Zealotry Is Amusing
-
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, 10/26/2001As a side note, anyone with an XBox 360 you can get an addon drive for $199 with 5 free movies (and it looks like they are bundled with King Kong) so from that perspective it would be the cheapest option for those already with an Xbox. In terms of consoles a premium xbox is $399 (now with HDMI) + addon $199 = $598 Since both the 20 Gig and 60 Gig PS3s have been discontinued I'm not going to list them for price but the new 80Gig PS3 due out is going to be $599 so basically the same price. But the Xbox premium is getting a $50 drop and the hd add on is scheduled for a $20 drop so the Xbox is still cheaper but really not by much.
-Matt Newman
-
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.
-
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...
Paul Watson wrote:
What HD have you watched?
I've watched shows on the HD network channels... PBS has some great looking ones. I have not watched any of the films I own on DVD in HD, which would be the real test. Of course, only about 5 out of the 240 in my collection are on either HD format (I might be exaggerating there). My biggest point is that the good DVD's in my collection look so good that there is no distraction whatsoever as far as thinking "hmm, that could look better." And I'm picky, and I crucify poor looking SD-DVD (of which there are plenty, but it's not a problem inherent to DVD). If I did A/B I'm sure I could see a difference. I think the best improvement with an HD format would (hopefully) be that you can depend on the transfer being at LEAST as good as the best DVD transfers. That alone would be a big upgrade. For example, witness the astounding difference between the original 1997 release of Blade Runner on DVD and the one that was released last year. Jaw dropping difference, and the original was anamorphic, but both are SD. I will some day get an HD player, I'm sure, but it's just not a very compelling case right now. Mostly because of the anemic catalog and the idiotic format war, but if I felt like SD-DVD was under performing it might overcome those gotchas for me.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
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.
The 50" is a better center-piece. A Center-pieces level of center-piece-ness is related to it's desirability, rarity, or some other level of preciousness....not it's size.... HD Quality is no doubt decernably better, i don't think that can be argued (unless you've never actually seen one) you are right though, worth the money? the choice is for everyone who thinks about buying a TV! Is it necessary? I don't think so....but then i don't watch a lot of telly.....
-
As a side note, anyone with an XBox 360 you can get an addon drive for $199 with 5 free movies (and it looks like they are bundled with King Kong) so from that perspective it would be the cheapest option for those already with an Xbox. In terms of consoles a premium xbox is $399 (now with HDMI) + addon $199 = $598 Since both the 20 Gig and 60 Gig PS3s have been discontinued I'm not going to list them for price but the new 80Gig PS3 due out is going to be $599 so basically the same price. But the Xbox premium is getting a $50 drop and the hd add on is scheduled for a $20 drop so the Xbox is still cheaper but really not by much.
-Matt Newman
In light of that info, it would really depend on which evil corporation you want to give money to. :)
"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 -
The 50" is a better center-piece. A Center-pieces level of center-piece-ness is related to it's desirability, rarity, or some other level of preciousness....not it's size.... HD Quality is no doubt decernably better, i don't think that can be argued (unless you've never actually seen one) you are right though, worth the money? the choice is for everyone who thinks about buying a TV! Is it necessary? I don't think so....but then i don't watch a lot of telly.....
barney_parker wrote:
A Center-pieces level of center-piece-ness is related to it's desirability, rarity, or some other level of preciousness....not it's size....
A couple years ago I would have agreed totally. The LCD/plasma TV was a bit of a status symbol. But today they are far too commonplace to be the dominant element in any room large enough to view them properly in the first place. P.S. I still own a 36" CRT. It still runs fine and I have no desire to spend money replacing something that still works just fine. However, if it dies tomorrow... ;)
-
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, 10/26/2001 -
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
We bought an upconverting dvd player for under a hundred bucks as a way to sit out the format war and it looks amazing compared to our regular dvd player we used before that on our plasma hd set.
"I don't want more choice. I just want better things!" - Edina Monsoon
-
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?
barney_parker wrote:
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?
Actually, I used to go to the movies every other weekend to every weekend. I have been to the film Cinima twice in two years, for only the reason of seeing something without waiting. I am quite happy with my new TV, even though it is two years old now. And you obviously didn't read my message, I don't have a plasma.
barney_parker wrote:
I do accept that HDTV is better, but does it actually need to be?
