Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by Trotsky
Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: October 12, 2005 12:57PM
What sort of off-package a la cartisms will I need in order to get as much college hockey as I can via Direct TV?
Use small words. I can barely spell "TiVo."
Use small words. I can barely spell "TiVo."
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (206.254.3.---)
Date: October 12, 2005 01:20PM
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
What sort of off-package a la cartisms will I need in order to get as much college hockey as I can via Direct TV?
Use small words. I can barely spell "TiVo."[/q]
Sports Pack.
What sort of off-package a la cartisms will I need in order to get as much college hockey as I can via Direct TV?
Use small words. I can barely spell "TiVo."[/q]
Sports Pack.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: Jacob '06 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: October 12, 2005 01:24PM
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
Trotsky Wrote:
What sort of off-package a la cartisms will I need in order to get as much college hockey as I can via Direct TV?
Use small words. I can barely spell "TiVo."[/Q]
Sports Pack.[/q]
Yeah, the sports pack covers all the fox sports regionals, cstv, and espnu which are the only channels I have heard of college hockey on.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: October 12, 2005 01:27PM
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: Hillel Hoffmann (---.usb.temple.edu)
Date: October 12, 2005 01:28PM
[Q]Trotsky Wrote: What sort of off-package a la cartisms will I need in order to get as much college hockey as I can via Direct TV?[/q]
Just buy DirecTV's add-on package called "Sports Pack." That will get you CSTV and ESPNU, as well as many of the regional sports networks, including hockey-friendly RSNs such as NESN, FSN North, FSN Midwest, and the like (unlike sports bars, you will even get our new friends, Altitude TV). CSTV and ESPNU will also land you the occasional broadcast of Cornell lacrosse, wrestling, hoops, and such.
What you WON'T get are some of the college-hockey friendly cable-only and over-the-airwaves channels such as New Hampshire Public Television, WABI-5, CN8 New England, and the various regional versions of Time Warner Sports.
Just buy DirecTV's add-on package called "Sports Pack." That will get you CSTV and ESPNU, as well as many of the regional sports networks, including hockey-friendly RSNs such as NESN, FSN North, FSN Midwest, and the like (unlike sports bars, you will even get our new friends, Altitude TV). CSTV and ESPNU will also land you the occasional broadcast of Cornell lacrosse, wrestling, hoops, and such.
What you WON'T get are some of the college-hockey friendly cable-only and over-the-airwaves channels such as New Hampshire Public Television, WABI-5, CN8 New England, and the various regional versions of Time Warner Sports.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: October 12, 2005 02:19PM
Cool. Thanks.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: Chris '03 (---.public.uconn.edu)
Date: October 12, 2005 02:37PM
[Q]Hillel Hoffmann Wrote:
What you WON'T get are some of the college-hockey friendly cable-only and over-the-airwaves channels such as New Hampshire Public Television, WABI-5, CN8 New England, and the various regional versions of Time Warner Sports.
[/q]
I suppose it's worth mentioning that CN8 at least is available streamed free over the internet. The quality is usually decent.
What you WON'T get are some of the college-hockey friendly cable-only and over-the-airwaves channels such as New Hampshire Public Television, WABI-5, CN8 New England, and the various regional versions of Time Warner Sports.
[/q]
I suppose it's worth mentioning that CN8 at least is available streamed free over the internet. The quality is usually decent.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: October 12, 2005 02:46PM
NHPTV is streamed for UHN games as well (would that make it HNPTV?), or at least used to be. Several UNH games are on NESN, etc as well.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: October 12, 2005 04:47PM
Sports Pack is $12 a month atop your DirecTV bill. That beats going with Total Choice Premier (basically all the channels available except PPV) for $94 a month. If you go that route, you're spending more than $1,000 a year on programming and it begs the question: Are you still watching on a 10-year-old, 19" TV that would today sell for $199, tops?
