High Def - Blue-Ray - Who Cares?

I like that comment “who cares” ;-) So true, we are still using a 27 inch standard TV connected to cable and it works just fine. Hell, I still have my stereo component system that I bought in the mid-eighties and, trust me, it’s 10 times more reliable than this plastic junk they have out now and it’s still going strong. In fact, I hate “upgrading” anything anymore because I have ZERO faith in the quality of most electronics these days.

I don’t think we are missing much given the quality of TV of late and seeing it in hi-def won’t improve the quality.

peace!

Well, back last Labor Day weekend I went and finally bought a hi def LCD TV and I’m quite satisfied with it. However, The only reason that I bought it was because my venerable, 20 year old television (so old that you worked the tuner with *knobs*, as I liked to tell people) finally gave up the ghost, and I didn’t want to live without an output peripheral for my VHS/DVD player for too long. :-) So my attitude was (and would still be, if my TV hadn’t died back then), hi def wasn’t something to move to just for the sake of moving to it, but once I was forced to move anyway, why not?

Having a hi-def TV is nice for watching baseball games (the only sport I watch) and movies, and that’s about it. For the most part, the content that the vast majority of broadcast and cable networks deliver is crap, and delivering that content in hi def is simply gold-plating that crap. Sure, it’s *prettier* crap, but it’s still crap.

I tend to spend most of my discretionary income on reading, travel, & my self-directed IRAs (thanks to Motley Fool). There are 2 “mega-screens” in St. Louis (that are not part of a shopping mall type complex) where I catch my choice of current movies. Spending $$$ on home-entertainment systems that cost more than my mortgage payment seems like a waste of my money for my “entertainment.”

I can understand why people do not want to spend the money to upgrade. Me and my wife are big TV watchers and we have Tiem Warner with DVR service. I bought my 36″ Sony 7 years ago with HD capability. I questioned why then but watching shows like CSI in HD with 5.1 Dolby sound, you can’t tell me this doesn’t give you that extar immersion factor. I think it well worth it when a character on the show knocks on a door and my wife and I can’t tell if it was a knock on our door. I work with technology all day and for the cost of new sets compared to what I paid 7 years ago its worth it!

I don’t watch broadcast TV at all, but I do watch home movies. I do not yet have a high def TV for movie viewing, but I would like to have one, and will got one when the price is right.

It is like everything else: I would like a Lexus, eat Filet every day, and live in an oceanside mansion, and will, some day, when I can afford it. If I never can, I can at least dream. Dreaming is not silly, aspiring to nice things is not silly, but going into deep debt to get these non essential things is. So, is High def silly? Depends.

Back in the early ’90s I moved from cable to one of those new, at the time, DirecTV satellite dishes. My picture went from dark and grainy to a nice clear picture. 3 years ago, I replaced my 10-year old 32″ SD and got HD. The difference was just as dramatic. It’s like you have been needing glasses for a few years, but didn’t really notice how everything wasn’t quite as sharp and clear as it used to be. Then you get a pair of glasses with just the right prescription. Every thing just jumps out and looks all new and sharp and you wonder why you didn’t notice. HD is the same way. The colors really pop and if you watch sports, like I do, you can now see the numbers on the jersey’s and faces on the players. You can even see the blades of grass on the field. It’s that good!

I don’t know about Blu Ray, as I haven’t seen it, nor have I seen 1080P, my Sony 34″ wide screen CRT is 720P/1080i, but if it’s as much of a change as SD to HD is and you need a new DVD player, you owe it to yourself to go for it, if you already have HD. If not, you can wait until you have to get one of those digital to analog converter boxes that will be needed next year, then upgrade. It is well worth it if you spend any time at all watching TV.

Now, I have to ask, are you still running that 286 or 386 computer and MS-DOS and using dial-up? I didn’t think so.

I use a projector (puts up a 100″ image on a white wall–and you can pop it in a bag/pack and take it places). It’s 1080p. I notice a big difference with blu-ray over the standard DVD or broadcast HDTV.

Even a decent satellite program can’t deliver enough data to avoid breaking up picture on fast motion/scene dissolves etc.

