Re: more info
- From: Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 19:28:26 -0500
In article <ANJ4i.9718$vp1.6448@trnddc06>,
Wes Newell <w.newell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:44:22 -0500, luckyvic wrote:On my 61" JVC SD is fine, but it was better on my 36" tube. And it also
The unfortunate fact of life these days is that most, if not all, of theSD looks perfect on my HDTV. Better than it does on a regualr SD set.
larger sets are HD today. That is both good and bad. The good is that
the larger sets pricing is steadily declining as mfgs can reduce sku's.
The bad is that SD programming doesn't look so good on widescreen sets,
and content on HD is much less than on SD.
depends on which channel. Some SD is very good others suck pond scum.
All my personal opinion of course.
But things are rapidly changing in these technologies and pricing.I don't pay for TV broadcast. Digital TV is free.
Cable companies are not expanding HD offerings much yet, but DishWhat do I care what cable compainies do? I don't use cable or sat. Why
Network has (about 35+ channels), DirecTV says '150 channels this year'
and more and more broadcast stations are going HD.
someone would pay for crappy TV broadcast over cable/sat when free ATSC
is available in their area.....
Each to his own, I suppose. I want the channels that are only LEGALLY
available on cable or satellite.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: more info
- From: Randell Tarin
- Re: more info
- References:
- more info
- From: luckyvic
- Re: more info
- From: Wes Newell
- more info
- Prev by Date: Re: Update Re: Is it my TV or their broadcast?
- Next by Date: Re: LG to close PDP plant
- Previous by thread: Re: more info
- Next by thread: Re: more info
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading