TV Picture diffenences between HD and non HD

I do not have HD, yet, but I purchased a large (52" DLP) TV two weeks ago and I can say it can be a love / hate thing. I really like viewing with a large screen, but bad signals look really bad, as all things are much bigger, obviously; I use Dish Network and my connection is via coax.

A couple terms to get straight - for years we have all watched TV's that displayed the picture is 4:3 aspect ratio, where the new larger TV's have a screen that is 16:9 aspect ratio; these TV's allow users to view non 16:9 signals is a 4:3 mode as well as stretch those 4:3 signals to the 16:9 to fill the whole screen.

Personally the stretch modes bother me so I suggest everyone to consider this before purchasing; if it will bother you then narrow your search to a TV that doesn't have "burn in" issues from someone viewing long term in 4:3 (narrow) mode.

You asked what the picture on non-HD signals would look like if not stretched, well the picture would look normal, but it wouldn't fill the whole screen, you would have "black bars" on the sides. Take this into account too because the screen is obviously not viewing at its actual size. Example, my 52" TV when viewing in 4:3 mode becomes a 42" TV. Another example, the Sony 34XBR960 is an awesome (tube) TV, but if you view in 4:3 mode that 34" picture is now 28"; this was a huge turn off to me as that was much smaller than I wanted, but that is me.

Lastly, non-HD channels can at times leave you wondering why you spent the money, but HD is the future, it is my suggestion to buy with that in mind.

C/Net has 10 buying tips that are quite good.
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5108432-1.html?tag=glnav

Another note, I made a change this weekend that brought my experience much closer to love than love / hate, I changed from using a coax connection to RCA's and for whatever reason this was a big improvement. I should note that the piece of coax I was using didn't look the best. Anyway, this is something you may want to experiment with.

Given the dearth of HDTV offerings, I opted for a EDTV Plasma. I find DVD and HDVT signals look simply amazing. At a normal (greater than 8 foot) viewing distance, I couldn't tell the difference between a true HDTV and EDTV from a digital cable source. (Lets face it the difference between 480P and 1080i is only about 10% because of the interlacing).

The justified (i.e. stretched at the sides) setting take a few days to get used to the distortion, but now I only am aware of it during fast horizontal panning. I prefer this setting to the risk of burn-in. I did notice that CBS-HD does vary the letter-boxed colors from black to a light gray during standard aspect-ratio broadcasts, so leaving the letter-boxing during those times may be fine.

Also, Time Warner Cable of NYC varies the quality of their DTV service. In other words, some standard-def channels are very clear, with a minimum of artifacts, while more obscure channels are noticeably more pixelated.

I'd recommend a decent-quality component video cable. Personally, my experience is that the limiting factor is the source not the cable. You may want to test out a few set-ups, and find the right price-performance level for your taste. IMHO, if you like the picture and sound, just enjoy it. Often I feel too many people get hung-up on squeezing the last 1% of signal out of a system instead of the programming that's being played.

Bluecirclehead,

I have 2 different component video cable - an Acoustic Research that I bought fairly inexpensively at a big box store and the cable that Time Warner included with the HD cable box. Both work fine for me, which is good because I'm not in the market to purchase a $100 component video cable.
This probably isn't terribly helpful, I know, but the person above that said that the source is more important than the cable is probably right, though opinions vary greatly.

Don