Community Newsletter: Q&A: 9/8/06 Is an HDTV worth buying even without an HD source?
- 9/7/06 4:35 PM
Disagree on the EDTV Statement
by gilvelez - 9/8/06 5:25 AM In reply to: 9/8/06 Is an HDTV worth buying even without an HD source? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I too have a 65 inch DLP HDTV in my basement that I also love. That set cost me $4000 when DLP just came out!
I was also recently in the market for a bedroom TV to replace my very old tube box. Was set on Panasonic and PLASMA as LCD just doesn't do it for me when it comes to deep blacks and picture quality overall.
Went the Panasonic EDTV route (2006) model and couldn't be happier. Saved hundreds of the comparable HDTV version and for bedroom viewing 480i/p suits me just fine. The rest of the house is HDTV heaven but the $500 difference in price between HD and ED made it worth the decision for a room only used at night. DVD's looks stunning at 480p and it downconverts 1080i and 720p just fine for DVD quality viewing in my love den...
Gil
Pixel size / viewing distance relationship is key
by hothersale - 9/8/06 12:59 PM In reply to: Disagree on the EDTV Statement by gilvelezPeople who dismiss EDTV out of hand are simply ignorant. Human visual acuity has its limits, and most people can't see the difference between a 42" EDTV and a 42" HDTV beyond about 10'. (Go to a showroom with your tape measure and see for yourself.) Since this is a bedroom installation, I'm guessing the average viewing distance will be farther away than that. You want to pay extra for resolution you can't even see? Be my guest.
Furthermore, EDTVs often boast better contrast than their HDTV counterparts. Manufacturer's want us to believe that resolution is all-important so they can sell us the next big thing, but it's important to realize that there is MUCH more to picture quality than resolution. The quality of the signal is by far the most important aspect, which is why HDTV still looks so jaw-dropping on a good EDTV.
Also, if the OP wants to watch regular analog cable now (i.e., 480i), an EDTV makes more sense because it will display the picture better than an HDTV would because there is no additional scaling involved.
Why the OP would want to "future proof" his purchase by buying an HDTV instead of an EDTV is beyond me. I think it makes much more sense to maximize the picture quality of the material he watches RIGHT NOW. In a couple of years when HDTV programming truly rules the roost, he'll be able to pick up a much better, much CHEAPER HDTV without having sacrificed his viewing experience in the meantime.
Exactly
by tvhawaii - 9/9/06 1:54 PM In reply to: Pixel size / viewing distance relationship is key by hothersaleMaybe -you- should write for CNET.<g>
I agree, in many cases EDTV is a better buy
by podunk5 - 9/11/06 11:47 AM In reply to: Pixel size / viewing distance relationship is key by hothersaleA lot of the advice in the article above is a little watered down and misplaced--though it is a good try as it takes a stab at the complete mess the TV/Cable/HD/Tech industry is in right now.
However one of the biggest mistakes is the EDTV comment.
For awhile--& still really, Panasonic's EDTV Plasmas easily blow away about 90% of competitor's HDTV's---regardless of TV sources. That says something about real-world use and perceived quality/cost. Picture quality isn't based at all on just pixel count--especially if you have no HD sources. So I wouldn't take the advice in the article above too seriously, but instead do a little more research.
AVS forums is a good place to go once you think you've got a grasp of the basics.
Cable not required to stop using NTSC
by Wolfpacker96 - 9/8/06 5:32 AM In reply to: 9/8/06 Is an HDTV worth buying even without an HD source? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
One thing that could be wrong about your suggestion is that cable comings don't have to stop using NTSC on the drop dead date. The law states that "broadcasts" have to stop. Cable companies can continue to use it indefinately.
http://www.answers.com/topic/high-definition-television-in-the-united-states
While TV stations could care less about the few people still using antennas, I seriously doubt cable and satelite companies will immediately force all the grandmas out there to stop using a TV without the box and risk losing them as customers. That day will come when NTSC is worthless, but for most cable and satelite companies, that's not any time soon. I personally don't see anything wrong with buys a non-HD small LCD TV for the bedroom. One, it's a heck of a lot cheaper, and two, if you do need a box in the future it will still cost you a lot less and buying an HDTV today.
I know it's not the best "geeky" answer out there, but we're talking about a backup TV in the bedroom, not his main TV. EDTV is fine for that. Save you money for a new HD projector like the new Sony!
TV stations could not care less
by BackcountryJim - 9/9/06 12:58 PM In reply to: Cable not required to stop using NTSC by Wolfpacker96I think you meant to say that TV stations could not care less.
Edit button!
by Wolfpacker96 - 9/11/06 6:24 AM In reply to: TV stations could not care less by BackcountryJimYeah, I don't understand why they don't have a way to edit your messages in these forums (unless I'm a moron and just haven't found it yet). That wasn't my only error there! My Engish just ain't to goode somtimes!
