# My TV Died...



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

My old reliable 27" CRT that only picked up the signal from the remote when it felt like it finally cashed in it's chips last night. I hate it when products only live for 14 years, why can't they make them more reliable like my Sony Betamax Hi-Fi VCR which is 20 years old this month.

They just don't make things like they used to.

Anyway I start looking at some of the web sites of the big box electronics retailers for a replacement. Whoa! So confusing! LCD, Projection, DLP, Plasma, still some CRT's. Where does one start? Why can't there just be a HDTV model and a HDTV Pro model? Or a HDTV Mini and a iHDTV (grin)?

I figure that I want HDTV. I am thinking in the neighborhood of 30-32" and I've just recently purchased a nice stand that houses my surround sound receiver (and the aforementioned Beta VCR) so I don't want anything that has it's own stand.

I want to keep this below $1,000 if I can. Although I saw a Sony that comes with a DVD recorder for $1,400. Do DVD recorders record in HD? This one looked to be worth around $250 purchased separately so my guess is that it doesn't record in HD which is a waste in my opinion. 

So without getting into this spec and that spec. I watch some broadcast TV, (Live from Studio 60, ER, Grey's Anatomy, 2 1/2 Men, West Wing repeats, golf, a baseball game or two, NFL football but not every week, a few hockey games a year mainly in the playoffs), along with TMN and some DVD's when I get a chance. What are the basic specs I need to look for and without starting a "my purchase was better than your purchase" argument, does anyone have any recommendations based on recent purchases? 

Thanks,


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Your greatest considerations should be viewing distance from the screen and ambient light during your regular viewing hours.

Your 27" inch screen was 4:3 (practically square) whereas the new display will by widescreen. You will definately need a bigger screen as you've mentioned just to get a similiar feel.

Take the time to go to the store and really check them out based on your preferences but remember that the lighting in the store sucks and that you probably won't get much chance to view a smaller (sub 60") screen from the same distance you would at home. The stores just won't dedicate the space for the smaller screens.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Don't believe all the crap about "having to have" that bigger screen. It is nonsense. I sit 12 - 14 feet away from my TV. I just retired my 27" analog in favour of a 30" Sony 16:9 with full HD 1080i or whatever they call it.

It is a great improvement and more than acceptable for viewing.

Sometimes I think there is commission being paid people to push really big screens. I repeat, you don't need to have a movie sized screen to enjoy the broadcast. Matter of fact my neighbours think my CRT HD TV puts their 52" to shame and wish they had not wasted their money.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I repeat, you don't need to have a movie sized screen to enjoy the broadcast.


Agreed, my cheapest-at-the-time 25" CRT suits me fine. Now, for certain movies, I have the front projector.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

hang on for a bit and wait for x-mas sales
i saw a 42" toshiba DLP 1080i at best buy for $1299

remember one thing about tv
you cannot upgrade the screen after you buy it
you also might want to consider used from someone on craglist

i've decided on a DLP projection as my viewing space has lots of natural light
i thought i wanted a 42", but i think 50" is better for my viewing distance of 10 feet

i decided against LCD since i watch a lot of sports and i found that the LCD screen doesn't always keep up with faced paced action, resulting in blurs

also, DLP projection is well prices vs. LCD and plasma

i would NOT recommend plasma because of price and burn in
i would NOT recommend LCD since it doesn't produce good blacks which are essential for picture quality

i'm sure macdoc will chime in soon


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

SINC said:


> Don't believe all the crap about "having to have" that bigger screen. It is nonsense. I sit 12 - 14 feet away from my TV. I just retired my 27" analog in favour of a 30" Sony 16:9 with full HD 1080i or whatever they call it.
> 
> It is a great improvement and more than acceptable for viewing.
> 
> Sometimes I think there is commission being paid people to push really big screens. I repeat, you don't need to have a movie sized screen to enjoy the broadcast. Matter of fact my neighbours think my CRT HD TV puts their 52" to shame and wish they had not wasted their money.


What model Sony did you purchase? And why did you stay with CRT rather than go LCD?

Thanks,


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> hang on for a bit and wait for x-mas sales
> i saw a 42" toshiba DLP 1080i at best buy for $1299
> 
> remember one thing about tv
> ...


I wish I could but going 6-8 weeks without TV won't be worth the potential savings, and from what I've seen the past couple of years, Xmas sales are no different than what is on sale right now. 

