Not impressed with HD TV

The big problem is that these new TV's are all fixed pixel displays. Meaning that a 1080p tv ALWAYS shows exactly 1920 x 1080 pixels. So, when you feel this TV a signal from a DVD...it's getting a 480p image. And then has to take the 480 lines of native resolution and double it to get to 960....and then has to increase it even more to get it to 1080. Of course, when this happens, quality diminishes. Contrasting this to old style CRT's.....they didn't degrade the image as they create the image based on what resolution they are provided and don't have to manipulate it.

So, as you have noticed, when you feed a 1920 x 1080 tv a standard definition signal...it just doesn't look very good. And unfortunately, there is nothing you are going to do to improve it. The picture is only going to be as good as the input signal that you are providing to it. If you want a great picture, you have to provide a great input.

I purchased my first HDTV in 2003. it was a Sony Grand Wega Rear Projection LCD at 50 inches. And it was $3200 back then. It experienced some problems and it was cheaper in 2007 to replace it with a 50" Panasonic Plasma then it was to fix it....as the 720p plasma was only $999. I've also got a 32" Vizio 720p LCD in my bedroom. I guess I'm in the camp that the better picture is worth it. I just try to avoid watching standard def programming these days.

After living with HD a few more days I have realized that the number one thing that is definitely much better on HD than SD is any text displayed on the screen, much sharper detail. The video is OK, slightly better than SD, but I find text is much easier to read.

I'm still not certain that the cost is worth it but I'm certainly glad I didn't pay thousands of $$$ for my TV.

Don't get me started on the utterly ridiculous prices charged for an HDMI cable!

strollin said:

I have been resisting buying an HD TV for my home because when I go to the store and look at the TVs, I see (IMO) very high prices with only a marginal improvement in picture quality over SD TV.

The other day our 18 year old 32" SD TV bit the dust so I gave in and purchased a 40" HD TV. I got our DISH satellite system upgraded to HD and have been watching HD TV for the past few days. The TV is capable of 1080p but the satellite signal is only 1080i.

In my comparison viewing, it appears that there is a fairly noticeable difference in picture quality between SD and HD content on the HD TV. However, when I compare the HD picture quality of the HD TV with SD picture quality of another SD TV, the difference isn't nearly as noticeable.

I also feel that one reason the picture seems better on the HD TV is due to the larger picture size (40" vs 32").

Am I the only one that feels that HD TV isn't a big enough difference in picture quality to warrant the price difference?

I also get my cable/satellite from DISH. They don't actually offer FULL HD unless it's from one of those movie channels (like Starz and etc.). I've never actually purchased the pack for the movie channels, but when we got it for free, I would record a bunch of them, and the quality and sound was incredible! I also recommend popping in some Blu-Rays, or you can hook up your PC to your TV with a HDMI cable, and also enjoy full 1080p hd :)

armyslowrdr said:

I have a 42" Philips and couldn't be happier.
Just compare a network channel in standard def then switch to the channel carrying the same programming in hi-def and tell me that it is not night and day different.
I do hope you are running sound through a high quality 5.1 or better receiver or separates and 5.1 or better speaker channels also.

Therein lies the problem. There ISN'T a night/day difference, in my estimation there's maybe about 20% better picture which is my complaint. It just seems like a whole bunch of effort/cost to get such a marginal improvement in picure quality.

Nope, no external sound system, just what's built-in to the TV. We had a 5.1 surround sound system a few years back and it crapped out within the warranty period. We felt it wasn't worth the effort to get it fixed under the warranty so we never bothered with it.

So much of this is hype as far as I'm concerned. If watching a movie or TV show, once you get absorbed in the story, things like picture quality and sound fade into the background and become unimportant.

It all depends on the TV I think.

Plasma have a much better picture quality IMHO than LCD or LED TVs.

Seems flesh tones for example are reproduced much more accurately.


I have a 46" Panasonic LCD that looks pretty good, and a 60" LG Infinia Class Plasma.

Although the LCD Panasonic has a beautiful picture (to me), when looking at them side by side, the LCD seems to have a orange/reddish tint to flesh tones.
Never noticed it before until compared.

But the Plasma is also a THX certified , so that may have something to with it i don't know.

Also, I noticed when looking at them in the sore, thery actually look much better once you get them home.
Also bigger :-/ The 60" didnt seem that big in the store, but once set up at home seemed huge.

I can tell a big difference between SD and HD (as in Cable Broadcast HD)
Although the difference is nothing like BluRay. Bluray looks amazing, and is no mistaking it as HD.

DarkDavil said:

I also get my cable/satellite from DISH. They don't actually offer FULL HD unless it's from one of those movie channels (like Starz and etc.). I've never actually purchased the pack for the movie channels, but when we got it for free, I would record a bunch of them, and the quality and sound was incredible! I also recommend popping in some Blu-Rays, or you can hook up your PC to your TV with a HDMI cable, and also enjoy full 1080p hd :)

We have Dish Network also. We do not get any of the Premium Movie Channels. Just the package that they call the "250" and the HD package. All channels except maybe ten are in HD. Like you say, HD is as different as night and day. When there is a closeup of an actor, you can actually see the pores in their skin. It has that much detail.