Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

hdtv is not ready yet

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:25:41 PM

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

I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
and rent a HD movie>

More about : hdtv ready

Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:25:42 PM

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

Do you actually think BlockBuster Movie rental is going to heavily invest
into H/D format without having at least a majority of their customer base
who have the equipment that can at least play them? Not economically
feasible to even consider doing that until their is a viable demand.
"flashman" <flashman@spamoroma.org> wrote in message
news:96Ame.10535$M36.9427@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
>and rent a HD movie>
>
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:25:42 PM

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

flashman wrote:
> I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
> and rent a HD movie>

That same thought process with a regular TV would have kept you from
seeing the Moon landing.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:25:42 PM

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

flashman wrote:
> I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
> and rent a HD movie>
>

Then you would have waited years after the introduction of DVD before
you bought a player.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:51:21 PM

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

"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117450679.621712.213760@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> flashman wrote:
>> I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into
>> blockbuster
>> and rent a HD movie>
>
> That same thought process with a regular TV would have kept you from
> seeing the Moon landing.
>
Blockbuster wasn't even in business then and vcr weren't
household items now renting a movie is as common as color TV's were then.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:51:22 PM

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

"flashman" <flashman@spamoroma.org> wrote in message
news:Z6Dme.10571$M36.1393@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1117450679.621712.213760@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> flashman wrote:
>>> I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into
>>> blockbuster
>>> and rent a HD movie>
>>
>> That same thought process with a regular TV would have kept you from
>> seeing the Moon landing.
>>
> Blockbuster wasn't even in business then and vcr weren't
> household items now renting a movie is as common as color TV's were then.

I guess if you want to be the last one on your block to get an HDTV then go
for it. Meanwhile....the rest of us have been enjoying HD for quite some
time now. I'm sure you will save a few bucks and probably get a
technologically advanced set if you wait long enough. Enjoy your letterboxed
480i in the meantime!
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:51:23 PM

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

> I guess if you want to be the last one on your block to get an HDTV then
go
> for it. Meanwhile....the rest of us have been enjoying HD for quite some
> time now. I'm sure you will save a few bucks and probably get a
> technologically advanced set if you wait long enough. Enjoy your
letterboxed
> 480i in the meantime!
>
Being the "last one on your block" may not be such a bad idea. Consider all
those who rushed out to buy Beta vcr's. I have a set top box, which I use
with an analog TV. I am going to wait a few more months before I decide
which HDTV to buy.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:19:35 PM

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

"Blue Cat" <bluecat22@go.com> wrote in message
news:EiEme.20855$6k7.10902@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> I guess if you want to be the last one on your block to get an HDTV then
> go
>> for it. Meanwhile....the rest of us have been enjoying HD for quite some
>> time now. I'm sure you will save a few bucks and probably get a
>> technologically advanced set if you wait long enough. Enjoy your
> letterboxed
>> 480i in the meantime!
>>
> Being the "last one on your block" may not be such a bad idea. Consider
> all
> those who rushed out to buy Beta vcr's. I have a set top box, which I use
> with an analog TV. I am going to wait a few more months before I decide
> which HDTV to buy.

Those that 'rushed out to buy beta' did the right thing. I was recording
movies quite a while before VHSers did so. When VHS arrived, I transitioned
to that format. Technology changes rapidly, and you need to make use of
current available hardware, and update when something new/better comes
along. Clear?
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 5:29:12 PM

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

"flashman" <flashman@spamoroma.org> wrote in message
news:96Ame.10535$M36.9427@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
>and rent a HD movie>

Makes perfect sense if you primarily use your TV to watch rented movies.
But if you watch any network primetime shows or major sports, such as NFL
football, the time to buy an HDTV is now.

Your subject heading is wrong, though. While you may not be "ready" for
HDTV, HDTV is "ready" for you right now -- there are many HD offerings on TV
and they are absolutely stunning to watch -- a dramatic difference from
standard television.

mack
austin
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 5:29:13 PM

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

Well said! SD DVDs look very good on an HD set (okay some look better than
others but that is true on any set) but Football and other sports are
incredible in HD! I'm just hopping for more NCAA hoops in HD this winter.


"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in
message news:IyEme.11766$j51.10915@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "flashman" <flashman@spamoroma.org> wrote in message
> news:96Ame.10535$M36.9427@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into
blockbuster
> >and rent a HD movie>
>
> Makes perfect sense if you primarily use your TV to watch rented movies.
> But if you watch any network primetime shows or major sports, such as NFL
> football, the time to buy an HDTV is now.
>
> Your subject heading is wrong, though. While you may not be "ready" for
> HDTV, HDTV is "ready" for you right now -- there are many HD offerings on
TV
> and they are absolutely stunning to watch -- a dramatic difference from
> standard television.
>
> mack
> austin
>
>
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 6:40:22 PM

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

Movies are in 720P right now using a progressive scan DVD player. HD DVD
will be available in a few months.


"flashman" <flashman@spamoroma.org> wrote in message
news:96Ame.10535$M36.9427@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
>and rent a HD movie>
>
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 8:14:48 PM

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

Actually, most people who bought Beta VCRs got to use them for the intended
purpose for which they bought them through the typical service life of the
units. Many are still in use a decade after they were deemed obsolete.
People talk about the VHS/BETA "debacle" all the time and never realize that
the products served the consumer well and the competition between the
formats forced prices down much faster than they otherwise would have
fallen.

