HDTV isnt so bad..............

[4dude]

......IN STANDARD DEF ON AN OLDER TV!!

My sister has an HD cable box in her room,she left to go back to college today so i brought the IRD to my room and disconnected my standard SA box and hooked up the 8300..

WONDERFULL!!!!!!! -- (Besides the letterbox (Which i dont mind too much as long as its not TOO MUCH!!))

All these companies,etc saying YOU NEED A NEWER FLAT SCREEN HDTV TO WATCH THOSE CHANNELS is a bunch of BS!!

They look MUCH BETTER in standard def on an older TV!! (My TV is 15 yrs old or so)

Its all a scam to get people to spend money getting crap they dont really need!! (and might not want)

I think those newer FLAT SCREEN tv's are crap and look horrible.......

I could care less about "HD",im happy being able to view them in standard DEF

I like how Scientific Atlanta blocks the SA 3250 (And all standard IRDs) from rendering any HD channels to try and make people think they need a different TV,etc to watch them..... (They could render them in standard def as the 3300 does)

 

[fybush]

Wow.

This may be the single most asinine thing I've read on these boards in a long time, and that's saying something.

Look, I'll be the first to agree that "digital" doesn't always mean "better," especially where AM radio is concerned.

But you'll have to try pretty hard to convince me that the 46" Sony XBR LCD I'm watching right now is a step down from the 27" Trinitron CRT it replaced.

And in what possible universe is a 480-line standard-def picture better than a 1080-line HD one?

 

[PTBoardOp94]

To me, the idea that HDTV is somehow better is asinine. If I am ever able to tell the difference between an SD program and an HD program, I'll be sure to apologize.

 

[TheBigA]

Let me tell you...I've had the opportunity to see over-the-air HDTV on a projection system where the screen covered an entire wall, and I'm here to say that analog simply could not deliver the quality resolution I was able to see. This may have been a flat picture, but there was a depth to it I'd never seen before. But even on smaller screens, if we're comparing an over the air signal, digital is way cleaner. And I agree with Scott's comments about lines.

 

[4dude]

Who cares about that!!

Im used to a small TV screen and now that i know i can get it on my SD tv,im happier than anything

Its pretty disturbing how all these ppl (Cable companies,etc) try and tell you "you need a certain box,tv to get HD channels" when you dont!!

You can see them perfectly fine on ANY SD TV! (In standard) and they look MUCH BETTER!! (Especially on older TVs where the tube is better than the crap out now)

 

[romer979fm]

Dude and PT...

do you guys carpool? if so, be careful, as you may drive off the edge of the earth.
perhaps you should see HD on a properly set-up monitor: the factory pre-sets are
designed to make the sets stand out on the showroom floor.

 

[fybush]

To me, the idea that HDTV is somehow better is asinine. If I am ever able to tell the difference between an SD program and an HD program, I'll be sure to apologize.

Have you had your vision checked lately?

No, I'm not being sarcastic.

It's just that the difference between SD and good HD (and believe me, not all HD is good) is largely a matter of fine detail - things like small lettering in graphics and bugs, and I can easily imagine that the difference might not be immediately obvious if, say, you're getting nearsighted, distant objects are getting a little blurrier, and you haven't noticed it yet.

Me, I'm 20/20 uncorrected, and the difference between SD and HD is immediate and obvious to my eyes. I'm watching "Meet the Press" right now in SD (there being no other choice), and there's a distinct softness to the picture and a blurriness of fine graphics (the "MTP" bug in the lower left, especially) that's distinctly different from the sharp look of HD.

And yes, I agree with romer - if the only "HD" you've ever seen is on the screens in the TV department at Wal-Mart or Target, you've probably never seen real HD. Not only are those sets using the factory "blowtorch" presets that look overly bright and contrasty - they're often being fed with source material that isn't true HD.

Go to a real retailer (we're lucky here in Rochester to have two excellent local ones) and watch a properly-configured set with good source material, and you'll never look back.

(Unless you're just determined to live in the past, when everything was better, in which case you're more than welcome to your VHS tapes and what have you...)

