Slightly OT?? : Advice on LCD TV requested

On 2009-01-02, Woody wrote:
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!

Possibly that's "clouding" - see for example:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/lcd-t...-clouding.html

--
John Phillips

In article ,
Steve wrote:
Forget 1080 on a 26" screen. Waste of money.
Regards Steve

Depends on viewing distance. If it were a waste of time computer monitors
would not go above VGA.

--
*Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
Interesting. Something, somewhere, must be rendering the HTML into plain
text before it arrives on my screen.

My Pipex newsfeed has always done this - and removes any attachments.

--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Richard Tobin wrote:
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.

My newsreader doesn't convert it. My ISP's newsfeed does.

--
*If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Steve" wrote in message
...

"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.

I think it runs 4% fast.


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

to view across a room, but much better on a desk.

Regards Steve

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

My newsreader doesn't convert it. My ISP's newsfeed does.

There's no need to convert anything. There was a plain text part in
the article. A plain text newsreader can just show the text part.
Possibly your ISP only passed on the text part; it would be silly for
it to convert the HTML instead.

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

"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?)

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 "

Suggest purchasing a CRT in the meantime for best picture and wait for OLED
to see if that is an improvement. As for LCD - never seen a good picture on
one yet. Cannot stand the blurred motion or snow over whole picture each
time there is movement.

Stef

Another idiot. Yawn! Hopefully one day I'll manage to plonk them all
....

Plonk!

http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/Audi.../CRTvsLCD.html

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:08:54 -0000, "Stefan"
wrote:

Suggest purchasing a CRT in the meantime for best picture and wait for OLED
to see if that is an improvement. As for LCD - never seen a good picture on
one yet. Cannot stand the blurred motion or snow over whole picture each
time there is movement.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve wrote:
Forget 1080 on a 26" screen. Waste of money.
Regards Steve

Depends on viewing distance. If it were a waste of time computer monitors
would not go above VGA.


Believe me Eddie, if you are only looking at a screen of 26", then you would
be wasting your money buying 1080. I have the experience of seeing a both a
Full HD against a 768 and there is nothing to choose between them even when
watching a HD Blueray movie. Now if you were looking at a 37" or bigger
then yes go for 1080 and you can see an improvement at this screen size.

Eddie King (GB) schrieb:

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


Hi guys,
thanks for the replies, after studying various websites I have decided
to go for the Panasonic TX-26LE8F.

One thing I noticed during my investigations is that there are a great
number of new TVs available with only 1 scart socket, surely these days
despite component video and HDMI I would have thought 2 to be the
minimum required or have I misse something?

@woody - spot on sir - still in Celle

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