Newbie to LCDs - disappointed

124»

Comments

  • FishfaceFishface Posts: 683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    JT Effect wrote: »

    At the moment I just feel a bit like the kid in The Emperor’s New Clothes story, where everyone else is extolling the fantastic-ness of LCD tvs and I’m just not getting it.

    Perhaps a plasma might suit you better.
  • Deacon1972Deacon1972 Posts: 8,171
    Forum Member
    Ash_735 wrote: »
    Yes but most of the time the Sky Box upscaler provides better quality as it's dealing with the source rather than the post packed picture from a SCART connection, the earlier you can upscale the picture, the better quality it will be, take Channel 4 HD as an example.
    The quality all depends on the quality of scaler you are using, this can be via the TV, Sky box or from source (broadcaster).

    If your TV is poor at scaling then the Sky box could provide better images, if the TV is very good at scaling then you would take the Sky box out of the equation and let the TV do the work.

    Ch4 HD upscales prior to broadcasting using professional equipment, it also uses MPEG4/high bitrate, this is why SD looks so damn good.

    There's no definitive answer to which setting/connection gives the best PQ, it's all down to personal choice. Some prefer RGB scart, others prefer component or HDMI, there are those that like the Sky box scaling where others prefer the TV doing all the work.

    Personally I think the Sky HD box should output SD at 576i not 576p via HDMI.
  • Deacon1972Deacon1972 Posts: 8,171
    Forum Member
    frasera wrote: »
    at 8 feet its so small that any claim of seeing artifacts or problematic picture is questionable by default. its so small its inherently uncinematic, making judgement of picture quality rather pointless to begin with. at 8 feet it becomes background tv, aka ironing laundry tv. you have already made it clear you don't care by default. so it doesn't matter. its just a cr@p experience.
    I don't care by default?

    I've been into home cinema for nearly 20yrs, I have two big displays (50" plasma/100" screen) and 7.1 audio system, I take my video/audio quality seriously. I know this is not for everyone as they don't want a large TV and speakers taking over their front room/house, they just want to watch their programmes in good quality on the small screen.
  • 2Bdecided2Bdecided Posts: 4,416
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Seems the OP has gone - but what they were describing was clearly the motion interpolation (120Hz or whatever it's called on thatTV). Switch that off, and they'll probably be fine.


    LCD as good as CRT? The BBC HD audio synchronisation test sequence is quite useful for checking how well TVs display motion - you can find many shops displaying BBC HD Preview on all their TVs, so you can check them all at once. That white bar scrolls across the bottom of the screen very fast. The downconverted output, fed to an SD CRT, shows you what it should look like. I've yet to spot a single flat panel display that shows this fast motion correctly.

    Flat panels beat CRTs in many ways (geometry, screen size, availability of HD models in the UK), and some faults are inherent in the source (CRTs make it look "nicer" than it is, while LCDs make look worse!) - but there's still a fundamental problem with eye-tracked / fast movement. There's no way to solve this perfectly on an "always on" display technology when you only have (at best) 50 images per second in the broadcast. Interpolation introduce artefacts, and making the image not "always on" (like a CRT) introduces flicker. Pick your poison.

    Cheers,
    David.
  • Anika HansonAnika Hanson Posts: 15,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    As this thread has kind of gone off point a bit now. I thought I would ask a question. I am planing on buying a
    32" LCD tv for my bedroom. The maximum viewing distance at anytime will be no more than 5 feet. I have a few questions. Is it worth buying a full HD set for such a small size screen or would I not get any more benefit than I would with a HD ready set??? Also is it worth buying a blu ray player/SKY HD for this set?? Is the screen big enough to see a difference?? I already have a 42" HD ready LCD in my living room which looks great with HD and Blu ray but I dont know how a 32" would fare???
  • JT EffectJT Effect Posts: 5,177
    Forum Member
    Hello

    Well, I’ve just spent the past hour catching up with this thread – it’s certainly made for very interesting (if at times ‘head exploding’ and occasionally contradictory) reading and I appreciate the effort people have gone to to advise me. Who knew that trying to watch telly could be so complicated? ;)

    To cut a long story short, I spent a long time speaking with a technical support guy on Saturday, and eventually he confirmed that the machine was faulty . And to my amazement Currys took it back without any hassle about getting it repaired first.

    I’m intending to print out this thread, with all the information contained within it, for future reference.
    I fully intend to get a flat panel tv in the future, but I’m thinking that maybe I should hold onto my trusty old set for a while longer, and wait for more regular programmes to be broadcast in HD and wait until I’m in more of a position to afford Sky+HD subscription (once I've cleared a loan I have).

