Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Toys Hardware

CNET's HDTV World 195

Posted by Zonk from the shiny-pictures dept.
xerid writes "CNET.com has a collection of articles and videos on HDTV and related technologies. It looks like a good starting point for anyone interested in buying an HDTV in the near future. They also include Editors' Top HDTV picks. For top flat-panel HDTV plasma: Panasonic TH-42PHD7UY." From their Ultimate TV Buying Guide: "Since the first HDTVs appeared in 1998, high-definition television has been on the mind of every TV buyer. The big question is whether now is the time to pay a few hundred to a few thousand dollars more and take the plunge on an HDTV set. We can't answer that question for you, but we can provide some basic information that may help you decide."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CNET's HDTV World More

CNET's HDTV World

Comments Filter:

  • I've heard it said... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Wooden Badger ( 540258 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:30AM (#13648860) Homepage Journal
    Once you watch a football game in HDTV, you can't watch it any other way.

    • Re:I've heard it said... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I've heard that once you watch porn on HDTV, you won't have it any other way. Oh wait...

    • redskins baby! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by evildogeye ( 106313 )
      Yes, which makes it all the more frustrating when you pay a fortune for DirecTV, the HD package, the NFL Direct Ticket package, and then the Monday night games aren't available in HD because ABC's local affiliate won't let DirecTV give me the HD ABC channel. DirecTV is the only way to get HDTV in my condo, even though I am in the heart of Scottsdale, AZ. ARGGGGGGGGG.

      Of course, it was all worthwhile to get every game my hometown Redskins play on TV every week without having to drive to a bar and spend 3.5

      • Fortunately, ABC won't be carrying MNF after this year and you'll be able to watch the Monday night game on ESPNHD. Of course, you may end up having the same trouble with NBC's Sunday night game, but I don't know the details of your reception difficulties.

      • Re:redskins baby! (Score:3, Informative)

        by doughrama ( 172715 )
        All is not lost. In fact, you situation is much better than you think. In regards to your HD setup I envy you and wish I had it. (I recently moved from Phoenix to a basically dark area.) In fact I percieve that the OtA HD broadcasts are of better quality than what DTV broadcasts. (I attribute this to the mpeg2 encoding DTV does to their video)

        Phoenix metro broadcasts (iirc) everything major network in HD OtA (over the air), free.

        So, being the super fan that you are I will assume that you have the DirecTivo.
    • So your advice is to never watch a football game in HDTV? :)

    • Green Field in HDTV (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dunc78 ( 583090 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:20AM (#13649607)
      The only problem I have with football in HD is the fairly uniform green field seems to cause problems with the compression algorithm. You get large blocks where it trys to make the field the exact same color green. But with that being said, watching football (or anything) in HD is always much better than standard analog broadcasts or even SD digital broadcasts.
      • I don't watch much TV at home, but I'm guessing that SDTV suffers similarly -- even when you think you're watching something in analog, the fiber or satellite transmission from the event to the broadcast stations may well be digitally encoded rather than analog, which would theoretically produce the same effect, depending on how heavily they compress it.

        That said, I wonder if your problem is more a function of the overcompression that cable and subscription satellite TV companies do to squeeze more channels
        • Er, just an amendment to my post -- I don't want it to seem like I didn't see what you said: you did write that it's the compression, which is correct. My rambling was more about how it's not a problem directly related to HDTV, but can be affected by compressing things anywhere along the path. Or something, it's still early here ;-)
    • I don't get why that is. Sure, higher resolution picture is great, but what's the difference between that and if they chose to broadcast the game on SDTV in letterbox format?
      • Easy: you can read everybodys numbers! It's a lot easier to follow a mass of people on the screen when you can tell people apart. Also - the names on their jerseys are much easier to read, although it's not always possible depending on the zoom level.
    • Once you watch a football game in HDTV, you can't watch it any other way.
      You certainly wouldn't want to go sit in the damn stadium.
  • So how much for a HDTV projector? Shouldn't that be a bit cheaper, and ultimately a better buy?
    • I hereby postulate: For every mod point you have, your IQ drops by 10.
      I should RTFA before I post.
      I should promptly get rid of my mod points and reclaim my IQ.

