|
|
HD TV advice ( beginner)
My TV has broken and I want to get a new one. I have decided to move my
old 26" TV into the bedroom and get a new main TV for the sitting room. I have seen two TV's which I am keen on ( Panasonic 37" screen) , The only difference between them other than price is the HD. One is HD ready, the other HD fully ready. Can someone please explain this in very simple terms ( for a girl) so that I know which I should get . What is HD and do I need a set for this and why anyway? Are they going to change digital the HD or something? |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
You may find a page on my site a useful starting point ...
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/Audi.../ChooseTV.html On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:45:07 +0100, "endymion" wrote: One is HD ready, the other HD fully ready. That's a new one on me. I thought they were either 'HD Ready', or not. Can someone please explain this in very simple terms ( for a girl) Great mistake to put this in :-) I know some families where the woman of the household is technically far more 'with it' than the man! so that I know which I should get . What is HD and do I need a set for this and why anyway? Are they going to change digital the HD or something? HD stands for High Definition. This and 'HD Ready' is explained on my web page. What I suspect is that 'HD Fully Ready' may refer to changes to digital transmissions that are occurring. It's strange that if it is an accepted term, Google has only 3 hits for it, one of which is your OP! Hopefully someone here can elucidate, you will get help, and I'll be able to update my webpage to explain the latest piece of confusing and possibly misleading jargon to hit UK TV! ====================================== Please always reply to news group as the email address in this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the contact addresses at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:45:07 +0100, "endymion"
wrote: My TV has broken and I want to get a new one. I have decided to move my old 26" TV into the bedroom and get a new main TV for the sitting room. I have seen two TV's which I am keen on ( Panasonic 37" screen) , The only difference between them other than price is the HD. One is HD ready, the other HD fully ready. Can someone please explain this in very simple terms ( for a girl) so that I know which I should get . What is HD and do I need a set for this and why anyway? Are they going to change digital the HD or something? Panasonic seem to use "Full HD" to mean that the screen has 1080 lines. This is the standard number of lines in an HD picture. And "HD Ready" means that the TV can display HD pictures but that it converts the resolution from 1080 lines to 768 lines. This just means that an HD picture is not as good as it would be on a Full HD set but is better than a picture from an SD (standard definition) source. Can you give some more information about the two TVs you are interested in, model name or number, whatever? -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
"endymion" wrote in message
... My TV has broken and I want to get a new one. I have decided to move my old 26" TV into the bedroom and get a new main TV for the sitting room. I have seen two TV's which I am keen on ( Panasonic 37" screen) , The only difference between them other than price is the HD. One is HD ready, the other HD fully ready. Can someone please explain this in very simple terms ( for a girl) so that I know which I should get . What is HD and do I need a set for this and why anyway? Are they going to change digital the HD or something? Pretty much all flat panel TVs now are HD ready. That means that it has a screen resolution of at least 720 lines (compared to 576 on "standard" TV) , but those labelled as Full HD have 1080 lines. If all you plan on doing is watching DVDs or other standard definition programs then you won't see much difference between the two. They will both have a built in freeview tuner (digital tv through an aerial) which will just be standard definition. If you are going to watch high definition programs from a blu-ray player or SkyHD (or similar) then the full HD set will look better. -- Alex "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away" |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
