|
||||||||
Recs for new widescreen television 28" |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 372
|
Recs for new widescreen television 28"
Looking at getting new television later this year. Want a 28" widescreen. Any recommendations? Willing to spend up to £400.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 313
|
Look at the sony's and panasonic's. But if you want 100hz quality then you may have to up your budget a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 372
|
Was originally thinking of 100hz but from reading some posts on here not everyone seems as though they are a fan of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: 2MB NTL
Posts: 3,246
|
Panasonic 50Hz highly recommended.
100Hz is not an increase in quality.Certainly on a 28" you are unlikely to notice any onscreen flicker.Many cannot see this "flicker" on any screen.100Hz introduces many more problems than it claims to cure |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 183
|
it doesn't on good sets...bad sets bollox up the picture with half arsed picture improvement schemes..in fact i seem to remember it was the panny set where i couldnt turn this off.
chatter your teeth when looking at 50Hz, then try 100hz and see the difference...thats what your brain is compensating for, 100hz is noticably more stable even at 28in. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 114
|
i recently ordered a sony kv28hx15 which is a 28" 50hz widescreen and the pic is brilliant, i watch mostly sky and some dvds. i also ordered the davbs100 cinema speaker system at the same time from argos who had a sale on and it was reduced to 430.00 from 630.00 but notice they have just put the price up to 580.00
u can get a 28" 100hz panasonic for the same price as the 50hz sony , i think comet do the panny for around 320.00?? graham |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 452
|
If i were you id think about going for a bigger set , ive had a 28 inch ws and its to small. 36 inch is the one you want if you can afford it
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 372
|
36" would be the half the size of our living room. Well not really but we have only got little rooms
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,834
|
Why not go for a 32" then? I agree that a 28" is too small really but if 36" is too big then the 32" should be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,326
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddylpd
Why not go for a 32" then? I agree that a 28" is too small really but if 36" is too big then the 32" should be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: S Wales
Posts: 121
|
buy a philips 6006 at tesco for £260 when they first came out they was £500 and it won best 28 inch tv of the year in 2003 in what tv & vid mag
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 98
|
Bit cheeky this, but I'm selling an 18month old 28" PW6006.
£150 ono and it's yours! Bargain. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkblot
Well here's a question... if you're used to an old 21" TV what size widescreen gives you the equivalent? And how do you decide what the "equivalent" is? By height, or by extrapolating the screen acreage from one aspect ratio to the other, or what? Certainly a 21" set looks big in my living room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,326
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcar
The key is to get the same size height, that way if you watch a 4:3 picture you get the same as before and for 16:9 you get a bit extra on the sides. If you're happy with a 21" 4:3 then a 28" widescreen is probably the best bet as a 24" will seem a little small, you'll soon get used to the larger size. If you think the 21" 4:3 is too large then go for a 24" widescreen which gives a reduced height.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: 2MB NTL
Posts: 3,246
|
If you like unnatural pictures,undetailed closeups,blurryness on fast movement then 100Hz is the way to go.
However some seem to not mind plastic faces so your best bet is to have a side by side comparison in a retailers showroom.But Sky Digital on 100Hz looks only marginally better than it does on a plasma. 100Hz was introduced for one reason only .To remove "flicker".If you cannot see flicker on 50Hz then 100Hz can be forgotten The problems introduced by 100Hz can be clearly seen by the many picture processing tricks added to 100Hz sets,and the fact that many 100Hz sets allow you to return to 50Hz.Why would that be? |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 183
|
phelings this just utter twaddle! 100hz doubles the refresh rate thats it...there are additional enhancements that are often digital and these are often rubbish and on some sets like the panny (i've seen) can't be turned off so they do actually detrimentally affect the image...but theres a simple way to avoid that, dont buy a set where 100hz's only existing state is under bad enhancement. Early sony's were terrible at this, the picture looks like a bad sky transmission with stateside cable type dragging picture added...awful...i've also seen panny's that cant handle text at 100hz as well because of the "enhancement" that cant be killed.
simple, dont buy these sets! whether u can see flicker or not, the brain still subconciously detects it and compensates for it....your eyes will be more tired watching a 50hz picture than a 100hz for a same amount of time. apart from some esoteric things 50hz is there so you simply have the option...on my set i have 100hz without processing, 50 hz or 100hz with various amounts of processing...i tend to watch it with no processing at all...50hz doesn't get a look in. most tv stores have all the knobs and dials wound up, and people assume this is the best way to get a good picture ( a bit like a graphic equaliser with bass boost makes a stereo sound good )...try turning the extra junk off, 9/10 its this that causes the artifacting etc that phelings talks about...that and the brightness, contrast and colour wound up to show you how "strong and vibrant the colours are sir" The other thing to look at is of course the source, and DVD is probably the best test for that in the shop...sky and freeview aren't particularly good pictures in the majority and i haven't seen a store yet with a good analogue signal. When testing the set make sure that the same player and cable is used as well...and don't rely on magazine reviews either, they're biased and can talk utter twaddle as well. Its all down to personal preference, but don't swallow this "100hz is always arse" because it isn't so. Try and see if you can find a set that displays a good colour range, good geometry and contrast, demonstrates subtlety, doesn't try and blow your eyes and ears off at any given oportunity and doesn't need a supercomputer to constantly analyse the picture 200times a second for the best in av perfomance blah blah blah which cant be turned off so turns pictures to mush and persuades another person that doubling the refresh is a bad thing to do... |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: 2MB NTL
Posts: 3,246
|
Oh,so I talk twaddle,but as the magazine's don't agree with you they talk twaddle too.Even though they review most tv sets as they come on the market and can compare more than we coulod put together.