    • Re:Projector (Score:5, Informative)

      by Osty ( 16825 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:56AM (#13648914)

      So how much for a HDTV projector? Shouldn't that be a bit cheaper, and ultimately a better buy?

      I assume you're referring to front projection, as most HDTVs are projection in some form (DLP and CRT rear-projection). Anyway, front projection has its pros and cons, and you still have the same hoops to jump through. Do you go CRT, which is cheaper, but also bulkier and requires periodic calibration? Do you go with DLP and risk rainbow effects from color wheels? Do you go LCD and risk screendoor effects? Prices aren't too bad, in line with rear projection TVs (generally a bit cheaper), but you're not done once you've bought the projector.

      Before you even consider front projection, you need to look at your viewing area. Is it sufficiently dark? Front projectors wash out very easily with very little ambient lighting. If your viewing area isn't dark enough (or can't be made dark enough), don't bother with front projection. Do you have the room for a projector? Theoretically, the size of the image is limitless (within the bounds of the projector's focusing ability and your ability to ignore huge pixels), but if you don't have enough space you're not going to get any larger size that what you could get with a cheaper rear-projection CRT. Did you budget for a good screen? A flat, white wall is a start, but most walls aren't that flat (go look at your walls -- chances are they have some amount of texture, which will cause weird shadowing) and a wall will never be as good as a purpose-built screen. How do you plan to mount everything? If you mount the projector to the ceiling it's no longer easily portable, but if you don't then it's susceptible to vibrations and the image can easily be blocked depending on where you place it.

      When it's all said and done, unless you're really hardcore [stevejenkins.com] and plan on building a full home theater or portability is a huge priority and you don't care about sacrificing image quality to get it, you're better off with something else. What that something else might be will depend on your budget and the research you do (e.g. even if you can afford it, you probably don't want to buy a plasma TV since plasma is very susceptible to burn-in and has a relatively short lifespan compared to other technologies and can't be extended with a simple bulb change).

      Ignoring all of that, front projection isn't any better or less hassle-free than rear-projection or flat-panel technologies. You're still going to have to do your homework on display technology (LCD, CRT, DLP, or plasma), you're still going to have to deal with idiot manufacturers configuring their sets to push red because it's more eye catching in the showroom (good sets let you calibrate that out, bad sets don't), and you'll still want to have your set professionally calibrated [imagingscience.com] after a break-in period (I'd give it about 6 months based on my own viewing habits), and every year or two thereafter.

      • Looking at the prices, I took the plunge into getting a projector. My apartment has a decently sized living room. At first I bought a DLP project, but my hearing is still really good and that high pitch sound (I assume it is from the color wheel) hurts my ears. I returned the InFocus X2 (didn't realize there was a 10% restocking fee..$80..watch out for those) and invested in a ViewSonic 1024x768. I liked the fact that the InFocus had DVI, however the ViewSonic only has VGA and Component (Question: Is the in

    • Re:Projector (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mooglez ( 795643 )
      And if you didn't mean a front projection tv, but a real projector. Sony Qualia 004 will set you back 27,000$, and 3,000$ for each lamp.

  • Is that so? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) * <slashdot.jawtheshark@com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:33AM (#13648868) Homepage Journal
    Since the first HDTVs appeared in 1998, high-definition television has been on the mind of every TV buyer.

    Huh? Really? HDTV didn't spring to mind at all when about a year ago the hand-down TV from my parents died. Well, I still wanted a TV at my place and these were the criteria:

    • 16:9 screen
    • Preferably big
    • Good screen quality
    • Price should be payable without a loan

    In the end, I bought a CRT 83cm 16:9 "flat" screen for about 900€. The thing weights over 80kg, but I don't move it every day, do I? I understand that these days, such a TV is even less expensive because they're pushing Plasma and LCD screens.

    In my eyes price/quality of a good CRT cannot be beaten by the newer technologies (yet). Of course, I could just as well not have bought a TV, because if I use it once a week it'll be a lot.

    • Re:Is that so? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Osty ( 16825 )

      In the end, I bought a CRT 83cm 16:9 "flat" screen for about 900. The thing weights over 80kg, but I don't move it every day, do I? I understand that these days, such a TV is even less expensive because they're pushing Plasma and LCD screens.

