Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 03, 2007 08:57 PM
> I don't see what all this High-Definition thing is > good for. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is in format war, > there is no one standard (to rule them all). And > the devices are very expensive. There are almost > no movies or media shipped on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray yet. >I am not aware of any HD steams for cable TV or > anything like that either.
Uh, I think you're commenting on the wrong article. This is about broadcast hdtv, not discs. Comcast offers hd for only a little more than their cheapest analog cable, and over-the-air HD is available almost everywhere (<a href="http://antennaweb.org./" title="antennaweb.org.">http://antennaweb.org./</a antennaweb.org.>
> HD content is almost non-existent.
All the major networks (and fox and upx and pbs) produce and broadcast HD content. For free, with an antenna.
> Even if HD was widespread,
It is.
> does it offer any noticeable increase in quality to that of DVD?
1080(i or p) looks significantly better than DVD on my television, and I have to scale it down to 720p. 1080 resolution is 1920x1080. Nature and Nova at 1080i is mind-blowingly detailed.
> HD is completely irrelevant and boring to me, > maybe in 10 years it will be good. And HD is so > tightly knitted with broadcast flag and DRM and > crap.
The HD-5500 claims to ignore the broadcast flag. I am not affiliated with pchdtv in any way except as a satisfied customer, but I have never seen it refuse to record anything.
HD is here, there is TONS of HD content and it's generally better than DVD quality. It's DRM-free, and OTA reception is better than analog. The only reasons I can think of not to go HD is if you don't watch TV. Cost used to be an issue (TV's with HD tuners are expensive), but the HD-5500 is cheap and awesome. It does require a beefy pc to watch 1080, so I guess cost isn't completely eliminated yet.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Hmm
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 03, 2007 08:57 PM> there is no one standard (to rule them all). And
> the devices are very expensive. There are almost
> no movies or media shipped on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray yet.
>I am not aware of any HD steams for cable TV or
> anything like that either.
Uh, I think you're commenting on the wrong article. This is about broadcast hdtv, not discs. Comcast offers hd for only a little more than their cheapest analog cable, and over-the-air HD is available almost everywhere (<a href="http://antennaweb.org./" title="antennaweb.org.">http://antennaweb.org./</a antennaweb.org.>
> HD content is almost non-existent.
All the major networks (and fox and upx and pbs) produce and broadcast HD content. For free, with an antenna.
> Even if HD was widespread,
It is.
> does it offer any noticeable increase in quality to that of DVD?
1080(i or p) looks significantly better than DVD on my television, and I have to scale it down to 720p. 1080 resolution is 1920x1080. Nature and Nova at 1080i is mind-blowingly detailed.
> HD is completely irrelevant and boring to me,
> maybe in 10 years it will be good. And HD is so
> tightly knitted with broadcast flag and DRM and
> crap.
The HD-5500 claims to ignore the broadcast flag. I am not affiliated with pchdtv in any way except as a satisfied customer, but I have never seen it refuse to record anything.
HD is here, there is TONS of HD content and it's generally better than DVD quality. It's DRM-free, and OTA reception is better than analog. The only reasons I can think of not to go HD is if you don't watch TV. Cost used to be an issue (TV's with HD tuners are expensive), but the HD-5500 is cheap and awesome. It does require a beefy pc to watch 1080, so I guess cost isn't completely eliminated yet.
#