If you *do* care about picture quality, hi-def disc is about the only way to really see it. It’s the shortage of decent software that’s been the problem. Now that HD-DVD is bowing out and the studios are jumping off the fence, hopefully there will be more material becoming available on disc. S.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I purchased a 41″ rear projection high def TV a number of years ago but only because of receiving a longevity bonus from my employer.

My advice, don’t buy a new TV if your old TV is working fine. There are far better things to do than sit in front of a TV for hours at a time. And by the time you need a new TV, the prices will more in your favor.

Get out, enjoy life. Exercise!!! :)

I agree too. I have a 27″ standard and a 19″ standard flat screen. My 27″ is 11 years old and still working, though the screen is getting a little fuzzy. My wife and I are both wowed by the HD clarity, but we’ve decided not to buy until the old TVs are dead.

Besides, I can’t personally justify spending so much money on an HD set. I’ll wait until the prices come down to a more reasonable level. I couldn’t live with myself if I wasted several hundred (not to mention thousand) dollars on something as trivial as a TV set.

Lastly, if television programming continues it’s current trends, I don’t think there will be much worth watching in the very near future. And since I have children, I’m extra sensitive to the flood of filth on TV.

Who Cares? HD or Blu-Ray - I have seen pros and cons, and I have to say that I have pretty much opted out of this one, most of the info I have is second hand. THe argument seems very similar on several fronts to the Beta/VHS fiasco, save of course that this one is worse, simply as it seems that HD will be completely orphaned rather than merely fading into the background. As for the TV’s well, I will shortly be purchasing my first HD TV, Wally World has one that is affordable, with decent picture for around $900, my current 36″ Flat Screen (tube) set will go to the bedroom, so I won’t be throwing it away. Frankly, I am buying the new set for the size, rather than the Hi-Def capability, that I see as a bonus (and that I can push the computer to it for playing some of my fav games). Frankly, I think the prices need to come way down, and they probably will as soon as the switch is made, all the companies are doing now is gouging the early adopters… Ah well, such is life… but hey, look at it this way… 5 years from now (maximum) there will be an all NEW, platform, new players and new media, and we can all do it again… (LP, Vinyl, 8-Track, Cassette, Beta, VHS, Laser Disc, Video Disk, DVD, HD, BluRay… Hmmm… will the next one be GreenRay? SuperBlue? MassiveMemStick? )

Here is a thought…. Why did it take MAKING HD The ONLY broadcast signal for companies to manufacture truly flat panel TVs? Considering the speed with which they made that leap… (4-5 years ago, 50″ = $10k) I am thinking they could have done so much sooner… if they had wanted to…

Oh well.. such is electronic life…

Later

“Anybody who saw the movie wouldn’t say that!”, Nelson.
There is no comparison. HiDef all the way.
On a 52″ screen. Nothing less. If you can afford it.
And digital 5.1 surround audio, on quality amp/speakers! (ie. Energy!)
I never have to go to the theatre again!
Watch an episode of HD Lost! Wow! So intense I can’t look away.
But whatever. Priorities. Some people buy food. And still use 8-Tracks.

I couldn’t agree more. Although I did spring for a flat panel set when we moved into our new home, I see no reason to “upgrade” to have the ability of seeing the actors blemishes and nose hairs!

Back when I was a kid, the old RCA color set would routinely go “up in flames” (literally caught on fire inside at least twice!). Dad would borrow a “portable” black and white set and we would be watching “Lost in Space” and “Gilligan’s Island” for several months until he could afford the $100 (in the 1960’s) to get it fixed.

Not many new descent shows on these days anyway. And when I do get into a new show (”Life” on NBC) it disappears!

I suppose it all depends what you are into. Everyone has different tastes. Some people are perfectly happy to take crappy looking pictures with one of those cardboard, throw-away cameras. Others insist on using a high-end Nikon or Canon DSLR to shoot beautiful photos that capture every detail and make you feel like you’re right there when you look at the photo.