      For us 'merkans, that's a 32" screen at $1600 weighing over 175 pounds. Pricing is certainly local to the market, but the same TV today in America would cost around $1000 (if not less), and IMHO is not a better deal than a 50"+ CRT RPTV for a couple hundred more.

      • Please keep in mind the following when comparing American and European TVs:

        1. Price. When someone from Europe quotes a price, it is ALWAYS inclusive of VAT (sales tax). Americans do not give inclusive prices.

        2. Image quality. Arguably, PAL is better than NTSC (for reasons I will not go into right now). It has better resolution and that is something you, predictably, pay for.

        3. Warranty. In Europe, you have a TWO YEAR warranty for any defects standard with any purchase. That, as far as I know, is optional

      • Toshiba have a 26" HDTV for half that price here in Canada. Doesn't have an ATSC tuner though as it's a couple of years old.

        The cabinet in my living room has a limit of 31" horizontally, which means the TV screen must be smaller. That's fine by me: I don't want my living room dominated by a TV. I'm certainly not going to break the bank to do it... so I'm just going to wait until there's more choice in a year or two before replacing my current 19" TV.

        We're so backwards in N. America. Digital wide-screen
    • I've been looking at 27-34" 16:9 CRTs lately myself. I'd prefer DLP if possible, but its too expensive for my budget at this point.

      The spousal unit informs me that $1000 is unreasonable for a TV, since we only paid $200 for the first one we bought and technology's supposed to get cheaper, right?

  • DLP (Score:4, Interesting)

    by scapermoya ( 769847 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:43AM (#13648896) Homepage
    so much for news... anyway I think the next big thing will be 'real' dlp (digital light projection) sets. The limited but increasing number of theater ones can produce trillions of colors, and they can change color around 1000 times a second. For the consumer these days, one can only get a single chip system that uses a weird color wheel to translate grayscale into color. It looks good, but it kind of reminds me of those sets before color came around that came with cellophane color screens. Also, there is a weird rainbow effect sometimes with fast moving images. TI, the makers of the chip, has a pretty neat demo on their site. Essentially, the chip is just an array of millions of tiny mirrors that are capable of being toggled on or off quite fast. In 1 chip systems, which are avaliable from mitsubishi and some others, the grayscale deal is used. In 'real' three chip systems, each chip gets a primary color all to itself. The more time per second each mirror is 'on', the more of that color will appear in each pixel, = really good image. check it out.

    • Re:DLP (Score:3, Informative)

      by Androclese ( 627848 )
      It's a Catch-22 situation at the moment... Crappy Picture at a Low price, or Great Picture at a High Price.

      If you go with a Plasma or LCD, you can "get digital" but you get an image that looks worse and worse the larger the screen size gets. To my eye, I get the screen door effect with anything above 30 inches. However, prices are relatively cheap at this end of the spectrum.

      Here's the Catch, DLP, has a *far* superior picture, the screen door effect is lessened greatly, if even seen at all. However
      • I'd hardly consider the situation "Crappy Picture at a Low price, or Great Picture at a High Price" a "Catch-22". A Catch-22 usually involves some sort of circular logic; i.e. you can't a job without experience and you can't get experience without a job.

        Please Internet, don't bastardize yet another literary expression!

      • Re:DLP (Score:3, Informative)

        by rnelsonee ( 98732 )
        Yeah, the bulbs are about $400, and last about 2000-3000 hours if used correctly (which just means you shouldn't turn the thing on or off rapidly - most firmwares have a cooldown period where you can't turn the bulb back on for 60 seconds). Understanibly, DLP won't be a huge seller until bulbs are made to last longer.

        DLP was perfect for me though, as I wanted a front projection system, and only for movies, which is to say about 6 hours a week. For under $1200 I was able to get a DLP projecter that puts

    • Re:DLP (Score:2)

      by Malor ( 3658 )
      If you're sensitive to screen refresh rates, then the DLP sets are a nightmare. Just walking past them in the store is enough to drive me nuts... they flicker like crazy, especially in your peripheral vision.
    • I decided to pick up a refurbished DLP Projector for $550 not too long ago. It's the Infocus X1. It's an incredible value. It also supports HDTV, although it downsamples the image. I was worried about this "rainbow effect" but in six months of using the projector I've never run into this issue. If you're looking for a DLP television set, you might want to save a thousand dollars and pick one of these up. It's fun and looks great.

