# Do you own an HD TV



## skiNEwhere (Aug 27, 2007)

I personally don't watch regular t.v that much, but I do like to watch movies. The tv's are still out of my price range though. I have a normal 19 inch standard def tv. You?


----------



## Greg (Aug 27, 2007)

I voted yes, although our set is not technically an HD. It's an EDTV (enhanced definition) and I really struggle to see the difference between it and other HDs I've seen. It's a 42" Panasonic Plasma EDTV and I paid about $1,700 for it in 2005 which at the time was $1,000 cheaper than the actual HD version of the set. Talk about being a bit miffed this weekend when I saw a 58" Panasonic HD plasma at Costco for $2,200. Prices sure have come down recently. FWIW, I think Panasonics are by far the best value in terms of plasma televisions.


----------



## Grassi21 (Aug 27, 2007)

We went with a 42" Sony Vega.  Purchased it back in 2005.  

Here is the catch.  If you have Tivo be careful with your HD cable package.  We got the HD cable box.  I was having a blast watching YES in HD and NFL games.  Then the wife started nagging me to hook up the Tivo after our move from Trumbull to Southbury.  It turns out that our Series II Tivo will not work with an HD cable box.  We would have to upgrade to a Series III Tivo.  At the time they cost around $800.  Since we paid for the iIvo service for the products lifetime I need to abuse this Tivo for the next 1 - 1.5 years before I consider upgrading.  So we have an awesome HD TV but can't get use an HD cable box due to our Tivo.  In the battle between HD and Tivo, Tivo won hands down.  If there was a greater offering of HD channels it would have been a tougher battle.


----------



## hammer (Aug 27, 2007)

50" Sony Rear-Projection LCD, a few years old.  The 27" TV we had just looked way too small in my 16"x20" family room.  Still haven't upgraded by Dish subscription to HDTV, though.

I'm embarrassed at this point to say what it cost me.


----------



## Greg (Aug 27, 2007)

Grassi21 said:


> We went with a 42" Sony Vega.  Purchased it back in 2005.
> 
> Here is the catch.  If you have Tivo be careful with your HD cable package.  We got the HD cable box.  I was having a blast watching YES in HD and NFL games.  Then the wife started nagging me to hook up the Tivo after our move from Trumbull to Southbury.  It turns out that our Series II Tivo will not work with an HD cable box.  We would have to upgrade to a Series III Tivo.  At the time they cost around $800.  Since we paid for the iIvo service for the products lifetime I need to abuse this Tivo for the next 1 - 1.5 years before I consider upgrading.  So we have an awesome HD TV but can't get use an HD cable box due to our Tivo.  In the battle between HD and Tivo, Tivo won hands down.  If there was a greater offering of HD channels it would have been a tougher battle.



Similar boat here. We got DirectTV when we bought the set. At the time, Direct offered a Series 2 TiVo which we had until recently. Since that time, I believe Direct and TiVo parted ways, but I heard they may be offering an HD TiVo through Direct again. If you have a clear view of the SW sky, it might be worth looking into.

In our case, our DirectTV signal was never consistent. We often times would lose local programming. Once our contract was up we went back to cable and got an HD DVR. TiVO is MILES ahead of the DVR in terms of functionality and usability, but we're just going to live with it for now. The new Series 3 TiVos are NICE though. They work with most cable systems and all you need is two HD descrambler cards. Nice set-up. When we had cable and TiVo in the old house we had two cable boxes and the TiVo all rigged together to be able to watch a show while another records. With the new Series 3, you can watch a recorded show while you record two others all through one unit, sort of like the way the DirecTivo worked, but it's HD. They're about $600. Still pricey; maybe a purchase for the holidays.

Until then, the HD channels are great and it's nice to take full advantage of the set. SD on an HDTV is shit, especially with the wide-screen distortion and all that. I can't wait until HD is the norm.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 27, 2007)

Evil television...the bane of society. Big brother's way of controlling the masses and watching us too. 

A little paranoid? When it comes to TV, yes I am. 

My boss got new internet service here at work...4 cable boxes came with the deal. Sort of like free cocaine when you buy a bag of heroin.

Now there's a TV in the lunch room. And instead of the lively chatter we used to have in there, now I get to see a bunch of drooling zombies watching the intelligence sucking box.

Evil I tell you.


----------



## hammer (Aug 27, 2007)

Greg said:


> SD on an HDTV is shit, especially with the wide-screen distortion and all that. I can't wait until HD is the norm.


It may not be the greatest, but I don't think it's too bad...maybe having a digital signal helps?


----------



## big_vert (Aug 27, 2007)

I have a 52 Hitachi Ultravision HDTV, which was the hot ticket 4 years ago.

With Cablevisions high def package they have a tremendous number of high def stations, and recently included the Voom network that has lots of ski porn.

I'll be looking at a 61-65 inch shortly, and the JVC D-ILA or Sony offerings will be among the finalists I think.

I'm also looking  for a new preamp that will do HDMI 1.3 switching.


----------



## Greg (Aug 27, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Evil television...the bane of society. Big brother's way of controlling the masses and watching us too.
> 
> A little paranoid? When it comes to TV, yes I am.
> 
> ...



Lighten up, gramps...



hammer said:


> It may not be the greatest, but I don't think it's too bad...maybe having a digital signal helps?



Well, no, it's not that bad, but when watch something in HD, it's a bit shocking when you go back to SD.


----------



## hammer (Aug 27, 2007)

Greg said:


> Well, no, it's not that bad, but when watch something in HD, it's a bit shocking when you go back to SD.