High definition sports, when you can get them, are awesome. There's a lot of confusion over what's high-definition TV. Digital TV isn't HDTV (but HDTV has to be digital). Also EDTV is simply standard definition TV but with progressive not interlaced scanning.
High definition sports, when you can get them, are awesome. There's a lot of confusion over what's high-definition TV. Digital TV isn't HDTV (but HDTV has to be digital). Also EDTV is simply standard definition TV but with progressive not interlaced scanning.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: October 12, 2005 04:59PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
High definition sports, when you can get them, are awesome. There's a lot of confusion over what's high-definition TV. Digital TV isn't HDTV (but HDTV has to be digital). Also EDTV is simply standard definition TV but with progressive not interlaced scanning. [/q]
May be, but I don't plan on touching HDTV for a long while. You have to pay a lot more for the tv, just to pay more for the cable/satellite box, just to pay more for the programming. When my normal, standard packages come with a significant portion of HD programming by default, the tv prices are in the same ballpark (or closer), and my satellite box supports it without paying more... then I'll consider it.
If you have money to burn (and believe me I have friends that do just that on this stuff), then have fun, but I'd rather keep my paycheck.
High definition sports, when you can get them, are awesome. There's a lot of confusion over what's high-definition TV. Digital TV isn't HDTV (but HDTV has to be digital). Also EDTV is simply standard definition TV but with progressive not interlaced scanning. [/q]
May be, but I don't plan on touching HDTV for a long while. You have to pay a lot more for the tv, just to pay more for the cable/satellite box, just to pay more for the programming. When my normal, standard packages come with a significant portion of HD programming by default, the tv prices are in the same ballpark (or closer), and my satellite box supports it without paying more... then I'll consider it.
If you have money to burn (and believe me I have friends that do just that on this stuff), then have fun, but I'd rather keep my paycheck.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: October 12, 2005 05:11PM
Besides, is it really necessary to see the stain on that players jersey? I just don't see what the added definition buys you. I mean the difference between crappy streamed web video and regular TV is clear - I used to be very happy when I could actually see the puck on the webcast. But once you can see all of the players and the game equipment how is it worth the added expense?
How do you stream CN8 ????
Posted by: Oat (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: October 12, 2005 05:20PM
What website do you go to to stream CN8 for free? Is it live streaming? Or do you have to wait a few days for them to set it up before you can stream the video? What is your "decent quality" like? Can you see the puck? Smooth frames?
Sorry I had too many questions
Sorry I had too many questions
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: Liz '05 (---.pn.at.cox.net)
Date: October 12, 2005 06:26PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Also EDTV is simply standard definition TV but with progressive not interlaced scanning. [/q]
And here I thought EDTV was a movie starring Matthew McConaughey...
Also EDTV is simply standard definition TV but with progressive not interlaced scanning. [/q]
And here I thought EDTV was a movie starring Matthew McConaughey...
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: JimHyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: October 12, 2005 06:27PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
billhoward Wrote:
High definition sports, when you can get them, are awesome. There's a lot of confusion over what's high-definition TV. Digital TV isn't HDTV (but HDTV has to be digital). Also EDTV is simply standard definition TV but with progressive not interlaced scanning. [/Q]
May be, but I don't plan on touching HDTV for a long while. You have to pay a lot more for the tv, just to pay more for the cable/satellite box, just to pay more for the programming. When my normal, standard packages come with a significant portion of HD programming by default, the tv prices are in the same ballpark (or closer), and my satellite box supports it without paying more... then I'll consider it.
If you have money to burn (and believe me I have friends that do just that on this stuff), then have fun, but I'd rather keep my paycheck.[/q]Well, having gotten a 50+ " CRT rear projection HDTV, and watched baseball, football, and recently hockey on OLN, I can't wait to see a college game in HDTV. You may not think the difference is going to be significant, but it is! Obviously the definition is better, but the wide screen really helps. The color seems more real, maybe because of better definition, I don't know. Hockey jerseys are cool, etc..
