av8r wrote:Does anyone know if these TVs are supposed to scale the image automatically between 4:3 and 16:9??
av8r wrote:o I spend $1400 for a 42" set, but have to either live with a stretched and degraded image or a 27" equivalent picture?
Devil505 wrote:av8r wrote:I pay $70 a month for cable and get something like 10 HD channels. TWC is terrible.
Allot of daytime programing is still analog & at night there are many more HiDef programs
av8r wrote:I pay $70 a month for cable and get something like 10 HD channels. TWC is terrible.
coalmeister wrote:Go Direct TV then.
I had Direct TV five years ago when I also had Direct PC. Unless it's changed and I doubt it has you do need a receiver for each TV, unless you want to watch the same channel on each TV. Think of the box as a receiver with a video output. It can only tune one of the channels at at time. I had two receivers, the second box costing an additional $10 a month. I installed a complicated coax patching system that could direct the two receivers video to each of my four TV's. It was a pain especially since the remotes are IR and you had to be in the room where the receiver was. I canned the system when I got a DSL computer system. I've got basic cable service now. It sucks. Direct TV has much better video quality. I'm waiting for Verizon Fios. The basic infrastructure is being installed now. It will be two years before it get to me.Devil505 wrote:coalmeister wrote:Go Direct TV then.
I have cable right now with about 8 TV's in the house. Only 2 are HiDef & the rest run just off the 75ohm cable wire for all non-digital stations.
Direct TV would not give me a clear answer but I was left to believe that every TV would need its own box...Is that right?