Thanks...now I'm going to be thinking about making a call to Dish to upgrade my subscription... :roll: :wink:


----------



## BeanoNYC (Aug 27, 2007)

Samsung 42"
Time Warner Cable HDTV Tuner with HD DVR (HDMI Output)
PS3 with Blue Ray player (HDMI Output) : I rent the Blue Ray movies through Netflix.  The difference is amazing.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Aug 27, 2007)

We have a 42 inch Samsung HD plasma in the living room...the thing is like a heater it gets so hot, and a 46 inch Philips HD in the basement. They both are great for football and HD skiing flicks.


----------



## dmc (Aug 27, 2007)

I own 2...  
A 32" and 42" - both Sharp Aquos...   Going to mount the 42" on the wall...

I've turned the corner on HD...  I have problems watching anything that isn't...


----------



## BeanoNYC (Aug 27, 2007)

dmc said:


> I've turned the corner on HD...  I have problems watching anything that isn't...



Quite true.  I'll surf through my HD channels first THEN  go to non-HD channels only IF there is nothing of interest on the HD channels.  Discovery HD and Mojo usually have something good on it though.  I hope The History Channel steps up to the HD plate soon.


----------



## bvibert (Aug 27, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Evil television...the bane of society. Big brother's way of controlling the masses and watching us too.
> 
> A little paranoid? When it comes to TV, yes I am.
> 
> ...



I tend to agree with you, unfortunately I'm already hooked.  I hate that I sit in front of it like a zombie all the time when I'm home, even when there's stuff to do.  There should be a program like AA for TV addicts...

That said I have better things to spend my limited income on than HDTVs and such stuff.  My 27" Sony Vega from 6 years ago is just fine to watch basic cable and movies on.  Although I'm sure that if I had more disposable income I'd have more of these toys.


----------



## Grassi21 (Aug 27, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Evil television...the bane of society. Big brother's way of controlling the masses and watching us too.
> 
> A little paranoid? When it comes to TV, yes I am.
> 
> ...



I do agree with your statement about television being evil and the bane of society but for different reasons.  Presently, I think most TV is garbage.  The only channels I watch these days are TLC, Discovery, History, HGTV, National Geographic, Food Network, and Lifetime...  Just kidding about Lifetime.  Give me some knowledge and facts and I can watch all day.  That is when the weather stinks, its not ski season, or in the evenings.


----------



## bvibert (Aug 27, 2007)

Greg said:


> Until then, the HD channels are great and it's nice to take full advantage of the set. SD on an HDTV is shit, especially with the wide-screen distortion and all that. I can't wait until HD is the norm.



You should be able to change it so that SD pictures don't take up the whole screen.  You'll have black bars on the sides, but it's still better than watching a distorted picture IMHO.  It drives me nuts when I go over my in-laws where they always seem to be watching SD programming stretched to fit their widescreen TV...


----------



## hammer (Aug 27, 2007)

bvibert said:


> You should be able to change it so that SD pictures don't take up the whole screen.  You'll have black bars on the sides, but it's still better than watching a distorted picture IMHO.  It drives me nuts when I go over my in-laws where they always seem to be watching SD programming stretched to fit their widescreen TV...


My TV has a "wide zoom"  display mode that does less stretching...I usually don't notice the loss of picture on the top and bottom.


----------



## Greg (Aug 27, 2007)

bvibert said:


> You should be able to change it so that SD pictures don't take up the whole screen.  You'll have black bars on the sides, but it's still better than watching a distorted picture IMHO.  It drives me nuts when I go over my in-laws where they always seem to be watching SD programming stretched to fit their widescreen TV...





hammer said:


> My TV has a "wide zoom"  display mode that does less stretching...I usually don't notice the loss of picture on the top and bottom.



Oh yeah. I can do that (letterboxing), but one concern is screen burn-in and plasmas were at one time susceptible to that. I think the newer generations are less prone to it though. Also letterboxing SD results in the same size as a 36" TV. I bought a 42" and I want to view the picture in the whole screen, dammit!

Mine has zoom too, but losing captions and stuff it annoying. We use a "Just" mode on our SD channels which stretches more on the ends and less in the center. Still, everyone looks a bit pudgy, but you get used to it. It's interesting when you switch to the HD channel and everyone looks weird and skinny at first.


----------



## BeanoNYC (Aug 27, 2007)

bvibert said:


> You should be able to change it so that SD pictures don't take up the whole screen.  You'll have black bars on the sides, but it's still better than watching a distorted picture IMHO.  It drives me nuts when I go over my in-laws where they always seem to be watching SD programming stretched to fit their widescreen TV...



I've helped some people out who complain about a 4:3 picture defaulting to widescreen.  It's usually the cable box aspect output setting.  You can keep the TV setting at 16:9 and the 4:3 channels will now have the bars without the default-distorting setting.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 27, 2007)

Grassi21 said:


> I do agree with your statement about television being evil and the bane of society but for different reasons.  Presently, I think most TV is garbage.  The only channels I watch these days are TLC, Discovery, History, HGTV, National Geographic, Food Network, and Lifetime...  Just kidding about Lifetime.  Give me some knowledge and facts and I can watch all day.  That is when the weather stinks, its not ski season, or in the evenings.



There's something about the way TV heads throw around the inches.

Something's going on there with the measurement thing.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...


----------



## JimG. (Aug 27, 2007)

bvibert said:


> I tend to agree with you, unfortunately I'm already hooked.



Big brother loves you.

You need a bigger TV...and some beer.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 27, 2007)

OldsnowboarderME said:


> TV is what you make it.



Indeed true...and there is some good TV. What's not good you just turn off. I just don't watch much. So all the new technology is lost on me.

I don't really see a big difference with these new expensive TV's. But that's just me because I don't care all that much about the medium. I have a friend who spent the better part of an evening trying to educate and convince me that his new HD had the best picture you can get from a TV. And I kept trying to discreetly and nicely tell him I just didn't care. That to me spending $2000 on a TV is pointless. 