Cost is not so bad if you don't mind CRT technology, with it's deep cabinet. I got mine for under $1500, with all the usual Sony features (7 video inputs, etc. ). The nicest feature is side by side "PIP". You see two channels side by side and can adjust the size from equal to one large, one small. Watching those two events simultaneously is nice. I personally think CRT technology is the best for now, especially for the price.
I was terribly disappointed when I had to change from ESPN HD to my non-HD Fox channel for the playoffs. With my Time Warner cable, getting a DVR gives you most HD channels, so cost is not that terrible.
Yes, I'm at a point in life when the extra cost for these features is not a hardship, but I also bought 4 of those terrible Harvard Four Pack games just so I could go to the CU game a few years ago. And like many of you I flew back from MI just for a couple of games when I lived there and was still in training.
You should watch a few programs on big screen HD, you'll be hooked.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: October 12, 2005 07:48PM
[Further OT] When Scary Movie VI comes out, it will be HD scenes of the 60 Minutes crew wearing standard def makeup. I saw a demo of 1080p (1920x1080 lines, progressive scan) in Japan at a show last week (sorry, namedropping) and, with a professional model, carefully made up, at this resolution you could see two pimples just below her lower lip.
Nah, you don't want to see the bloodstains, but you do want to see the puck.
The point is, if over the next four years you invest $5,000 in your TV programming, maybe you should be watching it on a $2,000 HDTV not $400 27-inch CRT. There is going to be incredible downward price pressure on high def sets, both the flat panels that will fall to $2500 and maybe $2000 for good 37" sets, and also closer to $1,000 for the rear projection sets using DLP or LCOS, not the CRT-based RPs that are the ones you see in Sunday circulars for $999.
If you're really feeling cheap, still, there's a line of RCA sets out this year, 19-inch glass CRTs, maybe 27 inches also, in the sub-$500 range, that digitally process your standard crappy cable TV signal and really make them look good. RCA understands the bottom end of the market and realizes people who don't want to pay a lot for a TV deserve a decent picture too when they're watching Survivor. Anyway, the resolution of a 19" set with standard def isn't a lot different from the resolution of a 50" HDTV.
Nah, you don't want to see the bloodstains, but you do want to see the puck.
The point is, if over the next four years you invest $5,000 in your TV programming, maybe you should be watching it on a $2,000 HDTV not $400 27-inch CRT. There is going to be incredible downward price pressure on high def sets, both the flat panels that will fall to $2500 and maybe $2000 for good 37" sets, and also closer to $1,000 for the rear projection sets using DLP or LCOS, not the CRT-based RPs that are the ones you see in Sunday circulars for $999.
If you're really feeling cheap, still, there's a line of RCA sets out this year, 19-inch glass CRTs, maybe 27 inches also, in the sub-$500 range, that digitally process your standard crappy cable TV signal and really make them look good. RCA understands the bottom end of the market and realizes people who don't want to pay a lot for a TV deserve a decent picture too when they're watching Survivor. Anyway, the resolution of a 19" set with standard def isn't a lot different from the resolution of a 50" HDTV.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: October 12, 2005 07:59PM
[q]You should watch a few programs on big screen HD, you'll be hooked. [/q]I keep hearing this.... HD sometimes seems like some kind of a cult where those who have been hooked proclaim the wonders of HD incessantly. I'm skeptical, but then I haven't really been indoctrinated yet.
[q]Anyway, the resolution of a 19" set with standard def isn't a lot different from the resolution of a 50" HDTV.[/q]Bill's comment makes me realize that improved resolution becomes increasingly important as the screen size becomes bigger. But I don't really have the room for anything much bigger than my current 32" unless I splurge for LCD/plasma types, and the game looks OK to my eyes at standard def on 32".
[q]Anyway, the resolution of a 19" set with standard def isn't a lot different from the resolution of a 50" HDTV.[/q]Bill's comment makes me realize that improved resolution becomes increasingly important as the screen size becomes bigger. But I don't really have the room for anything much bigger than my current 32" unless I splurge for LCD/plasma types, and the game looks OK to my eyes at standard def on 32".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2005 08:00PM by KeithK.
