[Eug]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Ugh, I don't know why I bother with threads like this.

I give simple reasons why I find the entire HD thing to be overly-complicated for the layperson (which it is) and I get told that my own opinions are wrong because HD is awesome.

I understand HD is sweet, If I had 50 grand in the bank I'd own the sweetest sh!t right now. But here's what I'm looking at when I decide to do it right.

New HDTV, new receiver, new media player (Blu-Ray or upscaling DVD player), new media, new set-top box for HD cable, cables, etc...

This may seem like easy beans for some of you (especially people who posted hundreds of times in the HD thread) but for somebody who buys what's cheap and easy HD isn't there yet, and I consider myself more than tech savvy enough to figure it out. Here's the thing, I don't have the time for that sh!t.

Yes, HD is balls-awesome, but it isn't necessary to enjoy any kind of media. Like erik said, convenience first.

Edit: Here's an example HD players actually having to load before you can play a disc. I've heard that some take up to a minute. That's the kind of BS I want to get ironed out first. When I watch a movie I don't want to experience a boot time, that's f**kin ridiculous.

So get a recent player, and not an old one. That's what I did for my Blu-ray player... which also happens to be an upscaling DVD player.

Anyways, basically every point you made in your previous post was simply wrong. You can decide not to use HD and that's perfectly fine, but if you're going to diss HD you may as well try to actually get your points right.

[sek929]

I'm not dissing HD, I'm dissing the implementation of it right now.

It's obviously superior, but the entire market is full of volatile technologies that get obsoleted every year.

People 50 and over are just NOW getting into the whole DVD thing. It's an easy to set-up standard that works across all televisions perfectly. You think my dad (who is a master of the internet, mind you) could walk into a Best Buy, buy an HDTV and watch all his sh!t without fiddling with settings, resolutions, and audio features? Not bloody likely, that's my only point here.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I'm not dissing HD, I'm dissing the implementation of it right now.

It's obviously superior, but the entire market is full of volatile technologies that get obsoleted every year.

People 50 and over are just NOW getting into the whole DVD thing. It's an easy to set-up standard that works across all televisions perfectly. You think my dad (who is a master of the internet, mind you) could walk into a Best Buy, buy an HDTV and watch all his sh!t without fiddling with settings, resolutions, and audio features? Not bloody likely, that's my only point here.

What you don't enjoy thinking about HD content and whether it comes in 720p, 1080p, or 1080i, Blu-Ray profiles if they're 1.0, 1.1 or 2.0, HDMI 1.2, or 1.3, Surround Sound in 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Obviously you're a communist and like boys.

This was a compliment, yes?

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

This was a compliment, yes?

I should've have just called him a Scandie for concision.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

What you don't enjoy thinking about HD content and whether it comes in 720p, 1080p, or 1080i, Blu-Ray profiles if they're 1.0, 1.1 or 2.0, HDMI 1.2, or 1.3, Surround Sound in 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1?

As usual, someone else sums up my point better than I can.

Again, Starman, dizzying array of technologies!

I know I know, all you guys are completely enamored with your possessions, and yes, the picture is reeeeaally pretty, but if your participation in the HD threads are any indication you've spent an ENORMOUS amount of time researching.

[Dakar V]

Buying HD equipment isn't the most burdensome part (ignoring price). It's hoping you've got all the mainstream features that are somewhat future-proof that's a ****ing burden.

[wataru]

I wasn't planning to move to HD, but I moved recently and had to get a new TV. I got a 20" Sharp one for around $600 that has been excellent.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I should've have just called him a Scandie for concision.

Wow, I learned another word on MacNN. Cheers Dakar.

I'm with sek929 on the complexity problems. You see 2 tvs next to each other in a store, they're the same size and the picture quality looks the same and one is twice the price of the other. How on earth do you choose?

[sek929]

You buy the cheaper one, bring it home and realize it's downscaling your Xbox to 480p.

Then you try and change the settings which kills your grandmother, it's a bad situation.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Then you try and change the settings which kills your grandmother, it's a bad situation.

What, AGAIN? Thats harsh.

[sek929]

Yes, in your case it would actually resurrect your grandma, tell her she is going to live another life, THEN kill her.

HD is evil, EEEEEVIL i tells ya!

[Laminar]

HD took my mother out for a nice dinner and never called her again.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Wow, I learned another word on MacNN. Cheers Dakar.

I'm with sek929 on the complexity problems. You see 2 tvs next to each other in a store, they're the same size and the picture quality looks the same and one is twice the price of the other. How on earth do you choose?