He still thinks I must have vision problems.


----------



## Greg (Aug 27, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Indeed true...and there is some good TV. What's not good you just turn off. I just don't watch much. So all the new technology is lost on me.
> 
> I don't really see a big difference with these new expensive TV's. But that's just me because I don't care all that much about the medium. I have a friend who spent the better part of an evening trying to educate and convince me that his new HD had the best picture you can get from a TV. And I kept trying to discreetly and nicely tell him I just didn't care. That to me spending $2000 on a TV is pointless.
> 
> He still thinks I must have vision problems.



Not caring is one thing, but it's pretty hard to not see and appreciate the clarity of an HD broadcast. You're an avid sports fan, Jim. You should watch a game in HD. That might change your mind. I'm about as far from a baseball fan as they come, but I often find myself watching games in HD just because they look so good. For big time sports fans, HD is awesome and most of the other programming (Discovery, Mojo, Voom, etc.) is pretty good.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 27, 2007)

Greg said:


> Not caring is one thing, but it's pretty hard to not see and appreciate the clarity of an HD broadcast. You're an avid sports fan, Jim. You should watch a game in HD. That might change your mind. I'm about as far from a baseball fan as they come, but I often find myself watching games in HD just because they look so good. For big time sports fans, HD is awesome and most of the other programming (Discovery, Mojo, Voom, etc.) is pretty good.



I like sports.

But I'm just as happy listening to a game on a radio while I'm out fishing as sitting in front of a boob tube.

Which is a bad name for it here in America since you never see any on it...if you did, I might care more about HD.

Greg, honestly, I can tell a ski I like from one I don't but I just don't see the big difference between HD and plain old TV. Let's put it this way...I don't see a difference that's going to make me jump up and want to spend thousands to get it. It's hard to appreciate something if you don't care about it.


----------



## Greg (Aug 27, 2007)

JimG. said:


> I like sports.
> 
> But I'm just as happy listening to a game on a radio while I'm out fishing as sitting in front of a boob tube.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I see where you're coming from. I too am not a big TV watcher. Maybe an hour or two before bed to unwind. Nonetheless, I still think there is a huge difference between HD and SD...


----------



## YardSaleDad (Aug 27, 2007)

It was the domino effect for me.  Got the HDV camera, which meant a HDTV set, HDV capable PC, and HDV editing software.  Worth every penny when I play one of my hang gliding videos on it.  Here's a torrent for one:

http://videos.tirnalong.com:6969/torrent.html?info_hash=e8f0d8460475460e44e2a5bb637817dc10de19fd


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 27, 2007)

I have a normal 27" TV and am still waiting for the prices to come down.  Once I see a 42" 1080i set with a picture I enjoy that I can get mounted on the wall with warranty for under $1000, I'll jump in, but until then I'll be fine with wath I have.  After watching my parents pay upwards of 4 g's on a 32" Plasma 5 years ago and seeing a comparable TV go for $900 today, I'm still waiting. I'm guessing this will happen by January. I've already seen 42" 1080i sets for a grand, so figuring the wall mount and warranty run about $300, it's not too far away.

When is it that all TV broadcasts are required to switch over to the HD signal?


----------



## dmc (Aug 27, 2007)

JimG. said:


> There's something about the way TV heads throw around the inches.
> 
> Something's going on there with the measurement thing.
> 
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...



well... size matters...  otherwise I'd just watch TV on my IPOD...


----------



## BeanoNYC (Aug 27, 2007)

deadheadskier said:


> I've already seen 42" 1080i sets for a grand, so figuring the wall mount and warranty run about $300, it's not too far away.



Don't let them talk you into getting those expensive monster cables.  It's a digital signal...any decent HDMI cable will do.


----------



## BeanoNYC (Aug 27, 2007)

Relevant article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/b...c8cb38cd&ex=1345694400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


----------



## awf170 (Aug 27, 2007)

I am far too cheap to buy cable.  (Also, I love GIS)


----------



## dmc (Aug 27, 2007)

BeanoNYC said:


> Relevant article:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/b...c8cb38cd&ex=1345694400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



I'm still waiting for the price of calculators to come down..


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 28, 2007)

deadheadskier said:


> When is it that all TV broadcasts are required to switch over to the HD signal?



Not an HD signal, just a digital one. I think the conversion started in June. Now it's an all-out tag team naked Jell-o wrestling match for who gets to do what with the analog spectrum.

I have two HD TVs, but only one HD cable box. One's a 36" Aquos, not sure what the little one is. It was flat, and it was cheap, so we got it for the bedroom.


----------



## drjeff (Aug 28, 2007)

I'm upto 3 now between the multiple properties.

The primary is a wall mounted 50" Samsung Plasma.  The secondary in the basement is my "old school" Sony XBR 32" high def ready picture tube TV (weighs almost as much as a snowcat   )  And then I just added a 32" LCD wall mounted TV at the ski house(this one actually saved me $$ in a round about way as after we bought our ski house, my wife was convinced that we needed a wall of built in cabinetry for the TV(26" tube came with the place)/books/family momentos, etc.  I suggested hanging a flat sceen on the wall,  and a quick trip to walmart and I have a clean looking wall with a high def picture 

Love high def programming.  I could literally just watch Discovery HD all day, okay the occasional NESN Redsox broadcast isn't tooo bad either!


----------



## MRGisevil (Aug 28, 2007)

I'm quite spoiled: I have a 50" flat screen plasma in the great room and a 46" DLP in the living room:grin:


----------



## SkiDog (Aug 28, 2007)

deadheadskier said:


> When is it that all TV broadcasts are required to switch over to the HD signal?




