Help buying an HDTV

[Ladic]

I'm set on buying an HDTV, and get rid of my old TV, but I don't know much about them.

I saw one I liked at Circuit City, and wanted to ask some of you that have more expertise on this matters what do u think of this TV before I buy it?

The Price is $759.99 at the store.

http://www.circuitcity.com/rpsm/oid/96280/...tDetail.do#tabs

[JsARCLIGHT]

Those CRT HD units are sort of nice buys as they have filled in that "entry level" nook for HDTV for consumers. I know a person who has a Phillips model and he seems to like it. I'd say read up on all the online reviews you can before buying just to be safe and make double sure the unit has the specs and the inputs you need.

My own personal opinion on those would be to save some extra money and buy one of the low $1200 range DLP units. Twice as big and just as good. Unless space is an issue the DLPs are the best bang for your HDTV buck on the market right now. I myself own a Phillips 42" plasma that I wish I never bought. Thing has more quirks than a retarded midget and I could have had TWO nice Mitsu DLP's for the price I paid.

Needless to say when I move soon I'm getting a new Mitsu DLP big screen and putting the Phillips in the bedroom.

[Hurin]

What do you intend to use it for and what are your space constraints?

Will you watch DVDs? Broadcast TV? HD broadcasts? HD over cable? Will you connect a computer to it? A game console?

H

[Ladic]

Yeah, I mostly will use for DVD's, Video game consoles, I watch tv too, but I dont think ill get the converter from my cable company, and I think u have to pay a monthly fee to get the DHTV signal right?

Space is also an Issue, I measured that TV, and it fits perfectly, I can't get any bigger, as it wont fit in my room.

But I've seen Philips, Sanyo, Sony (30" widescreen hdtv) also, and they price range seems to be about the same. But somehow, this one strike me the nicest when i saw it at the store.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Not to poke you with a stick or anything but unless you intend to go all out and get a nice clean HD signal provider (like digital cable or satelite) you are sort of wasting your money on the HD capabilities of the set. I live in a large metro area and we have four local HD broadcasters who send out an HD signal that HDTV's with the right aerial can receive... but it is still an OTA signal and the quality is not that good. We have an HD monitor at my office with a built in tuner and we got an aerial for it and it gets three of the four channels tollerably... not enough to warrant it though. Another bad thing about a widescreen TV is that unless you only watch widescreen DVDs all the time or always watch HD feed you will still only be seeing a 4:3 picture on that thing. I have digital cable with HD here in STL and only ten of my hundred and some channels are HD, meaning only about a tenth or less of my channels are in widescreen... and most of the time those HD channels are showing the same thing that is running on the normal channel.

On the DVD front you should also know that DVDs are NOT HD. With a good progressive scan player you can see at best a 480p signal. Clean but not HD. If you buy a $300 upconverter DVD player then you get an upconverted signal from the DVD but it still is not true HD and shows it. (I myself have a upconverter DVD player and while it is the best DVD picture I have seen to date it still pales compared to a nice hard HDTV 1080i or 720p signal. As for video games only a tiny fraction on console games use true widescreen modes and an even fewer number have true progressive scan capabilities. I've hooked every console on the market to my Phillips with some of the best games available and the picture quality is still not that great. The only real benefit to playing console games on an HDTV is the widescreen mode (on the handful that allow it).

An HD set is a definate upgrade in performance capabilities yes but unless you intend to put those capabilities to use it may be a colossal waste of money. If you mainly watch DVDs and want THE best picture you can get from them then this would be a good way to go, provided you get a good upconvert player to max out the picture and a good surround sound home theater system to max out the audio. If you just intend to watch TV and play console games I'd say pass and get a good NTSC set as the widescreen mode will mostly go unused.

[Ladic]

that is actually a pretty good point.

[JsARCLIGHT]

As much as HDTV sets are becoming more mainstream and cheaper IMHO they are still quite "enthusiast" oriented. To get the most out of a good HDTV you need a lot of other accessories going for it. I hate to talk you out of something you may have your heart set on, just letting you know that HD sets are still far from mainstream.