    • Ah yes, trillions of colors, very nice. How many can your eye see again?

  • Computer parts (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <fidelcatsro@gmaDALIil.com minus painter> on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:51AM (#13648901) Journal
    I have a 22" monitor capable of 1,920x1,080 (1080p) which cost me around 300 , a HDTV tuner card is around 150 . I already have a computer that has PCI slots .. Seems like a far cheaper option at the moment for those who have computers .

    • I'm sure you have lots of fun hosting Superbowl parties with 20+ people crowded around your 22" monitor.
    • As someone who has watched over-the-air HDTV on a 20" computer monitor, and a 50" Sony WEGA LCD rear-projection unit with 5.1 surround sound speakers, I prefer the latter. It is a totally different experience.

  • HDTV is as significant as BW - COLOR (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ThresholdRPG ( 310239 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @02:56AM (#13648913) Homepage Journal
    There is no comparison.

    Sports in regular definition looks like garbage.

    I watched the Super Bowl 2 years ago on a friend's TV in HD. It ruined me. I couldn't watch non-HD ever again.

  • Where are the Editor's Choice CRTs?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @03:00AM (#13648925) Homepage
    I won't argue with the picks themselves except for one, and that's their description of the 34" Sony direct-view tube being a "good value." $1,900 for a 34" screen is NOT a good value. For $1,900 you can have your choice of 50+-inch CRT rear-projection sets. If you have to go CRT direct view (because of size concerns - too big for a room) you can get 30-34" 16:9 HD CRTs for well under $1,200. A $700 premium for whatever Sony's sticking into their XBR unit just can't be called a "value."

    If we're talking about value, why couldn't they take a look at some of the 30" CRTs that are out there from Samsung, Toshiba, Panasonic, etc.? They manage to get sets out there for well under $1,000. And, again, the complete omission of CRT RPTVs from their Editor's Choice list leaves out a lot of VERY good-looking sets (my parents' 57" Hitachi puts on a NICE show) that give more screen size bang for the buck.

    I know flat-panel sets are cool, much easier to move around, and much easier to locate within a room, but it seems like a lot of folks have blinders on and assume that these are the only HDTV-ready sets on the market. This contributes to the notion that HDTV is still super-expensive. When you can get a Samsung 26" 16:9 CRT with HDMI input and an integrated HDTV receiver for $600 at retail, that's just not the case...

    • Re:Where are the Editor's Choice CRTs?? (Score:4, Informative)

      by cheinonen ( 318646 ) <cheinonen@@@hotmail...com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @09:19AM (#13650440)
      The value option comes in as the Sony XBR tubes have aroudn 50% more resolution than any other Direct View CRT out there, and are universally reviewed as the best CRT's ever developed. Sure, a RPTV CRT can be larger, but it has the problems of RPTV CRT (bad viewing angles, convergence issues, also very heavy), I think the value comes in terms versus plasma in the same size, which will have far less resolution, worse contrast, etc... If you want the single best picture of almost any set, buy the XBR. Of course, if you want the absolute best picture, try to track down a Sony Qualia 006 before they stop selling them.
    • I bought the Sony 34" version that came out just before this one. For the $1400 that I spent, I took my time comparing picture quality and nothing - and I mean NOTHING - could touch the Sony for picture quality. HDTV is just like anything, I guess - you can spend a lot and get a great performer or you can go cheap and get by.

      For me, picture quality was the primary factor in my decision. None of the projectors were up to the task. And, really, anything smaller than 34" is just too small - remember, that
    • We purchased a Panasonic PT-47X54 (47" CRT RPTV) in February of this year from Sears here in Canada, we are very happy with the resulting HD picture this puppy pumps out. It does require a bit of screwing with the convergence but once setup it looks very good.

      This unit was in third spot behind 2 Sony's on the Consumer Reports review of HD sets, it wasn't far behind either, it was also much cheaper than the Sony units.

      We paid $1,799 CAD for it, today the same set is $1,499 from Sears.

      HD looks freaking sweet
    • I wish I had more guidance when I bought my HDTV -- I made the mistake of buying the "starter's HDTV" -- the Panasonic CT-27HL14.