They dont have to switch to HD only DIGITAL.....the analog is going the way of the do do bird I think next year is the cutoff for major networks..smaller markets have some leeway.

and in regards to the HD/Flat panel/LCD/Plasma....

ONE WORD..

VISIO....

nuff said...

you'll LOVE the cost...youll LOVE the set, and you'll LOVE the picture.

M


----------



## RISkier (Aug 28, 2007)

Haven't taken the plunge yet but have been looking.  Folks pay through the nose to be early adopters of new technologies.  How do you folks who have the Sharp Aquos LCDs like them?  And do you see any ghosting or image blur when watching fast moving subjects?  I've been debating plasma or LCD.  The plasmas are heavy, use lots of electricity, and generate a lot of heat.  And we have some built in area where the TV will have to go so the heat concerns.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 28, 2007)

There is some blur/pixilation on the Aquos. It's usually not noticeable, but when it is it annoys me. Never see it in anything HD or on DVD, but early 90's action movies on TBS are tough.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Aug 30, 2007)

I spend a lot of time away from home, so I end up watching TV on my laptop using a SlingBox. 

The SlingBox is, IMHO, one of the greatest inventions of the past 10 years.  Amazing technology.  And cheap!

At home I have a regular ol' 32" TV.  It's true that the ball game isn't as crisp as on HD, but I've got other things to spend $2000 on.  It's just a question of priorities.  I don't think badly of people who spend that kind of money on TV.  It must be important to them.


----------



## severine (Sep 9, 2007)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> At home I have a regular ol' 32" TV.  It's true that the ball game isn't as crisp as on HD, but I've got other things to spend $2000 on.  It's just a question of priorities.  I don't think badly of people who spend that kind of money on TV.  It must be important to them.


I have to agree with this.  While those HDTVs are beautiful and I drool over them, there are more important things we need right now.  It's scary to think that my first several cars cost less than these TVs, though.


----------



## ctenidae (Sep 10, 2007)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> It's just a question of priorities.  I don't think badly of people who spend that kind of money on TV.  It must be important to them.



We went with the LCD because our old TV died, and since it was a big-assed console, nothing would fit in its space, and we didn't have room for a new stand etc. In our new place now, the TV looks great on the wall. Not that I've had any time to watch it since we moved in.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 10, 2007)

I have a 20" Magnavox that was 150 bucks from Target..it's not a plasma but the screen is flat..I don't waste my money on Electronics..only on skiing, booze, and food.  My parents have three large flat screens at their new house but they're ballers..I think they were each more than $1,000..


----------



## Paul (Sep 10, 2007)

52" Mitsubishi DLP. Motherboard shat the bed on Aug. 5th.





I'm going through withdrawl waiting for it to come-in...


----------



## severine (Sep 11, 2007)

I have to say that after spending the afternoon at my parents' house (with their Big Screen HDTV, not sure what kind just that it's a Toshiba, on all day) that I'm getting pulled into the dark side.   HD nature programs are awesome!  Of course, that would require a new tv and extended cable... no $$$ for that.  But it's nice to dream....


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2007)

well, I couldn't hold out any longer.  Got a sweet deal on a 42" Panasonic Plasma on Friday, so I bit.  What a difference


----------



## Greg (Oct 1, 2007)

deadheadskier said:


> well, I couldn't hold out any longer.  Got a sweet deal on a 42" Panasonic Plasma on Friday, so I bit.  What a difference



Nice! Panny's are a great value.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2007)

Greg said:


> Nice! Panny's are a great value.



I thought so.  Price was $1150.  I was suprised they didn't try and talk me into a more expensive option.  All I said was I was looking for something in the 37-42" range that was great for sports and non-HD channels as I still watch quite a few of them.  There were TV's of that size nearly twice the price, but comparing them all side by side, none really struck me as being much better if at all than the Panasonic, so I went with it.


----------



## WWF-VT (Oct 1, 2007)

Normal 20" Mitsubishi TV that's about 15 years old.  No cable - "rabbit ears" and because we live in the Boston suburbs we get 10 channel options.  TV not a big priority


----------



## skiNEwhere (Apr 2, 2016)

Bump. Funny how 1080p is now becoming "old" technology. 

I'm thinking of buying a 4k TV. Prices have seemed to drop into the affordable range, but I'd like to hear what people think of their own 4k TV's before I pull the trigger. These curved TV's seem to be all the rage as well now, how do those of you who have one like them so far?


----------



## gmcunni (Apr 2, 2016)

every time we walk into Costco i tell my wife we need a bigger better TV


----------



## Puck it (Apr 2, 2016)

skiNEwhere said:


> Bump. Funny how 1080p is now becoming "old" technology.
> 
> I'm thinking of buying a 4k TV. Prices have seemed to drop into the affordable range, but I'd like to hear what people think of their own 4k TV's before I pull the trigger. These curved TV's seem to be all the rage as well now, how do those of you who have one like them so far?


They awesome when you watch in 4K.  Cable with the upscaling is definitely better but cable does not have the refresh rate and seems a little worse with the 4K. Not terrible but I notice it no one else does. We have Samsung 50 and curve 65.  I paid $800 for the 50 just before Xmas and the 65 was bought a year ago and the 75" is the same price now. The 65 came with preloaded movies and documentaries on a hard drive all in 4K.  They are amazing to watch. Netflix and Amazon prime stream in 4K.


----------



## delco714 (Apr 2, 2016)

65" 3d Samsung led from 10/2013. Matching vacuum tubes surround sound


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 3, 2016)

Reading the comments from less than ten years ago is interesting. Incredible how fast technology changes, and becomes commonplace. Most amazing, we still have, and use, the Aquos, ten years later. Not much gets built that will anymore.

