1080 HD TVs

"Ed" wrote in message
oups.com...
Am I the only one that thinks this is a scam on a mahoosive scale by
flogging people 'HD ready' TVs that weren't even proper HD, and are
now going to flog the same people a new line of 1080 TVs?


Undoubtedly.

Early widescreen plasma sets were 872x480. Early adopters were caught by
this, since such sets (made for the US market) can't even display EU
broadcast TV properly.

Next up came 1366 X 768. This was useful as it can do a reasonable job of
displaying the output of a PC and is about half way between current
broadcast and the 1080 that is likely to be the maximum for some time.
Early big plasma sets had this resolution, along with smaller LCD sets.

Now we have 1920 X 1080, either interlaced or not. A 768 or 1024 x 576
broadcast will fit in this window at double size, with minimal cropping (36
pixels vertically and 64 pixels horizontally (in widescreen)).

OTOH full res LCD sets are now pricing out not much more than lower res'
sets, so it might be time to buy...

In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

"Ed" wrote in message
roups.com...
Am I the only one that thinks this is a scam on a mahoosive scale by
flogging people 'HD ready' TVs that weren't even proper HD, and are
now going to flog the same people a new line of 1080 TVs?


Undoubtedly.

Early widescreen plasma sets were 872x480. Early adopters were caught by
this, since such sets (made for the US market) can't even display EU
broadcast TV properly.

Next up came 1366 X 768. This was useful as it can do a reasonable job of
displaying the output of a PC and is about half way between current
broadcast and the 1080 that is likely to be the maximum for some time.
Early big plasma sets had this resolution, along with smaller LCD sets.

Now we have 1920 X 1080, either interlaced or not. A 768 or 1024 x 576
broadcast will fit in this window at double size, with minimal cropping (36
pixels vertically and 64 pixels horizontally (in widescreen)).

OTOH full res LCD sets are now pricing out not much more than lower res'
sets, so it might be time to buy...

I think you have rather simplified the timeline but I won't hear a word
against my Panny Viera 37in plasma with its SD 852 x 480 resolution
screen. It excels with SD source material and only yesterday a friend
who had just bought a Sony Bravia HD LCD was watching my TV and said:
"I should have bought one of these". Sure, I will upgrade when the
amount of HD TV broadcasting justifies it but there is no rush
whatsoever.

Stan

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:09:00 +0100, Stan The Man
wrote:

I think you have rather simplified the timeline but I won't hear a word
against my Panny Viera 37in plasma with its SD 852 x 480 resolution
screen. It excels with SD source material and only yesterday a friend
who had just bought a Sony Bravia HD LCD was watching my TV and said:
"I should have bought one of these". Sure, I will upgrade when the
amount of HD TV broadcasting justifies it but there is no rush
whatsoever.

I presume you don't have any HD sources for your TV. My satisfaction
with SD died rapidly when I bought my XBox 360.
--
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.

In article , Adrian A wrote:
Then there's the size of the screens. I recently had need to buy a
combined TV/PC monitor, predominantly for computer use but with a
SCART input for video as well, so a 16:9 screen with a 19" diagonal
seemed about right, and TV looks OK as well. But it is labelled "HD
Ready", and I cannot help wondering at what viewing distance anybody
would expect to see a difference on a screen that size even if I had
an appropriate signal to feed to it.

I'd be very surprised if the screen you have is 16:9, _all_ the 19" screens*
I've seen have been 16:10.

True. It's 1440 x 900, which is 16:10. I'm annoyed now.

Rod.

In article , Stan The Man
scribeth thus
In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

"Ed" wrote in message
groups.com...
Am I the only one that thinks this is a scam on a mahoosive scale by
flogging people 'HD ready' TVs that weren't even proper HD, and are
now going to flog the same people a new line of 1080 TVs?


Undoubtedly.

Early widescreen plasma sets were 872x480. Early adopters were caught by
this, since such sets (made for the US market) can't even display EU
broadcast TV properly.

