Help playing devils advocate: reasons for getting an analog tv (1 Viewer)

[frank-m]

with limited funds,tv watching is not my highest priority,and being a low brow / i enjoy my cable analog picture, i have near decided to buy a rptv analog
(if my reasononing is correct & correct me if im wrong)!
1. i will never watch enough (if any) dvd.
satisfied with vcr& never buy dvd movies to watch over& over
2. i'm satisfied with cable picture & wife hates the bars/widescreen/squeeze/possible burnout scenarios
a. like the box shape/4:3instead of rectangle shape pic.
3.a good rptv analog is cheaper than any hdtv recommended and probably cheaper than any junkie hdtvs we may afford!
a.(if i spend a grand now,im out nothing as long as i get my same picture and tv holds out(my philco rptv lasted until this month since around 1986 & still had a good picture until power supply board went out(i need one)
b.save 1500.00 to invest that woulve went toward an hdtv.
c.analog technology is proven/my tv lasted long enough!
d.hdtv is new &possibly still improving(how long will they last?...will technology further improve?
e.repairs will be higher for hdtv(all my local repairmen have no clue what is inside them/ how much it may cost etc..
f.hdtv programs are few and cable on a analog looks good versus hdtv doubling every little line crawlys/noise
g.improved hdtv will be much cheaper in 2006 (much less than an rptv analog now),because the next best technology will be pushing it out...lol...via direct holographic imaging onto your coffee table,direct to mind tv imput,or whatever!(just like the cpu industry ,always improving (monthly noless)making your system cheaper & outdated,
h.if i'm not satisfied in 2006 or later with my picture or tv, i can chuck it at little loss of investment or just buy a box to get hdtv(correct?)signal and still have a picture.
or say my tastes change... wanting that improved hdtv or new mind tv that just hit the market...LOL.... i'll have the latest then until whatever new comes along again
i. my latest model rptv cost averaged a 100 dollars a year according to my rptv price when bought in 80s till it quit)an hdtv is higher avg.yearly cost (if it lasts as long)!
i'm a good fella and hope not to cause a big whoopteedoo here against the (i got the latest thing) people! ,but i add this ,just to give a thought out to/for guys
who...aint paying for a hdtv i dont quite like & my analog is good enough

 

[Rick Radford]

Frank,
>>1. i will never watch enough (if any) dvd.
satisfied with vcr

 

[frank-m]

ok! your the first to heckle(i think you are!...lol)
yes, my wife has a cd player in car ...portable tho...rarely used!listens to radio 95% of time ,
i have an am/fm in my truck tuned to oldies station 99.9% of time,a box full of cassettes never bother to play(i got em when tapes were a big thing {like hdtv is now)!
and i know dvd is same rental price but most have different formats and i want a full screen pic.
if your talking vcr tapes i have never fished one out yet!
[Edited last by frank-m on August 27, 2001 at 12:34 AM]

 

[Mike I]

. i'm satisfied with cable picture & wife hates the bars/widescreen/squeeze/possible burnout scenarios
a. like the box shape/4:3instead of rectangle shape pic

She better get use to those black bars than because the majority of shows will be all widescreen in a few years..4 of NBC's dramas this season will be widecsreen even though NBC is not foward thinking enough like CBS to have them in HD..
------------------

 

[John-D]

Well frank, how limited ARE those funds anyway?
I'm sure you won't run out of programming to watch overnight, and who knows what 2006 has in store for us, But if you're buying with the intent to keep your TV till 2006, AND you and your wife hate those bars and squeeze tricks, you better invest in a widescreen TV today. Altrenately get a 4:3 digital set which is cheaper and use mattes.
Good Luck and sorry i couldn't play Devil's Advocate that well on this one

------------------
The things we own end up owning us

 

[frank-m]

ok fellas,please tell me if i'm thinkin more rightly or CORRECT me where i'm wrong. i read alot here & forgot half & understood a 1/3 of the rest but will reread it all again.
1.A.so your saying that a 4:3 screen now will have bars during what will be a standarized 16:9 signal ?
B.i thought i read here that with a ADD-ON box you can still get a hdtv signal that will look like present pic with no bars.
c.i'm confused again!hdtv is coming in 2006 right? so does that mean the same as everything will also be in 16:9 format?
(hmmmm... so my options are:
1.i either get 16:9 now and live with the bars &the rectangle shape pic and chance burn in since 99% is cable viewing with tv turned on 8-10 hrs a day.
2. digital tv/4:3 (does this mean hdtv ready?) ((enjoying a full/bigger screen today & wait to switch to a newer 16:9 model later and avoid burn in/ bars/sqeeze till everything comes out in 16:9?
3.what is a good tv that is hdtv ready /16:9 that simulates a full screen picture via cable signal that doesnt look to bad to watch so i can have the good of both worlds and switch formats whenever i want!?
sorry i write in an about way!
thx all, and john ...money isnt the issue/problem.
i want the cheapest way out for a rptv that delivers the best value. personally i won't have a dvd ,lots of viewing of cable/possible satelite in future (present analog picture is good enough ,i will not risk burn in,
will tolerate a possible squeeze type of hdtv pic to avoid burn if it gives a half-way decent picture only if it will last long enough into the "everything is 16:9 era."when it will begin to justify its cost.

