Do you still comfortable with old TV format or more like new HD TV format?

well, i got many people still use old TV format (4:3) than HD one (16:9)...

for me HD more better because it has more sharp picture (1080p) and amazing surround sound (5.1)...

 

I'd rather read the Da Vinci Code than watch most of the dross on television nowadays. Bring back black and white I say!

 

Duh~ Well, of course the LCD beats the old box anytime but needs $$$ to get a decent LCD tv. The problem is the old box still works so not a lot of people get a new LCD unless you are into that sort of thing. I personally would like an LCD as having an Xbox 360 commits me into getting one soon I wondered which brand is better, Sony or LG? Seems to be a lot of these brands lately and alot look the same. I don't know, I'm not pro at this.

 

I personally dont mind if its hd or not I just cant stand watching tv if its not widescreen :S

 

I already lived 19 years using and watching shows with the old TV Format.
So yes I'm still comfortable with it.

 

Aspect ratio is irrelevant to format (and indeed, picture quality), and analog TV has no real resolution.

Just FYI.

 

My first "personal" tv was a spectre brand tv-I used to proclaim it was one of the fiurst with colour tv view because of the age, so grey and boxxy..with rf inputs...

Still, it handled my gamecube just fine, we only got rid of it when we moved because my relitives needed it more in the Phillopines (not that I wanted to part with something that I knew since I was 6 ).


Since then I've gotten a 19inch LCD, sure my laptop is a tad bigger (20inch) and it lacks hdmi support/high def abilities AND it's a factory second (damaged in the factory-only just marks) BUT this tv is all I need honestly, it does the ps3 fine, and as for sound...

It's small enough to sit on top on my sony mini hi-fi component system (MHC-RG444s-the s stand for subwoofer ) so i got surround sound anyway


Not that sound was something I wanted (in Hi-Q that is), it's just this tv lacked a remote (or I lost it) and it saved me time standing up to lower/bump up the volume when needed.

So unless I find a rather large high def tv for under $500 AUD (hint-NEVER) then I'm fine with outdated tv's.

 

http://www.cnet.com.au/the-more-pixels-the-merrier-240057142.htm

 

I wouldn't be able to tell the differance, if your picky then yes you would...

The only thing that caught my eye on these tv's is that new motion thingy...2 large tv's of some sort...one had the motion thingy...wow it moved more fluidly...big differance...

 

In my country HD broadcasting seems to be not feasible:

1. In some cases HD signals are sent via cable ala cable TV, so one reason many can not afford it.

2. A suitable solution to number one is, aerial HD broadcasting, but this to has it's share of issues:
2.a. You'll need to upgrade to an HD TV to enjoy the benefits - HD TV's are currently very expensive here so only the upper crust can afford it.
2.b. A suitable solution is an HD receiver that can convert the HD signals to standard television signals. Very practical, for now.
2.c. OK, 2.b. is practical, but you'd be surprised that in very isolated areas only one family may have a TV & procuring the signal converter
may be a hassle for them too.

And did you know that, because of these issues our country will only switch to full HD broadcasts on December 2015? This was decided so that the prices of HD TVs would be a little cheaper by then, but as I said there are places still where the old style TVs are rare "commodities" that only a few can afford.

So yeah, HD is cool, but very impractical for a country composing of 7,107 islands

 

Yeouch!

I have a "bad feeling" about this, it might be the 60's & 70's all over again here in my country if there wouldn't be a work around with what you said loony

By that what I meant is, back in the 60's only a handful people had TVs here, then in the 70's only a handful had colored TVs. If that happens good thing there's still Youtube. At least I find a lot of decent stuff to watch on there.

 

Depends on how you define pixels, I was taught that the dots caused by the beam of light hitting the screen was a pixel. It is true to say that analog tvs have no fixed pixels, but to say it doesn't use pixels is a matter of definition.

 

The formal definition of a pixel is the smallest display unit that can be independently changed. Although there are subpixels, which are the RGB components of regular pixels, I highly doubt you'll come across a conflicting definition, so this is not the problem.

Y'see, in the real world, there's no such thing as a "smallest unit"; the electron gun in a conventional television could move 0.1mm to the right, or it could move 0.01mm to the right, and so on.

 

I can totally agree with this.

I don't really like the High-Definition on TV shows.
I do prefer better graphics in games though.
So that's the only good thing about HD TV that I like, but I still have 2 older TVs that are perfectly fine.

 

HD for me just wish broadcasts where in 1080i... 720i still looks chunky on my 50"....

BTW, 4:3 and 16:9 are ASPECT RATIOs, they have nothing whatsoever to do with High Definition formats....

fyi, there are HD formats in 4:3, but there very uncomon as by the time HD came around the widescreed (16:9) format had been largely accepted.

Same goes for SD, I have a few 19"-24" SD TV's sitting in my attic

 

I was pretty comfortable with 4:3 but the new HD TV's(LCD in 16:9) have a bright future in image quality and computer for multimedia and fun alongside TV, but for now I prefer the old 4:3 CRT TV.

 

3DTV is here! Soon enough, HDTV would be like SDTV today and 3DTV will be live HDTV today. Soon enough, ther will be 4DTV or something like that!