Next up came 1366 X 768. This was useful as it can do a reasonable job of
displaying the output of a PC and is about half way between current
broadcast and the 1080 that is likely to be the maximum for some time.
Early big plasma sets had this resolution, along with smaller LCD sets.

Now we have 1920 X 1080, either interlaced or not. A 768 or 1024 x 576
broadcast will fit in this window at double size, with minimal cropping (36
pixels vertically and 64 pixels horizontally (in widescreen)).

OTOH full res LCD sets are now pricing out not much more than lower res'
sets, so it might be time to buy...

I think you have rather simplified the timeline but I won't hear a word
against my Panny Viera 37in plasma with its SD 852 x 480 resolution
screen. It excels with SD source material and only yesterday a friend
who had just bought a Sony Bravia HD LCD was watching my TV and said:
"I should have bought one of these". Sure, I will upgrade when the
amount of HD TV broadcasting justifies it but there is no rush
whatsoever.

Stan

And is your programme "source" Freeview in the UK then?...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Stan The Man
scribeth thus
In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

"Ed" wrote in message
egroups.com...
Am I the only one that thinks this is a scam on a mahoosive scale by
flogging people 'HD ready' TVs that weren't even proper HD, and are
now going to flog the same people a new line of 1080 TVs?


Undoubtedly.

Early widescreen plasma sets were 872x480. Early adopters were caught by
this, since such sets (made for the US market) can't even display EU
broadcast TV properly.

Next up came 1366 X 768. This was useful as it can do a reasonable job of
displaying the output of a PC and is about half way between current
broadcast and the 1080 that is likely to be the maximum for some time.
Early big plasma sets had this resolution, along with smaller LCD sets.

Now we have 1920 X 1080, either interlaced or not. A 768 or 1024 x 576
broadcast will fit in this window at double size, with minimal cropping (36
pixels vertically and 64 pixels horizontally (in widescreen)).

OTOH full res LCD sets are now pricing out not much more than lower res'
sets, so it might be time to buy...

I think you have rather simplified the timeline but I won't hear a word
against my Panny Viera 37in plasma with its SD 852 x 480 resolution
screen. It excels with SD source material and only yesterday a friend
who had just bought a Sony Bravia HD LCD was watching my TV and said:
"I should have bought one of these". Sure, I will upgrade when the
amount of HD TV broadcasting justifies it but there is no rush
whatsoever.

Stan

And is your programme "source" Freeview in the UK then?...

No, Sky+.

Stan

In article , Stan The Man
scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Stan The Man
scribeth thus
In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

"Ed" wrote in message
legroups.com...
Am I the only one that thinks this is a scam on a mahoosive scale by
flogging people 'HD ready' TVs that weren't even proper HD, and are
now going to flog the same people a new line of 1080 TVs?


Undoubtedly.

Early widescreen plasma sets were 872x480. Early adopters were caught by
this, since such sets (made for the US market) can't even display EU
broadcast TV properly.

Next up came 1366 X 768. This was useful as it can do a reasonable job of
displaying the output of a PC and is about half way between current
broadcast and the 1080 that is likely to be the maximum for some time.
Early big plasma sets had this resolution, along with smaller LCD sets.

Now we have 1920 X 1080, either interlaced or not. A 768 or 1024 x 576
broadcast will fit in this window at double size, with minimal cropping (36
pixels vertically and 64 pixels horizontally (in widescreen)).

OTOH full res LCD sets are now pricing out not much more than lower res'
sets, so it might be time to buy...

I think you have rather simplified the timeline but I won't hear a word
against my Panny Viera 37in plasma with its SD 852 x 480 resolution
screen. It excels with SD source material and only yesterday a friend
who had just bought a Sony Bravia HD LCD was watching my TV and said:
"I should have bought one of these". Sure, I will upgrade when the
amount of HD TV broadcasting justifies it but there is no rush
whatsoever.

Stan

And is your programme "source" Freeview in the UK then?...

No, Sky+.

