Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

HDTV question without HD feed

Go To Girl

By Go To Girl,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Go To Girl Newbie

Go To Girl

Posted
Posted

OK - all my electronic gurus here, I have a question that I haven't been able to find via google.......

GTG is finally, finally considering a new television purchase. TV has never meant squat to me, so everything we have is just analog basic televisions. These days, if you're getting a TV, you pretty much have to go for an HDTV. I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to upgrade my cable to HD though, the digital signal is just fine with me.

There's always been a lot of info out there about pixelation and general bad picture when you used a HD set with an analog signal. But, now that everything is digital - how will that affect things?

We gave my son a small LCD HDTV for his dorm room for Christmas, and we did plug it in to one of our cable outlets. It doesn't look quite as good as our regular TV, but it might be just a matter of making color adjustments - something I don't really want to do since it's not my TV.

What say you all - should I make the jump to another television even though I have no intention (at this time) to upgrading my cable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go To Girl Newbie

Go To Girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted

If I'm not going to get HD, I'll just keep what I have. Being the cheapo that I am, this whole thing was triggered by a report on GMA about how TVs are the lowest prices they're going to be for a long, long time with the economy and such. Even said not to wait until Thanksgiving because China is pushing all of the people their to switch their TVs over and when that occurs, they will be keeping for their own population much of what they normally ship here casuing prices here to rise......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRWatcher Mentor

GRWatcher

Posted
Posted

I just got HD but I bought my tv last year when the old one died. I knew I wouldn't be making the switch any time soon and that most tv is still standard def so one of my criterea for which tv to buy was how good the picture was in sd. We only have a 26" so the choices weren't many. But researching showed that the LG's have a quality sd picture. That's what I bought, it was a little more than I could've paid for a 26" and I got only a 720p, but we've been very pleased with the picture whether sd or HD. My son has a 40" Samsung 1080 and IMO it's sd pictures aren't as good as the LG.

GTG, I don't know what service you have but there should be something under options or setup where you need to set the signal for your son's tv. My choices with Uverse were analog, digital sd, 720p, or 1080p. That'll improve the picture. I also found that I had to tone down the color and increase the brightness when we went HD. Call your service provider about where the adjustments are for the signal if you can't find it. If it's TW cable you already have HD.

And I wouldn't buy into any price hype gossip. You'll get a good price because they're not selling. More people are like me, waiting until the old set hit the dust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
d-dave Grand Master

d-dave

Posted
Posted

G2G,

If you're not planning to upgrade your cable services, check to see if your digital cable provider will offer you free HD service. I know TWC gives you HD for free if you have digital cable. I mean what do you have to loose? Free HD versus not free. They even give you component cables to hook it up...

Why the SD looks worse on your HDTV is pretty simple. Imagine taking low rez cell phone camera pics and blowing them up on your PC monitor. That's basically what you're doing when projecting SD onto an HD monitor. That HDTV will show every bit of noise, fuzz, and crap that you SD TV didn't have the resolution to see.

If you do go the HDTV route, I would suggest the easy way to set it up is to set it to film color mode. That's normally pretty decent all things considered.

But if you have no interest in HD programing, or being able to watch your DVDs in a widescreen format, then don't spend the $$$ on a HDTV, and see how many more years you can eek out of your old TV. New tech keeps getting cheaper and cheaper the longer its out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Niner National Newbie

Niner National

Posted
Posted

You'll still get all your local channels in high definition even without the cable box. Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, WJZY, MYTV12 or whatever its called, UNCHD, WAXN, and maybe a few others I'm forgetting.

As GRWatcher said, LG's do handle non-HD signals pretty well. I believe they are generally one of the highest rated in that regard. I have an LG plasma and it still gave a decent picture (no worse than the old tube) before I had the HD service. If you're looking for a good value, I'd pick up a 42" LG 720p Plasma. Great price, good analog picture, good high def picture (for any HD channels you receive).

A 42" Panasonic 720p Plasma can also be picked up for a great price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevin Greene Newbie

Kevin Greene

Posted
Posted

GTG, I think you have Time Warner don't you? HD TV is "free" with them I believe. The caveat being you have to lease a hi-def set top box. Might only be 6 or 7 dollars a month.

Anyways, getting rid of that watt guzzling CRT (Cathode Ray Tube Dinasour) in favor of a low watt LCD might save part of that money per month plus you're lowering global warming. :biggrin:

Just trying to push you over the HD cliff. ;)

Once you go, there's no going back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go To Girl Newbie

Go To Girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I don't have their digital tier, so HD isn't free for me. Once the digital conversion happened, I always wondered how they were going to handle people like me and so far nothing has changed, If I were to switch, it would cost me an extra $20 or so a month...and I might have to get a box. Television is just not a big priority for me so I don't want to pay extra to get a content I'm not going to watch.