Re: How do you stream CN8 ????
Posted by: Chris '03 (---.37.76.175.adsl.snet.net)
Date: October 12, 2005 08:21PM
[Q]Oat Wrote:
What website do you go to to stream CN8 for free? Is it live streaming? Or do you have to wait a few days for them to set it up before you can stream the video? What is your "decent quality" like? Can you see the puck? Smooth frames?
Sorry I had too many questions [/q]
Just go to cn8.tv, choose your region (the games are usually on the new england cn8), then click watch now. Results probably vary so see for yourself: [cn8.tv]
All the programming is streamed live.
What website do you go to to stream CN8 for free? Is it live streaming? Or do you have to wait a few days for them to set it up before you can stream the video? What is your "decent quality" like? Can you see the puck? Smooth frames?
Sorry I had too many questions [/q]
Just go to cn8.tv, choose your region (the games are usually on the new england cn8), then click watch now. Results probably vary so see for yourself: [cn8.tv]
All the programming is streamed live.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: October 12, 2005 08:53PM
There's a lot of MIT-level stuff (sorry, let's say Engineering School-level stuff) about viewing angle vs. distance from the screen and the eye's ability to discern or resolve / not resolve individual pixels.
Panasonic, first out with 50" and 65" 1920x1080 (progresive) flat panels (plasma) says you can sit six feet away and not see indivdual pixels while having a "movie theater" experience, which may also be a way of saying your eyes may have trouble picking up the action on the far sides of the screen.
A flat panel LCD (mostly for sets under 40 inches) or plasma (37" and above), when you push it back against the wall, you've increased the distance from you to the front of the screen by about 12"" to 24" if you're now using a 27" or 32" set. The flat panels are 4 to 6 inches deep. Plasma is best for low light; the screens have a wicked reflection and the older sets dissipate 500 watts when running (the best are down at LCD levels, about 150 watts). But plasmas have blacker blacks and are better at not smearing motion. LCDs are better for well lit rooms. Mostly it's a non issue because only in the range of about 40" can you have the choice of both, although Sharp did show (shipping in Japan) a 65" LCD Aquos. More amazing for gamer fanatics, they're on the cusp of shipping an LCD that shows different images from left and right angles - sort of like the pictures that fade from Elvis to Jesus as you walk by. It also means a car LCD display could show the driver nav information and the passenger a movie.
Prices are definitely going to come down. Panasonic is bringing online a plasma factory that can do 5 million units a year. That one plant increases WW production capacity by something half. Remember what happens to prices when supply oversteps demand? But I don't think they're soon going to match the prices of rear projection and some of the sets are only about 12" deep.
No matter how good your display, most of what's on is still crap. "BayWatch HD," anyone? And it'll be the odd college hockey game that's in HD, not all of them.
Panasonic, first out with 50" and 65" 1920x1080 (progresive) flat panels (plasma) says you can sit six feet away and not see indivdual pixels while having a "movie theater" experience, which may also be a way of saying your eyes may have trouble picking up the action on the far sides of the screen.
A flat panel LCD (mostly for sets under 40 inches) or plasma (37" and above), when you push it back against the wall, you've increased the distance from you to the front of the screen by about 12"" to 24" if you're now using a 27" or 32" set. The flat panels are 4 to 6 inches deep. Plasma is best for low light; the screens have a wicked reflection and the older sets dissipate 500 watts when running (the best are down at LCD levels, about 150 watts). But plasmas have blacker blacks and are better at not smearing motion. LCDs are better for well lit rooms. Mostly it's a non issue because only in the range of about 40" can you have the choice of both, although Sharp did show (shipping in Japan) a 65" LCD Aquos. More amazing for gamer fanatics, they're on the cusp of shipping an LCD that shows different images from left and right angles - sort of like the pictures that fade from Elvis to Jesus as you walk by. It also means a car LCD display could show the driver nav information and the passenger a movie.
