Big TV's are way the hell too much money for me to even consider. I'm not paying a couple grand for a TV. I don't watch enough. The ones that are reasonable priced are way too small (20" or so) and low-quality. HD isn't cheap, it's bloody expensive, even if it doesn't cost $5000+ a set anymore.
I've seen HDTV on many occasions, it doesn't do anything for me. The sole time I've EVER found something more enjoyable in HD was watching the World Cup last summer, I could actually read the numbers on the players at 10'+ form their smallish 27" sets at the bar. But I watch sports about as often as the World Cup happens. I'm not going to watch more TV for the simple reason that I don't enjoy TV. Making it prettier will not change that, it'll just be pretty boring recycled trite crap. I've got access to some VERY high-end theaters here in Toronto (one of the advantages of living in a city with one of the top Movie Festivals). HD doesn't look or sound as good as a properly set up digital projector and a couple thousand watts of DTS. More resolution isn't everything. HD simply doesn't look or sound (Especially sound, even with the modern sound systems) as good as a movie played back on a good big screen at the theater. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > What the hell are you talking about. I never > suggesting buying a small HDTV, the whole > point of HDTV is a large screen so you can > easily see all the gorgous details. Secondly, > you are making the same mistake as ohthers have > in assuming you will watch the same amount > of time with large HD as you did with ntsc. > When its way better you will watch more > and want to watch more. > > Regarding large 50' screens, going to the > movies is now typically WORSE than the > best HD images now. The very best and newest theater > near me, Regal cinemas, charges $9 for > a ticket and the picure is not as good > as the best HDTV. You might find that hard > to believe but its true. Not only is > it much more grainy, its not as sharp from corner > to corner, and not as evenly lit or "synced" > vertically as stable as good as HD. and of course > a movie theater is not the same as a home > theater because they only show new movies, > not anything you want like DVD or TV or > vintage films that HDTV allows. > > Lastly, have you checked prices lately? > Even big HD screens like 40", 42" 45" 50" are > very very affordable now. Lower prices than > 10 years ago at way way higher picture quality. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 3:19 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: It's snowing in hell --OT > > > I tend to watch movies on a 50' screen with full DTS. No home theater > can compare. Rewatching is typically on a laptop while in transit > somewhere or (on rare occasions) on the TV. > > You may not go back, but I've yet to see the benefits of replacing my > (decent) 27" CRT with a far more expensive HD set that i'll barely > watch. Ain't worth the money. > > And small widescreens suck at TV distances. a 27" 4:3 CRT is more > watchable at a 10' distance than a 32" 16:9, due to the lack of vertical > > size on the latter (it's wider, but distinctly shorter). I'd need to buy > > at elast a 36" and likely a 42" to get a similar vertical size on the > TV. > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> What do you mean by "TV"? If you mean only the Network primetime TV >> shows, you're probably right, I wouldnt really know as I have little >> interest in any TV shows except I do watch a lot of Leno and Conan and > >> SNL. But movies are at another whole level artistically and culturally >> and HD is worth the very low cost just for movies, let alone sports >> or TV shows you might watch. There is no point in sticking >> with a crappy analog TV for any reason IMHO because >> considering the low cost and long life of a HD set, they >> are a no brainer STEAL and I would never ever go back >> to watching crappy analog NTSC no matter what... >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of Adam Maas >> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:33 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: It's snowing in hell --OT >> >> >> Frankly, 90% of what's on TV today is crap. The other 10% is merely >> bad. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >>> Who says the programs are shit? There is TONS >>> of great HD programs now like MOVIES, All primetime TV shows, and >>> SPORTS. I am a big movie buff and when I see my favorite films in HD >>> for the first time it's mindblowingly way more enjoyable compared to >>> what I have been seeing over the last 40 years. I get HBO-HD, >>> SHOWTIME-HD,HDNET Movies, and CINENAX-HD, and between all those >>> and my HD-DVR to capture them and play at my >>> leisure, I have more great movies to watch >>> than I have time to watch them and I watch >>> A LOT. SWITCH to HDTV immediately, it's not just a TV, >>> its true home theater. Trust me you will not regret it, >>> the only regret you will have is why you didnt >>> switch earlier? WHY WHY WHY would you still want >>> to watch crappy crappy old ntsc TV in 2006? It makes no sense >>> especially when you consider how many thousands and thousands >>> of hours of use you get out of a set for so little cost. >>> jco >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of Bob W >>> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 1:53 PM >>> To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' >>> Subject: RE: It's snowing in hell --OT >>> >>> >>> The technology can be as whizz-bang as you like, but if the >>> programmes >>> are shit, what's the point? >>> >>> -- >>> Bob (the only thing I watch is Strictly Come Dancing) >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>>> Of J. C. O'Connell >>>> Sent: 17 December 2006 17:53 >>>> To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' >>>> Subject: RE: It's snowing in hell --OT >>>> >>>> My God, this is the HDTV era for 8 years >>>> already! Get yourself >>>> a good HDTV and get free DVDS ( they look >>>> way better on a progressive scan HDTV >>>> than any analog 4x3 set can ) from the >>>> library. You dont know what you're missing, >>>> especailly if you can appreciate good imaging/cinematography and >>>> being a photographer already kinda proves that. jco >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>>> Of graywolf >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 12:16 PM >>>> To: PDML >>>> Subject: It's snowing in hell --OT >>>> >>>> >>>> Graywolf got a new pet, a television. There it was sitting in the >>>> thrift >>>> >>>> store looking all sad and abandoned, so he paid $15 + tax to spring >>>> it. It sulked at first shutting itself off after less than an hour, >>>> and graywolf thought he was going to have to turn it out on the >>>> streets. But >>>> >>>> a thorough cleaning, wasn't filthy but 25 years of dust on its >>>> circuit boards mostly came off and a night to get used to its new >>>> home, and it >>>> seems to be working nicely. >>>> >>>> Like any new pet graywolf is going to have to buy it some things, a >>>> remote, and a longer cable as the one he has is not long enough to >>>> tether it to the splitter and he has to change back and forth > between >>>> it >>>> >>>> and the modem in the mean time. And later a VCR so graywolf can >>> watch >>>> movies from the local public library. Maybe an upgrade in cable >>>> service. >>>> >>>> This could be a very expensive pet. >>>> >>>> OH? The breed? Magnavox 27in stereo console. By its tag it was born >>>> early in 1983 and cost $539.97 ($849.95 list). Does that make it an >>>> antique, or just an old TV? >>>> >>>> One would think the thing would take up a lot of space, but actually > >>>> instead of taking up space it provides a table to place things like >>>> the DVD player and the Epson printer on. >>>> >>>> Anyway as the subject line implies graywolf buying a TV is a very >>>> rare occurrence, it has only happened twice in 63 years. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>>> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