Not so fast!
by jdmeader - 9/8/06 5:38 AM In reply to: 9/8/06 Is an HDTV worth buying even without an HD source? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
The upcoming analog/digital switchover and HDTV are two totally seperate issues. "Digital TV" is not necessarily "HDTV". Also, the only people affected by this are those who get their TV soley by over-the-air transmission with an antenna. The switchover to digital will have NO impact on those getting their TV via cable or small-dish satellite. Satellite systems like DishNetwork and DirecTV are ALREADY digital. Cable systems will handle the translation from the digital broadcast to either analog cable or digital cable (using the cable provider existing digital STB) within their system. TV sets on those systems will not need to be replaced and will continue to work fine. His set in the bedroom connected to cable will not "go dark" when any changeover to digital by the over-the-air broadcasters is made. New sets will be necessary for those wishing HDTV reception, but standard-definition will by far remain the majority of channels for quite a long time to come.
Is an HDTV worth buying even without an HD source?
by lculber - 9/8/06 5:50 AM In reply to: 9/8/06 Is an HDTV worth buying even without an HD source? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
One of my concerns with this is a result of what happened during Hurricane Katrina. We were without power for over a week, and we were among the lucky ones. Telephones didn't work - many of the cellular towers were down. One of our neighbors had one of those tiny TVs that plug into their car's power supply. That was our only way of finding out what was happening. What happens after February 17, 2009 when we have no power for our cable or satellite dishes? Although most may not realize it, many of us still live in rural areas.
wow, never thought of that!
by Wolfpacker96 - 9/8/06 5:55 AM In reply to: Is an HDTV worth buying even without an HD source? by lculberThat's a good one man. I suppose they'll make tuners small enough in the future to accommodate small battery operated tvs. It probably won't have an HD picture, but it will just convert the signal to analog like these STBs everyone is talking about.
older technology still works
by marksalot - 9/8/06 10:39 AM In reply to: Is an HDTV worth buying even without an HD source? by lculberUnless I missed something, radio still exists. It may not give you that visual feedback, but it certainly serves to let you "find out what is happening." Everybody should have a cheap, battery-operated radio lying around for just such purposes. And that car whose power supply you used most likely had radio, too.
-md
Re: Older tech still works...
by Shadowcatcher52 - 9/8/06 2:38 PM In reply to: older technology still works by marksalotIF you've ever been in a disaster like a Hurricane or Flooding..No matter what Yes the car/truck's battery was operating a tv..and yes a radio... But Personnally, believe me I wanted to SEE what had happened. I wasn't in Katrina I made it thru Hugo here in South Carolina. What I'm afraid of is this, what about us that can not afford these new higher tech tv's? I guess we just learn to live with out a tv in the house? People on fixed incomes can't afford them!SSD sure isn't going to pay for one!
in 2009 folks like me are out of luck
by thedragonmaster - 9/8/06 6:09 AM In reply to: 9/8/06 Is an HDTV worth buying even without an HD source? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
people talk about a great picture, but people are forgetting something.. people like me, with vision problems are out of luck when analog goes away. heres what i mean.
im legally blind and color blind with a visual acuaty of 20/400 anytime we go to a store i take a look at the lcd's and plasma's and cant see a thing. literaly. on the plasma's there dark, i mean REALLY dark. the lcd's have this, weird look to them. the only tv's i can see are crt. so in 2009 when they cut off analog im out of luck and so are the people like me. oh sure i could spend $300 on an hdtv tuner for my analog tv, but whats the point? eventualy lcd and plasma is all will be able to find.. then what? whats the point in shelling out $1,000 for a tv i cant see? have you seen an hdtv radio? nope. so folks, what should some one like me do? go with out tv?
i prefer my free tv. that is, i cant AFFORD cable or satilite. so i depend on an antenna.
what do you think?
Gov't help
by Wolfpacker96 - 9/8/06 6:12 AM In reply to: in 2009 folks like me are out of luck by thedragonmasterWell, according to the FCC, there are supposed to financial help for people from uncle sam to help pay for STBs. I'm sure someone in your situation would qualify for help.
Set-top converter box for your sitation
by The CyberPoet - 9/8/06 9:37 AM In reply to: in 2009 folks like me are out of luck by thedragonmasterI already posted some details in it's own thread ( http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-10149-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=204230&messageID=2186965 ), but basically, there will be set-top converters that you can buy to continue to use your standard analog TV with the new digital signals, and the gov't is forcing the industry to fund a $40-per-set/2-sets-max-per-household coupon towards purchase of such converters for households which receive off-the-air broadcasts and plan on retaining their analog TV's. It would appear you definitely fall into this criteria.
Note also that the requirement to switch to digital applies only to FULL STRENGTH broadcasters (i.e. - the big stations pumping out the maximum wattage on their transmitters), and there is a question of whether some of these will continue to transmit their analog programming at weaker levels to effectively loop-hole the law (which might mean the need for a better antenna on your end).
Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