I should also point out that I expect this to be a short term replacement. It will become a second set after I purchase a larger set next year or the year after.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oakbridge said:


> What model Sony did you purchase? And why did you stay with CRT rather than go LCD?
> 
> Thanks,


Sony Wega. London Drugs. $950 on sale. 

Everyone I knew in the printing industry, in which I spent 40+ years told me that a CRT has the best true color. They were right.

It wows everyone who sees it, no crap. 

BTW it weights about three tons though.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Oakbridge said:


> I wish I could but going 6-8 weeks without TV won't be worth the potential savings, and from what I've seen the past couple of years, Xmas sales are no different than what is on sale right now.
> 
> I should also point out that I expect this to be a short term replacement. It will become a second set after I purchase a larger set next year or the year after.



then get a 27" or so CRT
they are extremely inexpensive these days

check out this deal on a 34" CRT at Best Buy
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodd...CEEA2A3F&sku_id=0926HDS0010034996&catid=23239


Advent 34" Wide Screen CRT Flat Tube HDTV** - Available In Eastern Canada Only - Online Only

$599


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Good advice above. Wait for FutureShop, BestBuy or the like to put the Toshiba 27" CRT on sale, somewhere between $275 and $325 depending on the season and the sale. It's a brilliant TV for the price and will solve your temporary situation--perhaps for some time to come.

Check out CostCo if you want to drop $999 on a ViewSonic or Daytek 37" LCD HDTV. They are comparable to the other high end brands, have all the requisite inputs and a very solid service record and reviews. But take your time after getting that temporary CRT if that's what you do. It's worth shopping around and deciding what you like, best thing is to see something in a friend's home rather than at the stores so you can compare with optimal home settings. Stores are known to change the signal and settings of displays to sell the higher end ones.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Costco has a 32 inch LCD Daytek for $699. Worth checking out in your budget range. 
Personally, I didn't like the LCD or plasma with analog cable signal. Too blurry. 
I'll wait for all High DEF before I buy a new TV. 
I bought a new CRT Panasonic 27 inch last spring. I got it for $299. 
32 inches was too big for my room. The picture is excellent with DVD hooked up with component cables. Not HD but very good for a CRT. 
BTW CRT's are being phased out for most manufacturers now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Your anticipated screen size is useless for HD - there is no point to it unless you get a screen appropriate to your viewing space.

And those saying small screens are okay for HD haven't a clue. All they are doing is watching crisp TV - not home theatre.

If you want a TV buy a TV not an HD set.

If you want HD then get the correct size of screen for the space.

Home theatre is very different than TV.

8' excellent on 42" HD - might be a tad too close on regular channels.










Here is your calculator
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

Recommended for 34" widescreen is 3.8-5.3'.

For 42" 4.7 to 6.6' -

Ideal screen for 10-12' viewing is 55" to 61 ".

•••



> I bought a new CRT Panasonic 27 inch last spring. I got it for $299.
> 32 inches was too big for my room. The picture is excellent with DVD hooked up with component cables. Not HD but very good for a CRT.


This is good advice. Most non HD programming will look better on a TV than on an HD set.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> And those saying small screens are okay for HD haven't a clue. All they are doing is watching crisp TV - not home theatre.


No MacDoc, it is YOU who do not have a clue. 

I do not want or need a home theatre. I want HD TV in 1080l and I want a beautiful sharp picture that is clear as a bell. If I wanted a movie theatre in my home, I would have followed the rest of the herd and bought some outlandish big screen to impress people. But I quit going to theatres 30 years ago when the volume levels drove me out.

I now watch movies on my 30" screen and enjoy every moment.

I urge anyone who is intimidated by opinions like yours to simply reject them and get what they want. I did and I am happy.

Notice I don't criticize your setup?


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

> And those saying small screens are okay for HD haven't a clue. All they are doing is watching crisp TV - not home theatre.


Exactly. Crisp TV is pretty good too.

Added:
But MacDoc is correct in his calculations and opinions for his needs. What you are asking for is something to watch everyday TV channels in comfort without worrying about dimming the room lights or having a screen hanging off a ceiling. Sinc's needs are similar to my own. Smaller CRT's are still available and the Sony's are certainly the best in my opinion, too.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well considering you cannot see the detail of 1080i on a small screen at distance you surely are welcome to delude yourself.

•••

There are some superb Sony Wega's on Craiglist for as low as $350.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Well considering you cannot see the detail of 1080i on a small screen at distance you surely are welcome to delude yourself.


Ever the put downs.

Why can't you simply be gracious and accept that some of us are happy with what we have and enjoy its quality.

