[Frank E]

Hello, was wondering if someone could assist in finding a decent 1080P television please.

My Dad bought a televison on Friday from Sainsbury,a Sony Bravia EX31 80cm (£370) to replace the CRT set with a popped tube. He got it home, I noticed it wasn't 1080P HD so took it back unopened.
He is prepared to spend up to 400.

So looking for an HD 1080P television for him.

My sister suggested this one
Samsung UE32EH5000 32" Full HD 1080p LED TV
I note the refresh rate is 50Hz, is that watchable in practice, say for action films, animations?

Requirements
80cm (32" in the old measuements). (it's a small sitting room 4m x 4.5m) I'd have said 100cm (40") screen but it's his television.

LED, so power consunption is low.

Remote control ergonomic and easy to use (he's 85 and can;t find his way round the remote for the portable Toshiba television ... mind you, neither can I)

Good picture, contrast, refresh and sound quality.(volume won;t be up high).

Built in HD Freeview tuner (I watch Dave a lot).

Built in Freesat HD optional. I have Sky (nonHD) free to air. I'll get a subscription free Sky HD box if there is such a thing.
(Can one get BBC1 London and the southern channels on Freesat HD if one is situated up north, like one can with Free Sky? I prefer to have the London regional news and programming than the local)

Connectivity features; eg being able to stream to it, connecting to my NAS, would be a bonus if provision doesn't compromise picture quality. Guess at the budget such addtional features wouldn't be widely implemented at this time?

Don't need 3D. (we're both partially sighted in our right eyes)

What does one need addtional to the televsion and tuner to be able to record HD programmes? (mostly the science and engineering programmes on BBC1,2 and 4 which always seem to clash with the soaps and the news my Dad watches.

Many thanks in advance.

[mac2708]

Originally Posted by Frank E

Built in HD Freeview tuner (I watch Dave a lot).

Built in Freesat HD optional. I have Sky (nonHD) free to air. I'll get a subscription free Sky HD box if there is such a thing.
(Can one get BBC1 London and the southern channels on Freesat HD if one is situated up north, like one can with Free Sky? I prefer to have the London regional news and programming than the local)


What does one need addtional to the televsion and tuner to be able to record HD programmes? (mostly the science and engineering programmes on BBC1,2 and 4 which always seem to clash with the soaps and the news my Dad watches.
.

Dave HD is not broadcast on Freeview - only on the Sky and Virgin subscription platforms.

BBC2 and BBC4 are not HD channels, although BBC2HD will replace the BBC-HD channel shortly

List of HD channels here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...nels_in_the_UK

Regional variations can be received on Freesat.

To record programmes in HD a PVR is required such as Sky+HD or a Freeview+HD recorder

[Orbitalzone]

This looks to be a great deal Sony KDL32CX523BU smart TV at £289.99 is stupidly cheap (and explains why TV shops are closing down!)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...=hotukdeals-21

It isn't LED but don't let that put you off as it performs better than the higher spec LED backlit model!

It gets some great reviews, note it isn't 3D

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sony-...1105191151.htm

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs/1...ia-kdl-32cx523

[Nigel Goodwin]

Why do you want a 1080P TV for him?, a decent HD Ready TV will be a better picture on both SD and HD.

[Arkudos]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Why do you want a 1080P TV for him?, a decent HD Ready TV will be a better picture on both SD and HD.

Is it say something stupid day?

[mac2708]

Originally Posted by Arkudos

Is it say something stupid day?

Not really.
On a 32" display a lot of people will be hard pressed to notice the difference between 720p and 1080p at normal viewing distances.
Certainly SD will probably 'look' better on a 720p set.

This (admittedly US) item sums it up:
"In the final analysis, the proof is in the actual viewing - how the image looks to you in the real world with your specific HDTV. You may find that a specific 720p TV can actually look better than a specific 1080p TV. This is because what you see on the screen is the result of many factors, with resolution being just one"
http://hometheater.about.com/od/home...p-Vs-1080p.htm

[alan1302]

Originally Posted by Arkudos

Is it say something stupid day?

It is - and you have said it!

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by Arkudos

Is it say something stupid day?

Yes it is and it's your posting.

On a 32" TV it's near impossible to tell the difference. Other factors make a much more significant difference. The quality of the panel and the video processing for instance.

