[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
The ones we saw were both HD, with the newer refresh technology (which makes the on-screen movements look more realistic) being spotlighted. A better refresh rate makes the picture look better.
Basically, it’s regular LCD HD vs. LCD HD on steroids.
[/QUOTE]
I know there are several levels of Bravia. So the ones that are HDTV-compatible are not worth it, in your opinion?
[QUOTE=Absolute]
Okay, folks, just so that we are all on the same page here: here is a website with the same image in SD resolution and full HD resolution.
Let me know if you don’t see the difference.
If anything, the SD version is overly generous - there is no widescreen SD format.
[/QUOTE]
At computer screen viewing distance, I can see the difference. At three paces, I can’t. TV watching distance is five paces or more.
The whole thing is a gigantic scam. SD is fine.
[QUOTE=Rick]
Go get your eyes checked again. 
Seriously, I just installed a 52" Sony Bravia XBR along with a HD cable converter. Holy crap is there a difference. Most of my broadcast channels are also available in HD. When the Indy 500 was on, my wife put it on straight broadcast. I thought the picture was great, but I noticed she had it on in standard broadcast, so I had her switch to the HD channel (add 400 to the channel number so 7 becomes 407) Holy crap night and day. Everything became so crisp and clear. It was like finally cleaning your very dirty glasses, everything just looked clearer and sharper.
Yes I can for sure tell the difference. I can’t wait for the next gen Blu-ray machines, I am so going to buy one.
[/QUOTE]
We have the new Sony 46" XBR & Blu-Ray player (I guess it is the current gen), and people who come over to our place to watch a movie are almost creeped out by the quality of the picture. I can’t recommend it enough.
[QUOTE=WF Tomba]
The whole thing is a gigantic scam.
[/QUOTE]
There is absolutely no truth to the above statement. None whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
I know there are several levels of Bravia. So the ones that are HDTV-compatible are not worth it, in your opinion?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, they most certainly are. The ones I’m talking about are HDTV compatible, but they’re just the newer generation of HDTV on LCD. By the time you’re ready to buy, there may be even more advances. Have fun shopping it.
I can see the difference but honestly my TV has one purpose, and that is to allow me movie watching and video game playing capabilities. I never watch regular TV so I won’t be bothered to upgrade to HD for a long time, I’m sure.
[QUOTE=pbbth]
I can see the difference but honestly my TV has one purpose, and that is to allow me movie watching and video game playing capabilities. I never watch regular TV so I won’t be bothered to upgrade to HD for a long time, I’m sure.
[/QUOTE]
You are aware that you can watch movies in HD and play games in HD, as well as watch television?
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
Oh, they most certainly are. The ones I’m talking about are HDTV compatible, but they’re just the newer generation of HDTV on LCD. By the time you’re ready to buy, there may be even more advances. Have fun shopping it.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, I see. Thanks. I estimate we’ll probably get serious about it in another year or so.
The only reason I would buy an HDTV is if it were cheaper than a regular TV.
I find all the extra detail kind of distracting, but I’ll probably feel differently once it becomes the norm. I just want to watch the movies and tv shows I enjoy and don’t really care if they have a slightly clearer picture.
[QUOTE=WF Tomba]
The only reason I would buy an HDTV is if it were cheaper than a regular TV.
[/QUOTE]
Free?
Yeah, but I’m happy with what I have and my DVD’s and video games won’t be rendered moot by the switch to HD broadcasting in 2009. If I were really into regular television it might be worth it for me since I would have to have an HD compatible TV to watch Lost or whatever show is popular now.
Since none of my current games or movies require that technology I will do what I did when DVD players became the must have entertainment technology, which was to be happy with my VCR until I could get a DVD player for $50 or less. Being able to buy VHS tapes for $3 or $4 was awesome when that was the most up-to-date technology I had at the time. I see no reason to go spend gobs of money on something just because it’s cool and new. I don’t own a Wii yet and I won’t until I can get one gently used for $60 or $70 instead of the $300 that they cost right now. New technology isn’t high on my list of priorities. I think it is great that other people enjoy it so much but it isn’t something I feel I need to have right away.