      If anyone is thinking of buying this set (or something similar from Panasonic), I urge you to reconsider. Check the reviews at amazon -- (Panasonic CT-27HL14) [amazon.com] -- when I bought mine, everyone was giving it 5 stars, and in fact, for $500 it was great. Unfortunately, anywhere from 6 - 18 months later the screen craps out. Happened to me about a week ago. Of course, Panasonic *o

  • Time for a HDTV camcorder!

    I picked me up one of the Sony's new HDR-HC1 HDV camcorders and holy shit it rules.
    http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/handycam/PROD UCTS/HDR-HC1/ [www.sony.jp]
    The video quality is awesome, native resolution being 1440x1080i with nonsquare pixels,
    and even though its only 1 CMOS imaging sensor (as opposed to 3CCD in the $4000 HDR-FX1), it still looks damn good. For $1500 you can't go wrong :D

    BTW, while the plasma screen linked in teh article isn't all that "bad", consider the fact that most low-

  • I'll keep looking... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Biomechanical ( 829805 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @03:14AM (#13648953) Homepage

    But I'm having a bit of trouble finding the parts of the articles where they say just how little, if any, Digital Rights Management are built into these televisions.

    That would be one of the key factors to which HDTV to buy, for any geek, I would think.

    • Re:I'll keep looking... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Technician ( 215283 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:52AM (#13649172)
      That would be one of the key factors to which HDTV to buy, for any geek, I would think.

      Just remember, in the future, no DRM = no content. A non-DRM set will not play DRM content. Are you expecting non-DRM content in the future? It will be as mainstream as NON-Macrovision VHS tapes, NON-CSS DVDs, NON-Reigon coded DVDs, etc. Sure you can play your old VHS stuff you recorded off analog TV in the 1990's, but not in HDTV.

      For new content and the new format, not geting something that can play DRM would be a waste of money unless you use your HDTV camcorder to produce all your own content.

      Most of my content comes over the Internet, not from traditional TV sources.
      • If they ever standardize on a DRM that prevents me from watching content on my brand new HD LCD TV, then I'll just download it. You can find lots of HD movies online now, which is cool because where else can you get them? With the ever increasing broadband bandwidth, I could download a HD movie in now time.
    • But I'm having a bit of trouble finding the parts of the articles where they say just how little, if any, Digital Rights Management are built into these televisions.

      That would be one of the key factors to which HDTV to buy, for any geek, I would think.

      Here are a couple of reasons why the Panasonic "commercial" displays like the 7UY mentioned in the summary make good "geek" sets.

      Panasonic makes two lines of plasma displays. The consumer line is what you buy at places like Best Buy, and they feature wh

  • Looking (Score:3, Informative)

    by Spy Hunter ( 317220 ) * on Monday September 26, 2005 @03:22AM (#13648965) Journal
    I was just looking at TVs today. At Best Buy there was a sweet 37" LCD TV I was seriously thinking about buying. Unfortunately the picture quality in LCDs still doesn't seem that great. I'm not talking about motion blur; everyone claims it's terrible but the new panels really have that problem licked IMHO. The problem now is the black level is way too bright, so the picture is washed out. Plasmas have insane contrast ratios and great black levels and it really shows when you put them side by side with LCDs in a showroom. Don't buy an LCD TV until you've seen it next to a plasma.

    I noticed the LCD TV claimed to have a 1000:1 contrast ratio. The picture didn't look any better than last time I looked at LCD TVs, but back then they only claimed 400:1 ratios. Did they just start lying, or what? Do any LCD TVs out there actually have a decent black level and actual good contrast ratio, or is the tech just not there yet?

    • Re:Looking (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pe1chl ( 90186 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @03:40AM (#13649003)
      Note that many TVs have a "store demo mode" that is not really what you want to use at home.
      As a good proportion of customers judges picture by brightness (geee look! that one is bright!) they always are set too bright and tend to wash out.
      However, once you reset them to typical home conditions, the picture becomes much better.
      You need to set both contrast and brightness in your own environment (preferably using a testcard) to make sure that the whole greyscale and colorscale are displayed correctly.

      Still there is a definate small upperclass of screens that are way better than the rest.
      Philips makes the "ambilight" models (37pf9986 and now 37pf9830) but I think they are not available in the US. Those really stand out when they are put between other LCD panels in a showroom. So much that you wonder why you would want to buy any of the others.

