Got my 42" Plasma at Wal Mart

[RossMAN]

- Wow, price sure dropped on that. The one you couldn't stop talking about I think was around $249 or $299 w/ that QAM technology I think.

 

AFAIK that's the only card I suggested to you. I think you may have mentioned a different card though, not sure which card that is. This Fusion has always been $99.

[uscboy]

- Wow, price sure dropped on that. The one you couldn't stop talking about I think was around $249 or $299 w/ that QAM technology I think.

 

 

- And according to the newspaper, it was considered the 2nd best buy item for Black Friday.

 

 

- NONE of the people I talked to, thought it would give a better picture than these $2000+ HDTVs. Most of the people who got in on the EDTV deal at WalMart, plan to use it for minor HD viewing, but mainly for DVDs and standard TV (Note, these opinions are based off of what I saw, and people who I have talked to at other Walmarts). Those who watch HD a lot, mentioned they already have an HDTV, and this is going to be used in one of their bedrooms or spare rooms.

 

You are fighting a losing battle. There are too many people out there that know quite a bit about HDTVs and EDTVs. After about 10 minutes of reading it seems like I can make a pretty good argument about EDTVs.

I'm not fighting any battles, I'm just saying why I think it's wrong. EDTV

does not do HD. You don't have to spend $2000+ to get a good set that

does... unless it's plasma, which frankly is a waste of money unless you HAVE

to hang your TV on the wall... which if that's important to you or you have

no other choice, fine... I know that TVs of any decent size are plasma if

they're flat.

 

But assuming that you don't HAVE to hang it on the wall, you could try all

you want and not come up with a viable reason IMO why someone shouldn't

spend $400 more and get a decent HD set that's 13"-15" deep and sits on a

stand instead. If you showed someone HD content on one of those sets and

then showed them it at 480p, $400 more wouldn't seem all that bad.

 

plan to use it for minor HD viewing

 

Btw, they may plan on using it for minor HD viewing, but I'm fairly confident

they'll use it for zero HD viewing since it can't do HD.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter... if even one person reads this who doesn't

understand the difference between EDTV and HDTV and does now, that's

great... that was the point all along. The people who already know and buy

one anyway (because they have an HD set or don't care) were never my

concern... it's their money they're spending after all. :)

[BobbyDouglas]

I'm not fighting any battles

- I was referring to you trying to prove EDTVs are dishonest as a "battle".

 

You don't have to spend $2000+ to get a good set that

does... unless it's plasma, which frankly is a waste of money unless you HAVE

to hang your TV on the wall

- This entire thread is about a PLASMA. I haven't researched other types of TVs, so I couldn't comment on something that doesn't relate to this particulr topic.

 

If you showed someone HD content on one of those sets and

then showed them it at 480p, $400 more wouldn't seem all that bad.

- People who bought this don't plan to spend their time watching the very few HD channels available. Nobody I talked to is expecting to get HDTV quality out of the EDTV for HD channels.

 

Btw, they may plan on using it for minor HD viewing, but I'm fairly confident

they'll use it for zero HD viewing since it can't do HD.

- What's the point of having a built-in HD tuner if it doesn't do HD? Also, where did you read this tv can't do HD? The manual, box, product specs, and just about everyone that knows anything about the TV, claims it will do HD. But who knows, it sounds like you know more than everyone else.

 

if even one person reads this who doesn't

understand the difference between EDTV and HDTV and does now, that's

great... that was the point all along

- The only thing that didn't sound biased was TvBob's information. He didn't use words like dishonest, and stuck mearly to facts and not unprovable opinions.

 

It really sounds like you didn't read that thread I linked to earlier regarding HD/EDTVs and their myths.

 

Btw, what's your AVS forum username?

[Bestbuy7]

anyone else get this tv?

I was but after reading the reviews i chose not to. On a site two people said after 3 months it burned out. They tried to contact the company but the company didnt do a thing.

People were telling me the all channels by end of next year were changing to HD , so i ending up getting the Magnavox 42" plasma HDTV at bestbuy:yelclap:

[BobbyDouglas]

I was but after reading the reviews i chose not to

- Any reference links to go read?

 

People were telling me the all channels by end of next year were changing to HD , so i ending up getting the Magnavox 42" plasma HDTV at bestbuy

- Who was saying this?

[uscboy]

I was but after reading the reviews i chose not to. On a site two people said after 3 months it burned out. They tried to contact the company but the company didnt do a thing.