"endymion" wrote in message ... My TV has broken and I want to get a new one. I have decided to move my old 26" TV into the bedroom and get a new main TV for the sitting room. I have seen two TV's which I am keen on ( Panasonic 37" screen) , The only difference between them other than price is the HD. Like computers, now is never a good time to buy a TV as there is always a better model available tomorrow. TV's in the shops now have either LCD screens or Plasma (for larger sizes over 40), but there is a new type just coming out - LED. LED models on display seemed to me to have exceptionally clear picture. They are very slim at just over an inch, and use around 40% less electricity. If your set is on a lot that might be an important consideration. I expect all the manufacturers will have LED models out soon, though Samsung are the only ones I have seen so far. I'm not recommending these suppliers but they have some info about LED: http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/edit...D-Series-7-8-9 http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/adv...000-Series-LED Roger R |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
"Roger R" wrote in message
... "endymion" wrote in message ... My TV has broken and I want to get a new one. I have decided to move my old 26" TV into the bedroom and get a new main TV for the sitting room. I have seen two TV's which I am keen on ( Panasonic 37" screen) , The only difference between them other than price is the HD. Like computers, now is never a good time to buy a TV as there is always a better model available tomorrow. TV's in the shops now have either LCD screens or Plasma (for larger sizes over 40), but there is a new type just coming out - LED. LED models on display seemed to me to have exceptionally clear picture. They are very slim at just over an inch, and use around 40% less electricity. If your set is on a lot that might be an important consideration. I expect all the manufacturers will have LED models out soon, though Samsung are the only ones I have seen so far. These aren't LED TVs - they are LCD screens with the backlighting done by LEDs. -- Alex "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away" |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
"Mike Henry" wrote in message ... Like computers, now is never a good time to buy a TV as there is always a better model available tomorrow. TV's in the shops now have either LCD screens or Plasma (for larger sizes over 40), but there is a new type just coming out - LED. LED models on display seemed to me to have exceptionally clear picture. They are very slim at just over an inch, and use around 40% less electricity. Less than what? Not less than a CRT I'll wager. How does their power consumption compare with a CRT? As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK) is that a realistic comparison? I thought idea with product promotion is to come up with significant sounding but meaningless statistics such as: 40% less. - Less than something that is 40% more of course ;-) Roger R |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:53:47 +0100, "Roger R"
wrote: "Mike Henry" wrote in message ... Less than what? Not less than a CRT I'll wager. How does their power consumption compare with a CRT? As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK) is that a realistic comparison? He's wrong anyway. My 14" CRT consumes more electricity than my 15" LCD, and you seem to be saying that LED backlit LCDs are more efficient again than my relatively ancient lamp backlit model! ====================================== Please always reply to news group as the email address in this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the contact addresses at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
In article , Java Jive wrote:
Less than what? Not less than a CRT I'll wager. How does their power consumption compare with a CRT? As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK) is that a realistic comparison? He's wrong anyway. My 14" CRT consumes more electricity than my 15" LCD, and you seem to be saying that LED backlit LCDs are more efficient again than my relatively ancient lamp backlit model! Here are some objective figures in case it helps. My 46" LED/LCD TV consumes about 70W when displaying typical pictures, about 45W with no input signal, and 3W in standby. How does that compare? Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
But what are we going to compare this with?
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:30:45 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote: Here are some objective figures in case it helps. My 46" LED/LCD TV consumes about 70W when displaying typical pictures, about 45W with no input signal, and 3W in standby. How does that compare? ====================================== Please always reply to news group as the email address in this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the contact addresses at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
I particularly liked the marketing term, Lifetime guarantee.
Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "Roger R" wrote in message ... "Mike Henry" wrote in message ... Like computers, now is never a good time to buy a TV as there is always a better model available tomorrow. TV's in the shops now have either LCD screens or Plasma (for larger sizes over 40), but there is a new type just coming out - LED. LED models on display seemed to me to have exceptionally clear picture. They are very slim at just over an inch, and use around 40% less electricity. Less than what? Not less than a CRT I'll wager. How does their power consumption compare with a CRT? As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK) is that a realistic comparison? I thought idea with product promotion is to come up with significant sounding but meaningless statistics such as: 40% less. - Less than something that is 40% more of course ;-) Roger R |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
Is not the efficiency only that the light output is variable in areas on led
backlights to mask the grey black problems of lcds? I had a chat with someone the other day who did not like the new led backlit screens as although the dynamics of black/white seemed better, detail in black areas was sometimes missing as well. Of course this could have been content or set up related, but as I can no longer see these things myself, its interesting to hear peoples take on these things. I was imagining a situation where a tennis ball went dim when it was surrounded by a dark background in my mind! Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "Java Jive" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:53:47 +0100, "Roger R" wrote: "Mike Henry" wrote in message ... Less than what? Not less than a CRT I'll wager. How does their power consumption compare with a CRT? As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK) is that a realistic comparison? He's wrong anyway. My 14" CRT consumes more electricity than my 15" LCD, and you seem to be saying that LED backlit LCDs are more efficient again than my relatively ancient lamp backlit model! ====================================== Please always reply to news group as the email address in this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the contact addresses at: http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
"Roger R" wrote in message
... "Mike Henry" wrote in message ... Like computers, now is never a good time to buy a TV as there is always a better model available tomorrow. TV's in the shops now have either LCD screens or Plasma (for larger sizes over 40), but there is a new type just coming out - LED. LED models on display seemed to me to have exceptionally clear picture. They are very slim at just over an inch, and use around 40% less electricity. Less than what? Not less than a CRT I'll wager. How does their power consumption compare with a CRT? As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK) is that a realistic comparison? Samsung did make a HD CRT for a while but discontinued it ages ago. -- Alex "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away" |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
In article , Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:30:45 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote: Here are some objective figures in case it helps. My 46" LED/LCD TV consumes about 70W when displaying typical pictures, about 45W with no input signal, and 3W in standby. How does that compare? But what are we going to compare this with? Compare it with the power consumption figures of other TV sets with different display systems. Then we will know the actual quantitative truth of the matter, not just the folklore and the advertising hype. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
Is not the efficiency only that the light output is variable in areas on led backlights to mask the grey black problems of lcds? I had a chat with someone the other day who did not like the new led backlit screens as although the dynamics of black/white seemed better, detail in black areas was sometimes missing as well. Of course this could have been content or set up related, but as I can no longer see these things myself, its interesting to hear peoples take on these things. Digital bit-rate reduction reduces or removes detail where it is thought not to matter, and this often shows as a reduction in detail in dark picture areas. Maybe the dynamics of LED displays make dark detail more visible, so it becomes more apparent when there isn't any? As well as the digital processing performed by the broadcasters, modern TV displays include a lot of "enhancement" features, most of which are switched on by default, but do not always improve the picture. To compare like with like, we should make sure two displays we are comparing are set up in the same way, preferably with the gimmicks all switched off. It probably isn't very meaningful to compare displays in a shop. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
In article , Dr Zoidberg wrote:
As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK) is that a realistic comparison? Samsung did make a HD CRT for a while but discontinued it ages ago. Most the HD displays at trade shows in the 1980s used CRTs, some of them about 40" as I recall. That seemed to me then, and still does, to be about the smallest screen size where the extra detail would be worth the bother. The boxes containing these CRTs were understandably huge, even the back-projected ones, which probably explains why no serious attempt was made to flog the system to the public until the availability of flat screens. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
They don't say whose lifetime, it could be the kid's hamster.