      LCD also has some advantages over plasma.
      - the power consumption is much lower (does not seem to be of interest to Americans, but still...)
      - the front surface is dark and does not tend to mirror objects in the room
      - there is no danger of burn-in of static displays

    • Re:Looking (Score:3, Informative)

      by BenjyD ( 316700 )
      Some LCD maufacturers have started claiming huge contrast ratios based on the TVs digital signal processing software - they call it "Dynamic Contrast" or something. I've seen ratios of up to 3000:1 claimed for TVs that are acually only 800:1. That said, I just bought a samsung LE32r41, which seems to have very good contrast.

  • I have a cunning plan (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr2cents ( 323101 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @03:25AM (#13648972)
    Just throw out your TV and do something better with your time. And believe me, everything is better than watching those horrible reality shows, sitcoms with predictable jokes, news that makes you feel there are terrorists living in your basement, and soaps that seem to be designed to to make you stupid.

    Really, TV is an insult to your intelligence. I'm boycotting them since 2004.

  • Terrestrial HDTV receiver (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:08AM (#13649079) Journal
    I just got one and its really cool. No static in the receiption (because of error correction?) and no paying a monthly fee.

  • TH-50PHD7UY (Score:2, Informative)

    by davidpfarrell ( 562876 )
    I just recently purchased the 50-inch model 50-PHD7UY [cnet.com], based in large part on CNet's review. I couldn't be happier with the the product. In fact I'm not sure why CNET didn't mention that TV in their article? Perhaps they are trying to stay within a certain price range.

    The hard part was finding the product at a reasonable price, with reasonable shipping (I live in Hawaii) from a respectable source. I had read numerous accounts of ppl who tried to order their Plasma TV from sites that advertised lower pr

    • I have the Panasonic TH-42PHD7UY (i.e., the one CNET calls its top pick) and I bought it from TigerDirect.com. This set is so great. I have zero complaints. Calibrated really nicely out of the box. Good on-screen menus. Swappable input bays (hell ya!--need three DVI inputs? Need two component and one HDMI? Just buy 'em for about a hundred bucks each and slot them in!) No crummy built-in speakers (although you can buy OEM accessory speakers, if you like). Nice clean design. And the best part is the
    • We got the predecessor to that model, the TH-50PHD6UY, and we've been running it for almost two years now. It's every bit as amazing as the day we plugged it in and I have no gripes with the picture quality or design (from the styling to the remote and on-screen menus). While I'm not in the position to provide results of long-term testing across many different models, I can emphasize that I'm a visual junkie and the Panasonic has been everything I expected.

      I'm not sure how many other brands have slots for
  • Since the first HDTVs appeared in 1998, high-definition television has been on the mind of every TV buyer.

    Actually, no. I have replaced a dead TV since 1998, and HDTV has *never* been on my mind. 90% of what is on TV is crap (and I'm a Brit, so I guess if I was in the US then that would be 98%) so I've no desire to pay a shed load of money for the latest techno toy.

    Can I recommend psychiatric councelling as a cheaper and longer lasting alternative?

    • Not to mention, getting any sort of HD service in the UK is extremely tricky. I believe there's a Europe-wide satellite channel you can get, but that's it until Sky launch their HD service next year, and that's only good if you're really into either sports or movies.

      Having said that, I am looking at getting an LCD (space is an issue for, and we move house frequently, so weight is too), which would be HD. Good for next gen consoles!
    • Well, Europe is a bit behind in HDTV deployment, but widescreen TV (at DVD resolutions) is more popular there. When you got a new TV, did you get widescreen? That's probably a more relevant comparison to US HDTV.

      Also, I am sure that a lot of your countrymen would spend a lot on a TV that would let them see World Cup Football/Soccer in HD resolutions. In the US, almost all of the NFL Football games are in HD, and that drives a lot of purchases.
    • 90% (or 98%) of what is on TV is crap

      Perhaps, but if you have 200 channels, a DVD collection, an XBox, NetFlix and are a sports fan the chances are pretty good that you can find something very entertaining on HDTV.

      Even if the TV content is largely crap.

  • I purchased the Westinghouse LVM-37w1 [westinghousedigital.com] a few months back from Best Buy for the then-low price of $1850 (I also got 18-months same-as-cash and $120 in gift certificates).

