Attn: Hi Def lovers

[Skip Towne]

Now I have proof it is not my imagination. Today I did a 4 TV install with three standards and one Hi Def. As it happened, myself and the customer were able to stand at a point where we could see both the Hi Def and one of the standards at the same time. The Hi Def was hooked to a big screen Mitsubishi and the standard to a 27" Sony. I told him about you clowns worshipping the Hi Def and asked for his opinion. He agreed the standard was every bit as good as the Hi Def. But he said it did improve the picture on the Mitsubishi big screen by about 10% over the Dish Notwork he had on it before I arrived.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav

My 65 inch RP has an absolutely magnificent picture with fantastic contrast and brightness. I have no complaints about it whatsoever.

If it didnt you wouldnt have bought it, but its still not as natural a picture as a CRT.

[Logical]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

If it didnt you wouldnt have bought it, but its still not as natural a picture as a CRT.

It is a rear project CRT I am not sure what you talking about. Is there such a thing as a regular Tube CRT in a 65" size? I did a google search and found nothing.

[Miles]

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav

It is a rear project CRT I am not sure what you talking about. Is there such a thing as a regular Tube CRT in a 65" size? I did a google search and found nothing.

Largest tube set I have ever heard of is 40". Might be someting slightly larger but not by much.

[XXXshogunXXX]

watching hbo in high def is a big difference when comparing a live event in high def. Something on HBO couldve been taped 12 years ago with a shit camera. It's gonna look like shit, regardless if its in high def or not.

I remember when I worked at Timewarner..and some old fckn idiots were complaining about watching Law and Order on TNTHD. Some of those shows were recorded in 1990. I dont know what kind of picture they were expecting......old people are dumb and stupid, and can never be trusted.

Watch a football game in high def..and regular standard video, big huge..motherfing difference. Try Hi-def using an HDMI connection....wow..even better. When an HD game switches to a commercial, to a NON-HD commercial, you can immediately notice the difference. 3X more the bandwidth to get an HD picture, = better picture. Which is why not everything is in HD. it's special.... Get your vision corrected people. People who arent blind like the Chargers. Go Chargers.

[Herzig]

Originally Posted by ragedogg69

i can only give the opinion of what my eyes see. and they see hdtv being head and sholders over SD. doing picture and picture is not a fair comparison because you are reducing the size of the SD "box". so you eyes see you just assume you are seeing details....

#1 problem with HDTV is millions of people think they are seeing it but they still need an HD Decoder. instead they watch their analog crap saying "HDTV is overrated" (im not assuming anyone here has made that mistake, but millions do)

and HBO is a horrible network to do a comparison. first its film based transfer that wont be are clear and second, on directv they dumb down the bitrate and scan rate so that takes away from the picture.

compare a nice cbs hd football game from you affiliate then we will talk.

For me, this the problem. HD programming and equipment are too expensive for me to justify the cost. Once EVERYTHING is in HD and I don't have to pay extra for it, I will upgrade. Until then, I'll watch my HDTV with component cables for DVD's and get the regular signal for DTV.

[Swanman]

Originally Posted by Dartggod

A 27" standard def vs. a 50" Hi def is no comaprison. Compare 50" standard against 50" High def and the hi-def wins hands down.

Exactly. A standard picture looks very good on tv's that are 27" and under, so you can't compare a hi-def bigscreen to a small screen tv with standard. On my 65" Mitsu, standard definition looks like complete horseshit next to HD. It doesn't help that Directv compresses the data so much on the standard definition channels to make room for the number of channels they offer.

Your test should have been, instead of comparing the 27" to the 50", is switch from HBO HD on 509 to regular HBO on 501 on the 50". You would have definitely seen a difference.

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav

Dude I looked at the difference on the same TV at the same time with the same sports programming from ESPN.

Heh. You're one of the people in the report. They had a report a few weeks ago that something like 50% of HDTV owners don't even have High Definition hooked up correctly on their Tv's and something like 70% of them don't even realize it. (Not the exact numbers, but it was extrememly high).

Believe me, if you have High Def working you will now. Here's a really easy way to see the difference:

Change your computer's display size to 640x480 and look at your desktop. Then change your display size to 1600x1200. See the difference? The difference between High Def and Standard TV is just as drastic.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav

I have HiDef and I tell you that I am not all that impresssed people sound like it is some sort of night and day difference. On my brand new LCD 52 inch Mitsubishi there is a barely discernable difference, yes it is slightly better but if I did not have tons of disposable income there is no way I could justify the difference. In that regard Skip is right. The only way I was able to tell the difference was to put the High Def ESPN in the main picture and the regular version of the same ESPN channel in the PIP. Yes I could tell by doing it but I think you all are comparing apples and oranges somehow to see some sort of huge difference.

Thanks for that, Vlad.
The lack of perception you display here is very reassuring when I reflect back on all the times I've asked myself "is it just me or is Vlad just plain insane."

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

Now I have proof it is not my imagination. Today I did a 4 TV install with three standards and one Hi Def. As it happened, myself and the customer were able to stand at a point where we could see both the Hi Def and one of the standards at the same time. The Hi Def was hooked to a big screen Mitsubishi and the standard to a 27" Sony. I told him about you clowns worshipping the Hi Def and asked for his opinion. He agreed the standard was every bit as good as the Hi Def. But he said it did improve the picture on the Mitsubishi big screen by about 10% over the Dish Notwork he had on it before I arrived.