But if you do get it and get a good HD signal you will never go back. Once I saw movies in HD on the HD channels and first run HD programming in widescreen HD I was hooked. Shows like Deadwood, Arrested Development and others are excellent in HD. Also if you are a sports fan (football for me) it is a big improvement. With football especially, you can see the whole line and see the whole play evolve without being saddled with a cramped 4:3 camera frame. Plus HD Net has pro world cup soccer in HD and that signal is so clean and crisp you can count grass blades.

Just always keep in the back of your head that HDTV sets require a lot of juice to get the goose if you follow. Even though their price points are dropping they are still quite the money pigs... watching HD programming wise that is. DVD wise just get a good home theater system and good DVD player and you are set.

[JB0]

Yeah, I mostly will use for DVD's, Video game consoles, I watch tv too, but I dont think ill get the converter from my cable company, and I think u have to pay a monthly fee to get the DHTV signal right?

No. Over-the-air digital broadcasts are free, including high-res HD signals.

See the word monitor next to HDTV? It doesn't have a built-in digital tuner. You'll pay an extra... I think 200$ right now for a digital tuner.

But given the analog signals are scheduled to be shut down in the near future(next few years), it's a good investment. I wouldn't buy a set without digital inputs at this point in time. I personally think that it's criminal to even be selling TVs without digital tuners in them at this point, but TV manufacturers think it's criminal to not milk every last dollar out of the consumer, and that means using the cheapest parts possible for as long as possible.

Tuner prices should go WAY down once every TV watcher in America has or needs one.

[JB0]

Not to poke you with a stick or anything but unless you intend to go all out and get a nice clean HD signal provider (like digital cable or satelite) you are sort of wasting your money on the HD capabilities of the set.

Except most digital cable and digital satellite carriers DON'T carry digital TV signals. They carry analog TV signals that have been sampled into digital then heavily compressed.

I live in a large metro area and we have four local HD broadcasters who send out an HD signal that HDTV's with the right aerial can receive... but it is still an OTA signal and the quality is not that good.

Digital TV is all or nothing. If you pick it up, it's perfect reception. There is no degradation as with conventional analog signals.

As for video games only a tiny fraction on console games use true widescreen modes and an even fewer number have true progressive scan capabilities.

More have progressive scan than have anamorphic widescreen, in my experience.

I've hooked every console on the market to my Phillips with some of the best games available and the picture quality is still not that great. The only real benefit to playing console games on an HDTV is the widescreen mode (on the handful that allow it).

XBox supports higher resolutions.

It's the only system to go above progressive-scan analog, though.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Digital TV over an OTA broadcast is terrible in my town. It suffers from the exact same problems as normal OTA broadcasting except with HD OTA the signal keeps popping in and out like a bad feed from video. Unless you are in a massive metroplex like LA or NY that has a massive HD OTA broadcast network do not expect to get all the OTA signals all the time. In STL when we tested the OTA broadcasts at our office we were less than 5 miles from one of the towers and the signal was still very problematic. It would come on in spurts and go off. We gave up trying to keep it on and returned the antenna. I myself only trust "direct feed" type signals.

[JB0]

Digital TV over an OTA broadcast is terrible in my town. It suffers from the exact same problems as normal OTA broadcasting except with HD OTA the signal keeps popping in and out like a bad feed from video. Unless you are in a massive metroplex like LA or NY that has a massive HD OTA broadcast network do not expect to get all the OTA signals all the time. In STL when we tested the OTA broadcasts at our office we were less than 5 miles from one of the towers and the signal was still very problematic. It would come on in spurts and go off. We gave up trying to keep it on and returned the antenna. I myself only trust "direct feed" type signals.

Fair enough. It sounded like you were saying they ghosted and had static. Quality degradation as opposed to choppy reception.

With very few exceptions, direct feed sources don't give you digital TV signals, though. It's a common misconception that they take advantage of at every opportunity.