Leonard

"Blue Cat" <bluecat22@go.com> wrote in message
news:EiEme.20855$6k7.10902@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> > I guess if you want to be the last one on your block to get an HDTV then
> go
> > for it. Meanwhile....the rest of us have been enjoying HD for quite some
> > time now. I'm sure you will save a few bucks and probably get a
> > technologically advanced set if you wait long enough. Enjoy your
> letterboxed
> > 480i in the meantime!
> >
> Being the "last one on your block" may not be such a bad idea. Consider
all
> those who rushed out to buy Beta vcr's. I have a set top box, which I use
> with an analog TV. I am going to wait a few more months before I decide
> which HDTV to buy.
>
>
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 9:59:51 PM

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

On Mon, 30 May 2005 09:14:05 -0400, "Blue Cat" <bluecat22@go.com>
wrote:

>> I guess if you want to be the last one on your block to get an HDTV then
>go
>> for it. Meanwhile....the rest of us have been enjoying HD for quite some
>> time now. I'm sure you will save a few bucks and probably get a
>> technologically advanced set if you wait long enough. Enjoy your
>letterboxed
>> 480i in the meantime!
>>
>Being the "last one on your block" may not be such a bad idea. Consider all
>those who rushed out to buy Beta vcr's. I have a set top box, which I use
>with an analog TV. I am going to wait a few more months before I decide
>which HDTV to buy.
>

Those who rushed out to buy Beta are no worse off today than those of
us who still have worthless VHS machines sitting on the shelf.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 12:56:14 AM

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

DVD's are in 480p, not 720p.


"Philip B Kirschner" <philk02@optonline.net> wrote in message news:r6Jme.1490$hg.43@fe12.lga...
> Movies are in 720P right now using a progressive scan DVD player. HD DVD
> will be available in a few months.
>
>
> "flashman" <flashman@spamoroma.org> wrote in message
> news:96Ame.10535$M36.9427@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
>>and rent a HD movie>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 2:34:45 AM

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

John Eckart wrote:
> DVD's are in 480p, not 720p.
>
>
> "Philip B Kirschner" <philk02@optonline.net> wrote in message news:r6Jme.1490$hg.43@fe12.lga...
>
>>Movies are in 720P right now using a progressive scan DVD player. HD DVD
>>will be available in a few months.
>>
>>
>>"flashman" <flashman@spamoroma.org> wrote in message
>>news:96Ame.10535$M36.9427@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
>>>and rent a HD movie>
>>>
>>
I think DVD's are in 480i and progressive are upconverted to 480P.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 3:01:57 AM

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

John Eckart wrote:
> DVD's are in 480p, not 720p.
>
>
> "Philip B Kirschner" <philk02@optonline.net> wrote in message news:r6Jme.1490$hg.43@fe12.lga...
>
>>Movies are in 720P right now using a progressive scan DVD player. HD DVD
>>will be available in a few months.

DVDs are in 480i60 for the US. The progressive scan DVD player works
only for film source material which started with a 24 frame per second
(fps) rate which was converted to 60 interlaced fps via a 3:2 mixing
scheme when the video was converted. The DVD player uses what is called
3:2 pulldown to get the progressive scan 480p picture. A google search
for 3:2 pulldown turn up some explanation web pages.

I think the OP is missing out on how much improvement you get in
watching movies on a good quality anamorphic DVD on a big widescreen HD
TV. Yea, it may not be 1080i or 1080p, but it is a LOT better than
watching a widescreen DVD movie on a 27" 4:3 CRT.

Alan F
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 4:29:43 AM

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

"Art" <plotsligt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ScydnVZH8cIYegffRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> Do you actually think BlockBuster Movie rental is going to heavily invest
> into H/D format without having at least a majority of their customer base
> who have the equipment that can at least play them? Not economically
> feasible to even consider doing that until their is a viable demand.
> "flashman" <flashman@spamoroma.org> wrote in message
> news:96Ame.10535$M36.9427@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
>>and rent a HD movie>

You can rent some HD material (on disk and tape) via mail order, now.
Blockbuster will probably have HD-DVDs in a few years (maybe even 2 years),
if they want to stay in business. Meanwhile you are missing out on some
good HDTV.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 4:55:23 AM

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

On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:19:35 -0400, "Z Man" <z1z@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Those that 'rushed out to buy beta' did the right thing. I was recording
>movies quite a while before VHSers did so. When VHS arrived, I transitioned
>to that format. Technology changes rapidly, and you need to make use of
>current available hardware, and update when something new/better comes
>along. Clear?
>

Clear ? Yeah, that you like to spend money.

A set top box feeding your NTSC set is all you need for now.

But thanks for beta testing all that expensive junk out there for us.

Now get back to work and write some useful reviews. Clear ?
May 31, 2005 4:59:36 AM

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

On Mon, 30 May 2005 08:24:09 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>flashman wrote:
>> I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
>> and rent a HD movie>
>>
>
>Then you would have waited years after the introduction of DVD before
>you bought a player.
>
>Matthew

LOL. Yeah, that's the point.

Me, I'm glad you guys run out and buy the stuff. Moves things along.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 5:29:19 AM

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

If you are actually willing to wait until this (ever) happens to make your
switch to HDTV, you are obviously satisfied with your poor quality SD
picture - and that's fine. I just find it an unusual reason to justify *not*
getting HDTV, that's all. Don't have the cash? Fine. Don't see the need?
Fine. If you're happy with what you have, that's fine with me too. I'm not
going to beat a dead horse.

However, current analog TV technology is at least 60 years old, and hasn't
changed very much since its invention. It's like you're still driving an
automobile that was built in 1945. It still gets you to the 7 Eleven and
back, and doesn't cost much. However, a more modern vehicle is vastly
superior, and has many more advantages (power, safety, comfort,
fuel efficiency, reliability to name just a few), and yet it costs a LOT
more.

Is it worth it? You have to make that determination.

I'm not advocating that everyone should pay the (relatively high) price to
enjoy HDTV, and I understand the concept that, for some people, "it's just
TV". And while prices are dropping quickly, I do agree that household
finances may not permit such an investment.

Still, some people find that an AM Radio broadcast is all the quality they
require for enjoyable listening. And that's fine. Some folks can't even tell
the difference between a stereo and a mono broadcast.
I don't think they worry too much about it - go figure?!

For me, it's a more complete entertainment experience - it's not just
watching TV - that's *my* choice. The fact is, HDTV is vastly superior to
analog SDTV, without argument.

It's like someone else said, "HDTV has been ready for you for years.
You're just not ready for HDTV yet.", that's all!

In the end, it's your choice. I just think your reasoning is a bit skewed,
and that you'll never "get" HDTV anyway.

And that's fine.

--

Dave (Since1962) AYBABTU
www.canmorealberta.com

flashman wrote:
| I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into
| blockbuster and rent a HD movie>
May 31, 2005 10:53:52 AM

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

On Tue, 31 May 2005 01:29:19 GMT, "David Zinck" <eat@joes.ca> wrote:

>If you are actually willing to wait until this (ever) happens to make your
>switch to HDTV, you are obviously satisfied with your poor quality SD
>picture - and that's fine. I just find it an unusual reason to justify *not*
>getting HDTV, that's all. Don't have the cash? Fine. Don't see the need?
>Fine. If you're happy with what you have, that's fine with me too. I'm not
>going to beat a dead horse.
>
>However, current analog TV technology is at least 60 years old, and hasn't
>changed very much since its invention. It's like you're still driving an
>automobile that was built in 1945. It still gets you to the 7 Eleven and
>back, and doesn't cost much. However, a more modern vehicle is vastly
>superior, and has many more advantages (power, safety, comfort,
>fuel efficiency, reliability to name just a few), and yet it costs a LOT
>more.
>
>Is it worth it? You have to make that determination.
>
>I'm not advocating that everyone should pay the (relatively high) price to
>enjoy HDTV, and I understand the concept that, for some people, "it's just
>TV". And while prices are dropping quickly, I do agree that household
>finances may not permit such an investment.
>
>Still, some people find that an AM Radio broadcast is all the quality they
>require for enjoyable listening. And that's fine. Some folks can't even tell
>the difference between a stereo and a mono broadcast.
>I don't think they worry too much about it - go figure?!
>
>For me, it's a more complete entertainment experience - it's not just
>watching TV - that's *my* choice. The fact is, HDTV is vastly superior to
>analog SDTV, without argument.
>
>It's like someone else said, "HDTV has been ready for you for years.
>You're just not ready for HDTV yet.", that's all!
>
>In the end, it's your choice. I just think your reasoning is a bit skewed,
>and that you'll never "get" HDTV anyway.
>
>And that's fine.


I simply don't understand why people bother to come to an HDTV group
to tell us they don't see why anyone would buy an HDTV set now.
Thumper
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 11:29:25 AM

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

X-No-archive: yes

"flashman" <flashman@spamoroma.org> wrote in message
news:96Ame.10535$M36.9427@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
>and rent a HD movie>
=================================
Then you are depriving only yourself since an HDTV is worthwhile now.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 1:04:02 PM

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

<crocket> wrote in message
news:5v5o915p31lv812uqq38s9r7pmhtd1pk50@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:19:35 -0400, "Z Man" <z1z@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Those that 'rushed out to buy beta' did the right thing. I was recording
>>movies quite a while before VHSers did so. When VHS arrived, I
>>transitioned
>>to that format. Technology changes rapidly, and you need to make use of
>>current available hardware, and update when something new/better comes
>>along. Clear?
>>
>
> Clear ? Yeah, that you like to spend money.
>
> A set top box feeding your NTSC set is all you need for now.
>
> But thanks for beta testing all that expensive junk out there for us.
>
> Now get back to work and write some useful reviews. Clear ?


Why are you investing so much of your time on this HDTV newsgroup? Why are
you screaming that HDTV isn't ready? Do you have some vested interest in
trying to convince others to wait?
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 10:10:02 PM

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

> In the end, it's your choice. I just think your reasoning is a bit skewed,
> and that you'll never "get" HDTV anyway.
>
> And that's fine.

