[flamesbball84]

ok my house has 5 non-digital TVs in it - one in the kitchen, one in the living room, one in the den, one in the bedroom (like to have TV in the bedroom for when im sick and relegated to the bed!), and my son has one in his room. we have basic cable, which means between 50-60 channels and no cable boxes for any of the TVs. once the digital switch is made official on Feb. 19 2009, does that mean I am just screwed and have to upgrade to Comcasts digital cable and pay 4 bucks a month for the first three boxes and 8 a month for the other two along with having to pay 10 more dollars a month just for the upgrade from basic to digital cable? Or will I be able to go out and buy some sort of box from someone else and not have to pay a monthly fee to use it? if I cant do that I will just have to go without TV for quite a long time until I can get a few digital TVs...

[Sly Fox]

You are not screwed. All stations are required to deliver a digital signal but not all analog signals will die on that date. The prices of digital sets are falling at a rapid rate and buying anything other than a 1080p at this point would not be wise. By this time next year expect many prices to be half what they are right now as competition in the market heats up.

[Fumblerooskies]

However...to expand on what Sly said...if you choose NOT to upgrade your current TV...then your choice will be a set-top box...either through Comcrap or one of the satellite providers.

[flamesbball84]

Why would buying anything less than 1080p not be wise, my wallet certainly disagrees with that....

TVs cost too dang much even with the prices dropping. The cheapest 1080p TV on bestbuys website is 989 dollars and its 42 inches, thats way too big, I dont even have room for such a gigantic TV! Just one would take up all the money spent on me for Christmas for three YEARS. I would have to save up money for like 6 months or just not eat for a couple months to afford that. Maybe you can afford that, but I sure as hell can not afford one of those. It would take me years to be able to afford to replace all five TVs in the house with a 1080p tv. Maybe I will just do without TV then, I cant afford to pay nearly 100 dollars a month for cable and I cant afford $900+ TVs unless I win the lottery.

[flamesbball84]

I just looked at the High-Def 101 on amazon.com (which I am sure is the ULTIMATE resource for high-def, but its good enough), yeah definitely dont need 1080p, says 1080p is best on TVs of 42 inches or bigger, I dont want anything over 30 inches, and 30 inches could be too much. 720p sounds like it will be more than enough for me, especially considering all I watch on TV is sports and I watch all my DVDs on my computer since I dont have a stand alone DVD player. Maybe I will just look into getting a digital TV tuner for my computer, those things only cost like 100 dollars...

[Sly Fox]

I'm not saying to buy right now. What I am saying is that 1080p is going to be much cheaper soon and 720p is going to be somewhat obsolete in 5-7 years. If you are like me and buy a primary TV once every 10 years or so then watch for 1080p bargains this summer.

Frankly unless you are dying to get one you don't really need an HDTV anytime soon.

[mrmacphisto]

I'm happy with 1080i right now. Maybe once I start wearing glasses I'll want something better.

[flamesbball84]

I know not all the broadcast stations will stop sending out analog signal on 2.19.2009, but what if they decide to stop sending the signal at some point in time and dont make an announcement, then i am screwed.

and do you know if anyone is going to be making 1080p TVs at sizes of 30 inches or smaller anytime soon? Theres not much point in me getting a 1080p TV if the smallest they make (well the smallest I can find on the internet) is 42 inches seeing as how I dont really have the room for that

[El Scorcho]

There seems to be a big huge point made in the original post that's been missed by everyone here so far: flamesbball84 said he has basic cable.

The digital switchover applies to broadcast stations, which means it affects people who receive their television via an antenna. The cable companies can continue to use analog signals on their own networks for as long as they wish. So, unless you receive notification from Comcast that they're going to discontinue analog cable (which they are not...yet), then you have absolutely nothing to worry about or do. You're fine.

The entire point of the government mandating the digital broadcast switchover is to reclaim all of the wireless bandwidth wasted on broadcasting analog signals. It frees up a lot of the wireless spectrum for military, emergency, police, fire and other government uses.