Haven't pulled the trigger on 4K yet. No need to replace anything, and for awhile I was concerned it would be a leapfrogged technology, quickly replaced by something else. Still not a whole lot of programming available, maybe Hololens becomes the next standard instead.


----------



## prsboogie (Apr 3, 2016)

Bought a 58" Samsung Plasma two years ago and to this date I haven't seen a picture out there that has made me regret the purchase. Granted once the 4K tech is wide spread, that will be a different story. But for now, I am completely satisfied!


----------



## yeggous (Apr 3, 2016)

I've been thinking about upgrading but am waiting for 4K content to catch up. I have a six year old Samsung 55" LED. It is super thin, light weight, and has built-in apps for Netflix, HBO, etc. But it is not 4K.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## delco714 (Apr 3, 2016)

prsboogie said:


> Bought a 58" Samsung Plasma two years ago and to this date I haven't seen a picture out there that has made me regret the purchase. Granted once the 4K tech is wide spread, that will be a different story. But for now, I am completely satisfied!


We got 4k camera and screens in the OR for laparoscopic surgery.. The vendors weren't happy when I said there's not much difference. Especially on a small 30" screen.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 3, 2016)

delco714 said:


> We got 4k camera and screens in the OR for laparoscopic surgery.. The vendors weren't happy when I said there's not much difference. Especially on a small 30" screen.



What type of surgeon are you?


----------



## prsboogie (Apr 3, 2016)

delco714 said:


> We got 4k camera and screens in the OR for laparoscopic surgery.. The vendors weren't happy when I said there's not much difference. Especially on a small 30" screen.



That's great, I'm sure he or she wasn't!!


----------



## delco714 (Apr 3, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> What type of surgeon are you?


I'm a urology-surgical oncology PA


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 3, 2016)

delco714 said:


> I'm a urology-surgical oncology PA



Cool.  I'm a vendor who gets annoyed when the Docs and staff aren't impressed with my fancy technology.  :lol:


----------



## bigbog (Apr 3, 2016)

There's a lot more, that I need, to spend $$$ on...  Guess I'm beyond the craze in years..


----------



## delco714 (Apr 3, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Cool.  I'm a vendor who gets annoyed when the Docs and staff aren't impressed with my fancy technology.  :lol:


Wahhhh wahhhh hahaha


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 3, 2016)

This thread is really interesting to read from beginning to end.  Nice time capsule of technological development.


----------



## SkiFanE (Apr 4, 2016)

ctenidae said:


> Reading the comments from less than ten years ago is interesting. Incredible how fast technology changes, and becomes commonplace. Most amazing, we still have, and use, the Aquos, ten years later. Not much gets built that will anymore.
> 
> Haven't pulled the trigger on 4K yet. No need to replace anything, and for awhile I was concerned it would be a leapfrogged technology, quickly replaced by something else. Still not a whole lot of programming available, maybe Hololens becomes the next standard instead.



so funny - we have two Aquos - thinking about 8 & 6 years old. Have no idea why I'd need anything new. Our huge analog TV just shit the bed - it was our bedroom TV, so doing without for now. See how much I miss it - we don't even use cable TV, so just antennae anyway. But at least with new TV I can stream Netflix. We don't have enough disposable income at the moment to care about swapping out for "newer"- we spend too much on our ski habit (and college tuition).  We've got HD baby - wait til the next fad that basically forces us to buy new.


----------



## Geoff (Apr 4, 2016)

I was still tube TV back in 2007.  I've had a couple of 50" Panasonic plasma panels since 2010.   

I don't see the point in a 4K 65" panel.    When the price drops on 80"+ panels, I'll probably ditch all my electronics and start over.   Web control over the AV receiver and Blu Ray player would be nice


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 4, 2016)

Guessing Blue Ray players aren't long for this world


----------



## yeggous (Apr 4, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Guessing Blue Ray players aren't long for this world



They are already obsolete. I haven't used mine in two years or so.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 4, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Guessing Blue Ray players aren't long for this world



One of ours has stopped playing BluRay discs. Plays regular DVDs fine, oddly. Only reason for them in my mind is for the kids, but that's pretty thin, as it would be easier (and more portable) to download from Amazon.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 4, 2016)

I've got a number of Concert Blueray discs I regularly enjoy.  Some are imported and likely not available on Netflix


----------



## Abubob (Apr 5, 2016)

I checked 'waiting for the price to come down' but that's only partially right. For our small living room our 29" CRT is still okay. I'm really just waiting for it to die. It's almost 12 years old. Anyone know the life expectancy on these?


----------



## Puck it (Apr 5, 2016)

Abubob said:


> I checked 'waiting for the price to come down' but that's only partially right. For our small living room our 29" CRT is still okay. I'm really just waiting for it to die. It's almost 12 years old. Anyone know the life expectancy on these?


You can get a 32" 1080P LCD for under $150 now.


----------



## Abubob (Apr 5, 2016)

Puck it said:


> You can get a 32" 1080P LCD for under $150 now.


That's cool. Maybe by the time the CRT dies a 42" will cost that much. Seems I've seen 42s for $200 somewhere already.


----------



## delco714 (Apr 5, 2016)

Abubob said:


> I checked 'waiting for the price to come down' but that's only partially right. For our small living room our 29" CRT is still okay. I'm really just waiting for it to die. It's almost 12 years old. Anyone know the life expectancy on these?


Yeah..forever. It's THAT type of technology


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 5, 2016)

Abubob said:


> Anyone know the life expectancy on these?



Depends on the result of a complicated formula involving how much you want a new TV, your desire to stick to your philosophical guns, your income tax refund, and the feasibility and believability of an across-the-kitchen-accidental-wounded-soldier-bottle-toss. Accuracy counts.

