EDTV

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

Does anyone have any speculation on whether EDTV will be around for very
long or will the prices on HDTV eventually make EDTVs as scarce as 8-track
tape [layers.
41 answers Last reply
More about edtv
  1. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "J&D Schnoor" <jimdianes@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
    news:yb9ne.2635$8g.1462@news01.roc.ny...
    > Does anyone have any speculation on whether EDTV will be around for very
    > long or will the prices on HDTV eventually make EDTVs as scarce as 8-track
    > tape [layers.

    I think 8 track lasted much longer than will SD TV labelled "EDTV"
  2. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:23:22 -0400, "Randy Sweeney"
    <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    >"J&D Schnoor" <jimdianes@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
    >news:yb9ne.2635$8g.1462@news01.roc.ny...
    >> Does anyone have any speculation on whether EDTV will be around for very
    >> long or will the prices on HDTV eventually make EDTVs as scarce as 8-track
    >> tape [layers.
    >
    >I think 8 track lasted much longer than will SD TV labelled "EDTV"
    >

    It's the best bang for the buck if you mainly watch DVDs.

    I've looked at a lot of HDTV sets and I'm not spending my money for
    beta technology at rolls royce prices.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    mcduck wrote:
    > On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:23:22 -0400, "Randy Sweeney"
    > <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"J&D Schnoor" <jimdianes@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
    > >news:yb9ne.2635$8g.1462@news01.roc.ny...
    > >> Does anyone have any speculation on whether EDTV will be around for very
    > >> long or will the prices on HDTV eventually make EDTVs as scarce as 8-track
    > >> tape [layers.
    > >
    > >I think 8 track lasted much longer than will SD TV labelled "EDTV"
    > >
    >
    > It's the best bang for the buck if you mainly watch DVDs.
    >
    > I've looked at a lot of HDTV sets and I'm not spending my money for
    > beta technology at rolls royce prices.

    Beta technolgoy? Rolls Royce Prices? Have you checked the models in
    the last 3 years?
  4. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:50:45 -0700, mcduck wrote:

    >On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:23:22 -0400, "Randy Sweeney"
    ><DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"J&D Schnoor" <jimdianes@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
    >>news:yb9ne.2635$8g.1462@news01.roc.ny...
    >>> Does anyone have any speculation on whether EDTV will be around for very
    >>> long or will the prices on HDTV eventually make EDTVs as scarce as 8-track
    >>> tape [layers.
    >>
    >>I think 8 track lasted much longer than will SD TV labelled "EDTV"
    >>
    >
    >It's the best bang for the buck if you mainly watch DVDs.
    >
    >I've looked at a lot of HDTV sets and I'm not spending my money for
    >beta technology at rolls royce prices.
    >
    >
    I wouldn't spend the money for an EDTV that will not pick up HD and be
    obsoleter in a few years.
    Thumper
  5. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Thumper wrote:
    > On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:50:45 -0700, mcduck wrote:
    >
    >>It's the best bang for the buck if you mainly watch DVDs.
    >>
    >>I've looked at a lot of HDTV sets and I'm not spending my money for
    >>beta technology at rolls royce prices.
    >
    > I wouldn't spend the money for an EDTV that will not pick up HD and be
    > obsoleter in a few years.
    > Thumper

    Huh? An EDTV works with HDTV signals. Assuming we are talking about an
    ED plasma as those are the most common mainstream ED TVs on the market,
    it displays the HD signal - 1080i or 720p - at the native resolution of
    the ED display at 852x480p. So long as you sit 6 to 8 feet from the
    screen to avoid the screen door effect, it presents a fine picture for
    HD, SD (480i), and DVD (480i) sources. May not be true HD, but the
    native 480 resolution means no upscaling for SD and DVD sources, which
    is why some people prefer them. And the difference for a 42" screen at
    10 feet between ED and HD is not all that obvious.

    The main reason for getting an 42" ED plasma was that their prices
    were much lower than the 42" HD plasmas. That has changed as the list
    price for the 42" Panasonic consumer model has dropped to $2500, but the
    42" HD consumer has dropped from $6500 at the beginning of 2004 to $3500
    for the new model. And the commercial Panasonic plasma can be had for
    around $2800 with stand plus shipping from reputable on-line dealers.
    Still, don't knock the better brand ED plasmas until you have really
    looked at one.

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

    "Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:U7mdnYNM786QQT3fRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
    > Thumper wrote:
    >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:50:45 -0700, mcduck wrote:
    >>
    >>>It's the best bang for the buck if you mainly watch DVDs.
    >>>I've looked at a lot of HDTV sets and I'm not spending my money for
    >>>beta technology at rolls royce prices.
    >>
    >> I wouldn't spend the money for an EDTV that will not pick up HD and be
    >> obsoleter in a few years.
    >> Thumper
    >
    > Huh? An EDTV works with HDTV signals. Assuming we are talking about an ED
    > plasma as those are the most common mainstream ED TVs on the market, it
    > displays the HD signal - 1080i or 720p - at the native resolution of the
    > ED display at 852x480p. So long as you sit 6 to 8 feet from the screen to
    > avoid the screen door effect, it presents a fine picture for HD, SD
    > (480i), and DVD (480i) sources. May not be true HD, but the native 480
    > resolution means no upscaling for SD and DVD sources, which is why some
    > people prefer them. And the difference for a 42" screen at 10 feet between
    > ED and HD is not all that obvious.
    >
    > The main reason for getting an 42" ED plasma was that their prices were
    > much lower than the 42" HD plasmas. That has changed as the list price for
    > the 42" Panasonic consumer model has dropped to $2500, but the 42" HD
    > consumer has dropped from $6500 at the beginning of 2004 to $3500 for the
    > new model. And the commercial Panasonic plasma can be had for around $2800
    > with stand plus shipping from reputable on-line dealers. Still, don't
    > knock the better brand ED plasmas until you have really looked at one.
    >
    > Alan F

    I'm certainly happy with mine. Was hard to justify spending $2700 for a ED
    tv a while back, let alone over $4000 for a HD model.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:36:40 -0400, Alan Figgatt
    <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:

    >Thumper wrote:
    >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:50:45 -0700, mcduck wrote:
    >>
    >>>It's the best bang for the buck if you mainly watch DVDs.
    >>>
    >>>I've looked at a lot of HDTV sets and I'm not spending my money for
    >>>beta technology at rolls royce prices.
    >>
    >> I wouldn't spend the money for an EDTV that will not pick up HD and be
    >> obsoleter in a few years.
    >> Thumper
    >
    > Huh? An EDTV works with HDTV signals. Assuming we are talking about an
    >ED plasma as those are the most common mainstream ED TVs on the market,
    >it displays the HD signal - 1080i or 720p - at the native resolution of
    >the ED display at 852x480p.

    It doesn't display HD.