People were telling me the all channels by end of next year were changing to HD , so i ending up getting the Magnavox 42" plasma HDTV at bestbuy:yelclap:

All of the channels are not going to be HD by the end of next year, not by a

LONG shot.

 

Also:

 

Also, where did you read this tv can't do HD? The manual, box, product specs, and just about everyone that knows anything about the TV, claims it will do HD

 

Unless you typed that in error, Bobby, you might want to stay out of AV

technology discussions. EDTV means 480p max... that's NOT HD. 1+1=2.

This TV cannot do HD. I'm not making this up.

[Bestbuy7]

All of the channels are not going to be HD by the end of next year, not by a

LONG shot.

 

Also:

QUOTE]

 

 

Here's a article from a newstation

HDTV FAQ

(Frequently Asked Questions)

Last update: March 2004

 

What is High Definition television?

 

High Definition Television (HDTV) is a new way to watch television. HDTV displays a picture with 5 times the clarity of traditional TV along with Dolby digital sound. The pictures are sharper, wider, and free of interference. An HDTV picture closely resembles what you see in movie theaters. The sound is CD quality and can be up to 5.1 channels of surround sound for a real home theater experience. HDTV is the best possible form of digital television. HDTV can deliver sharper pictures than you can get from a DVD.

 

What is the difference between analog and Digital Television?

Digital TV (DTV) is the new method of sending pictures to your home. Analog is the old method used to bring you channels 4, 6, and 12. The most noticeable difference between Analog TV and DTV is the clear picture and the CD quality sound you get with DTV. Because it's digital, there is no picture degradation. There is no snow, interference, or noise in a DTV picture. The best possible picture and sound are delivered to your home.

 

What is the difference between Digital TV and HDTV?

 

Digital TV (DTV) describes the method television stations use to transmit (send) pictures to your home.

 

HDTV describes a picture as being in High Definition (a very pretty picture).

 

Just because someone is transmitting a digital signal does not mean that the picture you see is High Definition TV. It can be an SDTV (Standard Definition TV) picture. This holds true for "digital cable" and "digital satellite". " Digital " is the method used to get the picture to your set. " HDTV " is one of several types of pictures that can be transmitted (sent) to you.

 

What is the difference between High Definition and Standard Definition?

Standard Definition TV (SDTV) is a "catch phrase" that defines any picture that is not true High Definition TV. SDTV could be an analog picture converted to digital, or it could be a "low resolution" digital picture. The picture from a DVD is actually SDTV; it isn't even close to true HDTV. The traditional "analog" picture is made up of 480 active picture lines. High definition TV scans more than twice as many lines, delivering a vivid display with incredible detail.

 

Will my current television receive an HDTV signal?

No. You can not receive HDTV (high definition television) on your current analog TV set. The tuner in an analog set will not even notice that the digital signal is there.

 

Does that mean I have to buy a new TV to watch my shows?

No. You can purchase a "digital tuner" that will change our digital signal into a picture that your analog set can display. You'll be able to watch your favorite shows on your current TV, but since the TV set is analog, the picture you see will not be in High Definition.

 

How much does an HDTV set cost?

Like any new innovation, HDTV sets were introduced into the market at a relatively high cost. The price has been falling ever since. The cost of an HDTV set is close to what a large screen analog projection TV set cost. As I write this, (March 2004), a good 40-inch "HDTV Ready" set can be purchased for less than $1,400.

 

What equipment do I need to receive KFDM in HDTV?

An antenna and an HDTV set with a built in digital tuner (or an HDTV monitor with an external digital tuner and an antenna) is all you need.

 

Do I need a satellite dish?

No. Our HDTV signal is not available on satellite. All you need to receive Channel 6 HDTV is an antenna, an HDTV set, with a digital tuner either built into the set, or an external tuner.

 

Can I get HDTV from cable or satellite?

Yes. But you must subscribe to their HDTV service and obtain their "HDTV converter box". You will still not be able to watch our HDTV signal, as our signal is not currently available on cable or satellite.

 

I have digital cable (or digital satellite). Does that mean I have HDTV?

No. Digital cable or digital satellite is not the same thing as HDTV. Most "digital" channels on cable and satellite are analog pictures converted to digital, which means that they are actually SDTV pictures. As in broadcast television, "digital" is the method used to get the picture to your TV set, it does not mean that every channel is HDTV.

 

My set recognizes the HD signals on cable and they look great, but when I tune to channel 6 it's obviously an analog signal.

Our HDTV signal is not yet available on cable. You are watching our analog (channel 6) station.

 

When will KFDM-DT be available on Time Warner Cable?

