Slightly OT?? : Advice on LCD TV requested

Further to my recent post, one or two questions regarding buying a new
LCD TV.

Having studied various specifications and after following various
threads here I would be grateful if someone in the know could give me
a quick guide to the things to watch out for.

I have found that most manufacturers' blurb give figures for

aspect ratio 16:9 (is this standard now?)

resolution eg 1366x768

contrast eg 800:1 another 3500:1 another 5000:1 - how important
is this? Does this mean the higher the value the better?

recovery time eg 5ms - does this mean the lower the better?

all now seem to have HDMI is this the connection for an HD receiver?

I have looked at the SONY KDL-26S4000E
LG 26LG3000
Panasonic TX-26LE8F
Samsung LE26A457C
Sharp LC-26D44E

any comments or recommendations? Having grown up and worked on CRT sets
and 405/625 Dual Standard the present technology seems to have overtaken
me somewhat ;-(

As always guys, thanks for your replies

Eddie King

--
before replying per E-mail remove " xxx "

Eddie King (GB) wrote:


As always guys, thanks for your replies

Not an exhaustive list, but two things to consider:-

If you possibly can, stretch your budget to go for a 1920 x 1080 resolution
screen. That is 'Full HD' res. Also make sure that the screen can handle '24p'
mode. Most BluRay discs of movies are mastered at 24 fps (to match the native
cinema film frame rate). If you play them on a display that can only handle 25
fps, you get a nasty once per second 'stutter' in the movement.

The HDMI connection is indeed for the connection of HD sources, such as HD
satellite boxes, and BluRay players. Also many SD DVD players have HDMI
outputs because they incorporate 'upconverters' to take the signal (but of
course not the original image !) to HD resolution. They can be useful, but the
TV itself will have an internal upconverter for its standard SD inputs.
Whether the upconverter in the player, or the TV will give you a better final
image is dependent upon the respective quality.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...

If you possibly can, stretch your budget to go for a 1920 x 1080
resolution
screen. That is 'Full HD' res. Also make sure that the screen can handle
'24p'
mode. Most BluRay discs of movies are mastered at 24 fps (to match the
native
cinema film frame rate). If you play them on a display that can only
handle 25
fps, you get a nasty once per second 'stutter' in the movement.

Forget 1080 on a 26" screen. Waste of money.
Regards Steve

"Eddie King (GB)" wrote in message ...
Further to my recent post, one or two questions regarding buying a new
LCD TV.

Having studied various specifications and after following various
threads here I would be grateful if someone in the know could give me
a quick guide to the things to watch out for.

I have found that most manufacturers' blurb give figures for

aspect ratio 16:9 (is this standard now?)

Yes

resolution eg 1366x768

This is true 16:9 (do the sums. ) Many are 1440x900 which is 16:10


contrast eg 800:1 another 3500:1 another 5000:1 - how important
is this? Does this mean the higher the value the better?

Yes - in the main.


recovery time eg 5ms - does this mean the lower the better?

Yes. Normally called resonse time, the shorter it is the less the blurring on moving objects - in theory at least.

all now seem to have HDMI is this the connection for an HD receiver?

I have looked at the SONY KDL-26S4000E
LG 26LG3000
Panasonic TX-26LE8F
Samsung LE26A457C
Sharp LC-26D44E

any comments or recommendations? Having grown up and worked on CRT sets
and 405/625 Dual Standard the present technology seems to have overtaken
me somewhat ;-(

As always guys, thanks for your replies

Eddie King

--
before replying per E-mail remove " xxx "


AIUI all LCD panels are made by LG or Samsung, then fitted into other manufacturer's boxes. The Panasonic Vierra is, I think, by general concensus the best with Sony not far behind. However Sony have a known problem with picture 'greying' - I report this but have been unable to find out what it refers to!

Before you buy look at/try two other things.

Sound is generally not good on many smaller sets - I would include 26" in this. They use small speakers directed down with a reflector (or not) and often have underrated amps. 2x3W is not uncommon. The Sony's on the other hand usually have forward-facing speakers and are 2x10W.


Check the viewing angle. I've been looking for a 15-19" for the caravan where you are often looking slightly upwards at the screen, more or less. You will be surprised how many go very dark as soon as you get more than a few degress south of directly straight on, some even go negative. The only ones I have found so far that don't suffer this are a 15" (4:3) Matsui, a 19" Sharp, and a 22" Samsung.

I was shown this link about Sony the other day - you might find it interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/9nlc2d


Are you the Eddie formerly from Celle in Germany?


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

Woody wrote:
"Eddie King (GB)" wrote in message
...
Further to my recent post, one or two questions regarding buying a
new LCD TV.

Having studied various specifications and after following various
threads here I would be grateful if someone in the know could give me
a quick guide to the things to watch out for.

I have found that most manufacturers' blurb give figures for

aspect ratio 16:9 (is this standard now?)

Yes

resolution eg 1366x768

This is true 16:9 (do the sums. ) Many are 1440x900 which is 16:10


contrast eg 800:1 another 3500:1 another 5000:1 - how important
is this? Does this mean the higher the value the better?