Is that so hard for you?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Well considering you cannot see the detail of 1080i on a small screen at distance you surely are welcome to delude yourself.


I think those calculations are meant to sell larger TVs.

I have a 32 inch HDTV (4:3), which translates to a smaller TV with a 3:2 ratio (say 30 inch).

My couch is about 12 feet away and the difference between HDTV and regular TV is massive.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> This is good advice. Most non HD programming will look better on a TV than on an HD set.


Yes for Plasma and LCD, but I say no for a CRT HDTV.


----------



## Jason H (Feb 1, 2004)

Oakbridge said:


> My old reliable 27" CRT that only picked up the signal from the remote when it felt like it finally cashed in it's chips last night. I hate it when products only live for 14 years, why can't they make them more reliable like my Sony Betamax Hi-Fi VCR which is 20 years old this month.
> 
> They just don't make things like they used to.


Isnt it sad knowing that no matter what TV you buy it wont last anywhere near as long as that old one?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Because there is no point in wasting money on technology that is not appropriate to the circumstance.

HD = film - that's what it's for.

TV is a different medium.

•••

Jason if you wait a year you might just get another decade plus TV in the form of SED.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Link to Daytek LCD HDTV at Costco:
http://www.costco.ca/en-CA/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=10295769&whse=&topnav=&browse=&s=1


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Remember also that moving a huge CRT is a massive job, requires either many friends or perhaps serfs.

And they take up a huge amount of space. That's why if it's temporary 27" is fine.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Because there is no point in wasting money on technology that is not appropriate to the circumstance.
> 
> HD = film - that's what it's for.
> 
> TV is a different medium.


I don't subscribe, but aren't HD television shows offered? I'm not sure why people want to count Raymond's nose hairs, but that's their deal. Sports could certainly benefit from HD.

I'm a movie vs all-else guy, but can see why others choose differently.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep sports - pay for front row - sit in the nose bleeds.

MOST TV looks better ON a TV than on an HD set.

Some shows like the CSi, some PBS and Idol series are designed to the sound and experience of HD.
Personally being IN Carnegie Hall is preferred to watching from the street through the door,...if I'm paying the premium seats.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

May as well face up to it SINC. If you don't use your TV the way Doc says, you're gonna blow up.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Jason H said:


> Isnt it sad knowing that no matter what TV you buy it wont last anywhere near as long as that old one?


Thanks Jason, in the middle of the "you don't have a clue... no YOU don't have a clue..." posts you made me laugh.

I am leaning towards a 32" LCD HD at the low-middle end of the price range. MacDoc I respect your opinions but I am still trying to wrap my head around the logic. If HD = film then what is HDTV for? While I enjoy watching movies at home I've never stopped going to the theatres. To me there were always be those films that require the experience of being with other people and the full theatre experience. I'm a guy who as a teenager would drag his buddies down to the Uptown, the York, and my favourite, the University simply because they had Dolby Surround sound when the Westwood was showing in regular mono or basic stereo. 

And if I'm not looking for film quality, what should I be looking for if I want to simply watch things like sports and shows like CSI, West Wing, ER? I'm talking about 5-6 hours of primetime viewing per week plus maybe one sporting event a week.

If this does become a second set, I will have some practical experience to make a decision on a home theatre. The other consideration is space. I really don't have the space to put in a 50+" screen in the current viewing room.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i think the $599 34" CRT i mentioned is a much better buy as long as you have someone to help you bring it into your house

i would seriously consider it, but i live alone
and my cat is saying 'no' to helping me
i suspect dr. g. will tell me that doxies would help me drag a tv into my house..
;-)


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Oakbridge said:


> My old reliable 27" CRT that only picked up the signal from the remote when it felt like it finally cashed in it's chips last night. I hate it when products only live for 14 years, why can't they make them more reliable like my Sony Betamax Hi-Fi VCR which is 20 years old this month.
> 
> They just don't make things like they used to.


Sorry for your loss.  Hopefully you'll find a new great TV.


----------



## Jason H (Feb 1, 2004)

Oakbridge said:


> Thanks Jason, in the middle of the "you don't have a clue... no YOU don't have a clue..." posts you made me laugh.


Your welcome. :lmao: 

I found myself in a similar situation. I needed a 20" tv for my room. 3 years ago this would have been a simple task. I could have went to Future shop (gag) and got a Panasonic or a Sony. Now all you have to pick from are store brand 20" tv's. Citizen, Magnasonic, Prima, Mr Sparkle etc... Gross eh?