KFDM-DT and Time Warner cable must reach a contractual agreement for "carriage" of the KFDM-DT digital signal. While there have been a couple of meetings between KFDM-DT and Time Warner, agreement has not been reached at this time.

 

Does KFDM offer any high definition programming?

KFDM-DT is the only local digital station capable of broadcasting HDTV. Currently, our only source of High Definition programming is the CBS television network. When we are not broadcasting true HDTV, we convert our analog (channel 6) pictures to digital, and put them on our digital channel. This means that all our local programs, including our newscasts, are in SDTV.

 

What kind of shows will I see in HDTV on KFDM?

All CBS "scripted" shows, such as comedy and drama programs are produced in HD. Some sports such as the NFL and NCAA are broadcast in HD, as well. To see the CBS prime time program schedule with the HDTV programs highlighted, go to CBS - HDTV. Another program listing service is available at Titan - TV. Click on the "Check Programming" button near the top-center of the page. Just enter your zip code where they ask for your address. You can leave the other fields blank.

 

I was watching your HDTV station last night, but this morning I can't pick it up. What's wrong?

We turn our digital transmitter on at 5:30 AM and turn it off around 12:35 PM on weekdays. On Saturday and Sunday we turn our digital transmitter on at 10 AM and turn it off around 11:35 PM. Our digital transmitter will have the same operating hours as our analog transmitter in the near future.

 

Why are we changing to HDTV now?

Congress passed a law mandating that all television stations broadcast a digital signal by the year 2002. KFDM, and all other TV stations, are required to broadcast both a digital and an analog signal until 2006. Then our analog signal is supposed to be turned off, and our broadcast frequencies will be turned over to the government. Once the digital conversion has been completed, Congress will use the old broadcast channels to expand usage of cellular phones, data transmission and other wireless electronics applications.

 

Will my analog TV set become obsolete in 2006?

 

No, not really. Congress and the FCC at first set 2006 as the year that all analog transmitters were to be turned off, leaving digital television (DTV) as the national broadcast television standard.

 

However, Congress later added the requirement that 85% of our viewers must have access to our digital signal (own a digital set or a digital tuner) before we are to turn off our analog transmitters. My current "best guess" is for this to happen no earlier than 2010. But we are talking about Congress, and they could change their mind at any time.

 

When all analog television transmitters are turned off, you will need to have a digital TV set or a digital tuner connected to your analog set in order to watch broadcast Television.

 

These digital television rules do not apply to cable or satellite, which will probably remain analog for some time to come.

[uscboy]

Why are we changing to HDTV now?

Congress passed a law mandating that all television stations broadcast a digital signal by the year 2002. KFDM, and all other TV stations, are required to broadcast both a digital and an analog signal until 2006. Then our analog signal is supposed to be turned off, and our broadcast frequencies will be turned over to the government. Once the digital conversion has been completed, Congress will use the old broadcast channels to expand usage of cellular phones, data transmission and other wireless electronics applications.

 

Digital.... not HD. Again, another example of the general public not

understanding the technologies. Digital broadcasts CAN have HD sent over

them, but don't have to be. In fact, most digital NBC, ABC, etc feeds are

still 480i... standard TV signal, except the new transmitters broadcast digital

information instead of analog (which takes up more frequency airspace).

 

Don't think for a minute that every channel out there... FoodTV, CSPAN, TLC,

History Channel, or even your local news on NBC, ABC, etc will be in HD by

the end of next year.

[BobbyDouglas]

These digital television rules do not apply to cable or satellite, which will probably remain analog for some time to come.

- Which is about 90% of the entire population.

 

uscboy, don't have anything to respond with about what I said earlier?

[uscboy]

- Which is about 90% of the entire population.

 

uscboy, don't have anything to respond with about what I said earlier?

Already responded to you. You said that the 42" EDTV from Walmart could

do HD. Wow. I think we're done. Buy your EDTVs... look me up in a

couple years.

[BobbyDouglas]

It will accept all HD signals. I figured you would be able to respond, but doesn't appear so. Oh well. If you really want to try and prove your original premise, you might want to take some more time to reply.

[uscboy]

It will accept all HD signals. I figured you would be able to respond, but doesn't appear so. Oh well. If you really want to try and prove your original premise, you might want to take some more time to reply.

Receiving HD signals and 'doing' HD as we both said earlier are two totally

different things. This set cannot display high definition content. It will

downconvert it to 480p, which is not HD. Better?

