more info
 

* Here's more info I got from the internets; Also more stores are stocking
HDTVs (dvd players and no vcr)and as electronics manufacturers make less
non-HDTVs. So right the whole thing is screwy. *

Victor

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The unfortunate fact of life these days is that most, if not all, of the
larger sets are HD today. That is both good and bad. The good is that
the larger sets pricing is steadily declining as mfgs can reduce sku's.
The bad is that SD programming doesn't look so good on widescreen sets,
and content on HD is much less than on SD.

But things are rapidly changing in these technologies and pricing.

Cable companies are not expanding HD offerings much yet, but Dish
Network has (about 35+ channels), DirecTV says '150 channels this year'
and more and more broadcast stations are going HD.

Then there is the HiDef DVD players. Still fairly expensive in
comparison to their SD DVD counterparts, but the prices are coming down
steadily.

HD-DVD (one of the standards) - Toshiba now has a $299 entry price point
for a 2nd generation player.

Blu-Ray (the other standard) - Currently approximately $500 is the entry
price into this market, tho some online offers are a bit less. There
are new 2nd Generation products announced, notably Panasonic @$599 with
5 movies included. But the specification is still in flux with a new
spec supposedly required in all new players mfg'd after 10/31/2007.
Conjecture says the older (and current) players will work fine with
discs produced after the new spec kicks in, just maybe not some of the
new features the spec brings to the table. The problem here is that the
spec is in flux with the hope that changes won't render previous stuff
obsolete.

Samsung has announced a new dual-format player, but no pricing info is
available. LG currently has a dual-format player, but it doesn't meet
full spec on the HD-DVD part, pricing is very high at $1100 or so.

The biggest problem for HiDef DVDs is the 'format war' with entrenched
studios on both sides. There are lots of movies for both formats, but
not from all studios. Arguably, Blu Ray is a better spec, but it isn't
fully defined or utilized yet.

That's just the way things are in HD these days. Much lower content
from cable/satellite/broadcast, and a format war on HiDef DVDs.

more info
 

OOPS, this wasn't meant to be sent here.

more info
 

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:44:22 -0500, luckyvic wrote:

The unfortunate fact of life these days is that most, if not all, of the
larger sets are HD today. That is both good and bad. The good is that
the larger sets pricing is steadily declining as mfgs can reduce sku's.
The bad is that SD programming doesn't look so good on widescreen sets,
and content on HD is much less than on SD.

SD looks perfect on my HDTV. Better than it does on a regualr SD set.

But things are rapidly changing in these technologies and pricing.

I don't pay for TV broadcast. Digital TV is free.

Cable companies are not expanding HD offerings much yet, but Dish
Network has (about 35+ channels), DirecTV says '150 channels this year'
and more and more broadcast stations are going HD.

What do I care what cable compainies do? I don't use cable or sat. Why
someone would pay for crappy TV broadcast over cable/sat when free ATSC
is available in their area.....

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

more info
 

In article [email protected],
Wes Newell wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:44:22 -0500, luckyvic wrote:

The unfortunate fact of life these days is that most, if not all, of the
larger sets are HD today. That is both good and bad. The good is that
the larger sets pricing is steadily declining as mfgs can reduce sku's.
The bad is that SD programming doesn't look so good on widescreen sets,
and content on HD is much less than on SD.

SD looks perfect on my HDTV. Better than it does on a regualr SD set.

On my 61" JVC SD is fine, but it was better on my 36" tube. And it also
depends on which channel. Some SD is very good others suck pond scum.
All my personal opinion of course.

But things are rapidly changing in these technologies and pricing.

I don't pay for TV broadcast. Digital TV is free.

Cable companies are not expanding HD offerings much yet, but Dish
Network has (about 35+ channels), DirecTV says '150 channels this year'
and more and more broadcast stations are going HD.

What do I care what cable compainies do? I don't use cable or sat. Why
someone would pay for crappy TV broadcast over cable/sat when free ATSC
is available in their area.....

