Recommended Posts

In cost versus performance, I've never valued high definition enough that would make it worth purchasing at this point in time. Largely, there is simply not enough of a perceived difference for me to increase my level of entertainment. I do notice a slight change in quality, but it is hardly worth the price to me for that slightness. Keep in mind, I do sell electronics, especially high definition televisions, and I am aware of the details.

This is pointless. You will NOT need to upgrade to HD in 2009, your old tv's will work fine. If you don't want an HD tv don't ****ing get one. Simple as that.

Digital != HD

True, but old tv's will only work if you buy a digital converter box, or if the television has an atsc tuner built in.

BTW, no one here failed to mention the problems HDTVs have. My uncle bought one 5 months ago and ever since then, he's had nothing but problems. Sometimes, he gets picture with no sound or sound with no picture. And very frequently, his HD cable freezes. He's been whining about the hassle for so long. Looks to me like a lot of trouble.

That's why you look for a good name brand as well as reviews. Should you have any issues from there, you call up the manufacturer. This is the same procedure with any product. I don't understand the argument you're trying bring here. Your uncle had some problems so all HDTVs are bad? Man, if I applied that idea to.. well, any product, I wouldn't buy anything!

HDTVs are not bad and not that much more expensive honestly. I'm currently looking at getting a new TV myself and was amazed by some of the deals I could find.

If you don't care for the picture quality and don't need a TV, then don't worry about it. It's merely a step up in the technology world as Audioboxer stated. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be using the same quality of technology we have now 10+ years down the line.

I repeat. You people must have pretty bad SDTVs because mine aren't that blurry.

Your missing the point... more pixels = better detail, wider view, etc...

I notice the best of HD when watching art shows... where you can really see the detail. Nature shows on NATGeo are also stunning.

Another example I like to use is a house. On the news when watching standard definition you really can't see the siding unless really zoomed in. On HD you can be conisderably far away from the house and see each row of siding.

Sports also are great... we'll use basketball as the example. Lets bring that wider view in... instead of seeing just some of the court... your seeing the whole thing... the whole picture. So in other words... it's like being there.

Not to mention the color on an HD is a ton more vivid.

Don't even get me started on the advantages of sound etc... when it comes to bluray etc.

Another annoyance with SD 4:3 tubes are the 16x9 widescreen bars. Shows like conan and jay leno fill that are recorded in 16:9 fill the entire screen with HD...

But it looks like your so stuck on SD you refuse to see the advantages. Well hope you enjoy your new SD tube... while I enjoy my HD flat panel watching shows and having that feeling of being right there in the action.

But now that you have been corrected... you are only responding to the posts where people agree with you.

You will have to excuse me. This thread gets 100 posts per minute so I can only respond to selected posts.

That's why you look for a good name brand as well as reviews. Should you have any issues from there, you call up the manufacturer. This is the same procedure with any product. I don't understand the argument you're trying bring here. Your uncle had some problems so all HDTVs are bad? Man, if I applied that idea to.. well, any product, I wouldn't buy anything!

It's a Sony Bravia. Last I checked, it's one of the best HDTVs out there.

In cost versus performance, I've never valued high definition enough that would make it worth purchasing at this point in time. Largely, there is simply not enough of a perceived difference for me to increase my level of entertainment. I do notice a slight change in quality, but it is hardly worth the price to me for that slightness. Keep in mind, I do sell electronics, especially high definition televisions, and I am aware of the details.

Exactly.

It's a Sony Bravia. Last I checked, it's one of the best HDTVs out there.

But you are acting like there is a widespread problem with HDTV's based off of 1 person you know having one with problems. That makes no sense at all. I have 4 LCD televisions in my house and not one of them has had a single problem at all. But I'm aware that problems can exist like with all electronics. But that doesn't make it the norm.

But you are acting like there is a widespread problem with HDTV's based off of 1 person you know having one with problems. That makes no sense at all. I have 4 LCD televisions in my house and not one of them has had a single problem at all. But I'm aware that problems can exist like with all electronics. But that doesn't make it the norm.

If you look at my post, you will see that the issue is not just on the TV, but also on the HD cable service as well. Freezing pictures is a awful problem to deal with. Sometimes, he'll switch to a channel, it will say "please wait" and the picture will take a while to come up. When it does, it then freezes. That happens a lot, according to him. And the remote for the HD cable service is gigantic too, he said.

