Guest Princess Leena Report post Posted November 29, 2006 I cant stand it when people stretch SD material, but if you wanna make everyone look like Jabba the Hutt then fine. Heh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Black Lushus 0 Report post Posted November 29, 2006 boy, talk about some fuckin nitpickin...it's not even nearly THAT bad...give me a break. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted November 29, 2006 Oh no! Someone is misusing HDTV! Call the FCC, so they can take several more years getting the broadcasters to convert to digital signals! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted November 29, 2006 boy, talk about some fuckin nitpickin...it's not even nearly THAT bad...give me a break. I don't even see that as nitpicking because it does look bad. I was at the doctors today and they have a 42" LCD so people can watch TV while they wait. And of course the image is streched to fit the whole TV. I asked if they could change it to 736(ESPN HD) and they said they don't have the HD box. However, they do have a digital cable box. And the HD box is the same price as a regular digital cable box is, plus HD is free. So why don't they use the TV for what it should be used as. I just don't get it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted November 29, 2006 boy, talk about some fuckin nitpickin...it's not even nearly THAT bad...give me a break. I don't even see that as nitpicking because it does look bad. I was at the doctors today and they have a 42" LCD so people can watch TV while they wait. And of course the image is streched to fit the whole TV. I asked if they could change it to 736(ESPN HD) and they said they don't have the HD box. However, they do have a digital cable box. And the HD box is the same price as a regular digital cable box is, plus HD is free. So why don't they use the TV for what it should be used as. I just don't get it. You're right, it is kind of dumb, but you do realize you're probably the only single person that's noticed or mentioned it either, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cheech Tremendous 0 Report post Posted November 29, 2006 I'd say about 90-95% of people don't even know or understand what HD is, even after explaining it to them. Everyone seems to think widescreen tv automatically equals HD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted November 29, 2006 boy, talk about some fuckin nitpickin...it's not even nearly THAT bad...give me a break. I don't even see that as nitpicking because it does look bad. I was at the doctors today and they have a 42" LCD so people can watch TV while they wait. And of course the image is streched to fit the whole TV. I asked if they could change it to 736(ESPN HD) and they said they don't have the HD box. However, they do have a digital cable box. And the HD box is the same price as a regular digital cable box is, plus HD is free. So why don't they use the TV for what it should be used as. I just don't get it. You're right, it is kind of dumb, but you do realize you're probably the only single person that's noticed or mentioned it either, right? Yeah, I am probably the only one, which makes it really sad. There aren't going to be anymore HD channels because the public isn't educated on it at all. My sister is getting an HDTV but I'm going to have to do everything for her. She doesn't understand anything. I tried to explain to her the difference between HDDVD/Blu-Ray/DVD and she had no idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted November 29, 2006 boy, talk about some fuckin nitpickin...it's not even nearly THAT bad...give me a break. I don't even see that as nitpicking because it does look bad. I was at the doctors today and they have a 42" LCD so people can watch TV while they wait. And of course the image is streched to fit the whole TV. I asked if they could change it to 736(ESPN HD) and they said they don't have the HD box. However, they do have a digital cable box. And the HD box is the same price as a regular digital cable box is, plus HD is free. So why don't they use the TV for what it should be used as. I just don't get it. You're right, it is kind of dumb, but you do realize you're probably the only single person that's noticed or mentioned it either, right? Yeah, I am probably the only one, which makes it really sad. There aren't going to be anymore HD channels because the public isn't educated on it at all. My sister is getting an HDTV but I'm going to have to do everything for her. She doesn't understand anything. I tried to explain to her the difference between HDDVD/Blu-Ray/DVD and she had no idea. Well, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are extremely new on the consumer market, so most people aren't aware of them yet. I hope you're not telling her she should get a new player right now, given they're expensive and there are few movie titles out yet. I personally don't see any reason to upgrade from DVD right now, and I even have an upconverting DVD player right now. The reason people aren't educated is because the manufacturers, retailers, and networks have not made it easy to understand. People don't give a crap about what 1080 interlaced lines or 16:9 aspect ratios are. They just want to watch their favorite sports team or sitcom with a good picture on a big screen to impress their neighbors. If the powers-that-be would make things simple, you wouldn't have to do all your hand wringing about this stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted November 29, 2006 No I didn't tell her to get one as she has no need for it. She barely ever watches something more than once and her kids are the only ones who watch DVDs. And there are about 5 family movies on HDDVD so far, so it would be a waste of money for her. I was explaining HDDVD to her so she could get me some for X-Mas. She didn't understand why she couldn't just get me DVDs and got confused. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted November 30, 2006 Frankly, I don't think the HD channels should be extra money at this point. If anything, the TV manufacturers and broadcasters should foot the bill to allow the digital cable and satellite providers to give free HD to all their subscribers. It would get more people buying HDTV sets if they knew they could take it home and instantly be getting HD channels from the services they already have. I have Cablevision and I don't have to pay extra for HD. I only have to pay the $5.00 extra for the box. There are plenty of HD networks available that aren't widely carried because carriers don't have the bandwith (even Cable!) to offer them. I have FSNNY and MSG in HD and I barely see anything in HD. Only about 1/3 of the Knick games are in HD and a 1/3 of the Ranger games are in HD. It's bullshit. And MyNetwork is in HD and the only shows they have in HD are the stupid soap operas they have on everynight. And INHD/INHD2 both blow with nothing ever good on them. Atleast HDNet has good movies. They should use some of that bandwith for ESPN2HD. I'd LOVE to have DiscoveryHD and NFL Network HD, but we don't even have NFL Network so I doubt we'll get it in HD anytime soon. Whatever, since it is free, beggers can't be choosers. Directv is at least nice enough to have all of those..sort of. NFL Network is only in HD when theres actually something in HD on. Discovery HD is like watching Discovery Channel reruns from the past 3 or 4 years, and yet still..NO FUCKING MYTHBUSTERS IN HD! Bunch of Retards. ESPN2 is nice in HD..youd be surprised to know that they have DRAG RACING IN HD of all things. I'm glad you are happy with HD Lite. That argument over to AVS is annoying. HD Lite looks miles better than directvs SD programming (which is horrid). And it will get better starting next year when they can add new sats and swtich to MPEG4 completely. Problem is, my HD Tivo will be useless...wah! Im glad there are at least a few people who dont understand the need to have a HD TV hooked up to non-hd programming AND stretching it to fill the screen. You can almost immediately tell if its stretched or HD because everything looks bloated if its stretched. I cant stand that, and Id rather lose 1/5 (approx) of the screen to black bars than to have to deal with that bloating effect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted November 30, 2006 What is this HD Lite argument? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted November 30, 2006 Frankly, I don't think the HD channels should be extra money at this point. If anything, the TV manufacturers and broadcasters should foot the bill to allow the digital cable and satellite providers to give free HD to all their subscribers. It would get more people buying HDTV sets if they knew they could take it home and instantly be getting HD channels from the services they already have. I have Cablevision and I don't have to pay extra for HD. I only have to pay the $5.00 extra for the box. There are plenty of HD networks available that aren't widely carried because carriers don't have the bandwith (even Cable!) to offer them. I have FSNNY and MSG in HD and I barely see anything in HD. Only about 1/3 of the Knick games are in HD and a 1/3 of the Ranger games are in HD. It's bullshit. And MyNetwork is in HD and the only shows they have in HD are the stupid soap operas they have on everynight. And INHD/INHD2 both blow with nothing ever good on them. Atleast HDNet has good movies. They should use some of that bandwith for ESPN2HD. I'd LOVE to have DiscoveryHD and NFL Network HD, but we don't even have NFL Network so I doubt we'll get it in HD anytime soon. Whatever, since it is free, beggers can't be choosers. Directv is at least nice enough to have all of those..sort of. NFL Network is only in HD when theres actually something in HD on. Discovery HD is like watching Discovery Channel reruns from the past 3 or 4 years, and yet still..NO FUCKING MYTHBUSTERS IN HD! Bunch of Retards. ESPN2 is nice in HD..youd be surprised to know that they have DRAG RACING IN HD of all things. I'm glad you are happy with HD Lite. That argument over to AVS is annoying. HD Lite looks miles better than directvs SD programming (which is horrid). And it will get better starting next year when they can add new sats and swtich to MPEG4 completely. Problem is, my HD Tivo will be useless...wah! Im