Very well put....I have invested in HDTV and have found it to my
satisfaction. Actually, if you get a very good upconversion player, some
dvd titles are very very close to the HD version, particularly if they were
mastered in HD. I almost find no reason to even rush to HD-DVD given the
quality of my regular upscaled dvd selections now. Actually, I wish I would
have gotten into HD-
TV alot sooner.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 11:04:07 PM

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

"flashman" <flashman@spamoroma.org> wrote in message
news:96Ame.10535$M36.9427@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
>and rent a HD movie>

guess you don't like sports or over-the-air programs
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 3:06:26 AM

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

To some extent I'm like you, in that being an early adopter is not for
me. I would say I'm a middle adoptor. Wait for the tech to mature a
bit, reach the near tipping point of widespread popularity, and then
bite before most average joes do. I mostly watch DVD's these days (no
cable or satellite), and had a very decent 27-in conventional tv. I
have been wanting a bigger (and flat) screen for some time, and was
also interested in utilizing the progressive scan capabilities of my
Denon 2900. When I saw the Sanyo HT32744 at Wal-Mart for a reasonable
$647, I bit. My dvd collection looks spectacular, and I've throughly
enjoyed every minute I've spent with this rather large and heavy box.
I also love the fact that it has a built in ATSC tuner. My rooftop
antenna is picking up spectacular HD signals OTA. I mean, wow. Never
seen anything like it. And all I had to do was connect the coax. Right
now I'm just getting PBS and NBC in HD, but after the first of the year
I'll pick up CBS and FOX. Not too bad for the the extra $300 or so I
spent over a conventional 32 in TV.

Sure, you can spend big bucks on an HDTV, especially a plasma, but you
can also spend a more working man level of money and get great looking
television. Unless inflation goes totally off the deep end, I predict
that this Christmas will be a watershed for HDTV sales.

-beaumon
June 2, 2005 11:38:59 AM

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

flashman wrote:

> I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
> and rent a HD movie>

Sort of a narrow view. Have you seen a current Hollywood DVD on an HDTV at
480P with the awesome sound you get *today* with a high-quality surround sound
system?

The picture isn't as good as 1080i but it is sooooooo much better than
watching a DVD on an NTSC clunker. Plus, at least with my system, the DVD
audio is sent via high-level audio bus into my amps, then speakers...that is
sound HDTV off the air cannot come close to matching. Then, there are SACDs,
which I can also play.
June 2, 2005 11:40:08 AM

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

Blue Cat wrote:

> > I guess if you want to be the last one on your block to get an HDTV then
> go
> > for it. Meanwhile....the rest of us have been enjoying HD for quite some
> > time now. I'm sure you will save a few bucks and probably get a
> > technologically advanced set if you wait long enough. Enjoy your
> letterboxed
> > 480i in the meantime!
> >
> Being the "last one on your block" may not be such a bad idea. Consider all
> those who rushed out to buy Beta vcr's. I have a set top box, which I use
> with an analog TV. I am going to wait a few more months before I decide
> which HDTV to buy.

What's going to change in the next few months?
June 2, 2005 7:07:07 PM

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

Alan Figgatt wrote:

> John Eckart wrote:
> > DVD's are in 480p, not 720p.
> >
> >
> > "Philip B Kirschner" <philk02@optonline.net> wrote in message news:r6Jme.1490$hg.43@fe12.lga...
> >
> >>Movies are in 720P right now using a progressive scan DVD player. HD DVD
> >>will be available in a few months.
>
> DVDs are in 480i60 for the US. The progressive scan DVD player works
> only for film source material which started with a 24 frame per second
> (fps) rate which was converted to 60 interlaced fps via a 3:2 mixing
> scheme when the video was converted. The DVD player uses what is called
> 3:2 pulldown to get the progressive scan 480p picture. A google search
> for 3:2 pulldown turn up some explanation web pages.
>
> I think the OP is missing out on how much improvement you get in
> watching movies on a good quality anamorphic DVD on a big widescreen HD
> TV. Yea, it may not be 1080i or 1080p, but it is a LOT better than
> watching a widescreen DVD movie on a 27" 4:3 CRT.
>
> Alan F

A whole lot better.
June 2, 2005 7:11:34 PM

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

David Zinck wrote:

> If you are actually willing to wait until this (ever) happens to make your
> switch to HDTV, you are obviously satisfied with your poor quality SD
> picture - and that's fine. I just find it an unusual reason to justify *not*
> getting HDTV, that's all. Don't have the cash? Fine. Don't see the need?
> Fine. If you're happy with what you have, that's fine with me too. I'm not
> going to beat a dead horse.
>
> However, current analog TV technology is at least 60 years old, and hasn't
> changed very much since its invention. It's like you're still driving an
> automobile that was built in 1945. It still gets you to the 7 Eleven and
> back, and doesn't cost much. However, a more modern vehicle is vastly
> superior, and has many more advantages (power, safety, comfort,
> fuel efficiency, reliability to name just a few), and yet it costs a LOT
> more.

The NTSC black and white standards were set in the late 1930s. The crummy NTSC
color standard was set in 1953. The black and white standards were actually
quite good for 1937, or so. The color standard was a disaster in a technically
failed attempt to stuff color into a scheme developed for B and W. So, with
digital HTDV (ugh, it would have been analog had we adopted in the 1980s) is not
only 6 times the picture content over NTSC, the color difference is probably
some factor greater than "6 times better" than NTSC color.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 12:24:14 AM

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

<Tim@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:429F1A48.7436EAE9@Backhome.org...
>
>
> Blue Cat wrote:
>
>> > I guess if you want to be the last one on your block to get an HDTV
>> > then
>> go
>> > for it. Meanwhile....the rest of us have been enjoying HD for quite
>> > some
>> > time now. I'm sure you will save a few bucks and probably get a
>> > technologically advanced set if you wait long enough. Enjoy your
>> letterboxed
>> > 480i in the meantime!
>> >
>> Being the "last one on your block" may not be such a bad idea. Consider
>> all
>> those who rushed out to buy Beta vcr's. I have a set top box, which I use
>> with an analog TV. I am going to wait a few more months before I decide
>> which HDTV to buy.
>
> What's going to change in the next few months?

I think the big change in the next quarter will be widescale availability of
1920 x 1080P sets at fairly reasonable price points.
June 3, 2005 9:22:22 AM

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

Charlie9 wrote:

>
>
> Those who rushed out to buy Beta are no worse off today than those of
> us who still have worthless VHS machines sitting on the shelf.

Worthless? There is still some stuff that only comes in VHS.
June 3, 2005 6:53:53 PM

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

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 05:22:22 -0700, Tim@Backhome.org wrote:

>
>
>Charlie9 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Those who rushed out to buy Beta are no worse off today than those of
>> us who still have worthless VHS machines sitting on the shelf.
>
>Worthless? There is still some stuff that only comes in VHS.
>
I still record some analog stuff on recorders attached to my kids tvs.
Thumper
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 7:21:54 PM

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

<Tim@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:429F1A03.EAC3B207@Backhome.org...
>
>
> flashman wrote:
>
>> I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into
>> blockbuster
>> and rent a HD movie>
>
> Sort of a narrow view. Have you seen a current Hollywood DVD on an HDTV
> at
> 480P with the awesome sound you get *today* with a high-quality surround
> sound
> system?
>
> The picture isn't as good as 1080i but it is sooooooo much better than
> watching a DVD on an NTSC clunker. Plus, at least with my system, the DVD
> audio is sent via high-level audio bus into my amps, then speakers...that
> is
> sound HDTV off the air cannot come close to matching. Then, there are
> SACDs,
> which I can also play.
>
Reading things like this scares me
http://www.avrev.com/news/0305/17.mpeg4.html
June 3, 2005 7:21:55 PM

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

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:21:54 GMT, "flashman" <flashman@spamoroma.org>
wrote:

>
><Tim@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:429F1A03.EAC3B207@Backhome.org...
>>
>>
>> flashman wrote:
>>
>>> I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into
>>> blockbuster
>>> and rent a HD movie>
>>
>> Sort of a narrow view. Have you seen a current Hollywood DVD on an HDTV
>> at
>> 480P with the awesome sound you get *today* with a high-quality surround
>> sound
>> system?
>>
>> The picture isn't as good as 1080i but it is sooooooo much better than
>> watching a DVD on an NTSC clunker. Plus, at least with my system, the DVD
>> audio is sent via high-level audio bus into my amps, then speakers...that
>> is
>> sound HDTV off the air cannot come close to matching. Then, there are
>> SACDs,
>> which I can also play.
>>
>Reading things like this scares me
>http://www.avrev.com/news/0305/17.mpeg4.html
>


Since going HD I hve found that I really don't need a recorder for it.
This will change when content is primarily HD but by then prices will
stabilize.
Thumper
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 12:30:33 AM

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

Tim@Backhome.org wrote:

- snip-

> The color standard was a disaster in a technically
>failed attempt to stuff color into a scheme developed for B and W. So, with
>digital HTDV (ugh, it would have been analog had we adopted in the 1980s) is not
>only 6 times the picture content over NTSC, the color difference is probably
>some factor greater than "6 times better" than NTSC color.

I've heard this before but remember hearing what the problem with NTSC
color is.

Please explain to me what colors can't be transmitted using NTSC and
why. Better still, could you direct me to some links of pictures of
NTSC vs ATSC color comparisons with the same resolution so I can try
to see for myself?


joemooreaterolsdotcom
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 12:30:34 AM

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

"Joe Moore" <munged@bad.example.com> wrote in message
news:p se1a1tt9h5arsa12p1nq6r7l6vo43eqhi@4ax.com...
> Tim@Backhome.org wrote:
>
> - snip-
>
>> The color standard was a disaster in a technically
>>failed attempt to stuff color into a scheme developed for B and W. So,
>>with
>>digital HTDV (ugh, it would have been analog had we adopted in the 1980s)
>>is not
>>only 6 times the picture content over NTSC, the color difference is
>>probably
>>some factor greater than "6 times better" than NTSC color.
>
> I've heard this before but remember hearing what the problem with NTSC
> color is.

Two words: RED SMEAR
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 5:48:14 PM

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

"Joe Moore" <munged@bad.example.com> wrote in message
news:p se1a1tt9h5arsa12p1nq6r7l6vo43eqhi@4ax.com...
> Tim@Backhome.org wrote:
>
> - snip-
>
>> The color standard was a disaster in a technically
>>failed attempt to stuff color into a scheme developed for B and W. So,
>>with
>>digital HTDV (ugh, it would have been analog had we adopted in the 1980s)
>>is not
>>only 6 times the picture content over NTSC, the color difference is
>>probably
>>some factor greater than "6 times better" than NTSC color.
>
> I've heard this before but remember hearing what the problem with NTSC
> color is.
>
> Please explain to me what colors can't be transmitted using NTSC and
> why. Better still, could you direct me to some links of pictures of
> NTSC vs ATSC color comparisons with the same resolution so I can try
> to see for myself?

