Home audio & video: 5 reasons people "just dont get" HD
I still have my CRT and an LCD
by Dan Filice - 3/31/06 3:37 PM In reply to: CRT vs LCD & Plasma by vicbrasilMy old-school Toshiba (which was calibrate) beats my LCD set until I use both for tru HD signal feeds, like DiscoveryHD. What makes the LCD great is the brilliance and contrast, but the CRT has a more filmic quality and I prefer that TV for watching DVD movies. The CRT TVs use a Red-Green-Blu light that is projected on a screen, so they don't have the pixel issues that the newer sets do. In addition, most of the newer sets have fixed pixels, and if you feed them signals that only have 1/3 or 1/2 of their native resolution, they will have a lot of pixels with nothing. So the TV interpolates and fills the fixed pixels with image. Not the best for SD. But, when fed 720p or 1080i, wow! Stunning! So, it's a trade-off. I am happy to have both types for comparison. Both are great in their own ways. Oh, one more thing...the CRT does a much better job when displaying SD material, so it still serves a purpose. One day though, in the not-to-distant future.....
Where do CRTs fit in . . . . . .
by AussieCol - 3/31/06 3:30 PM In reply to: Where Do CRTs Fit In? by tonyny77I guess the answer is - do you want the new technologies. I had a great 27'' Panasonic CRT TV connected to a standard definition set top box. Great digital picture . . . . but the TV could not show HD. I decided that the HD picture detail was important to me, going forward, and I wanted a larger screen size. Having done my research and spent many weekends going around the stores I finally chose the best I could afford. I am not at all disappointed as viewing of HD free-to-air TV has become a terrific experience - I don't have cable TV where I live. I finally chose the new LG 42'' plasma (latest plasma panel generation and very popular Down Under in Australia, where I live) and it has the advantage of having twin HD tuners built-in (no set top box and extra cables needed). CRT does still have arguably the best picture quality but for HD and the screen size I needed, plasma is by far the best option available to me. After owning the HDTV for just over a month now, I rate this product highly for both HDTV and DVD movies, so I guess it all comes down to space limitations (CRTs are much bigger) availability of HD broacasts/providers where you live and how much you want to pay.
THE REASON I SOLD MY 3 TUBE SONY
by stewart norrie - 3/31/06 4:09 PM In reply to: Where do CRTs fit in . . . . . . by AussieColI owned this t.v. for 2 years But the problem was every 3 days I would have to do a dynimac convergence and even then you would see a little green,blue, red fringe around objects, then after a year the red was out of focus so I had the have the focus adjusted. also the picture was not very bright, With my new d.l.p. set the picture is very bright and razor sharp, in closing the old tube type 1 tube still looks I believe the best and cheap but lets face folks want lite and slim style t.v. have a nice day stewart
My 2-cents on Sony RPTV
by Dan Filice - 3/31/06 4:59 PM In reply to: THE REASON I SOLD MY 3 TUBE SONY by stewart norrieStew,
My sister-in-law has a Sony 47" CRT RPTV. Same problem and the picture is lousy (washed out). Sorry Sony...you made crappy CRT RPTVs. I have had my Toshiba 50" CRT RPTV for four years and never have done the convergence after getting it right. And I do check it all the time. (I'm sure there are people out there with terrible luck on Toshiba too.) My father-in-laws Mitsubishi is worse than his daughter's Sony CRT. I've tried to set both up using the Video Essentials set-up DVD, and no matter what I do, they still look like garbage.
Dan
DAN YOU SHOULD SEE MY CELL PHONE
by stewart norrie - 4/1/06 12:54 PM In reply to: My 2-cents on Sony RPTV by Dan FiliceDan I must tell you the truth, I live in a 1977 mobel home thats falling apart, no cell phone etc. cra-py furniture, All my life I have dreamed about having a nice home theater system ,It has been so much fun learning about the new technology and cnet I am now 68 years old and I do know If I was 30 years younger I would have my own home theater store and loven every minute of it have a nice weekend stewart
Absolutely Correct....
by Psych Doc - 3/31/06 6:19 PM In reply to: Where Do CRTs Fit In? by tonyny77....CRT's still are the best of the best.
Major problem, other than their monstrous size is, they don't come bigger than 36". That's just way too small for most folks (Stewart wouldn't even want a cell phone with a screen that tiny...lol). So even if you have the space these monsters require, you can't get a decent sized screen.
However, up to 36" they have no peer.
Why CRTs are limited to 36"
by speleofool - 4/13/06 3:32 PM In reply to: Absolutely Correct.... by Psych DocThe rumor I heard was because that's as large as you can go before depth of the display exceeds the standard 30" door size on most homes. 
Speleo.
40"
by sirroundsound - 4/13/06 8:01 PM In reply to: Why CRTs are limited to 36" by speleofoolBoth Sony and Mits made a 40" Tube, a real beast to deliver. I was told going bigger was difficult because the weight of the tube potentially could collapse on itself, which would pose a shipping nightmare.
Recording programs
by olderposter - 4/1/06 11:55 AM In reply to: 5 reasons people "just dont get" HD by techfiendIf I were to pay premium prices for the set and the programming, I'd certainly want to watch it on MY OWN SCHEDULE. Are all the features available in reasonably-prices products for recording HDTV? Most people basically would have to start over on their video systems to incorporate all features they want. That turns out to be anawful lot of cash. Maybe someday...after I know I'll have enough to retire on.