In short, the more you want it to die, the longer it will last.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Apr 5, 2016)

I still have one of the Aquos's from 2006..
It's kicking ass...

My ex has the other... I hope it broke...


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Apr 5, 2016)

Abubob said:


> That's cool. Maybe by the time the CRT dies a 42" will cost that much. Seems I've seen 42s for $200 somewhere already.



Oh man a 42" tube will blow up good..  
Couple m80's... some duct tape...  boom!!


----------



## Abubob (Apr 5, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> Oh man a 42" tube will blow up good..
> Couple m80's... some duct tape...  boom!!


No no. The CRT is only 29". But you're welcome to try it.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Apr 5, 2016)

Abubob said:


> No no. The CRT is only 29". But you're welcome to try it.



So you're keeping a crappy 29" TV when you could buy one bigger and better for less than $200....  

SMASH IT!!!!


----------



## xwhaler (Apr 5, 2016)

Main TV is a Samsung 46" LCD purchased for $1200 approx 8 yrs ago.   LEDs at the time were just coming into play and the same TV was going to be $600+ more.  

I don't have any real reason to upgrade it.  Samsung makes nice TVs then and now

I pair it with a blu Ray player for nice quality movie watching


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 5, 2016)

I have a 42" LCD that is ~6 yrs old.  If it were to die I'd probably replace it with a nice painting and some new speakers. My TV's main job lately is to stream music,  which is a really stupid use of energy,  technology,  and sound quality.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 6, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> So you're keeping a crappy 29" TV when you could buy one bigger and better for less than $200....
> 
> SMASH IT!!!!



Done correctly, that's easily $200 worth of entertainment.


----------



## yeggous (Apr 6, 2016)

ctenidae said:


> Done correctly, that's easily $200 worth of entertainment.



+1


----------



## Abubob (Apr 6, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> So you're keeping a crappy 29" TV when you could buy one bigger and better for less than $200....
> 
> SMASH IT!!!!


I have contemplated accidently dropping off the roof.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Apr 6, 2016)

abubob said:


> i have contemplated accidently dropping off the roof.



yes!!!!


----------



## Cannonball (Apr 6, 2016)

The cost of televisions vs the quality of content is really out of whack. Give me something worth watching and I'll consider buying a new TV


----------



## WWF-VT (Apr 6, 2016)

We have a 32" Samsung TV that's about 6 years old.  No cable bill as we use rabbit ears and get about 20 different channels.   Don't really watch a lot of TV but it has a great picture and sound for watching movies on DVD that we get for free from the local library.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Apr 6, 2016)

Cannonball said:


> The cost of televisions vs the quality of content is really out of whack. Give me something worth watching and I'll consider buying a new TV



This is actually part of the reason I want a new TV. A lot of these original series on HBO, Amazon prime, and Netflix are pretty damn good


----------



## Edd (Apr 6, 2016)

Cannonball said:


> The cost of televisions vs the quality of content is really out of whack. Give me something worth watching and I'll consider buying a new TV



There are far too many quality shows for me to even keep up with. I'd have to work less to watch it all. It's out there, IMO.


----------



## SkiFanE (Apr 6, 2016)

WWF-VT said:


> We have a 32" Samsung TV that's about 6 years old.  No cable bill as we use rabbit ears and get about 20 different channels.   Don't really watch a lot of TV but it has a great picture and sound for watching movies on DVD that we get for free from the local library.


. Over the air TV is best signal possible (been told by my EE husband). I'm on tallest hill in town 15 miles from Boston, probably same from Needham antennas. Our outdoor HD receiver has been quirky though - husband needs to check on it - but usually perfect reception from tons of stations (well, relative to a non-cable person lol).  Haven't paid for cable since 1999 - well til we got cable Internet and cheaper to get bundle with cable - we just don't hook it up (used cable wire for antennae). Although we can use our xfinity acct to stream. Probably saved enough to cover our ski house down payment over those years lol. (Think about that youngins who say you can't save - give up your TV!)


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 6, 2016)

Cannonball said:


> The cost of televisions vs the quality of content is really out of whack. Give me something worth watching and I'll consider buying a new TV



My long held wish is for ala carte packaging.  I literally watch about fifteen channels total. I don't need the other 885 and find it annoying to have to surf through all the garbage.

I hear about all the great "shows" out there, but I have fear of commitment to watching TV series.  The last show I regularly watched was Cheers when it was still live and that's only because of my mom. She had a thing for Ted Danson back then.

Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Office, Game of Thrones, Whatever that Zombie show is, Ive never bothered watching.  Actually that's not true, half an episode of Zombie show, but I thought it was dumb.

Typically I'll leave something on Discovery or Natgeo in the background while I'm reading


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Apr 7, 2016)

I had my ex's login for Time Warner for a while...  She never took me off the account.
I was able to watch Discovery and History on Apple TV or Roku..  But then she changed the account... 

I think ala carte is JUST around the corner..  Within the next couple years for sure


----------



## yeggous (Apr 7, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> I think ala carte is JUST around the corner..  Within the next couple years for sure



Right... people have been saying that for years. But the market has responded by digging in and vertically integrating. The cable company now owns the content.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Apr 7, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Right... people have been saying that for years. But the market has responded by digging in and vertically integrating. The cable company now owns the content.



It's starting to happen..
I have ala carte' HBO, CBS, PBS right now... I had ala carte' SHowtime for a while to watch my friends Series..

It's happening...


----------



## JaneGibb (Apr 7, 2016)

I had one attached to our living room but sold it cheap since it distracted a lot our son who got really bad scores at school because of too much watching cartoons


----------



## gmcunni (Aug 24, 2017)

need a new tv, what are the latest greatest options in the market?  looking for something 60" or so, wall mounted.  wide viewing angle.