Prices are definitely going to come down. Panasonic is bringing online a plasma factory that can do 5 million units a year. That one plant increases WW production capacity by something half. Remember what happens to prices when supply oversteps demand? But I don't think they're soon going to match the prices of rear projection and some of the sets are only about 12" deep.
No matter how good your display, most of what's on is still crap. "BayWatch HD," anyone? And it'll be the odd college hockey game that's in HD, not all of them.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.adsl.snet.net)
Date: October 13, 2005 12:01AM
Prices for the tvs are coming down, but what gets me is, at least with DirecTV, I'd have to add like a $10 or $15 monthly package to get like 10 or 15 HD versions of channels. And then, on an HDTV (and I know cause I've seen it), the rest of the channels look like crap.
So I pay a little to a lot more for a tv (depending), up my monthly DTV bill 15%, only to change my experience from ~200 very good channels to 20 good ones and 200 lousy ones. Yeah, I'll be holding off
So I pay a little to a lot more for a tv (depending), up my monthly DTV bill 15%, only to change my experience from ~200 very good channels to 20 good ones and 200 lousy ones. Yeah, I'll be holding off
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: Trotsky (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: October 13, 2005 01:29AM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
The point is, if over the next four years you invest $5,000 in your TV programming, maybe you should be watching it on a $2,000 HDTV not $400 27-inch CRT. [/q]
I disagree.
First, the money I spend on TV is not an investment, it's pure overhead with no redeeming value other than the immediate. My daughter's braces are investment. My daughter's iPod is overhead.
What I want in TV is a signal. The signal shouldn't be too crappy, or I'll get annoyed and lose the entertainment value. But each quality increase represents a smaller and smaller margin "return" for my money. What I get for the basic outlay for the signal are the games -- and they are worth that cost in my labor. But what I get for the quality jump to HDTV is worth almost no labor to me, since it's a nearly valueless perk.
I drive 25,000 miles a year. Shouldn't I be driving it in a luxury car? No.
My house is my largest investment. Should't I have gotten one twice as big? No.
The point is, if over the next four years you invest $5,000 in your TV programming, maybe you should be watching it on a $2,000 HDTV not $400 27-inch CRT. [/q]
I disagree.
First, the money I spend on TV is not an investment, it's pure overhead with no redeeming value other than the immediate. My daughter's braces are investment. My daughter's iPod is overhead.
What I want in TV is a signal. The signal shouldn't be too crappy, or I'll get annoyed and lose the entertainment value. But each quality increase represents a smaller and smaller margin "return" for my money. What I get for the basic outlay for the signal are the games -- and they are worth that cost in my labor. But what I get for the quality jump to HDTV is worth almost no labor to me, since it's a nearly valueless perk.
I drive 25,000 miles a year. Shouldn't I be driving it in a luxury car? No.
My house is my largest investment. Should't I have gotten one twice as big? No.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: October 13, 2005 10:43AM
[OT squared] Excellent point about diminishing returns. The biggest gains in our TV watching lifetime (most of our lifetimes) was color over black & white (if you go way back, TV over radio), then cable over over-the-air (more choices) or satellite for people in the boondocks (TV, period), DVD/digital over broadcast/VHS/analog. In that scheme, HDTV is more an enhancement, although more than a just noticeable difference. For sports especially which I think is where this conversation came in.
If you like car analogies, someone who drives 25,000 miles a year shouldn't necessarily have to buy a luxury car even if the miles go more satisfactorily in a G35 than a Toyota Tercel. But as long as you've made the investment - time, not dollars - in all that driving, you don't have to live the life of a monk behind the wheel. Your car ought to have lumbar support (at least not crappy seats), a leather wrapped steering wheel, decent sound and satellite radio or an iPod jack, maybe a drivetrain that only turns 2,000 rpm at 60mph if you do highway driving. Since we've licked polio, cholera is not a bid deal here, and if you're not an at-risk group for gunshot injuries or STDs, about the only thing left to die from before 50 is car accidents, so maybe side head protection airbags are good to have and those haven't yet filtered down to economy cars. Life's a journey.
