HD TV question
 

Hi

I'm thinking about buying my first HD TV and I was wondering if theres
any real visible difference between 720p and 1080p on screen sizes of
around 32 inches? Or should I be more concerned with 100hz or the
various difference image engines the TVs seem to have? I've read good
reviews of Panasonic and Samsung TVs - are they better than the
average?

Cheers

B2003

HD TV question
 

On 24 Sep, 13:24, Boltar wrote:
Hi

I'm thinking about buying my first HD TV and I was wondering if theres
any real visible difference between 720p and 1080p on screen sizes of
around 32 inches? Or should I be more concerned with 100hz or the
various difference image engines the TVs seem to have? I've read good
reviews of Panasonic and Samsung TVs - are they better than the
average?

Cheers

B2003

A thirty-two inch screen is relatively small, that unless you were
sitting inches from the screen, the difference(s) will not be easily
detectable.

Out of curiosity, are you going to hang the TV from the wall on put it
on a stand?


John

HD TV question
 

"JOHN PORCELLA" wrote in message
...
On 24 Sep, 13:24, Boltar wrote:
Hi

I'm thinking about buying my first HD TV and I was wondering if theres
any real visible difference between 720p and 1080p on screen sizes of
around 32 inches? Or should I be more concerned with 100hz or the
various difference image engines the TVs seem to have? I've read good
reviews of Panasonic and Samsung TVs - are they better than the
average?

Cheers

B2003

A thirty-two inch screen is relatively small, that unless you were
sitting inches from the screen, the difference(s) will not be easily
detectable.

I personally wouldn't get anything less than native Blu-Ray resolution
(1920x1080p) whatever the screen size

HD TV question
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
...
Hi

I'm thinking about buying my first HD TV and I was wondering if theres
any real visible difference between 720p and 1080p on screen sizes of
around 32 inches? Or should I be more concerned with 100hz or the
various difference image engines the TVs seem to have? I've read good
reviews of Panasonic and Samsung TVs - are they better than the
average?

Cheers

B2003

1080's have came down a LOT in price as of late. If it's a small difference
AND your going to be watching HD Content (Playstation 3, x360"sometimes", Or
Blu-Ray/HD-DVD Movies) then it might be worth it..

There are calculations out there that say if 720 or 1080 is for you based on
the screen size and the distance your sitting from it. Most UK homes are
small boxes so the 720 would probably be good enough, but if your going to
be using it for lots of HD content then go the extra bit.

On a side note, Many TV's will not be able to view FreeViewHD when it rolls
out, so you will need to buy a HDfreeview box or a FreeSat box to get the
"free" HD content.

Another thing to be REALLY REALLY careful about is that some screens have
1080p plastered all over them, but they only have 720p screens!!.. This is
because they have hardware downscalers, so google your sets first and make
sure they are supporting a 1920*1080 resolution before you buy!

I know that the HD logo's are supposed to be strictly inforced, but my
father-n-law has a LG unit that has their own HD 1080 logo stickers on it
(sorta gold in color). The online adverts all said it was 1080, but when I
went down to set it up it was indeed 720.

http://www.eicta.org/index.php?id=731 shows the logos and what they mean.

If your not going to get a HD Receiver then I'd op for what ever you think
looks the best (both in build and demonstration)

HD TV question
 

On Sep 24, 1:56 pm, JOHN PORCELLA wrote:
A thirty-two inch screen is relatively small, that unless you were

Not compared to my current 15 inch portable it isn't :)

sitting inches from the screen, the difference(s) will not be easily
detectable.

Out of curiosity, are you going to hang the TV from the wall on put it
on a stand?

On a stand , why?

B2003

HD TV question
 

On Sep 24, 1:56 pm, JOHN PORCELLA wrote:
A thirty-two inch screen is relatively small, that unless you were

Not compared to my 15 inch portable it isn't! :)

Out of curiosity, are you going to hang the TV from the wall on put it
on a stand?

On a stand, why?

B2003

HD TV question
 

I second the caveat about 'HD Ready' and similar stickers .