glad there are at least a few people who dont understand the need to have a HD TV hooked up to non-hd programming AND stretching it to fill the screen. You can almost immediately tell if its stretched or HD because everything looks bloated if its stretched. I cant stand that, and Id rather lose 1/5 (approx) of the screen to black bars than to have to deal with that bloating effect. Depends on your TV and the size. Westinghouse for example has a very good fill mode. Not zoom, but fill that doesn't result in everyone looking like a watermelon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianGuitarist 0 Report post Posted November 30, 2006 I'd say about 90-95% of people don't even know or understand what HD is, even after explaining it to them. Everyone seems to think widescreen tv automatically equals HD. What I've noticed, is that, worse than your second line, is an extended part of your first: I'm amazed by how many people assume that just buying an HDTV will mean they have everything (and I mean everything; Seinfeld re-runs to CSI) broadcast in HD immediately out of the box...Every customer I've helped with HDTV, I've given a bit of an overview to as far as broadcasts available, services necesary, tried to avoid specs, other than 1080/720/480, and referred to howstuffworks.com or tsn.ca for more specific information...I mean, when you get down to it, ultimately, how much do you really need to know? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dandy 0 Report post Posted December 2, 2006 Crutchfield.com has easy-to-follow explanations of everything to do with the switch to HDTV. They explain the screensize differences, what you can pick up, and they explain the pros and cons of different styles of TVs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted December 2, 2006 I don't think anybody's splitting hairs. One guy's trying to correct everyone else even though he's wrong. Im not wrong here though. He said "well it is a CRT TV which is the best kind of HDTV". Generally, projection sets, even if they technically are CRTs, are not considered the best kind of HDTV due to the odd viewing angles and such. Regular flat screen CRT HDTVs are still considered the best for picture quality (most notably better black color than any other option) despite the fact that they are about 50 times larger and 1/3 to 1/2 cheaper or more for comparitive options. "Mole..really..do you know the difference between CRT and Projection..it doesnt seem like it." He may have been talking about the wrong kind of CRT, but you were wrong for insisting that the TV in question was not a CRT. What is this HD Lite argument? I'm curious about this as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted December 2, 2006 He may have been talking about the wrong kind of CRT, but you were wrong for insisting that the TV in question was not a CRT Yes, thank you. Marv, what is your name at AVS again? Anyone else go there? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted December 3, 2006 HD Lite, a term coined by someone (Im assuming probably AVS but I dont know) is Directv's solution to limited bandwith capacity until they get their 2 sats launched next year and convert over fully to MPEG4 encoding. Most of, if not all of their HD channels are offered 1280x1080i (although I think sports channels are left at 1280x720p). They are getting sued because they keep promoting offering HD Channels in 1080i (think Jessica Simpson's stupid ad) and 1080i would be 1920x1080i which isn't what they are offering. Your real uptight HD fanatics with other options for HD are throwing fits and calling for boycotts on the basis that if Directv keeps it up and makes money than cable operators will start doing it as well. Unfortunately without a sat service for HD, Id be stuck with CBS and ABC in HD because I live too far out for Cable or anything else, and the signal is still much better than all of Directvs SD resolution channels (which look worse than normal SD I should add). Supposedly with the 2 Sat Launces Directv will have capacity to add 40 HD Channels (national or Locals is the hot question right now) but it might also allow them to transmit 1080i at 1920x1080 too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted December 3, 2006 Yeah, I've noticed DTVs SD channels look like shit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted December 3, 2006 I don't know if they look as good as digital cable, but they look better than analogue cable. The reason I wn't go back to cable (and Rant already once explained why they do this) is because the lower-tier cable channels aren't digital. I wouldn't care if it wasn't for the fact that I like to watch the Sci-Fi Channel and Comedy Central, and those looked super-snowy. I signed a 2 year contract when I got my DirecTV HD, so I'm stuck until they get their satelitte's launched anyways. I basically let them screw me because they lied and said I'd be able to get the broadcast networks through the East or West Coast affiliates, but then everyone but my local Fox affiliate declined my waiver. The antennae they put on my house to pick up local affiliates only gets about 4 local HD channels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted December 3, 2006 In most Comcast areas, the lowe tier are digital if you live in an ADS (All Digital Simulcast) market like Washington state. Basically we broadcast channles both the analog and digital and if you have a digital settop box or a TV with a QAM tuner, you'll get the digital version. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted December 4, 2006 I'm not so sure since I moved last year, but I'm thinking I live in a Time-Warner area. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted December 4, 2006 I was reading about how they're going to phase out Analog AM/FM radio over in England replacing it with Digital (and also HD) Radio, and I was thinking how much harder that would be in the US than even TV. You can stick an analog radio tuner in a cheap piece of crap and sell it for $2. Plus everyone with a radio in their car would need a new radio, not to mention people with alarm clocks. I figure after they do the TV transition they'll probably go after radio, so its still a ways down the road.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted December 4, 2006 Well TV it a lot easier, hell is should have been done by now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the max 0 Report post Posted January 1, 2007 I got my HDMI/DVI cable from monoprice.com. $11.98 shipped. Compared to those fucking rip-off Monster cables that are like $125, that's a fucking steal and a half. Oh and I'll fill everyone in on what a fucking no-nothing I am. I hook up the DVI cable, change the input on the TV to DVI, change the cable box to one of the free HD channels (still haven't ordered the HD channels)...I have no sound. I spent about 15 minutes screwing around with the cable and the settings on the TV before I pulled out the tv manual and realized that I needed to buy audio cables too. I told the gal and she's not stopped laughing at me. The picture is good, the sound is good. I'll reserve judgment for Leafs v. Bruins tonight, in HD. If the Bruins win, this was a good investment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianGuitarist 0 Report post Posted January 1, 2007 got my HDMI/DVI cable from monoprice.com. $11.98 shipped. Compared to those fucking rip-off Monster cables that are like $125, that's a fucking steal and a half. That's an absolute steal indeed.....any reviews on monster cable, while we're at it? I've had a few customers ask me for them, though we've never carried them. Do they do both audio and video transfer? $125 does seem like a lot when we sell home theatres for like $100 at 100 watts (pardon the commercial). While I'm at it, what do I need to know about native resolution? Obviously, a higher range is better, but is there say, a cap or ceiling on a native resolution and a TV's ability to get an HD signal? Does native resolution only apply to analogue? Any correlation between the two whatsoever? Also, what is an XVGA signal? (Or is it XGA?) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2007 HDMI transfers Audio and Video, but DVI only transfers video. The monster cables are over rated. I've gotten an HDMI cable on eBay for $5.99 or something like that. What's this about home theaters for $100 at 100 watts? What is good about HDMI is that all one needs you need is connection for both audio and video. Unlike with DVI or component where you have to plug in either analog, coxial or optical. It makes it so much easier. Plus if you have a receiver that has an HDMI input, you'll get the best sound possible. You can get TrueHD off of HD-DVD players with it. It is the only way to do so unless you want to connect each speaker through the Toshiba A1 through analog. And the new HD-DVD players, A2, the only way to get TrueHD is through HDMI. XVGA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XVGA XGA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xga And instead of me explaining resolutions, just go here: http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html Wait, where do you work? Shouldn't they have trained you or something? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianGuitarist 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2007 Wait, where do you work? Shouldn't they have trained you or something? Wal*Mart. Training is minimal, thus my eagerness to learn things on my own before I'm asked them by a customer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2007 Oh, welllll then. Yeah, that is the last place I'd ever shop for a TV. No offense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2007 I want to get an upconverting DVD player and I was also thinking of getting one with a recording capabilities. If you combine the two functions, they are are expensive. Are they worth the money? I figured progressive or higher would be better than what my Xbox outputs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Th 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2007 Well, you can't record HDTV onto DVDs, if that's what you want to do. You can only do that on DVHS and only certain TVs can use DVHSs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