[mrmacphisto]

Theres not much point in me getting a 1080p TV if the smallest they make (well the smallest I can find on the internet) is 42 inches seeing as how I dont really have the room for that

Forty-two inches really isn't that big. Take down that Justin Timberlake poster, mount a flat-screen on the wall and you're not losing any space; you're actually gaining the space that your analog TV has been taking up. And widescreen movies will look awesome on it.

Scorcho is right, though. You can probably keep your standard TV for a while longer.

[flamesbball84]

It may not be big to you but it is to me, especially since I dont have the space for a 42 inch tv! Also, the rooms are small, I wont be sitting much more than 3-4 feet from the TV, do 42 inches is way too big if I am going to have to sit that close. Plus I just dont want a TV that big rather I have the room for it or not. It also will not be saving space since my current tv is in an entertainment center where I store all my other media and entertainment stuff. If I were to get a 42 inch widescreen TV, then I wouldnt be able to fit it in there. Then I would have to either buy a new entertainment center or just put the TV elsewhere and thus taking up more room, not saving room. My entertainment center wont be able to fit anything bigger than maybe 32 inches, hence why I do not want anything bigger than about 32 inches...

[mrmacphisto]

I see, that makes sense. If you're keeping your entertainment center and need it to fit, make sure you get the dimensions of the new TV first; a 32" HDTV will be wider than a 32" standard TV.

[flamesbball84]

a 32 inch widescreen should fit unless it has extra large borders around the screen

EDIT: where in Lynchburg would be a good place to get an HDTV anyways? I can think of walmart, bestbuy, kmart, and target; is there anywhere else to look?

[Hold My Own]

Honestly I'd buy off the internet (and I dont mean ebay) do a google product search for the TV you want...heck my mom just bought a Sharp 46 inch Aquos Plasma for about 900 less than Best Buy has it for and that was on QVC...do your research...it'll pay off



I'm sure your wondering about shipping...look to pay around $50-$100 you'll still save around 30% though

[LUconn]

Why would buying anything less than 1080p not be wise, my wallet certainly disagrees with that....

TVs cost too dang much even with the prices dropping. The cheapest 1080p TV on bestbuys website is 989 dollars and its 42 inches, thats way too big, I dont even have room for such a gigantic TV! Just one would take up all the money spent on me for Christmas for three YEARS. I would have to save up money for like 6 months or just not eat for a couple months to afford that. Maybe you can afford that, but I sure as hell can not afford one of those. It would take me years to be able to afford to replace all five TVs in the house with a 1080p tv. Maybe I will just do without TV then, I cant afford to pay nearly 100 dollars a month for cable and I cant afford $900+ TVs unless I win the lottery.

Could someone please clarify? Can flamesbball84 afford a 1080p?

[Rocketfan]

I'm not saying to buy right now. What I am saying is that 1080p is going to be much cheaper soon and 720p is going to be somewhat obsolete in 5-7 years. If you are like me and buy a primary TV once every 10 years or so then watch for 1080p bargains this summer.

Frankly unless you are dying to get one you don't really need an HDTV anytime soon.

Im sorry sly but this is kinda funny......the difference between 720p and 1080p ( which im pretty sure no one is currently broadcasting in) is not going to be obsolete to the average viewer in 5-7 years. I mean on some televisions depending on what settings you have adjusted the difference is really nothing. If you have ever walked into a best buy you can alter a 720p and a 1080 TV to look about the same, so the average guy who is buying a new set may notice very little if he just takes it out of the box and sets it up.

[El Scorcho]

I'm not saying to buy right now. What I am saying is that 1080p is going to be much cheaper soon and 720p is going to be somewhat obsolete in 5-7 years. If you are like me and buy a primary TV once every 10 years or so then watch for 1080p bargains this summer.

Frankly unless you are dying to get one you don't really need an HDTV anytime soon.