----------



## Edd (Aug 24, 2017)

Not certain about a wide viewing angle, but I've read great things this year about the OLED models from LG.


----------



## dlague (Aug 24, 2017)

JimG. said:


> Evil television...the bane of society. Big brother's way of controlling the masses and watching us too.
> 
> A little paranoid? When it comes to TV, yes I am.
> 
> ...



This is pretty funny.

I had not seen this thread yet, but reading the earlier statements, I wonder what their stance is now.  We have jumped up in size three times to a 55 inch and now are looking at going to 65.    In fact, you can get a 65 inch Smart TV 4K for easily less than a thousand - I found some for $599.  Now if you pay more it is not because of size and video quality but because of added features like web access, network capable, pre-installed software, lots of ports etc.

I assume that everyone has 2 or 3 these days!  

Love to watch HD Youtube skiing movie - lots of full length stuff there now.  Watch Claim it is good and the beginning pretty funny.  My TV is not Smart so I use Chromecast.


----------



## Jully (Aug 25, 2017)

dlague said:


> Love to watch HD Youtube skiing movie - lots of full length stuff there now.  Watch Claim it is good and the beginning pretty funny.  My TV is not Smart so I use Chromecast.



Chromecast is every bit as good as a smart TV IMO. Not sure what the price difference between smart and not smart TVs, but when they first came out I thought they were an incredible gimmick and not worth it. I could be totally off base though.


----------



## benski (Aug 25, 2017)

Jully said:


> Chromecast is every bit as good as a smart TV IMO. Not sure what the price difference between smart and not smart TVs, but when they first came out I thought they were an incredible gimmick and not worth it. I could be totally off base though.



Those aftermarket streaming devices are probably more user friendly. I tried using one once and returned it after signing into my inactive Netflix account instead of my active one and not being able to sign out. Also I bet the streaming device goes obsolete long before you decire a new TV.


----------



## mlctvt (Aug 25, 2017)

Don't buy a smart TV , they aren't smart. Many don't even have access to some major streaming services like Amazon. Or their agreements change and what they have today they might not have in a year or two. Just get the latest Roku, they have agreements with almost ever service, over 4500 in all.


----------



## Edd (Aug 25, 2017)

Agree with comments above. The interfaces on the Apple TV, Roku, and others blow away the smart TVs, the TCL Roku TVs being a probable exception.


----------



## Jully (Aug 25, 2017)

Edd said:


> Agree with comments above. The interfaces on the Apple TV, Roku, and others blow away the smart TVs, the TCL Roku TVs being a probable exception.



That's what I thought. Didn't want to harp on something I had never really tried though!


----------



## gmcunni (Aug 25, 2017)

xfinity (new cable provider) has smart boxes too.  so can now netflix without the roku.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 25, 2017)

dlague said:


> This is pretty funny.
> 
> I had not seen this thread yet, but reading the earlier statements, I wonder what their stance is now.  We have jumped up in size three times to a 55 inch and now are looking at going to 65.    In fact, you can get a 65 inch Smart TV 4K for easily less than a thousand - I found some for $599.  Now if you pay more it is not because of size and video quality but because of added features like web access, network capable, pre-installed software, lots of ports etc.
> 
> ...



What's funny is that even though I now own an HD, it's only because the old boob tube blew up. 

If I had my way there would be no TV here but the rest of the family would revolt. There is nothing on TV that interests me and that feeling only grows as time passes. 

Don't participate in "social" media either. I have real people to interact with and I have no need for a soapbox.


----------



## benski (Aug 25, 2017)

JimG. said:


> What's funny is that even though I now own an HD, it's only because the old boob tube blew up.
> 
> If I had my way there would be no TV here but the rest of the family would revolt. There is nothing on TV that interests me and that feeling only grows as time passes.
> 
> Don't participate in "social" media either. I have real people to interact with and I have no need for a soapbox.



Same. I am about to move in for the semester to a place with no TV and don't care. I would say a lot of college students don't have one. I only had one my first two years of college becouse I needed it for free cable with a free 19 inch TV.


----------



## dlague (Aug 26, 2017)

JimG. said:


> What's funny is that even though I now own an HD, it's only because the old boob tube blew up.
> 
> If I had my way there would be no TV here but the rest of the family would revolt. There is nothing on TV that interests me and that feeling only grows as time passes.
> 
> Don't participate in "social" media either. I have real people to interact with and I have no need for a soapbox.


Are we the real people?

Sent from my SM-G930V using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## JimG. (Aug 26, 2017)

benski said:


> Same. I am about to move in for the semester to a place with no TV and don't care. I would say a lot of college students don't have one. I only had one my first two years of college becouse I needed it for free cable with a free 19 inch TV.



My 2 oldest boys (one just graduated, the other in his senior year) have HD but not for TV. Those are for gaming. If they watch TV it's through Netflix.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 26, 2017)

dlague said:


> Are we the real people?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using AlpineZone mobile app



Is this social media? 

Not in my book and I have met many (including you Dave) in person.


----------



## benski (Aug 26, 2017)

JimG. said:


> Is this social media?
> 
> Not in my book and I have met many (including you Dave) in person.



Yes. The original social media.


----------



## dlague (Aug 26, 2017)

benski said:


> Yes. The original social media.





JimG. said:


> Is this social media?
> 
> Not in my book and I have met many (including you Dave) in person.


I much prefer this medium as a social media platform over others out there like FB, Instagram nd the like.

And like you we have met other like minded folk.

Sent from my SM-G930V using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## JimG. (Aug 26, 2017)

benski said:


> Yes. The original social media.



I guess.

My definition is more along the lines of Facebook/twitter/snapchat etc. or any dating site.

