Since Czech questioned Satellite Radio...

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

In another thread, Czech questioned the purpose of paying money for satellite radio. That got me to thinking about a recent pet peeve. What the hell is the point of high definition tv?

 

Satellite radio runs $12.95 a month, period. In order to receive high definition television, you need to spend $500-1000+ on a new television, buy an HD DVD or Blu-Ray video player (with new video library), pay for a digital cable or satellite tv package, pay extra for certain high definition channels (ESPN HD and co. is an extra $12.95/month on my system). And for what, the video looks a little better? I barely look at the screen as it is.

[Nighthawk 0]

I hate it too. I mean, I'm sure I'll convert to it eventually, because I'll have no choice, but it will be against my will.

[Fuzzy Dunlop 0]

Well, I guess the difference is people paying for satellite radio are getting stations otherwise unavailable. People paying HDTV are getting the same channels but with better picture and sound. I mean, I understand both sides and why someone wouldn't pay all that money for either service, but I also don't see the point of being upset at someone who would. So, um, yeah, my post has no point.

[Fuzzy Dunlop 0]

Also, I have an HDTV, and I LOVE IT. I also have XM radio, but only for baseball games.

[Nighthawk 0]

I guess I'm too used to fifth generation snuff movies on 8mm.

[bob_barron 0]

I love my satellite radio

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

You really only need the expensive new TV. None of the other stuff is necessary, especially the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players (a $100 upconverting DVD player and a $10 HDMI cable will look great). The whole thing is tantamount to the difference between VHS and DVD. I'm surprised that, as a baseball guy, you haven't been won over yet. HD baseball is almost interesting enough to get me to watch it, and I'm profoundly disinterested in the sport.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

You know Al, watching a baseball game in HD is quite spectacular. I'm not insane about HD stuff like Marvin or anything, but watching a crystal clear game on a 42" television is one of my favorite things in life.

[Fuzzy Dunlop 0]

You know Al, watching a baseball game in HD is quite spectacular. I'm not insane about HD stuff like Marvin or anything, but watching a crystal clear game on a 42" television is one of my favorite things in life.

 

Agreed.

[King Kamala 0]

I'm surprised Marvin hasn't written an angry three paragraph response yet.

 

And HD baseball (and football and hockey) is a thing of beauty.

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

Yeah, sports do look pretty good in high definition, but I don't really care that much. It's not as if they look bad on my small crappy TV. I don't watch any great deal of TV, so it's a luxury I don't particularly need.

 

Edwin, I thought you were uninterested in baseball. Umpires are disinterested. Though I suppose you could be both.

[Jingus 0]

I don't watch sports, and aside from that I don't see how HD improves a lot of programming. I'm sure HDDVD movies will look great in the new format, but as for TV shows, does it really matter that much? I don't think that HD would make me enjoy, say, Two and a Half Men, even if you can see the soulless emptiness in Charlie Sheen's eyes. I don't mind those people who want to spend extra money for a new format, but I do mind being forced to buy a pricey new television just to watch the same stuff I always have.

 

I guess part of my underwhelming reaction is from the sheer amount of video footage I've watched either on grainy bootleg videos or, more recently, pixilated bootleg downloads. Unless I've got on some big-budget movie with beautiful cinematography, I just plain don't care about the sharpness of resolution and number of scanlines and all that crap. (Yet oddly enough, I am one of those Widescreen Nazis who despises full-frame... yeah, I got issues.)

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

You know Al, watching a baseball game in HD is quite spectacular. I'm not insane about HD stuff like Marvin or anything, but watching a crystal clear game on a 42" television is one of my favorite things in life.

If I had the money to spare, I'd buy season tickets to a minor league park instead.

[Mik 0]

I just got an HDTV about a month ago and honestly it was worth every penny.

 

Sports, my favorite TV shows, they all are just that much better.

 

It's especially GREAT for sports.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I think for HD to be really appreciated, you need to watch a fair amount of it, then go back to watching standard definiton stuff. This came up in the NHL thread a few weeks ago, how spoiled we've become. It really is miles better, though I do appreciate the point of not wanting to pay for it.

 

Like Mik said, I spend four figures on my new tv, and I don't regret it even a little. It's really akin to VHS being replaced by DVD as far as the sound and picture quality.