We use an amplified antenna in my house

But really, most of my area's analog TV problems are interference and ghosting, as opposed to low signal strength. Exactly the kind of things DTV fixes.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I have also heard that DTV towers create a condition called "signal wash" in which the signal from a close tower overpowers all other incoming signals. We operated under that theory when trying to use the one at our office. We got three poppers and one no-show. Supposedly you can do all sorts of rain dance tactics like add FM traps and sepparate mount spots and other hullaballo to fix all the issues we where having with that unit at my office but to us it just showed that HDTV OTA broadcasts where still not the "plug it in and just go" answer that the Best Buy blueshirts tell customers it is.

My big love for direct feed is that when I had an antenna I had to wrestle with it all the time and move it constantly to train other signals from towers in different directions. With a direct feed like cable or satelite you just push a button and it is on. I'm sort of lucky at the moment though as my condo is right at a cable hub and we are sort of the the "first pigs fed" from the line in the area. I was going to get a dish when I got my HDTV but the cable signal is just so good here that I decided to save the money... plus the condo has rules against mounting dishes on the roof and I would have had to put it on our deck and that would have been ugly.

I'm planning to upgrade to Voom when my house is finished, I've heard they have the best ratio of HD to analog channels out there. I'm about ready to kill a drifter to get TNT in HD.

[Gaijin]

Having an HDTV (Panny LCD RPTV) and HD/Digital over cable (my city has only 3 digital broadcast stations over the air and only ABC in HD OTA so cable was the obvious choice), I agree with JsARCLIGHT...if you don't plan on using the HD feeds either OTA (which may or not be good in your area) or cable/satellite then it might be a waste of money. They are great for DVD's though and your anamorphic DVD's will thank you. The next gen of Blu-Ray/HD DVD players will take advantage of your new set though.

One good thing about CRT HDTV's...SDTV will look better than they will on an LCD, DLP, Plasma, or LCoS set. They are just damn heavy.

There are a lot of people with HDTV or HD ready sets and some don't even get any HD signals to feed them...I saw one guy complain to a Sears electronic worker about his new HDTV looks crappy and all his stations look the same (apparently he thought all his TV would now look HD).

It is hard to watch SD after watching HD stations like HDnet and INHD though...watching the Miss Hawaiian Tropic pageant in HD is like having them prance live all over your living room.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I also have to confess to watching Bikini Destinations on HDNet. Makes me think "Gee... so THIS is what HD was made for".

[Gaijin]

You know, I keep on missing that...I could DVR it, but I never do. My friend was cracking up the other week though, watching the "Sex Files" and the "L Word"...she kept saying, "Hey...High Definition nipples!!!"

Edited April 6, 2005 by Gaijin

[JB0]

I have also heard that DTV towers create a condition called "signal wash" in which the signal from a close tower overpowers all other incoming signals. We operated under that theory when trying to use the one at our office. We got three poppers and one no-show. Supposedly you can do all sorts of rain dance tactics like add FM traps and sepparate mount spots and other hullaballo to fix all the issues we where having with that unit at my office but to us it just showed that HDTV OTA broadcasts where still not the "plug it in and just go" answer that the Best Buy blueshirts tell customers it is.

Never trust the electronics store guys. They're there to sell you something, not to think.

My big love for direct feed is that when I had an antenna I had to wrestle with it all the time and move it constantly to train other signals from towers in different directions. With a direct feed like cable or satelite you just push a button and it is on. I'm sort of lucky at the moment though as my condo is right at a cable hub and we are sort of the the "first pigs fed" from the line in the area. I was going to get a dish when I got my HDTV but the cable signal is just so good here that I decided to save the money... plus the condo has rules against mounting dishes on the roof and I would have had to put it on our deck and that would have been ugly.

We had the opposite problem when we had cable. On-air feeds were better than the cable. We also had a lot of cable dropouts.

...

But darn it, we liked the extra channels.

I'm planning to upgrade to Voom when my house is finished, I've heard they have the best ratio of HD to analog channels out there. I'm about ready to kill a drifter to get TNT in HD.

Yah. Voom's big marketing thing is "We carry actual DTV signals! And lots of them!"

[Ladic]

I got cable with comcast, i was browsing thru their site, and I have to rent a box to get the HDTV signal, i'm gonna call them tomorrow to find out how much is that fee.

