HD Service Worth it?

[AZK]

Before I got HD I didn't think it was a big deal and didn't see what everyone was talking about. Once I bought a plasma and got HD it was over. I could never go back now. It's something that you don't really appreciate until you have it. It also depends how much tv you watch. If you watch under 5 hours/week or mostly movies or don't plan on shelling out cash on a plasma, you don't need HD. Otherwise, you won't regret it.

[spamhead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you have a large-ish HDTV and aren't watching a lot of HD content through it, you totally wasted your money on the TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Why get the sick TV if you aren't going to watch HD programming? Also, hockey in HD FTW. No sport translates better into HD IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[SL__72]

Discovery HD is worth that by itself imo.

Sports in HD >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>> sports in standard definition.

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say it is definetly worth it and the bigger your TV the more worth it it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

42" plasma.

After reading all the replies in this thread, I'll give HD a shot.

Thanks everyone.

[Drew16]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I got my parents an HDTV back over christmas.

I looked into HD programming, and unfortunately Dish Network wanted something like $30-40 more a month in order to make it happen (programming fees, HD box, etc).

We decided it wasn't worth it right then - but we may upgrade if they bring the price down.

It's pretty stupid that HDTV is supposed to be mandated by law for over-the-air programming, but you have to pay extra for it on these services.

[/ QUOTE ]

No the new mandate says that they all have to be 100% DIGITAL signals by a certain date not 100% HD signals.

[/ QUOTE ]

not until February 17, 2009.

[NickMPK]

Is this question serious? OK, HDTV might not be worth it to everybody. If you don't watch much (a) sports, and (b) primetime network shows, there isn't a lot to see in HD yet.

But....if you aren't willing to pay $10/month for HD, then why did you spend all that extra money on an HD television in the first place?

[nsdjoe]

HD is nice, I just wish Comcast offered more than ~25 HD channels. 2 or 3 years from now hopefully there will be a few hundred to choose from [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[nsdjoe]

[ QUOTE ]

But....if you aren't willing to pay $10/month for HD, then why did you spend all that extra money on an HD television in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people just want a big TV... You can't get a non-HD big screen anymore.

[Perplexity]

HD is so much better than standard. It's not even close. This question is ridiculous. It's so very clearly worth it.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But....if you aren't willing to pay $10/month for HD, then why did you spend all that extra money on an HD television in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people just want a big TV... You can't get a non-HD big screen anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there's no point in getting a big screen and only watching SD on it. SD was made for small TVs. Once you get past 50" or so, broadcast SD just becomes too blurry.

As for which sport shows the most improvement, that's very dependent on what you're a fan of.

But, IMO, it's not baseball. The problem with HD baseball is that they use the same camera angles as SD. So the main view (the batter and catcher) isn't much improved.

Hockey shows a huge improvement simply because you can see a lot more of the ice. Basketball shows a huge improvement also. Football is a little behind hockey and basketball (and again, that's because of the camera angles. A Madden video game type camera angle would exploit HD greatly, but the sideline camera anle is only slightly improved by the wideness of HD).