Zealotry Is Amusing
-
David Kentley wrote:
from what I hear they look identical.
They do (one of the points I made).
David Kentley wrote:
Yeah, there are crappy DVD's but I'd rather watch a crappy DVD of a great movie than a great HD-DVD of a crappy movie. (Woohoo! Anaconda in HD!) Films like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and any of the Pixar movies look amazing on good old DVD. Heck, the latest release of Dr. Strangelove on DVD is absolutely gorgeous.
I agree, a decent standard def DVD looks pretty good on a decent up-converting DVD player, but 1080p is absolutely stunning on a well produced high-def DVD. From what I hear, there are some crappy hi-def discs (older films on both formats) where whoever made them didn't do so good a job on the move to the hi-def disc, but every disc I've seen have been quite noticeably better visually than their standard def counterparts.
David Kentley wrote:
but it's not as dramatic as going form VHS to DVD was.
I am of the opinion that the difference is equally dramatic.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I am of the opinion that the difference is equally dramatic.
That's interesting... what size screen do you have? I could see it being that dramatic for someone with a large projected image (i.e. 6' or more), or maybe if I sat closer to my 50". Right now my only reference for HD content on my TV is broadcast HD (the 4 networks plus PBS) which looks spectacular but is rivaled by the highest quality DVD's. I'll have to befriend someone with a PS3 so they can bring it over for testing. My TV supports 1080p... Hmm. My wife probably wouldn't appreciate me having this conversation. :)
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
I personally like the movie itself (I have it in standard definition as well). I'm a fan of hi-definition media. I would have bought both a blu-ray and a hd-dvd player if I thought could have gotten it past SWMBO. The resons I chose to HD-DVD over Blu-Ray: 1) Price - the top-of-the-line HD-DVD player I purchased was the same price as the lowest-end Blu-Ray player currently available, so SWMBO was happy. 2) Blu-Ray's specs are still un-finished to the point that they're about to release a new version of the spec that is incompatible with 1st generation players. This means that at the very least, older players will be able to play the movies, but not much else on discs that adhere to the new spec. 3) There is no region encoding on HD-DVD. This means I can buy foreign-released discs (some movies are released earlier in Europe than they are here) and play them in my USA-sold player. You can't do that with Blu-Ray (that I know of). 4) We have a LOT of Paramount and Universal titles that can easily be replaced by their HD-DVD equivalents. 5) The mandatory feature set on HD-DVD players is IMHO, richer than that currently available on Blu-Ray players. 6) I got seven free movies with my player. ("Free" is good, I don't care what form you like). 7) Sony. They've been caught in not one, not two, but THREE root-kit attempts so far (two of those in the last three weeks). I simply don't trust them anymore. 8) If I choose to supplement my HD-playing capability with a Blu-Ray player in a year or two, I'll be able to get a much better BR player at a much lower price. I really am format agnostic as far as support goes, but the cost of entry into the Blu-Ray market is simply too high (for me). So, if you want to call my reasons for going HD-DVD to be "fanboyish", I guess that's your choice, but really, it only makes you look like an idiot at this point.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
So, if you want to call my reasons for going HD-DVD to be "fanboyish", I guess that's your choice, but really, it only makes you look like an idiot at this point.
Clearly you missed my point. The point is that HD is generally a waste of time for most consumers and is the biggest load of consumer electronics marketing bullshit ever. SDTV is just fine for 99% of people (those who aren't dropping thousands on 50"+ TV screens that will completely dominate their living rooms). Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are desperately trying to create demand for something that most people don't need or want. DVDs are winning the format war hands down right now and will continue to do so for several years. Does anybody else think it strange that CE companies are pushing 50"+ HDTVs at the same time they are trying to convince us of the benefit of watching video of a 1.5" mobile phone screen?
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
- There is no region encoding on HD-DVD. This means I can buy foreign-released discs (some movies are released earlier in Europe than they are here) and play them in my USA-sold player.