-- ^..^ This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help her wipe out Bunny's world domination. Brian Gaff wrote: I particularly liked the marketing term, Lifetime guarantee. Brian |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk... In article , Dr Zoidberg wrote: As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK) is that a realistic comparison? Samsung did make a HD CRT for a while but discontinued it ages ago. Most the HD displays at trade shows in the 1980s used CRTs, some of them about 40" as I recall. That seemed to me then, and still does, to be about the smallest screen size where the extra detail would be worth the bother. The boxes containing these CRTs were understandably huge, even the back-projected ones, which probably explains why no serious attempt was made to flog the system to the public until the availability of flat screens. 37" sets are probably worth going for full HD 32" probably aren't IMO -- Alex "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away" |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
On 25 Aug., 17:45, "endymion" wrote:
My *TV has broken and I want to get a new one. *I have decided to move my old 26" TV into the bedroom and get a new main TV for the sitting room. I have seen two TV's which *I am keen on *( Panasonic 37" screen) *, The only difference between them other than price is the HD. One is HD ready, the other HD fully ready. Can someone please explain this in very simple terms *( for a girl) *so that I know which I should get . *What is HD and do I need a set for this and why anyway? Are they going to change digital the HD or something? "HD Ready" is a Logo, it just looks like English - i isnt. Take a look at this page: http://www.eicta.org/index.php?id=731 You will have to match the TV set with the kind of TV signal you are receiving. With digital - unlike analogue - the signals received from an aerial, a cable or from a satellite are all very different. If you are using an aerial you should know that the UK will broadcast HD starting this December*, but you MUST have a new dvb-T2 receiver. This DVB-T2 receiver will arrive in volume within the next 3-6 months. You should also know that the full 1080p50 HD signal is unlikely to be broadcast from any source. Even BlueRay disk does not deliver the full framerate - AFAIK. Lars :) * In all areas post-DSO + London and 4 other large pre-DSO transmitters. |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote: Most the HD displays at trade shows in the 1980s used CRTs, some of them about 40" as I recall. That seemed to me then, and still does, to be about the smallest screen size where the extra detail would be worth the bother. The boxes containing these CRTs were understandably huge, even the back-projected ones, which probably explains why no serious attempt was made to flog the system to the public until the availability of flat screens. Even more likely was the enormous cost of the hardware needed to make HD progs - unless film. Digital VTRs were in their infancy. It's only really become practical with cheap processing power. -- *Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:45:07 +0100, "endymion" wrote: My TV has broken and I want to get a new one. I have decided to move my old 26" TV into the bedroom and get a new main TV for the sitting room. I have seen two TV's which I am keen on ( Panasonic 37" screen) , The only difference between them other than price is the HD. One is HD ready, the other HD fully ready. Can someone please explain this in very simple terms ( for a girl) so that I know which I should get . What is HD and do I need a set for this and why anyway? Are they going to change digital the HD or something? Panasonic seem to use "Full HD" to mean that the screen has 1080 lines. This is the standard number of lines in an HD picture. And "HD Ready" means that the TV can display HD pictures but that it converts the resolution from 1080 lines to 768 lines. This just means that an HD picture is not as good as it would be on a Full HD set but is better than a picture from an SD (standard definition) source. Can you give some more information about the two TVs you are interested in, model name or number, whatever? Its a Pansonic TXL 37S10B 37" Full HD LCD Television with 50,000:1 Contrast and Intelligent Scene Controller. Feature V-Audio Surround. a.. Wide Viewing Angle with IPS Alpha Panel a.. 50,000:1 Contrast with Intelligent Scene Controller a.. Smart Networking with VIERA Link a.. VIERA Image Viewer (AVCHD/JPEG) a.. V-Audio Surround and it has a five year parts service and labour warrently on it for free or as part of the deal if you prefer. Since I have had a TV go wrong a little over a year after I bought it I am keen to get something decent this time. -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:41:51 +0100, "endymion"