Do you really need a private plane? a 4000 sq foot house? 5 acres of land? ocean side property? lake side retreats? speed-boats? hang-gliders? SUV's? sports cars? Who cares what people want to spend their money on? You obviously spend too much time worrying about what your neighbor is doing with his own money. People will buy what they enjoy. Some people will buy to compete. I buy what I enjoy, others have had to upgrade their computers in the past to compete, the company who sold me my computer actually advertised it for a few months to get the wannabes to upgrade. I don't try to compete, which is why I didn't buy John's plasma, but I do recognize why he did so. It is his money, and in terms of quality of life, I believe justified. obviously you do not, but it is still his decision. He can tell the difference in quality, so can I, and both of us can enjoy the difference in quality, you cannot. If you are going to break all this down to a need. Throw away your car and your computer right now, you can walk and count on your fingers. In the end everything we have is a luxery.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
In light of that info, it would really depend on which evil corporation you want to give money to. :)
"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:
In light of that info, it would really depend on which evil corporation you want to give money to.
Or read a book, I hear that is ultra definition... don't even need to own a TV for that, just the book.
-Matt Newman
-
barney_parker wrote:
A Center-pieces level of center-piece-ness is related to it's desirability, rarity, or some other level of preciousness....not it's size....
A couple years ago I would have agreed totally. The LCD/plasma TV was a bit of a status symbol. But today they are far too commonplace to be the dominant element in any room large enough to view them properly in the first place. P.S. I still own a 36" CRT. It still runs fine and I have no desire to spend money replacing something that still works just fine. However, if it dies tomorrow... ;)
Mike Mullikin wrote:
The LCD/plasma TV was a bit of a status symbol. But today they are far too commonplace to be the dominant element in any room large enough to view them properly in the first place.
The builder of our house actually asked if we needed a wallmount for a plasma, no charge. They just nail in mounting headers between the studs, but still, this has become so common they are building it into houses expecting it to be used.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
The LCD/plasma TV was a bit of a status symbol. But today they are far too commonplace to be the dominant element in any room large enough to view them properly in the first place.
The builder of our house actually asked if we needed a wallmount for a plasma, no charge. They just nail in mounting headers between the studs, but still, this has become so common they are building it into houses expecting it to be used.
_________________________ 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
Sure it is. You can see the picture, you can see what's happening and you can hear the dialog. I watch TV for the content, not so I can sweat over the picture quality. HDTV doesn't make crap films any better. It doesn't improve lousy plots and inane dialog. It's not about price, it's about value. The extra money for HD doesn't give enough back unless you count pathetic bragging rights amongst other audio/visual geeks. It's a small increase in picture quality, not a quantum leap like B&W to color. And yes, my statistic was made up. I wouldn't think anybody would be dumb enough to think otherwise.
-
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)
-
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:
Wjousts, i think on a technically inclined board, you're not likely to win this argument!
I don't doubt that.
barney_parker wrote:
In my opinion, black and white TV is still perfectly acceptable on a 14" screen.
But, I'd have to admit, I wouldn't go quite that far!
-
barney_parker wrote:
A Center-pieces level of center-piece-ness is related to it's desirability, rarity, or some other level of preciousness....not it's size....
A couple years ago I would have agreed totally. The LCD/plasma TV was a bit of a status symbol. But today they are far too commonplace to be the dominant element in any room large enough to view them properly in the first place. P.S. I still own a 36" CRT. It still runs fine and I have no desire to spend money replacing something that still works just fine. However, if it dies tomorrow... ;)
Mike Mullikin wrote:
P.S. I still own a 36" CRT. It still runs fine and I have no desire to spend money replacing something that still works just fine. However, if it dies tomorrow...
I have a 17" CRT monitor, dvd drive, and a TV tuner card. If the card goes I'll probably cancel my tvcable and just buy shows on DVD. If the CRT ever kicks the bucket I'll probably upgrade to a 20" IPS lcd. Mmmmmm IPS Gooodness!!!! [/homer drooling]
-- If you view money as inherently evil, I view it as my duty to assist in making you more virtuous.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
In light of that info, it would really depend on which evil corporation you want to give money to.
Or read a book, I hear that is ultra definition... don't even need to own a TV for that, just the book.
-Matt Newman
-
barney_parker wrote:
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?
Actually, I used to go to the movies every other weekend to every weekend. I have been to the film Cinima twice in two years, for only the reason of seeing something without waiting. I am quite happy with my new TV, even though it is two years old now. And you obviously didn't read my message, I don't have a plasma.
barney_parker wrote:
I do accept that HDTV is better, but does it actually need to be?