[Gaijin]

Voom isn't available in my area, but I do get TNT in HD already.

For a small city, our $6.95 Time Warner cable HD feed line up isn't half shabby:

D-KITV (ABC-HD feed)

Discovery HD

HDnet

HDnet Movies

iNHD

iNHD2

ESPN HD

HD Sports (ususally some feed from Fox Sports Net in LA)

TNT HD

HBO HD (if you have HBO)

Showtime HD (if you have Showtime)

Thing is, we don't get Fox, NBC, or CBS in HD ...and it may be awhile. Has to do with servers needed for time shifting the programming for Hawaii. And once CBS and Fox get those, cable co has to negotiate with them to get them. I'm hoping we'll get Universal HD...Battlestar Galactica in HD sounds good to me since the first season was shot in High Def and after the mini runs on it, the series is expected to follow. Watching it on crappy sci-fi feels weird...I'm watching a show shot in HD on a crappy digital cable station which is just the analog station compressed. Grrr.

If you get cable HD, see if you can get a DVR that can record HD too...sometimes, it isn't much more than the regular rental of the digital/HD box...in my area, a digital or HD box is 7.79 a month...the same one with DVR capability is $9.95...worth it for me. Not sure what Comcast in your area uses (I think Motorola has a new HD DVR for Comcast), but if the box is a Scientific Atlanta make sure it is the newer 8300HD, and not the older, larger, slower, buggy, and poor HD pic quality 8000HD.

Edited April 6, 2005 by Gaijin

[Vince]

I've got a 50 DLP, I'm very happy with it. It did cost most than a projection, but also alot less than a plasma. Even though I don't have any HD game on my ps2, playing in full screen is REALLY fun, just can't sit too close the the screen.

The HD programs are generally great, given the local NBC signal is not very good.

I've quit going out to movies, sometimes I just turn on Discovery HD to look at the pretty picture.

Prices for HD set are comming down, but tv makers are adding HD turer to their newer model. So the prices actually didn't change much.

Samsung has a upconvert DVD player for $149, however, special video upconvert cable also is $149.

Buy what you're comfortable to pay for, but keep in mind the sales tax, service plans, upgrade audio, and tv stand, etc.

[mikeszekely]

Not to poke you with a stick or anything but unless you intend to go all out and get a nice clean HD signal provider (like digital cable or satelite) you are sort of wasting your money on the HD capabilities of the set. I live in a large metro area and we have four local HD broadcasters who send out an HD signal that HDTV's with the right aerial can receive... but it is still an OTA signal and the quality is not that good. We have an HD monitor at my office with a built in tuner and we got an aerial for it and it gets three of the four channels tollerably... not enough to warrant it though. Another bad thing about a widescreen TV is that unless you only watch widescreen DVDs all the time or always watch HD feed you will still only be seeing a 4:3 picture on that thing. I have digital cable with HD here in STL and only ten of my hundred and some channels are HD, meaning only about a tenth or less of my channels are in widescreen... and most of the time those HD channels are showing the same thing that is running on the normal channel.

On the DVD front you should also know that DVDs are NOT HD. With a good progressive scan player you can see at best a 480p signal. Clean but not HD. If you buy a $300 upconverter DVD player then you get an upconverted signal from the DVD but it still is not true HD and shows it. (I myself have a upconverter DVD player and while it is the best DVD picture I have seen to date it still pales compared to a nice hard HDTV 1080i or 720p signal. As for video games only a tiny fraction on console games use true widescreen modes and an even fewer number have true progressive scan capabilities. I've hooked every console on the market to my Phillips with some of the best games available and the picture quality is still not that great. The only real benefit to playing console games on an HDTV is the widescreen mode (on the handful that allow it).

An HD set is a definate upgrade in performance capabilities yes but unless you intend to put those capabilities to use it may be a colossal waste of money. If you mainly watch DVDs and want THE best picture you can get from them then this would be a good way to go, provided you get a good upconvert player to max out the picture and a good surround sound home theater system to max out the audio. If you just intend to watch TV and play console games I'd say pass and get a good NTSC set as the widescreen mode will mostly go unused.