If you look at my post, you will see that the issue is not just on the TV, but also on the HD cable service as well. Freezing pictures is a awful problem to deal with. Sometimes, he'll switch to a channel, it will say "please wait" and the picture will take a while to come up. When it does, it then freezes. That happens a lot, according to him. And the remote for the HD cable service is gigantic too, he said.

It sounds like its more of a cable box problem than a tv problem...

If you look at my post, you will see that the issue is not just on the TV, but also on the HD cable service as well. Freezing pictures is a awful problem to deal with. Sometimes, he'll switch to a channel, it will say "please wait" and the picture will take a while to come up. When it does, it then freezes. That happens a lot, according to him. And the remote for the HD cable service is gigantic too, he said.

Your uncle's experience != everybody else's

I have an HD satellite service and I've not had a single problem with freezing or any of the other issues you said.

HD is not necessary and never has been. It may be later on, but for the time being it's down to personal preference. If you don't like it or don't see the point, then fine, that's your opinion, but don't dare insinuate that those of us that have it and like it are getting worked up over something that's "silly." That's as bad as saying that having a Pentium 4 when it was still cutting edge was "silly," as computers still worked fine and did the job. If everybody thought that way, we'd still be working with abacuses.

I like the huge amount of extra detail, but never have I said it's necessary, and I've never heard anybody else make that claim.

Look, the only answer you seem to want here is that HDTV is crap/useless/illogical decision to buy. We are all fools (lets call us early adopters) to like the better picture of HDTV and paying more for it.

Anybody telling you otherwise you crap on them. So what's the point to your question? Trying to prove how smart you are for not wanting HDTV because it's really not that better than SDTV?

And like many others here have said : DON'T BUY ONE if you don't need it (or too poor to buy one, jealous maybe?).

There are SD tv's that are pretty much as good as HDTV's, but they still cost +- 600$

In my opinion the picture on those SD tv's is a little better.

umm... I don't think it's an opinion based thing really. A picture is better because it has more pixels and a higher resolution.

For me HD certainly isn't necessary. The only reason I'd want one is for gaming, I don't have Blu-ray or any HD TV yet.

If you look at my post, you will see that the issue is not just on the TV, but also on the HD cable service as well. Freezing pictures is a awful problem to deal with. Sometimes, he'll switch to a channel, it will say "please wait" and the picture will take a while to come up. When it does, it then freezes. That happens a lot, according to him. And the remote for the HD cable service is gigantic too, he said.

If that happens then he has a signal problem. Most likely due to the cable wiring in his house. In most cases old splitters were probably used and need to be replaced.

If everyone had these problems then why would anyone use HD services?

As for the remote being "gigantic"...wtf? That's just his opinion. Once again, it does not mean it is true or bothersome to others. I personally use a Logitech harmony Remote so that is totally irrelevant in my case.

I've had HD service for almost 3 years now, and never had a single problem like the one your uncle is having. For me it comes to preference. My old SD TV died after almost 20 years of use and I wanted a HD flat panel. I didn't have to buy one but in big screens the HD really does help and after a while going back to see standard res programing just feels blurry and less vibrant.

It sounds like its more of a cable box problem than a tv problem...

Exactly, I wouldn't be surprised if the problem was traced to an old splitter (or a relatively new splitter from a dollar store).

He may need to replace it with a 5-900MHz rated splitter with a low db loss. One should try to get the total household db loss under 12 or 15 db. Analog cable tv is a bit more forgiving and works up to about 20db.

He should check with his cable provider for more details (or specific details for his region).

I have to say, HDTV looks almost no different than SD but I could just be really blind. It seems to me like a dual core setup computer, they tell you it's so much faster and better just to get you to buy it and in reality there's almost no noticeable difference. I've always wondering how when you see a commercial and they show you the difference between HD and SD content, how the hell can you see a difference if you don't have HD? You're watching it on SD therefore the HD shouldn't be visible. It's just like these graphics cards, they always show how much better they're supposed to see. Yeah if they're so much better, how will I see a difference viewing the demos on my current setup? It really confuses the hell out of me how they figure this works. It's like they just distort it really bad and then use the normal one to show the contrast. But is it really that much different? Not that I've witnessed; by a long shot. In my opinion, they just want your money.