    One thing’s for sure, I’m certainly more well-informed than I was a week ago.

    Cheers again everyone
  • Anika HansonAnika Hanson Posts: 15,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    JT Effect wrote: »
    Hello

    Well, I’ve just spent the past hour catching up with this thread – it’s certainly made for very interesting (if at times ‘head exploding’ and occasionally contradictory) reading and I appreciate the effort people have gone to to advise me. Who knew that trying to watch telly could be so complicated? ;)

    To cut a long story short, I spent a long time speaking with a technical support guy on Saturday, and eventually he confirmed that the machine was faulty . And to my amazement Currys took it back without any hassle about getting it repaired first.

    I’m intending to print out this thread, with all the information contained within it, for future reference.
    I fully intend to get a flat panel tv in the future, but I’m thinking that maybe I should hold onto my trusty old set for a while longer, and wait for more regular programmes to be broadcast in HD and wait until I’m in more of a position to afford Sky+HD subscription (once I've cleared a loan I have).

    One thing’s for sure, I’m certainly more well-informed than I was a week ago.

    Cheers again everyone

    Im glad you got it sorted out and are happier now:). I did think that it sounded faulty from what you said because it did sound really bad and I have an LG and it has never displayed any of the symptoms you described. I think you are doing the right thing by waiting. There is no point in spending all that money on a TV and not being happy with what you have bought. You will probably get a better deal if you wait anyway, and of course as time goes on and technology improves you will be able to get a much better TV for your money in a year or two. I bought my TV over 2 years ago, but if I had bought it today I could have bought a TV with the same specifications for almost half the price!! or spent the same amount and got a better set. The price
  • Deacon1972Deacon1972 Posts: 8,171
    Forum Member
    As this thread has kind of gone off point a bit now. I thought I would ask a question. I am planing on buying a
    32" LCD tv for my bedroom. The maximum viewing distance at anytime will be no more than 5 feet. I have a few questions. Is it worth buying a full HD set for such a small size screen or would I not get any more benefit than I would with a HD ready set??? Also is it worth buying a blu ray player/SKY HD for this set?? Is the screen big enough to see a difference?? I already have a 42" HD ready LCD in my living room which looks great with HD and Blu ray but I dont know how a 32" would fare???
    I would say if you are only going to watch SD then a HD ready TV will be better than one that is full HD.

    If you are going to have HD going through it then 1080 will be more suitable and HD (Sky/BD) will look spot on, but the quality of SD will be compromised at that distance.

    The experience is the same whether you are watching HD on a 32" 1080 TV at 5ft or watching HD on 50" 1080 at 8ft.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 69
    Forum Member
    JT Effect wrote: »
    I fully intend to get a flat panel tv in the future, but I’m thinking that maybe I should hold onto my trusty old set for a while longer, and wait for more regular programmes to be broadcast in HD and wait until I’m in more of a position to afford Sky+HD subscription (once I've cleared a loan I have).

    Wait a while longer and the next generation lcd's will have Freeview HD built in. No SKY HD subscription necessary!
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,330
    Forum Member
    Wait a while longer and the next generation lcd's will have Freeview HD built in. No SKY HD subscription necessary!

    And you're talking only four HD channels, instead of at least 38 - and certainly more than that as time goes by.

    But a Sky HD box without subscription will probably give you more free channels than Freeview HD anyway.
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    As this thread has kind of gone off point a bit now. I thought I would ask a question. I am planing on buying a
    32" LCD tv for my bedroom. The maximum viewing distance at anytime will be no more than 5 feet. I have a few questions. Is it worth buying a full HD set for such a small size screen or would I not get any more benefit than I would with a HD ready set??? Also is it worth buying a blu ray player/SKY HD for this set?? Is the screen big enough to see a difference?? I already have a 42" HD ready LCD in my living room which looks great with HD and Blu ray but I dont know how a 32" would fare???
    Yes it is well worth getting a full HD for this. Bear in mind that a 32" at 5' is the same size as a 64" at 10'. Ditto for Blu-ray being worth it.

    You don't give viewing distance for your living room set but unless you view closer than 6.5' then your 42" will be "smaller" than your 32".
  • Anika HansonAnika Hanson Posts: 15,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bobcar wrote: »
    Yes it is well worth getting a full HD for this. Bear in mind that a 32" at 5' is the same size as a 64" at 10'. Ditto for Blu-ray being worth it.

    You don't give viewing distance for your living room set but unless you view closer than 6.5' then your 42" will be "smaller" than your 32".