But you can't just think of the present... I'm assuming our friend here won't be replacing this TV anytime soon?

Within the next five years, HDTV television broadcasts will gradually become more common. Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will start to replace standard DVDs. And it's a given that all three next-gen videogame consoles will support HD video; 16:9 widescreen support is also much more likely.

My advice to you, Ladic, would be to think about how much you want to spend on this TV now. If it's going to be a smaller TV and you think you might want to invest in a larger TV down the road, go with that Samsung. At 30", a CRT TV is pretty heavy, but not unmanageable, and for a Korean company, Samsung's products (at least the ones I've used) are pretty much on par with their Japanese competitors, and usually more reasonably priced.

For anyone else taking a gander at this thread and thinking they want to go more-all out that Ladic, I'll warn you off plasma right now. Yes, they're the thinnest. Yes, they have an absolutely vibrant picture. But they're also expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, problematic with videogames, and more prone to burn-in than other units.

Rear projection LCD TVs are less expensive, but you really have to be looking at them dead on for the best picture. They're also a bit thicker than all but the CRT units. If you're on a budget, they're not a bad choice.

For your money, though, from everything I've read and everyone I've talked to, DLP is really what you want. They're pretty close to plasma in price and not quite as thin, but they're nearly as vibrant with better blacks and fewer issues with videogames and burn-in.

[Ladic]

Whats the diff between the DVI inputs and HDMI??

[JB0]

But you can't just think of the present... I'm assuming our friend here won't be replacing this TV anytime soon?

Within the next five years, HDTV television broadcasts will gradually become more common.

Within the next 5 years, analog broadcasts are supposed to be ceased completely. Current schedule is at the end of 2006, NTSC ceases to air.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html

Hence why I wouldn't even consider buying ANY TV that wasn't at leat DTV-ready.

[JB0]

Whats the diff between the DVI inputs and HDMI??

Plug shape, mainly.

HDMI also has audio and video on the same connector, while DVI doesn't, as I understand it.

Short version: jus tmake sure the stuff you buy uses the connector you have. And swear at TV manufacturers for not settling this BEFORE the last minute.

[mikeszekely]

But you can't just think of the present... I'm assuming our friend here won't be replacing this TV anytime soon?

Within the next five years, HDTV television broadcasts will gradually become more common.

Within the next 5 years, analog broadcasts are supposed to be ceased completely. Current schedule is at the end of 2006, NTSC ceases to air.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html

Hence why I wouldn't even consider buying ANY TV that wasn't at leat DTV-ready.

Right on, which is exactly why I'm sticking with my good old fashion 27" CRT brute, the generic $10 a month cable, and S-Video hookups until I can afford to buy a nice 42"-50" Widescreen HDTV, in either RPLCD or DLP.

[JB0]

But you can't just think of the present... I'm assuming our friend here won't be replacing this TV anytime soon?

Within the next five years, HDTV television broadcasts will gradually become more common.

Within the next 5 years, analog broadcasts are supposed to be ceased completely. Current schedule is at the end of 2006, NTSC ceases to air.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html

Hence why I wouldn't even consider buying ANY TV that wasn't at leat DTV-ready.

Right on, which is exactly why I'm sticking with my good old fashion 27" CRT brute, the generic $10 a month cable, and S-Video hookups until I can afford to buy a nice 42"-50" Widescreen HDTV, in either RPLCD or DLP.

I'm looking forward to something like a 25" CRT.

Big screens never did it for me as much as good ones.

And direct-view CRT is still the best. Best contrast, best color, and best handling of multiple resolutions(especially relevant given DTV specs multiple resolutions).

[Nied]

My fiance and I were given a nice 34" Panasonic CRT as a house warming preasent from my (future) Father-in-Law. I can't get HD programming for it right now (my satelite provider gave me a choice between HD or a DVR and I figured we'd use the DVR more), but most SD stuff still looks increadible. It does have a special viewing mode which stretches out 4:3 images on the edges so that it fits on the 16:9 screen, I've only seen this mode on Panasonic TVs and I gotta say it is by far the best way to watch 4:3 TV on a widescreen (this applies to TV shows on DVD too) in most cases it is unoticeable (you can only see it in wide panning shots and diagonal lines or movement which go across the screeen) and is IMO vastly superior to squishing the image into 16:9 or reverse letterboxing with black bars on the sides of the screen.