    >So long as you sit 6 to 8 feet from the
    >screen to avoid the screen door effect, it presents a fine picture for
    >HD, SD (480i), and DVD (480i) sources. May not be true HD, but the
    >native 480 resolution means no upscaling for SD and DVD sources, which
    >is why some people prefer them. And the difference for a 42" screen at
    >10 feet between ED and HD is not all that obvious.
    >


    It's not HD
    > The main reason for getting an 42" ED plasma was that their prices
    >were much lower than the 42" HD plasmas. That has changed as the list
    >price for the 42" Panasonic consumer model has dropped to $2500, but the
    >42" HD consumer has dropped from $6500 at the beginning of 2004 to $3500
    >for the new model. And the commercial Panasonic plasma can be had for
    >around $2800 with stand plus shipping from reputable on-line dealers.
    >Still, don't knock the better brand ED plasmas until you have really
    >looked at one.
    >
    > Alan F
    For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.
    Thumper
  8. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 23:26:24 GMT, "FDR"
    <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:U7mdnYNM786QQT3fRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
    >> Thumper wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:50:45 -0700, mcduck wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>It's the best bang for the buck if you mainly watch DVDs.
    >>>>I've looked at a lot of HDTV sets and I'm not spending my money for
    >>>>beta technology at rolls royce prices.
    >>>
    >>> I wouldn't spend the money for an EDTV that will not pick up HD and be
    >>> obsoleter in a few years.
    >>> Thumper
    >>
    >> Huh? An EDTV works with HDTV signals. Assuming we are talking about an ED
    >> plasma as those are the most common mainstream ED TVs on the market, it
    >> displays the HD signal - 1080i or 720p - at the native resolution of the
    >> ED display at 852x480p. So long as you sit 6 to 8 feet from the screen to
    >> avoid the screen door effect, it presents a fine picture for HD, SD
    >> (480i), and DVD (480i) sources. May not be true HD, but the native 480
    >> resolution means no upscaling for SD and DVD sources, which is why some
    >> people prefer them. And the difference for a 42" screen at 10 feet between
    >> ED and HD is not all that obvious.
    >>
    >> The main reason for getting an 42" ED plasma was that their prices were
    >> much lower than the 42" HD plasmas. That has changed as the list price for
    >> the 42" Panasonic consumer model has dropped to $2500, but the 42" HD
    >> consumer has dropped from $6500 at the beginning of 2004 to $3500 for the
    >> new model. And the commercial Panasonic plasma can be had for around $2800
    >> with stand plus shipping from reputable on-line dealers. Still, don't
    >> knock the better brand ED plasmas until you have really looked at one.
    >>
    >> Alan F
    >
    >I'm certainly happy with mine. Was hard to justify spending $2700 for a ED
    >tv a while back, let alone over $4000 for a HD model.
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:3093a1p78vifc3taot1fb18beppt10t0f0@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:36:40 -0400, Alan Figgatt
    > <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Thumper wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:50:45 -0700, mcduck wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>It's the best bang for the buck if you mainly watch DVDs.
    >>>>
    >>>>I've looked at a lot of HDTV sets and I'm not spending my money for
    >>>>beta technology at rolls royce prices.
    >>>
    >>> I wouldn't spend the money for an EDTV that will not pick up HD and be
    >>> obsoleter in a few years.
    >>> Thumper
    >>
    >> Huh? An EDTV works with HDTV signals. Assuming we are talking about an
    >>ED plasma as those are the most common mainstream ED TVs on the market,
    >>it displays the HD signal - 1080i or 720p - at the native resolution of
    >>the ED display at 852x480p.
    >
    > It doesn't display HD.
    >

    You said "pick up", not display. Big difference.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>So long as you sit 6 to 8 feet from the
    >>screen to avoid the screen door effect, it presents a fine picture for
    >>HD, SD (480i), and DVD (480i) sources. May not be true HD, but the
    >>native 480 resolution means no upscaling for SD and DVD sources, which
    >>is why some people prefer them. And the difference for a 42" screen at
    >>10 feet between ED and HD is not all that obvious.
    >>
    >
    >
    > It's not HD
    >> The main reason for getting an 42" ED plasma was that their prices
    >>were much lower than the 42" HD plasmas. That has changed as the list
    >>price for the 42" Panasonic consumer model has dropped to $2500, but the
    >>42" HD consumer has dropped from $6500 at the beginning of 2004 to $3500
    >>for the new model. And the commercial Panasonic plasma can be had for
    >>around $2800 with stand plus shipping from reputable on-line dealers.
    >>Still, don't knock the better brand ED plasmas until you have really
    >>looked at one.
    >>
    >> Alan F
    > For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.

    On what planet?


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

    On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:58:42 GMT, "FDR"
    <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:3093a1p78vifc3taot1fb18beppt10t0f0@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:36:40 -0400, Alan Figgatt
    >> <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Thumper wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:50:45 -0700, mcduck wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>It's the best bang for the buck if you mainly watch DVDs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I've looked at a lot of HDTV sets and I'm not spending my money for
    >>>>>beta technology at rolls royce prices.
    >>>>
    >>>> I wouldn't spend the money for an EDTV that will not pick up HD and be
    >>>> obsoleter in a few years.
    >>>> Thumper
    >>>
    >>> Huh? An EDTV works with HDTV signals. Assuming we are talking about an
    >>>ED plasma as those are the most common mainstream ED TVs on the market,
    >>>it displays the HD signal - 1080i or 720p - at the native resolution of
    >>>the ED display at 852x480p.
    >>
    >> It doesn't display HD.
    >>
    >
    >You said "pick up", not display. Big difference.
    >

    Your tin hat will "pick up" HDTV also. You know what I meant.
    Thumper
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>So long as you sit 6 to 8 feet from the
    >>>screen to avoid the screen door effect, it presents a fine picture for
    >>>HD, SD (480i), and DVD (480i) sources. May not be true HD, but the
    >>>native 480 resolution means no upscaling for SD and DVD sources, which
    >>>is why some people prefer them. And the difference for a 42" screen at
    >>>10 feet between ED and HD is not all that obvious.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> It's not HD
    >>> The main reason for getting an 42" ED plasma was that their prices
    >>>were much lower than the 42" HD plasmas. That has changed as the list
    >>>price for the 42" Panasonic consumer model has dropped to $2500, but the
    >>>42" HD consumer has dropped from $6500 at the beginning of 2004 to $3500
    >>>for the new model. And the commercial Panasonic plasma can be had for
    >>>around $2800 with stand plus shipping from reputable on-line dealers.
    >>>Still, don't knock the better brand ED plasmas until you have really
    >>>looked at one.
    >>>
    >>> Alan F
    >> For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.
    >
    >On what planet?
    >
    >
    >> Thumper
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:3093a1p78vifc3taot1fb18beppt10t0f0@4ax.com...

    > It doesn't display HD.

    > It's not HD

    > For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.
    > Thumper

    Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not standing
    with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store), probably can't
    tell the difference, or at least the difference is subtle. For some other
    people, the fact that it doesn't say "HD" on it makes them feel like less of
    a man. For those that need the validation, go ahead, spend the money. For
    those that want to enjoy their TV, why waste several thousand dollars for
    something that makes very little difference, if the ED set looks great
    (which they generally do)? (Whereas, for them, a thin/flat TV DOES make a
    difference compared to a heavy/bulky one. Though the relatively thin/light
    DLP and LCD projectors are starting to erode this argument.)
  12. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:29:39 GMT, "Matthew Vaughan"
    <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:

