Is HD programming worth it?

As the title says, is HD TV worth the extra 10 bucks a month? My sat provider promises 1080p quality on movie channels, I have em' all 8). And several other channels like History, Discovery, TLC, Travel, ect... pretty much any of the channels I acutally watch with HD quality. Can OT help me with this?

My sat provider is Dish btw, Dish Network has always been good to me and my family for 5+ years. So any hate twards Dish I will most likely ignore.

Thank youu :)

If you own an HDTV, there's just no going back to SD broadcasts after you get HD channels.General_X

HD is awesome. no going back to SD after

I hate to stop the HDTV trendtrain here, but:

I hate to stop the HDTV trendtrain here, but:

Fizz111

Especially if you are into sports...they look, far and away, the best in HD IMO

Yes. I got the HD programming for a couple months, then decided to cut it off for a while just to save some extra money... I promptly had to call and have it reestablished. raven_squad

Of course it is.

I still do not own an HD TV. Downgraded signals, yes!

yeah it is definitely worth it

Especially if you are into sports...they look, far and away, the best in HD IMO

rawsavon

Why would you buy an HD TV if you're not going to utilize HD content. Defeats the purpose (unless you play a loooooot of video games).

I hate to stop the HDTV trendtrain here, but:

Fizz111

Dumbest cartoon ever. Ever.

People aren't impressed by their actual HDTVs; they are impressed by the HD video content that their HDTVs allow them to watch.

Yeah, basically I only watch HD unless there is something I really like on an SD channel. And the movie channels like starz, hbo and showtime are definitely worth it with there exclusive series and such.

Dumbest cartoon ever. Ever.

People aren't impressed by their actual HDTVs; they are impressed by the HD video content that their HDTVs allow them to watch.

I don't get why everyone on here is saying it's worth it. My mom got a Bravia 42" 1080p HDTV a few months ago and I had her get the HD package from the cable company. Came with 100 HD channels and I was pretty excited to see how the shows looked. Imagine my extreme disappoint when I flip the supposedly "HD" channels only to see that all except two were broadcasting SD content. Indeed, every time I try to watch TV on that thing I can never an HD show except for a very occasional few which aren't really worth watching except for the fact that they're actually in HD. All the movie channels are in SD and I can't help but laugh when I see a movie being played on the TV with the vertical letterboxing because it's an SD signal on top of the horizontal letterboxing that the broadcaster put on to make it fit onto an SDTV. It takes up like a fourth of the screen at that point.

I thought that maybe our cable provider was ripping us off with bs channels so I did a little research and found out that, nope, this is the case even for satellite companies. Apparently almost all "HD" channels never run more than two hours of actual HD content a day, and some HD channels don't even run any HD content at all. So for the most part you're just paying $10 extra a month to watch the same channels you already have except now they have the letters "HD" plastered on them in order to con naive consumers into thinking they're watching HD content.

So OP: No, HD channels are not worth it. Until we get some regulation that stops broadcasters from airing simulcast SD content on purportedly HD channels, the only way that HD programming is going to be worth it is if you watch a lot of sports. Hilariously, even then not all games are broadcast in HD. The whole idea of HDTV is a scam right now. Just take the money you'd spend on HD broadcasting and spend it on blu-rays instead.

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]

[QUOTE="Fizz111"]

I hate to stop the HDTV trendtrain here, but:

Fizz111

Dumbest cartoon ever. Ever.

People aren't impressed by their actual HDTVs; they are impressed by the HD video content that their HDTVs allow them to watch.

LOL. You mean HD video content like 1080p? Just like the cartoon portays? You sir, are dumb.

The cartoon is trying to argue that HDTV isn't impressive, because the resolution isn't even as high-resolution as old-school LCD computer monitors.

Except it isn't the televisions themselves that people find the impressive, but the HD video content that didn't exist before HDTVs came around.

People understandably find 1920x1080 video to be more impressive than 640x480 video.

Who cares that LCD computer monitors are higher resolution than 1080p HDTV, when there isn't any video content that takes advantage of the extra resolution. 1080p / 720p actually even looks worse on computer monitors than HDTVs, because it isn't being projected in its native resolution.

That cartoon is quite seriously the dumbest cartoon ever.

I don't get why everyone on here is saying it's worth it. My mom got a Bravia 42" 1080p HDTV a few months ago and I had her get the HD package from the cable company. Came with 100 HD channels and I was pretty excited to see how the shows looked. Imagine my extreme disappoint when I flip the supposedly "HD" channels only to see that all except two were broadcasting SD content. Indeed, every time I try to watch TV on that thing I can never an HD show except for a very occasional few which aren't really worth watching except for the fact that they're actually in HD. All the movie channels are in SD and I can't help but laugh when I see a movie being played on the TV with the vertical letterboxing because it's an SD signal on top of the horizontal letterboxing that the broadcaster put on to make it fit onto an SDTV. It takes up like a fourth of the screen at that point.

I thought that maybe our cable provider was ripping us off with bs channels so I did a little research and found out that, nope, this is the case even for satellite companies. Apparently almost all "HD" channels never run more than two hours of actual HD content a day, and some HD channels don't even run any HD content at all. So for the most part you're just paying $10 extra a month to watch the same channels you already have except now they have the letters "HD" plastered on them in order to con naive consumers into thinking they're watching HD content.

So OP: No, HD channels are not worth it. Until we get some regulation that stops broadcasters from airing simulcast SD content on purportedly HD channels, the only way that HD programming is going to be worth it is if you watch a lot of sports. Hilariously, even then not all games are broadcast in HD. The whole idea of HDTV is a scam right now. Just take the money you'd spend on HD broadcasting and spend it on blu-rays instead.

[QUOTE="Fizz111"]

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]

Dumbest cartoon ever. Ever.