NTSC subcarrier color is much lower in resolution and bandwidth than the B&W
luminance signal it colors

much like a smeary, muted, paint-by-numbers overlay compared to the full
color resolution and bandwidth of digital color

but, for 1953 technology, it was brilliant in concept and very good in
appearance
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 8:38:34 PM

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

<joe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u76o9153vhktk1br9e8kbmmjco292mqhsm@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 08:24:09 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>>flashman wrote:
>>> I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into
>>> blockbuster
>>> and rent a HD movie>
>>>
>>
>>Then you would have waited years after the introduction of DVD before
>>you bought a player.
>>
>>Matthew
>
> LOL. Yeah, that's the point.
>
> Me, I'm glad you guys run out and buy the stuff. Moves things along.
>
>
>
Geesh, and I thought that I was a "late" early adopter when I got my Plasma
last year. It seemed like everything was HDTV this and HDTV that, but once I
actually got my set, it became apparent that it is still fairly early in the
progression of the technology. Still, I don't regret my decision to go HD,
even if I had to pay a premium to acquire the hardware, as the improvement
over analog and standard definition is just that significant, at least to
me. Everyone will wait until he or she feels that it is the right time. The
switch to color TV was very similar, as my folks didn't get a color set
until the 1970's, after I had already left home and was overseas in the
military. I'm sure that they got a much better set at a much better price in
the 70's than they would have if they had bought one in the 60's, but they
also missed out on the experience too, as my dad was a big Bonanza fan. To
each his own.

Phil
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 10:58:24 PM

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

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 16:38:34 GMT, "Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net>
wrote:


>Geesh, and I thought that I was a "late" early adopter when I got my Plasma
>last year. It seemed like everything was HDTV this and HDTV that, but once I
>actually got my set, it became apparent that it is still fairly early in the
>progression of the technology. Still, I don't regret my decision to go HD,
>even if I had to pay a premium to acquire the hardware, as the improvement
>over analog and standard definition is just that significant, at least to
>me. Everyone will wait until he or she feels that it is the right time. The
>switch to color TV was very similar, as my folks didn't get a color set
>until the 1970's, after I had already left home and was overseas in the
>military. I'm sure that they got a much better set at a much better price in
>the 70's than they would have if they had bought one in the 60's, but they
>also missed out on the experience too, as my dad was a big Bonanza fan. To
>each his own.
>
>Phil
>
My family was late with color TV, too. I remember going to friends
houses and seeing those blurry round screens and thinking it was
something special. If only I could show them my 16X9 HD set. We've
come a long way.

I also remember, when I was in the Navy in the early 70's, my wife,
some friends and I saw a very early projection TV. It had a rigid
curved screen about 5' wide and a huge projector that sat in the
middle of the room. I think it was called an Advent videobeam. It
was absolutely terrible by any standards. The girls liked it enough
to come back the next day and watch the soap operas while we worked.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 10:58:25 PM

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

"Charlie9" <j@b.com> wrote in message
news:tut3a1dv2oln541tidmk12ff4l0pk7uo2u@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 16:38:34 GMT, "Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Geesh, and I thought that I was a "late" early adopter when I got my
Plasma
> >last year. It seemed like everything was HDTV this and HDTV that, but
once I
> >actually got my set, it became apparent that it is still fairly early in
the
> >progression of the technology. Still, I don't regret my decision to go
HD,
> >even if I had to pay a premium to acquire the hardware, as the
improvement
> >over analog and standard definition is just that significant, at least to
> >me. Everyone will wait until he or she feels that it is the right time.
The
> >switch to color TV was very similar, as my folks didn't get a color set
> >until the 1970's, after I had already left home and was overseas in the
> >military. I'm sure that they got a much better set at a much better price
in
> >the 70's than they would have if they had bought one in the 60's, but
they
> >also missed out on the experience too, as my dad was a big Bonanza fan.
To
> >each his own.
> >
> >Phil
> >
> My family was late with color TV, too. I remember going to friends
> houses and seeing those blurry round screens and thinking it was
> something special. If only I could show them my 16X9 HD set. We've
> come a long way.
>
> I also remember, when I was in the Navy in the early 70's, my wife,
> some friends and I saw a very early projection TV. It had a rigid
> curved screen about 5' wide and a huge projector that sat in the
> middle of the room. I think it was called an Advent videobeam. It
> was absolutely terrible by any standards. The girls liked it enough
> to come back the next day and watch the soap operas while we worked.

Actually, the Advent could produce a stunning picture when calibrated, with
a good source, and with light control. Few of them were seen by the public
tweaked to produce the best pix. There were some real advantages in
resolution to the Schmidt optics that it used compared to the CRTs that
followed it. Unfortunately, the light output was too low and the glass too
expensive.

Leonard
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 12:29:39 AM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:119m1f995uutb4c@corp.supernews.com...
> flashman wrote:
>> I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into
>> blockbuster and rent a HD movie>
>
> Then you would have waited years after the introduction of DVD before you
> bought a player.

I certainly did. Finally got one a couple of years ago. Didn't really miss
it before then. Just got my mom her first DVD player for Christmas, and my
dad got his first less than a year before that.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 12:29:39 AM

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

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:UtOdnV29wOpAmAbfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>
> I guess if you want to be the last one on your block to get an HDTV then
> go for it. Meanwhile....the rest of us have been enjoying HD for quite
> some time now. I'm sure you will save a few bucks and probably get a
> technologically advanced set if you wait long enough. Enjoy your
> letterboxed 480i in the meantime!

"The rest of us" is like 5% of the population that's actually got an HDTV
that's actually displaying HD content on it. I don't think anyone is in any
danger of being the "last on their block" to get an HDTV for quite a few
years to come.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 12:29:40 AM

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

"David Zinck" <eat@joes.ca> wrote in message
news:p 5Pme.32680$tt5.6995@edtnps90...
> In the end, it's your choice. I just think your reasoning is a bit skewed,
> and that you'll never "get" HDTV anyway.

