Panasonic 32" Flat Widescreen CRT with stand £329.99

Woby_Tide

so you haven't actually seen the picture on this set to confirm that though?

honestDave_2

Panasonic and Sony are both well known for making great large CRTs. Go to a shop and look at either brand, they both make 50hz and 100hz models of the same sized CRTs. You will notice a obvious difference on quality.

Just sharing my opinions here. I've owned both 50 and 100 and would not go back to 50hz for a large screen.

Good price but bare in mind that's all.

gromituk

Woby_Tide wrote:

so you haven't actually seen the picture on this set to confirm that though?

what on earth has this got to do with anything? The simple fact is that if you have a 50Hz CRT set, you will get more flicker than with a 100Hz set, regardless of anything else. And the larger the screen size, the more distracting this flicker tends to be. This is a fundamental property of the scanning system and your eyes, and you cannot avoid it.

There may be many other things which affect picture quality, but they are completely separate issues. I am not saying buy a set with a picture that is crap in every other respect just because it has 100Hz scanning, and i never did.

Kwaziewabbit

:j Money Savers....step away from the tv sets with your hands in the air! :j

I have to agree that getting a 100hz TV especially if the screen size is larger than 32 inches is well worth the extra money. I used to have a 32 inch 50hz Phillips set and the flicker could sometimes be more of a pronounced flashing depending on the type of computer generated graphics in the programme (especially the ITV news).

bargains83

gromituk wrote:

No, but that's not the argument. The argument is whether or not you will ever get an acceptable picture if you do not have 100Hz on a 32" TV. I would be inclined to say that you won't.

The trade-off between 50Hz and 100Hz isn't really that great. At the end of the day television transmisions are broadcast at 50Hz and are designed to be viewed at 50Hz!

100Hz doubles the scanning frequency of a 50Hz image and reduces the flicker slightly but it also can reduce picture quality because you are processing the image in a way its not meant to be processed. This is why some people report that 100Hz tv's are poor on scenes with slow camera panning or movement because the picture is being refreshed twice faster than it should be.

Where 100Hz excels is on Text or images with fine lines and this will reduce the flicker on these to a great extent.

Whilst its true that the 100Hz effects are more noticeable on sets of 32" and above I would never say a television isn't a bargain if it doesn't have 100Hz. Since its not as important feature as a 'Pure Flat' screen or Nicam stereo for example.

Brodel

Can't 100hz sets suffer from the sound being out of sync due to storing the signal and buffering it before displaying it onto the TV?

kmkmkm

There are pluses and minuses to 100hz (more pluses though). At the end of the day, a 50hz Panasonic CRT is still going to have a great picture. It's not that big a deal.

owtbar

hi
i wonder if any one could tell me what a pc is like when connected to a 100hz tv.

gromituk

bargains83 wrote:

The trade-off between 50Hz and 100Hz isn't really that great. At the end of the day television transmisions are broadcast at 50Hz and are designed to be viewed at 50Hz!

But they are also designed to be scanned, and aren't nowadays, because the pictures originate from CCD instead of tube cameras. So the system has changed regardless.

I presume you don't use an LCD or plasma set, because the processing here is really rather comprehensive!

100Hz doubles the scanning frequency of a 50Hz image and reduces the flicker slightly

No, it reduces the flicker by an enormous amount. It looks like you're getting mixed up with...

Where 100Hz excels is on Text or images with fine lines and this will reduce the flicker on these to a great extent.

...interline twitter, which is an interlacing artifact, but completely different from large-area flicker. Doubling the scan rate will help this as well, but the large-area improvement will help all material, and be more noticeable the brighter the picture is.

Whilst its true that the 100Hz effects are more noticeable on sets of 32" and above I would never say a television isn't a bargain if it doesn't have 100Hz. Since its not as important feature as a 'Pure Flat' screen or Nicam stereo for example.

Pure flat makes very little difference to picture quality, but helps with reflections and makes the set look nicer. Professional monitors would have been the first to be pure flat if it didn't cause more problems than benefits.

Nicam is, unfortunately, an irrelevance except for analogue terrestrial transmissions. And NICAM is much cheaper to implement than 100Hz so I very much doubt you'll find a 100Hz set without it.

gromituk

Brodel wrote:

Can't 100hz sets suffer from the sound being out of sync due to storing the signal and buffering it before displaying it onto the TV?

Yes, but my Freeview box produces such random lipsync anyway that it dwarfs this effect!