Stan

Thats Sky at Standard bit rates than?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Stan The Man
scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Stan The Man
scribeth thus
In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

"Ed" wrote in message
glegroups.com...
Am I the only one that thinks this is a scam on a mahoosive scale by
flogging people 'HD ready' TVs that weren't even proper HD, and are
now going to flog the same people a new line of 1080 TVs?


Undoubtedly.

Early widescreen plasma sets were 872x480. Early adopters were caught by
this, since such sets (made for the US market) can't even display EU
broadcast TV properly.

Next up came 1366 X 768. This was useful as it can do a reasonable job of
displaying the output of a PC and is about half way between current
broadcast and the 1080 that is likely to be the maximum for some time.
Early big plasma sets had this resolution, along with smaller LCD sets.

Now we have 1920 X 1080, either interlaced or not. A 768 or 1024 x 576
broadcast will fit in this window at double size, with minimal cropping
(36
pixels vertically and 64 pixels horizontally (in widescreen)).

OTOH full res LCD sets are now pricing out not much more than lower res'
sets, so it might be time to buy...

I think you have rather simplified the timeline but I won't hear a word
against my Panny Viera 37in plasma with its SD 852 x 480 resolution
screen. It excels with SD source material and only yesterday a friend
who had just bought a Sony Bravia HD LCD was watching my TV and said:
"I should have bought one of these". Sure, I will upgrade when the
amount of HD TV broadcasting justifies it but there is no rush
whatsoever.

Stan

And is your programme "source" Freeview in the UK then?...

No, Sky+.

Stan

Thats Sky at Standard bit rates than?..
Yes.

Stan

In article , Stan The Man
scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Stan The Man
scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Stan The Man
scribeth thus
In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

"Ed" wrote in message
oglegroups.com...
Am I the only one that thinks this is a scam on a mahoosive scale by
flogging people 'HD ready' TVs that weren't even proper HD, and are
now going to flog the same people a new line of 1080 TVs?


Undoubtedly.

Early widescreen plasma sets were 872x480. Early adopters were caught by
this, since such sets (made for the US market) can't even display EU
broadcast TV properly.

Next up came 1366 X 768. This was useful as it can do a reasonable job of
displaying the output of a PC and is about half way between current
broadcast and the 1080 that is likely to be the maximum for some time.
Early big plasma sets had this resolution, along with smaller LCD sets.

Now we have 1920 X 1080, either interlaced or not. A 768 or 1024 x 576
broadcast will fit in this window at double size, with minimal cropping
(36
pixels vertically and 64 pixels horizontally (in widescreen)).

OTOH full res LCD sets are now pricing out not much more than lower res'
sets, so it might be time to buy...

I think you have rather simplified the timeline but I won't hear a word
against my Panny Viera 37in plasma with its SD 852 x 480 resolution
screen. It excels with SD source material and only yesterday a friend
who had just bought a Sony Bravia HD LCD was watching my TV and said:
"I should have bought one of these". Sure, I will upgrade when the
amount of HD TV broadcasting justifies it but there is no rush
whatsoever.

Stan

And is your programme "source" Freeview in the UK then?...

No, Sky+.

Stan

Thats Sky at Standard bit rates than?..
Yes.

Stan

So I presume its now improved from what it was around a year ago when I
last saw it, and then it left a lot to de desired!.

Have they upped the bitrates then?...
--
Tony Sayer

Ed wrote:

Am I the only one that thinks this is a scam on a mahoosive scale by
flogging people 'HD ready' TVs that weren't even proper HD, and are
now going to flog the same people a new line of 1080 TVs?

720 is HD ready. What's the problem?

Of course it's not a scam. It's just marketing. Depending on usage 1080
has benefits over 720.

Basically they're offering shiney new things, and if people want it they
can freely choose to buy it or not. Simple. Obviously thye're going to
try and make it seem desitrable to do so - it's their job

In fact, it's beneficial for new and 'better' models to arrive. It means
we can all now buy previous generations stuff for half the price.