Yes - in the main.


recovery time eg 5ms - does this mean the lower the better?

Yes. Normally called resonse time, the shorter it is the less the
blurring on moving objects - in theory at least.

all now seem to have HDMI is this the connection for an HD receiver?

I have looked at the SONY KDL-26S4000E
LG 26LG3000
Panasonic TX-26LE8F
Samsung LE26A457C
Sharp LC-26D44E

any comments or recommendations? Having grown up and worked on CRT
sets and 405/625 Dual Standard the present technology seems to have
overtaken me somewhat ;-(

As always guys, thanks for your replies

Eddie King

--
before replying per E-mail remove " xxx "


AIUI all LCD panels are made by LG or Samsung, then fitted into other
manufacturer's boxes. The Panasonic Vierra is, I think, by general
concensus the best with Sony not far behind. However Sony have a
known problem with picture 'greying' - I report this but have been
unable to find out what it refers to!

Before you buy look at/try two other things.

Sound is generally not good on many smaller sets - I would include
26" in this. They use small speakers directed down with a reflector
(or not) and often have underrated amps. 2x3W is not uncommon. The
Sony's on the other hand usually have forward-facing speakers and are
2x10W.


Check the viewing angle. I've been looking for a 15-19" for the
caravan where you are often looking slightly upwards at the screen,
more or less. You will be surprised how many go very dark as soon as
you get more than a few degress south of directly straight on, some
even go negative. The only ones I have found so far that don't suffer
this are a 15" (4:3) Matsui, a 19" Sharp, and a 22" Samsung.

I was shown this link about Sony the other day - you might find it
interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/9nlc2d


Are you the Eddie formerly from Celle in Germany?

Why the hell are you posting using HTML?

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 21:35:26 -0000, "Adrian" wrote:

Woody wrote:
"Eddie King (GB)" wrote in message
...
Further to my recent post, one or two questions regarding buying a
new LCD TV.

Having studied various specifications and after following various
threads here I would be grateful if someone in the know could give me
a quick guide to the things to watch out for.

I have found that most manufacturers' blurb give figures for

aspect ratio 16:9 (is this standard now?)

Yes

resolution eg 1366x768

This is true 16:9 (do the sums. ) Many are 1440x900 which is 16:10


contrast eg 800:1 another 3500:1 another 5000:1 - how important
is this? Does this mean the higher the value the better?

Yes - in the main.


recovery time eg 5ms - does this mean the lower the better?

Yes. Normally called resonse time, the shorter it is the less the
blurring on moving objects - in theory at least.

all now seem to have HDMI is this the connection for an HD receiver?

I have looked at the SONY KDL-26S4000E
LG 26LG3000
Panasonic TX-26LE8F
Samsung LE26A457C
Sharp LC-26D44E

any comments or recommendations? Having grown up and worked on CRT
sets and 405/625 Dual Standard the present technology seems to have
overtaken me somewhat ;-(

As always guys, thanks for your replies

Eddie King

--
before replying per E-mail remove " xxx "


AIUI all LCD panels are made by LG or Samsung, then fitted into other
manufacturer's boxes. The Panasonic Vierra is, I think, by general
concensus the best with Sony not far behind. However Sony have a
known problem with picture 'greying' - I report this but have been
unable to find out what it refers to!

Before you buy look at/try two other things.

Sound is generally not good on many smaller sets - I would include
26" in this. They use small speakers directed down with a reflector
(or not) and often have underrated amps. 2x3W is not uncommon. The
Sony's on the other hand usually have forward-facing speakers and are
2x10W.


Check the viewing angle. I've been looking for a 15-19" for the
caravan where you are often looking slightly upwards at the screen,
more or less. You will be surprised how many go very dark as soon as
you get more than a few degress south of directly straight on, some
even go negative. The only ones I have found so far that don't suffer
this are a 15" (4:3) Matsui, a 19" Sharp, and a 22" Samsung.

I was shown this link about Sony the other day - you might find it
interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/9nlc2d


Are you the Eddie formerly from Celle in Germany?

Why the hell are you posting using HTML?

???

There's no sign of HTML in the post as it arrived here.

Peter Duncanson wrote:

Why the hell are you posting using HTML?

???

There's no sign of HTML in the post as it arrived here.

There was here.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:23:57 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

Peter Duncanson wrote:

Why the hell are you posting using HTML?

???

There's no sign of HTML in the post as it arrived here.

There was here.

Interesting. Something, somewhere, must be rendering the HTML into plain text
before it arrives on my screen.

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:

Why the hell are you posting using HTML?

???

There's no sign of HTML in the post as it arrived here.

There was here.

Interesting. Something, somewhere, must be rendering the HTML into plain text
before it arrives on my screen.

No, the article was a multi-part document with both plain text and
HTML versions. Utterly pointless on usenet, but your newsreader did
the right thing and showed you the plain text.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 21:35:26 -0000, Adrian wrote:

Why the hell are you posting using HTML?

Why the hell are you quoting 80 odd lines pointlessly just to add your
8 words?