Forums | MacLife

justine wrote:

Orion wrote:

I have a Phillips Magnavox TV from about 1997-98 sitting in my entertainment center.  The only thing it gets used for is watching DVD's.  I don't even have the antenna cable hooked up anymore.  Broadcast TV sucks, and cable isn't any better.  I really want to get a HD TV, but I really can't justify it at today's prices.

HD tvs are already pretty cheap.

Cheap is a relative term.  I can replace the TV I currently have for about $150 or even less if I get an off brand.  A comparable HD set starts at $900.  So, no, its not cheap yet.

A coworker of mine has 4 HD sets in her house. Three of them were only about $550. Costco currently has 4 HD tvs online for under $500. So, yeah, they're pretty cheap. I'm not saying they're comparable to what you have now, because they aren't. They're HD.

wellfleation wrote:

I hear analog TV still looks smurfy on plasmas.

It does.  It looks like a realplayer stream.

All that said, HDTV is pretty amazing.  It's so clear I have trouble comprehending it sometimes.

We just have a big plain-Jane TV here, 32" and only cost $250 about three years ago. Still using a 17" CRT monitor that's nearing its tenth birthday.

I'll probably have an HDTV when that fancy Japanese Ultra High Def technology becomes standardized, lol

jeff-o wrote:

wellfleation wrote:

I hear analog TV still looks smurfy on plasmas.

It does.  It looks like a realplayer stream.

Not on mine.  My cable box does the conversion of SD from 480i to 480p and all of the SD channels look better than my old 32" CRT.

Anyone who thinks their 480i or 480p up-converted to HD is going to look as good as a native HD source is hallucinating.  It just won't happen, ever.

HD sets are pretty safe to get now.  Anything 42" and above you should get a 1080p panel, the smaller ones it does not really matter.  1080p costs so much to produce I doubt very many things will use except for HD discs (since the source is already much higher) and game consoles.

I have a 32" Sony and it is fine either way, old school analog, almost new school anamorphic DVDs and it looks great with HD sources.

-mark

dvpierce wrote:

I disapprove less of HDTV in general and disapprove more of the tendency towards mating giant screens (and yes, 30"+ is enormous, especially in any house built before 1980) with multi-thousand dollar speaker systems to make those "home theater" setups.

It's crossing the line into fetish territory, imho.

*strokes his A/V equipment furiously*

dvpierce wrote:

It's crossing the line into fetish territory, imho.

Beats what I used to do.

Orion wrote:

justine wrote:

Orion wrote:

I have a Phillips Magnavox TV from about 1997-98 sitting in my entertainment center.  The only thing it gets used for is watching DVD's.  I don't even have the antenna cable hooked up anymore.  Broadcast TV sucks, and cable isn't any better.  I really want to get a HD TV, but I really can't justify it at today's prices.

HD tvs are already pretty cheap.

Cheap is a relative term.  I can replace the TV I currently have for about $150 or even less if I get an off brand.  A comparable HD set starts at $900.  So, no, its not cheap yet.

When adjusted for inflation, TVs, even the 50" plasmas, are much cheaper than the regular TVs that were available in the 70's - mid 80's, and you get a heck of alot more.

wellfleation wrote:

Orion wrote:

justine wrote:

HD tvs are already pretty cheap.

Cheap is a relative term.  I can replace the TV I currently have for about $150 or even less if I get an off brand.  A comparable HD set starts at $900.  So, no, its not cheap yet.

When adjusted for inflation, TVs, even the 50" plasmas, are much cheaper than the regular TVs that were available in the 70's - mid 80's, and you get a heck of alot more.

That may be true, but you are talking to the guy who had a 20 year old B&W TV when he was young (the early '80s), then no TV for 10 years, and then a cheap one when his parents thought that having a VCR to rent movies might be nice.  I never really got into the TV thing.  Most programming is worthless anyway, and cable is useless if I only watch 2-4 of the twentymillionbillion stations I would have to get to have those 2-4 channels.  I focus my time, energy and money into other things that don't involve sitting on a couch eating snacks and gaining weight.... 

Last edited by Orion (2007-11-26 6:14 pm)

I still think that this is the ultimate TV system.

I just cannot warrant the $150 price tag.