I ended up with a 20" Phillips tv from costco. I'm Happy. S-Video, Composite and Component inputs. Go me!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If you want to watch TV just get a TV - it's straight forward. That's my point. There is and will be tons of 4:3 programming and DVDs that look better on a good Sony TV than on an HD set.

One thing I find hilarious is that people ending sitting further away just so regular programming looks decent on an HD set.

Buying a small HD set often is worse ( of course more expensive) than a decent TV and does nothing as an HD experience unless you sit with in the viewing field it's designed for. 

10 megapixels.....plastic lens.....get the picture 

HD is designed to bring the experience of film, the engagement - the "hot media" to the home and with few exceptions - perhaps iMax - does far better than the out of focus sticky floor expensive experience that passes for a movie theatre these days.

No question some movies deserve watching with a crowd just as many TV programs are very enjoyable without needing the technology HD offers.

Casual digital cameras have their purpose - so do high quality SLRs.

Buying a 12 mp slr and setting it for lowest quality and never using it for what it was designed for - waste of money.
So is buying an HD set wrong for the viewing situation.


----------



## drehleierguy (Aug 8, 2004)

just think of all you could do without a tv! take it as a sign and go tv-free - you won't regret it! seriously!

dg


----------



## Jason H (Feb 1, 2004)

LMAO

Love the Avatar drehleierguy


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If you want to watch TV just get a TV - it's straight forward. That's my point. There is and will be tons of 4:3 programming and DVDs that look better on a good Sony TV than on an HD set.
> 
> One thing I find hilarious is that people ending sitting further away just so regular programming looks decent on an HD set.
> 
> ...


So why are dramatic TV shows and sporting events being broadcast in the HD format? I'm not buying an HD to watch programs that are being broadcast in 4:3 ratio. I think that one of the arguments against your logic is that unlike some DVD's which ship with both formats, there is no choice in broadcast TV. You can't switch to one channel to get ER in 4:3 and switch to another channel to see it in 16:9. It is always now broadcasting in 16:9.

My decision to go to an HD set was because over the past few years, almost all of the programming that I enjoy watching on broadcast TV is being sent out in widescreen letterbox format. Doesn't this create an equivalent viewing problem when viewed on a traditional 4:3 TV?

Suppose that I stick with a 27" 4:3 CRT traditional TV situated the same distance away (i.e. 8'). When a show, or a DVD movie I am watching is in widescreen format, my guess is that if I was to measure the the actual size of the picture (taking out the black areas formed by the letterboxing) on my 27" set, it would be equivalent to around 24-26" because of the letterboxing. So wouldn't I be gaining by going to a 32"?

Yes I know that anything that I watch in 4:3 will actually be smaller but that's the point I'm trying to make, and one of the reasons for my going to HD. Very little of what I typically watch is still being shown in a 4:3 ratio.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Of course they are in different formats and often within the same channel and some even compromise with a 14:9 ratio.
With sports sometimes the feed will be 4:3 on one channel and 16:9 on another even when both are HD channels.

Zoom and stretch are used all the time and some movies are wider than 16:9.....then there are the commercials and channels vary - I notice the new AE HD uniformly stretch commercials - PBS never does.

Many programs are shot so that 4:3 works as well as 16:9 - pan and scan is used for movie formatting ......."this movie has been formatted to fit your screen".

HD is about detail.....film level detail and field of vision to recreate the experience of "being there" - both in detail and in scope. - shape is only incidental.

The human eye has limits of resolution - if you sit 12' away from a 32" you simply cannot see the detail the HD offers.



> "For an awful lot of viewing, what limits the resolution is the human eye," says Larry Web-er, president-elect of the Society for Information Display, a group of display industry pros. At a distance of 10 feet from the screen, the eye can't detect pixels smaller than 1 millimeter; so if you look at a 37-inch set from that far away, you won't notice significant difference between a high-definition image and a standard-def image.


more from the same article - re movies



> Content also affects perceived image quality. Digital TVs are fixed-pixel displays--the screen resolution is hard-wired, so content has to be scaled, or adjusted, to fit the screen resolution. Not surprisingly, most television content is most attractive when displayed at its native resolution. That's why today's DVD movies, which reproduce the original film at 480 lines of progressive-scan video, may look better on an Enhanced Definition TV than on an HDTV: EDTV has the same screen resolution (480p) that DVDs have, while HDTV must scale the number of lines to 720p or 1080p (depending on the set), usually via software interpolation


90% of broadcasts, including those shown on HD channels and 99.9% of movies are more closely geared to a quality TV set than an HD set....and it's easy to see that.