[Gaijin]

The Panasonics have a "just" mode which, unlike most "full" modes on widescreens stretches the image only at the edges so you don't really notice it as much. It is much better than pillaring the 4:3 image at times.

Some people see "rainbows" in DLP's so if you go that route, make sure you try before you buy.

The Panasonic LCD projection's are surprisingly good compared to other LCD projection TV's...I tried the WEGA and Hitachi's but the Panasonic still won out for me.

LCoS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) is fairly new...looks good so far

Direct View CRT still overall best pic quality but frakkin' heavy and small screen sizes...if space is a concern, and you can handle the depth and weight, go that route.

No worries if your TV has DVI and most of the future video products output HDMI...you can get a simple adapter. Like mentioned, HDMI also passes audio (and is capable of 5.1 sound as well) but the video portion is basically DVI. My TV has HDMI but the HDMI port on my cable DVR isn't fully functional yet...

You'll probably see HDMI being offered on the next gen game systems as well...

[JsARCLIGHT]

Just a note on the 2006 FCC mandate on HDTV... all that mandate says is that all "local" content must be broadcast in HDTV by that date. It says nothing to cable or satelite and nothing really about the phase out of normal signals. Most metro areas already have the big three networks broadcasting in HD OTA so for the most part everyone is compliant. Europe even pushed back their mandatory rollout another ten years or so to about 2015... so the big use of "the future is nigh" argument to buy an HDTV now sort of has no teeth. It will still be years before the airwaves reach a true 100% HD content level and with the life span of most HDTV's being at most a predicted 10 years right now (much less for plasmas) you may never see that 100% HD channels thing happen with a TV you purchase today. Rumor mill even keeps abounding that the FCC will roll back it's 2006 mandate into the tens (2012, etc.) just like Europe because a lot of domestic broadcasters just seem to refuse to take the switchover to HD seriously.

Sure HD is out there now in a very small amount and it promises to grow in the next 5 years but to go out and purchase a very expensive TV on the grounds that in the next year you will have tons of HD programming is not too sound. If it happens, it happens... but at the moment most signs point to "this is going to take much longer than expected".

[Chowser]

sorta off topic, but i'm getting rid of my 27" CRT tv finally,

ok,

basically,

what is the differences between

LCD

DLP

Plasma

????

looking to buy 42" or bigger. (hey, wife bought all new furniture for the living room, so i'm buying some new equipment for the living room as well)

This TV will mainly be used for playing games on the PS2 and Xbox with occasional tv/dvd (DISH) watching (note, the only tv shows that usually are watched now are SCIFI, DISNEY, Cartoon Network, and NICK). Not a big tv watcher, but the baby likes cartoons.

(kinda getting tired of playing 4 player Halo 2 on a 27")

[JsARCLIGHT]

Well, in a super nutshell:

LCD - Liquid Crystal Display. Same thing as flat panel computer monitors. Pros are they are "flat" TV's and have very good contrast. Cons are that they have the same dead pixel issues that computer monitors have... a real bummer to drop a deuce on a TV only for it to have dead pixels. Most manufacturers have a policy about that though but it is still a massive hassle. All the pros and cons of flat panel PC monitors apply to these TV's as well... so all the backlight bleed, stuck / dead pixel and image color issues apply.

DLP - Digital Light Projection. Sort of the new evolution of rear projection televisions to a degree, they use tiny mirrors to reflect light. Pros are they are cheap compared to the other types, get more TV for the buck and they take up less space than a traditional rear projection big screen. Performance wise they are average, better than a normal TV but not quite as good as a plasma. Cons are they take up the most space next to CRT monitors, can be a bitch to move and some have quite the heat putout.

Plasma - Basically not actual "plasma" in the star trek sense but a charged gas. Pros are they have outstanding picture quality and are flat. Cons are the gas has proven to be less than reliable and stories still abound about plasma TV's "loosing their charge" in a few years and ceasing to work. The most expensive of the lot but arguably the best potential picture. I myself own a plasma phillips and I would say unless you MUST have one, avoid them.

