HD TV advice ( beginner)

Anyone know if Samsung now have models with audio description built in?
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Roger R" wrote in message
...

"endymion" wrote in message
news
My TV has broken and I want to get a new one. I have decided to move my
old 26" TV into the bedroom and get a new main TV for the sitting room.

I have seen two TV's which I am keen on ( Panasonic 37" screen) , The
only difference between them other than price is the HD.


Like computers, now is never a good time to buy a TV as there is always a
better model available tomorrow.

TV's in the shops now have either LCD screens or Plasma (for larger sizes
over 40), but there is a new type just coming out - LED.
LED models on display seemed to me to have exceptionally clear picture.
They are very slim at just over an inch, and use around 40% less
electricity. If your set is on a lot that might be an important
consideration.
I expect all the manufacturers will have LED models out soon, though
Samsung
are the only ones I have seen so far.

I'm not recommending these suppliers but they have some info about LED:
http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/edit...D-Series-7-8-9

http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/adv...000-Series-LED

Roger R

I particularly liked the marketing term, Lifetime guarantee.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Roger R" wrote in message
...

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...
Like computers, now is never a good time to buy a TV as there is always
a
better model available tomorrow.

TV's in the shops now have either LCD screens or Plasma (for larger
sizes
over 40), but there is a new type just coming out - LED.
LED models on display seemed to me to have exceptionally clear picture.
They are very slim at just over an inch, and use around 40% less
electricity.

Less than what? Not less than a CRT I'll wager. How does their power
consumption compare with a CRT?

As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK)
is
that a realistic comparison?

I thought idea with product promotion is to come up with significant
sounding but meaningless statistics such as: 40% less.
- Less than something that is 40% more of course ;-)

Roger R

Is not the efficiency only that the light output is variable in areas on led
backlights to mask the grey black problems of lcds?
I had a chat with someone the other day who did not like the new led
backlit screens as although the dynamics of black/white seemed better,
detail in black areas was sometimes missing as well. Of course this could
have been content or set up related, but as I can no longer see these things
myself, its interesting to hear peoples take on these things.

I was imagining a situation where a tennis ball went dim when it was
surrounded by a dark background in my mind!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:53:47 +0100, "Roger R"
wrote:

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...

Less than what? Not less than a CRT I'll wager. How does their power
consumption compare with a CRT?

As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK)
is
that a realistic comparison?

He's wrong anyway. My 14" CRT consumes more electricity than my 15"
LCD, and you seem to be saying that LED backlit LCDs are more
efficient again than my relatively ancient lamp backlit model!

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Roger R" wrote in message
...

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...
Like computers, now is never a good time to buy a TV as there is always
a
better model available tomorrow.

TV's in the shops now have either LCD screens or Plasma (for larger
sizes
over 40), but there is a new type just coming out - LED.
LED models on display seemed to me to have exceptionally clear picture.
They are very slim at just over an inch, and use around 40% less
electricity.

Less than what? Not less than a CRT I'll wager. How does their power
consumption compare with a CRT?

As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK)
is
that a realistic comparison?


Samsung did make a HD CRT for a while but discontinued it ages ago.

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

In article , Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:30:45 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Here are some objective figures in case it helps. My 46" LED/LCD TV consumes
about 70W when displaying typical pictures, about 45W with no input signal, and
3W in standby. How does that compare?

But what are we going to compare this with?

Compare it with the power consumption figures of other TV sets with
different display systems. Then we will know the actual quantitative truth
of the matter, not just the folklore and the advertising hype.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
Is not the efficiency only that the light output is variable in areas on led
backlights to mask the grey black problems of lcds?
I had a chat with someone the other day who did not like the new led
backlit screens as although the dynamics of black/white seemed better,
detail in black areas was sometimes missing as well. Of course this could
have been content or set up related, but as I can no longer see these things
myself, its interesting to hear peoples take on these things.

Digital bit-rate reduction reduces or removes detail where it is thought not to
matter, and this often shows as a reduction in detail in dark picture areas.
Maybe the dynamics of LED displays make dark detail more visible, so it becomes
more apparent when there isn't any?

As well as the digital processing performed by the broadcasters, modern TV
displays include a lot of "enhancement" features, most of which are switched on
by default, but do not always improve the picture. To compare like with like,
we should make sure two displays we are comparing are set up in the same way,
preferably with the gimmicks all switched off. It probably isn't very
meaningful to compare displays in a shop.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article , Dr Zoidberg wrote:
As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market (AFAIK)
is
that a realistic comparison?


Samsung did make a HD CRT for a while but discontinued it ages ago.

Most the HD displays at trade shows in the 1980s used CRTs, some of them about
40" as I recall. That seemed to me then, and still does, to be about the
smallest screen size where the extra detail would be worth the bother. The
boxes containing these CRTs were understandably huge, even the back-projected
ones, which probably explains why no serious attempt was made to flog the
system to the public until the availability of flat screens.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

They don't say whose lifetime, it could be the kid's hamster.
--
^..^ This is Kitty. Copy and paste Kitty into your signature to help
her wipe out Bunny's world domination.

Brian Gaff wrote:
I particularly liked the marketing term, Lifetime guarantee.
Brian

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Dr Zoidberg wrote:
As there are no full HD cathode ray tube model TV's on the market
(AFAIK)
is
that a realistic comparison?


Samsung did make a HD CRT for a while but discontinued it ages ago.

Most the HD displays at trade shows in the 1980s used CRTs, some of them
about
40" as I recall. That seemed to me then, and still does, to be about the
smallest screen size where the extra detail would be worth the bother. The
boxes containing these CRTs were understandably huge, even the
back-projected
ones, which probably explains why no serious attempt was made to flog the
system to the public until the availability of flat screens.


37" sets are probably worth going for full HD
32" probably aren't IMO
--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

On 25 Aug., 17:45, "endymion" wrote:
My *TV has broken and I want to get a new one. *I have decided to move my
old 26" TV into the bedroom and get a new main TV for the sitting room.

I have seen two TV's which *I am keen on *( Panasonic 37" screen) *, The
only difference between them other than price is the HD.

One is HD ready, the other HD fully ready.
Can someone please explain this in very simple terms *( for a girl) *so that
I know which I should get . *What is HD and do I need a set for this and why
anyway? Are they going to change digital the HD or something?


"HD Ready" is a Logo, it just looks like
English - i isnt. Take a look at this page:
http://www.eicta.org/index.php?id=731

You will have to match the TV set with the
kind of TV signal you are receiving. With
digital - unlike analogue - the signals received
from an aerial, a cable or from a satellite are
all very different.
If you are using an aerial you should know that
the UK will broadcast HD starting this December*,
but you MUST have a new dvb-T2 receiver.
This DVB-T2 receiver will arrive in volume
within the next 3-6 months.

You should also know that the full 1080p50 HD signal
is unlikely to be broadcast from any source. Even
BlueRay disk does not deliver the full framerate
- AFAIK.

Lars

* In all areas post-DSO + London and 4 other large
pre-DSO transmitters.