"Anon" wrote in message news:[email protected]_s53...
Yesterday I had the opportunity of watching HDTV for the first time. I was
at a friends house for Thanksgiving

I was just thinking, the real question is why didn't your buddy have
the CBS football game on (it WAS Thanksgiving, afterall). That would
have been an excellent into the HD.

"Stan" wrote in message thlink.net...
You think YOU have it bad, I bought my Toshiba Widescreen HDTV 18-months ago
and there's STILL nothing to watch unless you like endless reruns of "C"
movies on HBO, SHOW, and HDNET.

ESPNHD has maybe 2 HD games a week. CBS primetime is a horrid non-watchable
mess that caters to the uneducated masses. They have one game of the week.

DISCHD is endless reruns. If I see one more HD iguana, I'm going to puke.

18-months later and the programming is no better than it was then. My set is
18-months old and getting older everyday. It's $$ down the drain.

You're nuts dude. What exactly do YOU want to watch? How dumb were
you to buy a TV like this without doing a little research to see if
the shows you like are in HD?

On 29 Nov 2003 15:14:49 -0800, (Larry Bud)
wrote:

"Anon" wrote in message news:[email protected]_s53...
Yesterday I had the opportunity of watching HDTV for the first time. I was
at a friends house for Thanksgiving

I was just thinking, the real question is why didn't your buddy have
the CBS football game on (it WAS Thanksgiving, afterall). That would
have been an excellent into the HD.

Am I the only one who thinks that the ESPNHD games look much nicer
than the CBS HD games do?
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address

Am I the only one who thinks that the ESPNHD games look much nicer
than the CBS HD games do?

I thing the quality is the same, but you do get a different look
because ESPN and MNF games are at night, under complete artificial
lighting. It's a sharper whiter light, IMO.

Larry Bud ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Am I the only one who thinks that the ESPNHD games look much nicer
than the CBS HD games do?

I thing the quality is the same, but you do get a different look
because ESPN and MNF games are at night, under complete artificial
lighting. It's a sharper whiter light, IMO.

Yeah, the lighting is a huge part of it.

Today's Patriots at Colts (inside a dome) looked as much like "looking
through a window" as HD gets.

--
Jeff Rife |
For address harvesters: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert...dCoWorkers.gif
|
|
|

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:57:36 -0500, Jeff Rife wrote:

Larry Bud ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Am I the only one who thinks that the ESPNHD games look much nicer
than the CBS HD games do?

I thing the quality is the same, but you do get a different look
because ESPN and MNF games are at night, under complete artificial
lighting. It's a sharper whiter light, IMO.

Yeah, the lighting is a huge part of it.

Today's Patriots at Colts (inside a dome) looked as much like "looking
through a window" as HD gets.

Watch to night's game if you have ESPN HD and tell me if you don't
think it's better. Of course I'm getting CBS via cable and the local
station is still going through growing pains. I still thin ESPNHD
looks better but I might need new glasses.
THumper
To reply drop XYZ in address

Larry Bud ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Am I the only one who thinks that the ESPNHD games look much nicer
than the CBS HD games do?

I thing the quality is the same, but you do get a different look
because ESPN and MNF games are at night, under complete artificial
lighting. It's a sharper whiter light, IMO.

Yeah, the lighting is a huge part of it.

Today's Patriots at Colts (inside a dome) looked as much like "looking
through a window" as HD gets.

Watch to night's game if you have ESPN HD and tell me if you don't
think it's better. Of course I'm getting CBS via cable and the local
station is still going through growing pains. I still thin ESPNHD
looks better but I might need new glasses.

Actually, I thought it looked worse, but most of that was because the
field seemed to be torn up, while the Pats/Colts game was on
artificial turf. The environment has much more to do with it than the
format.

Yes, you are.

Per my other posts, CBS HD OTA is the very best HD I see. ESPN HD is a
close, but obvious second to CBS OTA HD.

....hasan, N0AN

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On 29 Nov 2003 15:14:49 -0800, (Larry Bud)
wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that the ESPNHD games look much nicer
than the CBS HD games do?
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address

Thumper ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Watch to night's game if you have ESPN HD and tell me if you don't
think it's better.

It looked fine, but not nearly as "transparent".

Of course I'm getting CBS via cable and the local
station is still going through growing pains.

Or, your cable company could be reducing the bitrate on the HD. This is
yet another reason to go straight to the source for OTA.

--
Jeff Rife | "Eternity with nerds. It's the Pasadena Star
For address harvesters: | Trek convention all over again."
| -- Nichelle Nichols, "Futurama"
|
|

"Anon" wrote in message news:[email protected]_s53...
Yesterday I had the opportunity of watching HDTV for the first time. I was
at a friends house for Thanksgiving and they had a 55" Mitsubishi rear
projection TV. The movie Home alone 2 was on a channel called INHD. I
noticed that it was coming from a Comcast HDTV cable box.

Just to eliminate a couple possibilities some people have
mentionned--INHD shows pretty top-notch video most of the
time, and their broadcast of Home Alone 2 is certainly
high quality. I doubt Comcast's cable box is to blame
either.

My guess is that the Mitsubishi TV isn't calibrated properly
and is in need of convergence adjustment. I needed to adjust
my Mitsubishi RPTV's convergence because of my nearby computer
(the power supply's magnet, no doubt).

Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not
worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg--

Well, for one thing a 55" Mitsubishi RPTV should only cost
half that much. My 50" 4:3 Mitsubishi went for $1300 at
Conns, and I noticed a 52" 16:9 set for $1300 at Best Buy
the last time I was there (don't recall the brand).

Personally, I wouldn't spend $4000 for any TV set, but if
that was within my acceptable price range I'd be looking
long and hard at flat panel direct view sets, rather than
just RPTVs.

Isaac Kuo