HDTV Brainwash

Closed Thread

  #1  
Old 02-22-08, 04:30 AM
core's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 1,127
HDTV Brainwash

Seriously, what is it?

[Full disclosure: I've never seen an HDTV picture that I've liked, but that's the topic for another thread.]

How many of you who have had friends who _thrived_ on cable/sat... Cable news, cop dashcam shows, animal kingdom, TV Land classics, WWII movies, you name it. Watching "Judge Judy" and soaps on the local channels was an excercize for the less priviledged folks.

Then the second they buy an HDTV, they have to put up a directional antenna to receive the same damn local programming they abhorred before, only now they LOVE it and that's all they watch?

What gives?

It makes absolutely ZERO sense to me. If watching a flower grow on PBS was boring before it still is. If Judge Judy was annoying before she certainly still is.

I don't get it. Really, I don't.

-core
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 02-22-08, 06:32 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: us
Posts: 385
My brother used to say the same thing. I bought our mother an LCD HDTV (42") for Xmas this year. After setup, we were watching some football and I flipped back and forth between the SD and HD channel to show him the difference. His jaw literally dropped after not being a believer. The main problem is ~40% of the people with HDTVs are not watching HD programming, but think they are. In my experience, people only change their veiwing habits a little and this is supported by Neilson ratings. They only real difference I've seen is when just "browsing for something to watch" they check the HD channels first. Now with most channels available in HD that is no longer an issue.

In my case, my first HDTV was purchased primarily for the form factor (thin, wall mountable) for a basement game room for the kids. I just happen to catch a couple of football games on it in HD and within 6 months I had replaced the living room and Master bedroom TVs. Whether a program is in HD or not doesn't effect my veiwing decision much, I still watch alot of travel channel, BBCA, etc. But I would prefer all programming be in HD.
 
  #3  
Old 02-22-08, 10:24 AM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,519
Call me brainwashed, but I love watching HD programs. The Rose Parade New Year's Day was awesome. I have NOT put up an antenna to catch the network OTA HD broadcasts (mostly because they are quite a distance away and I'm skeptical of getting them), so our HD viewing is limited to the available cable channels. We're not big network watchers anyway; I would be hard pressed to name 10 programs that are on the networks.
 
  #4  
Old 02-22-08, 01:33 PM
dcjredline's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 94
I just replaced my tube for a HD LCD and I am using the same antenna I had with the old one BUT I get 3 more channels and the regular ones I was getting I get in HD also.

Let me tell you ALL the channels are clearer than they were before and the HD channels are REALLY nice. Certain times on my other TV I could only get 2 of the 4 clear and would have to adjust to each of the other channels NOT ANY MORE! Specially the HD ones. I don't think the picture is AMAZING over the air but the DVD's and such are much better. 2 of the air channels come in at 1080p and the others are either 480 or 720p. I am VERY HAPPY and I have more room in my living room now!
 
  #5  
Old 02-22-08, 02:51 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Near Buffalo, NY
Posts: 4,239
Originally Posted by dcjredline View Post
2 of the air channels come in at 1080p and the others are either 480 or 720p.
Did you mean 1080i (CBS, NBC)? To my knowledge, no one is broadcasting 1080p right now.

core, I think the biggest draw is, has been, and always will be content. The story is king, not the delivery medium.

Today, your neighbor wants to be the first on the block to brag about having HDTV. Yet, he's watching reruns of the Beverly Hillbillies on the TVLand network. Heck, I watch the 3 Stooges to this day whenever they're on Spike.

The story-is-king argument also doesn't account for taste. Substance tends to poke through in the most acclaimed feature films, but that doesn't explain the millions of dollars that people will fork over to see the latest Rocky movie.

Style-over-substance is another factor, and these days, style always seems to win.

To be honest, I'm very disillusioned with commercial TV. The programs are there only to fill the time between the commercials.

Call me anal (as my wife did), but I held a stopwatch for a few hours to find out the ratio of programming-to-commercial breaks. Local news ranked the worst, having a total of 12 minutes of actual news during their 30-minute telecast.