Only when ALL the factors are in place - source, set and distance will the human eye benefit from the 4x detail that HD provides...and then it will knock your socks off, texture, depth, clear to the horizon.

Too far away - you can't resolve those details.
From a few feet away a cheap photo print from a so so camera might look about the same as a 35 mm print - but bring it in close and the richness of the 35mm takes your breath away. 

Screen sizes versus cost has narrowed dramatically the difference in cost between a 36" versus a 50" HD set is marginal these days.

IF you are going to get an HD set then get the size appropriate to the space.

If you just want to watch TV - get a decent TV. There are benefits in both directions given the state of broadcast and DVDs right now.

Paying a $1000+ to watch a small HDTV set from a distance your eye cannot resolve........waste of money and effort in choosing.....and a couple years down the road when the 90% content level flips over.........you'll realize what you are missing.

This is not a bad compendium of info

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,122629-page,3-c,hdtv/article.html

a good rough estimate guide for HD viewing is 2 x diagonal - or if you know your viewing distance is say 9' then a diagonal 1/2 that = 54".

Only if you are within 6' would a sub 40" provide HD level viewing. And for a smallish room that can be a wonderful and engaging experience. 6-7' on a 42 is terrific.
But that's 6'-7' from your eyes- not from your feet stretched out in front of the couch.

Because we all grew up with ( particularly in North America ) with horrid TV quality where distance was kind - there is a habit of applying those viewing habits to the HD world.
The TV gets tucked way off in the corner.

Europeans and Japanese always had a better quality signal from the get go and generally smaller rooms.
Getting the right size and positioning of the HD screen means resisting those old habits of "tuck it away" and buying and setting up the HD set to truly take advantage of the technology.

Frankly - it's hard to justify a decent quality HD rig given the low % of top notch content....you find yourself watching the same eye candy ( HD Discovery for one ) many times.
But that IS changing rapidly so why not do HD right immediately......or sit tight with standard TV viewing - no harm in that either. It's still early.

I've been after HD viewing since I saw it in Chicago at CES in 1982 - it blew me away then...I've been chasing it ever since.
It's getting close now.....and once in a while takes my breath away.
..not often enough tho


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the development of the HD systems is important, because it will give me chance to buy all of my DVDs over again!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Like I said, my eyes are 12' from my 30" HDTV CRT set and the picture is magnificent. The 3-D appearance in HD is great and all that other stuff is techno mumbo jumbo.

When my neighbour who has a 52" plasma comes over and says, "WOW", I rest my case.

The difference between regular digital (I'm On ExpressVu) and HD broadcast is indeed startling, proof enough for me that all that crap is designed to get you to turn your home into some type of freak show with a screen that overshadows everything else in your living room.

My living room retains its normal appearance and we enjoy our 30".

Don't be swayed if you want a normal appearing screen with a startlingly good picture go ahead. In spite of what others tell you, it works and it is quite acceptable.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Oakbridge said:


> So why are dramatic TV shows and sporting events being broadcast in the HD format? I'm not buying an HD to watch programs that are being broadcast in 4:3 ratio. I think that one of the arguments against your logic is that unlike some DVD's which ship with both formats, there is no choice in broadcast TV. You can't switch to one channel to get ER in 4:3 and switch to another channel to see it in 16:9. It is always now broadcasting in 16:9.
> 
> My decision to go to an HD set was because over the past few years, almost all of the programming that I enjoy watching on broadcast TV is being sent out in widescreen letterbox format. Doesn't this create an equivalent viewing problem when viewed on a traditional 4:3 TV?
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if there is some confusion here. Yes, most broadcast TV in primetime is recorded now in HD 16:9. BUT, there is a difference in watching a HD 16:9 TV channel and a digital 4:3 TV channel which is broadcasting a down-scaled version of HD 16:9. The digitial 4:3 TV channel is not broadcasting in HD and will have to be stretched on a HD set and the picture will not look as good as an HD picture. When you get an HD set, make sure you get the HD channels from your cable or satellite provider. Don't watch the 16:9 content provided on the non-HD digital channels. Ie. there's a difference between widescreen (16:9) and HD.

As for the HD content on the HD channels, Yes, most of the advertising is not in the 16:9 HD format, but I've noticed alot more HD 16:9 advertising this year. I generally leave my TV in unstretched mode as the few minutes that an advertisement is on isn't going to harm anything. I generally only stretch the picture when I watch 4:3 programming and most HD TVs now do a great job of stretching the picture in such a way you usually can't tell it's stretched.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Like I said, my eyes are 12' from my 30" HDTV CRT set and the picture is magnificent. The 3-D appearance in HD is great and all that other stuff is techno mumbo jumbo.
> 
> Don't be swayed if you want a normal appearing screen with a startlingly good picture go ahead. In spite of what others tell you, it works and it is quite acceptable.