 

Tell you what, you buy the EDTVs and I'll buy HDTVs. That's fine.. you save

a little bit of money. As more and more HD content is available the savings

won't look nearly as good to you. And that's exactly what a price point is...

offering a lesser product at a lower price. Like the Celeron compared to the

Pentium. Except at least the Celeron can do pretty much everything the

Pentium can do only slower... EDTVs are worse since they have something

they cannot do.

 

Case in point, I'm sitting here watching the Giants and Seahawks in HD. I've

seen Fox broadcast in 480p widescreen (EDTV) before my local station

upgraded their equipment to HD stuff... no comparison.

 

Let me put it this way... I'm not talking about people who also have an HD

set either... someone buys an EDTV now... they're either going to have to

upgrade to view HD quality content or they're going to mistakenly think they

have HD television, right? That point can't be argued, those are facts.

 

So, at the point they realize they do not have HDTV, their only option is to

purchase an HD set.

 

There aren't many cases where an EDTV makes sense for someone IMO... the

only two I can think of are the original poster's situation where someone has

an HD set also, and someone who doesn't care about having HD television for

XX number of years where XX = the number of years before they'll upgrade.

 

Honestly, no one can say how much HD content there will be 2, 3, 4+ years

from now... there's a fair amount now... I watch a lot of HD content, albeit I

watch a lot of sports which might not be everyone's thing...

 

But one thing that is certain is that 2, 3, 4+ years from now the amount of

HD content will be greater than it is right now. Movies will start coming out

on HD DVD and/or BluRay, more cable/sat channels will be available, etc...

and the bottom line of this entire point I'm making is that anyone purchasing

an EDTV will HAVE to upgrade their television and/or buy a second set that is

HD compatible if they care to have HD television.

 

I'm trying to tell people that it's worth $400 more (or $800 more if you really

want to make "plasma" the point of emphasis - not necessary for most

everyone) to upgrade and get an HDTV instead of an EDTV.

[BobbyDouglas]

uscboy, you are preaching to the wrong client base. People who bought those $997 EDTVs wouldn't spend $1800 on an HD version.

 

It has to downconvert the signal, but it WILL ACCEPT IT PERFECTLY FINE. It should be pretty common knowledge that the 480p signal won't display the quality 1080i has at all- nobody is trying to argue that.

 

You talk about Blu Ray, yet... most TVs that do that are WAY out of a normal person's price range, and use 1080p. On top of that, you need a $3,000 DVD player, and on top of that, the DVD itself- which will be very expensive. So to make the argument "prepare for the future, now" doesn't sound too convincing when you look at the $8,000+ cost.

 

I noticed you still haven't even answered my above questions, but continued to go back to your original post and basically repeat it.

 

If you don't want to try to convince people that EDTVs are dishonest, just don't reply. If you do, you should do it in a way people will listen.

 

If you break down your entire last reply, it boils down to "spend $800 more so in a few years (when HD really hits the market) you will be up to par"

 

and the bottom line of this entire point I'm making is that anyone purchasing

an EDTV will HAVE to upgrade their television and/or buy a second set that is

HD compatible if they care to have HD television

- Then you just wasted your entire time here, because everyone who has purchased that TV (that I talked to) doesn't think it is going to display 1080i nor 720p. It even says right on the box it is 480p.

[uscboy]

uscboy, you are preaching to the wrong client base. People who bought those $997 EDTVs wouldn't spend $1800 on an HD version.

 

It has to downconvert the signal, but it WILL ACCEPT IT PERFECTLY FINE. It should be pretty common knowledge that the 480p signal won't display the quality 1080i has at all- nobody is trying to argue that.

 

You talk about Blu Ray, yet... most TVs that do that are WAY out of a normal person's price range, and use 1080p. On top of that, you need a $3,000 DVD player, and on top of that, the DVD itself- which will be very expensive. So to make the argument "prepare for the future, now" doesn't sound too convincing when you look at the $8,000+ cost.

 

I noticed you still haven't even answered my above questions, but continued to go back to your original post and basically repeat it.

 

If you don't want to try to convince people that EDTVs are dishonest, just don't reply. If you do, you should do it in a way people will listen.

 

If you break down your entire last reply, it boils down to "spend $800 more so in a few years (when HD really hits the market) you will be up to par"

 

 

- Then you just wasted your entire time here, because everyone who has purchased that TV (that I talked to) doesn't think it is going to display 1080i nor 720p. It even says right on the box it is 480p.

Okay, forget about the 'dishonest' comment then if it bothers you that

much. I've seen industry insiders shows where they bash manufacturers for

making EDTVs, so I'm not alone in thinking that... but I don't care if anyone

agrees with me there.