We often get people wandering through asking this sort of question,
so, in the absence of any official info in the form of a group FAQ, or
on Freesat and Freeview websites, I've compiled a page of my own to
avoid having to regurgitate the same long post. It's he
http://tinyurl.com/5srngy
.... standing in for ...
http://www.cemh.eclipse.co.uk/JavaJi.../ChooseTV.html

I've also compiled a more general doc about UK TV, which may, or may
not, prove useful:
http://tinyurl.com/5r73m4
.... standing in for ...
http://www.cemh.eclipse.co.uk/JavaJi...TVInTheUK.html

HTHs

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:24:54 -0700 (PDT), Boltar
wrote:

Hi

I'm thinking about buying my first HD TV and I was wondering if theres
any real visible difference between 720p and 1080p on screen sizes of
around 32 inches? Or should I be more concerned with 100hz or the
various difference image engines the TVs seem to have? I've read good
reviews of Panasonic and Samsung TVs - are they better than the
average?

HD TV question
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
...
Hi

I'm thinking about buying my first HD TV and I was wondering if theres
any real visible difference between 720p and 1080p on screen sizes of
around 32 inches?

No difference whatsoever unless you sit within 3 feet of the screen.
It could become uncomfortable.

Or should I be more concerned with 100hz or the
various difference image engines the TVs seem to have?

100Hz is just a merketing term, it is meaningless with LCD really.
It's just another way of expressing the screen refresh rate and
trying to make it sound better than it is. You sometimes find
that turning the so-called image engines OFF, you improve
the picture for some programmes. Most TVs will have presets
to control this by selecting film, sport or movie and also giving
the ability to have a dynamic backlight. So if you watch in a dark
room the TV will not light up the street. It adjusts everything.

I've read good
reviews of Panasonic and Samsung TVs - are they better than the
average?


I compared lots of TVs, between shop displays and what friends had.
I liked the Samsung best and their 32" series 4 is excellent. I got one
a few months ago and it was the best £368 I ever spent. The size is
perfect for the room it is in. If I was going to get a 37" I would think
about a 1080p as the HD would look better just because the screen
is bigger. Not a lot of films on DVD are even in 1080p so unless you
are connecting the TV to a HD source like satellite or cable TV, it
might not be worth spending all that extra money. For normal TV
a 720p (which is the same as 1080i) is great.



Cheers

B2003

HD TV question
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
...
Hi

I'm thinking about buying my first HD TV and I was wondering if theres
any real visible difference between 720p and 1080p on screen sizes of
around 32 inches? Or should I be more concerned with 100hz or the
various difference image engines the TVs seem to have? I've read good
reviews of Panasonic and Samsung TVs - are they better than the
average?

Cheers

B2003


Logically it depends on the viewing distance and your eyesight.

My 20" PC screen is 1600 by 1200 and I would just like a TV that offered as
good a picture.

I found the Panasonic 32" 768 and 1080 screens close to each other in a
branch of John Lewis. I saw very little difference in the quality of the
picture, but I don't know what the picture source was.


--
Michael Chare

HD TV question
 

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:08:04 +0100, Ian wrote:
Not a lot of films on DVD are even in 1080p
Can you name any movies released on DVD (in DVD format) which are in
1080p or even 720p?

Only DVD-HD or Blu-Ray discs provide movies in 1080p format.

HD TV question
 

Ian wrote:
Not a lot of films on DVD are even in 1080p so unless you
are connecting the TV to a HD source like satellite or cable TV, it
might not be worth spending all that extra money.

Actually, NO DVD films are 1080 anything. Or even 720. I think you
mean blu-ray (or the now dead HD-DVD). They are almost all 576 (PAL) or
480 (NTSC), although they can be half or less.

Of course, for those of us who have no intention of watching anything
but PAL (576) all these 720 and 1080 sets (or the fairly common 768 and
WTH are they like that?) give any advantages at all. None of them scale
a PAL picture well.

NTSC (480 line) of course scales 3:2 to 720 - which must be what the
standard was for.

Andy

HD TV question
 

"J G Miller" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:08:04 +0100, Ian wrote:
Not a lot of films on DVD are even in 1080p
Can you name any movies released on DVD (in DVD format) which are in
1080p or even 720p?

Only DVD-HD or Blu-Ray discs provide movies in 1080p format.

Not that I want to go against you :).....
And I guess I am not going against you!

