Recommended Posts

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.
Well we got the HD cable box from Rogers a few days after buying the HDTV. I did notice that anything SD on the HDTV looked pixelated (before using the HD cable box) but I have to imagine it was due to it being stretched. Frankly, I would assume the difference I've seen is based on the fact it's a new tv compared to the older one it replaced. It looks brighter, more vivid and stuff (this is on SD too). My brother claims it must be set up wrong and he says I'm blind because he tried showing me the difference on his (which he said is setup right) and I couldn't see it (I had my contact lenses in). To my eyes there is very little difference, definitely not worth the extra money it cost for the damn thing. The reason we bought a new one is to take up less space.
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.

Because the difference isn't that great for us to jump up and jack up the credit card bill for. I've seen HDTVs in stores. Yes, they're clearer, but it's not really that much clearer. I'm not impressed.

Because the difference isn't that great for us to jump up and jack up the credit card bill for. I've seen HDTVs in stores. Yes, they're clearer, but it's not really that much clearer. I'm not impressed.

The problem with your argument is that you're sitting here trying to convince us there's little to no difference. I own a 20" RCA tube from 1998, but I'm well aware of the difference between HD and SD. You can sit and say it's not a difference that you feel is personally worth it and we can't say anything, but to claim that the difference doesn't exist is silly.

As for the darkness of the image or motion blur, that's down to the technology of the TV and not the HD signal. For a guy who seems to love SD CRT's, a plasma would be right up your alley since the technology really is a cousin, of sorts, to CRT technology.

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

It is essentially the same idea. HDTV gives you a better picture, a cutting-edge processor gives you more speed. Neither one is necessary, but they're both nice to have. It's as simple as that.

The problem with your argument is that you're sitting here trying to convince us there's little to no difference. I own a 20" RCA tube from 1998, but I'm well aware of the difference between HD and SD. You can sit and say it's not a difference that you feel is personally worth it and we can't say anything, but to claim that the difference doesn't exist is silly.

As for the darkness of the image or motion blur, that's down to the technology of the TV and not the HD signal. For a guy who seems to love SD CRT's, a plasma would be right up your alley since the technology really is a cousin, of sorts, to CRT technology.

There is a difference, but you said it. It's a difference that I feel is not worth it. And like I said, I hate the motion blur and darkness. And plasmas get burn in and are a huge rip-off.

There is a difference, but you said it. It's a difference that I feel is not worth it. And like I said, I hate the motion blur and darkness. And plasmas get burn in and are a huge rip-off.

once again you have no idea what you are taking about. Plasmas have become cheaper than lcd's in most cases now. and the burn in problems have been fixed on decent brand televisions.

Don't feed me lies. I've been to stores and checked. Plasmas are twice the price of LCDs.

If you compare a 50 inch plasma to a 32 inch lcd then yes you are correct. a 50 inch 120hz lcd will in most cases cost more than a 50 inch plasma tv.

If you compare a 50 inch plasma to a 32 inch lcd then yes you are correct. a 50 inch 120hz lcd will in most cases cost more than a 50 inch plasma tv.

Yeah, and I'm not interested in a 52" TV. And don't get me started on these large TVs. I don't understand why people buy TVs that are so big, ie 50"+. TVs that big just look fuzzy in picture.

So you don't like HDTV. Great. So you started this thread why? Especially if you are just going to argue mute points.

HDTV is worth it for my 360 alone. If you don't think so, cool, thats your opinion.

I'd recommend this thread gets closed. The OP obviously isnt here for help and is just trying to stir up trouble

Yeah, and I'm not interested in a 52" TV. And don't get me started on these large TVs. I don't understand why people buy TVs that are so big, ie 50"+. TVs that big just look fuzzy in picture.

:|

:o

:laugh:

That is why HD exists my friend....

*sigh*

As for people buying TV's that big, maybe they just want a bigger picture? The bigger the screen, the more cinema like the experience.

Yeah, and I'm not interested in a 52" TV. And don't get me started on these large TVs. I don't understand why people buy TVs that are so big, ie 50"+. TVs that big just look fuzzy in picture.

50 inch HD televisions are not fuzzy at all.

So you don't like HDTV. Great. So you started this thread why? Especially if you are just going to argue mute points.

