High-Def TVs?


Hi all!

Last weekend I went shopping for a 50-inch plasma TV. The picture looked great as long as there was a high-def signal. I asked the salesman to change the channel to a non high-def channel. He did and it looked absolutely horrible! My old 27-inch tube TV has a far better picture at its 480 resolution than the plasma did at 480. Why would anyone want to watch a TV with such a pitifully poor picture?

The salesman explained about the HD channels and non-HD channels. He said that the local channels do not broadcast in HD 24 hours a day. That surprised me. He talked about cable and satellite channels.

I learned a lot that day. Basically that these new TVs are not worth the money until every station/channel is broadcasting in HD 24 x 7. Does anyone know if that is supposed to happen by a given date?

Dave
diofan56
Dave, what you've observed is ABSOLUTELY correct, as is your conclusion. The standard-definition picture looks bad on the set you describe . . . because this set has a bad picture. And unfortuneately, this is the case with most new TVs, of any technology.

Whether or not they look great with a high-definition picture is irrelevant . . . if you were shopping for new speakers, and they only sounded good on SACDs, but worse than your current pair on CDs, would you buy them? With a good HD source, it's easy to make a television look good . . . just like if you had a Studer A-80 reel-to-reel playing Tape Project reels as a source, you could make some pretty modest amps and speakers sound amazing.

It seems that the market for TVs these days is much like mass-market stereo receivers in the early 1970s -- major wars going on between big Asian companies for market dominance. The major target for their efforts are middle-class males, who have an insatiable appetite for armchair technical analysis and a cheap price tag. Hence, if you want the biggest numbers and most acronyms for the lowest price, it's a buyer's market.

But the intelligent way to buy a television is the same way one would shop for audio . . . bring in your own media on DVD, and compare the picture quality to what you already have at home.
I learned a lot that day. Basically that these new TVs are not worth the money until every station/channel is broadcasting in HD 24 x 7. Does anyone know if that is supposed to happen by a given date?

Dave
Diofan56

No, nobody knows when all channels will convert to HDTV 24 X 7. They may know that analog signals end in February 2009, but that has nothing to do with HDTV.

My question to you Dave, is are you planning on watching TV 24 X 7?

I have owned a HDTV for about 4 years now, and cannot go back. Not only is the picture quality in HD MUCH better, but I have HD material availible 24 X 7. Even if most channels do not broadcast in HD 24/7, my cable company always has 'On Demand', which means I can watch sports, movies or shows in HD any time I want. Most of it is free with subscription, some is pay-per-view. The bottom line is I don't watch SDTV anymore. I haven't seen an SDTV program in a couple of years now, so I don't see this as an issue.

As for the poorer picture quality of a HDTV in SDTV mode, I do agree with this, and I've heard a couple of explainations for it. First of all, yes 480 lines of resolution will look better on a 27 inch screen than a 50 inch screen, that's just simple mathematics.
Secondly, I have also heard that HDTV manufacturers invest most of their budget on the HDTV tuners, and tend to use the cheapest SDTV tuners made, whereas a SDTV manufacturer will spend a bit more money on their SDTV tuner.

Understandable, once you watch HDTV, who would want to watch in SDTV?

Cheers,
John
"Why would anyone want to watch a TV with such a pitifully poor picture?"

Because we don't buy HDTVs to watch standard definition TV.

If your prime interest is still in standard definition broadcast/programming, you simply might not be a good candidate for HDTV. But, don't blame the technology...a small amount of resolution can only be enlarged so much before it looks crappy.

Think of taking a 128k MP3 and running it through gear that upsamples to 24/192 and expecting some big increase in quality. Sounds like crap on your "big rig", but it might sound just fine on your iPod.
Man some of this posting about the Feb 2009 Digital cutoff is scary!
IF YOU HAVE CABLE, OR SATELITE YOU DONT HAVE TO WORRY NO MATTER WHAT CONNECTION YOU USE.
YOU CAN GET VOUCHERS FROM 888-388-2009 IF YOU INTEND TO USE A TV THAT ISNT DIGITAL FOR OVER THE AIR BROADCAST, WITH VOUCHER YOUR OUT OF POCKET IS MINIMAL BUT YOU ONLY HAVE LIMITED TIME TO CASH THEM IN (2 OF THEM PER HOUSEHOLD)

Nobody can make anyone think its worth an upgrade to HDTV, HD looks great and other channels will vary but will look poor and the bigger the screen the more obvious it is.
Seems to me that for someone who wants to watch both hdtv and sdtv extensively, and have reasonably good picture quality in both modes, the key is to simply select a screen size that will be the right compromise for both modes. Select it to be somewhat smaller than what would be ideal for hd for your particular viewing distance, and a little bigger than what would be ideal for sd at your viewing distance. Then find the set in that screen size that handles sd the best.

With prices so low these days, there seems to be little reason to wait several years for hd to become the predominant broadcast mode, or to try to future-proof by buying a screen size that is too big for sd. Just buy another set with a larger screen in several years, once hd has become predominant, and meanwhile have most of the quality that both modes offer.

-- Al