#1 Edited by thegreatmuta92 (95 posts) -

Yes I was the guy who couldn't see HD, but in showing my sister a comparison photo of HD vs SD and telling her I couldn't see it until looking very close to it, she says " I have to get an HDTV".   I've always been interested in HDTVs and I'm looking up info for her.  
 
 We have digital cable, but NOT HD.  What does this mean for us? Will some cable channels in HD or none? I know network channels have HD, but I'm not sure if you need an HD CABLE box to get HD or not, or if you have to pay extra for HD ( which would suck).
  
I'm thinking of just convincing her to not get a TV, because we wouldn't have any HD things to use it with. It could suffice as just a better, big screen non HD tv, but still.

#2 Edited by Heartagram (1181 posts) -

You do need an HD cable box and you also need to have that box connected through HD cables (Component or HDMI). It depends on your company whether or not its extra.

#3 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

You have to pay a bit extra for HD, I don't know how much though. Not a huge amount, I know that. If you have the money for it, I would highly recommend it. And if you are getting anything beyond the core channels (basically above like 114), I think you should have an HD box, although I'm not sure. HD boxes are big, like VCR sized usually, so if you have one of those I think you should be able to recieve an HD signal. You will of course need an HD television with the proper cables (HDMI is the best option there).
 
If you can't see the difference between 1920x1080 and 640x480, your eyesight must be pretty bad, I'm sorry you can't see the beauty of true HD. 
 
That said, getting an HD TV is a good plan for future proofing, and if you don't have a widescreen television, that's another bonus. Plus, LCD TV's will give you a better picture even with SD input, so until you get HD gear, it'll still have advantages. Plus, they take up less space and are a lot lighter. My 42" is actually sitting directly on top of my Comcast Box. No way in hell a tube TV would do anything but crush it.

#4 Posted by thegreatmuta92 (95 posts) -

I can see the difference, but either  
A).  I have to get really close, then it's really obvious
B) It'd have be really big 
     
Anyway, we do NOT have an HD box ( no hd inputs on the back),  so we'd have to plug it in through coax. Our box is big and we have digital cable, on demand, etc but just no hd. Fucking comcast ( i know why broadcasting hd is expensive, but still).

#5 Edited by TheKeyboardDemon (824 posts) -

TVs are usually described as HD Ready, this means that the screen is capable of showing an HD image. As Heartagram and  MordeaniisChaos have said it is down to your source, you need an HD input to get an HD output. Just like a stereo amp will give you stereo output where the music has been recorded in stereo, it won't turn mono into stereo, at best it will play it over two speakers. You might also want to consider options like a Blue Ray player or PS3 to let you watch HD content on the TV then you won't have to pay higher HD subscription charges, and you can rent Blue Ray DVDs from Blockbuster.

#6 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -

There are still people using SD?

#7 Posted by thegreatmuta92 (95 posts) -

Obviously yes. 

#8 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@thegreatmuta92 said:
" Obviously yes.  "
This sounds more like you realized you did see a difference after some people explained it more. 
#9 Posted by thegreatmuta92 (95 posts) -

Not because they explained. I already knew all the information about HD,  I was obsessed with HDTVs and gaming awhile back and I fell off the wagon. I knew the difference technically/mathematically, but I never saw the difference.. But I saw this picture and it was clear, but only when I moved up really close. I haven't seen a difference anywhere else but that picture, mainly because of my shit vision. I still believe and HDTV would be a waste of money for me. 
 
Don't see what that has to do with me saying the obviously many people sitll do use SD now, even though HD is more prominent now ( 59 percent I think ). 
 
 Don't even mind this, I'm just really bored and want to respond to posts. 

#10 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

Hey one question I want to ask, what hd source do you have? Do you have a xbox 360, ps3? Or true hd 1080p source like blu ray or pc games? Or were you basing your other thread on using a hdtv with a wii and standard television cable channels?

#11 Posted by thegreatmuta92 (95 posts) -

My experience with HD has mostly been HD videos on youtube where I can hear a difference in sound but see no difference in video passed 480p and a few times where I've played Xbox 350 on my brother's old 20 inch HDTV. Yes it was hooked up via component. The only difference I saw was that it was widescreen, and the colors looked different on an LCD, and the resolution was different, but I didn't see much detail. Also, HD TV shows that I have downloaded to my computer.  I admit that I do not have that much experience with HD and I wasn't really using all of the experience I could think of for the basis of that thread. I should have seen HD on the recommended size TV, etc, my vision will still suck but the difference will be more clear.  

I said that the wii looked great with the HDTV because I was wrongly implying that it's not the actual resolution of the TV, it's the technology in the TV, and that anything would look good on an HDTV with good technology. The LCD technology does make it look better than most tube TVs out there, but  even though I physically have not been able to see it to this point, most people with 20/20 vision say that the extra pixels make a huge difference.  I know that the wii is not an hd console, the idea was that  maybe it's not the resolution that makes it look good, but the TV, because the wii looked so much better on that TV than anything I'd seen on a tube TV. I was wrong because hd resolutions make things look better.

