An HD channel would essentially become a place where people tagged videos with high codec bit rates (less compression) which wouldn't actually constitute high definition. If the video was 720 or 1080 then it would be HD, but that's not how it would be used I don't think.

I hear where you are coming from, but not all TV sucks. I rather like things in my line of interest, especially in luscious 1080 HD..... there is a dearth of physics, astronomy, car rebuilding, killer concerts and movies.

And yes tons, tons of pure crap.

>> ^Duckman33:
Guess he lived up to his name, eh?


His name isn't Mike 1080? It's Mine Spinn......ohhhhhhh HAH!

Your video, Mike Spinner - first ever 1080º spin on a BMX bike, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Sorry I'm late to this party, but I do have some relevant information. First, it sounds like you are only interested in Standard Definition (SD) content (no HD on NetFlix), in that case go no higher than 720p. However, if you are still curious about that 1080i/p stuff you've been hearing about (game consoles, HDTV over the air or from cable/sat, blu-ray), I worked out some numbers a couple of years ago (when 1080p was very expensive). I'm too lazy to double check the numbers.

the thing you have to keep in mind is the maximum angular resolution of the human eye. I'll spare you the details, which you can look up yourself, but for a person with 20/20 vision (corrected, in my case), assuming a 16:9 aspect ratio screen and 1080 by 1920 picture size (resolution is a misnomer) you need to be 1.5 diagonals OR CLOSER to resolve the difference between pixels.


This makes sense if you think about movie screens or IMAX screens, or a graphic artist computer work station. Most TV viewers don't think about (being that close to a screen) | (having a screen that big).

That means if you have a 32 inch TV and you are 6 feet away, you will not see all the detail on a 1080p TV, so you can save a few bucks with a 720p.

Now that the price of 40"+ LCD TVs has dropped dramatically, you should consider a 1080p screen, but keep in mind you viewing distance.

In my case I could resolve 1080p for videogames since I sit up close for that, but I haven't upgraded because we sit way back on the couch for movies. I wouldn't be able to see the detail of a 1080p blu-ray without a 42 inch (or larger) TV. Or if I pushed to couch up.

I meant wait for your answer before I rambled on with a longer response. Everything Farhad said was great, but I will reiterate a few major points. Don't. Get. 1080. Unless you're sitting four feet from the TV, there's a 98% chance that you won't notice a difference.

As far as LCD/Plasma v DLP - I'm a DLP fan simply because you can get a bigger screen with equal quality for the same price or less. It's my opinion that the only reason that LCD/PLasma screens sell so well is because you can hang them on a wall. If you have no intentions of doing that, you should open your options to DLP as well.

And for streaming: Wireless HDMI systems are not cheap. Might I ask why you want it wireless? Just so you don't have wires sticking out, or is it a distance issue? (Your computer is far away from the tv)
I currently have my computer set up right next to the tv/reciever, and use a 15' DVI-HDMI cable to transfer the video feed. My sound feed is embarrassing - 2.55mm jack to an RCA jack cable feeds it. But my receiver does a great job of taking that two channel sound and splitting the sounds up to put them in appropriate locations - it's almost as if it was 6 channels.
By having your computer next to/near your TV, you eliminate having to buy something extra just to do something you already can. If your computer is moderately powerful (HD signals are a bitch) and you have a decent graphics card with DVI out, then you're set. Just get the cable, which brings me to my most important piece of advice. If you ignore everything else I say, heed this:

PRICE SPENT ≠ PERFORMANCE GAINED

We're talking about cables here.
People all over the place see these "Monster" cables and think that because they spent $40 on a 6' RCA cable, they got a good product. I'm not saying that it won't be good quality, but I am telling you that a $10 cable will give you the exact same performance.
I spent $12 on my DVI-HDMI cable and use it constantly. I'm perfectly happy with it and it has no flaws. Don't be the guy that buys a shielded digital signal cable, lest you find the $500 6' Denon ethernet cable on Amazon (read the reviews - they're HILARIOUS.

To simplify:

1) Price
2) Size
3) Specs

Your choice of brand should come after all that.

We have a Samsung. I could not recommend them more. The have linear interpolation for low quality signals, which helps with the graininess of the non HD channels. They are significantly less than Sony, and we still think ours has a better picture. They typically have computer hookups so you can watch stuff off your computer.

Plasmas have a truer black, but if you want to watch TV without the blinds closed get an LCD.

No service provides information in greater than 720 dpi, but that may change. So go for 1080 dpi.

1. HMDI, Parallel Port or equivalent, Composite Inputs hookup
2. >= 80 Hz (look for 120)
3. >= 720 dpi

at least a 1080; well done shark

Great "tech review". I almost not watched it, thinking it would've been just that.

Anyway, I have my gripe: I cannot comprehend how anyone hasn't yet figured out just how much better HD is, because one has to be near veggie levels of intelligence to not understand the difference between 1080 and 480. This image comparison thread might finally illuminate those dark minds, though.

My office computer can't handle 1080.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Actually on second try it works. Though the 1080 is too big for my screen.

I'd certainly agree with you, Dag, it's just that tiny part where he denounces blu-ray disks compared to DVDs; either he's in a serious effing need of specs or his only display is smaller than 9", because one can easily spot the difference between the 1080 pixels of a blu-ray/hddvd movie and what.. the 272 or whatnot of an average DVD? in short: the elite rapid aussie speech aside, you'd do well to spot complete bollocks in what he has to say.

that said, I do not support the ps3 in any way. x360 4evah!!!~

lol deputydog.. I was coming in here to post:

Two words OK: 1080 p