A good 768 line display will produce a infinetely better picture than a poor 1920 x 1080 one even on a 40" display.

Sheer resolution is a tiny proportion of the final picture quality. 1280 x 720 at 50fps can look way better than 1920 x 1080 interlaced at 25fps.

Not sure why so many are mesmorised by the numbers, it's largely down to sheer ignorance.

Go and get a 32" Technika from Tesco with 1920 x 1080 pixels and compare the picture with a Sony or Pannie 32" with 768 lines in a blind test there will be no contest. Better still see if you can see a HD-Ready Pioneer Kuro picture (pretty awesome)

Edit mine took longer to post.

As they say some mothers do ave em

[emptybox]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Why do you want a 1080P TV for him?, a decent HD Ready TV will be a better picture on both SD and HD.

I know you are a fan of HD Ready for some reason, but you haven't even qualified that by saying a decent HD Ready is better than a poor 1080p.

[Orbitalzone]

On a smaller screen it's almost irrelevent as to whether the screen is 768P or 1080P - it's how good it can process and display images and if that happens to be achieved on a 1080P TV then so be it.

So it's not necessarily pointless buying a Full HD 32" IF it also performs in a superior way to other 32" TV's. It's all a balance, you'd hope that the higher specced models from decent brands would also mean that you get better sound, connectivity, features, menus, build quality and such like.

But conversely there's probably no point comparing a 32" 100Hz 3d Cello that costs £299 from Sainsburys against a 32" HD ready Sony or Panasonic.

[Orbitalzone]

Originally Posted by emptybox

I know you are a fan of HD Ready for some reason, but you haven't even qualified that by saying a decent HD Ready is better than a poor 1080p.

Indeed you can't just say an HD Ready will perform better on SD and HD than a Full HD TV will, it's a sweeping statement that just muddies the water.

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by emptybox

I know you are a fan of HD Ready for some reason, but you haven't even qualified that by saying a decent HD Ready is better than a poor 1080p.

The point is taking back a TV purely because it has 768 lines rather than 1080 without actually looking at the picture and comparing it to a 1080 line display is shall we say somewhat lacking in judgement. It could well have been the best possible picture at the price of the TV. Naive or what or just based on completelly wrong advice (From you ?)

No one has ever said a HD Ready 768 line TV will be better than a 1080 line one, merely that it may be the same, worse or better in picture quality, dependant on other factors.

Based on percentages the chances are that the returned 768 line Sony would have had a better picture than any 1080i line TV at a similar price point. Makers aren't daft unlike consumers, add 1080 lines adds more to the price regardless of the actual picture quality.

Same with hdmi cables a £30.00 cable will give a superior picture to a £2.00 cable (it won't)

Like digital TV has conned more money out of gullible consumers buying digital aerials that won't be required after dso (no such thing) and even aerials suitable for HD (equally crap).

[emptybox]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

The point is taking back a TV purely because it has 768 lines rather than 1080 without actually looking at the picture and comparing it to a 1080 line display is shall we say somewhat lacking in judgement. It could well have been the best possible picture at the price of the TV. Naive or what or just based on completelly wrong advice (From you ?)

No one has ever said a HD Ready 768 line TV will be better than a 1080 line one, merely that it may be the same, worse or better in picture quality, dependant on other factors.

Based on percentages the chances are that the returned 768 line Sony would have had a better picture than any 1080i line TV at a similar price point. Makers aren't daft unlike consumers, add 1080 lines adds more to the price regardless of the actual picture quality.

Same with hdmi cables a £30.00 cable will give a superior picture to a £2.00 cable (it won't)

Like digital TV has conned more money out of gullible consumers buying digital aerials that won't be required after dso (no such thing) and even aerials suitable for HD (equally crap).

Erm...the post I quoted from Nigel was saying exactly that.
(although I'm sure it was just sloppy word choice on his behalf)

Also the OP seemed to particularly want Freeview HD, which the TV their Father brought home doesn't have.

