HD TV. Should I get one?

[Spyke^]

Sorry if this is a repost, but I did search this forum and didn't find any mention of it..

I've been hearing a lot of conflicting information about HD TV's and when they are "shutting off the analogue signal".

I've seen/heard that this is supposed to happen in 2007.

Has anyone else heard this? I'm thinking about buyuing a new 32" flat screen LG TV and then I started hearing these stories.

I've used Google and I can get opinions both ways so I thought I'd ask around here.
Buddy at the store sure isn't going to tell me "yeah, in about three years, this TV is going to be useless"

Also, if that is true, what about all of the other people that cannot afford a new TV?
I worked my ass off to get in a position where I can finally buy a new TV to replace the 27" RCA that currently resides in my livingroom, I plan on moving that one to the bedroom, but like I said I know that there is a lot of people not in that same position.

Jeez, there must be millions of people that can't just go out and buy a new TV.


Last weekend during the NASCAR race at Richmond ( don't even get me started on that new points system) they mentioned that the race was available in HD.
Is that what we're talking about?
Shows being simulcast in HD?

I noticed a commercial on my local cable station advertising for a set-top box for HD TV.
Yeah, just what i want, a fugly box and another remote..thankfully my remote for my Receiver is a "Learning Remote" which can handle almost any command you can throw at it...

So, ideas, comments?

*edit* I guess it should be mentioned that I am in Canada as I'm guessing that situations vary from place to place.

[-Davo]

HD is just High Definition. As you may already know, the Digital World is taking over..

We have Digital Cable. Digital TV, Digital Radio, Digital music, Digital cameras, etc

I've heard the same thing, that around 2007 HD will be the only TV around. Whether it's true or not, I have no idea.
But there are already HD TV's out, and because of this, most tv programs are shooting in HD for those who can have it.

I've also heard that the analogue signal won't be cut off.

[ToyTundra]

I don't think there is a clear plan drawn out yet. I'm going to wait until everything is ironed out. I don't want HD to turn into Divx.

My girlfriend's parents have a samsung and non hd signals look like hell.

[FikseGTS]

I have a Mitsubishi 65" HDTV, and recently picked up a Sharp 26" LCD HDTV... It's incredible..... there is a lot of HD content to watch these days.... I recommend going with LCD if you can...

http://www.vulnerabilityscanning.com

.

[Webmaster_Zeus]

Like all technology, its so called "time" to replace the old analogue method for digital. There have been plans put in place to "roll over" analogue to digital, so they allow this time for the transition. Even though you do not have HD tvs, you'll find they'll be selling digital -> analogue converters for older tvs for those who can't justify the cost of the conversion.

I wouldn't worry too much about whether everything will have a good transition or if standards will be settled or not, the important thing is to informed yourself of the technology, get a budget and shop within that domain.

I would recommand that if u do shop to becareful of the ratios, as here in australia there's two different ratios, one is the australian and the other is the more "australian" standard, the different ratio means the difference in picture getting cut off. As the australian ratio is slightly bigger then the american one, those who bought the american one will be seeing less of the picture then the other ratio. The difference between the two is also the cost, which is quite a bit, but run a search on the specs and see what you can come up with, it all comes down to cost and the tradeoff your willing to settle with. Like with all technology its about trade offs, cost vs quality, cost vs functionality, cost vs usage, design vs lifespan, etc etc. Good luck in your purchase.

[eversio11]

Way back in 96/97, DVD players cost about how much? $500? $600? Four years later, DVD became the standard for home video. Of course, four years later DVD players became inexpensive enough that anyone that could afford a VCR could afford a DVD player.

If HD becomes the standard for television broadcast, manufacturers will HAVE to lower costs if they want the same viewers and ratings. Besides, HD is an unused technology. Sure, theres some simulcasts in HD, but not even a fraction of TV has been HD-tapped yet. There aren't even HD DVDs out yet.

[DVS LT1]

Originally Posted by -Davo

I've heard the same thing, that around 2007 HD will be the only TV around. Whether it's true or not, I have no idea.
But there are already HD TV's out, and because of this, most tv programs are shooting in HD for those who can have it.

I've also heard that the analogue signal won't be cut off.

There is still not too much HD programming in the sense of channels - and thats what is needed for HDTV to become a real alternative to cable. There is actually a lot of HD material out there, but its just a matter of filling up a whole channel with programming from morning to night - and with current programming. Quite a few HD channels show programs that are so old and they play the same crap over and over (mostly to demonstrate what is like). ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox from what I've heard have prime time HD programming but its a very short window, limited to only the top programs.

Yet more and more channels pop up everyday. When I left electronics retail DirectTV had 2 or 3 I believe, and the programming was infrequent. Now the local digital cable provider boasts something like 12 HD channels, with plans to go up to 18-20 shortly. HD is growing, but its still got a ways to go. By 2007... ya I can see it really being mainstream. But I happen to think there will always be an analogue alternative to digital sat/cable.