What are you driving?
And we just signed on for braces, too. Heh - our dentist drives a 911.
If you like car analogies, someone who drives 25,000 miles a year shouldn't necessarily have to buy a luxury car even if the miles go more satisfactorily in a G35 than a Toyota Tercel. But as long as you've made the investment - time, not dollars - in all that driving, you don't have to live the life of a monk behind the wheel. Your car ought to have lumbar support (at least not crappy seats), a leather wrapped steering wheel, decent sound and satellite radio or an iPod jack, maybe a drivetrain that only turns 2,000 rpm at 60mph if you do highway driving. Since we've licked polio, cholera is not a bid deal here, and if you're not an at-risk group for gunshot injuries or STDs, about the only thing left to die from before 50 is car accidents, so maybe side head protection airbags are good to have and those haven't yet filtered down to economy cars. Life's a journey.
What are you driving?
And we just signed on for braces, too. Heh - our dentist drives a 911.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: October 13, 2005 01:19PM
OK, so we're past the point where you had to buy a $500 HD DTV receiver. I don't see anything about that on the surface. $11 a month for the HD package doesn't bother me. There aren't a ton of channels, but the ones for which it's most important are covered. Sports, locals, discovery, HBO, that kind of thing. I don't think anyone cares if the Food Network is HD. So I'm on board with that.
Obviously, I'd need a new TV. My current 32" is only a few years old and still pretty decent, but i could see replacing it with an HD unit and repurposing it elsewhere in my house. Prices are getting reasonable. So I'm on board with that.
Now we come to my TiVos. I have 2 lifetime subscription boxes. That's a $600 investment on top of the actual box costs and extra drives I've stuffed in them. So now, I'd be forced to ditch them and get DirecTV's HD TiVo box. But wait, what's this? Oh you DO have to pay for the box from DTV. It's only $250 now, though. How nice of them to not mention it anywhere. Or if I want to go with the DVR, it's $599 AFTER a $100 rebate.
So in the end, I'd lose almost $1000 invested in current TiVo equipment, have to buy a new TV, and pay DTV $600 just to get in the door. Sorry, we're not there yet.
Having said all that, I've seen hockey and baseball and racing in HD, and it really is all that. I don't need convincing. I definitely WANT it, but the activation energy is still too high.
Obviously, I'd need a new TV. My current 32" is only a few years old and still pretty decent, but i could see replacing it with an HD unit and repurposing it elsewhere in my house. Prices are getting reasonable. So I'm on board with that.
Now we come to my TiVos. I have 2 lifetime subscription boxes. That's a $600 investment on top of the actual box costs and extra drives I've stuffed in them. So now, I'd be forced to ditch them and get DirecTV's HD TiVo box. But wait, what's this? Oh you DO have to pay for the box from DTV. It's only $250 now, though. How nice of them to not mention it anywhere. Or if I want to go with the DVR, it's $599 AFTER a $100 rebate.
So in the end, I'd lose almost $1000 invested in current TiVo equipment, have to buy a new TV, and pay DTV $600 just to get in the door. Sorry, we're not there yet.
Having said all that, I've seen hockey and baseball and racing in HD, and it really is all that. I don't need convincing. I definitely WANT it, but the activation energy is still too high.
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: Jordan 04 (---.ny5030.east.verizon.net)
Date: October 13, 2005 02:49PM
Great timing on this conversation for me, as I'm about to (withing 24-48 hours probably) to take the plunge and upgrade from my 27" CRT to a Sony 42" RPLCD. I still have some issues with paying 2500+ for a television, but with prices on the rear-projections sitting around 1800-1900 in the big box stores and 1600-1700 online, I can't hold myself back any longer.
Throw on $18/month for a 2-tuner DVR from time warner plus the HD package, and I'm starting to salivate...