Each to his own, I suppose. I want the channels that are only LEGALLY
available on cable or satellite.

more info
 

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
In article [email protected],
Wes Newell wrote:


On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:44:22 -0500, luckyvic wrote:


The unfortunate fact of life these days is that most, if not all, of the
larger sets are HD today. That is both good and bad. The good is that
the larger sets pricing is steadily declining as mfgs can reduce sku's.
The bad is that SD programming doesn't look so good on widescreen sets,
and content on HD is much less than on SD.


SD looks perfect on my HDTV. Better than it does on a regualr SD set.


On my 61" JVC SD is fine, but it was better on my 36" tube. And it also
depends on which channel. Some SD is very good others suck pond scum.
All my personal opinion of course.


But things are rapidly changing in these technologies and pricing.


I don't pay for TV broadcast. Digital TV is free.


Cable companies are not expanding HD offerings much yet, but Dish
Network has (about 35+ channels), DirecTV says '150 channels this year'
and more and more broadcast stations are going HD.


What do I care what cable compainies do? I don't use cable or sat. Why
someone would pay for crappy TV broadcast over cable/sat when free ATSC
is available in their area.....


Each to his own, I suppose. I want the channels that are only LEGALLY
available on cable or satellite.

I have satellite with lots of standard and high def channels.....there's
still nothing on worth watching.

more info
 

In article , Randell Tarin
wrote:

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
In article [email protected],
Wes Newell wrote:


On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:44:22 -0500, luckyvic wrote:


The unfortunate fact of life these days is that most, if not all, of the
larger sets are HD today. That is both good and bad. The good is that
the larger sets pricing is steadily declining as mfgs can reduce sku's.
The bad is that SD programming doesn't look so good on widescreen sets,
and content on HD is much less than on SD.


SD looks perfect on my HDTV. Better than it does on a regualr SD set.


On my 61" JVC SD is fine, but it was better on my 36" tube. And it also
depends on which channel. Some SD is very good others suck pond scum.
All my personal opinion of course.


But things are rapidly changing in these technologies and pricing.


I don't pay for TV broadcast. Digital TV is free.


Cable companies are not expanding HD offerings much yet, but Dish
Network has (about 35+ channels), DirecTV says '150 channels this year'
and more and more broadcast stations are going HD.


What do I care what cable compainies do? I don't use cable or sat. Why
someone would pay for crappy TV broadcast over cable/sat when free ATSC
is available in their area.....


It depends where you live in the country! Us here in "rural" America
(the great unwashed) can't pick up OTA channels, as we are long out of
range of the Twin Cities, even with a tall tower and proper antenna.
The next best thing for us is either cable (our first cable service
started in 1957 just because of the range problem), or satellite. I
happened to choose satellite, because I can't stand to subscribe to
Charter's ****ty service, which is also half again as much as satellite
for the same service.

more info
 

"Randell Tarin" wrote
I have satellite with lots of standard and high def channels.....there's
still nothing on worth watching.

Nothing?? Even on Discovery HD?

more info
 

Tantalust wrote:
"Randell Tarin" wrote
I have satellite with lots of standard and high def channels.....there's
still nothing on worth watching.

Nothing?? Even on Discovery HD?

If nothing, he must enjoy making a donation to his satellite provider
every month.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

more info
 

"Tantalust" wrote in message
...
"Randell Tarin" wrote
I have satellite with lots of standard and high def
channels.....there's still nothing on worth watching.

Nothing?? Even on Discovery HD?


Obviously someone who has not seen "Planet Earth" in HD!!!

more info
 

"Bill's News" wrote in message
...

"Tantalust" wrote in message
...
"Randell Tarin" wrote
I have satellite with lots of standard and high def channels.....there's
still nothing on worth watching.

Nothing?? Even on Discovery HD?


Obviously someone who has not seen "Planet Earth" in HD!!!

amen