Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (
More info?)
"nonone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:6GFoe.287616$cg1.229907@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xgvoe.2648$fp6.1051@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>
>> "Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:8o74a1pghrqe5h7fp6tepccroo251u69ti@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:29:39 GMT, "Matthew Vaughan"
>> > <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>"Thumper" <jaylsmith@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:3093a1p78vifc3taot1fb18beppt10t0f0@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >>> It doesn't display HD.
>> >>
>> >>> It's not HD
>> >>
>> >>> For $2800 you can get a damned fine 65" HDTV.
>> >>> Thumper
>> >>
>> >>Most people, if actually viewing it from a normal distance (not
>> >>standing
>> >>with their face 2 feet in front of the TV like in a store), probably
> can't
>> >>tell the difference, or at least the difference is subtle. For some
> other
>> >>people, the fact that it doesn't say "HD" on it makes them feel like
> less
>> >>of
>> >>a man. For those that need the validation, go ahead, spend the money.
> For
>> >>those that want to enjoy their TV, why waste several thousand dollars
> for
>> >>something that makes very little difference, if the ED set looks great
>> >>(which they generally do)? (Whereas, for them, a thin/flat TV DOES make
> a
>> >>difference compared to a heavy/bulky one. Though the relatively
> thin/light
>> >>DLP and LCD projectors are starting to erode this argument.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> > They would have to be blind not to see the difference when side by
>> > side with an HDTV. I see people every day stop and marvel at the
>> > picture on the lone HDTV set up in a room full of EDTVs. I don't care
>> > what any body buys but this bullshit that it looks just as good from a
>> > normal viewing distance distance is simply not true. Next time you're
>> > watching a football game in HD switch the set to it's SD channel and
>> > tell me you can't see the difference.
>> > Thumper
>>
>> I bet you can see a difference between a $4.000 HD and a $10,000 HD.
>> Does
>> that mean you should buy the $10,000 model too?
>>
>> Most people don't have the huge bucks to sink into a tv. ED is and can
>> be
>> just as good to people considering the cost difference. Also, I've seen
>> DVD's that play better on a ED then a HD. Shouldn't that be a
>> consideration?
>>
>>
>
> FDR,
> If it is your money, you can get whatever you feel is best. But you could
> be
> shooting yourself in the foot, and I truly think you will be sorry getting
> an EDTV when you can get a better HDTV for a bit more money.
I've got it already. Paying 50% more to me was not a bit. Heck, I had
trouble justifying buying a tv as expensive as the one I have now.
>
> However, you might want to go down to a store with a lot of HDTV displays.
> Have teh salesman show you one of the best displays like one of the better
> 1024 x768 or better Panasonics. Have the saleman show you an equivalent of
> a
> DVD movie 480p on the display (EDTV equivalent) and have him show you
> true
> HDTV 1080i or 720p on the same display (like from HD Discovery channel).
> Then make your judgement. And think about 5 or 10 years from now, when
> 480p
> and 480i will be obsolete.
Fisrt off, I have seen HD and ED and to me the difference wasn't significant
enough to spend the extra cash. Secondly, I doubt my tv will be obsolete 5
or 10 years from now. Considering the glut of SD material that will still
be on tv, and that the DVD material right now I would not want to throw away
just so I can respend it on newer HD material for even more money. People
have made tons of investements in DVDs for the past several years. You
think that will just go away?
>
>
> noone
>
>
an.2005.06.07.00.30.45.514134@dodgeit.com...
Facebook
Twitter