+1.

That's my experience as well. I think MacDoc is nearsighted.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

If you're looking for a TV in the interim to fill the void until going big, buy a Standard Definition CTR. I have a Tru-Flat 24" Toshiba that I bought a couple of Christmas' ago. When you've got the proper cables etc. you can get a pretty darn good picture out of it. I often download TV shows like LOST or Jericho which are sourced from the HD feed and they look pretty top notch when watched on my TV. While I know it's not HD, later model SD CTR sets still do have a great picture. Quite often it's the crappiness of the cable feed that makes them look bad.

With that being said though, I would love to get an HD set, though it's not really in the budget at the moment.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gee the right wing members seem to be endowed with Supervision.....what next tall building leaping.....perhaps a raptor in the woodpile somewhere back in time.?? 

Crisp TV - how endearing. We'll just suspend the resolution of human vision just for the TV crowd.

It's ludicrous approach and does disservice to those honestly looking for advice to recommend a small HD set for a large space.....clear enough?? You'll get dissed everytime about it.

BTW my vision is 20/15 as tested for my flying licence.

••

ModS has the right approach - go with a decent TV or do it right on HD.

Toshiba really does a good job on making SD look very good.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Ok, to clear up a couple things. There is a difference between "optimal" and not getting any benefit -- the point at which all benefit from resolution disappears -- and, of course, everybody's eyesight is a little different.

From the calculator site's acuity distance description:
"These distances represent the point beyond which some of the detail in the picture is no longer able to be resolved and "blends" with adjacent detail."

Sinc: Bad news. Your viewing experience is sub-optimal.

[Edit: your, you're]


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Toshiba really does a good job on making SD look very good.


Toshiba does make pretty much the best SD TV going. My sister has a 30" that she bought in the spring and it's got quite the nice picture on it as well. You should be able to get a decent one for $300-ish.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Sinc: Bad news. Your viewing experience is sub-optimal.
> 
> [Edit: your, you're]


There is nothing sub-optimal about it. Period.

My viewing experience is fantastic and exactly what I want. I could give a rodent's rear what anyone else thinks. I would be an a$$ to sit 4 feet from the screen to try and improve it.

The HD is so far above the digital in quality it isn't even funny. And the digital is so far over analog it makes the comparison the same startling difference.

If you haven't been to my house and seen my set in operation, YOU DON'T KNOW what you're talking about.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, I have to agree with you on this point. I have a friend that is going crazy with his new 50" plasma set. He needs to try and get the viewing angle just right, the distance from everyone's eyes exactly correct, and even the lighting needs to be exact. Now, he is repainting the entire room and replacing the furniture to get just the right "ambiance" (his expression, not mine) for this room. I asked him how much TV he intends to watch, and he replied "We don't watch all that much TV now that the kids are grown and have moved out of the home". This person hates sports, so the HDTV will not be used for sports. As well, he is not a person who would watch something like The Discovery Channel. So, he has this great system which will have optimal conditions for viewing ...................... except there is no one who will spend much time with this viewing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The only sports I watch is CFL football and pro golf and both are spectacular in HD.

Other than that, I mainly watch channels like A & E, Discovery, National Geo, Travel, Learning Channel, and all the new HD channels like Oasis and Equator. I do not watch network sitcoms or drama other than the Trailer Park Boys, a Canadian show that is so stupid it is funny.

One exception is Corner Gas on CTV.

I rarely watch movies on TV except when out camping and then it takes me two or three nights to finish one movie on DVD.

As for ambiance and lighting, I use the same lighting to watch HD as I did to watch digital. Nothing fancy and the important thing is there is no frustration and it works. My neighbour would gladly trade his 52" plasma for my set, but I wouldn't have any part of it. (Same problems you mention with the chap you mention). Besides, this way he comes over for all the football games now. We used to go to his house.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G - the fact that he does not USE the technology in no way takes away from the importance in buying the correct set for the viewing distance and the content.....and for the budget.
Your observation is a red herring.

If you sit beyond the ability of your eye to resolve there is no benefit to as Beej pointed out succinctly and I at length.

One thing that happens - and it happens on desktop monitors too - the tired dull old warhorse in the corner is being compared to a spanking new HD screen.