Throw on $18/month for a 2-tuner DVR from time warner plus the HD package, and I'm starting to salivate...
HDTV
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (12.111.113.---)
Date: October 14, 2005 10:59AM
I have to say, the quantum leap in quality I've seen for HD programming is for shows that are shot letterboxed. I'm not so worked up about the picture quality, but if I could get a set that lets me see the whole picture instead of the middle 75% (or whatever) that'd be nice.
Re: HDTV
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: October 14, 2005 11:44AM
Half the widescreen sets, many of which are HDTV, the user never figures out how to handle standard 4:3 broadcasts and they wind up being stretched. Shaq's butt is the size of the Florida panhandle, the goal behind Leneveu appears to be 4-by-8 feet, Oprah appears to be back to comfort foods, and Calista Flockhart appears to be past her alleged bout with anorexia.
Re: HDTV
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (12.111.113.---)
Date: October 15, 2005 07:45AM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Half the widescreen sets, many of which are HDTV, the user never figures out how to handle standard 4:3 broadcasts and they wind up being stretched.[/q]
That sounds like a feature of half the users rather than half the sets.
Half the widescreen sets, many of which are HDTV, the user never figures out how to handle standard 4:3 broadcasts and they wind up being stretched.[/q]
That sounds like a feature of half the users rather than half the sets.
Re: HDTV
Posted by: billhoward (---.ziffdavis.com)
Date: October 15, 2005 11:02AM
If half the users cannot make a feature work, and it frustrates them, that's a barrier to buying (their friends hear of the hassles and don't buy), so then it's a problem for the manufacturers. There is no IQ test for the right to own a TV set. In fact ..
Bill - a question...
Posted by: TimV (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: October 16, 2005 06:35PM
How do you suggest handling 4:3 broadcasts? I have a 16:9 sony CRT HDTV that offers 4 choices: a)Normal b)stretch c)Fill (and one more - I'm not writing this from where the TV is)? If I use "fill" it looks OK but I lose the "crawls" that report scores etc. "Normal" leaves the picture small relative to the screen size.
___________________________
"Yo Paulie - I don't see no crowd gathering 'round you neither."
"Yo Paulie - I don't see no crowd gathering 'round you neither."
Re: Bill - a question...
Posted by: BCrespi (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: October 16, 2005 07:06PM
I find when watching my home set (Panasonic LCD wide-screen) that I occasionally have to adjust the tv's aspect ratio as well as the cable box's. See if some other comination than you have been trying is better.
___________________________
Brian Crespi '06
Brian Crespi '06
Re: Bill - a question...
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: October 16, 2005 07:41PM
[Q]TimV Wrote:
How do you suggest handling 4:3 broadcasts? I have a 16:9 sony CRT HDTV that offers 4 choices: a)Normal b)stretch c)Fill (and one more - I'm not writing this from where the TV is)? If I use "fill" it looks OK but I lose the "crawls" that report scores etc. "Normal" leaves the picture small relative to the screen size.[/q]
I have five choices for handling 4:3 broadcasts on my 16:9 Samsung projection set: "wide" (just stretches the picture evenly across the entire screen); "panorama" (stretches the right and left edges of the picture a lot and the center hardly at all); two variants of "zoom" (cut off the top and bottom in order to fill the edges, but degrade the picture); and "normal" (standard 4:3 picture with gray borders on each side).
My preference is "panorama," and everyone watching that I ask seems to agree. You don't lose the "crawls" but they do move faster at the right and left of the screen.
How do you suggest handling 4:3 broadcasts? I have a 16:9 sony CRT HDTV that offers 4 choices: a)Normal b)stretch c)Fill (and one more - I'm not writing this from where the TV is)? If I use "fill" it looks OK but I lose the "crawls" that report scores etc. "Normal" leaves the picture small relative to the screen size.[/q]
I have five choices for handling 4:3 broadcasts on my 16:9 Samsung projection set: "wide" (just stretches the picture evenly across the entire screen); "panorama" (stretches the right and left edges of the picture a lot and the center hardly at all); two variants of "zoom" (cut off the top and bottom in order to fill the edges, but degrade the picture); and "normal" (standard 4:3 picture with gray borders on each side).