I have to say, HDTV looks almost no different than SD but I could just be really blind. It seems to me like a dual core setup computer, they tell you it's so much faster and better just to get you to buy it and in reality there's almost no noticeable difference. I've always wondering how when you see a commercial and they show you the difference between HD and SD content, how the hell can you see a difference if you don't have HD? You're watching it on SD therefore the HD shouldn't be visible. It's just like these graphics cards, they always show how much better they're supposed to see. Yeah if they're so much better, how will I see a difference viewing the demos on my current setup? It really confuses the hell out of me how they figure this works. It's like they just distort it really bad and then use the normal one to show the contrast. But is it really that much different? Not that I've witnessed; by a long shot. In my opinion, they just want your money.

when playing a PC game, which would you rather use, 640x480 or 1280x1024? the different between SD and HD is the same.

I would also point out that SDTV signals do not look worse on a HDTV television. Yes, the programs are designed for a 4:3 screen and not a 16:9 so that end up wasting some screen real estate with horizontal bars. The result of which will make a 20" HDTV seem smaller than a 20" analog TV.

If the image looks poorer than a normal analog TV then it is likely that the homeowner has enabled zooming or stretching. Of course, any self-respecting HDTV would never enable zooming or stretching because it either clips material from the top and bottom or distorts the image horizontally (making everyone look short and fat).

In terms of it looking "better than real life", no the person doesn't need glasses for real life. If you watch a baseball game then there is a bit of a weird experience where images in the background seem to be almost as in focus as the stuff in the immediate foreground. Normal eyes don't work that well.

That's as bad as saying that having a Pentium 4 when it was still cutting edge was "silly," as computers still worked fine and did the job. If everybody thought that way, we'd still be working with abacuses.

Well, you're talking about a speed difference. Watching on an HDTV is not going to make anything run faster.

I've had HD service for almost 3 years now, and never had a single problem like the one your uncle is having. For me it comes to preference. My old SD TV died after almost 20 years of use and I wanted a HD flat panel. I didn't have to buy one but in big screens the HD really does help and after a while going back to see standard res programing just feels blurry and less vibrant.

With your case, that's a different story. You needed a new TV since your old one died. However, majority of people buy an HDTV when their older SDTV still works just fine.

Are people buying HDTV and not hooking it up to HD sources? What's with the grouchy, "I can't see any difference!" crowd here? The clarity is obvious if you have both... I have 150 SD channels and 40 HD channels on my cable network, I rarely watch any of the SD anymore, the HD is so much better that if nothing is on I just turn the TV off or turn on the PS3.

I have to say, HDTV looks almost no different than SD but I could just be really blind. It seems to me like a dual core setup computer, they tell you it's so much faster and better just to get you to buy it and in reality there's almost no noticeable difference. I've always wondering how when you see a commercial and they show you the difference between HD and SD content, how the hell can you see a difference if you don't have HD? You're watching it on SD therefore the HD shouldn't be visible. It's just like these graphics cards, they always show how much better they're supposed to see. Yeah if they're so much better, how will I see a difference viewing the demos on my current setup? It really confuses the hell out of me how they figure this works. It's like they just distort it really bad and then use the normal one to show the contrast. But is it really that much different? Not that I've witnessed; by a long shot. In my opinion, they just want your money.

Exactly. Besides, while I do see a difference in quality with HD vs. SD, I don't like the motion blur in HDTVs and I find the picture too dark.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Stellarium 26.2 by Razvan Serea Stellarium is a free open source planetarium for your computer. It shows a realistic sky in 3D, just like what you see with the naked eye, binoculars or a telescope. It is being used in planetarium projectors. Just set your coordinates and go. Stellarium key features: Realistic simulation of the sky, sunrise and sunset Default catalogue of over 600,000 stars Downloadable additional catalogues for up to 210 million stars Catalog data for all New General Catalogue (NGC) objects Images of almost all Messier objects and the Milky Way Artistic illustrations for all 88 modern constellations More than a dozen different cultures with their constellations Solar and lunar eclipse simulation Photorealistic landscapes (more are available on the website) Scripting support with ECMAScript (a few demo scripts are included) Extendable with plug-ins: 8 plug-ins installed by default, including: artificial satellites plug-in (updated from an on-line TLE database) ocular simulation plug-in (shows how objects look like in a given ocular) Solar System editor plug-in (imports comet and asteroid data from the MPC) telescope control plug-in (Meade LX200 and Celestron NexStar compatible) The major changes of this version: Added new sky culture Added new plugin: Planes Many improvements in plugins Many improvements in Core and GUI Many updates in sky cultures. [full release notes] Download: Stellarium 26.2 (64-bit) | 456.0 MB (Open Source) View: Stellarium Home Page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      418
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!