Recently, everything is going HD or 3D. I am wondering which is best for TVs, Consoles, Computers, ect.

Neither.

They are just for faggots with huge wallets who want to waste $10,000 on a TV that will be obsolete in a few months.
HD and 3D TVs are overindulging and in reality we do not need them to make our lives any better.

My TV is 15 inches, not 7 feet.

If you have a PS3 or XBox360, an HD TV gives you a better picture. Resolution is higher and increases the sharpness so you can read text and stuff without having to squint too hard. If you have a Wii, sell it and get an HD TV.

Screw you guys.

HD TVs are an incredible waste of money.

My tv is ok with whatever it needs
I don't need to see the show much clearer and i don't need to see anything popping in my face often
And i had HD once.It made my tv started blinking white and black then the sound became fully mute

I stick with SD

But the Wii also supports 480p (progressive), provided you're using component hooks-up. Keep your Wii, and get an HD EDTV. EDTV's can handle 480p, so you'll get good quality and clarity without the huge and stupid price of an HDTV.

As for my TV, it's SDTV, but I do don't that old gross yellow-white-red composite cable thing. My SDTV has red-green-blue composite inputs. The quality is really good so I don't care about ever having an HDTV. Though I'd prefer an EDTV, just so I can get that 480-progressive (SD's can only do 480-interlaced).

Computer screens, neither. Both HD and 3D will not only lead to incredibly expensive monitors, but probably a massive amount of eyestrain as well. For TVs and Consoles, the current winner is HD - at least until we start to see a lot more 3D content. Still, I don't think gaming benefits from the whole 3D thing (a la' the Avatar game) - though I would like to demo one of those 3DSs. Depending on how well that delivers, it could be very interesting.

You have obviously never played a console using a 19" monitor that is set at 480i.

HD > 3D

HD lets me read the retardly small text on Bad Company 2, and 3D hurts my eyes....

This has been bugging me since I read it. ><

Maybe you were making a point I didn't/don't see, or maybe I just don't understand video definition as well as I thought I did...

But could you have possibly meant 480p? And even at 480p, that is only considered ED (enhanced definition) standards.

HD standards don't begin until you reach a resolution of 720p or higher.


The ladder:
SD - All resolutions up to 480-interlaced (480i)
ED - 480-progressive (480p)
HD - 720-progressive and up (720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc)

EDIT: Unless by 19" monitor, you were talking about an SD display. I might have interpreted what you said wrongly.

HD might be the next step in movies and games, but it's just too damn expensive right now to become the standard. And anyone who says there's not a difference when you're watching something like a Bluray, they need to get out more, I'm blind when people start discussing textures and how "ugly" some stuff looks in video games, but even I can see the difference when it's run on a SD PC monitor/tv, compared to a HD one.

And 3D is just... Not finished.When they start coming with holographs and stuff like that, then we'll discuss 3D, not when they're trying to give us the illusion of depth. Not only that, it isn't going a step further, but a step in another direction, unlike HD.

19" LCD monitor, playing XBox360 at SD resolution. It is painful.

Oh. I got you.

I thought this quote:
"You have obviously never played a console using a 19" monitor that is set at 480i."

was saying "You have obviously never seen the beauty of a console on a 19" monitor at 480i"


Was like "wat". Forgive me for misunderstanding =p

Perhaps Thai meant painful as in painfully beautiful.

And I personally have an HD TV. Don't look at me - my parents got it for no reason at all.

I did not.

HD makes a difference once you learn to appreciate the difference. 3D, not so much.