2009-04-15, 16:28
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
2009-04-15, 17:22
rwparris2 Wrote:Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
2009-04-15, 20:54
joebrady Wrote:
I dunno man I re-read that sentence 5+ times before I gave up...
2009-04-15, 21:01
It depends on where I watch it, and how good the movie is. Run-of-the-mill stuff is fine on SD, since they're small and faster to get. If it's good enough to play on the big LCD, then 720p, as I don't have a 50"+ screen to do 1080p justice.
Seeing that even the lowly Atom can handle 720p w/o GPU, a follow-up question would be: Which is more important for you, 720p or 1080p?
Seeing that even the lowly Atom can handle 720p w/o GPU, a follow-up question would be: Which is more important for you, 720p or 1080p?
2009-04-15, 21:02
midgetspy Wrote:i dunno man i re-read that sentence 5+ times before i gave up...
same!
2009-04-15, 21:30
I would love to have all my movies in HD, but only 20% is HD at the moment, because I don't have enough disk space 
TomJensen Wrote:Which is more important for you, 720p or 1080p?720p, because it consumes much less space on my hdd.
2009-04-16, 11:55
Sure, it is important. As most of the others: If I have the choice between HD and SD I do not see a single reason why I should pick the SD one.
If you can choose between driving a Tata Nano and a Ferarri, which one would you pick?
If you can choose between driving a Tata Nano and a Ferarri, which one would you pick?
2009-04-16, 16:44
AH, but you are assuming that everyone is made of money and can go right out and buy a nice HTPC to setup to run HD content and also buy the storage space to keep all these nice HD files.
2009-04-16, 17:01
joebrady Wrote:AH, but you are assuming that everyone is made of money and can go right out and buy a nice HTPC to setup to run HD content and also buy the storage space to keep all these nice HD files.
If the progression of technology was related to the size of most peoples bank accounts then we wouldn't have progressed like we have. The people that can't afford it now will be able to eventually, and I'm sure they would like it ready when they can. It is silly to hamper progression because the majority can't afford it. Just a few years ago 1TB of storage was over $1,000. Now you can get it for $150.
2009-04-16, 17:03
I'm not joe_user and I can't speak for himself, but I don't think that's what he meant.
If you had the option to pick one over the other you would pick the best and probably most expensive, no? Of course, if you can't afford to buy a Ferrari, you simply don't have the option to choose between it and the Tata Nano. If you have the option, you can afford both and you wouldn't pick a lower poduct would you?
If you had the option to pick one over the other you would pick the best and probably most expensive, no? Of course, if you can't afford to buy a Ferrari, you simply don't have the option to choose between it and the Tata Nano. If you have the option, you can afford both and you wouldn't pick a lower poduct would you?
2009-04-16, 17:40
Of course, I'm just saying that's probably what keeps a lot of users in SD. 
2009-04-17, 06:21
Nazgulled Wrote:I'm not joe_user and I can't speak for himself, but I don't think that's what he meant.
If you had the option to pick one over the other you would pick the best and probably most expensive, no? Of course, if you can't afford to buy a Ferrari, you simply don't have the option to choose between it and the Tata Nano. If you have the option, you can afford both and you wouldn't pick a lower poduct would you?
I see one blaring flaw in your argument.
Sure the Ferrari is much more luxurious than a Tata Nano and definitely more expensive. However, a Ferrari can hold only 2 people, while the Tata Nano can "hold" 4. This discredits your HD/SD analogy for the following reason, assuming that the potential consumer holds the size variable constant in his quest for a TV:
As everyone knows, it's borderline impossible to fit more than 2 people on top of an HDTV or an SDTV.
2009-04-17, 08:08
Well, one argument against HD is its size vs ISPs' usage cap (I'm assuming here that most peeps don't rip&convert the content themselves). Here's my true-life example: My Dad likes to watch online videos. Lo-res Youtube stuff (320p FLV). His usage is 1-1.5GB a day, or about 40GB a month. Once I have my Mom hooked up online proper, she'll want to watch as well, so call it 80GB for two non-tech people a month. For lo-res stuff. If the vids were to be HD, they'll easily max the 250GB Comcast limit I have, and that's not including my own considerable use.
So I'm wondering if any of you HD-or-bust advocates have to deal with your ISP's caps (if any), and how many people in your households are or will be watching videos online? What's your usage situation like?
So I'm wondering if any of you HD-or-bust advocates have to deal with your ISP's caps (if any), and how many people in your households are or will be watching videos online? What's your usage situation like?