That only is a big plus to me. I will be able to buy ANY movie from anywhere. I heard that those swedish were making some awesome stuff :rolleyes: I think I will become a fanboy of HD-DVD. Currently I have HD cable on my 52 and it is stunning. I did not try HD-DVD yet, but I will soon for sure.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown God is the only being who, to rule, does not need to exist. -- Charles Baudelaire
Normally, I would recommend that you go in and look at the two side-by-side, but honestly, there is no discernible visual difference. If your TV is a 1080p unit, and if you're going HD-DVD, get the Toshiba XA2, or wait for the 3rd gen players that will be released in October. Honestly though, the XA2 has the Reon chip in it, and is supposed to produce better up-converting than the lower-end units. I know that at least one of the 3rd gen players will do 1080p, but I am pretty sure none of the 3rd gen players have the Reon chip.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
David Kentley wrote:
from what I hear they look identical.
They do (one of the points I made).
David Kentley wrote:
Yeah, there are crappy DVD's but I'd rather watch a crappy DVD of a great movie than a great HD-DVD of a crappy movie. (Woohoo! Anaconda in HD!) Films like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and any of the Pixar movies look amazing on good old DVD. Heck, the latest release of Dr. Strangelove on DVD is absolutely gorgeous.
I agree, a decent standard def DVD looks pretty good on a decent up-converting DVD player, but 1080p is absolutely stunning on a well produced high-def DVD. From what I hear, there are some crappy hi-def discs (older films on both formats) where whoever made them didn't do so good a job on the move to the hi-def disc, but every disc I've seen have been quite noticeably better visually than their standard def counterparts.
David Kentley wrote:
but it's not as dramatic as going form VHS to DVD was.
I am of the opinion that the difference is equally dramatic.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
So, if you want to call my reasons for going HD-DVD to be "fanboyish", I guess that's your choice, but really, it only makes you look like an idiot at this point.
Clearly you missed my point. The point is that HD is generally a waste of time for most consumers and is the biggest load of consumer electronics marketing bullshit ever. SDTV is just fine for 99% of people (those who aren't dropping thousands on 50"+ TV screens that will completely dominate their living rooms). Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are desperately trying to create demand for something that most people don't need or want. DVDs are winning the format war hands down right now and will continue to do so for several years. Does anybody else think it strange that CE companies are pushing 50"+ HDTVs at the same time they are trying to convince us of the benefit of watching video of a 1.5" mobile phone screen?
Wjousts wrote:
those who aren't dropping thousands on 50"+ TV screens that will completely dominate their living rooms
A 50" flat panel cannot dominate your living room unless you have a VERY small living room. Honestly... my old 32" CRT + entertainment center was much more dominating than my 50" plasma, yet it had a much smaller picture. Did you get laid off by a CRT manufacturer or something?
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I am of the opinion that the difference is equally dramatic.
That's interesting... what size screen do you have? I could see it being that dramatic for someone with a large projected image (i.e. 6' or more), or maybe if I sat closer to my 50". Right now my only reference for HD content on my TV is broadcast HD (the 4 networks plus PBS) which looks spectacular but is rivaled by the highest quality DVD's. I'll have to befriend someone with a PS3 so they can bring it over for testing. My TV supports 1080p... Hmm. My wife probably wouldn't appreciate me having this conversation. :)
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
David Kentley wrote:
That's interesting... what size screen do you have? I could see it being that dramatic for someone with a large projected image (i.e. 6' or more), or maybe if I sat closer to my 50".
I have a 57-inch DLP from Mitsubishi. I sit about 7-8 feet from it.
David Kentley wrote:
Right now my only reference for HD content on my TV is broadcast HD (the 4 networks plus PBS) which looks spectacular but is rivaled by the highest quality DVD's.
Don't you have Discovery HD Theater as well? That's an outstanding channel to use to exercise your TV's HD-ness. And further, TV broadcasts are only 1080i.
David Kentley wrote:
I'll have to befriend someone with a PS3 so they can bring it over for testing. My TV supports 1080p...
If you want to sopend less money, get one a XBox-360 and the HD-DVD addon. (I think) It'll be cheaper than getting a PS3, but since I don't do game consoles, I don't know for sure. You can always return it after trying it out. :)
David Kentley wrote:
My wife probably wouldn't appreciate me having this conversation.
The SWMBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed) factor is sure to put a damper on any high-dollar entertainment electronics purchase. You must find a way convince her that it's better than what you have now. :)
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Our company makes a chip for players that will work with Bluray or HD-DVD so I don't care :-D
Visit http://www.readytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
It must be the circuit that allows the tray door to open and shut. :)
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Since buying into the HD-DVD thing, I've been consistently amused by the rabid fan-boyism displayed by both sides in the "format war". These guys will buy ANY movie that comes out for their selected format, regardless of how bad the movie is. I mean, Krull - quite possibly one of the worst sci-fi movie ever made (if you disregard the crap coming off the sci-fi channel) is causing quite a stir on the HD-DVD side. I continue to be surprised at the catalog titles released by the various studios - generally, movies that don't matter. Further, they try to put positive spin on any announcement that even remotely denigrates their format of choice. The recent Paramount exclusivity announcement had the same effect as if you'd thrown a rock at a hornet's nest. The Blu-Ray guys are screaming accusations of collusion and corporate greed, while the HD-DVD guys are taking every opportunity to defend Paramount's decision. I imagine that the noise level will only increase once the CEDIA event starts later this week. For those of you that are about to make a decision as to which format to buy into, I'm afraid I cannot point you to an agenda-free and unbiased comparison regarding Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, so you'll have to do research yourself. I can say, though, that whichever hi-def format you eventually choose, you will be amazed at the picture quality and sound. Personal Observation: This weekend, my dad and I watched AeonFlux, which is widely considered to be the best demonstration of hi-def viewing, and we were not disappointed. There were times that the clarity and depth were so good that you almost felt like you were going to fall into the screen. It was (as all of the hi-def stuff I've watched to date) a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Of course, a 50+ inch screen helps, too. :)
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Krull
Hey! I remember sneaking into that at inappropriate age. (No problem really, but oh! the excitement!) But yeah, by todays standards it's cheesy enough to make make a small moon.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
For those of you that are about to make a decision as to which format to buy into, I'm afraid I cannot point you to an agenda-free and unbiased comparison regarding Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD,
That' wouldn't help anyway.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
AeonFlux
Cheese. Moon. (at least, in 24 years - if anyone even remembers it)
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Wjousts wrote:
those who aren't dropping thousands on 50"+ TV screens that will completely dominate their living rooms
A 50" flat panel cannot dominate your living room unless you have a VERY small living room. Honestly... my old 32" CRT + entertainment center was much more dominating than my 50" plasma, yet it had a much smaller picture. Did you get laid off by a CRT manufacturer or something?
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
Wjousts wrote:
those who aren't dropping thousands on 50"+ TV screens that will completely dominate their living rooms
A 50" flat panel cannot dominate your living room unless you have a VERY small living room. Honestly... my old 32" CRT + entertainment center was much more dominating than my 50" plasma, yet it had a much smaller picture. Did you get laid off by a CRT manufacturer or something?
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
David Kentley wrote:
Did you get laid off by a CRT manufacturer or something?
or desperately justifying why he did not buy the 50". There is someone on this site similarly rabid about hybrids. I bought a new car, he bought a new car, he has to go out of his way to harass me to prove he made the right decision. When I finally reached the hybrid pay-off point he through a hissy fit of 2 year old proportions. He claimed there was no way I could ever pay off the difference, and even when I went down the list he made sarcastic remarks at every step. I gave up. He still comes around to harass me, I just ignore it. He obvously was so unsure of his own position/decision that he must degrade all others to feel like his holds any merit left. This looks similar. He might have bought a used 32" boat anchor (maybe even yours!), hefted it up with a come-along and enjoys watching the entertainment center buckle and creak under the weight.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Since buying into the HD-DVD thing, I've been consistently amused by the rabid fan-boyism displayed by both sides in the "format war". These guys will buy ANY movie that comes out for their selected format, regardless of how bad the movie is. I mean, Krull - quite possibly one of the worst sci-fi movie ever made (if you disregard the crap coming off the sci-fi channel) is causing quite a stir on the HD-DVD side. I continue to be surprised at the catalog titles released by the various studios - generally, movies that don't matter. Further, they try to put positive spin on any announcement that even remotely denigrates their format of choice. The recent Paramount exclusivity announcement had the same effect as if you'd thrown a rock at a hornet's nest. The Blu-Ray guys are screaming accusations of collusion and corporate greed, while the HD-DVD guys are taking every opportunity to defend Paramount's decision. I