 

Here are the key points:

 

HD is already here - not a few years from now. And it's only going to get

bigger. There is a good amount of HD programming each and every week.

 

Plasma is a waste of money for most people. What I'm saying is that unless

you have to hang your TV on the wall, you don't need to spend the extra for

a plasma TV. Spend $400 more (not $800) and get a DLP or LCD set instead.

 

So, that's $400 extra. Not $8000 total. I never said you'd HAVE to buy a

BluRay player RIGHT NOW. In fact, I don't even think you can. And when

you go to buy one, I can promise you they won't be $3,000. You sound

ridiculous when you say that and put words in my mouth saying that I'm

telling people that's part of the cost. HD DVD and BluRay players will be the

same cost as mainstream players in a couple years.

 

If people don't have the foresight to spend $400 more now so that they don't

feel like they have to upgrade their televisions again very soon, then so be

it. And even if you have to have plasma, $800 more when you're already

spending a grand is still a good idea.

 

And I don't know about you, but your point about 'a couple years' might

seem like a good one to you if you're really pinching pennies to buy this TV,

but personally I don't like to replace $1,000 items every couple years - and

that's ignoring the fact that there's a lot of HD out there already!

 

But by all means, save that $400 and get a 42" set instead of a 46-51" set

so you can say you have plasma! Then when your friends have HD sets and

watch the big games in HD and you have 480p, don't say I didn't try to help.

 

You must work for a manufacturer... I'll bet they absolutely love selling tons

of EDTV plasmas knowing most people don't need a plasma TV and that

they'll turn right around and sell them an HD set once they realize what

they're missing.

[TvBob]

" As more and more HD content is available the savings

won't look nearly as good to you."

 

Where is your evidence that is will not look "nearly" as good? HD will look better than on most edtv sets, but the difference is not nearly as great as you seem to think. Edtvs do a fine job with the higher resolution signals, to the point where many do not notice the difference between hd on a low end hdtv and hd on a higher end edtv. It is definitely worth it to upgrade to hdtv even with an edtv. I just don't see people regretting having only an edtv when viewing hd content because it does look a lot better than standard tv and not much worse than true hdtv sets. They certainly aren't going to buy a new tv just for a modest improvement in hdtv.

 

The choice comes down to this. Somewhat superior hd viewing at the higher resolutions with true hdtv plasmas, or somewhat superior standard tv viewing (which is what we still watch for the most part) and in some cases dvds on edtv plasmas. The degree of these respective differences are very similiar. Both choices offer their own advantages. Current 480 DVDs and standard tv is not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

I did a comparison using an xbox 360 with a game using 1080 resolution, and with an edtv and hdtv plasma this weekend. Honestly, you had to be within 5 feet of the screen to notice much of a difference. There is nothing regrettable about how the game looked on the edtv, it looked noticeably better than most 480 resolution sources regardless of what resolutions edtvs support.

[uscboy]

" As more and more HD content is available the savings

won't look nearly as good to you."

 

Where is your evidence that is will not look "nearly" as good? HD will look better than on most edtv sets, but the difference is not nearly as great as you seem to think. Edtvs do a fine job with the higher resolution signals, to the point where many do not notice the difference between hd on a low end hdtv and hd on a higher end edtv. It is definitely worth it to upgrade to hdtv even with an edtv. I just don't see people regretting having only an edtv when viewing hd content because it does look a lot better than standard tv and not much worse than true hdtv sets. They certainly aren't going to buy a new tv just for a modest improvement in hdtv.

 

The choice comes down to this. Somewhat superior hd viewing at the higher resolutions with true hdtv plasmas, or somewhat superior standard tv viewing (which is what we still watch for the most part) and in some cases dvds on edtv plasmas. The degree of these respective differences are very similiar. Both choices offer their own advantages. Current 480 DVDs and standard tv is not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

I did a comparison using an xbox 360 with a game using 1080 resolution, and with an edtv and hdtv plasma this weekend. Honestly, you had to be within 5 feet of the screen to notice much of a difference. There is nothing regrettable about how the game looked on the edtv, it looked noticeably better than most 480 resolution sources regardless of what resolutions edtvs support.

That's a video game, man. Big difference.

 

And if you don't see a big difference between 480p and 720p/1080i, then

you're in the minority. To each their own I suppose. Not saying this set

won't look good...

 

And I'd say the difference between DVDs on an EDTV versus an HDTV

(assuming an EDTV is better even) is much smaller than the difference

between HD content on an HDTV versus an EDTV... you're going to notice

one difference much more than the other because HD sets do a great job

with DVDs also.