    Thanks Bobcar and Deacan. Just gonna have a look around for the right tv now. The diference in price between full HD and HD ready is not that great anymore, compared to a few years ago. I think it would be silly not to go for full HD if it would be better.

    I am viewing at about 8.5 feet in the living room for the 42". I dont know if this is the optimal distance but for us it is just about the right distance to make SD look decent and SKY HD and Blu ray look excellent at this distance.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 716
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There is no need to wait for the next generation as the first one to be released is here and available now (not pre-order) from various retailers.

    Might only be four channels (for now it's only 1 and a bit and most of us also have to wait for DSO), however, if you remove Movies and Sports from the Sky mix as I don't subscribe to them then you don't get a great deal more for your £10.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 69
    Forum Member
    And you're talking only four HD channels, instead of at least 38 - and certainly more than that as time goes by.

    and those four channels are probably showing 99% of the top TV worth watching!
  • BeethovensPianoBeethovensPiano Posts: 11,689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    john_locke wrote: »
    look the thing is, SD PQ is rubbish in digital TV. Your CRT is covering up a lot of the problems because it has phosphors and persistence. It is smoothing over the imperfections of the MPEG2 compression.

    I disagree. My parents bought a 42" Samsung plasma last year, I was a little worried for them, thinking they would be disappointed with the picture, but actually i'm pleasantly surprised. The main channels BBC1 to CH5 look very nice indeed. Only some of the more obscure channels look a bit soft if you get too close, but I believe they are allowed broadcast at a lower quality.

    Also pleased to read the the OP managed to resolve their problem satisfactorily :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,425
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Plasmas also are very "forgiving", moreso than LCDs in any case. There is no doubt whatsoever that MPEG2 digital TV is pretty low quality, and certainly lower than the proper analogue service that preceded it. If it's meeting your quality threshold then fair enough, but for serious quality junkies, it just doesn't.
  • fraserafrasera Posts: 8,271
    Forum Member
    Deacon1972 wrote: »
    I don't care by default?

    I've been into home cinema for nearly 20yrs, I have two big displays (50" plasma/100" screen) and 7.1 audio system, I take my video/audio quality seriously. I know this is not for everyone as they don't want a large TV and speakers taking over their front room/house, they just want to watch their programmes in good quality on the small screen.

    i wasn't clear, by "you" i meant someone who buys a 37" for 10 feet away or whatever, by default you are saying you don't care about image quality. like someone who buys the cheapest headphones for their ipod, there is no real point talking about audio quality at that point.
  • fraserafrasera Posts: 8,271
    Forum Member
    Thanks Bobcar and Deacan. Just gonna have a look around for the right tv now. The diference in price between full HD and HD ready is not that great anymore, compared to a few years ago. I think it would be silly not to go for full HD if it would be better.

    I am viewing at about 8.5 feet in the living room for the 42". I dont know if this is the optimal distance but for us it is just about the right distance to make SD look decent and SKY HD and Blu ray look excellent at this distance.

    optimal is taste. and a bs number, you could however easily get a bigger screen and still be fine. 8.5 is quite far from a 42", and it won't look so big at all in your visual field. you are probably missing some of the detail of bluray because of size and distance. thats if your screen is up to it of course.
  • David (2)David (2) Posts: 20,632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JT Effect wrote: »
    Hello

    Well, I’ve just spent the past hour catching up with this thread – it’s certainly made for very interesting (if at times ‘head exploding’ and occasionally contradictory) reading and I appreciate the effort people have gone to to advise me. Who knew that trying to watch telly could be so complicated? ;)

    To cut a long story short, I spent a long time speaking with a technical support guy on Saturday, and eventually he confirmed that the machine was faulty . And to my amazement Currys took it back without any hassle about getting it repaired first.

    I’m intending to print out this thread, with all the information contained within it, for future reference.
    I fully intend to get a flat panel tv in the future, but I’m thinking that maybe I should hold onto my trusty old set for a while longer, and wait for more regular programmes to be broadcast in HD and wait until I’m in more of a position to afford Sky+HD subscription (once I've cleared a loan I have).

    One thing’s for sure, I’m certainly more well-informed than I was a week ago.

    Cheers again everyone

    I might well be a good idea to get a demo in store - not one that uses a self run demo from hard disc (quality you wont get at home), or the in store distrobuted one (which is low quality). Ask them to set the tv up with a Sky box/BluRay, etc, so you get fair idea of what it will be like.

    One minor point, I know on several threads in recent times posters have suggested using the 576p over HDMI rather than the standard 576i mode, but I have given this a go on 2 different systems and found the "p" option to be less good.
Sign In or Register to comment.