imagine that the noise level will only increase once the CEDIA event starts later this week. For those of you that are about to make a decision as to which format to buy into, I'm afraid I cannot point you to an agenda-free and unbiased comparison regarding Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, so you'll have to do research yourself. I can say, though, that whichever hi-def format you eventually choose, you will be amazed at the picture quality and sound. Personal Observation: This weekend, my dad and I watched AeonFlux, which is widely considered to be the best demonstration of hi-def viewing, and we were not disappointed. There were times that the clarity and depth were so good that you almost felt like you were going to fall into the screen. It was (as all of the hi-def stuff I've watched to date) a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Of course, a 50+ inch screen helps, too. :)
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Krull is a classic, I remember seeing it when it first came out. I borrowed it from the library recently too. I'm not saying it's good, but some of its themes are quite intriguing. :-D
-
Since buying into the HD-DVD thing, I've been consistently amused by the rabid fan-boyism displayed by both sides in the "format war". These guys will buy ANY movie that comes out for their selected format, regardless of how bad the movie is. I mean, Krull - quite possibly one of the worst sci-fi movie ever made (if you disregard the crap coming off the sci-fi channel) is causing quite a stir on the HD-DVD side. I continue to be surprised at the catalog titles released by the various studios - generally, movies that don't matter. Further, they try to put positive spin on any announcement that even remotely denigrates their format of choice. The recent Paramount exclusivity announcement had the same effect as if you'd thrown a rock at a hornet's nest. The Blu-Ray guys are screaming accusations of collusion and corporate greed, while the HD-DVD guys are taking every opportunity to defend Paramount's decision. I imagine that the noise level will only increase once the CEDIA event starts later this week. For those of you that are about to make a decision as to which format to buy into, I'm afraid I cannot point you to an agenda-free and unbiased comparison regarding Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, so you'll have to do research yourself. I can say, though, that whichever hi-def format you eventually choose, you will be amazed at the picture quality and sound. Personal Observation: This weekend, my dad and I watched AeonFlux, which is widely considered to be the best demonstration of hi-def viewing, and we were not disappointed. There were times that the clarity and depth were so good that you almost felt like you were going to fall into the screen. It was (as all of the hi-def stuff I've watched to date) a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Of course, a 50+ inch screen helps, too. :)
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I think I will wait till one dies a death over the other...I have a strange deja vu with VHS and Betamax VCRs here! ;)
Ant. I'm hard, yet soft.
I'm coloured, yet clear.
I'm fruity and sweet.
I'm jelly, what am I? Muse on it further, I shall return! - David Walliams (Little Britain) -
David Kentley wrote:
That's interesting... what size screen do you have? I could see it being that dramatic for someone with a large projected image (i.e. 6' or more), or maybe if I sat closer to my 50".
I have a 57-inch DLP from Mitsubishi. I sit about 7-8 feet from it.
David Kentley wrote:
Right now my only reference for HD content on my TV is broadcast HD (the 4 networks plus PBS) which looks spectacular but is rivaled by the highest quality DVD's.
Don't you have Discovery HD Theater as well? That's an outstanding channel to use to exercise your TV's HD-ness. And further, TV broadcasts are only 1080i.
David Kentley wrote:
I'll have to befriend someone with a PS3 so they can bring it over for testing. My TV supports 1080p...
If you want to sopend less money, get one a XBox-360 and the HD-DVD addon. (I think) It'll be cheaper than getting a PS3, but since I don't do game consoles, I don't know for sure. You can always return it after trying it out. :)
David Kentley wrote:
My wife probably wouldn't appreciate me having this conversation.
The SWMBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed) factor is sure to put a damper on any high-dollar entertainment electronics purchase. You must find a way convince her that it's better than what you have now. :)
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I have a 57-inch DLP from Mitsubishi. I sit about 7-8 feet from it.
I sit about that distance from my 50".
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The SWMBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed) factor is sure to put a damper on any high-dollar entertainment electronics purchase.
Heh. Yeah, it's a miracle I got the TV so I have to tread carefully with future requests. Still, I've been very happy with how good SD-DVD looks on it. I got so used to geometric distortion on my CRT that it's almost distracting that it's no longer an issue.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Don't you have Discovery HD Theater as well? That's an outstanding channel to use to exercise your TV's HD-ness. And further, TV broadcasts are only 1080i.
The only HD channels I get I found by accident when scanning my cable channels with the new TV. I didn't even know I'd get any (I don't want to give Comcast any more money than I already do) since we really don't watch a lot of TV anyway. But I'm happy I get the networks in HD.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
So, if you want to call my reasons for going HD-DVD to be "fanboyish", I guess that's your choice, but really, it only makes you look like an idiot at this point.