 

The best arguments for EDTV are 'I can't afford anything more' and 'I don't

care about HD'. Not the greatest arguments in the world. I'd bank the

$1,000 and save for another month or so to get the rest. And not caring

about HD is fine, I just can't personally understand it having watched a lot of

HD over the last two years. Still has the wow factor when family and friends

come over.

 

Btw, on a side note, how much better are the graphics on the 360 than

the old Xbox games? They have to look pretty stunning even at 480p widescreen.

[daveyd]

uscboy, you are preaching to the wrong client base. People who bought those $997 EDTVs wouldn't spend $1800 on an HD version.

 

 

 

Well, I bought my $997 EDTV Plasma and am going to buy a 56" HD DLP:yup:

 

EDTV will be used in living room by girlfriend and I to watch DVDs and standard def broadcasts on Direct TV

 

HD DLP will be used in home theater in basement to watch HD DVDs (upconverted) HD broadcasts and standard def broadcasts. Personally, I dont feel like spending $800 for 2 Direct TV high def receivers

[BobbyDouglas]

Okay, forget about the 'dishonest' comment then if it bothers you that

much. I've seen industry insiders shows where they bash manufacturers for

making EDTVs, so I'm not alone in thinking that... but I don't care if anyone

agrees with me there.

- Uhhh, I thought that was your entire point, and now you decide it isn't? Whoa, you are making one great argument!

 

HD is already here - not a few years from now. And it's only going to get

bigger. There is a good amount of HD programming each and every week.

- Of course it will, but how long has there only been 5 channels of HD, or the other 11 channels? Over a single year, with very few upgrades.

 

The best arguments for EDTV are 'I can't afford anything more' and 'I don't

care about HD'. Not the greatest arguments in the world.

- Sorry I have to ask this, but how old are you? "I can't afford it, and I don't care about HD. Hmm, maybe I should spend extra money on something I can't afford" - That makes sense to you?

 

Not $8000 total. I never said you'd HAVE to buy a

BluRay player RIGHT NOW. In fact, I don't even think you can. And when

you go to buy one, I can promise you they won't be $3,000. You sound

ridiculous when you say that and put words in my mouth saying that I'm

telling people that's part of the cost. HD DVD and BluRay players will be the

same cost as mainstream players in a couple years.

- I was just saying that because you tried to use Blue Ray as part of your argument, which you see now doesn't really work

[TvBob]

"And if you don't see a big difference between 480p and 720p/1080i, then

you're in the minority. To each their own I suppose. Not saying this set

won't look good..."

 

I see a difference between the resolutions, but I don't see a huge difference between the higher resolutions on an edtv compared to an hdtv, it's there but not huge.

 

"And I'd say the difference between DVDs on an EDTV versus an HDTV

(assuming an EDTV is better even) is much smaller than the difference

between HD content on an HDTV versus an EDTV... you're going to notice

one difference much more than the other because HD sets do a great job

with DVDs also."

 

I would say the way standard tv looks on an edtv compared to an hdtv is a bigger factor than dvds, but the slight improvement on edtvs for dvds just adds to the advantages. I definitely would say edtvs do as good a job with standard tv compared to hdtv as hdtv do in displaying the higher resolutions compared to edtvs, dvds aside.

 

"The best arguments for EDTV are 'I can't afford anything more' and 'I don't

care about HD'. Not the greatest arguments in the world. I'd bank the

$1,000 and save for another month or so to get the rest. And not caring

about HD is fine, I just can't personally understand it having watched a lot of

HD over the last two years. Still has the wow factor when family and friends

come over."

 

Yes, I guess the fact that people would rather have a better viewing experience with at least 80 percent of what they watch and the majority of what they will watch in many cases for the next few years at least is not a good argument. Believe me, your opinion is not in the majority.

 

Xbox 360 games produce the best display I have ever seen at 1080, and fully support this resolution, I don't see why it isn't a good method for comparison. On both an edtv and hdtv 360 games look significantly better than older xbox games at 480.

[uscboy]

Xbox 360 games produce the best display I have ever seen at 1080, and fully support this resolution, I don't see why it isn't a good method for comparison. On both an edtv and hdtv 360 games look significantly better than older xbox games at 480.

Because of detail. There's far more fine detail in real life than in even the

best of video games.

[TvBob]

Perhaps, but there are aspects of a tv's display that video games tend to bring out that tv programs do not. And many people will be buying a plasma for the xbox 360.