    >"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:3093a1p78vifc3taot1fb18beppt10t0f0@4ax.com...
    >
    >> It doesn't display HD.
    >
    >> It's not HD
    >
    >> For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.
    >> Thumper
    >
    >Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not standing
    >with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store), probably can't
    >tell the difference, or at least the difference is subtle. For some other
    >people, the fact that it doesn't say "HD" on it makes them feel like less of
    >a man. For those that need the validation, go ahead, spend the money. For
    >those that want to enjoy their TV, why waste several thousand dollars for
    >something that makes very little difference, if the ED set looks great
    >(which they generally do)? (Whereas, for them, a thin/flat TV DOES make a
    >difference compared to a heavy/bulky one. Though the relatively thin/light
    >DLP and LCD projectors are starting to erode this argument.)
    >
    >
    They would have to be blind not to see the difference when side by
    side with an HDTV. I see people every day stop and marvel at the
    picture on the lone HDTV set up in a room full of EDTVs. I don't care
    what any body buys but this bullshit that it looks just as good from a
    normal viewing distance distance is simply not true. Next time you're
    watching a football game in HD switch the set to it's SD channel and
    tell me you can't see the difference.
    Thumper
  13. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:8o74a1pghrqe5h7fp6tepccroo251u69ti@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:29:39 GMT, "Matthew Vaughan"
    > <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > >news:3093a1p78vifc3taot1fb18beppt10t0f0@4ax.com...
    > >
    > >> It doesn't display HD.
    > >
    > >> It's not HD
    > >
    > >> For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.
    > >> Thumper
    > >
    > >Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not standing
    > >with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store), probably
    can't
    > >tell the difference, or at least the difference is subtle. For some other
    > >people, the fact that it doesn't say "HD" on it makes them feel like less
    of
    > >a man. For those that need the validation, go ahead, spend the money. For
    > >those that want to enjoy their TV, why waste several thousand dollars for
    > >something that makes very little difference, if the ED set looks great
    > >(which they generally do)? (Whereas, for them, a thin/flat TV DOES make a
    > >difference compared to a heavy/bulky one. Though the relatively
    thin/light
    > >DLP and LCD projectors are starting to erode this argument.)
    > >
    > >
    > They would have to be blind not to see the difference when side by
    > side with an HDTV. I see people every day stop and marvel at the
    > picture on the lone HDTV set up in a room full of EDTVs. I don't care
    > what any body buys but this bullshit that it looks just as good from a
    > normal viewing distance distance is simply not true. Next time you're
    > watching a football game in HD switch the set to it's SD channel and
    > tell me you can't see the difference.
    > Thumper

    Amen, Thumper!

    I am brand new to the HDTV world. Hubby wanted a "big" tv, so I researched
    it and got the best tv we could afford that hopefully wouldn't be obsolete
    for a while.

    Here is what I observed with our new "big" TV (Costco Pioneer 4312).
    Picture is spectacular with Directv HD Discovery channel. I feel like I am
    looking at a high resolution color photograph that is the size of the 43" TV
    screen. Amazing is just not enough to describe the quality of the picture. I
    have bad eyes (down to the big E on the eye chart in one eye), and I can
    only describe high definition tv as watching tv with glasses where
    everything is crystal clear. Normal tv is like watching tv without glasses,
    blurry and no detail.

    EDTV is 480p. YOu can put in an HDTV signal like 1080i, or 720 p, but all
    you will ever see on the EDTV is 480p.

    My Costco Pioneer 4312 when given HDTV 1080i, puts out 768p, and I am
    amazed. I am underwhelmed when watching a DVD movie (probably 480i or p) or
    watching a 480i TV signal. And 768p is close, but still is not true high
    def. True high def. is 1080i or 1080p.

    Hope that makes a little sense.
    noone
  14. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:8o74a1pghrqe5h7fp6tepccroo251u69ti@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:29:39 GMT, "Matthew Vaughan"
    > <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>news:3093a1p78vifc3taot1fb18beppt10t0f0@4ax.com...
    >>
    >>> It doesn't display HD.
    >>
    >>> It's not HD
    >>
    >>> For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.
    >>> Thumper
    >>
    >>Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not standing
    >>with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store), probably can't
    >>tell the difference, or at least the difference is subtle. For some other
    >>people, the fact that it doesn't say "HD" on it makes them feel like less
    >>of
    >>a man. For those that need the validation, go ahead, spend the money. For
    >>those that want to enjoy their TV, why waste several thousand dollars for
    >>something that makes very little difference, if the ED set looks great
    >>(which they generally do)? (Whereas, for them, a thin/flat TV DOES make a
    >>difference compared to a heavy/bulky one. Though the relatively thin/light
    >>DLP and LCD projectors are starting to erode this argument.)
    >>
    >>
    > They would have to be blind not to see the difference when side by
    > side with an HDTV. I see people every day stop and marvel at the
    > picture on the lone HDTV set up in a room full of EDTVs. I don't care
    > what any body buys but this bullshit that it looks just as good from a
    > normal viewing distance distance is simply not true. Next time you're
    > watching a football game in HD switch the set to it's SD channel and
    > tell me you can't see the difference.
    > Thumper

    I bet you can see a difference between a $4.000 HD and a $10,000 HD. Does
    that mean you should buy the $10,000 model too?

    Most people don't have the huge bucks to sink into a tv. ED is and can be
    just as good to people considering the cost difference. Also, I've seen
    DVD's that play better on a ED then a HD. Shouldn't that be a
    consideration?
  15. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 04:33:33 GMT, "FDR"
    <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:8o74a1pghrqe5h7fp6tepccroo251u69ti@4ax.com...
    >> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:29:39 GMT, "Matthew Vaughan"
    >> <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:3093a1p78vifc3taot1fb18beppt10t0f0@4ax.com...
    >>>
    >>>> It doesn't display HD.
    >>>
    >>>> It's not HD
    >>>
    >>>> For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.
    >>>> Thumper
    >>>
    >>>Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not standing
    >>>with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store), probably can't
    >>>tell the difference, or at least the difference is subtle. For some other
    >>>people, the fact that it doesn't say "HD" on it makes them feel like less
    >>>of
    >>>a man. For those that need the validation, go ahead, spend the money. For
    >>>those that want to enjoy their TV, why waste several thousand dollars for
    >>>something that makes very little difference, if the ED set looks great
    >>>(which they generally do)? (Whereas, for them, a thin/flat TV DOES make a
    >>>difference compared to a heavy/bulky one. Though the relatively thin/light
    >>>DLP and LCD projectors are starting to erode this argument.)
    >>>
    >>>
    >> They would have to be blind not to see the difference when side by
    >> side with an HDTV. I see people every day stop and marvel at the
    >> picture on the lone HDTV set up in a room full of EDTVs. I don't care
    >> what any body buys but this bullshit that it looks just as good from a
    >> normal viewing distance distance is simply not true. Next time you're
    >> watching a football game in HD switch the set to it's SD channel and
    >> tell me you can't see the difference.
    >> Thumper
    >
    >I bet you can see a difference between a $4.000 HD and a $10,000 HD. Does
    >that mean you should buy the $10,000 model too?
    >
    I'll bet you can't.

    I've already said that I don't care what you buy but claiming that you
    can't see the difference between EDTV and HDTV is wrong

    >Most people don't have the huge bucks to sink into a tv. ED is and can be
    >just as good to people considering the cost difference. Also, I've seen
    >DVD's that play better on a ED then a HD.
    Nonsense


    Shouldn't that be a
    >consideration?
    >
    Consider anything you like but don't make false claims.
    Thumper
  16. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:4od5a11ds60ippro90v02heu1e8b21f8gk@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 04:33:33 GMT, "FDR"
    > <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>news:8o74a1pghrqe5h7fp6tepccroo251u69ti@4ax.com...
    >>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:29:39 GMT, "Matthew Vaughan"
    >>> <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>>>news:3093a1p78vifc3taot1fb18beppt10t0f0@4ax.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>> It doesn't display HD.
    >>>>
    >>>>> It's not HD
    >>>>
    >>>>> For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.
    >>>>> Thumper
    >>>>
    >>>>Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not standing
    >>>>with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store), probably
    >>>>can't
    >>>>tell the difference, or at least the difference is subtle. For some
    >>>>other
    >>>>people, the fact that it doesn't say "HD" on it makes them feel like
    >>>>less
    >>>>of
    >>>>a man. For those that need the validation, go ahead, spend the money.
    >>>>For
    >>>>those that want to enjoy their TV, why waste several thousand dollars
    >>>>for
    >>>>something that makes very little difference, if the ED set looks great
    >>>>(which they generally do)? (Whereas, for them, a thin/flat TV DOES make
    >>>>a
    >>>>difference compared to a heavy/bulky one. Though the relatively
    >>>>thin/light
    >>>>DLP and LCD projectors are starting to erode this argument.)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> They would have to be blind not to see the difference when side by
    >>> side with an HDTV. I see people every day stop and marvel at the
    >>> picture on the lone HDTV set up in a room full of EDTVs. I don't care
    >>> what any body buys but this bullshit that it looks just as good from a
    >>> normal viewing distance distance is simply not true. Next time you're
    >>> watching a football game in HD switch the set to it's SD channel and
    >>> tell me you can't see the difference.
    >>> Thumper
    >>
    >>I bet you can see a difference between a $4.000 HD and a $10,000 HD. Does
    >>that mean you should buy the $10,000 model too?
    >>
    > I'll bet you can't.