wrote: "Peter Duncanson" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:45:07 +0100, "endymion" wrote: My TV has broken and I want to get a new one. I have decided to move my old 26" TV into the bedroom and get a new main TV for the sitting room. I have seen two TV's which I am keen on ( Panasonic 37" screen) , The only difference between them other than price is the HD. One is HD ready, the other HD fully ready. Can someone please explain this in very simple terms ( for a girl) so that I know which I should get . What is HD and do I need a set for this and why anyway? Are they going to change digital the HD or something? Panasonic seem to use "Full HD" to mean that the screen has 1080 lines. This is the standard number of lines in an HD picture. And "HD Ready" means that the TV can display HD pictures but that it converts the resolution from 1080 lines to 768 lines. This just means that an HD picture is not as good as it would be on a Full HD set but is better than a picture from an SD (standard definition) source. Can you give some more information about the two TVs you are interested in, model name or number, whatever? Its a Pansonic TXL 37S10B 37" Full HD LCD Television with 50,000:1 Contrast and Intelligent Scene Controller. Feature V-Audio Surround. a.. Wide Viewing Angle with IPS Alpha Panel a.. 50,000:1 Contrast with Intelligent Scene Controller a.. Smart Networking with VIERA Link a.. VIERA Image Viewer (AVCHD/JPEG) a.. V-Audio Surround and it has a five year parts service and labour warrently on it for free or as part of the deal if you prefer. Since I have had a TV go wrong a little over a year after I bought it I am keen to get something decent this time. I have no experience of this TV so I can't say anything for or against its performance and quality. Perhaps someone else knows it. The specification on the Panasonic UK website says that it has 1,920 x 1,080 resolution. It will show HD TV pictures in full detail. http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_G...123/index.html or http://tinyurl.com/nfdh7w There is a brief review at: http://whathifi.com/Review/Panasonic-TX-L37S10/ They seem to like it. -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
The message
from "Roger R" contains these words: ====snip==== I thought idea with product promotion is to come up with significant sounding but meaningless statistics such as: 40% less. - Less than something that is 40% more of course ;-) ITYM - Less than something that is 66.67% more of course ;-) HTH -- Regards, John. Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying. The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots. |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
endymion wrote:
"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:45:07 +0100, "endymion" wrote: My TV has broken and I want to get a new one. I have decided to move my old 26" TV into the bedroom and get a new main TV for the sitting room. I have seen two TV's which I am keen on ( Panasonic 37" screen) , The only difference between them other than price is the HD. One is HD ready, the other HD fully ready. Can someone please explain this in very simple terms ( for a girl) so that I know which I should get . What is HD and do I need a set for this and why anyway? Are they going to change digital the HD or something? Panasonic seem to use "Full HD" to mean that the screen has 1080 lines. This is the standard number of lines in an HD picture. And "HD Ready" means that the TV can display HD pictures but that it converts the resolution from 1080 lines to 768 lines. This just means that an HD picture is not as good as it would be on a Full HD set but is better than a picture from an SD (standard definition) source. Can you give some more information about the two TVs you are interested in, model name or number, whatever? Its a Pansonic TXL 37S10B 37" Full HD LCD Television with 50,000:1 Contrast and Intelligent Scene Controller. Feature V-Audio Surround. a.. Wide Viewing Angle with IPS Alpha Panel a.. 50,000:1 Contrast with Intelligent Scene Controller a.. Smart Networking with VIERA Link a.. VIERA Image Viewer (AVCHD/JPEG) a.. V-Audio Surround and it has a five year parts service and labour warrently on it for free or as part of the deal if you prefer. Since I have had a TV go wrong a little over a year after I bought it I am keen to get something decent this time. If it went wrong that soon you are within your rights to claim for a replacemet. The Citzens Advice Bureau could probably help you deal with the supplier. -- ^..^ This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help her wipe out Bunny's world domination. |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
In article , Java Jive
wrote: But, as has already been pointed out up thread, there ain't no such thing as a similar-sized, similar-spec CRT TV? True, but I think its power consumption would compare favourably even with that of a smaller CRT display, and there are of course LCD displays with conventional fluorescent backlights. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:34:30 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote: On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:45:07 +0100, "endymion" wrote: My TV has broken and I want to get a new one. I have decided to move my old 26" TV into the bedroom and get a new main TV for the sitting room. I have seen two TV's which I am keen on ( Panasonic 37" screen) , The only difference between them other than price is the HD. One is HD ready, the other HD fully ready. Can someone please explain this in very simple terms ( for a girl) so that I know which I should get . What is HD and do I need a set for this and why anyway? Are they going to change digital the HD or something? Panasonic seem to use "Full HD" to mean that the screen has 1080 lines. This is the standard number of lines in an HD picture. And "HD Ready" means that the TV can display HD pictures but that it converts the resolution from 1080 lines to 768 lines. This just means that an HD picture is not as good as it would be on a Full HD set but is better than a picture from an SD (standard definition) source. Argos also seem to have their very own definition. According to page 1339 of their latest catalogue, "1080p HD uses twice as many pixels as a HD Ready TV", and they have a diagram showing "HD Ready" as 1366x768, and "1080p HD Ready" as 1920x1080... Charlie -- Email killed by spammers - please ask for the real one. |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:53:47 +0100, "Roger R"
