[macintologist]

I've watched SD television my whole life, I think I could put up with it for several more years.

I have a very nice 27'inch Samsung "flat" CRT TV. Yes it weighs 97 pounds. Yes it only has SD resolution, but it actually makes low quality video looks good.

My setup is a Mac Mini with Front Row and Perian plugged into the the S-video port on my TV. I download a lot of podcasts, many of which are only 320x240 resolution or thereabouts. I also download TV shows over the interwebs, and those are usually 640x480 resolution or so.

Could you imagine how horrible and pixelated those would look on an HD tv? But on my Samsung CRT TV, they look fine. The rectangular TV pixels do something to the image and makes it look less pixelated.

Is anyone else in the same boat as me? Rejecting the HD hype? It certainly doesn't help when the only true HD you can get it via over-hyped over-priced Bluray discs, because iTunesHD and HDTV is so heavily compressed that it looks awful.

When the HD market matures and isn't so overpriced, then maybe I'll move over and finally buy into it. But for now, my .avi files, my podcasts and my DVDs are doing just fine.

[Doofy]

Yep, SD here still.

If I want really high resolution entertainment, I'll look out my window.

[Dakar V]

Don't forget HD Video games.

I got myself an HDTV last year, and while I only have regular cable, it's still better than my old 19" CRT, just for watching widescreen movies, upscaled on the 'inferior' xbox 360. I've also streamed "SD" content and it still looks better than most of my cable channels.

[Atheist]

I went HD rather early...bought a 1080i 16x9 aspect ratio LCD projector quite a few years back before I had any HD content to watch. (I've seen the projector used in a lot of cinemas, they show advertising slides and commercials before the movie starts). It shows SD content just fine and DVDs look great. I've now got my AppleTV connected to it and download 720p versions of all my favorite TV shows to watch. I can't go back to SD. There is a difference. For me it's worth it.

[goMac]

My parents are moving to HD this Christmas, and they are always the last to adopt any new technology... They wanted to by a small HDTV for a second room. Then they saw the price difference between a screen in the 20"-30" range and the 40"-50" range is negligible so now they're looking at replacing their main tv.

Their iMac is dying so they'll likely also be dragged to the Intel age kicking and screaming...

[ort888]

Nope, I just upgraded my cable and TiVo to HD and I love it. I still think that overall HD is still not quite ready for primetime, but it's come a long way.

Also, it does cost a lot to make the full switch. There are a lot of things to consider. It's never as easy as you think.

I got an HDTV in 2005. ($1,100) Then I had nothing to watch on it in HD. I'm a TiVo junky and the only HD DVRs on the market at that time were ridiculously expensive. So I got an Xbox 360 ($400) and it was my only HD source for a while. Then I had to upgrade my receiver because it had no HD hookups. ($400) Next I bought an HD DVD player from Walmart for $100 (shut up). Finally, about a month ago I upgraded to an HD Tivo and monthly HD service from my cable company. The TiVo was $240 and the cable service actually ended up being a little cheaper.

So, I guess my point is that while HD is great, it also adds up fast. I still need a Blu-ray player. It's something you really have to commit to. It's a hobby more then anything else.

[Person Man]

I have a nice 56" HDTV. My Blu-Ray player is a HP Media PC. Does a great job upconverting standard definition DVDs. I'm not converting much of my DVD collection to HD from SD. I've only bought a few Blu-Rays that I already own on DVD. Most of my Blu-Ray stuff is stuff I didn't own before.

I watched an Xvid version of a Greek movie videotaped off of television at 720 x 526 (PAL) and it looked fine for the most part. I had it blown up to full screen and the only pixellation I saw was during a night scene, around the moon.

Heck, I even hooked up an old Apple IIc (from 1984) via the RF modulator and looked at it through the TV tuner on both channels 3 and 4, and it looked pretty good.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by ort888 

It's something you really have to commit to.

Not necessarily. At the time I bought my new Media Center PC I needed a new one anyway, and I bought it for ~$750, and it even had a dual-format HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player built in. HP Pavillion Slimline s3330f. Does exactly what I need it to do, despite running Vista.

[starman]

HD all the way.

I'll never go back to SD.

After watching the same shows in SD and HD, I can't see why people will "reject" the hype of HD. It's not just "hype", the stuff actually looks vastly superior.

[ort888]

Yeah, it is jarring. And all HD is not created equal. Some shows are jaw-droppingly stunning, and others look just slightly better. There is a lot of SD being unconverted to HD on these so called HD channels as well.

That said, whenever I watch an SD show on my setup (after watching HD for a bit) it looks like absolute garbage. It's much more jarring to go backwards then forwards. When you see HD for the first time it looks good... but not that good... but when you get accustomed to HD and go back to SD it really looks a lot worse.

[Thorzdad]

Still SD. Still analog cable.
I'll eventually have to upgrade to digital cable, since Comcast is very quickly eliminating analog, anyway. But HD? It doesn't interest me. There just isn't enough stuff on that I would even want to see in HD. Plus, I'm not about to pay the HD premium from Comcast. There's only one OTA HD station available in my area (the PBS station) without my having to erect a antenna tower in my yard. The closest other stations are 60+ miles away.

