http://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/ Engadget HD Comments for Is high definition necessary for home theater? http://www.engadgethd.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadgethd.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/http://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/Nov 26th 2005 9:56PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/http://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/
To me, it MUST have good sound and it MUST be widescreen. Beyond that, I'm happy.

Having said that, it's HD or bust with my next TV.]]>Nov 27th 2005 11:41AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/http://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/
Am I missing out? Yes I am but do I feel I need it when I want other HDTV's for the rest of the house, No.

Also, the SSS does complete the HT experience, yes I believe in that whole heartedly but they both have to be there. I have had two roommates that had SSS with my setup and I miss it tremendously but have not thought that I need it just yet (over 6 months w/o)

So I will respectfully dissagree (to a point) and say that you need both. My $.02. ;)]]>Nov 27th 2005 2:12AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/http://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/
I was browsing Toshiba's site, and found a rather large error. http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/televisions/rearprojection.asp
The top tv is 51 in, and goes for $2099, while the second is 57 in, and goes for $1799. I suspect those sould be reversed. Oh well. If anyone can pass this along to the editors, please do

Stealth43]]>Nov 27th 2005 11:22AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/http://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/
"Hitchcock is another great example as his movies were made when color was an after thought, but the effects of sound made his movies a masterpiece."

Excellent example; "Lifeboat". Nearly the whole movie, the actors are sitting in a lifeboat doing nothing but talking. But what your hearing them say is what is captivating and captivating it is! Black & White image, no computer effects, no scenic backdrop (most of the movie could have been, and I believe was, filmed merely in a large swimming pool). Another example, an original "Star Trek" episode "The Empath". Kirk, Spock, McCoy and a female actor (the Empath) in a totaly darkened studio. Four people, dialog, black backdrop, not much else, yet it is very memorable and entertaining.

Gliztly eye-candy is nice, but even the three recent "Star Wars" films don't measure up to the older three with Luke Skywalker, Hans Solo and Princess Lea. Their 'snappy' interactions add character, 'fun' and interest, the newer trilogy just does not have at all!

Do a 'search' on UMD sales. They are, surprisingly, selling extremely well. The 'low-rez' choice. People in general aren't after the high quality image, and UMD is the proof! HD-DVD or Blu-Ray will be merely another choice as Laserdiscs was years ago. I expect it will never dominate the standard DVD market, but rather be, like UMD, another incidental option.]]>Nov 27th 2005 7:04AMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/http://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/Nov 27th 2005 12:48PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/http://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/Nov 28th 2005 2:52PMhttp://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/http://www.engadgethd.com/2005/11/26/is-high-definition-necessary-for-home-theater/
However, for me, I and think anyone else who's experienced the immersion of a front projection home theater, the video is just as important as the audio.

Let me preface what I'm saying by admitting I've got a *lot* more money in my audio than my video. But the video is what gets me excited.

When I'm sitting and watching my 8 foot screen, in a mostly darkened room, with my surround sound pumping, I am lost in the experience.

At about 12 feet from the screen, my field of vision is filled with the video. The edges of the screen are just about in my periphery.

At times, I find myself looking around the screen to follow the video. On a traditionally smaller set, I have to constantly focus on the set's display area.

An 8' screen coupled with a properly set up 5.1 system, I just get totally lost in it. I have actually had people leave during suspense films due to being too drawn in. (Only once, but it did happen. Maybe I just had the volume too high? heh)

When I flip on the 32" CRT, with the same sound system, it just doesn't come close. Not even. But that's me, and after 2 years with front projection, I'm sure I'm spoiled.

All that said, for a proper HT experience, I would agree with the comments above, that you definitely would want a widescreen - as big as you can have. Then surround sound and good bass. (not booming, but accurate)

As for HD, if you mainly watch DVDs and or SD/ED cable tv/satellite, an HDTV is a waste of tech.

You need good source material for HD to be worth the money. OTA local, cable or satellite HD broadcasts, upconverting DVD players, and HT gaming can make the expense worth it.

If I were on a $3k budget, I'd spend 1-1.5 on a front projector (won't be hd in this range, not just yet) and the rest on audio.]]>Nov 28th 2005 4:15PM