In the context of this thread I have no quarrel with that.flmgrip said:a show filmed in the 30's will have a lower quality than a show filmed now
Just have to take a second again to say that CBS sucks - only broadcasting three games a week in HD. I keep on hearing that's it all due to bandwidth issues, and I've been saying all year that that is BS, and I think this week proves it. The game today was HD, and they only have two games tomorrow in HD. Seems to me that they are just too cheap to buy enough HD equipment for all games. All year long they have had two early games in HD and one late game in HD - where does the bandwidth limitation come in??BBQ Chicken said:...I just want to watch NFL games in HD.
D* only has showtime and hbo hd. My original post stated that cable companies carry those plus starz and cinemax. Even TMC sometimes. More choices! Is the D* package a rip?rmassey said:Starz HD? I thought D* only offered SHO and HBO in HD.
well, here we go with that... it's all very subjective. but we are talking about picture quality and not the art form, but even than i would not agree with you on that. but that's because you like old movies... i don'tRedux said:In the context of this thread I have no quarrel with that.
However, it's much like saying that music of the 1930s is of lower quality than music today.
In both cases there is a difference, and living today and being immersed in today's conventions, we tend to prefer today's conventions. Personally, I don't think there's ever been a better film "look" than the late 1930s/early 1940s b&w film "sheen." Occasional attempts made to recreate that look with modern film stocks or video fail.
And, probably not coincidentally, I like the sound of vinyl and find much digitally-recorded music to be harsh. I don't find either vinyl or digital to be anything like the experiece of live music.
HiDef is new, it's today. Where there is no artistic content in the material (e.g. TV), the look is clearly superior. But I, for one, dread the day when movies are shot with HD cameras, much like other hanger-ons to the past once were uncomfortable with the transition to sound movies, or to 3-D (oops) or color.
I remember when I first got my HD tv and was watching the HD commercial on CBS. The picture quality of the commercial was phenominal. I remember asking my wife why the shows that were HD were not as good as the commercial that was promoting their shows that are "HD."flmgrip said:you are highly confused my friend.
video and film are two different things. HD discovery, sports and live shows (if in HD) are the only things filmed with HD Video.
there are a FEW prime time shows that are filmed with HD video, but 90%-95% of prime time HD is filmed on 35mm film and that will not change for some time due to the cost and availability of HD equipment. shooting HDvideo is not yet cheaper than shooting 35mm film
That is a very general statement and not entirely factual.smith13 said:First of all you won't need a huge antenna for local hd. Just get the winegard antenna, it's no bigger that your dish and is easy to set up.
the tuners in the 10-250 are not that bad. i had a OTA receiver for a while and needed a line booster from the antenna to get a signal ad with the 10-250 i could remove the booster at still get a signalSpankyInChicago said:That is a very general statement and not entirely factual.
Depending on many, many factors it can be very easy to get HD OTA or very difficult. The poor tuners in the HR10-250 don't make the difficult situations any easier.
The tuners keep getting better and better. Since both of my TVs with built-in tuners are about 2 model years newer than the HR10-250, the tuners seem to have benefited as I have much more reliable HD OTA reception with my TVs directly than with my HR10-250. Of course the TVs don't record!flmgrip said:the tuners in the 10-250 are not that bad. i had a OTA receiver for a while and needed a line booster from the antenna to get a signal ad with the 10-250 i could remove the booster at still get a signal