[evil c]

I've looked at what Which? magazine has to offer given your criteria and the TV that (nearly) fits the bill is the Samsung LE32D580. It's a 32 inch Full HD LCD with Freeview HD, easy to use remote & media streaming, no Freesat though and no LED backlight. However Which? say it is low on energy consumption. Richer Sound have got a few left for £330, but only in some stores. Purewell have them online for £400. TV & Video Direct have them for £379.
Re the model your sister recommended, this is also a good TV Which? say, but the remote is confusing to use. Which? have rated the LE32D580 higher than the UE32EH5000. Samsung LE32D580 product page here: http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/t...2KXXU-features

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by emptybox

I know you are a fan of HD Ready for some reason, but you haven't even qualified that by saying a decent HD Ready is better than a poor 1080p.

The qualification was in the price point requested!.

I'm not a 'fan of HD Ready', just stating the plain facts, which most people here seen to ignore based on meaningless numbers.

[emptybox]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

The qualification was in the price point requested!.

I'm not a 'fan of HD Ready', just stating the plain facts, which most people here seen to ignore based on meaningless numbers.

And are the likes of Sony continuing to develop HD Ready panels, and putting them in premium TVs. Or are they just using existing HD Ready panels in their cheaper models?

You can certainly buy Sony 32" Full HD 1080p sets for the budget of £400 stated in the OP.

I'm not saying you are technically wrong in saying that a good HD Ready set can give a better picture than a poor Full HD one, just that the advice is perhaps getting a bit dated now, given that you can buy good Full HD sets for relatively budget prices?

It seems to me that Full HD is more or less a given now, and the buying decisions are more about "should I go for 3D?" or "should I get a 'Smart' TV?".

Perhaps I'm wrong?

[Orbitalzone]

Hmm I guess my earlier link to the excellent value Sony must be in stealth mode!

under £300, excellent reviews considering the price, less than the OP paid for his TV, Full HD, Freeview HD, smart TV, cuddly toy.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by emptybox

And are the likes of Sony continuing to develop HD Ready panels, and putting them in premium TVs. Or are they just using existing HD Ready panels in their cheaper models?

You can certainly buy Sony 32" Full HD 1080p sets for the budget of £400 stated in the OP.

I'm not saying you are technically wrong in saying that a good HD Ready set can give a better picture than a poor Full HD one, just that the advice is perhaps getting a bit dated now, given that you can buy good Full HD sets for relatively budget prices?

It seems to me that Full HD is more or less a given now, and the buying decisions are more about "should I go for 3D?" or "should I get a 'Smart' TV?".

Perhaps I'm wrong?

Just look at the pictures and see

You can see sod all difference between HD Ready and Full HD sets of similar quality - and to get any worthwhile improvement you need to view from even closer, probably around only one screen size away.

Incidentally, I'm typing this on a 1080 monitor, from about 2/3 screen size away.

[56up]

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Why do you want a 1080P TV for him?, a decent HD Ready TV will be a better picture on both SD and HD.

Originally Posted by Arkudos

Is it say something stupid day?

Originally Posted by mac2708

Not really.

No, Arkudos quite right. A set that is advertised as 1080p is at least HD Ready and, if it has a HD tuner could be an HD set

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by 56up

No, Arkudos quite right. A set that is advertised as 1080p is at least HD Ready and, if it has a HD tuner could be an HD set

No, he's completely wrong (as are you) - a cheap Full Hd set (or HD Ready 1080 if you like?) won't be as good a picture as a decent quality HD Ready set.

Why chase advertising numbers when you can simply look at the screen and see which is a better picture?.

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by 56up

No, Arkudos quite right. A set that is advertised as 1080p is at least HD Ready and, if it has a HD tuner could be an HD set

1080p is a signal and a TV that says it can work with 1080p just has to have a minimum of 720 lines (the frame rate could nominally be 24 25 50 or 60fps). A resolution requirement fulfilled by any HD-Ready display or better.

[Frank E]

Thanks all. I've had a few computer problems, so apologies for not coming back to the thread earlier.
He got a 50cm Panasonic for under £400.
It has superb picture on standard definition,and when playing DVDs and Blu-Rays. The picture on the more obscure channels is as expected.

[jjne]

50cm = 20"...

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by jjne

50cm = 20"...

Perhaps he meant 50 inch?.

EDIT: just noticed the title of this thread, he claimed 50cm is 32 inches there as well

[emptybox]

Originally Posted by jjne

50cm = 20"...

Yeah, I was wondering why the OP was trying to work in centimetres when he's in Aberdeen?
Unless it's something to do with the international nature of the oil industry?
(he should have said 80cm)