Does DirecTV know you don't know how to install properly?

[KCTitus]

There's no difference between a TRUE HD broadcast and a movie upconverted on an HD channel? That's ridiculous.

Level of detail alone via higher screen resolution and more pixels/lines per inch simply blows away any analog TV. It's ludicrous to argue.

Im guessing if you dont see a difference, then back in the day, you also had a VCR that blinked '12:00' and you couldnt figure out why.

[chagrin]

This is ridiculous. I constantly turn from hi-def to non-hi de channels to see the difference and to show others the dif all the time - it's night and day.

Skip's in full Vlad - mode. He's just trying to get goats

Signed,

The proud owner of a 60 inch Sony HDTV

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav

It is a rear project CRT I am not sure what you talking about. Is there such a thing as a regular Tube CRT in a 65" size? I did a google search and found nothing.

Yes a Cathode Ray Tube maxes out at 40 inches.
A standard rear projection television uses CRT's, where usually three or more are projected(red, green, blue). I assume you bought a LCD projection TV that uses a single LCD projector. Thus alowing my statement that the LCD picture is inferior to CRT picture.

[Shag]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

Yes a Cathode Ray Tube maxes out at 40 inches.
A standard rear projection television uses CRT's, where usually three or more are projected(red, green, blue). I assume you bought a LCD projection TV that uses a single LCD projector. Thus alowing my statement that the LCD picture is inferior to CRT picture.

heh, I love when people present their own opinion as fact...

For YOU and your preferences, CRT may be the best picture. For me or someone else, we may prefer an LCD, DLP, or plasma picture. It's preference - there's no guarantee that what's "better" to you is "better" to me.

I strongly disagree with your statement that LCD is the worst of all the tv technologies. Personally, I feel it is the best for my lifestyle and what I want to use it for, and it had the best picture to my eyes. CRTs have lots of convergence issues, burn-in problems, and typically have very reflective screen covers/protectors. Plasma is very high cost and has burn-in and longevity problems. DLP sets can display rainbows (which I see, btw, even with higher speed color wheels), and don't have the lumen outputs of other formats. LCDs can lose pixels and display SDE.

They all have their ups and downs. I spent around a month demoing TVs of all types, using my own pre-selected source material. I had salesmen jumping through hoops to ensure that every set I watched used the exact same source equipment, playing my source material. I spent many hours looking at sets side-by-side. For me, the Sony Grand Wega LCD RPTV came out on top decisively. No other picture compared, IMO. My wife came to the same conclusion.

Does that make LCD the best techlology? No, it makes it the best technology for me. Sounds like CRT is for you. I know many DLP fans. For the record, you will find roughly equal numbers of people on both sides of the LCD/DLP debate. CRT and plasma are becoming niche markets (for new big-screen HDTV purchases).

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by Shag

heh, I love when people present their own opinion as fact...

For YOU and your preferences, CRT may be the best picture. For me or someone else, we may prefer an LCD, DLP, or plasma picture. It's preference - there's no guarantee that what's "better" to you is "better" to me.

I strongly disagree with your statement that LCD is the worst of all the tv technologies. Personally, I feel it is the best for my lifestyle and what I want to use it for, and it had the best picture to my eyes. CRTs have lots of convergence issues, burn-in problems, and typically have very reflective screen covers/protectors. Plasma is very high cost and has burn-in and longevity problems. DLP sets can display rainbows (which I see, btw, even with higher speed color wheels), and don't have the lumen outputs of other formats. LCDs can lose pixels and display SDE.

They all have their ups and downs. I spent around a month demoing TVs of all types, using my own pre-selected source material. I had salesmen jumping through hoops to ensure that every set I watched used the exact same source equipment, playing my source material. I spent many hours looking at sets side-by-side. For me, the Sony Grand Wega LCD RPTV came out on top decisively. No other picture compared, IMO. My wife came to the same conclusion.

Does that make LCD the best techlology? No, it makes it the best technology for me. Sounds like CRT is for you. I know many DLP fans. For the record, you will find roughly equal numbers of people on both sides of the LCD/DLP debate. CRT and plasma are becoming niche markets (for new big-screen HDTV purchases).

Yes everything is relevant.
But lets say for example you take a live video feed of a full color spectrum object and feed it into a CRT TV and a LCD TV next to each other, with the full color spectrum object actually in between so as to be seen also. The CRT will reproduce a picture more accurately matching the object then current LCD technology will.
Its just like comparing speakers. If you can hear the live instrument, then hear it reproduced back thru different speakers, you can determine which speakers are most accurate. Otherwise it just all boils down to what your own ears and eyes like, personal preference.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

Now I have proof it is not my imagination. Today I did a 4 TV install with three standards and one Hi Def. As it happened, myself and the customer were able to stand at a point where we could see both the Hi Def and one of the standards at the same time. The Hi Def was hooked to a big screen Mitsubishi and the standard to a 27" Sony. I told him about you clowns worshipping the Hi Def and asked for his opinion. He agreed the standard was every bit as good as the Hi Def. But he said it did improve the picture on the Mitsubishi big screen by about 10% over the Dish Notwork he had on it before I arrived.

Sorry, Skip. But that is complete BS.
The difference is HUGE! Something tells me you didn't have the HDTV on a HD program/channel...