, surrounded by four story buildings as far as the eye can
> see. This is all in the shadow of a high hill blocking out several TV transmitters. It's called the big city.
>
> I'd get better OTA reception on the moon.
>
>
On the moon or in any other country except the US, Canada, Mexico and S.
Korea. All other countries use one version of COFDM or another and your
predicament is child's play for COFDM. If you are indeed in a blackhole
as far as signal strength is concerned then a COFDM repeater could fill
in the void with a very low powered transmitter on the same frequency as
the main transmitter.

The Us has the worst modulation in the world, 8-VSB.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 6:54:47 AM

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

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:43:46 -0400, "curmudgeon"
<curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote:

>And get one with the black and white picture tube....that color stuff's got
>a long way to go before it's up to snuff.

LOL. Back in the day, early adapters were treated to free X-ray
generators with their gotta have it Color TVs.

Thankfully today it's only rainbow headaches ?
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:10:51 PM

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

"Kent" <johnston@nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:82ff7499.0504131338.b3cfef3@posting.google.com...
> richmosar@gmail.com wrote in message
> news:<1113353604.762347.240110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
>
> Hi Rich
>
> As to your question, "Why can't TV manufacturers create a single TV
> that can show both good SD TV and HDTV in a single unit". The answer
> is simply,
> for the last 64 years it has not been possible to get a good SD 480i
> picture through any means which is precisely why the television
> industry lobbied so hard for the 720p\1080i High Definition
> broadcasting standard.
>
> Once you purchase a high definition televison and choose a method
> of receiving HDTV signals (Over the air, cable, satellite ) if you
> are like most HDTV converts, you will quickly
> shun virtually any broadcast signal that is in Standard Definition
> 480i format.
>
> As to the reverberating comments in this thread that EDTV is good
> enough,
> well actually it isn't. EDTV is 480p which is only Standard definition
> DVD quality.
> Yes of course DVD's look awesome. Anything in comparison to VHS
> (240i)
> or a noisy standard transmission broadcast would? High Definition
> broadcasts on a High Definition
> television look more than awesome, these HDTV broadcasts instead
> virtually
> mimic real life images albeit behind a pane of glass.
>
> Standard definition DVD's ( and EDTV's ) will be on the point of
> obsolence in any case later this summer when two competing High
> Definition DVD technologies ( HD-DVD and Blue-Ray ) will have HD
> playback units on the store shelves.
> Major film studios already have film titles ready to be released in
> this new
> HD DVD format.

So spend even more money to replace the DVD's you have and spend more money
to buy an HD set instead of an ED set. You must think we all have tons of
money to spend.

>
> I guess my main point would be that once you have a means to enjoy
> HD broadcasts on an HD Television in your home, any current desire to
> continue to watch Standard Definition broadcasts will be a long lost
> memory.
>
> Kent
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 8:51:44 PM

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

<richmosar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113353583.392582.199510@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Having a narrow and small room, I don't want a big bulky tube TV. I
> have a 7 year old 27" right now and that's bulky enough for me. I
> can't keep 2 TV's in there either, so one TV has to fit the bill.
>
> Why can't TV manufacturers create a single TV that can show both good
> SD TV and HDTV in a single unit. I'm sure that HDTV purchases would
> have doubled if that was the case. The bad SD picture is the only
> thing preventing me from buying an HDTV.
>

My 42" Sony XBR plasma displays excellent SD, both digital and analog. Of
course I'm 100% OTA, so I don't have the "compression" problems common with
cable or satellite.

Phil
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:27:55 AM

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

If you are spending that kind of cash for anything anything under 60"
that is non-HD then it is a 1000% waste of time and money.


--
charper1, Posted this message at http://www.SatelliteGuys.US
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 11:12:49 PM

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:27:55 -0400, charper1
<charper1.1nk2fy@satelliteguys.us> wrote:

>
>If you are spending that kind of cash for anything anything under 60"
>that is non-HD then it is a 1000% waste of time and money.

mmm... yeah.... spend more jackass, spend more....
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 12:53:12 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
> On the moon or in any other country except the US, Canada, Mexico and S.
> Korea. All other countries use one version of COFDM or another and your
> predicament is child's play for COFDM.

That must be why in downtown Tokyo, less than 2 miles from the
transmitter, the COFDM based terrestrial digital TV pixellates; and why,
still in Tokyo but 15 miles from downtown, you can't receive COFDM based
terrestrial digital TV at all!