#12 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@thegreatmuta92 said:
" My experience with HD has mostly been HD videos on youtube where I can hear a difference in sound but see no difference in video passed 480p and a few times where I've played Xbox 350 on my brother's old 20 inch HDTV. Yes it was hooked up via component. The only difference I saw was that it was widescreen, and the colors looked different on an LCD, and the resolution was different, but I didn't see much detail. Also, HD TV shows that I have downloaded to my computer.  I admit that I do not have that much experience with HD and I wasn't really using all of the experience I could think of for the basis of that thread. I should have seen HD on the recommended size TV, etc, my vision will still suck but the difference will be more clear.  I said that the wii looked great with the HDTV because I was wrongly implying that it's not the actual resolution of the TV, it's the technology in the TV, and that anything would look good on an HDTV with good technology. The LCD technology does make it look better than most tube TVs out there, but  even though I physically have not been able to see it to this point, most people with 20/20 vision say that the extra pixels make a huge difference.  I know that the wii is not an hd console, the idea was that  maybe it's not the resolution that makes it look good, but the TV, because the wii looked so much better on that TV than anything I'd seen on a tube TV. I was wrong because hd resolutions make things look better. "
Then you have no right to say anything about video gaming. Youtube and video games are far far far different. 
#13 Posted by thegreatmuta92 (95 posts) -

 I was talking about hd in general.
 
I  also said I'd played 360 on an HDTV and saw no difference.  I have admitted that it was just my own personal vision and that I was wrong for implying that everyone couldn't see it.  Video games and youtube are different, but  if I had 2020 I could have  probably seen a difference in said videos. If  HD meant nothing on youtube they wouldn't have implemented the feature. 

#14 Edited by ape_dosmil (514 posts) -
@MysteriousBob said:

" There are still people using SD? "

Yup. I play games in HD because I sit close enough for it to be noticeable, but I only have SD cable television. I have a 32 inch telly and the difference between SD via component and HD just isn't worth it in my opinion. Barely noticeable on a TV of that size.
#15 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

Well for colors, component is sort of muddy looking compared to hdmi which is lossless. Youtube videos aren't the greatest source of hd content. While the video might be like 720p, youtube might not process or render it as well.
 
You said you wear glasses for your other thread, which I am not so sure of. Or maybe if you didn't you should start wearing glasses. Or simply you need a new perscription for your glasses. I say get the hdtv, get hdmi cable, look at a blu ray movie or something one day which requires a ps3 or blu ray player. Then see it objectively. It's not about techology, the component cable isn't good technology and xbox 360 is only a 720p source which doesn't match the native resolution because it needs to be upscaled. You probally never seen anything that's fully 1080p with an hdmi cable with a good hdtv. Avatar is probally the sharpest blu ray movie, maybe that's a movie you should see one day in 1080p.

#16 Posted by ape_dosmil (514 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47: 360 can output 1080p via VGA or HDMI. I have mine connected by VGA outputting 1080p. However most games are only native 720p (I think there are a small number which are 1080p though). You can play native 1080p H.264 and WMV from the 360 though. So it is capable of outputting native 1080p.
#17 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@ape_dosmil: I don't have a xbox 360, I know my ps3 can select 1080p which is just upscaled. Maybe he can then play blu ray rips on his xbox 360. Wait, you didn't hear that from me. Also VGA? don't for a second think is as good as hdmi. I don't think you think that of course.
#18 Posted by ape_dosmil (514 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47: The difference between HDMI and VGA is nigh on unnoticeable. Usually if there is a difference it's to do with how the TV handles the signals. Personally on my TV I think games look better over VGA because it bypasses a lot of the TVs picture processing. That is why I have my 360 connected via VGA. The reason the industry switched to digital cables is mostly to do with piracy not picture quality (and I realize now I probably sound like the conspiracy theorist).
#19 Edited by MrKlorox (11203 posts) -

Not using a cable box here, just a straight line in from the cable wall outlet and I get four channels in HD at no extra cost: the local versions of NBC, FOX, ABC, and CBS. And apparently there were more before the whole February 2010 government mandated digital crossover thing,  before they "scrambled" them for those who do not subscribe to digital cable. I believe they also offer the HD versions of all channels that they have the HD feed for free to those who get the basic digital package. This is with CableONE, though. Your cable provider might do things differently.
 
Regardless, you should be able to trade in your non HD cable box for one that has an HDMI output if you can't get any HD channels with the direct line.
 
When you have the SD and HD versions of the same channel to compare back to back, the difference will be impossible to ignore.

#20 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@ape_dosmil: dvi will be the same as hdmi, vga is not as good. So you are one of those, VGA xbox 360 users, you probally don't have a hdmi xbox360. It's more than piracy, you confused dvi with vga for hdmi quality, since dvi is more for pc output and displays. I have vga settings for my hdtv, it's something I will never use over hdmi in a trilion years. I still believe your creating a misconception of information here.
#21 Edited by ape_dosmil (514 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47: I do have an HDMI equipped 360. I don't use HDMI because VGA looks better with my TV (and there is less lag because VGA bypasses most of my TVs picture processing).
EDIT: I am absolutely not confusing VGA with DVI. DVI is essentially exactly the same tech as HDMI. I am talking about analogue VGA.
 
For more information see http://www.ehow.com/facts_5291506_vga-vs-hdmi-xbox.html, key quotes being "There's no dramatic technical difference between the two; both are capable of the same resolutions and modes, and display the same image exactly. They deliver identical pixel counts and data sizes." and "HDMI is a digital signal, while VGA is analog. The affect this has on picture quality is debatable"



 
#22 Posted by bearshamanbro (284 posts) -

 Well in fairness to the OP, a standard definition signal on a standard definition set isn't terrible. I was quite happy with SD for a long time myself. I never really understood the quality jump until seeing 480p on a 40" HDTV and how it just looks like crap. But honestly, just make the jump to HD man. If you don't want to pay for cable just get a HD antenna from Radio Shack and you'll have all the basic channels in HD for free (this is what I do). With all the shows on the internet you should be able to hook a PC/laptop up to your new HDTV and watch HD Hulu on there as well.