Nice post. But one thing the home theatre buffs that make up this forum, AVS
forum, and that pushed the HD standards in the first place don't realize is
that it is THEY that are in the minority. Most people just don't care about
HD, even when they are shown it. They'll play along and say it's neat when
you show them your new HDTV and ask them "isn't it cool? isn't it? isn't
it?", but they don't really care. (One reason that most people here seem to
support HDTV so much is not only that others aren't interested, but that
those who are interested are generally told to go away if they're not an HD
cheerleader.)

Most people aren't going to buy a 60" TV set. (Intel appearantaly abandoned
their LCDOS development because DLP had lower price/performance under 50"
and they forecasted no real market for TVs bigger than that.) Most people
have a hard time seeing the difference between ED and HD on the size set
they're likely to own from the viewing distance they're likely to be
watching from (the vast majority of sets sold, I forget the number but it's
maybe like 90% or more, are still under 32" even now in 2005). (When I use
my slightly older glasses, I need to squint a bit to see all the detail in
my regular TV from the sofa, and it's not a very big room. I doubt I'm
alone.) Most people are more annoyed at sidebars than they are at
letterboxing or pan-and-scan (if they're even aware of pan-and-scan). Most
people are more annoyed that the set shows 4:3 material smaller than a
similar-size 4:3 set than about how great movies look on it. Most people are
unwilling to spend over $500 on a TV. Most people are turned off by the
confusion of multiple different standards and all the new things they need
to know. Most people don't want to erect an antenna for OTA broadcasts or
pay $10/month extra to get maybe 4 HD channels (that either mostly don't
show HDTV or that loop the same few shows endlessly). Most people, in short,
just don't see the point and are unwilling to pay any extra for it.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 12:29:40 AM

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

<Tim@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:429F1A03.EAC3B207@Backhome.org...

> The picture isn't as good as 1080i but it is sooooooo much better than
> watching a DVD on an NTSC clunker.

In what way is it dramatically better than a similar-size set connected with
either S-video or component and using the vertical scanline compression many
sets now have (so that a 16:9 picture is displayed with the full 480 lines)?
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 12:29:41 AM

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

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Uaooe.3076$W51.21174@typhoon.sonic.net...
> "David Zinck" <eat@joes.ca> wrote in message
> news:p 5Pme.32680$tt5.6995@edtnps90...
>> In the end, it's your choice. I just think your reasoning is a bit
>> skewed,
>> and that you'll never "get" HDTV anyway.
>
> Nice post. But one thing the home theatre buffs that make up this forum,
> AVS
> forum, and that pushed the HD standards in the first place don't realize
> is
> that it is THEY that are in the minority. Most people just don't care
> about
> HD, even when they are shown it. They'll play along and say it's neat when
> you show them your new HDTV and ask them "isn't it cool? isn't it? isn't
> it?", but they don't really care. (One reason that most people here seem
> to support HDTV so much is not only that others aren't interested, but
> that those who are interested are generally told to go away if they're not
> an HD cheerleader.)

So what's your point? Why don't you seek out an SD video newsgroup? This is
a newsgroup that is frequented by HDTV afficianodos and early adopters. I
think most of us are well aware of the majority joe-sixpack view and it has
NOTHING to do with us or this newsgroup.
June 5, 2005 12:29:41 AM

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

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:29:40 GMT, "Matthew Vaughan"
<matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:

>"David Zinck" <eat@joes.ca> wrote in message
>news:p 5Pme.32680$tt5.6995@edtnps90...
>> In the end, it's your choice. I just think your reasoning is a bit skewed,
>> and that you'll never "get" HDTV anyway.
>
>Nice post. But one thing the home theatre buffs that make up this forum, AVS
>forum, and that pushed the HD standards in the first place don't realize is
>that it is THEY that are in the minority. Most people just don't care about
>HD, even when they are shown it. They'll play along and say it's neat when
>you show them your new HDTV and ask them "isn't it cool? isn't it? isn't
>it?", but they don't really care. (One reason that most people here seem to
>support HDTV so much is not only that others aren't interested, but that
>those who are interested are generally told to go away if they're not an HD
>cheerleader.)
>

I beg to differ. I have a 65" Hitachi and many many of my friends and
aquaintences have gone out and bought HDTVs AND sound systems after
seeing mine. Admittedly they don't buy as big as me but they don't
mind buying a set for under $1000 as it is nearly as low as the price
many of them paid for their big console 27" 20 years ago. Many of us
forget that 15 years ago a 20" fully loaded table model tv cost
$500-$600
The most often reasons quoted to me for not buying an HD set before
they saw mine was. 1) they did not know just how dramatic a
difference an HD picture was over SD and 2) they didn't realize how
much programming was available.


Look, most people don't want cable fees in excess of $100. They make
a value judgement and decide to carry no premiums and some only carry
basic cable. For those people it is a little early to go HD but for
those who already get premiums and big packages the time is right and
getting better daily.

>Most people aren't going to buy a 60" TV set. (Intel appearantaly abandoned
>their LCDOS development because DLP had lower price/performance under 50"
>and they forecasted no real market for TVs bigger than that.)
Not true. It was the price point of those LCDs over 60" that turned
people off. The simply buy what they can afford. In the CRT world
there are plenty of 60" available for 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of LCDs and
people are still buying them. In their case it is the room size that
is the deciding factor.