I remember back when the US broadcasting body would revise its estimates for HD proliferation every year - first they said 2004 HD would be everywhere, then 2005, then 2006, now 2007. Fact is the (what the heck is that body called?? FTC?) isn't telling networks to switch, they're asking them to. Who do you think the majority of their viewers are? Its the hundred million + people with 27-32" tube sets, not the relative few who have HDTV sets. Even though HDTV sales are slowly passing non-hdtv sales, the are still MILLIONS and MILLIONS of square 100-200lb glass boxes out there being used to watch tv. It will ONLY be when the big stores stop selling square non-HD sets and when most of the ones currently out are thrown out that HDTV be allowed to completely take over. Well, average lifespan of a tube set is about 8-12 years, and some of the manufacturers are between 1-2, maybe 3 years away from dropping tube technology altogether. Do the math...

[DVS LT1]

Originally Posted by ToyTundra

My girlfriend's parents have a samsung and non hd signals look like hell.

If its a rear projection - I don't care if its DLP, LCD, or CRT - it sure does! Its so funny how they make plasmas and new digital projection tvs out to have the best picture. An old fashioned CRT glass tube set will put to shame just about any of these new digital displays short of a $10,000 Pioneer Elite plasma when watching regular cable. Its funny, I've been saying for years that when you watch HDTV on a rear projection HD set, it looks as clear as a tube (what regular old CABLE would look like on a tube set).

[DVS LT1]

Sorry about the consecutive posts but don't like reading page-long posts.

Originally Posted by FikseGTS

have a Mitsubishi 65" HDTV, and recently picked up a Sharp 26" LCD HDTV... It's incredible..... there is a lot of HD content to watch these days.... I recommend going with LCD if you can...

You can't really compare the two - you will ALWAYS get a better image from a smaller viewing area (and you happen to be comparing extremes here). LCD panel technology (as opposed to LCD projector technology) has many benefits like super long practically infinite lifespan, no image retention or burn-in (ever), and low energy consumption. But, I personally can't stand how horrible the contrast (black levels) are on them as well as how poorly they take to quick moving programming. Ever had an LCD computer screen and scrolled down a page really fast? Everything goes blurry and gitterey right? Its an inherent limitation of the technology - obviously the consumer display panels are much better than the computer monitors, but take a 24" CRT tube set (ANY 24" tube set - the cheapest you can find!) and put it up to that 26" LCD on regular cable, you will feel good about the LCD only if you can convince yourself that you paid the extra $600-800 for a slimmer, space saving set.

HERE IS THE SCAM: High Definition programming looks amazing on any HD monitor... thats because you're used to watching 1/5 the quality on regular NTSC signals (digital/analogue). So even the crappiest of HD sets like the AIKI or whatever shit they sell at Costco looks pretty impressive on HD, but absolutely brutal when you hook it up to cable at home. Put that HD set up to a class leader and you'll see that difference. Here's a tip when comparing sets: take a DVD that you are very familiar with (especially if you've noticed imperfections in it), and use that DVD and only that DVD to judge different sets. These days stores play HD content for advertising purposes but they also have DVD hooked up as well (if not, ASK them to get a DVD and hook it up - you should NEVER buy a new TV by simply judging it on the programming they're showing you. They're showing you what makes the tv look best. Take a particularly dark dvd like Daredevil (horrible flick) for instance. You'll quickly see which sets excel and which fall short.

[DVS LT1]

Originally Posted by eversio11

Way back in 96/97, DVD players cost about how much? $500? $600? Four years later, DVD became the standard for home video. Of course, four years later DVD players became inexpensive enough that anyone that could afford a VCR could afford a DVD player.

If HD becomes the standard for television broadcast, manufacturers will HAVE to lower costs if they want the same viewers and ratings. Besides, HD is an unused technology. Sure, theres some simulcasts in HD, but not even a fraction of TV has been HD-tapped yet. There aren't even HD DVDs out yet.

You're right that DVD is the fastest growing technology in history - BUT, the cheapy players you can get today for under $100 are nothing like the $500 players of a few years ago. The quality of these things is so pathetic, every conrer is now being cut to manufacture the units as cheap as possible. Whereas before the units may have had metal chassis, clips and ceramic chipsets, they are now using cheap plastic parts for chassis and electronics. I had customers coming to me who said they "needed" a new progressive scan DVD because their old one didn't have it, and I would say look your old $1200 player is built like a tank and uses the best video DAC. Why would you want to replace it (first of all) with a cheap $300 pregressive DVD (second of all). Who cares if its interlaced or not? Why would you want to trade up an extremely clear high resolution interlaced picture for a much shittier de-interlaced signal???

TV's are the same way - nothing is built like it once was. In todays day and age you get what you pay for, and the reality is the difference in price these days has MORE to do with product build quality and less to do with performance. (when comparing similar models and companies, not hifi to lowfi of course).



My advice to you Spyke is go ahead and buy your LG set. LG is a company that has really made a name for itself here in North America over the last 2 years. They have decent quality and more importantly they are good with service - one reason why they are getting more successful. Other companies like Samsung are all about whoring the boxes out with little regard about quality or how long it will take to fix defects. Companies like Sony don't even even care because they're so big and have a mass of people who still think its the cats ass. If/when you decide to get a high def set make sure it is a widescreen aspect, because HD is broadcast in 16:9. No sense shelling out a few hundrew extra bucks on a 32" LG HD flat screen tube (if they even make it in an HDTV) only to end up seeing black bars when watching HD.

