Forums | MacLife

I'm waiting for HD to be required on all the broadcast channels. The price for the sets oughta drop some after that, once the first big sell-off takes place.

NAG wrote:

And if you want to know what I think of HD, I only have a Wii for a game console. HD is an overpriced gimmick they've been pushing for years to try to get you to rebuy all your stuff and buy expensive new hardware.

Oh come on, that's absurd.  HD is quite obviously superior to standard definition.  You're free to hold onto the old standard for a few more years, but it's on the way out...and for good reason.

NAG wrote:

Feel free to spend a thousand dollars on a HD set that won't blow itself up after a year. Most of these "reasonably priced" HD sets people link to these days are in a word cheap. Remember the distinction between cheap and inexpensive.

But feel free to think I just hate anything new. Oh that HD is scary. Better looking stuff is evil!

Thanks for emote, good way to have a discussion about how HD/digital has been pushed for the last decade (same benefits they've been pushing) and how they fail to deliver.

For the most part I agree and I have a nice samsung HD DLP setup, but yes HD is for the most part not a good return on investment right now. I mean unless you have an DVDHD or BlueRay device the programming available for HD stations is pretty limited.

The guy mentioning the HD TV looks poor on with his cable, its possible you are seeing your HDTV do a 'conversion' on the regular signal. My HDTV does not display regular channels as well as my old CRT TV but when I'm using an HD signal it more than makes up for it.

I'd say if you are going DLP or LCD then you might as well spend the money (I mean like $1500 and up for a good unit) and be done with it. Otherwise get another CRT TV at a couple of hundred bucks and be good to go for a few more years.

I agree that the $1000 HDTVs are cheap. Case in point I bought a plasma HDTV for $1100 last summer, returned 2 of em' in 2 months before I dropped almost 2 grand on my samsung DLP.

Last edited by HackerJax (2007-02-28 4:18 pm)

I think all the time you spent in mini think fried your reading comprehension.

Okay, here is one part that you seem confused about. The US government has been pushing this digital switch for about 10 years now and they haven't managed to do it. Why? There were promises of cheap digital technology. We're still running around having to buy replacement TV's that cost thousands of dollars (if you don't have a significant other discount) and even then the only content that is readily available requires you to pay a large premium (HD cable/satalite networks) or buy BluRay/HDDVD (which ever one wins, assuming there is a winner).

But again, feel free to be sarcastic and call me an hd hater or whatever (you're coming across as really sarcastic to me, if that isn't your intention, sorry). Who is what now?

There shouldn't be any need to buy new TVs, there are converter boxes available, not that the are inexpensive. One thing people don't realize is the real reason for the switch to HD (digital TV) is to free up bandwidth for other uses, not for better picture quality.

http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html#digitaldifferent

"Converting to DTV will also free up parts of the scarce and valuable broadcast airwaves.  Those portions of the airwaves can then be used for other important services, such as advanced wireless and public safety services (for example, police, fire departments, and rescue squads)."

/Back on topic, I like my Directv the packages seem to be approximately the same. One thing I heard  about Dish, if you don't have a phone line hooked up  to the receiver they charge an additional $5 per month if there is no phone line hooked up. I can not verify this, however.

You do realize that not all gimicks are bad. I'm just having issue with the overpriced ones. There is still the whole content issue as well. Buying an HD set won't magically make everything look better (as is implied by some people).

And since we're going ahead and attacking each other. Okay, look at my post.

I stated my opinion. I think that HD is a gimick being used to try to squeeze money out of people before the product is really ready for widespread use. I mean, they've been on the market for how long now and they're only now getting into the $1000 range for cheap/badly constructed units? That doesn't really inspire me to go out and get one. It is compounded by the latest format war that some people are beginning to think won't have a winner (slow adoption, the DRM is already cracked sort of on them, etc...).

And what is the response you give to me.

The first thing you write.

Wow, thanks. I really appreciate having my opinion laughed at and then implied that I'm a cook who is having personal problems.

Feel free to analyze me all you want, just don't expect me to sit through your emotes.

If you want me to step down from being a mod, say so. I'm getting annoyed by your picking a fight. And again, if I'm wrong about your being mean, then again sorry.

Pariah wrote:

I will worry about getting HD when I can get a 37in HDTV for under $200.
Till then I just dont care.

See you in 10 years if at all. Either that or you will have a Piece of smurf tv. My non-HD 27" Sony flat screen I bought 8 years ago was over $500. It still works great btw. Chances are a $200 37" HD tv will not be working well 3 years after you buy it never mind 10 plus like a good tv will. So what you skimp on then will come back to bite you later, either way you will pay.

HD is not a gimmick.  Unless you think computer monitor resolutions over 640x480 are gimmicks.

More pixels help create a clearer picture.  A small monitor will not show the difference.  A large monitor will.

Most LCD TV panels have had barely enough pixels for HDTV and also poor video processing.  Both done for lower cost.  No problem if low cost is the object.  However if image quality is important then higher cost is justified.

Off Air (Over the Air) HDTV is gorgeous.  Friends who have watched a SuperBowl on my set are immediate converts to HD.  They want HDTV.  If you do not see that quality of image with the display you are using then there is some problem in the display system.

There are many problems with peoples' presumptions about what HDTV delivers.  Most programming is not HD.  Obviously.  There are many broadcasters that do not consistently broadcast HDTV.  Upconversion of standard definition programming is all too common.  So is letterboxing of HD content so that it will frame on both standard and widescreen sets.

Whatever.  Just like all things.  HDTV can be done at varying levels of quality.

TV is just something to entertain us.  No big deal.  If you want a better picture go for HD.  If you don't, don't.

wellfleation wrote:

Pariah wrote:

I will worry about getting HD when I can get a 37in HDTV for under $200.
Till then I just dont care.

See you in 10 years if at all. Either that or you will have a Piece of smurf tv. My non-HD 27" Sony flat screen I bought 8 years ago was over $500. It still works great btw. Chances are a $200 37" HD tv will not be working well 3 years after you buy it never mind 10 plus like a good tv will. So what you skimp on then will come back to bite you later, either way you will pay.

Like I said: I don't care. Honestly I just don't.
I am not making any sort of pro/con argument here I am just apathetic towards TV.
Now 2 years ago when I bought my house I had a breif period of enthusiasm where I was going to build a home theatre but all the secure digital path crap, the uncertainty of how it's going to work and the absolutely CRAP online options (yes, even Apple's) has pushed that little project way to the bottom of the list.