You usually see this with Sony and any other brand. I just know that Sony overprices everything, so I ignore the Sony. From there everything usually evens out.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by sek929 

People 50 and over are just NOW getting into the whole DVD thing.

Huh?

[sek929]

God, you are a real chore to talk to Eug.....

Yes you know a 50 year old who builds their own PCs, and I'm wrong in my assumption that HD is to complicated for the layperson.

You win, happy?

Edit: Just FYI I was saying that the 50+ crowd is now comfortable to go out and buy a DVD player without consulting a teenager first. It's accepted technology that's easy to purchase and use with no fuss.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You usually see this with Sony and any other brand. I just know that Sony overprices everything, so I ignore the Sony. From there everything usually evens out.

But they look gorgeous. Really.

IMO Sony and Samsumg LCDs are usually the best-looking in their given class...and usually have the price tag to match.

greg

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by mattyb

Wow, I learned another word on MacNN. Cheers Dakar.

What, ‘Scandie’?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by sek929 

God, you are a real chore to talk to Eug.....

Yes you know a 50 year old who builds their own PCs, and I'm wrong in my assumption that HD is to complicated for the layperson.

You win, happy?

Edit: Just FYI I was saying that the 50+ crowd is now comfortable to go out and buy a DVD player without consulting a teenager first. It's accepted technology that's easy to purchase and use with no fuss.

I know what you're saying. I just think it's bull.

DVD players have been basically ubiquitous around here for years, and yes, even for people over the age of 50. 50 year-olds aren't that stupid.

Remember, VHS movie sales were terminated years ago.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

What, ‘Scandie’?

My guess would be 'concision,' but then again I can never tell if you're being serious or not.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by sek929 

As usual, someone else sums up my point better than I can.

Again, Starman, dizzying array of technologies!

I know I know, all you guys are completely enamored with your possessions, and yes, the picture is reeeeaally pretty, but if your participation in the HD threads are any indication you've spent an ENORMOUS amount of time researching.

Not to nag you about this topic [personally, I hate these types of threads as much as you do], but I think the guys that obsess about those numbers don't actually watch and enjoy their TVs. They just like bragging about numbers.

Here's what I did, I bought a medium (some would say small) 37" HDTV last year. I already owned an old Pro-Logic receiver. I made sure the TV had a lot of HDMI inputs, and that I liked the picture quality.

I had a DVD player, PS2, Wii, and a TiVo hooked up to my old SD TV set. With a mass of spaghetti wires running to the TV and the Receiver.

With the new TV, I have a DVD player hooked up through component cables to the TV, The PS2 and Wii are also on component cables to the TV, but the TiVo and the HD-DVD are hooked up by HDMI. I also have a HDMI port for my MacBook open. The only wires going to my receiver are from the TV. I probably cut the amount of wires by well more than half.

As for all the resolutions, just make sure it is 720p or better and you are golden. My set is 720p and I love it.

Yeah the HD-DVD player takes a minute or so to boot, but luckily I got the player for free with the TV purchase. I plan on getting a PS3 soon and that will take the HDMI spot this tech-loser is occupying.

Currently, I am getting all of my programing from an antenna over the air which amount to about 28+ channels, but I plan on hooking up to cable and there's nothing complicated about that, just swapping one plug for another.

I LOVE the quality of HDTV programming. My wife gasped the first time she saw the city of Las Vegas pan they do at the beginning of CSI. I finally got her to watch PBS nature shows with me just because the picture quality os so amazing. The filmmakers are really taking advantage of the superior image they can display.

Hype? No way!

Awesome! Oh yeah!

[Eug]

Yeah, even though I prefer 5.1 (or 6.1), my primary HD TV viewing setup doesn't even have that. I have 3.0, with a right, left, and centre channel. And my receiver (which cost $129.99 on sale) does not support HDMI or DVI or "hi-def audio" or anything like that. (It's my secondary projector setup that has all the fixins.)

[goMac]

(I could have sworn I already posted a reply to all this...)

Originally Posted by sek929 

As usual, someone else sums up my point better than I can.

Again, Starman, dizzying array of technologies!

I know I know, all you guys are completely enamored with your possessions, and yes, the picture is reeeeaally pretty, but if your participation in the HD threads are any indication you've spent an ENORMOUS amount of time researching.

As mentioned earlier, my parents are buying an HDTV. Trying to explain everything to them is a PITA. Resolution, square pixels (the tv they were looking at was sub-720p with a 4:3 resolution in a 16:9 panel), getting an HD signal (QAM vs. a cable box), HDMI, Bluray vs. upscaling DVD players, and all the gear they'll have to replace because it's not HD (namely their DVD/VHS combo deck).

