Ok, what's so great about HDTV?

[R-Flex]

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.

[+StevoFC MVC]

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.

[Sethos]

By the way, feels odd hearing about these 600$+ prices when I paid 4,200$ for mine :laugh:

[dead.cell]

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.

[shockz]

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.

[DaDude]

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.

[kawasabi]

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.

[+StevoFC MVC]

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.

[DaDude]

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.

[shockz]

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...

[gigapixels Veteran]

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.

[TruckWEB]

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?).

[acies]

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.

[+StevoFC MVC]

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.

[CHALE]

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.

[kyro]

http://www.csmonitor.com/news/images/classics/cartoon11.jpg <<< Made me chuckle (As Seen on Digg BTW).

[Fred Derf Veteran]

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).

[virgo89]

Those are some bad examples. My TV does not look anything like that.

[Kreuger]

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.

[Coldgunner]

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.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

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.

[DaDude]

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.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Would you rather get full, crispy clean picture with vivid colours or watch your shows through that small red box? Coz that's how much more information (in pixels) HD provides over SD.

[Budious]

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.

[DaDude]

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.