    Go try it. There's a reason why they cost more.

    >
    > I've already said that I don't care what you buy but claiming that you
    > can't see the difference between EDTV and HDTV is wrong
    >
    >>Most people don't have the huge bucks to sink into a tv. ED is and can be
    >>just as good to people considering the cost difference. Also, I've seen
    >>DVD's that play better on a ED then a HD.
    > Nonsense

    Well, I've seen it side by side.

    >
    >
    > Shouldn't that be a
    >>consideration?
    >>
    > Consider anything you like but don't make false claims.

    How is it a false claim?

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

    On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:01:53 GMT, "FDR"
    <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:4od5a11ds60ippro90v02heu1e8b21f8gk@4ax.com...
    >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 04:33:33 GMT, "FDR"
    >> <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:8o74a1pghrqe5h7fp6tepccroo251u69ti@4ax.com...
    >>>> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:29:39 GMT, "Matthew Vaughan"
    >>>> <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:3093a1p78vifc3taot1fb18beppt10t0f0@4ax.com...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> It doesn't display HD.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> It's not HD
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.
    >>>>>> Thumper
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not standing
    >>>>>with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store), probably
    >>>>>can't
    >>>>>tell the difference, or at least the difference is subtle. For some
    >>>>>other
    >>>>>people, the fact that it doesn't say "HD" on it makes them feel like
    >>>>>less
    >>>>>of
    >>>>>a man. For those that need the validation, go ahead, spend the money.
    >>>>>For
    >>>>>those that want to enjoy their TV, why waste several thousand dollars
    >>>>>for
    >>>>>something that makes very little difference, if the ED set looks great
    >>>>>(which they generally do)? (Whereas, for them, a thin/flat TV DOES make
    >>>>>a
    >>>>>difference compared to a heavy/bulky one. Though the relatively
    >>>>>thin/light
    >>>>>DLP and LCD projectors are starting to erode this argument.)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> They would have to be blind not to see the difference when side by
    >>>> side with an HDTV. I see people every day stop and marvel at the
    >>>> picture on the lone HDTV set up in a room full of EDTVs. I don't care
    >>>> what any body buys but this bullshit that it looks just as good from a
    >>>> normal viewing distance distance is simply not true. Next time you're
    >>>> watching a football game in HD switch the set to it's SD channel and
    >>>> tell me you can't see the difference.
    >>>> Thumper
    >>>
    >>>I bet you can see a difference between a $4.000 HD and a $10,000 HD. Does
    >>>that mean you should buy the $10,000 model too?
    >>>
    >> I'll bet you can't.
    >
    >Go try it. There's a reason why they cost more.
    >
    I've seen Hitachis and Sony's side by side with Pioneer elites that
    look better than the pioneer. There is no where near the difference
    between a $4000 set and a $10,000 set as there is between EDTV and
    HDTV. Use whatever justification you need to buy an EDTV but if you
    try to tell us that you can't see the difference DRAMATICALLY between
    HDTV and EDTV, you simply have your eyes closed.
    A great disservice is done when HDTVs are displayed with an SD signal
    on it as 90% of all displays I've seen are. THAT's why pwoplw think
    that HDTV may not be worth it. They THINK they are seeing an HDTV
    signal when it's in reality SD.
    Thumper

    >>
    >> I've already said that I don't care what you buy but claiming that you
    >> can't see the difference between EDTV and HDTV is wrong
    >>
    >>>Most people don't have the huge bucks to sink into a tv. ED is and can be
    >>>just as good to people considering the cost difference. Also, I've seen
    >>>DVD's that play better on a ED then a HD.
    >> Nonsense
    >
    >Well, I've seen it side by side.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> Shouldn't that be a
    >>>consideration?
    >>>
    >> Consider anything you like but don't make false claims.
    >
    >How is it a false claim?
    >
    >> Thumper
    >
  18. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
    > Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not standing
    > with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store), probably can't
    > tell the difference, or at least the difference is subtle.

    I disagree completely

    While most people can not tell the difference between 720P and 1080i, the
    low 480P resolution of SD is very noticeable - it's the difference between
    HD and a DVD.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 13:15:50 -0400, "Randy Sweeney"
    <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
    >> Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not standing
    >> with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store), probably can't
    >> tell the difference, or at least the difference is subtle.
    >
    >I disagree completely
    >
    >While most people can not tell the difference between 720P and 1080i, the
    >low 480P resolution of SD is very noticeable - it's the difference between
    >HD and a DVD.
    >
    Exactly. The reason this myth continues is because millions of people
    walk by tv sets in stores like Costco, Sams, Bj's, and Sears everyday
    where the HDTV sets are playing a DVD at SD. They think "Hd isn't all
    that when ion reality they haven't seen HD.
    Thumper
  20. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:Estoe.893169$w62.780615@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > EDTV is 480p. YOu can put in an HDTV signal like 1080i, or 720 p, but all
    > you will ever see on the EDTV is 480p.
    >
    > My Costco Pioneer 4312 when given HDTV 1080i, puts out 768p, and I am
    > amazed. I am underwhelmed when watching a DVD movie (probably 480i or p)
    > or
    > watching a 480i TV signal. And 768p is close, but still is not true high
    > def. True high def. is 1080i or 1080p.
    >
    > Hope that makes a little sense.
    > noone
    >
    >

    I hate to break it to you, but 720 X 1280 is "true" high definition.

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

    "Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    news:0gFoe.24742$J12.3173@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    > "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    > news:Estoe.893169$w62.780615@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >
    > > EDTV is 480p. YOu can put in an HDTV signal like 1080i, or 720 p, but
    all
    > > you will ever see on the EDTV is 480p.
    > >
    > > My Costco Pioneer 4312 when given HDTV 1080i, puts out 768p, and I am
    > > amazed. I am underwhelmed when watching a DVD movie (probably 480i or
    p)
    > > or
    > > watching a 480i TV signal. And 768p is close, but still is not true
    high
    > > def. True high def. is 1080i or 1080p.
    > >
    > > Hope that makes a little sense.
    > > noone
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I hate to break it to you, but 720 X 1280 is "true" high definition.
    >
    > Phil
    >

