Rapid change in consumer TVs - too rapid?
 

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:40:31 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David WE Roberts wrote:
Although I can understand the attraction of selling cheap low res TVs,
surely there is no justification in shipping TVs which don't support
FreeView HD?

Why? The progs on FreeView HD are pretty well all on SD too. So only those
who want HD and are prepared to pay the extra actually need it.

and most who "want" it will be getting it through SKY so a Full HD TV will
be completely wasted on them as well

tim

Why so, please?
I am looking to get a bigger telly - the 26" CRT I use is getting a
bit difficult to see detail upon - or maybe it's my eyesight.
Calculations based on my viewing distancesuggests a 40-42" is called
for. I've looked at many possibilities (currently leaning towards a
Panasonic Plasma) and have convinced myself that an HD subscription to
Sky would be an absolutely essential addition. (I watch mainly
broadcast TV, no sport or films and like many channels that are only
available on the Sky platform.)
My decison for HD being essential is based upon demos using Freeview
SD/HD and I , perhaps naively, anticipated that the distinction twixt
Sky SD/HD would be very similar. Your comment makes me wonder if this
is not the case and that Sky HD will in some way be inferior to
Freeview HD. Am I mis-inferring?
TIA
Please reply to group - email address is not monitored
Ian

Rapid change in consumer TVs - too rapid?
 

On 18/11/2012 17:20, wrote:
My decison for HD being essential is based upon demos using Freeview
SD/HD and I , perhaps naively, anticipated that the distinction twixt
Sky SD/HD would be very similar. Your comment makes me wonder if this
is not the case and that Sky HD will in some way be inferior to
Freeview HD. Am I mis-inferring?

My understanding (and I'm no expert here) is that the difference may be
less. Freeview SD is squeezed on bandwidth, HD less so. Sky has more
bandwidth for both.

Andy

Rapid change in consumer TVs - too rapid?
 

In message , brightside S9
writes
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:54:49 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:


However it'll be easier to deal with in Ch 21-31 areas, because a
filter can be inserted in front of the amp/receiver. Far more difficult
to deal with, if you need to receive something between 55 and 60, a very
sharp cut off filter will be required, which will be tricky (read
expensive).

So us up in't north recieving from Winter Hill are going to get
stuffed, and south-easters receiving from Crystal Palace get away
cheaply.

Seems like government as usual to me.

Mendip will be badly stuffed too.
--
Ian

Rapid change in consumer TVs - too rapid?
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:40:31 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David WE Roberts wrote:
Although I can understand the attraction of selling cheap
low res TVs,
surely there is no justification in shipping TVs which don't
support
FreeView HD?

Why? The progs on FreeView HD are pretty well all on SD too.
So only those
who want HD and are prepared to pay the extra actually need
it.

and most who "want" it will be getting it through SKY so a Full
HD TV will
be completely wasted on them as well

tim

Why so, please?
I am looking to get a bigger telly - the 26" CRT I use is
getting a
bit difficult to see detail upon - or maybe it's my eyesight.
Calculations based on my viewing distancesuggests a 40-42" is
called
for. I've looked at many possibilities (currently leaning
towards a
Panasonic Plasma) and have convinced myself that an HD
subscription to
Sky would be an absolutely essential addition. (I watch mainly
broadcast TV, no sport or films and like many channels that are
only
available on the Sky platform.)
My decison for HD being essential is based upon demos using
Freeview
SD/HD and I , perhaps naively, anticipated that the distinction
twixt
Sky SD/HD would be very similar. Your comment makes me wonder
if this
is not the case and that Sky HD will in some way be inferior to
Freeview HD. Am I mis-inferring?
TIA
Please reply to group - email address is not monitored
Ian




There was a well reasoned thread on here a year or so ago which,
in short, said you need 10.8" of screen diagonal for every metre
of viewing distance. If you go bigger than that you cannot see
the whole screen at once.

We have a 32" in the bedroom which we watch from about 3m and it
is spot on: I was in a hotel on the Shropshire/Wales border last
week which had a Toshiba 40" no more than three feet from the end
of a standard 6ft 6" bed and it was awful. By the time I finished
watching my eyes ached from having to keep scanning around to see
what was happening across the frame.


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com