My preference is "panorama," and everyone watching that I ask seems to agree. You don't lose the "crawls" but they do move faster at the right and left of the screen.
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
Al DeFlorio '65
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: October 17, 2005 12:18PM
The Dish Network's sports pack only costs $6/month and gets almost all the college hockey that's broadcast. They also finally picked up CSTV this year, so I'm not sure if DirectTV has any advantage over them, at least for college sports.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: October 17, 2005 01:01PM
[Q]Steve M Wrote:
The Dish Network's sports pack only costs $6/month and gets almost all the college hockey that's broadcast. They also finally picked up CSTV this year, so I'm not sure if DirectTV has any advantage over them, at least for college sports.[/q]
Previously Dish's packages didn't include any national sports channels on the $6 pack - OLN, ESPNU, CSTV - only the regionals. But if that's no longer true, it's worth another look.
The Dish Network's sports pack only costs $6/month and gets almost all the college hockey that's broadcast. They also finally picked up CSTV this year, so I'm not sure if DirectTV has any advantage over them, at least for college sports.[/q]
Previously Dish's packages didn't include any national sports channels on the $6 pack - OLN, ESPNU, CSTV - only the regionals. But if that's no longer true, it's worth another look.
Re: Bill - a question...
Posted by: billhoward (---.ziffdavis.com)
Date: October 17, 2005 06:12PM
How to handle 4:3 broadcasts on a 16:9 widescreen? If your TV is big enough, just be a sport, leave it at 4:3, and have the two sides be black. If you've got to have it fill every pixel you paid for, go with what's most commonly called panorama mode where the stretching is mostly from the outer thirds of the picture. You will find this more enjoyable on a plasma, least so on an LCD because with LCD blacks are really gray (with plasma, the pixel self-illuminates if it's supposed to be on; with LCD, a backlight illuminates every pixel and some leaks through the off (black) pixels making them gray. DLP is in between.
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: October 17, 2005 08:28PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Steve M Wrote:
The Dish Network's sports pack only costs $6/month and gets almost all the college hockey that's broadcast. They also finally picked up CSTV this year, so I'm not sure if DirectTV has any advantage over them, at least for college sports.[/Q]
Previously Dish's packages didn't include any national sports channels on the $6 pack - OLN, ESPNU, CSTV - only the regionals. But if that's no longer true, it's worth another look.[/q]
Interesting, Dish actually added CSTV to the main "America's Top 120" lineup, not to the MultiSport package. Of course, the Dish setup is cheaper (Dish is always the cheap one - by $6 in this case), but at the moment it is missing (not saying we'd care about most):
- Golf Channel
- Outdoor Channel
- OLN
- ESPNU
- Fuel
- Fox Soccer Channel
- GolTV (also soccer)
- YES
Dish network also has HRTV (horse racing TV), in *addition* to the horseracing based TVG (which both have).
Regional Channels seem mostly the same otherwise. DirecTV lists MASN (new Washington Nationals based channel if I remember correctly), but no programming at the moment anyway. Dish lists FSN Pitt 2 (Pittsburgh needs 2??). It may be on the DirecTV system somewhere under an alternate channels, when it carries something.
The price difference also gets you a different main lineup, and I happen to like DirecTV's better, but if you think I'm doing that for you, you're crazy
Re: Old Unhip Person's Direct TV Question
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.rgv.res.rr.com)
Date: October 17, 2005 08:55PM
At some point Dish also had more European networks, like France's TV5 (which shows French movies with French subtitles; good for language practice).
DirecTV has a "Cricket Ticket" PPV, which allowed me to watch the Ashes this summer (at least until that whole hurricane thing).
DirecTV has a "Cricket Ticket" PPV, which allowed me to watch the Ashes this summer (at least until that whole hurricane thing).
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.