    You are right. But I can only afford 1024 x 768.
    noone
  22. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    news:0gFoe.24742$J12.3173@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    > "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    > news:Estoe.893169$w62.780615@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >
    > > EDTV is 480p. YOu can put in an HDTV signal like 1080i, or 720 p, but
    all
    > > you will ever see on the EDTV is 480p.
    > >
    > > My Costco Pioneer 4312 when given HDTV 1080i, puts out 768p, and I am
    > > amazed. I am underwhelmed when watching a DVD movie (probably 480i or
    p)
    > > or
    > > watching a 480i TV signal. And 768p is close, but still is not true
    high
    > > def. True high def. is 1080i or 1080p.
    > >
    > > Hope that makes a little sense.
    > > noone
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I hate to break it to you, but 720 X 1280 is "true" high definition.
    >
    > Phil
    >
    >

    Actually, 1920 x 1080 is true high def. And I really really can't afford
    that.
    noone
  23. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:xgvoe.2648$fp6.1051@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    >
    > "Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:8o74a1pghrqe5h7fp6tepccroo251u69ti@4ax.com...
    > > On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:29:39 GMT, "Matthew Vaughan"
    > > <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >>"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > >>news:3093a1p78vifc3taot1fb18beppt10t0f0@4ax.com...
    > >>
    > >>> It doesn't display HD.
    > >>
    > >>> It's not HD
    > >>
    > >>> For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.
    > >>> Thumper
    > >>
    > >>Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not standing
    > >>with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store), probably
    can't
    > >>tell the difference, or at least the difference is subtle. For some
    other
    > >>people, the fact that it doesn't say "HD" on it makes them feel like
    less
    > >>of
    > >>a man. For those that need the validation, go ahead, spend the money.
    For
    > >>those that want to enjoy their TV, why waste several thousand dollars
    for
    > >>something that makes very little difference, if the ED set looks great
    > >>(which they generally do)? (Whereas, for them, a thin/flat TV DOES make
    a
    > >>difference compared to a heavy/bulky one. Though the relatively
    thin/light
    > >>DLP and LCD projectors are starting to erode this argument.)
    > >>
    > >>
    > > They would have to be blind not to see the difference when side by
    > > side with an HDTV. I see people every day stop and marvel at the
    > > picture on the lone HDTV set up in a room full of EDTVs. I don't care
    > > what any body buys but this bullshit that it looks just as good from a
    > > normal viewing distance distance is simply not true. Next time you're
    > > watching a football game in HD switch the set to it's SD channel and
    > > tell me you can't see the difference.
    > > Thumper
    >
    > I bet you can see a difference between a $4.000 HD and a $10,000 HD. Does
    > that mean you should buy the $10,000 model too?
    >
    > Most people don't have the huge bucks to sink into a tv. ED is and can be
    > just as good to people considering the cost difference. Also, I've seen
    > DVD's that play better on a ED then a HD. Shouldn't that be a
    > consideration?
    >
    >

    FDR,
    If it is your money, you can get whatever you feel is best. But you could be
    shooting yourself in the foot, and I truly think you will be sorry getting
    an EDTV when you can get a better HDTV for a bit more money.

    However, you might want to go down to a store with a lot of HDTV displays.
    Have teh salesman show you one of the best displays like one of the better
    1024 x768 or better Panasonics. Have the saleman show you an equivalent of a
    DVD movie 480p on the display (EDTV equivalent) and have him show you true
    HDTV 1080i or 720p on the same display (like from HD Discovery channel).
    Then make your judgement. And think about 5 or 10 years from now, when 480p
    and 480i will be obsolete.


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

    "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:6GFoe.287616$cg1.229907@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:xgvoe.2648$fp6.1051@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    >>
    >> "Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >> news:8o74a1pghrqe5h7fp6tepccroo251u69ti@4ax.com...
    >> > On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:29:39 GMT, "Matthew Vaughan"
    >> > <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >> >>news:3093a1p78vifc3taot1fb18beppt10t0f0@4ax.com...
    >> >>
    >> >>> It doesn't display HD.
    >> >>
    >> >>> It's not HD
    >> >>
    >> >>> For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.
    >> >>> Thumper
    >> >>
    >> >>Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not
    >> >>standing
    >> >>with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store), probably
    > can't
    >> >>tell the difference, or at least the difference is subtle. For some
    > other
    >> >>people, the fact that it doesn't say "HD" on it makes them feel like
    > less
    >> >>of
    >> >>a man. For those that need the validation, go ahead, spend the money.
    > For
    >> >>those that want to enjoy their TV, why waste several thousand dollars
    > for
    >> >>something that makes very little difference, if the ED set looks great
    >> >>(which they generally do)? (Whereas, for them, a thin/flat TV DOES make
    > a
    >> >>difference compared to a heavy/bulky one. Though the relatively
    > thin/light
    >> >>DLP and LCD projectors are starting to erode this argument.)
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> > They would have to be blind not to see the difference when side by
    >> > side with an HDTV. I see people every day stop and marvel at the
    >> > picture on the lone HDTV set up in a room full of EDTVs. I don't care
    >> > what any body buys but this bullshit that it looks just as good from a
    >> > normal viewing distance distance is simply not true. Next time you're
    >> > watching a football game in HD switch the set to it's SD channel and
    >> > tell me you can't see the difference.
    >> > Thumper
    >>
    >> I bet you can see a difference between a $4.000 HD and a $10,000 HD.
    >> Does
    >> that mean you should buy the $10,000 model too?
    >>
    >> Most people don't have the huge bucks to sink into a tv. ED is and can
    >> be
    >> just as good to people considering the cost difference. Also, I've seen
    >> DVD's that play better on a ED then a HD. Shouldn't that be a
    >> consideration?
    >>
    >>
    >
    > FDR,
    > If it is your money, you can get whatever you feel is best. But you could
    > be
    > shooting yourself in the foot, and I truly think you will be sorry getting
    > an EDTV when you can get a better HDTV for a bit more money.

    I've got it already. Paying 50% more to me was not a bit. Heck, I had
    trouble justifying buying a tv as expensive as the one I have now.

    >
    > However, you might want to go down to a store with a lot of HDTV displays.
    > Have teh salesman show you one of the best displays like one of the better
    > 1024 x768 or better Panasonics. Have the saleman show you an equivalent of
    > a
    > DVD movie 480p on the display (EDTV equivalent) and have him show you
    > true
    > HDTV 1080i or 720p on the same display (like from HD Discovery channel).
    > Then make your judgement. And think about 5 or 10 years from now, when
    > 480p
    > and 480i will be obsolete.

    Fisrt off, I have seen HD and ED and to me the difference wasn't significant
    enough to spend the extra cash. Secondly, I doubt my tv will be obsolete 5
    or 10 years from now. Considering the glut of SD material that will still
    be on tv, and that the DVD material right now I would not want to throw away
    just so I can respend it on newer HD material for even more money. People
    have made tons of investements in DVDs for the past several years. You
    think that will just go away?


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

    "FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:I7Ioe.3147$fp6.2865@twister.nyroc.rr.com...>
    > Fisrt off, I have seen HD and ED and to me the difference wasn't
    significant
    > enough to spend the extra cash. Secondly, I doubt my tv will be obsolete
    5
    > or 10 years from now. Considering the glut of SD material that will still
    > be on tv, and that the DVD material right now I would not want to throw
    away
    > just so I can respend it on newer HD material for even more money. People
    > have made tons of investements in DVDs for the past several years. You
    > think that will just go away?

    No, I don't think it will go away. As for DVDs going away, but I have tons
    of VHS tapes and LP albums as well as old equipment to play them on. Things
    do get old and obsolete. The major point is if you buy a TV now, it is
    better to pay a little extra and get a TV that can handle high definition. I
    am glad I paid extra for an HDTV capable TV. You are glad you didn't pay
    extra on an HDTV capable TV. My TV is only 1024 x768 pixels. Your TV is
    only 853 x480 pixels. True high definitoin is 1920 x1080 pixels. So neither
    of our TVs are true high definition. And we both know prices are going to
    fall, and the technology is going to improve. I would like to buy a 1920x
    1080 TV if I could afford. You probably would too. It probably just boils
    down how much each of us is willing to spend. Hope that makes some sense.

