1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What's the big fuss over HD?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by firefighter4evr, Apr 19, 2009.

  1. ehilbert1

    ehilbert1 Godfather

    312
    10
    Jan 22, 2007
    It's totally worth the extra $10 a month. I'm not sure its worth an extra $99 for superfan,but for $10 oh yea.
     
  2. Brennok

    Brennok Legend

    228
    0
    Dec 23, 2005
    Well my Directv bill currently runs 155.86 a month for the top package and 4 receivers plus the protection plan so paying an additional $10 plus tax for HD doesn't really appeal to me. If they do require I get the HD package then I will most likely end up on Fios since even with 4 Tivo subscriptions the cost is cheaper than Directv especially since Directv will want an additional fee for the new Tivo boxes not to mention the cost of getting the new Tivos from Directv.
     
  3. bonscott87

    bonscott87 Cutting Edge: ECHELON '07

    9,809
    2
    Jan 21, 2003
    Little confused here. With 4 stand alone Tivo's, you're paying $12.95 a month *each* (maybe a little less for each after the first). With DirecTV you simply pay $6 for DVR to cover them all and $4.99 each for 3 of them for program mirror. And with cable you'll have multiple cable card fees as well. So I'm not getting how it would be cheaper to have 4 stand alone Tivo's. I guess if you paid $1600 up front for lifetime on all of them you'd have no monthly fees....

    And to not pay whole $10 to actually watch TV on my $1000-2000+ TV seems a bit silly. ;)

    Premier - $110
    DVR fee - $6
    So that's $116.
    4 receivers will be an extra $15.
    So we're up to $131.
    Protection plan $5.99

    So the grand total I'm getting is $137. So where is $155.86 coming from?

    Anyway...
     
  4. turbobuick86

    turbobuick86 Cool Member

    29
    0
    Sep 7, 2006
    The big fuss over HD was 10 years ago. SOP now.

    I've been complaining for years about Directv packaging/billing a few HD channels at a time. Just stupid when it's the norm now, but they can extract maximum $$$ from subcribers by doing it that way.
     
  5. Brennok

    Brennok Legend

    228
    0
    Dec 23, 2005
    Here locally taxes make up the extra $25 dollars or so.
    I currently get home phone and internet for 79.99 or 91.51 after taxes so I currently pay just about $250 for phone, internet and directv.

    Fios offers the same phone package, same internet, and all programming for 139.99. 4 M cable cards would be 3.99 a piece plus 12.99, 9.99, 9.99, and 9.99 for the 4 Tivos assuming I didn't just pay $100 every year per box for a bigger discount. This would still work out to be less than the $250 I pay now. Also since I will be paying either way for the receivers up front unless I can somehow convince DTV to upgrade all 4 of my active SD Tivos for free or the cost of shipping this cost would be equal.

    Now your correct though if I already had invested $2000 in a HD set $10 wouldn't be as big of an issue but knowing it is one more cost when I haven't upgraded it is a more of a turn off.
     
  6. GaryAZ

    GaryAZ Mentor

    41
    0
    Jul 30, 2007
    KenS covered it earlier but for me the huge difference has been watching older movies in HD. I'm not a young man but I'm too young to have seen movies like "The Train", "Birdman of Alcatraz" and "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming" in the theater. Growing up I'd seen them many times on the "little screen" in pan & scan 4:3 with the sides of the picture chopped off. They were great on TV but how could you ever know what you're missing?

    All of these movies have been on MGMHD and HDNet Movies in the last couple of months. The experience is well, stunning - maybe better than seeing them in the theater in the 60s (but I'll never know!). In "Russians", the color and the panoramic shots of coastal Nantucket Island are fantastic. I didn't expect black and white movies to be that much better in HD but I was knocked out by "Birdman" and "The Train". They were remastered with lots of TLC. It's really a terrific visual experience to see the film as the director intended.
     
  7. dfm914

    dfm914 New Member

    5
    0
    Mar 11, 2009
    All I can say is Night and Day difference assuming you have everything setup correctly and my eyes are not what they used to be. HD is so much better than SD to me that I would never buy another SD TV. Just my 5cents..
     
  8. Tom Servo

    Tom Servo Icon

    979
    13
    Mar 7, 2007
    Even those old B&W movies look better. I didn't know it until recently, but a lot of older movies were shot in 4:3 native, which is where TV got its original aspect ratio from! So a lot of old B&W movies will be 4:3 no matter what, but if restored with care they can still look stunning. Film really is an amazing medium and HDTV helps showcase what it can do.
     