    Most slashdotters would probably be surprised to find out that connecting their PC using the RBG or DVI inputs of most HDTVs isn't all it's cracked up to be. I probably spent a year or so researching my next television and something I learned (by visiting AV Science forums [avsforum.com]) was that using the analog input on most TVs limits you to to a 4:3

  • DVR Yet? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Joe U ( 443617 ) * on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:20AM (#13649611) Homepage Journal
    Does anyone know of a way to build a DVR for HDTV yet?

    Something to plug into the cable box and get HDTV cable piped over to your computer's HDD in HD quality.

    • Re:DVR Yet? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 )
      Perhaps your cable box has a IEEE1394 port. If so, you might be able to record the digital signal using VirtualDVHS [mattinen.org]

    • Re:DVR Yet? (Score:3, Informative)

      by tji ( 74570 )
      There are many options for HDTV DVR.

      - Get it from your cable company, for $5 to $10 more per month. The simplest solution.

      - MythTV works great with HDTV. I have two HD receiver cards plugged into my cable TV system, so I can record two shows while watching a third that was recorded previously. It's not the easiest thing to set up, and it takes some decent horsepower to do HDTV display. But, once it's set up it's great.

      - MythTV can connect to the firewire port on your cable box and record shows that w

    • Re:DVR Yet? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Wesley Felter ( 138342 )
      Try the Sony DHG-HDD250. It actually replaces your cable box.

  • observations. . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zobeid ( 314469 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:33AM (#13650054)
    I have a 44" Mitsubishi rear-projection CRT set in my workroom. The picture is good, the set didn't cost too much, but it's really bulky and overly large for my room. Plus it's a hassle keeping the convergence adjusted. Plus there's the worry about "burn-in" when watching too much 4:3 aspect ratio material. And it's necessary to turn out the room lights before it can look really good.

    Recently we got a new Mitsubishi LT-3050 for the living room, a 30-inch LCD panel. Man, I've been blown away by this set! I started to adjust it using my AV test DVDs and color filters -- but all the adjustments were already dead on the money, as it came from the factory. No "torch mode" like CRTs usually have, there wasn't even any red push in the color decoder. I've never seen that before, never imagined I'd see that. It just plain looks better that my old set, and HD material looks stunning.

    Somebody complained that LCD panels have crummy black level, it makes them look washed out. That is true if you try to dim the lights in your room the way you would with any conventional CRT-based set. The LCD is so bright, it looks great in a normally lighted room, in the daytime. Then the black level is not a problem, glare and reflections aren't a problem. You have to take a completely different mindset, you actually want the room lit up, not darkened like a movie theater.

    Having said all that. . . I'm not thrilled with HDTV in general. Yes it looks fabulous when everything comes together -- when you actually get some HD content showing, and it hasn't been compressed to Hell and back. But there are still no HD videodiscs (and when they arrive, they'll have crazy DRM). HD channels on the satellite are very limited, and they all cost extra. HD broadcasts over-the-air are often messed up in one way or another. And there's still not a whole lot of good stuff to watch on TV, going to high def doesn't really solve that age-old problem.

    The transition to HD has gone a lot slower than I hoped and expected, and it's really been a disappointment so far. I think the lack of HD videodiscs is the worst, but the whole thing is just going badly.
  • You'd think that scifi channel would be a natural to have an HD channel. I think I'll be holding off on HD until scifi channel is broadcast in HD. Really the HD selection is very slim at this point.

    The ones that are HD are brilliant and there could be some real opportunity for independent channels to provide more hd content, but really sports and the premium movie channels are the only good reasons to get hd at this point. Still, far too many channels either have no HD equivalent or they only have full h

  • I am in the market for 2 different kinds of TVs. Sadly, no manufacturer seems to be making them, yet. Here are the requirements:

    TV 1:

    • Diagonal viewing size 16 inch to 20 inch
    • Aspect ratio 16:9
    • Native resolution 1920x1080
    • Technology CRT or LCD (but must meet the native resolution requirement)
    • HDMI or DVI input, with HDCP
    • Either built-in tuner with full ATSC and analog capability (North American channels), or a 2nd HDMI/DVI/HDCP input port
    • Composite input for analog NTSC

    TV 2:

    • Portable
    • Diagonal viewing size 7 inc

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Close