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

    "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:wlJoe.288235$cg1.49982@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:I7Ioe.3147$fp6.2865@twister.nyroc.rr.com...>
    >> Fisrt off, I have seen HD and ED and to me the difference wasn't
    > significant
    >> enough to spend the extra cash. Secondly, I doubt my tv will be obsolete
    > 5
    >> or 10 years from now. Considering the glut of SD material that will
    >> still
    >> be on tv, and that the DVD material right now I would not want to throw
    > away
    >> just so I can respend it on newer HD material for even more money.
    >> People
    >> have made tons of investements in DVDs for the past several years. You
    >> think that will just go away?
    >
    > No, I don't think it will go away. As for DVDs going away, but I have
    > tons
    > of VHS tapes and LP albums as well as old equipment to play them on.
    > Things
    > do get old and obsolete. The major point is if you buy a TV now, it is
    > better to pay a little extra and get a TV that can handle high definition.
    > I
    > am glad I paid extra for an HDTV capable TV. You are glad you didn't pay
    > extra on an HDTV capable TV. My TV is only 1024 x768 pixels. Your TV is
    > only 853 x480 pixels. True high definitoin is 1920 x1080 pixels. So
    > neither
    > of our TVs are true high definition. And we both know prices are going to
    > fall, and the technology is going to improve. I would like to buy a 1920x
    > 1080 TV if I could afford. You probably would too. It probably just boils
    > down how much each of us is willing to spend. Hope that makes some sense.

    Yes it does. I've been reading about some exciting new technologies too
    that promise much cheaper tv's. They are talking about 800$ 42 inch HDTV's
    in a few years. Who knows if that will happen.

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

    Thumper <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:kuf6a197k2a95snenmv5tcfvvicdsds72b@4ax.com:

    > On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 13:15:50 -0400, "Randy Sweeney"
    > <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
    >>> Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not
    >>> standing with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store),
    >>> probably can't tell the difference, or at least the difference is
    >>> subtle.
    >>
    This troll comes up every 3 or 4 months damming HDTV over EDTV why do you
    guys always fall for it>
  28. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Ski" <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote in message

    > This troll comes up every 3 or 4 months damming HDTV over EDTV why do you
    > guys always fall for it>

    because some people might believe it
  29. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:7wFoe.287583$cg1.76691@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    > news:0gFoe.24742$J12.3173@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    >> "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    >> news:Estoe.893169$w62.780615@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >> >
    >> > EDTV is 480p. YOu can put in an HDTV signal like 1080i, or 720 p, but
    > all
    >> > you will ever see on the EDTV is 480p.
    >> >
    >> > My Costco Pioneer 4312 when given HDTV 1080i, puts out 768p, and I am
    >> > amazed. I am underwhelmed when watching a DVD movie (probably 480i or
    > p)
    >> > or
    >> > watching a 480i TV signal. And 768p is close, but still is not true
    > high
    >> > def. True high def. is 1080i or 1080p.
    >> >
    >> > Hope that makes a little sense.
    >> > noone
    >> >
    >> >
    >>
    >> I hate to break it to you, but 720 X 1280 is "true" high definition.
    >>
    >> Phil
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Actually, 1920 x 1080 is true high def. And I really really can't afford
    > that.
    > noone
    >
    >

    Actually, BOTH 720 and 1080 are HDTV. 720p is usually considered to be
    better for action and sports, whereas 1080i may be better for more "static"
    content. But, like I said, 720 and 1080 are both considered HD, so I don't
    know what you mean my "true" HD - they both are.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    In article <fu17a1183dupqt622duu46l0em8os67go3@4ax.com> Thumper <jaylsmith@comcast.net> writes:
    >On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:50:18 GMT, Ski <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote:

    >I'll guarantee you that if you go into a Costco for instance you will
    >have to walk by the TV section to shop and 99% of those HDtvs are
    >showing SD.

    Gee, it looks like a HD Satellite feed in Redwood CIty, Foster City, Mountain View, and
    Santa Clara. Of the 4 I have visited in the last month, all 4 were HD.

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

    In article <fu17a1183dupqt622duu46l0em8os67go3@4ax.com> Thumper <jaylsmith@comcast.net> writes:

    >I'll guarantee you that if you go into a Costco for instance you will
    >have to walk by the TV section to shop and 99% of those HDtvs are
    >showing SD. You probably aren't looking for a tv but will certainly
    >look and get the impression that the picture on the SD sets are as
    >goos as HD.
    >Thumper

    I the last month I have been in 4 Costco stores. All had HD signals.

    What you say used to be true. Doesn't seem so any more.

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

    On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 05:26:13 +0000 (UTC), nospam@w6yx.stanford.edu
    (Alan) wrote:

    >In article <fu17a1183dupqt622duu46l0em8os67go3@4ax.com> Thumper <jaylsmith@comcast.net> writes:
    >>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:50:18 GMT, Ski <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I'll guarantee you that if you go into a Costco for instance you will
    >>have to walk by the TV section to shop and 99% of those HDtvs are
    >>showing SD.
    >
    > Gee, it looks like a HD Satellite feed in Redwood CIty, Foster City, Mountain View, and
    >Santa Clara. Of the 4 I have visited in the last month, all 4 were HD.
    >
    > Alan


    Every Costco I visit has dvd's feeding most of the tvs. I guess their
    theory is that you can compare ntsc sets with edtv etc. Usually only
    the most expensive set is showing HD.
    Thumper
  33. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 05:28:52 +0000 (UTC), nospam@w6yx.stanford.edu
    (Alan) wrote:

    >In article <fu17a1183dupqt622duu46l0em8os67go3@4ax.com> Thumper <jaylsmith@comcast.net> writes:
    >
    >>I'll guarantee you that if you go into a Costco for instance you will
    >>have to walk by the TV section to shop and 99% of those HDtvs are
    >>showing SD. You probably aren't looking for a tv but will certainly
    >>look and get the impression that the picture on the SD sets are as
    >>goos as HD.
    >>Thumper
    >
    > I the last month I have been in 4 Costco stores. All had HD signals.
    >
    > What you say used to be true. Doesn't seem so any more.
    >
    > Alan
    Where YOU live.
    Thumper
  34. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    J&D Schnoor wrote:
    > Does anyone have any speculation on whether EDTV will be around for very
    > long or will the prices on HDTV eventually make EDTVs as scarce as 8-track
    > tape [layers.
    >
    >
    You'll never see "HD" sets under 30"...so what are you going to put on
    your kitchen counter.
    IMHO HD sets under 60" are a waste...you just don't get the visual
    bang...so there will always be a place for small screen digital capable
    sets....what you mistakenly call ED.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
    news:kkZoe.60461$lQ3.26635@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
    > J&D Schnoor wrote:
    >> Does anyone have any speculation on whether EDTV will be around for very
    >> long or will the prices on HDTV eventually make EDTVs as scarce as
    >> 8-track tape [layers.
    > You'll never see "HD" sets under 30"...so what are you going to put on
    > your kitchen counter.
    > IMHO HD sets under 60" are a waste...you just don't get the visual
    > bang...so there will always be a place for small screen digital capable
    > sets....what you mistakenly call ED.