The new television thought was kind of a lark yesterday. Not sure how I feel about it today.

Thanks to everyone who has come up with suggestions and info. Appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chabber Newbie

chabber

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't get an HDTV if your not going to get any HD channels. It will not look better than your regular television.

However if you already have TWC service you should be getting at least your local HD channels for free and unencrypted over the line and can pick them up as long as you have a tuner in your new HDTV.

For example I have DirecTV but I pay for road runner service and I can pick up all the local HD stations on my TV tuner from TWC. My sister does the same thing except she only pays for basic cable and picks up the local HD's that way.

Another option would be to hook up an antenna to pick up the Over the Air local channels so that you could get HD that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jim stone Newbie

jim stone

Posted
Posted

I just acquired an HD tv. I have been looking into it for a while. The one I got was 19 inches so 720 p was ok. If you got to 37 or larger the p# is more important. I just saw a larger Vizio 37 in 1080 p LCD at walmart. Under $600

http://www.walmart.com/browse/TVs/All-TVs/Vizio/_/N-73jgZ1z06yscZaq90Zaqce/Ne-aq6s?catNavId=3996&fromPageCatId=3996&ic=48_0&povid=cat3944-env202889-module234129-lLink4&ref=125875.331180+500500.4293423516&tab_value=96_All&waRef=125875.331180+500500.4293423516

If I were getting one for the den, that's the one I be getting. Stay away from plasma. There is a reason why they are getting cheaper. I have heard that they have a significant impact on your electric bill. I do not have HD service but the picture still seems better. I had to get this stuff little at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
:lol: i bought a new TV for the downstairs and my son and I huffed and puffed and moved the 32" sony (CRT) upstairs into the play room...damn thing weighs 185 pounds!! Trying to find a stand for it and they really don't make them anymore for CRT tvs....so I might end up buying a cheap flat screen for up there...and throw away a perfectly good (10 year old) TV... :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • frankw
      Panthers WR Xavier Legette named potential trade candidate for 2026 offseason

      By frankw · Posted

      Then Dan Morgan should be on the hot seat. Wasting a first and second rounder in a pivotal year is unforgivable.
    • Jon Snow
      Panthers WR Xavier Legette named potential trade candidate for 2026 offseason

      By Jon Snow · Posted

      If they draft a 1st round receiver he's gone.
    • MHS831
      Emanuel McNeil Warren + Jacob Rodriguez

      By MHS831 · Posted

      They addressed D in free agency in a big way (Edge, ILB) and they signed a starting OT and a player they think could be a swing OT in reserve.  They have claimed to be adding "Weapons" to the offense.  I think that will be their focus.  I agree 100% that we need a T, but a reserve, developmental OT in a weak (at the top) draft does little to address that weakness in 2026.  If they are telling the truth, a reserve developmental OT is not a weapon.  The will draft a WR if that statement and their actions in free agency are accurate.  That does not mean we ignore OT--I just dont see where he takes a T if he is filling holes. As a coach, I am concerned about OT, but when I look at the roster, I see bigger immediate problems. S: We are OK if you want Scott for another season. Not ideal.  There is also talk of Smith-Wade being moved to S.  If so, we need a CBN. DT: Who took Robinson's job?  He played a lot.  All DTs (NT-DE) were average to below average, (except Derrick Brown) including 280 lb wharton.  We need a DT (my preference for the first pick, to be honest)  I am guessing a DT will be our third rounder? ILB:  Unless we want Wallace out there in coverage, we need a compliment to Lloyd.  I think Lloyd's starting mate is the second rounder. (speculating)  This pick is likely to occur in the second round because it is for a starting position. WR:  Some are fine with what we have.  sIn 2025, Coker had 3  TDs on 394 yards.  Legette had 3 TDs and 363 yards--and only 1 drop.  I love Coker, but neither should make us feel secure about WR with those numbers.  A lot depends on both stepping up in 2026, but Canales has been screaming weapons.  Could he mean Tight end?  That depends on how good they feel about Coker and XL. Center:  You can get a player ready to start relatively early in the middle rounds.  Very similar to the OT situation but I think C may be more of a priority right now than OT.   Tight End:  They seem to like Delp from Georgia who projects round 4. CB:  There was some talk of moving Smith-Wade to S (to learn for a season with Scott, maybe?) and that might require adding CB depth inside. Tackle?:  I agree that we need one, but this draft is simply not strong at the top at T.  The ONLY way to get a quality OT that is still developmental is to take one in round 1.  Canales has all but said we are not doing that.  But after the first 40 picks or so, they pretty much level out for a good while.  The fifth rounders and the third rounders are about the same.  For that Reason, I am guessing (It is all guesses) that they take someone like the OT from Boston College or Memphis.  Work with the OL coach (OT specialist) for a season.  I dunno
×
×
  • Create New...