The network average is 38 minutes per hour of programming. The rest is either commercials or network promos. Just a couple of years ago the network average was 42 minutes.

This web site is another good example, and it is one of the least commercial sites. I'm reading this forum in a left column that's 2/3rds of my screen. The right 1/3rd, a "banner" on top, and another banner on the bottom are filled with advertising and site promos.

I guess the real answer is, there's no accounting for popular taste.

Go back to that tired old comparison of Betamax and VHS. Betamax was a far superior format, but it lost out to VHS because the average viewer could record 6 hours of really bad-looking video versus 4 hours of much better-looking video on a Betamax. (Ironically, Sony won that battle in the broadcast domain. BetaCam, the broadcast-quality version of Betamax, became the standard for video production while Panasonic's ReCam, M, and MII VHS-based formats bit the big one.)
 
  #6  
Old 02-22-08, 07:06 PM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,519
Originally Posted by Rick Johnston View Post
Style-over-substance is another factor, and these days, style always seems to win.

That's not a political observation is it Rick?

HD programming aside, the picture quality on my big screen LCD is WAY better than the dinosaur it replaced. Even if there was no HD I would still prefer the picture quality. Of course at my advanced age big & large are good (now where did I leave my large-print copy of the Reader's Digest???).
 
  #7  
Old 02-23-08, 03:53 AM
core's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 1,127
For the most part, the posts on this thread have just proved my point. You guys really ARE brainwashed, aren't you?

Half of the posts here talk about how good the picture looks. Again, that wasn't the point. We're talking about what's ON the screen that looks so good! (Don't you care? Or don't you even notice what you are watching?)

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, folks.

You know, I think some people would watch 'Church of the World' Sunday Mass 24/7 if it were in HD.

Drink up guys. Less taxes for me.
 
  #8  
Old 02-23-08, 05:46 AM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,519
Is there sufficient good programming on TV today? My read is that what you are saying is that there's no reason to buy a TV with superior picture quality to watch sub-standard programming. I would agree with you that there is a LOT of programming that can best be described by the highly technical term, "crap". On the other hand there IS a lot of high quality viewing to be had; Discovery, TLC, and History just to name a few. It's out there. If my TV still only got three networks plus PBS and I was limited to watching reruns of "My Mother, the Car", then yes, the big screen LCD would certainly be a waste.
 
  #9  
Old 02-23-08, 05:56 AM
GregH's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 9,628
I am not really sure how people are brainwashed when they prefer to watch their favored programming in a HD format.
This post appears to be more about criticizing people's taste in programming rather than the technology.

Your use of "Church of the World" implies that people who do like that programming are deficient in some way.

We have a CRT HD TV and spend a majority of our viewing time watching documentary programing.
Are you suggesting that my watching of Dr. Phil in HD and preferring it to standard TV puts us in the same lowly category as people who prefer Christian programming???

This attitude reminds me of many seniors I know who can not grasp computer technology and have the same view as you with regards to change.

Greg
 
  #10  
Old 02-23-08, 06:53 AM
core's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 1,127
Not a full reply [yet], but definitely need to post a clarification here:

I used the term "Church of the World" thinking it was fictional. I guess I must have seen it scrolling through my TV menu and the term stuck in my brain.

I do occasionally listen to the Rosary on AM radio, watch mass on Sunday, and I'll leave it at that. Just didn't want to leave any wrong impressions here.

-core
 
  #11  
Old 02-23-08, 07:57 AM
GregH's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 9,628
Just so you and others who have responded to this thread know, this site is not a blog to vent ones frustrations.
Even the forum topic that your post has been moved to was not set up for this purpose.

And yes, we do censor posts to prevent certain people and groups from being insulted.
There are many other sites where you can do this.

Edit:
As an afterthought here is a link to our posting guidelines which along with other rules can be found at the top of this forum topic.
 

Last edited by GregH; 02-23-08 at 08:36 AM. Reason: Added link.
Closed Thread

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
'