[ort888]

It helps if you're a sports fan. Because sports in HD is really where most of the action is. Nothing looks better.

That's why I finally went over the edge... because my favorite hockey team finally started to make a commitment to showing games in HD.

[Dakar V]

Yeah, my cable company as gotten nice and shady. They've removed what was detailed pricing and just give costs with asterisks (i.e. digital plan requires a box for every tv in the house... but it doesn't tell you the cost for that on top of the reg fee).

[Chuckit]

I've got an SDTV, but I like HD. I just like my $1000 more.

[moep]

I personally found the difference between analog and digital to be much more significant than SD to HD. Particularly with a large 46"+ LCD screen.

SD DVB-C with a decent upscaler works fine for me, it’s hard to distinguish between 576i and 720p/1080i there. Analog PAL TV on the other hand looks absolutely horrible in comparison and I would never ever move back to that.

With that being said I hopped on the HD train with a 1080p TV, Bluray and a HD DVB-C receiver and have no regrets.

Once you upgrade from a CRT to a TFT you’ll probably understand what HD is all about.

[mitchell_pgh]

I'm not rushing out to buy a HDTV. I think my Sony SD monster still has a few years left in it... but it is a pain to move!

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I've got an SDTV, but I like HD. I just like my $1000 more.

Ditto.

The only thing I consider myself to missing out on is all my games in HD.

[Laminar]

Maybe with HD you'd actually be good at Halo 3.

[sek929]

That's it, I'm canceling my friend request.

[Dakar V]

He's not busy with school, he's just afraid of us.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I've got an SDTV, but I like HD. I just like my $1000 more.

I'm still on SD cable because I like my ($5 for digital cable + mandatory digital converter fee (x 2) + $11 for HD = per month) more.

But Halo is nice in HD. (Also seeing movies in widescreen [Also, both at 50"])

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

He's not busy with school, he's just afraid of us.

Today I've had two Pop Tarts, some peanut butter M&Ms, and a Butterfinger. My first chance to eat real food will be at 9:30.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep, SD here still.

If I want really high resolution entertainment, I'll look out my window.

Not me. I can't stand reality.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Not me. I can't stand reality.

The programming is just awful.

[sek929]

MY main reason for staying SD is the dizzying array of intertwining technologies required to get the full HD experience.

Hearing stories about audio out of sync and TVs not upscaling properly has me on the fence until all the BS is ironed out and I can plug in and enjoy. I have absolutely no want to screw around with internal settings just so I can watch certain media at the resolution it's meant to be.

For now, my 32" SDTV with component looks just fine at ~6 feet away.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by starman 

HD all the way.

I'll never go back to SD.

After watching the same shows in SD and HD, I can't see why people will "reject" the hype of HD. It's not just "hype", the stuff actually looks vastly superior.

All my SD movies in .avi format h264 are 700 megs each. If they were all HD they'd be like 4-10 gigs each. I'll keep my SD.

[Mac User #001]

SD so far. My TV is dying though, so I'll probably go HD next, and then obviously go Blu-Ray for movies.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

This year my roommate threw out our 32" CRT and got a 46" Samsung LCD. I paired a "nice" little Panasonic theatre-in-a-box system with it, but we're holding off on Blu-Ray until next year probably.

HD TV has been more of a problem. We don't have a hi-def box. They're expensive to buy, but not too too bad to rent; unfortunately, for the past year his condo has had "free cable." We don't know why, considering it wasn't occupied for almost a year before he moved in. We also just don't want to ask, i.e. we don't want to call the cable company and ask about HD and have them go "wait...how are you getting cable again?!"

Head-in-the-sand SD: at least it's free. For now.

greg

[- - e r i k - -]

Haven't had a TV for years. I watch any resolution content on my 24" iMac, with most of it around SD. Convenience trumps quality in most cases.

[Kerrigan]

SD is fine. Although I wouldn't mind HBO HD, for Entourage.

[mattyb]

Really really tempted atm to get a large HD TV, but my 16 month old son is holding me back. I'm also pretty confused about what I'll need to enable iMac + Xbox + DVD player/recorder + ADSL TV box + new TV + amp. The DVD player and amp are pretty old as well.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Really really tempted atm to get a large HD TV, but my 16 month old son is holding me back...

Just how big is your kid?

[Peter]

I have a 1080p 32" TV, my freeview is upscaled to 720p and my PS3 upscales DVDs and plays Blu Rays.
We needed a new TV and I'm a nerd by nature so had a PS3 - so it didnt cost me anything additional to "upgrade" to the HD way

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by screamingFit 

Just how big is your kid?

Big enough to pull a very large microwave off of the kitchen counter by tugging on the electric cable. Took him all of 3 seconds as well.