 

[John-D]

HDTV in it's full bloom does mean 16:9 aspect ratios used for all programming. However that's mandated by the government for 2006.. who knows how networks approach this deadline. I'm sure that technically they can't wait till a cutoff date and suddenly start producing a different aspect ratios, so they might just start buying 16:9 programming right now and increase as they go along purchasing equipment for their self productions.
It appears you might even be running it with ambient light and for long durations. You should consider staying with Direct Views. It's unfortunate that we don't have many affordable big screen models. For RPTV's Burn in is a risk when driven hard, both with 16:9 and 4:3 sets. Since movies aren't an issue, you will be pretty well set with a 4:3 Digital TV without the anamorphic squeeze. Best bang for your buck. Watch all DSS/cable in it's OAR without stretches etc and squirm in your seat through the limited (for now) 16:9 programming.
Good Luck
------------------
The things we own end up owning us

 

[Mike I]

HDTV which is widescreen is happening now not 2006
CBS..entire prime time line up HD plus specials
ABC..4 dramas this fall plus 4 tp 6 movies per month
NBC..
although not HD for reason I will never understand, 4 of it's prime time drama's in widescreen
Fox..Like NBC no HD but most of it's drama's this fall will be widescreen...
------------------

 

[Richard Burzynski]

frank-m:
Not only do I believe in 4:3 Analog RPTV's, I also encourage purchasing them, if your needs are right. I often feel like a "lone crusader" when this topic comes up on the Forums.
I've posted on this before here at HTF, but the search here seems to be constantly down. Here are a few links, scroll thru and look for my replies.
http://www.digitaltheater.com/cfb/index.cfm?fuseaction=thread&CFB=1&TID=101880
Rich B.

 

[frank-m]

hey Richard!you know where i'm coming from ! BUT ..which way to go (and when!)! thats the question!
John touched on some good marks for 4:3 hd ready at least for me(thanks John).
heck, its just all according to what/how you watch,what you can live with for now,&when to jump in and go with the flow.
everyone i know that has a rptv or direct view are stickin with 'em till they go bust.so they can maximise value of what they have ,AGONIZing over the hdtv 4:3 or 16:9 later but knowin there getting the latest or a "proven" model tv at cheaper price since they waited.
its a cryin shame mine busted at this point in the game and i must decide now!
OR i could ...chuck my 19" i have now , pick up a book and wait for the dust to settle !AAARRRRGGGHH!
everyone that are interested check richards links ! he has put into words the things i'm tryin to raise here and there are great responses too!
[Edited last by frank-m on August 28, 2001 at 03:36 PM]

 

[Steve Schaffer]

My tv must do double duty as an everyday set for cable and satellite as well as a display for dvd. HDTV is available now in my area only via satellite, and then only a paltry 2 or 3 channels, so it's not an issue. My cable system's picture quality varies from mediocre to almost good, and the satellite picture is good to very good.
I have a high-quality 4/3 analog set, an Hitachi 53SBX59B. It has no line doubler to make hash of less than perfect cable and satellite signals, and from a distance of 13 feet I find the scanlines to be less objectionable than digital aritifacts.
I realize that since my set lacks a squeeze mode for anamorphic dvds, and won't accept a 480p signal from a progressive scan player that it is not as good as a top quality 16:9 hd ready set for watching dvds. That being said, the set does have top quality 6 element lenses and color filters, probably better than those found in many low to midrange HD-ready sets, and my dvd picture is very good indeed.
If I could have a set solely for HT and dvd, a 16:9 hd-ready model would be preferable, of course, and I do lust after an RP91/Hitachi 53SWX10 or Toshiba 57HX81 combination. But I'm not willing to put up with any stretch modes for 4:3, and fear burn in from gray sidebars, not to mention what most line doublers do to mediocre cable and satellite pictures.
In my situation, I feel that the small sacrifice in dvd quality is more than compensated for by the better picture from other sources, and the lower purchase price.
I know that line-doublers will improve, and become a non-issue once digital broadcasting is the norm. I figure this to take another 3 to 5 years in my area, and will no doubt get a 16:9 HD set at that time. In the interim I am convinced that a high-quality (I'm not talking about the cheapies here) analog 4/3 set is a better choice for someone in my particular situation.
------------------
Steve S.
I prefer not to push the subwoofers until they're properly run in.
[Edited last by Steve Schaffer on August 28, 2001 at 08:17 PM]

 

[frank-m]

Steve,that is exactly my situation, except im not into dvd movie watching as of yet and doubt i ever will be.
i looked at some rptvs today and they were using a dvd hdtv simulation disk. no stores around here will show a local signal on there tvs.
circuit city guy even had the nerve to tell me that if i bought the hitachi or sony ,burn in would never" no way",he said would happen on them even with bars on it all the time!
i did however see him switch between aspects and i liked the picture still ,so i'm going ahead with a tv that will do both .
ive seen no comments here on the RP91/Hitachi 53SWX10 or Toshiba 57HX81 combinationas of yet,do they have better features for the money?.
are they both 16:9 wides?and will cable/possible dss look good on them?
i guess i need a hd 4:3 tv to get that gives best stretch /squeeze(?)picture with cable /dss, like steves hitachi or if steve or anyone can suggest a better bang for the buck (a rptv that is newer or better for around 2300.00 or less.... i'm thankful for suggestions!

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Frank,
The RP91 is a panasonic progressive scan dvd player. The 53SWX10 is an Hitachi 16:9 HD ready rptv, and the 57HX81 is a Toshiba 16:9 rptv. I would combine that player with one of those tvs for best dvd performance if I didn't need my set to also serve as a regular tv.
If you have decided on a 4:3 HD-ready set, your best choices would probably be one of the Sony HS30 sets, in a 53 or 61 inch size, or one of the 2002 model Toshibas. I am not sure of Toshiba's model numbers on 4:3 HD ready sets, but be sure you're getting the 02 model as the 01's won't do an anamorphic squeeze for dvd.
Hitachi's 4:3 HD-ready models are the FDX and SDX series, neither of which will do a true anamorphic squeeze. I've seen the SDX models and thought they looked great even though they don't do a true squeeze.
My set is not HD ready, just plain analog.
------------------
Steve S.
I prefer not to push the subwoofers until they're properly run in.

 

[frank-m]

thx Steve, I'M getting on of your mentioned whichever i consider has the best pic. via 16:9 for sufferin thru now or 4:3 to live with later,at this point i still want the bigger 4:3 with less quality pic versus 16:9 in my price range that i consider to small on the height of pic to suit my taste.a toshiba 4:3 sounds right.

 

[Avi]

Your economic logic makes sense - HDTVs will be cheaper over time, and if you don't need the capability now, don't pay for it now.
Personally, I also favor the 4x3 aspect ratio, as we watch a fair amount of cable TV. HDTV isn't an issue yet - we get analog cable (trees block getting a dish), and even if there was more HDTV content I'm not sure we could pick it up over the air.
However, I do suggest you consider a 4x3 ratio HDTV-ready set from Sony (2002 HS series) or Toshiba (2002 H80 series). While they are more expensive than analog sets, they aren't much more expensive. The $1000 RPTV sets I've seen look terrible. The $1700-1800 analog sets are fine, but for $500 more you get:
-no scan lines, which generally creates a noticeably sharper-looking picture on all material
-16x9 squeeze mode for when you watch DVDs
-HDTV capabilities just in case
Good luck! Let us know what you decide.
-avi

 

[Ellen]

Steve,

Hitachi's 4:3 HD-ready models are the FDX and SDX series, neither of which will do a true anamorphic squeeze. I've seen the SDX models and thought they looked great even though they don't do a true squeeze.

Can you elaborate on this? I've not heard of this before. I'm currently researching TVs and had been considering the Hitachi sets. Does the UDX series have the same problem?
Ellen

 

[Richard Burzynski]

Regarding 4:3 HD sets and the built-in line doubler: not ALL material will look good. A mediocre/good cable signal may not. And VHS almost always looks pretty bad. I have some friends that love a line-doubled cable signal ("look, no lines") and others that hate the digital "haze" which results from the processing. It's a matter of taste. I, personally, don't like the haze either. If you sit back far enough, the analog sets give you a very sharp picture and no lines (that you can see) on analog material.
As for doing the anamorphic squeeze, Hitachi sets are not designed NOT to do the squeeze - Hitachi doesn't want to deal with potential "burn" issues. Hitachi HD 4:3 sets will not do squeeze for HD or for DVD. Toshiba HD 4:3 sets (this past year's models anyway) will do squeeze for HD but not for DVD (unless you use a HTPC to do some scaling to the DVD signal). Progressive DVD players output 480P, the Toshiba HD 4:3 set will squeeze the signal for you if it's a higher resolution, like HD, but not 480P, hence the need for a HTPC for DVD viewing on the Toshiba. A few Forum members do this.
Rich B.

 

[MickeS]

quote:
As for doing the anamorphic squeeze, Hitachi sets are not designed NOT to do the squeeze - Hitachi doesn't want to deal with potential "burn" issues.
[/quote]
That's a pretty lame excuse.
Their european models do the squeeze (as does every other manufacturer's european model - go figure), and the burn issue is the same whether you watch an anamorphic picture on a 16:9 Enhanced set or on a non-enhanced set.
As for the reasons to get an analog RPTV, I can't see any reason except that it's cheaper. I'd rather get an analog direct view TV and sit closer than have an analog RPTV. Better picture for less money. Of course, if there will be a lot of people watching TV at the same time, and you sit at least 15 feet away, an analog RPTV would work. But the scan lines on RPTV's really annoy me, even on the more expensive ones.
/Mike
[Edited last by MickeS on August 31, 2001 at 12:56 PM]