 

In any case, I saw several games that had real life video footage recorded for intro movies or in combination with onscreen rendered action, as you would see on a tv broadcast, so I think I got a pretty good idea about the differences between 1080 on an edtv and plasma. The right video game can be a more comprehensive test than a tv program or dvd alone because it can combine many types of video.

[blackdaniel]

Wow you guys really get going about this ed/hd debate. I guess I'm just new to the forum world though!

 

I think that uscboy has made a good point a few times that has been completely overlooked. For most applications the only reason you would want to buy a plasma is if you want the "cool" or "wow" factor of having one, or if you absolutely have to hang it on your wall. Most people would be perfectly happy with a dlp or lcd projection set. With all the 1080p dlp and lcd sets coming out now you can get a pretty good deal on a dlp or lcd in the fifty inch range. A friend of mine bought is 56" samsung for little more than 1500$.

[mderedita]

I wanted one so bad I went to every wal-mart in a 50 mile radius but they were all sold out so I went to Circuit City and bought the Panasonic 42" EDTV for $1925 tax included and I absolutly love it.I did a consumer report on it and it's pretty much the best EDTV plasma you can buy as of right now. I highly reccomend spending the extra money there is a huge quality difference and the contrast ratio on it is 4000:1 which is excellent.Just thought I'd share it with you guys.

The Panasonic model is really nice. I'm shopping around for it right now. I've compared the Panasonic EDTV to lesser model and equal model EDTVs and there is no comparison. IMHO, the Panasonic EDTV has a much better picture than even some of the bottom of the line plasma model HDTVs. In terms of EDTVs, the Panasonic is the best I've seen. Now the problem is, how do I coax myself into spending the $2000 on it?

 

As for which is better, well some people want a 42" flat panel with a good picture for a cheap price. Obviously something has to give, and it's most likely that it won't be a HDTV model. HDTV in most cases is superior in picture quality, but is very expensive and still out of the reach for many of us. The EDTV is some cases (like the Panasonic), offers us who don't have $2500+ to spend an excellent picture without the expense and thrills of HDTV.

[uscboy]

Wow you guys really get going about this ed/hd debate. I guess I'm just new to the forum world though!

 

I think that uscboy has made a good point a few times that has been completely overlooked. For most applications the only reason you would want to buy a plasma is if you want the "cool" or "wow" factor of having one, or if you absolutely have to hang it on your wall. Most people would be perfectly happy with a dlp or lcd projection set. With all the 1080p dlp and lcd sets coming out now you can get a pretty good deal on a dlp or lcd in the fifty inch range. A friend of mine bought is 56" samsung for little more than 1500$.

Exactly. And honestly, other than needing it to hang on the wall or flat out

refusing to spend the extra $400-$500, there really is not a reason to buy an

EDTV versus an HDTV.

 

$400-$500 more now... or a whole new set a year or two from now... or

worse yet, once you realize you don't have HD and want it, since I think

there's plenty of HD content currently to warrant wanting an HD set already.

And that's before movies start coming out on HD DVD or BluRay when it's out

and affordable (which will be within the next year or two).

 

But anyway, I think we've all explained the technologies well enough for

people reading this to have a better understanding of what's going on. If

you just want an extra set and already have an HD set and you want a slick

looking plasma for a gameroom or something, then this is a good deal.

Otherwise, my advice is to spend a little bit more and get an HD set, DLP or

LCD projection instead of buying a plasma set... especially if you're going

to just put it on a stand anyway. :)

[daveyd]

Plasmas do have a better viewing angle than DLPs and LCDs

[daveyd]

Exactly. And honestly, other than needing it to hang on the wall or flat out

refusing to spend the extra $400-$500, there really is not a reason to buy an

EDTV versus an HDTV.

 

$400-$500 more now... or a whole new set a year or two from now... or

worse yet, once you realize you don't have HD and want it, since I think

there's plenty of HD content currently to warrant wanting an HD set already.

And that's before movies start coming out on HD DVD or BluRay when it's out

and affordable (which will be within the next year or two).

 

But anyway, I think we've all explained the technologies well enough for

people reading this to have a better understanding of what's going on. If

you just want an extra set and already have an HD set and you want a slick

looking plasma for a gameroom or something, then this is a good deal.

Otherwise, my advice is to spend a little bit more and get an HD set, DLP or

LCD projection instead of buying a plasma set... especially if you're going

to just put it on a stand anyway. :)

 

Some people dont consider $500+ a little more.