Some people are happy to listen to music on a cheap clock radio or boom-box. Others prefer a high-end stereo system with high quality speakers and high quality components that let them hear the music as if the band was right there playing their instruments in your living room.

If you’re one of those people who are happy with a cardboard camera and clock radio, you probably won’t appreciate the beautiful, detailed images HDTV can deliver. You won’t appreciate seeing a picture so clear and sharp that you feel like you are right there.

Rick

Is hi-def worth it? Is DVD superior to VHS? If you want your information and entertainment to be clear and hold detail the answer would be a qualified yes. Why qualified? Well, like most things, context is everything. I come from a film industry background (camera, director, producer) and it always really bugged me to see what happens to a beautiful image once it ended up broadcast or on VHS. Big Yuck! When DVD came along there was a big uptick on the quality meter. Hi-def TV also brings a big uptick. But how much quality do you really need? Or want? Especially if DVD on a hi-def TV look “good enough”. And, in the end it really is about “good enough”. After all, the most important thing is the quality of the material itself (i.e. story). A good story that is compelling works even with lower quality media. Sometimes it even enhances it or makes it seem more real. And with hi-def TVs, the quality factor is a diminishing consideration when you consider size of screen and viewing distance. How many people can really tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 32 or 40 inch screen that’s 10 to 12 feet away? Going for ultimate quality and definition is a bit like paying $200 for a “special” cable that ordinarily would cost $20. In my opinion.

Erik

Rick,

You make a great point. I have encoded all of my CD collection into Ogg Vorbis, as opposed to MP3 for that very reason.

I also used to work for KMart many years ago(1970’s), and fond that most folks who had a pre-determined preference would insist on a Zenith TV. This in spite of “new kid” brands like Sony and Sharp having vastly superior picture quality.

Yes, if you really, really appreciate the difference and are more than willing to spend the extra $, then by all means go total Hi-Def. If however you are just blowing money to “keep up with the Jones” , I suppose it’s still your money to blow. And some folks will never outgrow the need to impress others with their ability to spend money.

I would love to see some of the effort in developing Hi Def TV (now that there seems to be a standard bearer) be re-focused on writing better stories and scripts to fill the medium with. “The Biggest Loser”, “Extreme Makeover-Home Edition” and the like simply don;’t stand up to 42 year old episodes of “Mission Impossible”. Rent a few episodes and watch them, you’ll see what I mean.

I have a DLP projector that I use with a 100″ screen mostly to watch DVD and HD DVD movies. I also have a set top box that get me free broadcast HDTV. HDTV and HD DVDs are spectacular and even standard DVDs look great. I find it nearly impossible to watch standard definition TV any more, even the digital verity is so blurry unless viewed in a tiny window on the computer. I agree that HD isn’t enough to rescue lame programing once the novelty of the near photographic quality wears off; often the commercials are more entertaining than the shows.

There’s another way to get HDTV that’s cheap if you already have a computer with a halfway decent display. I have a PCI tuner card in a PC that cost less than $100. It puts an entirely respectable broadcast HDTV on my computer’s screen.

TV so what! Hi def, Blue ray, so what. As with many people I know, my TV watching has has diminished in favor of better things to do with my time. The quality of TV programs has gone down drastically. Why waste my time with that crap. I turn it off. H

Cliffystones,

“I would love to see some of the effort in developing Hi Def TV (now that there seems to be a standard bearer) be re-focused on writing better stories and scripts to fill the medium with. “The Biggest Loser”, “Extreme Makeover-Home Edition” and the like simply don;’t stand up to 42 year old episodes of “Mission Impossible”. Rent a few episodes and watch them, you’ll see what I mean.”

I know what you mean. The problem is way too many people like watching that crap. If people didn’t watch it, I doubt if the networks would be dedicating so much of their programming schedules to it.

As for “refocusing” efforts from developing technology to developing better TV shows, I’m not sure how that could be done. The kind of people who develop technology are usually not the kind of people who are good at writing stories, etc. Besides, even if they were, we still have the problem that too many people like watching lame reality shows, etc., so there is still no incentive for the networks to invest in better quality programming.

Rick