Has anyone spotted the fact that a lot of new movies are not nearly as sharp
as ones made only 2-3 years ago..
I am not saying (actually I am) that they are feathering quality out on
regular DVD's to push BluRay. Somethings def up tho, as the new stuff
doesnt upscale that well, and the HD Stuff is VASTLY superior..

I do feel that they are pushing quality down to drive up HD sales :/.

HD TV question
 

mr deo wrote:

I am not saying (actually I am) that they are feathering quality out on
regular DVD's to push BluRay. Somethings def up tho, as the new stuff
doesnt upscale that well, and the HD Stuff is VASTLY superior..

Could it also be that they are not applying as much edge enhancement and
"sharpening" to the DVD transfers as they used to? Since average screen
sizes have got bigger, these types of treatment have become more obvious
and objectionable.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

HD TV question
 

Andy Champ wrote:

Of course, for those of us who have no intention of watching anything
but PAL (576) all these 720 and 1080 sets (or the fairly common 768 and
WTH are they like that?) give any advantages at all. None of them scale
a PAL picture well.

Prolly because the cheaper panels were designed for computer monitor
usage where 768 is a common vertical resolution.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

HD TV question
 

The message
from Andy Champ contains these words:

====snip====

Of course, for those of us who have no intention of watching anything
but PAL (576) all these 720 and 1080 sets (or the fairly common 768 and
WTH are they like that?)

That's the standard 4:3 aspect ratio height that goes with a common
1024 pixels wide computer display (typically a 15 inch CRT monitor).

give any advantages at all.
None of them scale
a PAL picture well.

NTSC (480 line) of course scales 3:2 to 720 - which must be what the
standard was for.

Quite likely, whatever. A lot of this stuff is japanese designed (or
chinese copies of) and the Japs are rather obsessed by 'merkin
'standards', so much so that the likes of Canon and Nikon totally ignore
the slightly more economic 25 fps frame rate option for their stills
camera's movie modes and only offer either 15 [1] or 30 fps (regardless
of whether it's the 'PAL' or the NTSC setting that's been chosen). :-(

[1] Yes, I realise 15 fps is much more economic than 25 fps, but it
bears no easy relationship with 25 fps (50 interlaced scans per second)
and is obviously optimised for the yank tv display standard. A 16 2/3
fps rate, although slightly less economic, would have been a much better
option for the PAL format choice.

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

HD TV question
 

"mr deo" wrote in message
om...


Has anyone spotted the fact that a lot of new movies are not nearly as
sharp
as ones made only 2-3 years ago..
I am not saying (actually I am) that they are feathering quality out on
regular DVD's to push BluRay. Somethings def up tho, as the new stuff
doesnt upscale that well, and the HD Stuff is VASTLY superior..

I do feel that they are pushing quality down to drive up HD sales :/.







what a bizarre conspiracy theory!
every dvd releasing company got together in a secret pact to make their
discs worse in the hope you'd buy a blu ray player hmmmm......




--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

HD TV question
 

"The dog from that film you saw" wrote in
message ...

"mr deo" wrote in message
om...


Has anyone spotted the fact that a lot of new movies are not nearly as
sharp
as ones made only 2-3 years ago..
I am not saying (actually I am) that they are feathering quality out on
regular DVD's to push BluRay. Somethings def up tho, as the new stuff
doesnt upscale that well, and the HD Stuff is VASTLY superior..

I do feel that they are pushing quality down to drive up HD sales :/.







what a bizarre conspiracy theory!
every dvd releasing company got together in a secret pact to make their
discs worse in the hope you'd buy a blu ray player hmmmm......



In all fairness, It's CGI films that dont have sony stamps, so no.. I dont
think they are trying to push players, but more than one film I have
purchased recently includes a "GET IT NOW ON BLURAY" leaflet on the inside..
I dont think they want to push player sales, they want to push media sales..
But it could be that they are just ignoring DVD users now and not giving the
DVD cuts a lot of time or quality editing.

