Call the ASPCA....or was that the ASPCS?
Poor Andy. All we ever do is pick on him.
But to be fair, Scott suffers from the same HDTV urges that most men seem to have these days. HD, plasma, does it really matter? Sure, I appreciate the space saving grace of the new skinny, hang-on-the-wall televisions. But our 36" tube TV is still doing quite well, and shows movies as big and as clearly as I ever need it to. Besides, would anyone really want to watch Fear Factor in high definition?
Comments
Hi Danielle,
No HDTV for me, since I rarely watch the tube, and we didn't even own a CD player until 2000. Once they stop broadcasting in analog, I suppose we'll own one, but by then maybe we can get a nice used one.
I see you've been blogging for quite a while. I started a couple of months ago.
Tim
Posted by: Tim | February 25, 2005 12:42 PM
That quote has a large element of truth to it: most of what's on TV really blows and no amount of technical greatness will improve it (the "can't polish a turd" principle to be sure). However, there is a small amount of really good programming out there (Danielle would agree since she and Scott watch TV shows, just on DVD discs) that, IMO does benefit from a better presentation, just like film does and even though I could care less about it, I totally see what sports fans love about HD.
As far as the cost and the take-it-or-leave-it attitude, digital TV will soon be as cheap as analog (I've heard that when LCD/Plasmas are made in huge quantities that they could be even cheaper to manufacture than CRTs) and you *will* be going to digital sooner or later as the federal government is going to make the broadcasters shut off the analog signal eventually (this is a seperate issue in a way). Of course if you don't watch any TV, then this is all moot.
Posted by: Doc Dregs | February 17, 2005 7:49 AM
The Onion said everything that needs to be said:
"HDTV: Better looking crap."
I'm busy and poor enough as it is; I don't need any high-definition distractions.
Posted by: Dan Drake | February 16, 2005 9:07 PM
Well...plenty of women are after the new "skinny" LCD/Plasma sets for asthetic reasons. Stacie and I don't have HD to watch dreck like Fear Factor, but some shows look really good in HD like The West Wing, ER, Enterprise, and so on. Not to mention that the Olympics were jaw-droppingly good in HD. Have you ever watched anything in hight def? Do it and I'll wager you won't look at your analog set the same way; the quality difference is certainly not subtle. Of course I should note that we don't watch much HD because we don't have the money for a HD Tivo...
Most importantly for me is how great movies can be in the format. After seeing true HD content for films, regular DVD as good as it can be, looks worse, softer with color this isn't quite right. Then again, if DVDs look fine on your 32" tube and the picture is big enough, then more power to you. Call me a snob, but I find scope ratio, 2.35:1, films like the LOTR films, on a 27" "square" set like the one we have in our bedroom to be too tiny for movie watching. It's more difficult for me to get immersed in the film when it's that small. 32" is a lot better, but compared to a widescreen 40"+ display, it's no contest.
There is the argument that since you guys don't watch current TV content, which is increasingly shown in HD and in a widescreen ratio that an "old school" CRT set works OK and will do until you need to replace it. Plasmas and other flat TVs are going to continue to improve (they still can't display true blacks) and drop in price. You'll be getting an HD set sooner of later...or even a PROJECTOR (http://www.projectorcentral.com/) !!! Moo hoo ha ha ha!
Long-winded, but you sorta asked for it! ;-)
Posted by: Doc Dregs | February 16, 2005 2:19 PM