There is no way anyone over 40 can do this.

(Apologies to any one over 40 in this thread who does know their stuff.)

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But they look gorgeous. Really.

IMO Sony and Samsumg LCDs are usually the best-looking in their given class...and usually have the price tag to match.

greg

I own a Samsung, and the Samsungs are fairly priced, and also look very good. You can get a good Samsung 1080p below $1000 these days. I can't say the same about the Sonys.

I just won't buy Sony gear. The only Sony gear I have is a set of bookshelf speakers I found at a garage sale. Samsung is the perfect example. Samsung and Sony are pretty even on quality, yet Sony is much more expensive.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

(I could have sworn I already posted a reply to all this...)



As mentioned earlier, my parents are buying an HDTV. Trying to explain everything to them is a PITA. Resolution, square pixels (the tv they were looking at was sub-720p with a 4:3 resolution in a 16:9 panel), getting an HD signal (QAM vs. a cable box), HDMI, Bluray vs. upscaling DVD players, and all the gear they'll have to replace because it's not HD (namely their DVD/VHS combo deck).

There is no way anyone over 40 can do this.

(Apologies to any one over 40 in this thread who does know their stuff.)

Man, you guys really overcomplexify these things.

My 75 year old family member wanted a bigger TV.

She got an LCD HDTV. She then complained that cable was fuzzy. So she got an HD cable box.

Now she's happy. She kept her old DVD player, because that's not so fuzzy. No need to force Blu-ray on her. HD cable + DVD is good enough for her. Yes, even she can see the benefits of HD, but in her case, she didn't see the need to spend sheetloads of cash to upgrade everything.

P.S. There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting a sub-720p 1024x768 widescreen TV, if the price is right.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Man, you guys really overcomplexify these things.

My 75 year old family member wanted a bigger TV.

She got an LCD HDTV. She then complained that cable was fuzzy. So she got an HD cable box.

Now she's happy. She kept her old DVD player, because that's not so fuzzy. No need to force Blu-ray on her. HD cable + DVD is good enough for her. Yes, even she can see the benefits of HD, but in her case, she didn't see the need to spend sheetloads of cash to upgrade everything.

P.S. There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting a sub-720p 1024x768 widescreen TV, if the price is right.

Well, the problem is my parents aren't just joe six packs with an SD tv. They actually invested a lot in their setup. The entire room is wired with 6.1 sound. They've got an Airport Express hooked up, etc.

So they're not at the "whatever works" point. But in SD land it was just you buy it, you plug it in, it works. HD land is not the same. ClearQAM is something they just don't understand at this point. They ask if they have to pay more for cable, I try to explain it, and it simply goes over their heads. The idea that you have something and it's not necessarily HD is just beyond them.

I wouldn't buy something that doesn't have square pixels simply because I would have to trust it's scaler at that point. Plus the slightly more expensive modal has square pixels, in addition to an extra HDMI, and I think 2 HDMI vs 3 HDMI is worth the upgrade. (A DVD player of some sort, their cable box or a TiVo, a gaming console (they do game) and they'd be full up. And we haven't even added an AppleTV sort of box yet...)

[Eug]

I wouldn't buy something that doesn't have square pixels simply because I would have to trust it's scaler at that point.

You are not them.

Anyways, you'd still have to trust the scaler for a 720p TV, or a 1080i or 1080p TV for that matter... or at least the scaler in a cable box. Not all channels are 720p or 1080i... or even HD.

Plus the slightly more expensive modal has square pixels, in addition to an extra HDMI, and I think 2 HDMI vs 3 HDMI is worth the upgrade. (A DVD player of some sort, their cable box or a TiVo, a gaming console (they do game) and they'd be full up. And we haven't even added an AppleTV sort of box yet...)

Yeah I think for most people the bigger concern would be the number of inputs... but that's true on SDTVs as well. Sure, plug and play with SDTV, but it doesn't help you if your SDTV only has one input.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Anyways, you'd still have to trust the scaler for a 720p TV, or a 1080i or 1080p TV for that matter... or at least the scaler in a cable box. Not all channels are 720p or 1080i... or even HD.

True. But mapping square pixels to rectangular pixels is a much uglier process. The interpolation much be a mess.

(Sorry, I'm a graphics programmer, so I fret about this sort of stuff.)

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by goMac 

But in SD land it was just you buy it, you plug it in, it works.

Yeah, North Dakota is too cold and doesn't have Mount Rushmore in it. [/color][/quote]You betcha [quote][color=white]

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

My guess would be 'concision,' but then again I can never tell if you're being serious or not.

It’s a gift.