 

It's not like you'll have to throw away your EDTV Plasma in the next year or 2. For one, there is no whay all broadcasting in the next 1-2 years will be 100% HD....and 2....EDTVs can accept HD signals, albeit they will reduce them to 480p. So an EDTV still has an acceptable shelf life

[labgeek]

Not only that it's "a little more" now, but in a couple years when it's time to "replace" the EDTV set, think about what will be available and at what price. Think about what a 42" HDTV set cost 2 or 3 years ago and which features they lacked that are now pretty much standard.

 

It comes down to your mindset. If you're one who has to have the latest and greatest processor, or do you buy what you need now and avoid that extra surcharge just because it's the fastest chip TODAY? Then in a couple years when your needs increase you buy an even faster chip for 1/2, 1/3 or maybe 1/4 the cost? Tech prices are dropping all the time.

 

It's not like that tv won't be usable until the day it dies.

 

Edit - this is a site about deals/bargains. The best bargains/deals are not usually on the newest/latest/greatest/best.

[BobbyDouglas]

uscboy,

 

People who purchased the $1,000 tv wouldn't have spent another $800 to get something better.

 

At first you were trying to prove EDTVs are dishonest. Then you tried to prove that it isn't really that great quality. Then you tried to prove that you should get an HD set to prepare for the future. NONE of these have made any sense at all. All of which you could't reply to what I responded with after you tried to make your point.

 

And now you are trying to argue against plasmas altogether. You should really stick with one point, try to prove that, then move on.

[uscboy]

Not only that it's "a little more" now, but in a couple years when it's time to "replace" the EDTV set, think about what will be available and at what price. Think about what a 42" HDTV set cost 2 or 3 years ago and which features they lacked that are now pretty much standard.

 

It comes down to your mindset. If you're one who has to have the latest and greatest processor, or do you buy what you need now and avoid that extra surcharge just because it's the fastest chip TODAY? Then in a couple years when your needs increase you buy an even faster chip for 1/2, 1/3 or maybe 1/4 the cost? Tech prices are dropping all the time.

 

It's not like that tv won't be usable until the day it dies.

 

Edit - this is a site about deals/bargains. The best bargains/deals are not usually on the newest/latest/greatest/best.

At least you're making a decent point instead of arguing semantics over

who's trying to prove what. I'm not here trying to prove anything. I'm

making statements and at least you're addressing them specifically.

 

Being in IT for a living, I understand the concept of what you're talking

about... I don't advise anyone to get the latest and greatest in computer

technology unless it's absolutely necessary.

 

However, I don't see this as one of those situations. HD is already out there

and I know that the big game won't look nearly as good on a 480p

widescreen set as it will in HD... I know that because I've seen both many

times. Doesn't have nearly as much wow factor.

 

But some people seem to be getting caught up in certain words I'm using...

maybe I'm typing too much in replies. But I think that people reading this

can still get the info they need out of it to make a better decision. People

will always pinch pennies... I love deals myself, but in this case unless you

need plasma for one of the various few reasons that make it right for you,

there are a lot better ways to go when purchasing a new television where

you can still find a good deal. And sometimes finding an alternative that

works out better can be a deal in and of itself.

 

Occasionally it makes sense to spend a little more than the least you can get

away with... this is one of those situations. And I believe that people with

either agree with that when they have all of the information or they'll wish

they had a couple years from now. Because when the prices on HD sets

come down a couple years from now, you'll still end up spending more on an

entire new set than you would have today on a better set.

 

Most people who have seen the difference and actually have an HD set and

know that there's a fair bit of programming out there already would tell you

the same thing. Add to that the fact that it's the future and that TVs

shouldn't be something you buy every other year, and I couldn't possibly

advise someone to buy EDTV unless they absolutely had to have a plasma

set and absolutely couldn't afford $400-$500 more.

 

But there is a sizable market for them, it is a price point item. I'm just trying

to save some people out there the problem of regretting their purchase when

they realize how great HD is and that they don't have it.... it's not really that

much more considering what they're already spending. Might as well do it right.

 

Anyway, hope I helped some people. If you still think EDTV at this price or

higher is a good deal, then for you it probably is a good deal... it's probably

all you need, I'm just glad I'm not in your boat. And if you don't want to take

my word for it, and you shouldn't take any one person's word for it with

something this expensive, then just visit some A/V message boards like

AVSForum and read and learn. The minority of people there will recommend

EDTV versus HDTV and most of them do so while defending their own

purchase of an EDTV.

[RossMAN]

All this TV talk makes me wanna go home and hookup my new Westinghouse 32" LCD HDTV (not poor man's EDTV)