HD and SD

In message
,
JOHN PORCELLA Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

-I'm considering buying a 32" LCD TV for our living room.

Why so small? Just a curiosity...


Well, IMO, that's not THAT small. Our living room is not all that big, and
the shape of it means that chairs are fairly close to the TV (10-15' ish).
Currently we have a 28" CRT widescreen and that's fine really. The next
'size up' (ie 32) would be plenty big enough.



Yes, but unless your existing set is 'on the blink', why not hold back
and wait until you are about to get HD source(s). Unless you have no
choice, it seems pointless to spend money on a HD compatible set if
you are then not going to exploit it to the full!

Even if you waited only six months, with the way the economy is going
in general, I suspect that you would be able to get the set you are
after for less, or a bigger one for the money you are prepared to
spend now.

Sound advice. In actual fact, it probably will be 6 months before we
actually buy anything. I'm just trying to get my head round the different
formats.

-The choices seem to be 1080p or 720p,

Is 1080i not a possibility too?

What IS the difference between 1080i and 1080p (or 720p) anyway...?

so this raises a some questions;
1) AIUI, 1080p is the best for HD, but does this compromise my SD
viewing

Surely it would make no difference as the set is capable of displaying
more than SD, so you would hardly be pushing the set.

Doesn't trying to display SD on an HD screen mean the picture has to be
'upscaled' (or is it 'downscaled'?) I guessed there might be a loss in
quality associated with this electronic messing with the picture...??

until such time as I get an HD source (which could be quite a while,
and I imagine even then, 90% of what I watch would still be in SD).

In which case, I urge you to reconsider buying a TV unless you have no
choice.

Again, fair point. In fact, for the first time ever, I'm arguing with the
wife AGAINST bringing new technology into the house.
Our existing TV is a few years old Sony Wega CRT and (IMO) has an extremely
good picture. She only really wants a LCD because 'everyone else is getting
one' to her, picture quality is a secondary consideration after how good the
TV looks in the house...



2) How much of a compromise on HD quality is 720 over 1080p on a 32"
screen?

Get the best that you can afford, when you need to, and not before.

3) Bottom line, in my situation, is there really any advantage in
paying the extra for a 1080 screen (assuming all other screen
properties(contrast etc.) are the same.

If you are certain that you will get one/some/all of blu-ray DVD
player, HD cable or other HD sources then you might not want to have
to buy another TV if you bought a 720 first.


But even if I only had a 720p, would the loss of quality when watching a
blueRay disc or any other 1080p source be noticable on a 32" screen anyway?

Generally, after the argument, 'Best I can afford' = cheapest named brand
one that passes the wifes 'how nice does it look (switched off) test'. She
really doesn't get the concept of paying a bit more for better quality or
additional (useful) features sometimes.
Again I can forsee the argument with SWMBO...
SHMBO '...But this one is £75 cheaper, AND it's a Sony!'
Me 'Yes dear, but that one has fewer lines on the screen, and so will not be
as clear when watching true HD content'
SHMBO 'It must be good quality though, it's a Sony and it's a lovely shiny
black colour'
Me 'sigh yes, I suppose so'
......


Blue suede ones no doubt!

John

Indeed.


--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

ChrisM wrote:
one that passes the wifes 'how nice does it look (switched off) test'.

Fortunatly all ~42" TVs look pretty similar so when we looked for one
recently most of them passed this test

In message ,
JohnT Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"ChrisM" wrote in message
...
In message
,
JOHN PORCELLA Proclaimed from the tallest
tower:
-I'm considering buying a 32" LCD TV for our living room.

Why so small? Just a curiosity...


Well, IMO, that's not THAT small. Our living room is not all that
big, and the shape of it means that chairs are fairly close to the
TV (10-15' ish).


That's miles away!

Hmm, thinking about it, it's probably closer than that. Put it this way,
they're close enough that we find the size of the screen pefectly
acceptable. A slightly larger one might be nice, but we certainly don't need
anything much bigger...

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

"ChrisM" wrote in message
...
In message
,
JOHN PORCELLA Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

-I'm considering buying a 32" LCD TV for our living room.

Why so small? Just a curiosity...


Well, IMO, that's not THAT small. Our living room is not all that big, and
the shape of it means that chairs are fairly close to the TV (10-15' ish).


That's miles away!

--
JohnT

"ChrisM" wrote in message
...
In message
,
JOHN PORCELLA Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

-I'm considering buying a 32" LCD TV for our living room.

Why so small? Just a curiosity...


Well, IMO, that's not THAT small. Our living room is not all that big, and
the shape of it means that chairs are fairly close to the TV (10-15' ish).
Currently we have a 28" CRT widescreen and that's fine really. The next
'size up' (ie 32) would be plenty big enough.

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)



For a moment I was feel'n for ya..
Knowing how much my 400sqft house in the north west cost, and the size of
the rooms.. You being able to sit 15' away means you must be in a HUGE (uk
terms) house..