HDTV is worth it for my 360 alone. If you don't think so, cool, thats your opinion.

I'd recommend this thread gets closed. The OP obviously isnt here for help and is just trying to stir up trouble

Fine, close it. Because I didn't realize this thread would cause so much trouble. But apparently it is and that wasn't my intent. I started this thread to ask people why they like HDTVs because I don't get what's so great about it. Rather, people just insult me and call me blind for not being impressed by its "amazing picture."

Don't feed me lies. I've been to stores and checked. Plasmas are twice the price of LCDs.

Now all your credibility is shot... where are you shopping??? Because plasmas are for sure lower priced than a comparable lcd. You can get a 720p 50 inch plasma around 1200-1500 bucks... a 52 inch LCD (abit 1080p) can start from 2200 and go up from there. A 1080p 50" plasma is about 1700.

Not to mention decent brand plasmas like panasonic and samsung don't really burn in any more (see pixel shift/orbiter)... and pioneer blows almost any lcd away.

Plasma is far superior to LCD except for energy usage and screen glare which really isn't that bad. Calibrations can also reduce the energy usage. A lot.

LCD Pros - No glass screen (but when light does shine on it... good luck seeing anything decent) less energy usage.

LCD Cons - Motion blur (even on 120hz), greys instead of pure blacks

Plasma Pros - Deep Vivid Color, Pure Blacks, Virtually no motion blur, Best picture out of tubes, dlps, lcds, cheaper

Plasma Cons - Higher Power Consumption, Glare occasionally

Edited by shockz
Now all your credbility is shot... where are you shopping??? Because plasmas are for sure lower priced than a comparable lcd. You can get a 720p 50 inch plasma around 1200-1500 bucks... a 52 inch (abit 1080p) can start from 2200 and go up from there. A 1080p 50" plasma is about 1700.

All those plamas you mentioned are all over $1,000. I've seen LCDs for less than $1,000 but have yet to see a plasma that is. That's where the problem is. Plasmas only come in big sizes, hence the larger price tags. 32" is the perfect size TV for me, but there's no plasma TV at that size.

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.

lol Yeah I've always thought that, too.

That's marketing for ya.

WHO ARE THE AD WIZARDS THAT CAME UP WITH THIS ONE?

All those plamas you mentioned are all over $1,000. I've seen LCDs for less than $1,000 but have yet to see a plasma that is. That's where the problem is. Plasmas only come in big sizes, hence the larger price tags. 32" is the perfect size TV for me, but there's no plasma TV at that size.

Plasma's really don't go below 40"... You quoted some best buy prices before... if you search again... look for a LG 42" Plasma... I think its 996??? I haven't worked in a few days. Granted LG isn't the best... and its only 720p. But thats a decent deal. The 1080p LG 42" i think is 1499.

There is also a 42" LG/Insignia (it's seriously the same... we have the old version set up on a demo display with the LG logo on it still)... is also 799 i think.

Good to hear that it's so simple. The main point of this thread was to find out what the fuss is about.

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.

Those are problems with his actual cable company...not his TV.

Fine, close it. Because I didn't realize this thread would cause so much trouble. But apparently it is and that wasn't my intent. I started this thread to ask people why they like HDTVs because I don't get what's so great about it. Rather, people just insult me and call me blind for not being impressed by its "amazing picture."

I'm not seeing very many insults... You are the one that simply refuses to give any ground. You asked us our opinions, we gave them to you, and you continue to act as though we're completely incorrect. The fact of the matter is that the picture looks better and it's worth it to many of us. If it isn't worth it to you, that's fine, but you have to respect that there is a difference in opinion and not everybody is going to agree with you. That doesn't mean that we have any less sense than you, either.

HDTV is worth it for my 360 alone. If you don't think so, cool, thats your opinion.
Even that wasn't a much noticeable difference but definitely more so than tv programming. Is it because I'm using composite cables and not HDMI? Is there really much difference? It was my understanding that you're to use HDMI for "true" HD experience, so maybe that's the problem.

My parents got their 50" plasma HDTV on Dec 30th, 2007.

IMO, it's much better than the 36-inch CRT-style from 2000-2001.

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!