In reality a spanking new Standard Definition will ALSO look wonderful - in particular something like a SONY WEGA or other upper end SD set - the Toshiba's in particular....and it may cost one 1/3 of the money.

It used to annoy me to no end when we had a big SONY 37" SD in one room and the Toshiba HD 42" in a room next door on the same cable feed.
I'd stick my nose in once and while and the SONY would blow my Toshiba HD away.......*except on HD programming.*.

For everything else the SONY SD was the better picture than the Toshiba HD even tho the SONY had less detail capability.

You cannot prevent people from buying big toys and not using them...you CAN help people make cost effective and industry correct decisions for their viewing space.

To a large degree right now HD is over sold and over hyped.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

And then there's Blu-Ray...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, you miss my point. Sinc has an optimal viewing experience because he watches and enjoys TV (if only we could help him to like CBC ...... but that's another story), regardless of the "specs". My friend has the specs just right, going overboard in fact, only to let it sit idle. I could see if this was a classic car that you did not want to bring out during the times we heavily salt the roads in St.John's. But this is a room that reminds me of my grandmother's living room -- the one with plastic on the furniture -- in that it is a room for show . Thus, the room is seen, but the TV is not viewed. It is his money, and his business, so I would never say anything. 

Thus, that is my point in agreeing with Sinc's way of approaching TV viewing.

Full discosure -- I covet a 42" plasma set, but shall wait another two or three years as I watch the prices come down and the technology advance, as I have for these past couple of years.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sorry Dr. G - saying Sinc's is "optimal" is incorrect period. It may be enjoyable for him- it's not optimal as an HD viewing experience and quite frankly he simply cannot see the difference from that distance on that size screen.
Crisp yes - so would a top notch SD be.

People are reading these threads to spend their hard earned dollars wisely or perhaps not to spend them at all if it's not worth while

If YOU are advising on a question about education or distance learning you provide your knowledge from long experience of "hands on" and from a professional standpoint not an "opinion" stand point.

Many here have decades in home entertainment and computing and we happily provide our insights * and conversely correct misconceptions*.....obvious ones like viruses on Macs - subtle ones like colour correction on professional monitors.

If people were asking a question about gardening it would do little good to say - "hey I don't water - my garden looks fine to me."
That's hardly useful information.

The real question for most now is not so much screen size as when or if to jump to HD.

When you DO jump tho to HD - get the "optimal" screen for the viewing area.....and that is a larger size than most people understand to be the case.

I understand your viewing area is relatively cozy and a 42 should be ideal.

There IS a converse situation where people do buy too large a screen for their viewing distance and that truly is horrid. 

We were actually having a conversation last night about how "near field" HD viewing may be a growing phenomena as computer screens and HD converge.

A 30" at 5' is a pretty fine experience.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, read my sentence -- "Sinc has an optimal viewing experience because he watches and enjoys TV". Thus, regardless of Sinc's viewing distance, angle of viewing, lighting, furniture, et al, HIS experience is optimal for HIM. It is not for me, and not for you, but for him, it is optimal. 

Now, we may continue to agree to disagree, or to join forces and to help him see the benefits of watching CBC TV for various shows. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Enjoyable for Sinc not optimal for HD - we'll have to leave it there.....optimal has a specific meaning in this jargon field and he's outside it for his screen size and viewing distance.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I shall leave it up to Sinc to tell us if his viewing experience is optimal for him, even if he does not watch CBC.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Contrary to MacDoc's suggestion as to my viewing and what detail I can and cannot see, my HD experience is easily 10 times more detailed that the regular digital picture on the same set. If that ain't HD, what is?

As for misinformation on gardening, I don't water my plants either, Ma Nature does that.

But spare me the know-it-all attitude that assumes that I cannot see the difference at my viewing range. That is just plain wrong because, I repeat again, he nor anyone else who has not seen my particular set DOES NOT KNOW.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I rest my case, your honor.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

For record, my post was intended to point out that beyond certain distances, some detail is lost. Not all. Some.

"These distances represent the point beyond which some of the detail in the picture is no longer able to be resolved and "blends" with adjacent detail."

The sub-optimal comment was a logically accurate jest. My bad.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The best television ever made was a B&W 1971 Quasar portable. 

No matter which distance I view it at, it all looks about the same.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I love the "laws of physics" exceptions......what next.....leaping tall buildings.

SuperSinc.










In this case yes - I do know the physics and resolutions involved and will point out inaccurate information where ever it arises.....if that gets your nose out of joint too bad.