Recording HD
by Dan Filice - 4/2/06 10:41 AM In reply to: Recording programs by olderposterAs you point out, you basically would need to start over on with your video equipment to actually record HD. You cable and satellite companies have HD DDRs, something like an HD Tivo, and one day in the near future we will be able to buy HD DVD recorders, but both highly compress the HD signal so it won't ba as good as original HD source. But, it's better than VHS. This is the same problem that broadcasters are facing: Throwing out all existing video equipment and replacing with HD equipment.
Everyone has to leave their comfort zone for new technology
by techfiend - 4/3/06 1:29 AM In reply to: Recording HD by Dan FiliceConsidering we are all tech fans, or at least A/V enthusiasts. it dissapoints me to see so many people who refuse to accept the passing of the torch. HDTVs are the future. And they are not any more expensive than a nice projection big screen 10 or so years ago. You want quality, so dig deep or save and buy not the 1,000 dollar TV, buy the best and feel good in a well made, and researched product
HDTV recording
by steve.trelease - 4/4/06 1:36 PM In reply to: Recording programs by olderposterThe obvious solution, if you have cable/satellite, is upgrading to a receiver with a built-in DVR (e.g. Tivo). These run about $500, plus you have to pay for the HD package and the DVR subscription. The number of HD stations may be somewhat limited, however.
For about the same price, you can build a PC which is capable of recording HD broadcast TV, without any subscriptions, etc. This can also interface with cable/satellite receivers. At present, the technology doesn't allow you to record in HD (SD only) from the latter, but this might change in the future.
The ability to upgrade individual pieces is a big part of the appeal of a modular component approach.
Show me the HD....
by speleofool - 4/11/06 1:04 PM In reply to: 5 reasons people "just dont get" HD by techfiendI'm one of those 63% who hasn't upgraded, but I do know quite a lot about HD technologies. I also have friends who get both cable & satellite (why???) and have a bajillion channels between the two services, but they don't get HD service yet.
I blame the content providers for being so cautious to make HD the *standard.* There's simply not enough content out there to justify thousands on a new display plus 50% more for HD service over basic cable. If HD service meant you got 50% of your content in HD instead of SD, a lot more people would upgrade, but for 15 channels or so it's just not worth it unless that content is what's important to you anyway. And if it really only cost me $5-10/mo more to get HD service I might, but it's $40 for basic cable and at *least* $65 for HD service by the time you get done with set-top box rentals, etc.
You're right about the intimidating technologies, too, although if everything was HD then the problem would be much less severe. I predict this problem will fade with time as 1080p becomes the standard and all sets are just "HD."
Cheers!
Speleo.
There is plunty of HD channels.
by gabereyes - 4/11/06 8:17 PM In reply to: 5 reasons people "just dont get" HD by techfiendEverone uses this as a excuse not to upgrade, (there only like 10 to 12 channels in HD) is what they say but lets take a look at what people watch.
Sports: football, baseball, soccer, UFC, or maybe Arena sports and hockey.
ABC, CBS, PBS, Fox, ESPN, Discovery, HBO, Showtime, Starz........
how many people watch American Idol I think they get more voters then the President, House, According to Jim; Alias; Boston Legal; Commander-in-Chief; Crumbs, Desperate Housewives; Emily's Reasons Why Not, Freddie; George Lopez; Gray's Anatomy; Hope & Faith; Hot Properties; In Justice, Invasion; Jake in Progress, Less than Perfect; Lost; Night Stalker; Rodney; Sons & Daughters, Close to Home; Cold Case; CSI: Crime Scene Investigation; CSI: Miami; CSI: NY; Criminal Minds; Ghost Whisperer; How I Met Your Mother; King of Queens; Navy NCIS; Numb3rs; Out of Practice; Still Standing; Threshold; Two and a Half Men; Without a Trace; Yes, Dear, ; Arrested Development; Bernie Mac; Bones; Head Cases; House; The Inside; Killer Instinct; Kitchen Confidential; The Loop, Malcolm in the Middle; The O.C.; Prison Break; Reunion; Stacked; The War at Home, ; Las Vegas; Law & Order; Law & Order: Criminal Intent; Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Everwood; Gilmore Girls, ; One Tree Hill; Reba, ; What I Like About You.
point being 90% of people go home from work and watch these channels, but there are a few highly watched Channels not on the last like Animal Planet, Shop network, and dont forger the best womans network.
Not true
by mjimenez - 4/14/06 9:21 AM In reply to: There is plunty of HD channels. by gabereyesYou have a choice to upgrade or not. I decide to upgrade because technology is always changing and by 2009 all major channel should be in hd format.
You are right in one point there are not to many channel in high-def format depending what cable/satellite provider you have, but many cable/satellite provide are adding hd channel in their programs, i just recently got tnt in hd and more channels are coming, it takes a while.
Another reason we have more choices in buying tv than before: LCD, PLASMA and etc. you have to do research in picking the one that tv fit your life style. If you want the best tv out in the market than you have to spend more money, that's a decision on you.
If costs is an issue and what numbers channel are in high-def than you don't have to get an hdtv, but remember hdtv is here to stay.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
