HD Television screen sizes.

OK_Sauce

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm afraid if the detail is not in the original signal it cannot be found as if by magic.

I wasn't suggesting it could, however the scalers do interpret the signal in various ways and whether by line doubling or by other means will try to fill the tv's native resolution with a picture, as I have said with various results. You missed out the important bit. If your TV does it well then the difference between HD and SD would be minimal, especially if your viewing distance is too far away.

liam8282

ukcarper wrote: »

Do any of the manufactures make any 37” or larger LCD TVs that aren’t full HD?

There are plenty of tv's available that are HD ready, rather than full HD.

OK_Sauce

tifo wrote: »

It doesn't matter, the HD picture does not look as good as it's meant to be under normal viewing (without having to rearrange the furniture or buy new equipment), whatever the reason. These are just excuses.

Would you buy the most expensive separates hi-fi then pile the speakers high up on top of a shelf unit along way apart from each other because it's convenient to put them there without rearranging the furniture? If you did you wouldn't be getting the best out of them if they're designed to be put on heavy stands, a certain distance apart, a certain distance from the wall, a certain distance from your listening position. Just because you don't want to, you can hardly blame the manufacturer of the speakers can you? If the manufacturer recommends this and you choose not to do it and you're not getting the best out of the equipment, it's hardly their fault is it? The arguement for TVs is no different. There is a recommended distance to get the best out of HD TVs, the information is out there for all to see with minimal effort to find it, you either take that information and use it, or you don't.

ukcarper

liam8282 wrote: »

There are plenty of tv's available that are HD ready, rather than full HD.

I should have said better manufactures. ie Sony Panasonic Samsung

Inactive

moonrakerz wrote: »

Not the equipment that is useless................
Shame some people can't do even the slightest bit of investigative work before spending hundreds of pounds on an item that they don't have a clue how to use !

Hope you don't drive.........

I do, and I suspect that I am far better qualified than you are, or ever will be.

liam8282

Inactive wrote: »

I do, and I suspect that I am far better qualified than you are, or ever will be.

Is that just your opinion again?

Inactive

liam8282 wrote: »

Is that just your opinion again?

Nope, a statement of fact.

tifo

almillar wrote: »

tifo, if you're going to buy a 32"LCD from Tesco and stick it in the corner of the room, you're not really getting the best from HD. It IS better, there ARE 4x as many pixels as SD and they DO NOT have to tell you how far away to sit from the screen. If you had gone to the shop, viewed from your living room distance, and thought it wasn't worth it for you personally, you would've saved money.

I didn't buy a TV from Tesco. This thread isn't about my problems. I have got nothing to do with the original poster.

All i say is that HD is not that much better than SD to justify the extra charges they make, whether for the equipment or subscription. This is only my opinion and others may disagree.

Please check your details next time before you critique someone.

Ngfprbd

What a really useful chart. Thanks for digging it out.

red_devil

just installed hd last night on a 40 inch. I could see the difference in the sport etc but on the ordinary channels it didnt look much different. Its all new at the moment though.

Much prefer the old tv guide layout is was larger.l