I can instantly tell if the channel Mrs. Dvl is watching is HD or not, regardless of the show (i.e., CSI: Craptown HD v. SD). For the most part, it’s not a subtle difference, at least on our set. I guess there may be a bit or two here or there where things are less distinguishable, but the vast majority of the time it’s extraordinarily different.
One thing we’ve noticed in HD is just how bad everyone’s skin is. Adama was a bit freaky before, but now we’re awfully glad it’s not shown in 3D or we’d get vertigo. We had an episode of some crapulence DVRd off both channels once, and something caught our eye. A large, makeup-caked pustule was staring us in the face. Blech. We went over to the SD recording for a bit, and all it was was a hard-to-see, vague blemish. It’s rare that you can actually distinguish pores in SD, but almost they’re almost omnipresent in HD. YMMV; this may or may not be a good thing.
Even after a couple of years of viewing HD broadcasts, I’m still consistently blown away by how good the picture is. I find having to view standard broadcasts rather disappointing, thinking of what could have been.
This especially holds true with sports programming and artistic documentaries where they really put for the effort to make the viewing pleasurable and memorable. Monday Night Football? Awesome, baby. The Beauty Of Snakes, Planet Earth and others? Incredible.
As more and more broadcast and production companies incorporate the technology and as these technologies continue to evolve, mature and proliferate, the better and more realistic our entertainment (technically, at least) will continue to become.
[QUOTE=pbbth]
Yeah, but I’m happy with what I have and my DVD’s and video games won’t be rendered moot by the switch to HD broadcasting in 2009. If I were really into regular television it might be worth it for me since I would have to have an HD compatible TV to watch Lost or whatever show is popular now.
[/quote]
I’ve seen this misconception posted so many places. TVs are *not *switching to HD only broadcast in 2009. The only thing that is changing is that the signals are moving from analog to digital. If you watch cable TV through a cable box, such as those provided by Time Warner or Comcast or IO, nothing will change for you at all. No one will need an HDTV to watch TV in 2009.
It is only an issue if you watch your TV through an analog antenna hookup.
And the difference between SD & HD TV is extremely noticeable. If you (the general you) can’t see it, your set is either not connected properly, or you have a problem with your eyesight.
I can tell the difference but I don’t care about it (which is what the OP asked). What matters to me is the quality of the content. I’d rather watch Fawlty Towers on a crappy, out of date TV set with a grainy black and white picture than watch most contemporary output on the world’s best HDTV set. Quite honestly, I wish they would take all the money they are sinking into HD and spend it on finding great talent and bringing it to the screen.
[QUOTE=lieu]
As more and more broadcast and production companies incorporate the technology and as these technologies continue to evolve, mature and proliferate, the better and more realistic our entertainment (technically, at least) will continue to become.
[/QUOTE]
This might just be the crux of the difference in preferences between different personality types. To me, “realistic entertainment” is taking a hike up Camelback Mountain. Television is a way to veg out occasionally. Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks :).
(Don’t get me wrong - I consider myself a film buff, but I don’t watch them to see the blackheads on peoples’ noses.)
[QUOTE=Cisco]
This might just be the crux of the difference in preferences between different personality types. To me, “realistic entertainment” is taking a hike up Camelback Mountain. Television is a way to veg out occasionally. Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks :).
[/QUOTE]
Pretty much my opinion, too. I didn’t watch a lot of TV or movies growing up, and probably wouldn’t now if my DVD and movie buff wife hadn’t corrupted me, but even now, television is more of a background noise thing than entertainment. I put whatever DVD interests me that day and study in front of the TV. If I want intense and vivid imagery, I’ll turn the TV off and read a book. Or go catch a concert. Or bang the wife.
As far as I’m concerned, [More TV distraction].good_thing == False
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
We have the new Sony 46" XBR & Blu-Ray player (I guess it is the current gen), and people who come over to our place to watch a movie are almost creeped out by the quality of the picture. I can’t recommend it enough.
[/QUOTE]
Mine is also an XBR-4 and what sold me on it was the Blu-ray demo disc with scenes from one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I swear some of those scenes looked like they were in 3D.
Hmmm…I can only assume that many of you are legally blind or clearly out of your mind.
You may not be able to tell the difference because you are probably not used to watching something on a 50" screen. If you take the standard 27"-25" SD picture you are used to watching and blow it up, it will look surprisingly crappy if it is not in HD.