A great example of the dumbness that afflicts people who use those sites is the recent lawsuit Lindsey Vonn filed regarding the nude photos someone hacked from her social media accounts. She either did that on purpose for the publicity or she is dumber than a post for putting nude photos where they can obviously be hacked.

Pretty slick segue back to skiing huh?


----------



## JimG. (Aug 26, 2017)

dlague said:


> I much prefer this medium as a social media platform over others out there like FB, Instagram nd the like.
> 
> And like you we have met other like minded folk.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using AlpineZone mobile app



I would agree but since I've never used other social media I'm a poor judge.

To this dinosaur social implies physical presence.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 27, 2017)

JimG. said:


> I guess.
> 
> My definition is more along the lines of Facebook/twitter/snapchat etc. or any dating site.
> 
> ...


Pretty certain those Vonn photos and those of other celebrities were hacked directly from their cloud storage from their phones and social media had nothing to do with it.  

It's a catch-22 situation.  I have tons of photos of skiing, my son and other things/events saved directly on my phone,  but they are all backed up on the cloud service that comes with my Verizon account.  That's great if I break my phone as I won't lose those pictures, but it also means anyone with hacking skills can access those photos.  

Had she deleted the photos from her cloud storage, hackers wouldn't have been able to acquire them.  I periodically delete stuff from my cloud storage when it's getting full and I get a message that I need to buy more storage. Otherwise I wouldn't think of doing so.  

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## benski (Aug 27, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> Pretty certain those Vonn photos and those of other celebrities were hacked directly from their cloud storage from their phones and social media had nothing to do with it.
> 
> It's a catch-22 situation.  I have tons of photos of skiing, my son and other things/events saved directly on my phone,  but they are all backed up on the cloud service that comes with my Verizon account.  That's great if I break my phone as I won't lose those pictures, but it also means anyone with hacking skills can access those photos.
> 
> ...



Yeah but who wants to steal your photos. They only steal these celebrities photos because the Daily Mail pays to publish them. I guess if they are inappropriate hackers could use them as blackmail.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 27, 2017)

I'm not suggesting anyone has any interest in my own photos. I was simply stating social media had nothing to do with her photos getting hacked.

Very well could be an interesting financial strategy.

1. Take newdz including pictures of famous golfer boyfriend
2. Leave them on the cloud
3. Wait for them to be hacked and published
4. Sue and profit

She may end up making more money off of this than all of her endorsements.



Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## benski (Aug 27, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm not suggesting anyone has any interest in my own photos. I was simply stating social media had nothing to do with her photos getting hacked.
> 
> Very well could be an interesting financial strategy.
> 
> ...



No such thing of bad publicity either.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 27, 2017)

See I learn something every day. 

I keep my pictures in frames at home.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 27, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> Pretty certain those Vonn photos and those of other celebrities were hacked directly from their cloud storage from their phones and social media had nothing to do with it.
> 
> It's a catch-22 situation.  I have tons of photos of skiing, my son and other things/events saved directly on my phone,  but they are all backed up on the cloud service that comes with my Verizon account.  That's great if I break my phone as I won't lose those pictures, but it also means anyone with hacking skills can access those photos.
> 
> ...



See my post below.

I hear you and appreciate the tech update but it's all semantics to me. I don't have any nude pics of me but I wouldn't put them in a place hackers could get at them. But some celebs make a living doing that I guess. Read Hilton or Kardashian.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 27, 2017)

JimG. said:


> See my post below.
> 
> I hear you and appreciate the tech update but it's all semantics to me. I don't have any nude pics of me but I wouldn't put them in a place hackers could get at them. But some celebs make a living doing that I guess. Read Hilton or Kardashian.



I don't have any nude photos of myself either.  I guess what I'm saying is most people don't even realize most digital storage nowadays is hackable. Literally everything we do involving computers is connected to the rest of the world and if people want that information and have the skill, they can get it.

Maybe for her next boyfriend, Lindsey will snap Polaroids and pop them in an album for him. 

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jully (Aug 28, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't have any nude photos of myself either.  I guess what I'm saying is most people don't even realize most digital storage nowadays is hackable. Literally everything we do involving computers is connected to the rest of the world and if people want that information and have the skill, they can get it.
> 
> Maybe for her next boyfriend, Lindsey will snap Polaroids and pop them in an album for him.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



Exactly. She likely didn't even know. She probably even had them deleted off her own phone! Imagine the surprise when photos she deleted 5 months ago show up online.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 28, 2017)

I guess you guys are far kinder and forgiving than me.

Putting potentially compromising photos anywhere they are not completely safe from thieves is not advisable. Ignorance is no excuse.


----------



## Not Sure (Aug 28, 2017)

JimG. said:


> I guess you guys are far kinder and forgiving than me.
> 
> Putting potentially compromising photos anywhere they are not completely safe from thieves is not advisable. Ignorance is no excuse.



1+ ...You mean like on Sports ilLUSTrated ? Paint is clothing? I'm not feeling the least bit sorry for her.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 29, 2017)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> 1+ ...You mean like on Sports ilLUSTrated ? Paint is clothing? I'm not feeling the least bit sorry for her.



I don't mind paint for clothing. Or full on nudity for that matter.

But if folks then decide to sue over it that's where they lose me. No sympathy for the money grab.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 29, 2017)

I guess I view the hacking of personal photographs off of one's phone or PC the same as hacking any other personal information such as financial accounts.  As mentioned prior, the people who do the hacking profit by selling the photos to websites and the websites profit from user traffic.   So, I don't really have a problem with someone like Vonn suing the people engaged in illegal activities.  If it discourages the invasion of privacy committed onto others, then I don't have a problem with it.


----------