But don't take my word or the reviews in all the magazines,just read posts on various 100Hz threads.Many people don't like it.Pictures are always crap in shops too.Not only Comet ,Curry's etc,but in places where they know how to set things up like Sevenoaks Sound and Vision,Richer Sounds and other independent retailers. It may be scientifically impossible for 50Hz to be better,but its not theory people are interested in,its real life. I have a friend who installs most electrical devices.He has a 100Hz set,and his wife finds it impossible to watch for more than an hour.Admittedly animation has an almost 3D look to it,but you look at a close up of a newsreader.50Hz gives a nice clear picture,while 100Hz removes all the details of their face,in the same way that football matches have them running around on what looks like a plate of mushy peas rather than a pitch. Admittedly ,DVD looks better on plasma and 100Hz than digital tv,but what do we spend most time watching? Post after post from both plasma and 100Hz owners moan about how poor Sky Digital looks on their tv. As you say,its down to personal preference,but my opinion that "100Hz is always arse" comes from comparing many sets and not merely hearsay |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 183
|
Quote:
etc,but in places where they know how to set things up like Sevenoaks Sound and Vision,Richer Sounds...
LMAO...ok then...if they're your benchmark then fine...if you think they actually know more than what the box said on the side about the product they are trying to sell you which is giving them the highest margins that week then you'll be a long time waiting...Richer sounds a good shop ffs? you have to be taking the piss surely...? its one stage away from dixons, only just because they dont try and flog you product insurance every step of the wayits actually my point that 99% of shops have TV's set up so badly or adjusted so badly you are unable to make some proper judgements unless you really take the time and effort to do so. so, this is why your pepetuating this myth...just because your m8 plugs in things for a living doesn't in any way mean that his TV is capable of working with enhancement off or he knows how to do it. And having sky as a source is a joke to start with....why on earth would you use that as a start point to get a good picture?? there are good 100hz sets out there, you just have to pay for them...its sounds like you just haven't seen one yet, and thats not too suprising for the reasons stated above...but just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist. *my quote about magazines comes from experience...inside experience of how products get placed and reviewed...you simply cannot trust them. A well set up personal test is the only way to go. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: 2MB NTL
Posts: 3,246
|
Richer Sounds,while being a long way from a high flying independant retailer do "appear" to actually know the whys and wherefores of how to connect and set up equipment,as opposed to a Dixons type environment.
What Video and Home Cinema Choice (and others) while applauding many 100Hz sets nearly always make mention of the problems inherent in 100Hz and also the umpteen picture processing tricks that 100Hz sets need. The magazines will say that on any set up to 32" 50Hz flicker is rarely noticeable.I,myself have NEVER seen flicker on a 50Hz set.Shops from across the board have NEVER shown me a 100Hz picture that is better than 50Hz. 100Hz is only here to remove flicker.Its not some kind of super duper process that improves the picture greatly,it removes flicker-end of story.Ifyou cannot notice the 50Hz flicker,then 100Hz is best left for those who buy it just because its the latest thing(or used to be). Whether people can either pick out,or set upo 100Hz sets for good viewing is irrelevant.50Hz setds are plugged in and you watch them.Who wants to pay extra for a non existent improvement that has to be set correctly to stop mushy pictures,plastic faces etc? Obviously Sky picture quality is a joke.Freeview is only slightly better.They are my starting point because they are what people watch. I can just imagine sitting there watching a godawful Sky Digital picture with the thought in my head-"oh well,if I get ahigh quality input,pictures will be great."Sorry,but people want tv's that display what they watch in good quality,not one that displays a theoretical input that we spend little time watching. I have been looking at 100Hz sets regularly since they arrived(a long time ago) and you are right.I have not seen a good one yet.But after all these years you would have thought one may have arrived by now |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 183
|
you have to watch them in the right enviroment...and if you cant spot the difference and cant make a good picture doesn't mean it doesn't exist...its like the same argument for LCD and plasma vs CRT...some people just cant see it...doesnt mean the difference doesnt exist.
fwiw my analogue is better than sky and freeview, i can see the difference...i also dont have mushy pictures...but i know a man that has...i've only seen 2 sets in all the years i've looked at screens where they were setup to do themselves justice. just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: 2MB NTL
Posts: 3,246
|
That is true.But as I have spent so much time looking at so many sets it seems obvious to me that I will not see what I would term good.
In fact,there are people like yourself who will prefer 100Hz even if they are not set correctly(not that yours is incorrectly setup).As always its a personal preference. I agree that an analogue picture with good signal can look very good.While Sky abd Freeview can display the shortcomings of digital pictures due to their low bitrates,there is no doubt that a GOOD digital picture beats an analogue broadcast.DVD for example can show how good movies in digital can be,while Sky Movies show,at times,how bad they can be. I think we will have to wait for hi-def broadcasts before plasma and LCD will be able to prove themselves also. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfarn@gotadsl.c
its like the same argument for LCD and plasma vs CRT...some people just cant see it...doesnt mean the difference doesnt exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 183
|
Indeed, LCD and plasma are lagging way behind in terms of the wider gamuts that CRTs can display...that said new monitors are appearing with wider gamuts, but their refresh rates are too low for moving image...but i'm sure its only a matter of time...it doesn't mean that people can't see the difference. I personally find it staggering the amount of people who say they know about colour and try and do colour work on LCD monitors stating how good they look...in isolation its easy for the eye to get used to something...in comparison it should be more obvious, however i haven't found a shop yet with a broad range of TV's that offers good comparisons.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:47.