Im sorry sly but this is kinda funny......the difference between 720p and 1080p ( which im pretty sure no one is currently broadcasting in) is not going to be obsolete to the average viewer in 5-7 years. I mean on some televisions depending on what settings you have adjusted the difference is really nothing. If you have ever walked into a best buy you can alter a 720p and a 1080 TV to look about the same, so the average guy who is buying a new set may notice very little if he just takes it out of the box and sets it up.

It's funny that you say that. I can see the difference between Fox/ABC/ESPN's 720p broadcasts and the CBS/NBC's 1080i broadcasts every time. 1080i is 1/3 more high-res than 720p, so to argue that it's not important is kind of silly. (Especially if you ever plan on watching HD content from some sort of disc.) 1080x resolutions (especially progressive scan) are more expensive, but you're paying for 360 more lines of resolution (that's 1,152,000 extra pixels!) and possibly progressive scan, if you go the p route. If you don't care, that's fine, but if someone is going to make the high-def investment, it's worth noting that HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, cable on-demand systems and some satellite on-demand services will be in 1080p format. They'll still look great on a 720p TV, but there is a difference and they will look better on a 1080p TV.

And having said all of that, I wonder how many of you have ever seen a 120Hz HDTV, or one that uses something other than fluorescent backlighting? It can get much better than just 1080p.

[Rocketfan]

I'm not saying to buy right now. What I am saying is that 1080p is going to be much cheaper soon and 720p is going to be somewhat obsolete in 5-7 years. If you are like me and buy a primary TV once every 10 years or so then watch for 1080p bargains this summer.

Frankly unless you are dying to get one you don't really need an HDTV anytime soon.

Im sorry sly but this is kinda funny......the difference between 720p and 1080p ( which im pretty sure no one is currently broadcasting in) is not going to be obsolete to the average viewer in 5-7 years. I mean on some televisions depending on what settings you have adjusted the difference is really nothing. If you have ever walked into a best buy you can alter a 720p and a 1080 TV to look about the same, so the average guy who is buying a new set may notice very little if he just takes it out of the box and sets it up.

It's funny that you say that. I can see the difference between Fox/ABC/ESPN's 720p broadcasts and the CBS/NBC's 1080i broadcasts every time. 1080i is 1/3 more high-res than 720p, so to argue that it's not important is kind of silly. (Especially if you ever plan on watching HD content from some sort of disc.) 1080x resolutions (especially progressive scan) are more expensive, but you're paying for 360 more lines of resolution (that's 1,152,000 extra pixels!) and possibly progressive scan, if you go the p route. If you don't care, that's fine, but if someone is going to make the high-def investment, it's worth noting that HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, cable on-demand systems and some satellite on-demand services will be in 1080p format. They'll still look great on a 720p TV, but there is a difference and they will look better on a 1080p TV.

And having said all of that, I wonder how many of you have ever seen a 120Hz HDTV, or one that uses something other than fluorescent backlighting? It can get much better than just 1080p.

My point was for the average user.... i mean lots of people by an HDTV and think they can just hook it up and it will miraculously pull HD channels. Most of america doesn't take the time to do any research between 1080 and 720 whatsoever now, so whats to say in 5-7 years that technology is going to be obselete when people get analog signal now and call it HD.

Case in point my dad buys a 65 inch DLP Toshiba TV right after Christmas. Out of the box the tv has the contrast turned on 100%, and the color and tint settings all over the place. If Joe "i know nothing" even gets someone to hook up 1080I HDTV with that tv but his other settings are all over it WILL look horrid. The guy were talking about basically said he could barely afford to save enough for the TV, let alone watch anything on disk. If all he is concerned with is getting HD programming then 720 is fine, like you said.

I hope by fluorescent backlighting your not talking about the Phillips technology that bombed? That was the signal dumbest idea ever. Ive read about 120Hz, but never seen one to my knowledge.

[Rocketfan]

This snip from Cnet.com i think really hits on the point.