People aren't impressed by their actual HDTVs; they are impressed by the HD video content that their HDTVs allow them to watch.

swamprat_basic

LOL. You mean HD video content like 1080p? Just like the cartoon portays? You sir, are dumb.

The cartoon is trying to argue that HDTV isn't impressive, because the resolution isn't even as high-resolution as old-school LCD computer monitors.

Except it isn't the televisions themselves that people find the impressive, but the HD video content that didn't exist before HDTVs came around.

People understandably find 1920x1080 video to be more impressive than 640x480 video.

Who cares that LCD computer monitors are higher resolution than 1080p HDTV, when there isn't any video content that takes advantage of the extra resolution. 1080p / 720p actually even looks worse on computer monitors than HDTVs, because it isn't being projected in its native resolution.

That cartoon is quite seriously the dumbest cartoon ever.

Someone around here is misunderstanding a cartoon.

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]

[QUOTE="Fizz111"]

LOL. You mean HD video content like 1080p? Just like the cartoon portays? You sir, are dumb.

Fizz111

The cartoon is trying to argue that HDTV isn't impressive, because the resolution isn't even as high-resolution as old-school LCD computer monitors.

Except it isn't the televisions themselves that people find the impressive, but the HD video content that didn't exist before HDTVs came around.

People understandably find 1920x1080 video to be more impressive than 640x480 video.

Who cares that LCD computer monitors are higher resolution than 1080p HDTV, when there isn't any video content that takes advantage of the extra resolution. 1080p / 720p actually even looks worse on computer monitors than HDTVs, because it isn't being projected in its native resolution.

That cartoon is quite seriously the dumbest cartoon ever.

Someone around here is misunderstanding a cartoon.

Yes, you.

[QUOTE="Fizz111"]

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]

The cartoon is trying to argue that HDTV isn't impressive, because the resolution isn't even as high-resolution as old-school LCD computer monitors.

Except it isn't the televisions themselves that people find the impressive, but the HD video content that didn't exist before HDTVs came around.

People understandably find 1920x1080 video to be more impressive than 640x480 video.

Who cares that LCD computer monitors are higher resolution than 1080p HDTV, when there isn't any video content that takes advantage of the extra resolution. 1080p / 720p actually even looks worse on computer monitors than HDTVs, because it isn't being projected in its native resolution.

That cartoon is quite seriously the dumbest cartoon ever.

swamprat_basic

Someone around here is misunderstanding a cartoon.

Yes, you.

nou.

I don't get why everyone on here is saying it's worth it. My mom got a Bravia 42" 1080p HDTV a few months ago and I had her get the HD package from the cable company. Came with 100 HD channels and I was pretty excited to see how the shows looked. Imagine my extreme disappoint when I flip the supposedly "HD" channels only to see that all except two were broadcasting SD content. Indeed, every time I try to watch TV on that thing I can never an HD show except for a veryoccasional few which aren't really worth watching except for the fact that they're actually in HD. All the movie channels are in SD and I can't help but laugh when I see a movie being played on the TV with the vertical letterboxing because it's an SD signal on top of the horizontal letterboxing that the broadcaster put on to make it fit onto an SDTV. It takes up like a fourth of the screen at that point.

I thought that maybe our cable provider was ripping us off with bs channels so I did a little research and found out that, nope, this is the case even for satellite companies. Apparently almost all "HD" channels never run more than two hours of actual HD content a day, and some HD channels don't even run any HD content at all. So for the most part you're just paying $10 extra a month to watch the same channels you already have except now they have the letters "HD" plastered on them in order to con naive consumers into thinking they're watching HD content.

So OP: No, HD channels are not worth it. Until we get some regulation that stops broadcasters from airing simulcast SD content on purportedly HD channels, the only way that HD programming is going to be worth it is if you watch a lotof sports. Hilariously, even then not all games are broadcast in HD. The whole idea of HDTV is a scam right now. Just take the money you'd spend on HD broadcasting and spend it on blu-rays instead.

It is worth it, especially if you're a sports fan.

yes if you have an HDTV it is TOTALLY worth it. when our TV broke we had to go back to watching SDTV for a month and i wanted to rip my eyes out. trying to watch hockey is near impossibleFUBAR24

I don't get why everyone on here is saying it's worth it. My mom got a Bravia 42" 1080p HDTV a few months ago and I had her get the HD package from the cable company. Came with 100 HD channels and I was pretty excited to see how the shows looked. Imagine my extreme disappoint when I flip the supposedly "HD" channels only to see that all except two were broadcasting SD content. Indeed, every time I try to watch TV on that thing I can never an HD show except for a very occasional few which aren't really worth watching except for the fact that they're actually in HD. All the movie channels are in SD and I can't help but laugh when I see a movie being played on the TV with the vertical letterboxing because it's an SD signal on top of the horizontal letterboxing that the broadcaster put on to make it fit onto an SDTV. It takes up like a fourth of the screen at that point.

I thought that maybe our cable provider was ripping us off with bs channels so I did a little research and found out that, nope, this is the case even for satellite companies. Apparently almost all "HD" channels never run more than two hours of actual HD content a day, and some HD channels don't even run any HD content at all. So for the most part you're just paying $10 extra a month to watch the same channels you already have except now they have the letters "HD" plastered on them in order to con naive consumers into thinking they're watching HD content.

So OP: No, HD channels are not worth it. Until we get some regulation that stops broadcasters from airing simulcast SD content on purportedly HD channels, the only way that HD programming is going to be worth it is if you watch a lot of sports. Hilariously, even then not all games are broadcast in HD. The whole idea of HDTV is a scam right now. Just take the money you'd spend on HD broadcasting and spend it on blu-rays instead.