> The Us has the worst modulation in the world, 8-VSB.

Remember, whenever Psycho Bob Miller says something, the exact opposite is
true!

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:17:27 AM

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

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> On the moon or in any other country except the US, Canada, Mexico and
>> S. Korea. All other countries use one version of COFDM or another and
>> your predicament is child's play for COFDM.
>
>
> That must be why in downtown Tokyo, less than 2 miles from the
> transmitter, the COFDM based terrestrial digital TV pixellates; and why,
> still in Tokyo but 15 miles from downtown, you can't receive COFDM based
> terrestrial digital TV at all!

In Tokyo this is the real news on OTA HDTV.

http://www.dibeg.org/news/news-3/news-e3.htm

In one year in Japan which only has a few cities with OTA HDTV
broadcasting so far they sold over 3 million COFDM receivers the first
year and most of them are full HDTV integrated sets. In the US where
most of the country can receive OTA HD which you would think would drive
sales we brag of 4 million HDTV sets after 8 years and most of them may
not be hooked up to any HD service let alone OTA. It has been reported
that most HDTV buyers only use their sets to watch DVDs which are
ironically based on 480i information.

And note that those buyers in Japan are freely buying OTA HDTV sets
since the percentage of TV sets with OTA varies by demand. As you can
read at the URL above.

Bob Miller
>
>> The Us has the worst modulation in the world, 8-VSB.
>
>
> Remember, whenever Psycho Bob Miller says something, the exact opposite
> is true!
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 7:57:55 PM

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

I've been looking for good deals on TV sets in this price range too and
I think I've found a couple of good possibilities.

The first is the new Hyundai 42 in. HD plasma:

http://www.gottadeal.com/deal-info-id-9046-store-walmar...

The second is the Syntax Olevia 37 in. HD LCD:

http://www.justdiscounted.com/lcd_tvs.php#olevia_lt37hv

I've looked at the Hyundai 42 in. ED plasma and the 27 and 30 inch
Syntax Olevia sets at a local Fry's Electronics store and was impressed
with their value for the money and their display of HD material. The
Hyundai HD plasma and the larger Olevia set should be even better
performers. I did not, however, check their performance with SD
material. Hope this helps.

- Dino
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 12:20:38 AM

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

666bush, Samsung's "Slimfit" 30in CRP is supposed to be out in June.
16in deep, about half the weight of a CRT. Intergrated OTA HD tuner,
1080i, 720p and 480p at $1,199. Now I hope they'll come out with a 34in
if the 30in does well. IMHO anything larger viewed at 6ft is to close.
If a 34in is released I think it would be a good choice for your
viewing area. Only thing is the press release doesn't mention anyhing
about connections,ie DVI, HDMI,etc. I have a Panisonic 34in CRT at
about the same distance from my recliner and all my OTA "true" HD is
fantastic.


--
raymo721, Posted this message at http://www.SatelliteGuys.US
April 24, 2005 1:55:57 PM

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

>Samsung's "Slimfit" 30in CRP is supposed to be out in June.

Do you guys think these "slim" CRT units will give LCD
and plasma a real run for their money?
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:02:56 PM

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

Reported where by whom? In our home, we might watch 2 hours per week of DVDs
compared to 5 hours per day OTA on our HDTV, so I would like to see where
you get this particular statistic, since you continuously to use it as if it
were a fact.

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bCfae.12147$lP1.6640@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> ..... It has been reported that most HDTV buyers only use their sets to
> watch DVDs which are ironically based on 480i information.
>
> Bob Miller
>>
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 9:20:50 PM

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

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:vqcn61hbkcp2g8ajnrab4sbirukn6h28dg@4ax.com...
> >Samsung's "Slimfit" 30in CRP is supposed to be out in June.
>
> Do you guys think these "slim" CRT units will give LCD
> and plasma a real run for their money?

The weight will have to be as light as an LCD or I wouldn't
consider one. I chose a 32 inch LCD because I wanted to
be able to pick it up and move it by myself.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 9:20:51 PM

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

Mark Jones Wrote:
> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:vqcn61hbkcp2g8ajnrab4sbirukn6h28dg@4ax.com...
> > >Samsung's "Slimfit" 30in CRP is supposed to be out in June.
> >
> > Do you guys think these "slim" CRT units will give LCD
> > and plasma a real run for their money?
>
> The weight will have to be as light as an LCD or I wouldn't
> consider one. I chose a 32 inch LCD because I wanted to
> be able to pick it up and move it by myself.
CEA estimates There is still a 20 million-unit market for tube tv's.
Thats Samsungs
target. Plasma and LCD have been chipping away at the CRT market
share, but I think we'll have to wait and see what kind of reception
the CRP's get from the public. Personally, I think if the technology is
sound, there are plenty of people out there who either don't have room,
or can't afford Plasma or LCD. Time will tell.