    FWIW, I had gotten a small HD set for our kitchen, and doing a comparison
    between SD and HD, there was no difference. The only reason we are getting
    into HD and ED is to get a satisfying view when watching on a large screen.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:54:50 +0000, Phil Ross wrote:

    >
    > "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    > news:7wFoe.287583$cg1.76691@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>
    >> "Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >> news:0gFoe.24742$J12.3173@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    >>> "nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:Estoe.893169$w62.780615@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>> >
    >>> > EDTV is 480p. YOu can put in an HDTV signal like 1080i, or 720 p, but
    >> all
    >>> > you will ever see on the EDTV is 480p.
    >>> >
    >>> > My Costco Pioneer 4312 when given HDTV 1080i, puts out 768p, and I am
    >>> > amazed. I am underwhelmed when watching a DVD movie (probably 480i or
    >> p)
    >>> > or
    >>> > watching a 480i TV signal. And 768p is close, but still is not true
    >> high
    >>> > def. True high def. is 1080i or 1080p.
    >>> >
    >>> > Hope that makes a little sense.
    >>> > noone
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>>
    >>> I hate to break it to you, but 720 X 1280 is "true" high definition.
    >>>
    >>> Phil
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >> Actually, 1920 x 1080 is true high def. And I really really can't afford
    >> that.
    >> noone
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Actually, BOTH 720 and 1080 are HDTV. 720p is usually considered to be
    > better for action and sports, whereas 1080i may be better for more "static"
    > content. But, like I said, 720 and 1080 are both considered HD, so I don't
    > know what you mean my "true" HD - they both are.

    Well if you accept the ATSC specifications as the standard.
    480 is Standard Definition
    720 is Enhanced Definition
    1080 is High Definition

    Its become common practice to call anything higher than Standard
    Definition HDTV.

    Most Thin screen LCD and Plasma sets sold in the past couple of years are
    720 HDTV sets.

    --
    Korbin Dallas
    The name was changed to protect the guilty.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Korbin Dallas wrote:
    > On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:54:50 +0000, Phil Ross wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    >>news:7wFoe.287583$cg1.76691@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>
    >>>"Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:0gFoe.24742$J12.3173@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    >>>
    >>>>"nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:Estoe.893169$w62.780615@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>>>
    >>>>>EDTV is 480p. YOu can put in an HDTV signal like 1080i, or 720 p, but
    >>>
    >>>all
    >>>
    >>>>>you will ever see on the EDTV is 480p.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>My Costco Pioneer 4312 when given HDTV 1080i, puts out 768p, and I am
    >>>>>amazed. I am underwhelmed when watching a DVD movie (probably 480i or
    >>>
    >>>p)
    >>>
    >>>>>or
    >>>>>watching a 480i TV signal. And 768p is close, but still is not true
    >>>
    >>>high
    >>>
    >>>>>def. True high def. is 1080i or 1080p.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Hope that makes a little sense.
    >>>>>noone
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>I hate to break it to you, but 720 X 1280 is "true" high definition.
    >>>>
    >>>>Phil
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Actually, 1920 x 1080 is true high def. And I really really can't afford
    >>>that.
    >>>noone
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>Actually, BOTH 720 and 1080 are HDTV. 720p is usually considered to be
    >>better for action and sports, whereas 1080i may be better for more "static"
    >>content. But, like I said, 720 and 1080 are both considered HD, so I don't
    >>know what you mean my "true" HD - they both are.
    >
    >
    > Well if you accept the ATSC specifications as the standard.
    > 480 is Standard Definition
    > 720 is Enhanced Definition
    > 1080 is High Definition

    From memory the ATSC standard for HDTV is 720P and 1080i. There is no
    ATSC standard called Enhanced Definition and 480i is Standard
    Definition. In Australia they consider 576P HDTV.

    Enhanced Definition or EDTV is commonly thought to be 480P though not by
    any standard that I know of.

    >
    > Its become common practice to call anything higher than Standard Definition HDTV.

    I don't think it is common practice. I think that many don't know the
    difference.
    >
    > Most Thin screen LCD and Plasma sets sold in the past couple of years are 720 HDTV sets.
    >

    And very many of them were 480P sets, like 60% of 42" Plasma sets in the
    4th quarter of 2004 were 480P. And most projectors and rear projectors
    were 720P sets. In fact most digital sets sold that were not CRT were
    720P or 480P. Most 1080i sets were CRTs. And very few sets of any kind
    have been sold that can actually handle the full resolution of HDTV at
    1080i and even fewer that can handle "full" HDTV or 1080P.

    Reason being that most people can't tell the difference between HDTV and
    EDTV on any set 42" or lower. A 42" EDTV plasma will look better with
    480i, upconverted 480P DVD and real 480P than a 42" HDTV plasma with the
    same sources. A 720P source will look 10 to 15% better on the 42" HD
    plasma and a 1080i signal downconverted to the 480P 42" EDTV and 768 42"
    HDTV will be closer to a draw except with the better scalers.

    You have to go substantially larger than 42" for the benefit of real HD
    to kick in IMO.

    So a whole lot of people like 60% choose to save the bucks and buy the
    ED plasma set at 42" and under.

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

    On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 04:25:01 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
    wrote:

    >Korbin Dallas wrote:
    >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:54:50 +0000, Phil Ross wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:7wFoe.287583$cg1.76691@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>>
    >>>>"Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >>>>news:0gFoe.24742$J12.3173@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>>"nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:Estoe.893169$w62.780615@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>EDTV is 480p. YOu can put in an HDTV signal like 1080i, or 720 p, but
    >>>>
    >>>>all
    >>>>
    >>>>>>you will ever see on the EDTV is 480p.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>My Costco Pioneer 4312 when given HDTV 1080i, puts out 768p, and I am
    >>>>>>amazed. I am underwhelmed when watching a DVD movie (probably 480i or
    >>>>
    >>>>p)
    >>>>
    >>>>>>or
    >>>>>>watching a 480i TV signal. And 768p is close, but still is not true
    >>>>
    >>>>high
    >>>>
    >>>>>>def. True high def. is 1080i or 1080p.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Hope that makes a little sense.
    >>>>>>noone
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I hate to break it to you, but 720 X 1280 is "true" high definition.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Phil
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Actually, 1920 x 1080 is true high def. And I really really can't afford
    >>>>that.
    >>>>noone
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Actually, BOTH 720 and 1080 are HDTV. 720p is usually considered to be
    >>>better for action and sports, whereas 1080i may be better for more "static"
    >>>content. But, like I said, 720 and 1080 are both considered HD, so I don't
    >>>know what you mean my "true" HD - they both are.
    >>
    >>
    >> Well if you accept the ATSC specifications as the standard.
    >> 480 is Standard Definition
    >> 720 is Enhanced Definition
    >> 1080 is High Definition
    >
    > From memory the ATSC standard for HDTV is 720P and 1080i. There is no
    >ATSC standard called Enhanced Definition and 480i is Standard
    >Definition. In Australia they consider 576P HDTV.
    >
    >Enhanced Definition or EDTV is commonly thought to be 480P though not by
    >any standard that I know of.
    >
    >>
    >> Its become common practice to call anything higher than Standard Definition HDTV.
    >
    >I don't think it is common practice. I think that many don't know the
    >difference.
    >>
    >> Most Thin screen LCD and Plasma sets sold in the past couple of years are 720 HDTV sets.
    >>
    >
    >And very many of them were 480P sets, like 60% of 42" Plasma sets in the
    >4th quarter of 2004 were 480P. And most projectors and rear projectors
    >were 720P sets. In fact most digital sets sold that were not CRT were
    >720P or 480P. Most 1080i sets were CRTs. And very few sets of any kind
    >have been sold that can actually handle the full resolution of HDTV at
    >1080i and even fewer that can handle "full" HDTV or 1080P.
    >
    >Reason being that most people can't tell the difference between HDTV and
    >EDTV on any set 42" or lower.