[Maflynn]

FWIW, I have an HD TV but have not signed up to for HD service. I'll pickup a blue-ray movie from time to time but its not worth paying the extra at the moment. I was pleasantly surprised at how well the samsung upsized regular SD so much so, that it helped make my decision easier about not paying the extra $$$ for the HD service.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by starman 

HD all the way.

I'll never go back to SD.

After watching the same shows in SD and HD, I can't see why people will "reject" the hype of HD. It's not just "hype", the stuff actually looks vastly superior.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by sek929 

MY main reason for staying SD is the dizzying array of intertwining technologies required to get the full HD experience.

Hearing stories about audio out of sync and TVs not upscaling properly has me on the fence until all the BS is ironed out and I can plug in and enjoy. I have absolutely no want to screw around with internal settings just so I can watch certain media at the resolution it's meant to be.

For now, my 32" SDTV with component looks just fine at ~6 feet away.

Sync issues also occur in SD.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Big enough to pull a very large microwave off of the kitchen counter by tugging on the electric cable. Took him all of 3 seconds as well.

And apparently also big enough to restrain a fully grown man, which is quite an impressive physique for a 16-month-old.

[starman]

Originally Posted by sek929 

MY main reason for staying SD is the dizzying array of intertwining technologies required to get the full HD experience.

Yeah, TV + antenna is tough

Seriously, I haven't had a SINGLE issue since moving to HD years ago which was literally with an HD and an attic antenna. Now I have an HD TiVo and Comcast with no issues.. Where do people read this crap?

[moep]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Really really tempted atm to get a large HD TV, but my 16 month old son is holding me back.

My Sony came with two straps on the back of the TV stand/socket for just that purpose.
You can screw them to whatever the TV stands on to ensure it won’t fall over during an earthquake, child attack or whatever else.
Kind of like this, just not nearly as fugly.

[lpkmckenna]

Still SD. Have no plans to change.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by oisín 

and apparently also big enough to restrain a fully grown man, which is quite an impressive physique for a 16-month-old.

i was taking a piss ok ?!?!?!?

[Dakar V]

His kid once punched a hole in a cow just to watch a car come down the road.

[SSharon]

I have had HD for a year and a half but my parents still live in the SD world. My inlaws have a huge 1080p set but no HD service (direct tv) which I think is a total waste.
I don't watch sports, but HD looks much better. Since my landlord pays for the service I don't have the same decision to make as many of you.

[mattyb]

The kids a brute, what can I say.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I've got an SDTV, but I like HD. I just like my $1000 more.

What he said.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Sync issues also occur in SD.

Considering I've never heard of that I'd say it's an outside chance.

Originally Posted by starman 

Yeah, TV + antenna is tough

Seriously, I haven't had a SINGLE issue since moving to HD years ago which was literally with an HD and an attic antenna. Now I have an HD TiVo and Comcast with no issues.. Where do people read this crap?

I read this crap here, duh. So I can buy a $2000 TV and watch antenna channels, sounds awesome! Wow, look at the local news jockeys in glorious HD!

Stop being disingenuous, I have a whole crapload of random input devices hooked up to my SDTV, some support HD (like the 360) so I'd need a switcher with HDMI or some BS (even though HDMI will be replaced by something else.) If I wanted high def sound from a Bluray drive I'd need an optical receiver, not to mention a switcher to deal with all my sound inputs.

Right now all this is controlled by cheap and simple RCA inputs. Except component for the 360, where the L+R sound RCAs hook directly into my cheap old stereo.

I don't need to be on the bleeding edge of tech, you do, that's cool man...more power to ya. When Super HD comes out I'll switch to HD because it'll have universal formats and cables and it'll be easy enough for a grandma to set up.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Considering I've never heard of that I'd say it's an outside chance.

I've seen it myself. It has to do with how much video processing there is in the TV. I've seen "high end" SDTVs, otherwise known as EDTVs, which have had video lag with certain video processing modes turned on.

Ironically, it's the el cheapo SDTVs that do no processing that are the least risk for video lag... for obvious reasons.

Stop being disingenuous, I have a whole crapload of random input devices hooked up to my SDTV, some support HD (like the 360) so I'd need a switcher with HDMI or some BS (even though HDMI will be replaced by something else.)

My primary HDTV has 3 HDMI inputs. I do not use a receiver or outboard switcher for my three HD video sources. I just use the TV itself... cuz it has 3 HDMI inputs.

If I wanted high def sound from a Bluray drive I'd need an optical receiver, not to mention a switcher to deal with all my sound inputs.

You can't get "hi-def" sound over optical. You can get it with standard 5.1 analogue inputs though, if your Blu-ray player supports analogue output. You can even get it with stereo inputs, although you won't get the surround experience obviously.

Right now all this is controlled by cheap and simple RCA inputs. Except component for the 360, where the L+R sound RCAs hook directly into my cheap old stereo.

You like to revel in your "cheap old stereo". That's fine, but that's not an HD vs SD video argument. That's an audio argument. In my case, even for SD, I prefer to have 5.1 audio.

[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.

[Dakar V]

Obviously you're a communist and like boys.