wrote: I thought idea with product promotion is to come up with significant sounding but meaningless statistics such as: 40% less. - Less than something that is 40% more of course ;-) Less than something that is 66.67% more, I think you'll find. Charlie -- Email killed by spammers - please ask for the real one. |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
Adrian wrote:
They don't say whose lifetime, it could be the kid's hamster. I think it's the lifetime of the TV. So it's guaranteed until it goes wrong. Andy |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:16:28 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote: In article , Dr Zoidberg wrote: As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK) is that a realistic comparison? Samsung did make a HD CRT for a while but discontinued it ages ago. Most the HD displays at trade shows in the 1980s used CRTs, some of them about 40" as I recall. That seemed to me then, and still does, to be about the smallest screen size where the extra detail would be worth the bother. Try connecting an old VGA ony (480 lines) monitor to a PC and see what a difference losing 50% of the lines in HD makes. last time i tried this windows didnt like it even during the setup process..... Granted a computer screen is working with a different type of source material. And flat screens used in video production for editing now are often 2000 lines / 36" or so... The boxes containing these CRTs were understandably huge, even the back-projected ones, which probably explains why no serious attempt was made to flog the system to the public until the availability of flat screens. Rod. -- Regards - replace xyz with ntl |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
"Stephen" wrote in message ... In article , Dr Zoidberg wrote: As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK) is that a realistic comparison? Samsung did make a HD CRT for a while but discontinued it ages ago. That would have been this one then... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-WS32.../dp/B000FMRXPI Paul |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
In article , Stephen wrote:
Most the HD displays at trade shows in the 1980s used CRTs, some of them about 40" as I recall. That seemed to me then, and still does, to be about the smallest screen size where the extra detail would be worth the bother. Try connecting an old VGA ony (480 lines) monitor to a PC and see what a difference losing 50% of the lines in HD makes. last time i tried this windows didnt like it even during the setup process..... Granted a computer screen is working with a different type of source material. Indeed. And typically it will be a great deal closer to the viewer. In other words, it is a completely different situation. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote: In article , Stephen wrote: Most the HD displays at trade shows in the 1980s used CRTs, some of them about 40" as I recall. That seemed to me then, and still does, to be about the smallest screen size where the extra detail would be worth the bother. Try connecting an old VGA ony (480 lines) monitor to a PC and see what a difference losing 50% of the lines in HD makes. last time i tried this windows didnt like it even during the setup process..... Granted a computer screen is working with a different type of source material. Indeed. And typically it will be a great deal closer to the viewer. In other words, it is a completely different situation. Is there a 'typical' viewing distance from a TV? I'd say it depends on the room. So comments like 'HD isn't worthwhile on anything smaller than 45" or whatever are meaningless. -- *A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
HD TV advice ( beginner)
In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Granted a computer screen is working with a different type of source material. Indeed. And typically it will be a great deal closer to the viewer. In other words, it is a completely different situation. Is there a 'typical' viewing distance from a TV? I'd say it depends on the room. So comments like 'HD isn't worthwhile on anything smaller than 45" or whatever are meaningless. A TV set of any sort is used for looking at moving pictures. Whatever the screen size, I think most people would want to watch from a distance where the whole picture can be seen at once without the need to keep moving one's head, otherwise it would become tiring pretty quickly. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com