Clearly you missed my point. The point is that HD is generally a waste of time for most consumers and is the biggest load of consumer electronics marketing bullshit ever. SDTV is just fine for 99% of people (those who aren't dropping thousands on 50"+ TV screens that will completely dominate their living rooms). Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are desperately trying to create demand for something that most people don't need or want. DVDs are winning the format war hands down right now and will continue to do so for several years. Does anybody else think it strange that CE companies are pushing 50"+ HDTVs at the same time they are trying to convince us of the benefit of watching video of a 1.5" mobile phone screen?
I'd have to disagree. Got HD, think it is awesome, wish everything came down in HD.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
I got a 50" plasma panel about a month ago, and I have to say I'm going to sit out the format war. The studios and hardware people really shot themselves in the foot with this one. I really don't care which format wins; from what I hear they look identical. I thought I was going to start seriously dying for HD once I got my new TV, but good DVD's look amazing at 50". Yeah, there are crappy DVD's but I'd rather watch a crappy DVD of a great movie than a great HD-DVD of a crappy movie. (Woohoo! Anaconda in HD!) Films like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and any of the Pixar movies look amazing on good old DVD. Heck, the latest release of Dr. Strangelove on DVD is absolutely gorgeous. Some day I will get an HD format, and be happy with the improvement... but it's not as dramatic as going form VHS to DVD was.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
David Kentley wrote:
ut it's not as dramatic as going form VHS to DVD was.
What HD have you watched? I've seen some "HD" that is just repurposed SD and yes, not much of an improvement. Loads of films being released that way, I wouldn't bother. But stuff shot properly in HD is eye-popping good.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
So, if you want to call my reasons for going HD-DVD to be "fanboyish", I guess that's your choice, but really, it only makes you look like an idiot at this point.
Clearly you missed my point. The point is that HD is generally a waste of time for most consumers and is the biggest load of consumer electronics marketing bullshit ever. SDTV is just fine for 99% of people (those who aren't dropping thousands on 50"+ TV screens that will completely dominate their living rooms). Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are desperately trying to create demand for something that most people don't need or want. DVDs are winning the format war hands down right now and will continue to do so for several years. Does anybody else think it strange that CE companies are pushing 50"+ HDTVs at the same time they are trying to convince us of the benefit of watching video of a 1.5" mobile phone screen?
Wjousts wrote:
SDTV is just fine for 99% of people
and 99% of statistics are made up on the spot. ;) I guess if SDTV was was really good enough for 99% of people, no one would ever go to a theatre, live or film. Last I checked, people still do. Sure some do go to be the first on their block, but some go for the quality. I used to keep my glasses tuned to above 20/20 in clarty, because prefered it that way. I have the 42" boat anchor rear projection for the primary reason of money, but I don't try to fool myself on rest. Still mine is an HDTV, so I do get the clarity too, I just don't get the size reduction. the difference between high def and standard was pretty pronounced, and if you cannot see the difference, you need vision correction. There is however a difference over money. If you don't feel the need to pay for the difference in quality, then leave the reason at that. SDTV is not suffient, never has been, but it is recognizably cheaper! Cheaper is a reason, but not always a good reason for everyone. If everyone bought the cheapest item there would be no boats, no private airplanes, no houses over 2000sq. feet in size, no yards separating you from your neighbor by more than 6 feet and your daughter can jump to the house next door when you ground her. There would be no Ferrari, no Mercedes, no privately owned HAM radios, no SUV's and even no hybrids. There would only be cardboard boxed houses, and cheap import covered-skateboard sized cars, and rafts made of rejected 2x4's for your weekend on the lake. When I got my rear projection it was definately not as bright as John's plasma, but it was cheaper, and still the resolution was better, and recognizably better. When I went fiber optics for audio and surround sound, the quality was noticeably better. I take the quality I can afford, which at the time was this. But I do recognize the quality in other choices. They want more quality, and feel the need to pay for it, great. I like that quality too, I just couldn't afford it. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Well, lets not get into a discussion on interior decorating. Personally, I don't want the TV to be the main feature of my living room.
