High-Def TVs?

"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

Al, that would make sense if the main picture-quality bottleneck for SD programming was its native resolution . . . but that's not the case. Pristene-quality NTSC video is actually quite stunning, it's just that the common modes of consumer delivery (analog broadcast, analog cable, and compressed digital QAM from cable and DBS services) make quite a mess of it. A typical mid-1980s high-end video setup was an 8' diagonal screen with a Kloss Novabeam projector . . . such a system with an analog C-band satellite feed could easily embarass anything in Best Buy playing HD.

Here are what I see as some of the biggest picture quality problems with consumer TVs:

7. Poor viewing angle - this continues to be a problem with most RP and LCD technologies. RPs still frequently have poor corner focus as well.

6. Excessive luminance peaking - the classic "sharpness control" set too high, causing lots of noise

5. Non-linear grey scale - LCDs typically have problems at the black end, all technologies seem to have problems at the white end, mostly processing/calibration related

4. Grey-scale linearity doesn't match between each color

3. Color balance is usually WAY, WAY off

2. De-interlacing artifacts

1. POOR SCALING ALGORITHMS!!! Really, there's no excuse here, just corner-cutting. It's interesting how many of them have noise issues that are amplified by common MPEG compression.

All of these issues (except for #1 somewhat, and sometimes #6) exist for BOTH standard and high-definition broadcasts. It's simply that with HD, the source is that much better to start with, so most people don't notice it as much.

Kirkus -- Thanks for your thoughtful insights.

Actually, they reinforce the decision I made about 3 years ago to buy the last and perhaps best crt-based hdtv of its screen size ever made, just before it became unavailable. A Sony 30 inch 16:9 hdtv set, model KD-30XS955 (all 155 pounds of it!). The display technology-related issues that comprise much of your list were, of course, even more pronounced then for flat panel sets, but of course essentially don't apply to crt-based sets, which in my view at the time provided much better picture quality for much lower prices.

We watch Cablevision cable channels on this set, from a distance of about 7 feet. Analog sd channels are quite nice, digital sd channels are significantly better, and hd channels are as good as I can conceive of.

When I bought the set, I also purchased an Avia setup dvd, but I never saw fit to use it because everything seemed so perfect right out of the box (once I turned off the set's default "vivid" mode, that is).

Too bad the manufacturers have pretty much unilaterally taken the option of high quality crt-based hdtv sets away from consumers.

Thanks again for your good comments.

Regards,
-- Al