My opinion is the best bang for the buck is still DLP. You can get a 60"+ DLP for the price of a mid range plasma and not have to worry about the gas in them going "out". As with everything though your own personal gut reaction to the unit may speak volumes. Go into a Ultimate Electronics or Best Buy and gander at the different types and see what "grabs" you right off the bat. First impressions are important when it comes to TV's, if it doesn't "wow" you then why bother? Next step would be to investigate the specific units that interest you. If you see a track record of unhappy consumers in reviews and such online then you might want to avoid that one.

Edited April 6, 2005 by JsARCLIGHT

[Hoptimus]

Even if you cant get HDTV broadcasts its worth it if you are a gamer.

Playign Xbox and PS2 in progressive scan is amazing. Much cleaner and crisper than you are probably use to. Also DVDs with a Prog Scan player are crisp.

I love my HDTV.

[bigkid24]

DLP....would a LCD rear projection fall into this category?

[mikeszekely]

Big screens never did it for me as much as good ones.

And direct-view CRT is still the best. Best contrast, best color, and best handling of multiple resolutions(especially relevant given DTV specs multiple resolutions).

CRT is definately the way to go if you want a smaller TV. But if you want a bigger TV, CRT sets are simply to large and heavy, and the picture seems dimmer the larger you go beyond 36"

JsARCLIGHT, I don't think DLP TVs are really any larger/thicker than RP LCD. LCD computer monitors are pretty thin, but also relatively small. At the 44" size, they're both between 14"-15" deep.

Edited April 6, 2005 by mikeszekely

[JB0]

Big screens never did it for me as much as good ones.

And direct-view CRT is still the best. Best contrast, best color, and best handling of multiple resolutions(especially relevant given DTV specs multiple resolutions).

CRT is definately the way to go if you want a smaller TV. But if you want a bigger TV, CRT sets are simply to large and heavy, and the picture seems dimmer the larger you go beyond 36"

Like I said, I care more about image quality than size. And that's the big strength of CRT.

[JB0]

Just a note on the 2006 FCC mandate on HDTV... all that mandate says is that all "local" content must be broadcast in HDTV by that date. It says nothing to cable or satelite and nothing really about the phase out of normal signals.

"All local content" means that all that's broadcast is digital.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html

"Television stations serving all markets in the United States are airing digital television programming, although they still must provide analog programming until the target date set by Congress for the completion of the transition to DTV - December 31, 2006. That date may be extended, however, until most homes (85%) in an area are able to watch the DTV programming. At that point, broadcasting on the current (analog) channels will end and that spectrum will be put to other uses."

Note that at the completion of the transition, which is scheduled for 12/31/2006, the analog TV part of the spectrum is redistributed for other uses. Can't do that if there's still TV on it.

It will still be years before the airwaves reach a true 100% HD content level

Not according to the FCC.

Rumor mill even keeps abounding that the FCC will roll back it's 2006 mandate into the tens (2012, etc.) just like Europe because a lot of domestic broadcasters just seem to refuse to take the switchover to HD seriously.

Odds are they'll just issue lots of waivers.

Sure HD is out there now in a very small amount and it promises to grow in the next 5 years but to go out and purchase a very expensive TV on the grounds that in the next year you will have tons of HD programming is not too sound. If it happens, it happens... but at the moment most signs point to "this is going to take much longer than expected".

Not on the grounds that you'll have lots of digital. Just on the grounds that you won't have any analog, unless you live in a market where more than 15% of people aren't deemed capable of recieving DTV.

If I recall, they consider anyone with a satellite or cable subscription as digital-ready, evne if they only own a standard NTSC set. So the % ready is higher than it appears.

If the FCC rolls things back again, I will be pissed. I'm sick of promises, I want results.

The waivers are bad enough.

Every TV for the past few years should have had an ATSC tuner integrated into it at the factory. The FCC should be forcing TV manufacturers to integrate them at every level now. The modern digital monitor sets shouldn't even be legal.