    Nonsense. That is simply not true.
    Thumper


    ..A 42" EDTV plasma will look better with
    >480i, upconverted 480P DVD and real 480P than a 42" HDTV plasma with the
    >same sources. A 720P source will look 10 to 15% better on the 42" HD
    >plasma and a 1080i signal downconverted to the 480P 42" EDTV and 768 42"
    >HDTV will be closer to a draw except with the better scalers.
    >
    >You have to go substantially larger than 42" for the benefit of real HD
    >to kick in IMO.
    >
    >So a whole lot of people like 60% choose to save the bucks and buy the
    >ED plasma set at 42" and under.
    >
    >Bob Miller
  39. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    "Korbin Dallas" <korbindallas@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.06.07.00.30.45.514134@dodgeit.com...
    > On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:54:50 +0000, Phil Ross wrote:
    >
    >>
    > Well if you accept the ATSC specifications as the standard.
    > 480 is Standard Definition
    > 720 is Enhanced Definition
    > 1080 is High Definition
    >
    > Its become common practice to call anything higher than Standard
    > Definition HDTV.
    >
    > Most Thin screen LCD and Plasma sets sold in the past couple of years are
    > 720 HDTV sets.
    >
    > --
    > Korbin Dallas
    > The name was changed to protect the guilty.
    >
    Sorry, chief, you are mistaken... You need to go back and check your source

    480i is Standard Definition
    480p is "Enhanced Definition"
    720 is High Definition
    1080 is High Definition
  40. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Thumper wrote:
    > On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 04:25:01 GMT, Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Korbin Dallas wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:54:50 +0000, Phil Ross wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:7wFoe.287583$cg1.76691@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>"Phil Ross" <paross@pacbell.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:0gFoe.24742$J12.3173@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>"nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>news:Estoe.893169$w62.780615@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>EDTV is 480p. YOu can put in an HDTV signal like 1080i, or 720 p, but
    >>>>>
    >>>>>all
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>you will ever see on the EDTV is 480p.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>My Costco Pioneer 4312 when given HDTV 1080i, puts out 768p, and I am
    >>>>>>>amazed. I am underwhelmed when watching a DVD movie (probably 480i or
    >>>>>
    >>>>>p)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>or
    >>>>>>>watching a 480i TV signal. And 768p is close, but still is not true
    >>>>>
    >>>>>high
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>def. True high def. is 1080i or 1080p.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Hope that makes a little sense.
    >>>>>>>noone
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>I hate to break it to you, but 720 X 1280 is "true" high definition.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Phil
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Actually, 1920 x 1080 is true high def. And I really really can't afford
    >>>>>that.
    >>>>>noone
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Actually, BOTH 720 and 1080 are HDTV. 720p is usually considered to be
    >>>>better for action and sports, whereas 1080i may be better for more "static"
    >>>>content. But, like I said, 720 and 1080 are both considered HD, so I don't
    >>>>know what you mean my "true" HD - they both are.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Well if you accept the ATSC specifications as the standard.
    >>> 480 is Standard Definition
    >>> 720 is Enhanced Definition
    >>> 1080 is High Definition
    >>
    >>From memory the ATSC standard for HDTV is 720P and 1080i. There is no
    >>ATSC standard called Enhanced Definition and 480i is Standard
    >>Definition. In Australia they consider 576P HDTV.
    >>
    >>Enhanced Definition or EDTV is commonly thought to be 480P though not by
    >>any standard that I know of.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Its become common practice to call anything higher than Standard Definition HDTV.
    >>
    >>I don't think it is common practice. I think that many don't know the
    >>difference.
    >>
    >>>Most Thin screen LCD and Plasma sets sold in the past couple of years are 720 HDTV sets.
    >>>
    >>
    >>And very many of them were 480P sets, like 60% of 42" Plasma sets in the
    >>4th quarter of 2004 were 480P. And most projectors and rear projectors
    >>were 720P sets. In fact most digital sets sold that were not CRT were
    >>720P or 480P. Most 1080i sets were CRTs. And very few sets of any kind
    >>have been sold that can actually handle the full resolution of HDTV at
    >>1080i and even fewer that can handle "full" HDTV or 1080P.
    >>
    >>Reason being that most people can't tell the difference between HDTV and
    >>EDTV on any set 42" or lower.
    >
    >
    > Nonsense. That is simply not true.
    > Thumper

    Not true? Well it is for Star56 on AVSForum who went to some trouble to
    "SEE" the difference between ED and HD on a 42" and came to the
    conclusion that he "couldn't rationalize getting poorer PQ on the HD
    sets at more money."

    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5738931&&#post5738931

    "I highly recommend the Panny Pd50 EDTV. Very highly.

    I spent lots of time comparing various HD plasma's to the Panny Pd50. My
    final comparison involved watching 14 Plasmas.....all lined up in two
    rows of 7 each.

    The Panny simply looked spectacular with a 1080i feed. To my eyes...it
    was the best on the wall.

    I had the cash to get a HD 42incher...I was planning to get an HD
    42incher...I was NEVER goint to get an ED set.....until I saw the
    Panny...I couldn't rationalize getting poorer PQ on the HD sets at more
    money.

    ALso...I watch the Panny from 7ft and HD material is outstanding.

    So as I said it is TRUE for many people. For a lot of the 60% of those
    who buy 42" ED plasmas.

    Bob Miller


    >
    >
    >
    >
    > .A 42" EDTV plasma will look better with
    >
    >>480i, upconverted 480P DVD and real 480P than a 42" HDTV plasma with the
    >>same sources. A 720P source will look 10 to 15% better on the 42" HD
    >>plasma and a 1080i signal downconverted to the 480P 42" EDTV and 768 42"
    >>HDTV will be closer to a draw except with the better scalers.
    >>
    >>You have to go substantially larger than 42" for the benefit of real HD
    >>to kick in IMO.
    >>
    >>So a whole lot of people like 60% choose to save the bucks and buy the
    >>ED plasma set at 42" and under.
    >>
    >>Bob Miller
    >
    >
  41. Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

    Bob Miller wrote:

    >>
    >> Nonsense. That is simply not true.
    >> Thumper
    >
    >
    > Not true? Well it is for Star56 on AVSForum who went to some trouble to
    > "SEE" the difference between ED and HD on a 42" and came to the
    > conclusion that he "couldn't rationalize getting poorer PQ on the HD
    > sets at more money."
    >
    > http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5738931&&#post5738931
    >
    > "I highly recommend the Panny Pd50 EDTV. Very highly.
    >
    > I spent lots of time comparing various HD plasma's to the Panny Pd50. My
    > final comparison involved watching 14 Plasmas.....all lined up in two
    > rows of 7 each.
    >
    > The Panny simply looked spectacular with a 1080i feed. To my eyes...it
    > was the best on the wall.
    >
    > I had the cash to get a HD 42incher...I was planning to get an HD
    > 42incher...I was NEVER goint to get an ED set.....until I saw the
    > Panny...I couldn't rationalize getting poorer PQ on the HD sets at more
    > money.
    >
    > ALso...I watch the Panny from 7ft and HD material is outstanding."
    >
    > So as I said it is TRUE for many people. For a lot of the 60% of those
    > who buy 42" ED plasmas.
    >
    > Bob Miller

    Oops forgot the quote " sign after- outstanding-.

    Bob Miller
Ask a new question

Read More

HDTV TV Home Theatre