[phillyx2000]

by 2007 or so normal tv's should not be working.. i'd wait to get a hdtv though atleast for another year or so.. why? because prices are going to drop alot more the more and more they come out.. so you'll have much better prices with a much bigger selection to choose from.. also XBox 2 will most likely be playing all their games on HDTV as well.. seeing as they're probally going to go with the HD-DVD cd's.. and on that note.. that means DVD's will soon be HD as well... if you noticed with the current DVD's on a HDTV it seems like you're watching poorer quality.. which you actually are compared to normal HDTV.. but man.. you still can't beat the clarity that Plasma tv's have.. sucks that those ones are so expensive and have to be recharged every couple ot a few years though

[DVS LT1]

Originally Posted by phillyx2000

by 2007 or so normal tv's should not be working.

Why, where are they going???

I realise a lot can happen in three years, but there will still be "normal" tv's a.k.a. square glass tube sets (right?) as well as analogue programming. At the most we might see analogue signal ditched in favour of digital cable/sat, but we're not talking HDTV signals, just regular digital signals - there's nothing special with digital cable or satellite, in fact I KNOW that a good 75 ohm analogue cable signal going into a tv set looks better than a digital cable or satellite signal running through the same black coax cable.

As far as prices go, how "cheap" would you like your HDTV set to be? These days its hard not to buy a HDTV set. I mean, LOL, lookie here:

http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/televisi...sp?model=46H84

If $1,600 US for a 46" HDTV projection set is blowing your budget then how do you ever expect to pay for HDTV programming? (and this is list price which no sucker ends up paying!) HDTV programming is not cheap, and until it compeltely replaces analogue and non-HD digital broadcasting it will never be as affordable as those. (and that will definitely NOT happen within 3 years, probably not even 5 years). And don't think you'll easily be able to pirate HDTV with bogus satellite cards & boxes because the DVI video connnection is quickly being brought in specifically to stop piracy. You're probably better off to buy an HD set these days that still has component HD inputs cause once DVI becomes the only HD input on sets the service providers will be able to cut you off with a push of a button.

And we will never see HD-DVD's because its too much information to put on a disc (regardless of red or blue laser technology). Thats why D-VHS has popped up. Ya thats right, Digital VHS players. Just like your digital camcorders record digital information on a moving tape, D-VHS players do the same BUT they allow you to record and view High Definition content (we'll see if this technology ever replaces DVD, well, it WILL for those really picky videophiles - it already is). The way of the future will be to get away from physical programming devices like tape or disc and toward full data storage like servers. Internet and databases will be linked to tv's and your HD video library will be a bunch of files on your server (these HD servers are already here! Digital HD cable providers can offer this feature). You'll never see HD DVD.

As far as plasma's go, that technology is doomed my friend. Thats right. The commercial industry has virtually abandoned plasma's altogether simply because they are unrealiable, practically impossible to repair, and experience image retention (burn in) easier than any other display technology in history! REmember: Plasma technology IS phosphor based, thats means there's chemicals burning inside the panel, and this technology will never last (reason why CRT tube & projection technology is being phased out, cause they contain phosphors as well). Thats why the plasma industry has dumped tons of panels on the market - the prices have gone from $10,000+ for a 42" to under $2k in less than 2 years! Check it out:

http://www.nextag.com/Zenith_42_in_P...ionzmainz2-htm

Again, how much cheaper do you want it? (the quality that is). Its no suprise that so many of these brand new panels come right out of the box with bad pixels, which manufacturers are very quick these days to assert that these black dots are NOT manufacturer defects but simply "by-products" of the production process. My 12+ year old 37" mitsubishi tube tv will put to shame a new 42" Sony plasma with 480 vertical pixels. Only plasmas that have 1280 x 720 or greater resolution (1366 x 768, etc...) will give you a decent enough picture on cable or even DVD compared to a non-HD or HD flat screen tube set. But they cost thousands of dollars, and how much effort and care will be put into making those sets when its gonna cost the manufacturer MORE to actually get the plasma gas into the panel than retail the bloody thing? Like I said, plasma will be dead within a few years. Its a terrible technology...


I've seen plasmas where image retention (burn in) occured in less than 20 minutes (DVD menu screen was left on). Some models are absolutely pathetic (see link above).

[Spyke^]

Thanks for the replies guys.

Some great info there, especially you DVS LT1.

I had never really thought about the burn in that way until you mentioned about the phosphorus.

I did get the LG by the way.

I figure if it comes to it, I will move it down to the rec room for the boys DVD's/games etc.... and buy a new one for the livingroom.
I know, I know, it's just one of the sacrifices that you have to make...

$2000.00 for a 42" Plasma TV? Jesus!

[DVS LT1]

eh no prob. Lg is a good company.
Randy