--
raymo721, Posted this message at http://www.SatelliteGuys.US
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 12:03:15 PM

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

"Mark Jones" <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6n_6e.8760$44.4971@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> <salesman@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3veo51h0km0su852oerda9lnfp1jvrugeq@4ax.com...
>> I'll get a HDTV set in four or five years when the industries are out
>> of beta mode and there's more than a couple of hours of HDTV to watch.
>
> Do you live on the moon? I have about 12 channels of OTA HDTV
> with plenty of shows to watch. I have a 65 inch rear projection
> HDTV in my living room and a 32 inch LCD HDTV here in my
> computer room. If you want to be left out, go for it.

If he's like me, those 12 channels of OTA HDTV would be worthless as, well,
I just don't watch OTA TV, period. I get the locals over the satellite (I'd
probably stop paying for them but my brother watches them a lot), but I
probably switch to one maybe once a month, maximum, when there's something
particular I want to watch. Pretty much none of the other channels I watch
regularly are available in HD, except for Discovery. So why would I want to
watch in HD stuff I wouldn't want to watch in SD? It's not because of the
picture quality that I don't watch them!!
April 25, 2005 12:16:40 PM

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

>The weight will have to be as light as an LCD or I wouldn't
>consider one. I chose a 32 inch LCD because I wanted to
>be able to pick it up and move it by myself.

Good point I hadn't thought of!
April 25, 2005 5:43:48 PM

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

Hi Matthew

I think your best bet is to sell your EDTV. I'm not being flippant.
The majority of people have no idea what High Definition is anyway so
you should
be able to sell it for a decent price.

For example, my old standard TV expired in 2000 before wide screen
televisions
were even on the radar screen here in Canada. As a result I bought a
SONY tube 4:3 HD ready 32 inch television that I loved UNTIL wide
screen HDTV's started showing up in stores. I tried to convince
myself that a 4:3 HD TV was a good compromise but I finally realized I
was fooling myself. I HAD to have a wide screen HDTV just like I'm
sure you'd love to have one now. Thus I sold
my old HD 4:3 and bought a new 16:9 HD television. I missed my old 4:3
friend
but just absolutely LOVE the SONY HD widescreen. I could never go
back.

I'd have to disagree with you. There IS a dramatic difference between
EDTV 480p and HDTV 720p/1080p. Also, with the recent news last week
that SONY and Toshiba are now working together with the Blue Ray and
HD-DVD
respective high definition DVD standards, I'm afraid any last reasons
for
purchasing an EDTV are now effectively gone.

Kent
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 8:36:44 AM

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

"Kent" <johnston@nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:82ff7499.0504251243.38ec1c0f@posting.google.com...
> Hi Matthew
>
> I think your best bet is to sell your EDTV. I'm not being flippant.
> The majority of people have no idea what High Definition is anyway so
> you should
> be able to sell it for a decent price.
>
> For example, my old standard TV expired in 2000 before wide screen
> televisions
> were even on the radar screen here in Canada. As a result I bought a
> SONY tube 4:3 HD ready 32 inch television that I loved UNTIL wide
> screen HDTV's started showing up in stores. I tried to convince
> myself that a 4:3 HD TV was a good compromise but I finally realized I
> was fooling myself. I HAD to have a wide screen HDTV just like I'm
> sure you'd love to have one now. Thus I sold
> my old HD 4:3 and bought a new 16:9 HD television. I missed my old 4:3
> friend
> but just absolutely LOVE the SONY HD widescreen. I could never go
> back.
>
> I'd have to disagree with you. There IS a dramatic difference between
> EDTV 480p and HDTV 720p/1080p. Also, with the recent news last week
> that SONY and Toshiba are now working together with the Blue Ray and
> HD-DVD
> respective high definition DVD standards, I'm afraid any last reasons
> for
> purchasing an EDTV are now effectively gone.

Yeah, just keep spending more money to buy the same content that you already
have. The motion picture industry loves ya!

>
> Kent
!