9. Side by side, how do 720p and 1080p TVs match up in head-to-head tests?
We spend a lot of time looking at a variety of source material on a variety of TVs in our video lab here at CNET's offices in New York. When I wrote my original article two years ago, many 1080p TVs weren't as sharp as they claimed to be on paper. By that, I mean a lot of older 1080p sets couldn't necessarily display all 2 million-plus pixels in the real world--technically, speaking, they couldn't "resolve" every line of a 1080i or 1080p test pattern.

That's changed in the last couple of years. Most 1080p sets are now capable of fully resolving 1080i and 1080p material. But that hasn't altered our views about 1080p TVs. We still believe that when you're dealing with TVs 50 inches and smaller, the added resolution has only a very minor impact on picture quality. On a regular basis in our HDTV reviews, we put 720p (or 768p) sets next to 1080p sets, then feed them both the same source material, whether it's 1080i or 1080p, from the highest-quality Blu-ray and HD DVD players. We typically watch both sets for a while, with eyes darting back and forth between the two, looking for differences in the most-detailed sections, such as hair, textures of fabric, and grassy plains. Bottom line: It's almost always very difficult to see any difference--especially from farther than 8 feet away on a 50-inch TV.

Our resident video guru, Senior Editor David Katzmaier, stands by what he said two years ago: The extra sharpness afforded by the 1080p televisions he's seen is noticeable only when watching 1080i or 1080p sources on a larger screens, say 55 inches and bigger, or with projectors that display a wall-size picture. Katzmaier also says that the main real-world advantage of 1080p is not the extra sharpness you'll be seeing, but instead, the smaller, more densely packed pixels. In other words, you can sit closer to a 1080p television and not notice any pixel structure, such as stair-stepping along diagonal lines, or the screen door effect (where you can actually see the space between the pixels). This advantage applies regardless of the quality of the source.



http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-681 ... l?tag=disc

This guy said 42" was to big for him, so im just saying 1080 wouldn't be that beneficial to him in the long run....

[LUconn]

I didn't know that 1080i had more pixels. Interesting. Why do they say that sports brodcasts are preferred to be in 720p? They say it's becasue of the movement involeved and having progressive scan, but that doesn't seem to add up.

[Hold My Own]

I look at it like this...a digital camera that's 6.0 mega pixels versus a 10.0 mega pixels on a 4 by 6in photo....you really wont tell a big difference but if you want to go bigger than a 4 by 6 then you'll see the difference

[LUconn]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

[El Scorcho]

I hope by fluorescent backlighting your not talking about the Phillips technology that bombed? That was the signal dumbest idea ever. Ive read about 120Hz, but never seen one to my knowledge.

No, I'm talking about 99% of LCD televisions/displays that use fluorescent lights behind the display to light it. They're bright and cheap, but they're the reason that when you see black on an LCD display it always looks kind of dark gray instead of black. The better LCD TV's now use wide-range fluorescent and the best LCD TV's now use LED lights. The LED's use less power, generate less heat and can be switched on and off rapidly enough to produce true black on the display.

As for the 120Hz refresh rate, it makes all the difference in the world when you're watching sports. It's the same reason computer gamers want LCD displays with small response times and fast refresh rates. When there's a lot of movement on an LCD display, the cheaper displays can't keep up. No big deal if you're just watching an episode of Reba, but when you're watching the Dolphins lose at 1080i, it makes a difference.

HDTV's are in their infancy. It's going to get a lot better than what's cheap right now.

[El Scorcho]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

He fails to address image sensor size, which is a much better gauge of camera quality and capabilities than the megapixel capability of the sensor. The large-sensor cameras produce MUCH better images than those with the little postage stamp sensors.

[flamesbball84]

So basicaclly I should go the 720p route since I'll have a 32 inch tv at biggest? Keep in mind that pretty much the only thing I watch on TV is sports and I dont watch DVDs on TV because my only dvd player is on my computer...