Do you really need a private plane? a 4000 sq foot house? 5 acres of land? ocean side property? lake side retreats? speed-boats? hang-gliders? SUV's? sports cars? Who cares what people want to spend their money on? You obviously spend too much time worrying about what your neighbor is doing with his own money. People will buy what they enjoy. Some people will buy to compete. I buy what I enjoy, others have had to upgrade their computers in the past to compete, the company who sold me my computer actually advertised it for a few months to get the wannabes to upgrade. I don't try to compete, which is why I didn't buy John's plasma, but I do recognize why he did so. It is his money, and in terms of quality of life, I believe justified. obviously you do not, but it is still his decision. He can tell the difference in quality, so can I, and both of us can enjoy the difference in quality, you cannot. If you are going to break all this down to a need. Throw away your car and your computer right now, you can walk and count on your fingers. In the end everything we have is a luxery.
_________________________ 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:
In the end everything we have is a luxery.
Except for a spellchecker. :laugh:
This blanket smells like ham
-
El Corazon wrote:
SDTV is not suffient
Sure it is. You can see the picture, you can see what's happening and you can hear the dialog. I watch TV for the content, not so I can sweat over the picture quality. HDTV doesn't make crap films any better. It doesn't improve lousy plots and inane dialog. It's not about price, it's about value. The extra money for HD doesn't give enough back unless you count pathetic bragging rights amongst other audio/visual geeks. It's a small increase in picture quality, not a quantum leap like B&W to color. And yes, my statistic was made up. I wouldn't think anybody would be dumb enough to think otherwise.
Wjousts wrote:
it's about value.
Value, however is a personal choice issue. You are trying to define it as only price. My grandmother sees in black and white, I do not. I see better than 20/20 corrected which for my job is actually a need. With high res monitors using full resolution, one for debugging/devloping and the other for display I use the resolution, and use it often. I do photography, no where near the quality of Paul's photos, but decent enough that I can recognize the difference in megapixels. We use film, HD cameras, and NTSC cameras at work, I can recognize each. HD full resolution 1920x1080p is certainly quantum leap from 740x480i. The interlaced image alone is enough to send anyone with decent eyesight (corrected or natural) into an epileptic fit. Actually B&W to color was a minor leap since tonal separation in grey was better, the lower resolution was actually not as visible, color may have added to the experience, but it also detracted from the clarity. It is one of the reasons why a TV signal on your computer monitor looks higher quality than on a TV. If color move was "quantum" by simply adding three colors instead of one gray (multplication of 3, removing the quality factors for the moment), then the move was 3 fold in resolution. Quantum? mayhap. So then the jump from 740x240 (740x480i) to 1920x1080p is a growth factor of 11+, near three fold in the horizontal dimension, and more than three-fold in the vertical. If a growth in a factor of 3 was quantum, I would think even you would consider a growth in resolution of 11 times at least as much of a jump. If 11 times growth is "smaller" than 3 times growth, I fear for the world of mathematics.... If you add back in the quality factors, brightness, color vibrance, etc. Then John's plasma only makes my color look like a black and white by comparison. HDTV removes the vibrance reduction in the move from B&W to color signals, his darks are darker, his whites are brighter (without using Tide TV cleaner too!), his reds are actually red, his greens are actually green, his blues are actually blue. Signal speed shows no ghosting as you do in SDTV. The differences go on and on, and most of the differences are the same ones in the move from B&W to color, only better, and some in the right direction since the move from B&W to color actually reduced quality in some of those areas. If B&W to color was quantum, then so to is HDTV for all the same reasons. If you look at what was lost in the mo
-
barney_parker wrote:
Wjousts, i think on a technically inclined board, you're not likely to win this argument!
I don't doubt that.
barney_parker wrote:
In my opinion, black and white TV is still perfectly acceptable on a 14" screen.
But, I'd have to admit, I wouldn't go quite that far!
Wjousts wrote:
I'd have to admit, I wouldn't go quite that far!
He's probably looking from a purely clarity perspective. B&W TV offers lower color but higher contrast. Depending on if you see better in contrast or color will depend on which is more comfortable to you. One of the reasons why HDTV, especially plasmas, are holding on is that they are better in both areas visually. Higher contrast, higher color tone, over-all higher quality in multiple dimensions. About the largest problem is that your eye actually has different speed and tone areas for the range of vision (angular range), so you end up adjusting your seat backwards for a larger set if you get too large of a TV for the room you have it in. If you are close to your TV, you will actually be more comfortable with a small TV regardless of type because the TV fits within the center angular view of your eye. The peripheral vision has less detail, but more speed, so when you get too close to a large TV it is actually annoyingly distracting because side-movement activates your peripheral motion tracking instinct. If you try to put a 30 inch color in place of a 14 inch B&W without rearranging, you will probably be reading the pixels off the screen and watching the interlaced lines. Which detracts from the experience as well. Thus a 30" can be lower quality than a 14" but mostly because of misunderstanding of how the human body reacts to vision.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)