Idiot's guide to latest TVs, please?

Moneymaker

LizEstelle wrote:

As a matter of interest, since I'm not prepared to pay extra for an 'HD' set otherwise, does anyone know whether standard terrestrial channels will eventually be broadcast with this feature?

Probably not in the near future. They've got enough problems just getting everyone over to "Freeview". When that's done, it's unlikely that they'll devote any freed-up bandwidth to HD transmissions.

The BBC have just completed a terrestrial HD trial in London, which went well. Technically it's possible but lack of bandwidth will prevent its happening in the next 10 years. After that it's anybody's guess. As compression technology advances, it may eventually be possible to squeeze HD into the current SD bandwidth.

ollyk

Moneymaker wrote:

Probably not in the near future. They've got enough problems just getting everyone over to "Freeview". When that's done, it's unlikely that they'll devote any freed-up bandwidth to HD transmissions.

Exactly - I personally think freeview could turn out to be a bit of a scam TBH and when that switchover occurs it will be too late for the gullable 'sheeple' to complain when they start compressing video & sound even further to squeeze more 'TV play' & shopping channels into the available bandwidth.
I think this will be when Freeview shows it's true colours :rolleyes:
:A

steady__eddie

Just a non-techie observation, my 10 year old Matsui is due to receive its' bus pass shortly so when Sainsburys had some L.C.D.s in recently at a respectable price (but more importantly with the 10% staff discount which the O.H. was entitled to), I took the plunge and bought one. It's only a small room so the 15" was just the job. Picture was excellent (for my failing eyesight) and once I had got to grips with fastext and connecting my lappy to it, it was magic.
The only drawback which I found was that I had to be more or less at right angles to the screen to get a proper coloured picture. If I laid the other way round on the sofa, then the shade of the colours changed dramatically. I presume that this effect is less pronounced on larger size screens ?

Rumman

chrispyphillips wrote:

I often wondered why he pictures on some TV's were terrible and some okay in those shops. t really is a bad representation on the televisions. I suppose they just plug the impressive ariels into the TV's they want to sell the most! So, will a HDTV, viewing normal analogue pictures, still be as decent as a normal tv does, or does it lose a bit of quality cos it wants to be watching HD?

And with regards to 37" below LCD, the only LCD's that do 1080 lines are 42" or over arent they, so what do you suggest if you want a 1080 screen? Basically i want an LCD, 1080i screen, preferebaly with a digital tuner built in, but then again, is this worth it if HD will only come in a box top version? It is all so confusing i must say!

What about HDMI? why are some cables more expensive than others, and do they all do the same job, or do you pay for the name etc?

ya 1080i screen are by lcd so far, but do you want a 1080i screen? just give it a good consideration because generally plasma give better picture quality than lcds.

HDMI cables are different prices depending on length and quality of material. For example some people have experienced poor quality signals on a 2m HDMI cable (cheap brand) then bought the same brand but a 10m HDMI cable and the signal was perfect. My advice would be invest in a decent one about 20-50 quid, if your buying a tv for a lot of money, you wanna get the best out of it.

You want HD channels? then you need sky HD, or the cable equivalent. The digital tuner will broadcast in SD as that wat the channels broadcast to.

Andrew_L.

Interested to see the techie comments. Re the original post, if you are fortunate to be anywhere near a branch of John Lewis, I would go there to buy your new set .

A 5 year parts and labour guarantee AND a promise to match the price of any other retailer ANd good after-sales service if you need it. They will also install and set-up your TV for a smallish fee so that you know it's working!!

(I know there may be people who have had problems with JL, but I think they are the best.)

chrisw

If you're not bothered about LCD, what about a second hand set? Many people are 'upgrading' to LCD and it's hard to even give away a CRT these days. Many of these are less than a couple of years old and cost a fortune at the time.

chrispyphillips

Rumman wrote:

ya 1080i screen are by lcd so far, but do you want a 1080i screen? just give it a good consideration because generally plasma give better picture quality than lcds.

HDMI cables are different prices depending on length and quality of material. For example some people have experienced poor quality signals on a 2m HDMI cable (cheap brand) then bought the same brand but a 10m HDMI cable and the signal was perfect. My advice would be invest in a decent one about 20-50 quid, if your buying a tv for a lot of money, you wanna get the best out of it.

You want HD channels? then you need sky HD, or the cable equivalent. The digital tuner will broadcast in SD as that wat the channels broadcast to.

Thanks runman, great advice, but i think this is where a lot of people are getting confused. It seems that there is no one right or wrong way to look into making a purchase like this. For instance, you say get plasma cos the piccie qual is generally better than LCD, but then someone else says plasma suffer from burnout and delay, say when watching a footie match and the action is fast paced, and recommend LCD, therefore rendering us again none the wiser. I would like 1080p, just cos it (supposedly) offers superior picture quality, but is expensive, and by all accounts there isnt a great deal different between the i and p, but what do i know?

i just wonder why these companies are pushing HD on us, when it wont really be totally 'ready' for at least another 10 years and sky only offer about 5 decent channels in it. at the end of the day, in 10 years time, we'll have something better than HD anyway!


Also, Ollyk, you said
"If you do test a flat screen MAKE SURE YOU INSIST on seeing fast moving, high detailed material from the source you will usually watch from i.e. arial or VHS / DVD. DO NOT judge by what the store demonstrates."

Do you think its acceptable to go into one of these shops with your own DVD and ask them to play it, say a football match or something? will they do that for you? I wouldnt buy from the cowboys, but at least the high street shops are there for you to compare products with!!:D

Moneymaker

steady__eddie wrote:

The only drawback which I found was that I had to be more or less at right angles to the screen to get a proper coloured picture. If I laid the other way round on the sofa, then the shade of the colours changed dramatically. I presume that this effect is less pronounced on larger size screens ?

This has nothing to do with screen size and everything to do with viewing angle. Be sure to look at horizontal viewing angle specification (that means left and right offset) and also vertical viewing angle (if you plan to lie on the floor to watch it).

As for the quality of fast-moving frames like football matches, this is both a limitation of the compression method and of the screen refresh rate. You can't do anything about the compression but you can make sure the refresh rate is quoted as 12mS or less. Testing with your own football match on DVD will test the refresh rate but it won't be a guide to what you'll see from a digital transmission.