| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Slightly dissapointed watching HDTV
Not to over state the obvious but you were watching one particular movie on
a particular set with a particular cableco and its hardware which suggests that such a unique set of circumstances should not be used to wisely accept or reject any technology. YMMV "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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- If necessary, email me privately at this address: GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM Thanks --Greg-- |
Well lets face it. There are an awful lot of gotcha's with hdtv reception.
1. While a movie may be transmitted in hd, the original source may not have been real hd. 2. The set may have been upconverting 480i to 1080i 3. The hdtv set may need adjustment. 4. What input was being used for the cable box. If it was s-video then true hd would have been impossible. I do agree though that just because you have an expensive hdtv set, you may not get get better looking results than say a conventional good quality sd set. Many people have reported dvd actually looking worse on an hdtv becasue all of the imperfections will show up. Its all in the details of your equipment and how well the components work together. 1. Is everything adjusted properly 2. Are you using the best quality input 3. Does your set do 3:2 pulldown and anti-alias 4. How well does the mpeg decoder work. etc.... Any weak link can make for a lousy picture and frankly there are a lot a questionable quality units (the price does not mean quality). Richard R. "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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- If necessary, email me privately at this address: GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM Thanks --Greg-- |
Anon wrote:
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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- ======= If the cable company carried them, you should have caught some of the live football Thanksgiving--or other live 1080i or 720p shows at any time. They're typical of the best that HD can deliver at the moment. Telecined films (copied to tape or other media) vary widely in HD quality, and the original film print may have been too 'soft' to start with, or the director may have aimed for a softer look by using camera filters. Also, catch some programming that offers more HD 'impact' because it's taped directly at 1080/60i (60 fields per second), not at the 24 frames per second of films or 1080/24p tape of most TV productions; these are converted to 1080/60i to make them compatible with 1080i HD broadcasts. NBC's late-night Leno is taped at 1080/60i, and so are many PBS productions such as their nearly continuous 'loop' or Rudy Maxa travelogues. Most HDNet (DirecTV and some cable) or Discovery Theater productions are also 1080/60i tapes. The 60 field-per-second capture of this direct taping makes images smoother and usually 'crisper' than 24 fps capture with 3:2 pulldown, the technique that repeats 24p frames to achieve 1080/60i compatability. John |
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:58:36 -0500, "MrMike"
wrote: Not to over state the obvious but you were watching one particular movie on a particular set with a particular cableco and its hardware which suggests that such a unique set of circumstances should not be used to wisely accept or reject any technology. YMMV This is exactly what I have been saying about HDTV. Many people's first exposure to HD is similar to this. Movie quality varies all over the place and many times gives the viewer a less than exciting first look at HD. The best example of what HDTV can be are some of the programs on INHD like "space" yesterday or better still are HD football games on ESPNHD. Thumper "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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- If necessary, email me privately at this address: GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM Thanks --Greg-- To reply drop XYZ in address |
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. on" 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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- If necessary, email me privately at this address: GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM Thanks --Greg-- |
Anon wrote:
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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- If necessary, email me privately at this address: GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM Thanks --Greg-- It depends. I have a 55" mits and my INHD 1 and 2 from Comcast are crystal, as well as any OTA offerings. It could be the set is out of calibration, a poor signal, bad cables or connections, using the wrong input, etc. |
Why are you watching this "non-watchable" stuff? To get your money's worth? Why not sell the set and move on with your life. Or maybe get a life. Bearman "Stan" wrote in message hlink.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. on" 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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- If necessary, email me privately at this address: GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM Thanks --Greg-- |
within these hallowed halls Anon of added the following
to the collective concience: 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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- I'd seen the same argument years ago about Laserdisc. High quality sources are only as good as the weakest link, which may be the source material or a piece in the production chain. As to your concerns, *YES* it is worth that much. |