  9. May 4, 2009 #109 of 126
    cartrivision

    cartrivision Hall Of Fame

    3,862
    0
    Jul 25, 2007
    You completely misunderstand or are misstating what the transition to HD broadcasting means. Just because a video channel is broadcast exclusively in HD does not mean that it will no longer have any older SD source material on it.
     
  10. May 5, 2009 #110 of 126
    MIMOTech

    MIMOTech Legend

    224
    0
    Sep 11, 2006
    I have been watching HD now for ten years. I find SD now hurts my eyes to watch it. There is no going back. Even some old BW movies and shows are fantastic in Hd. But of course there is good HD and bad HD. Production quality still has to improve on many shows. Most network shows and sports are good. Overall as production companies make more shows they are learning the fine points of great HD production.
     
  11. May 5, 2009 #111 of 126
    renbutler

    renbutler Godfather

    566
    10
    Oct 17, 2008
    I am also an HD snob. My DirecTV fave guide contains only HD channels. I watch SD maybe 2-3% of the time.

    If anybody doesn't see a drastic difference between SD and HD, they have made a connection error. Either they aren't watching an HD source or they don't have a truly HD TV.
     
  12. May 5, 2009 #112 of 126
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    You're the one who completely misunderstood his post. He is saying that some of the old SD material is still better than the new HD stuff. Meaning, HD doesn't make a show good.
     
  13. May 5, 2009 #113 of 126
    hasan

    hasan Well-Known Member

    5,957
    54
    Sep 22, 2006
    Ogden, IA
    The difference is so dramatic that I don't record anything that isn't in HD any more, unless it is a news program.

    As far as SD goes, it's kind of like the frog in the well asking the frog in the ocean how big the ocean is. It can't be explained...it has to be experienced.:) While I am tempted to agree with the other poster who said, "If you think SD looks fine, then you are so visually impaired that you won't be able to appreciate HD, so don't bother.". However, if you are currently watching on a small TV, SD can look fine. If you really do think that SD looks fine on a 42" or larger, then I resort to my frog analogy, not wanting to question your visual acuity.:)

    All TVs in the house, with the exception of a rarely used TV in the basement are HD. Once I had it on one, I couldn't tolerate watching SD on the others.
     
  14. May 8, 2009 #114 of 126
    rabit ears

    rabit ears Legend

    156
    0
    Nov 18, 2005
    Like a lot of things, HD is dependent on both the equipment used and individual's visual acuity. My wife has never seen the HD on our 5 year old Philips LCoS as anything special. However, she does nothing but rave about the picture quality on our new HD.

    The newer TV does provide more degrees of black (essential if you're a CSI fan) and the picture seems much sharper even to my eyes, but generally speaking, I like the older TV better.

    Before making a decision for or against HD, I would suggest that an individual look at some of the newer sets in conditions similar to what you will have at home. I have an old 36" Toshiba that has a beautiful picture from D*, but when looked at in relation to either HD set you see a lack of depth and detail that's hard to describe.
     
  15. May 8, 2009 #115 of 126
    Piratefan98

    Piratefan98 Icon

    685
    0
    Mar 11, 2008
    SD to HD is like hamburger to steak. They're both beef .... but one tastes quite a bit better. As others have said, on a quality HD TV, and a properly calibrated one, the difference is stunning. Night and day.

    Jeff
     
  16. May 8, 2009 #116 of 126
    Jhon69

    Jhon69 Hall Of Fame

    4,719
    5
    Mar 27, 2006
    Central San...
  17. May 8, 2009 #117 of 126
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
  18. May 8, 2009 #118 of 126
    Jhon69

    Jhon69 Hall Of Fame

    4,719
    5
    Mar 27, 2006
    Central San...

    No believe it's economics,now is the economy stupid?you betcha!;)
     
  19. May 9, 2009 #119 of 126
    Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    45
    Mar 18, 2008
    How is it stupid to not waste money on more expensive receivers? R22's cost more to produce than the R16. It seems to me they had a surplus of the R22 and now that they've gotten enough in the field they are going back to the R16.
     
  20. May 9, 2009 #120 of 126
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    DirecTV's stated plan was to consolidate their receiver lineup. This goes completely against that.
    That doesn't even make sense...
     

Share This Page