Wjousts, i think on a technically inclined board, you're not likely to win this argument! Personally i agree, although i love IT, i also love avoiding IT where it's not necessary. In my opinion, black and white TV is still perfectly acceptable on a 14" screen. I am sure i'l get shot down in flames for saying so, but like you, i don't want my TV to be the centerpiece of my living room, and i don't want to sped £1.5K on a TV which is roughly equivalent to one for around £40 (no 'k') but not quite as detailed.... as a matter of interest to the general populus, do you all also get your eyes tested? I read an article somwhere that said (and i don't kinow how true it is!!) that most peoples eye sight at the recomended viewing distance of a 50" TV is not good enough to see the full quality of the picture.......so thats a lot of money for something you can't even use without extra equipment!!!!
-
Krull is a classic, I remember seeing it when it first came out. I borrowed it from the library recently too. I'm not saying it's good, but some of its themes are quite intriguing. :-D
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
but some of its themes are quite intriguing.
good is good evil is evil seeing the future is a curse cool spinning replica blades can be bought at the knife shop for $29.95
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Wjousts wrote:
SDTV is just fine for 99% of people
and 99% of statistics are made up on the spot. ;) I guess if SDTV was was really good enough for 99% of people, no one would ever go to a theatre, live or film. Last I checked, people still do. Sure some do go to be the first on their block, but some go for the quality. I used to keep my glasses tuned to above 20/20 in clarty, because prefered it that way. I have the 42" boat anchor rear projection for the primary reason of money, but I don't try to fool myself on rest. Still mine is an HDTV, so I do get the clarity too, I just don't get the size reduction. the difference between high def and standard was pretty pronounced, and if you cannot see the difference, you need vision correction. There is however a difference over money. If you don't feel the need to pay for the difference in quality, then leave the reason at that. SDTV is not suffient, never has been, but it is recognizably cheaper! Cheaper is a reason, but not always a good reason for everyone. If everyone bought the cheapest item there would be no boats, no private airplanes, no houses over 2000sq. feet in size, no yards separating you from your neighbor by more than 6 feet and your daughter can jump to the house next door when you ground her. There would be no Ferrari, no Mercedes, no privately owned HAM radios, no SUV's and even no hybrids. There would only be cardboard boxed houses, and cheap import covered-skateboard sized cars, and rafts made of rejected 2x4's for your weekend on the lake. When I got my rear projection it was definately not as bright as John's plasma, but it was cheaper, and still the resolution was better, and recognizably better. When I went fiber optics for audio and surround sound, the quality was noticeably better. I take the quality I can afford, which at the time was this. But I do recognize the quality in other choices. They want more quality, and feel the need to pay for it, great. I like that quality too, I just couldn't afford it. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon wrote:
SDTV is not suffient, never has been
I disagree... If SDTV was not sufficient, we would turn of the SDTV signal now, because it has been superceded. In fact it hasn't. If you want a higher quality picture, thats fine. I personally don't care that much about the picture quality. in an earlier post i mentioned that i am generally happy with B&W on a 14" CRT screen.....so why go for anything else? Don't get me wrong, I do accept that HDTV is better, but does it actually need to be? People go to the Cinema/Theatre for more than just the picture. Otherwise can we assume you (with your big plasma HDTV) will never be returning to the Cinema? If you do, is that an omission that your TV is not as good as it should be?
-
Wjousts, i think on a technically inclined board, you're not likely to win this argument! Personally i agree, although i love IT, i also love avoiding IT where it's not necessary. In my opinion, black and white TV is still perfectly acceptable on a 14" screen. I am sure i'l get shot down in flames for saying so, but like you, i don't want my TV to be the centerpiece of my living room, and i don't want to sped £1.5K on a TV which is roughly equivalent to one for around £40 (no 'k') but not quite as detailed.... as a matter of interest to the general populus, do you all also get your eyes tested? I read an article somwhere that said (and i don't kinow how true it is!!) that most peoples eye sight at the recomended viewing distance of a 50" TV is not good enough to see the full quality of the picture.......so thats a lot of money for something you can't even use without extra equipment!!!!
barney_parker wrote:
i don't want my TV to be the centerpiece of my living room
You guys are still missing Davids point. A 50" plasma display stuck on the wall is less of a centerpiece than a 32" CRT on a table or in an entertainment cabinet. Is the quality of HD discernibly better? Is it worth the extra money? That (like all choices - housing, automobiles, clothes, food, etc...) is for each consumer to decide.