>Most people
>have a hard time seeing the difference between ED and HD on the size set
>they're likely to own from the viewing distance they're likely to be
>watching from (the vast majority of sets sold,
Again I disagree. Most people have never been shown the comparison.
Thumper

>I forget the number but it's
>maybe like 90% or more, are still under 32" even now in 2005). (When I use
>my slightly older glasses, I need to squint a bit to see all the detail in
>my regular TV from the sofa, and it's not a very big room. I doubt I'm
>alone.) Most people are more annoyed at sidebars than they are at
>letterboxing or pan-and-scan (if they're even aware of pan-and-scan). Most
>people are more annoyed that the set shows 4:3 material smaller than a
>similar-size 4:3 set than about how great movies look on it. Most people are
>unwilling to spend over $500 on a TV. Most people are turned off by the
>confusion of multiple different standards and all the new things they need
>to know. Most people don't want to erect an antenna for OTA broadcasts or
>pay $10/month extra to get maybe 4 HD channels (that either mostly don't
>show HDTV or that loop the same few shows endlessly). Most people, in short,
>just don't see the point and are unwilling to pay any extra for it.
>
>
>

That's not my experience/
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 2:08:29 AM

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

I wonder if all of your friend have cataracts or something. The nearly
universal reaction of friends and family members that happen to see my 42"
Sony plasma when an HD program is on is "Oh my God!" or "Wow, what a
picture!" The fact that it is hanging on the wall adds to the effect.

Of course I don't know "most people", only ones that aren't blind. If you
can't tell the difference, and none of your friends or family care, then
great, good for you. Save your money.

Phil

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Uaooe.3076$W51.21174@typhoon.sonic.net...
> "David Zinck" <eat@joes.ca> wrote in message
> news:p 5Pme.32680$tt5.6995@edtnps90...
>> In the end, it's your choice. I just think your reasoning is a bit
>> skewed,
>> and that you'll never "get" HDTV anyway.
>
> Nice post. But one thing the home theatre buffs that make up this forum,
> AVS
> forum, and that pushed the HD standards in the first place don't realize
> is
> that it is THEY that are in the minority. Most people just don't care
> about
> HD, even when they are shown it. They'll play along and say it's neat when
> you show them your new HDTV and ask them "isn't it cool? isn't it? isn't
> it?", but they don't really care. (One reason that most people here seem
> to support HDTV so much is not only that others aren't interested, but
> that those who are interested are generally told to go away if they're not
> an HD cheerleader.)
>
> Most people aren't going to buy a 60" TV set. (Intel appearantaly
> abandoned
> their LCDOS development because DLP had lower price/performance under 50"
> and they forecasted no real market for TVs bigger than that.) Most people
> have a hard time seeing the difference between ED and HD on the size set
> they're likely to own from the viewing distance they're likely to be
> watching from (the vast majority of sets sold, I forget the number but
> it's
> maybe like 90% or more, are still under 32" even now in 2005). (When I use
> my slightly older glasses, I need to squint a bit to see all the detail in
> my regular TV from the sofa, and it's not a very big room. I doubt I'm
> alone.) Most people are more annoyed at sidebars than they are at
> letterboxing or pan-and-scan (if they're even aware of pan-and-scan). Most
> people are more annoyed that the set shows 4:3 material smaller than a
> similar-size 4:3 set than about how great movies look on it. Most people
> are
> unwilling to spend over $500 on a TV. Most people are turned off by the
> confusion of multiple different standards and all the new things they need
> to know. Most people don't want to erect an antenna for OTA broadcasts or
> pay $10/month extra to get maybe 4 HD channels (that either mostly don't
> show HDTV or that loop the same few shows endlessly). Most people, in
> short,
> just don't see the point and are unwilling to pay any extra for it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 1:50:37 PM

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

"flashman" <flashman@spamoroma.org> wrote in message
news:96Ame.10535$M36.9427@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I will know when it is time to by a HDTV is when I can go into blockbuster
>and rent a HD movie> also see
>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/technology/circuits/0...
>
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 12:05:39 AM

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

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 14:01:06 -0700, "Charles Tomaras"
<tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:

>
>"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Uaooe.3076$W51.21174@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> "David Zinck" <eat@joes.ca> wrote in message
>> news:p 5Pme.32680$tt5.6995@edtnps90...
>>> In the end, it's your choice. I just think your reasoning is a bit
>>> skewed,
>>> and that you'll never "get" HDTV anyway.
>>
>> Nice post. But one thing the home theatre buffs that make up this forum,
>> AVS
>> forum, and that pushed the HD standards in the first place don't realize
>> is
>> that it is THEY that are in the minority. Most people just don't care
>> about
>> HD, even when they are shown it. They'll play along and say it's neat when
>> you show them your new HDTV and ask them "isn't it cool? isn't it? isn't
>> it?", but they don't really care. (One reason that most people here seem
>> to support HDTV so much is not only that others aren't interested, but
>> that those who are interested are generally told to go away if they're not
>> an HD cheerleader.)
>
>So what's your point? Why don't you seek out an SD video newsgroup? This is
>a newsgroup that is frequented by HDTV afficianodos and early adopters. I
>think most of us are well aware of the majority joe-sixpack view and it has
>NOTHING to do with us or this newsgroup.
>

Ah.. I'd say his point is something like:

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Personally I think it's kinda neat you're blowing money on overpriced
junktech, but it's the fact that you're so oblivious that makes one
just marvel at modern advertising and the failure of schools.
!