Perhaps the set wasn't calibrated? Or perhaps the movie was upsampled
from a DVD (could happen). HDTV's do look better than regular TV's, but I'm guessing the average person (not a hobbyist or early adopter) won't pay 5-10 times as much for one, over a regular TV. Even if they can see the improvement. When they get down to less than twice what a regular TV costs, then maybe people will start snapping them up. |
"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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good but certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- If necessary, email me privately at this address: GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM Thanks --Greg-- Yes, movies are about the worst examples of HDTV you can find. If they were ever photographed in the degree of resolution that HDTV is capable of displaying, by the time they reach the airwaves, most have been filtered and softened to fit within the bandwidth of DVD or worse. There is one place you'll easily recognize full HD bandwidth pictures on network shows - - the "showoff" aerial shots of Miami or Las Vegas that open segments of "CSI Miami" and "CSI" - - and they are truly astounding. If they don't look that exceptional, then there's something else wrong in the electronic or optical path to your screen. It's too bad these beautifully detailed pictures only last a few seconds before "getting on with the story". Sports like football and tennis in HD are usually very good (except as done by FOX, usually baseball, where the poorer resolution is termed ED, or Extended Definition - - their choice to send, your choice to switch to something better). The PBS HD demo travelogues as photographed from helicopters are always impressive, too. We are all looking forward to the day when movies in full HD will be available on electronic media - - for network or personal use. That day hasn't arrived. |
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:13:11 GMT, "Stan" wrote:
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. So it's not that there's nothing to watch, it's that you don't want to watch what's on. Thumper on" 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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- If necessary, email me privately at this address: GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM Thanks --Greg-- To reply drop XYZ in address |
"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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- If necessary, email me privately at this address: GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM Thanks --Greg-- You should have been there to watch a real HD production like Texas or Alaska Wild instead of a film movie which took no particular pains to look nice in high resolution. THEN you would know why it's worth it. |
Chuck Olson ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Yes, movies are about the worst examples of HDTV you can find. If they were ever photographed in the degree of resolution that HDTV is capable of displaying, by the time they reach the airwaves, most have been filtered and softened to fit within the bandwidth of DVD or worse. There is one place you'll easily recognize full HD bandwidth pictures on network shows - - the "showoff" aerial shots of Miami or Las Vegas that open segments of "CSI Miami" and "CSI" - - and they are truly astounding. It's funny that you think that movies shot on 35mm film are the "worst examples of HDTV you can find" and yet TV shows also shot on 35mm film are "truly outstanding". The process used to get both movies and *most* TV shows to the end user in HD is identical. Film has vastly more resolution than the final HD transmission, and as long as the transfer is good, you can see this. The reason that people feel that things shot with HD cameras (travelogues, Leno, live sports) look "better" than film-sourced HD is because film-sourced material tends to have only part of the frame in focus...like movies have done for years. But, HD cameras have more depth of field easily available, and thus can have the entire shot in focus. Although this might make the picture look better to some, it just looks "fake" to me. -- Jeff Rife | "If the world were destroyed and you were the For address harvesters: | last man within a thousand mile radius, I would | swim across the ocean on a rumor that Screech | from 'Saved by the Bell' was spotted in Japan." | -- Ellen |
I don't know if I would say that movies are the worst example of HDTV.
It's all in the transfer. But yes, there are much much better examples out there. As far as film transfers, those aerial shots on CSI are fantastic! You will see HDTV images that will blow you away at some point and then you'll undertsand. Steve Chuck Olson wrote: Yes, movies are about the worst examples of HDTV you can find. If they were ever photographed in the degree of resolution that HDTV is capable of displaying, by the time they reach the airwaves, most have been filtered and softened to fit within the bandwidth of DVD or worse. There is one place you'll easily recognize full HD bandwidth pictures on network shows - - the "showoff" aerial shots of Miami or Las Vegas that open segments of "CSI Miami" and "CSI" - - and they are truly astounding. If they don't look that exceptional, then there's something else wrong in the electronic or optical path to your screen. It's too bad these beautifully detailed pictures only last a few seconds before "getting on with the story". |
Uh....I was under the impression that TV studios use video tape (