At least a few others may take the time to know the issues and make informed decisions instead of relying on anecdotes not based on physics and physiology.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Vandave said:


> +1.
> 
> That's my experience as well. I think MacDoc is nearsighted.


Not really... I have my 51" widescreen set about 8' from my couch which is about optimal. Picture looks perfect. When I go to the other 27" in the other room at the same distance, I just find it too small. In fact if I ever replaced my 51" nowadays I'd probably get a bigger (57" or more) flat plasma or LCD TV.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You are right on the money for distance you are 96" - 2x is 101".

I'm in the same boat - with the new set up 50" is too a bit small for all but two of the four viewing spots.

Likely a 60" SED a couple years from now.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Kosh said:


> Not really... I have my 51" widescreen set about 8' from my couch which is about optimal. Picture looks perfect. When I go to the other 27" in the other room at the same distance, I just find it too small. In fact if I ever replaced my 51" nowadays I'd probably get a bigger (57" or more) flat plasma or LCD TV.


You're taking what I said out of context.

I said I can easily tell the difference between HDTV and regular TV from a large distance away (12 feet) with a relatively moderate sized screen (32 inch).

I never said it was the optimal distance.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I love the "laws of physics" exceptions......what next.....leaping tall buildings.
> 
> SuperSinc.
> 
> ...


My nose isn't out of joint at all. I just happen to know that not having seen my set perform at that distance means you have no idea what you're talking about where it concerns MY set. And until you do, your views are not accurate because you have nothing to base them on but suppositions and charts.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

To-may-to 
Tomahto
Po-tay-to
Potahto

Let's call this whole thing off?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> not having seen my set perform at that distance


Gee that makes two of us now 








die hard.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Like I said, "suppositions and charts." Pretty picture though.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

STOP THE MADNESS! 

Please I beg you. Decision was made and I just finished watching a very special Coach's Corner on my new set. Say what you want about Don Cherry, but the man has his heart in the right place.

Thank you for all your comments and suggestions.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

OB - What did you end up with???

••••

Conflating physics and physicks again eh Sinc?

I _suppose_ a better chair might help


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I like Don Cherry.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> OB - What did you end up with???


Kept to my budget and picked up an HP 32" LCD for $999.95 at Best Buy. 

Spent Friday night watching regular TV on it (Cogeco was already closed and couldn't pick up the HD Digital Receiver) and watched a DVD using regular yellow cable video (can never remember what that is called) from my Powerbook along with a fiber optic cable which I had picked up almost a year ago at Carbon to handle the digital audio through my surround sound receiver. 

Was able to pick up the HD receiver yesterday and got a promo which gives me free HD for a year, along with free rental of the basic HD receiver. I upgraded to the PVR version for the year at $10 per month extra. (I was paying $4.95 for my SD receiver so it is only costing me an extra $5 per month). I figure that this will give me a year to allow Apple to get the iTV out into the market and then I can decide what to do about a permanent PVR.

I also picked up a DVI to HDMI adapter to allow me to plug my PowerBook into the screen directly. I tried a DVD while waiting for the HD receiver to download and I thought that the DVI/HDMI cable/adapter made a significant difference in the picture quality. 

I don't disagree that there is probably something to be said for having a larger screen size but I also know from my photography background that there is both a limit to what most people will notice, and the basic fact that some people aren't concerned with 'optimal'. They see different benefits. 

I'm always reminded of my first CD purchase. Ironically it was 20 years ago to the day on Friday, same day I moved to HD. (I know because it was release date for Springsteen's first live box set) Got the unit home, plugged it in and put on the opening track from disk one which happens to be Thunder Road. The girlfriend at the time's comment was "I don't hear anything different, I don't see what the big deal is". For her, the benefit of CD's came later when car and portable players became available. It wasn't the sound quality, but the convenience of being able to store and carry around 5" disks that appealed to her.

So while the 'optimal' distance might be much shorter than what my distance is, I do see a distinct benefit of viewing HD over SD. I've been flipping back and forth between a golf tournament in SD and the same tournament on an HD channel. There might be something in the broadcasting or the way the receiver handles it but it does look so much cleaner, and I don't think this is an HD broadcast (the HD channel is showing it in 4:3). I'll get a better look when I see some of the prime-time shows later tonight and throughout the week.

And I saw a promo on Fox this afternoon for the Simpson's episode tonight which said something about a preview of the movie. 

First Grapes and now Homer in HD, THAT'S why I made the switch! (laughs)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A fine choice, I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoy mine.


----------