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I can tell the difference between analog SD and digital SD programs, and no I haven't had my vision checked.

I have watched so-called HD programming on a supposedly HD set outside of a retail setting. However, since I don't own an HDTV, that viewing is quite limited.

 

[w9wi]

I can tell the difference between analog SD and digital SD programs, and no I haven't had my vision checked.

I have watched so-called HD programming on a supposedly HD set outside of a retail setting. However, since I don't own an HDTV, that viewing is quite limited.

The most obvious difference is in graphics.

I'm no golden-eyes but the difference between SD and HD in graphics is simply stunning.

I usually find it easier to tell in sports programming as well.

Many ostensibly HD programs use quite a bit of SD material. Especially newscasts, where there's a lot of file footage from the days before HD, and a lot of footage obtained from other sources that may not be HD equipped.

IMHO the difference between SD analog and SD digital is more dramatic than the difference between SD digital and HD -- but I can definitely tell the SD-HD difference.

 

[fybush]

I can tell the difference between analog SD and digital SD programs, and no I haven't had my vision checked.

I have watched so-called HD programming on a supposedly HD set outside of a retail setting. However, since I don't own an HDTV, that viewing is quite limited.

I'm constantly amazed at how many HD sets - both in and out of retail settings - aren't properly connected to receive true HD. I've seen too many sets connected to a cable box through the RF connections (which don't pass HD) or the RCA composite connections (which also don't pass HD) or through a VCR (which also doesn't pass HD).

I'm equally amazed to see how many owners of HD sets (I'm looking at you here, Mom!) don't realize that you need to be tuned to an HD channel to watch programming in HD. ("You mean there's a difference between 13 and 1013?" "Yes, Mom...")

So if your limited experience watching "HD" was on a set that wasn't properly configured to receive HD programming in HD, you may not have seen a difference because you may not, in fact, have been watching in HD.

I promise you that if you can see the subtle difference between analog SD and digital SD (which is often nearly nonexistent, since even the "analog" channels on many cable systems are transmitted digitally right up to the neighborhood pedestal), you can and will see the difference between SD and HD as soon as you see real HD.

 

[arnoldevns]

Scott, you hit the nail on the head about the biggest problem facing HDTV: people who don't know how to get it.
No one can give an accurate estimate of how many people are actually watching HD programming because so many people buy HD sets and don't have a clue how to actually get HD.

I can tell you that some HD sets make SD programming look really really nice. My sister has a set that that seemlessly switches between SD and HD programming on her HD cable box. The SD version of a local station looks very sharp, but is 4:3. You flip to the HD version of same station and it looks like you're just getting a wider screen version of the same programming. It takes a moment to see all the fine details you don't see on SD, but then you soon realize the HD picture really is much better.

I can see how some people would look at the SD version of a channel on a nice flat screen set and think that because the picture is so much nicer than their old analog set that it must be HD.

I can also say that some of what the original poster said about HD on an SD set is true. I have a converter box on a little 13 inch SD set in my office. The picture from HD programs is quite nice and much better than the analog version. However, any reasonable person comparing that picture to the true HD version of the programming on an HD set would agree that the HD is far better and worth the money.

 

[4dude]

I can also say that some of what the original poster said about HD on an SD set is true.

Im glad someone here agrees with me

 

[kenglish]

I started to post a reply yesterday, just as the snowstorm hit us....
I think the OP ("The Dude") was alluding to the folks who think there isn't a reason to go Digital if it's not seen on an HD set.

Kinda like those who swear you can't listen to good music on anything but Wilson speakers, when many are happy with their JBLs.

 

[4dude]

Exactly

 

[Morgan Wick]

This is incredible to me. The idea that even getting an HD set and viewing an HD channel isn't sufficient if the HD set isn't set up properly doesn't get a lot of airplay even on these boards. What could be done to get the word out better?

Every so often I think someone on here should (have) start(ed) a blog distilling a lot of technical issues into layman's terms in the leadup to the digital transition. Admittedly I don't read NERW, and I briefly made my own attempt last summer, but...