digital video tape) to broadcast their shows,not 35mm film.....I am no technophile and please correct me if I am wrong on this.But for TV purposes 35mm film would be an ungainly process to use for TV studio production.Remember movies that are first run do not have to be transmitted over the airwaves on their INITIAL FIRST RELEASE from distributors.So when a movie finally does make it to the small screen,the conversion process from film to DVT or hard disc storage probably "loses" something in the process and consequently when reprocessed as a video master it still looks a little 'second' generation compared to the primary made for TV first generation video masters.In other words,movie "dubbing" in TV studios is hardly perfect.This is my theory anyway..... |
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:41:42 -0500, Jeff Rife wrote:
Chuck Olson ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv: Yes, movies are about the worst examples of HDTV you can find. If they were ever photographed in the degree of resolution that HDTV is capable of displaying, by the time they reach the airwaves, most have been filtered and softened to fit within the bandwidth of DVD or worse. There is one place you'll easily recognize full HD bandwidth pictures on network shows - - the "showoff" aerial shots of Miami or Las Vegas that open segments of "CSI Miami" and "CSI" - - and they are truly astounding. It's funny that you think that movies shot on 35mm film are the "worst examples of HDTV you can find" and yet TV shows also shot on 35mm film are "truly outstanding". The process used to get both movies and *most* TV shows to the end user in HD is identical. Film has vastly more resolution than the final HD transmission, and as long as the transfer is good, you can see this. The reason that people feel that things shot with HD cameras (travelogues, Leno, live sports) look "better" than film-sourced HD is because film-sourced material tends to have only part of the frame in focus...like movies have done for years. But, HD cameras have more depth of field easily available, and thus can have the entire shot in focus. Although this might make the picture look better to some, it just looks "fake" to me. It looks like HD was touted to look to me. Thumper To reply drop XYZ in address |
In article ,
wrote: Uh....I was under the impression that TV studios use video tape ( digital video tape) to broadcast their shows,not 35mm film.....I am no technophile and please correct me if I am wrong on this.But for TV purposes 35mm film would be an ungainly process to use for TV studio production.Remember movies that are first run do not have to be transmitted over the airwaves on their INITIAL FIRST RELEASE from distributors.So when a movie finally does make it to the small screen,the conversion process from film to DVT or hard disc storage probably "loses" something in the process and consequently when reprocessed as a video master it still looks a little 'second' generation compared to the primary made for TV first generation video masters.In other words,movie "dubbing" in TV studios is hardly perfect.This is my theory anyway..... TV studios use 35mm film for their prime time dramas; video tape would be limited to the reality shows, other non-studio shows, and stuff like 60 minutes. -- There are no monkeys in my email. |
Thumper ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
It looks like HD was touted to look to me. Go take a look at an SD version of most soap operas. They all have that "everything in focus" look. HD that looks like that but shouldn't (like a drama or comedy) looks "cheap" and "fake" to me. -- Jeff Rife | "But as much as everybody loves you, there is For address harvesters: | one question that keeps coming up...how dumb | WAS she?" | -- Tempus to Lois Lane | |
In article ,
Seth Mattinen writes: In article , wrote: Uh....I was under the impression that TV studios use video tape ( digital video tape) to broadcast their shows,not 35mm film.....I am no technophile and please correct me if I am wrong on this.But for TV purposes 35mm film would be an ungainly process to use for TV studio production.Remember movies that are first run do not have to be transmitted over the airwaves on their INITIAL FIRST RELEASE from distributors.So when a movie finally does make it to the small screen,the conversion process from film to DVT or hard disc storage probably "loses" something in the process and consequently when reprocessed as a video master it still looks a little 'second' generation compared to the primary made for TV first generation video masters.In other words,movie "dubbing" in TV studios is hardly perfect.This is my theory anyway..... TV studios use 35mm film for their prime time dramas; video tape would be limited to the reality shows, other non-studio shows, and stuff like 60 minutes. Unless you are very observant, it is sometimes difficult to tell what is done in HDTV 24p and what is done on film. The old Diagnosis Murder series (Dick Van Dyke) was done in HDTV, and so were the later 'Earth Final Conflict.' My guess is that Andromeda is done at least partially in HDTV (because of similar production situation as 'Earth.') (Each of these series tend to look film like, much better than the SDTV film look nonsense.) In fact, when Earth converted to HDTV, the biggest difference was that skin textures were more obvious (e.g. Da'an's skin texture was much clearer.) I don't know which other series are currently done in HDTV... John |
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:26:25 GMT, Anon wrote:
Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. The thing you were missing is seeing how bad standard or digital cable looked like on that 55" set. Its even better when you can switch back & forth on the same channel. I did that during my Super Bowl party. From the reaction of everyone there, you'd have thought I'd taken a dump on the coffee table. -- -BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least) "It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars" - Garrison Keillor |
"Chuck Olson" wrote in message news:[email protected]_s04... : : Yes, movies are about the worst examples of HDTV you can find. If they were ever photographed : in the degree of resolution that HDTV is capable of displaying, by the time they reach the : airwaves, most have been filtered and softened to fit within the bandwidth of DVD or worse. ================== Film is FAR superior to HDTV resolution. Some movies have been the BEST example of what HDTV offers. |
Studios use film... they have for some time. Film doesn't necessarily
cost alot, and the various studious want high-grade material to transfer to DVD's eventually. When they are filming digitally they are still going for a "film like" look, and in many cases they can film it then transfer it to digital with a telecine machine. You can even get old TV series on DVD now, because they used film, and it still looks good. Check out "The Twilight Zone", and you can see the film quality in most of the episodes, but in some episodes, they went with videotape and you can actually see the difference- the videotape looks smoother motion, but has less resolution. Reality programs, news, soaps, etc. are all videotape because this is basic "throw away" entertainment. Nobody will be wanting to see the reruns that badly. |
|
In article .net, "Steve K."
wrote: Yes you are wrong. Some shows are done on video tape. The vast majority are done on film. Tape is disapearring from the world real fast. Most of what you see on any major-market TV station is airing off of file servers. When tape is used, it's almost always digital (SX or d-beta). -- Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH |
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:26:25 GMT, Anon wrote:
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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- This is how I felt about HD, too... until I had my set calibrated by an ISF technician. All I can say about that is, "Wow". -- ************************************************** ********************** * John Oliver http://www.john-oliver.net/ * * "For the wages of spam is death!" http://www.spamcon.org/legalfund/ * ************************************************** ********************** -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:41:49 -0500, Jeff Rife wrote:
Thumper ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv: It looks like HD was touted to look to me. Go take a look at an SD version of most soap operas. They all have that "everything in focus" look. HD that looks like that but shouldn't (like a drama or comedy) looks "cheap" and "fake" to me. SD versions? HD doesn't look like that. Thumper To reply drop XYZ in address |
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:20:31 -0800, "Richard C."
wrote: "Chuck Olson" wrote in message news:[email protected]_s04... : : Yes, movies are about the worst examples of HDTV you can find. If they were ever photographed : in the degree of resolution that HDTV is capable of displaying, by the time they reach the : airwaves, most have been filtered and softened to fit within the bandwidth of DVD or worse. ================== Film is FAR superior to HDTV resolution. Some movies have been the BEST example of what HDTV offers. For instance? Thumper To reply drop XYZ in address |
"bearman" wrote in message ... Why are you watching this "non-watchable" stuff? To get your money's worth? Why not sell the set and move on with your life. Or maybe get a life. Bearman What the **** business is it yours? When we want YOUR opinion, we'll ask you for it. ITM, shut yer yapper. "Stan" wrote in message hlink.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. on" 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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- If necessary, email me privately at this address: GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM Thanks --Greg-- |
This whole newsgroup is about opinions. Even yours, puerile as it is. "Ricky Kamoniwannalaya" wrote in message hlink.net... "bearman" wrote in message ... Why are you watching this "non-watchable" stuff? To get your money's worth? Why not sell the set and move on with your life. Or maybe get a life. Bearman What the **** business is it yours? When we want YOUR opinion, we'll ask you for it. ITM, shut yer yapper. "Stan" wrote in message hlink.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. on" 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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- If necessary, email me privately at this address: GREG DOT CA AT ATTBI DOT COM Thanks --Greg-- |
"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. When I hit 'info' on the remote, it indicated that the input was 1080I so I know that the box was sending out the movie in High Definition. Is there something I'm missing?? The picture was good put certainly not worth paying 4-6K dollars. --Greg-- Well, it doesn't cost 4-6K, but the problem as I'm sure others have pointed out is that movies are on film, and there is an inherient graniness to film. Have your buddy put on Discovery HD or the PBS loop and you'll change your mind. If not, either get the TV or your eyes checked. |
"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? |
|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:43 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com