HD TV question
 

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:24:54 -0700 (PDT), Boltar
wrote:

Hi

I'm thinking about buying my first HD TV and I was wondering if theres
any real visible difference between 720p and 1080p on screen sizes of
around 32 inches?

it depnds how you use it.

i have a recent 22" samsung which is 1080p and i like that one - but
the resoution is mainly useful as it doubles as a computer screen.
Pity it cannot channel hop on DTV a bit faster though.

any laptop user who plugs into a better screen sometimes will tell you
1000+ lines is lot more useful than 750.

Or should I be more concerned with 100hz or the
various difference image engines the TVs seem to have? I've read good
reviews of Panasonic and Samsung TVs - are they better than the
average?

i saw a big difference on CRT when i got a progressive scan screen -
part of that i think is going from 25 Hz to 50 Hz, so refresh rate
matters to some extent.

100 Hz - well again computer monitors tend to go for more pixels
rather than even faster scan.

personally - i think the better sets seem to do more in terms of
picture processing to a lower res signal to improve it - so maybe it
matters just as much with lower res source material.


Cheers

B2003
--
Regards

- replace xyz with ntl

HD TV question
 

John Rumm wrote:

Prolly because the cheaper panels were designed for computer monitor
usage where 768 is a common vertical resolution.


Obviously, lots of computers have 32 inch 768 line displays.

Nope, I don't believe that one. I might on a sub-20 inch unit, but
that's not many pixels for a computer screen even that size.

Andy

HD TV question
 

Out of curiosity, are you going to hang the TV from the wall on put it
on a stand?

On a stand , why?


I currently have a Sony CRT TV of 4:3 vintage, and I am considering
going 'widescreen'. However, I cannot make up my mind whether putting
it on a stand or onto the wall would be better.

John

HD TV question
 

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:59:04 GMT, Stephen
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:24:54 -0700 (PDT), Boltar
wrote:

Hi

I'm thinking about buying my first HD TV and I was wondering if theres
any real visible difference between 720p and 1080p on screen sizes of
around 32 inches?

it depnds how you use it.

i have a recent 22" samsung which is 1080p and i like that one - but
the resoution is mainly useful as it doubles as a computer screen.
Pity it cannot channel hop on DTV a bit faster though.

any laptop user who plugs into a better screen sometimes will tell you
1000+ lines is lot more useful than 750.

Or should I be more concerned with 100hz or the
various difference image engines the TVs seem to have? I've read good
reviews of Panasonic and Samsung TVs - are they better than the
average?

i saw a big difference on CRT when i got a progressive scan screen -
part of that i think is going from 25 Hz to 50 Hz, so refresh rate
matters to some extent.

100 Hz - well again computer monitors tend to go for more pixels
rather than even faster scan.

personally - i think the better sets seem to do more in terms of
picture processing to a lower res signal to improve it - so maybe it
matters just as much with lower res source material.


Cheers

B2003

If you decide on a 720p screen and bought a Blu-Ray player, you may
get some judder on moving objects caused by downgrading 1080p to 720p.
My old Samsung 42" was like that and I found Blu-Ray's unwatchable on
it. May not be so noticeable on smaller screens.

Marky P.

HD TV question
 

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:07:39 +0100, Marky P
wrote:

If you decide on a 720p screen and bought a Blu-Ray player, you may
get some judder on moving objects caused by downgrading 1080p to 720p.
My old Samsung 42" was like that and I found Blu-Ray's unwatchable on
it. May not be so noticeable on smaller screens.

Isn't that just down to the low framerate's of all current TV systems?

I wish the powers that be in film and TV would aim for 60FPS 720P
rather than stupidly high resolution running at an eye hurting
24-30fps.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

HD TV question
 

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:18:22 +0100, Andrew wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:07:39 +0100, Marky P
wrote:

If you decide on a 720p screen and bought a Blu-Ray player, you may
get some judder on moving objects caused by downgrading 1080p to 720p.
My old Samsung 42" was like that and I found Blu-Ray's unwatchable on
it. May not be so noticeable on smaller screens.

Isn't that just down to the low framerate's of all current TV systems?

I wish the powers that be in film and TV would aim for 60FPS 720P
rather than stupidly high resolution running at an eye hurting
24-30fps.

Yes, I got it wrong. My 720p Samsung wasn't 24fps compatible so the
player converted to 50fps (or whatever it is) and that caused judder.


Marky P.