 

And yeah, where's Marvin?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

HDTVs are not that expensive anymore. You can get a decent sized screen for about $500 now (a flat panel one, even). Sure, you'll pay a little bit more for the bigger sizes, but when wasn't that true?

 

As far as satellite radio, I'm often in my car for an hour and a half or more during a weekday. I enjoy actually having different options for radio, rather than the typical regurgitated classic rock, conservative talk, and boring local sports coverage. Sure, I have a CD player and MP3 player, but it's cool to hear stuff on the music channels I wouldn't hear otherwise.

[Kinetic 0]

I'm starting to feel a little bad for Marvin. Yeah, the guy had a bad night on Monday, but his team was getting smeared on national television. I typically find him to be a pretty inoffensive, albeit completely hairless, guy.

[Cartman 0]

While you CAN buy flat panels for $500 you will get what you pay for. There are big differences between low end and high end LCD/Plasma/DLP's.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I'm starting to feel a little bad for Marvin. Yeah, the guy had a bad night on Monday, but his team was getting smeared on national television. I typically find him to be a pretty inoffensive, albeit completely hairless, guy.

 

I went to bat for him a few times during the poster tournament in the spring. There's no one here I have a problem with, including Marvin. His love for HD is absolutely unrivalled, and while I can't speak for others who mentioned him, I'm genuinely surprised he hadn't sad anything yet. I didn't mean it as a shot.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

HDTVs are not that expensive anymore. You can get a decent sized screen for about $500 now (a flat panel one, even). Sure, you'll pay a little bit more for the bigger sizes, but when wasn't that true?

 

$500 is not exactly a small piece of change I have lying around.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

While you CAN buy flat panels for $500 you will get what you pay for. There are big differences between low end and high end LCD/Plasma/DLP's.

 

Yeah, you'll get a "no name" brand like a Vizio or whatever...but honestly, I can't tell the difference in picture quality between two LCDs hooked up to a high def source. You may not get all the features of a "name brand", but the average person doesn't care about that stuff.

 

Prices keep coming down...I worked in an electronic store back in '02-'03, and the first plasma we carried was a Philips 42" HD-ready set for $7,000. That included a separate (bulky) tuner box you needed to even make the thing's picture look halfway decent. Now you can get a similiar set for between one and two grand.

 

I don't know...I've had my Mitsubishi 48" rear projection set for over four years now, and have really enjoyed it. I don't regret spending the approximately two grand on it, one bit. DVDs and video games on a big screen are pretty cool, not to mention high def programming.

[Black Lushus 0]

I've had my 52" rear projection RCA HDTV for 3 years and am quite happy with it. I'll get around to a flat panel evenually, probably to replace my 32" flat TUBE in the basement, but I'm in no rush. Speaking of that flat tube, I have it hooked up with my cable box through comp. cables and even though it's not HD quality, it's really not that bad either.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Edwin, I thought you were uninterested in baseball. Umpires are disinterested. Though I suppose you could be both.

Every prefix is my whore.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

I don't really see much of a difference between HDTV and regular TV, to be honest. Every display I've seen of an HDTV looks almost too crisp, you know? Like...un-real crisp. I'm probably alone, but I'd rather use my little Sanyo to watch my TV than some pricey system that really doesn't offer a whole hell of a lot that my "outdated" box doesn't.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I'm hearing a lot of "those dadgum kids and their new technologies."

[King Kamala 0]

I'm hearing a lot of "those dadgum kids and their new technologies."

 

Same argument I remember my friend making when I was arguing with him about whether DVDs or VHS were better back in '99 or '00. He was arguing for VHS. My friend is kind of an idiot.

[Black Lushus 0]

HDTVs are one thing, I hopped on the DVD bandwagon immediately. My first player, bought in 98, I think, was $250. How crazy is that, considering you can get them for $20 these days!

 

I think you can make a VERY strong arguement about picture quality in that case, there's no comparison.

[King Kamala 0]

It's amazing how late some people were to hop on the DVD bandwagon. Heck, there's probably a very small minority out there who still refuse to get a DVD player.

 

 

[King Kamala 0]

Whoopsies double post

[Jingus 0]

I was that way for a while, because as mentioned earlier I just didn't care much about the better picture and sound of a DVD, plus the very first DVD I ever bought got scratched in like a week. But then I discovered the wonderful world of filmmaker's commentary tracks, and never looked back.