Ok now my dad has got a new 40 inch lcd tv sky and freeview i can compare it to my 28 inch 100hz crt tv that allso has sky and freeview both on sd. And the defects in the picture can be more noticeable on the lcd than my crt some channels on sky are quite pixelated n blured more noticeable than on my crt you have to sit back from the lcd tv but on a decent quality channel like sky movies the qualities alot better. To my suprise i have noticed some freeview channels on the lcd that are allso on sky are better i was exspecting sky to be better than freeview all the time but its not. I am still debating weather to replace my crt for a 32 inch lcd im dissapointed in some channels on lcd but some are quite good depending on the source of tv and the channel i guess but on the whole lcd is on a par with crt in my oppinion.
Last edited by bekko2006 : 03-11-2006 at 12:01

Once again proving that LCD/Plasma are INFERIOR for standard definition content (and especially the low MPEG bit rates used on Freeview and Sky). A panel TV will start to show it's colours when you feed it some decent quality SD content (like commercial DVDs) and it really takes off when you give it some HD content (Telewest, SkyHD or Xbox360). But it should come as no surprise if it's inferior on broadcast SD

(the news tickers on BBC News24 and Sky News are particularly good at showing the problems!)

Cliff

Indeed.
Broadcast SD is suited to CRT based screens of average size which can even mask poor quality SD digital sources. While there are one or two examples of broadcast SD that can look pretty good on a HD panel that technology and it's larger screen sizes really benefit from HD sources or at the very least good quality SD via DVD.

Compromises have to made when buying a flat panel if you intend to watch the majority of content in SD, only the individual can decide if the positive aspects of a flat panel compensate for PQ issues with the majority of SD.

As for Freeview and SKY well the BBC, ITV and CH4 favour DTT and starve Dsat channels of bitrate and resolution, only Five is better on satellite.
Last edited by Jarrak : 03-11-2006 at 12:33

To be quite honest, i think it depends on the quality of your LCD tv.

My parents have an LG 37inch and the picture quality in standard definition is appalling compared to my Sony 40inch. But that said, they are meant to be primarily for HD content to get the best out of them. If you are not going HD, then stick to your crt .

I was firmly in the CRT camp until earlier this year when I arranged a home demo of a 32" LCD. This was a Sharp Aquos and when set up correctly and fed with a decent signal (DVD, DVB-T and Sky) the picture was far better than I had ever seen in a showroom. I then invested in a Panny LCD (side by side with the Sharp in another demo, it was significantly better) and have never regretted the £1200 spent. Well, I did have slight regrets when I saw its successor on sale for £895 a few days ago, but hey, that's technology for you.

Whilst I like the LCD and would not go back to a CRT that was the size of the Albert Hall, I am the first to admit that very often the absolute picture quality is inferior to a good CRT. However, for the compromise of low impact on the room, large screen and excellent picture from most sources, I'll accept a few negatives.

So if you only watch Tv unless you intend getting Sky HD it's not worth getting an LCD at the moment.

Is this what you are all saying ?

I have Sky FTA,Freeview and a Technomate for multisat.


Should I wait ?





I like that new Woolies Techno thingy/Thomson 32 LCD at £399.
Last edited by AubreyStevens : 04-11-2006 at 17:03

I think that tvs getting good reviews and its cheap not that much more than a crt for the same size, so before you buy one just sum up the pros and cons compared to a crt and decide on that weather to get one or not.

What do you want to watch/listen to on it ? freeview, sky,dvd,hd, games console, surround sound etc.

How much is it compared to crt ? £399.99 crts are around £200 to £400

How much space do you have for it ? crts take up more room for the same size as a lcd and crt weighs alot more.

These are just some factors to consider when buying.

My opinion? No. I suspect it may be a while before the absolute quality (however that is measured ) of a CRT is surpassed by an SD flat panel, but the overall package for me is worth the investment now. Put another way, if you are going to spend your time analysing every detail and potential flaw in a picture, then forget it. If you want to watch and enjoy TV programmes, then yes, it is worth it.

I'm not keen on paying monthly subs for HD or SD Tv. If there were some free HD channels on Astra 2 or some of the other sats (although that would mean getting an HD receiver, non Sky) than I suppose it would make getting an HD LCD at the moment a better deal.

I have a Technomate receiver so if they brought out an HD Technomate then I might be tempted to get an HD Tv as well.

I know in the US there are some HD channels available with an antenna that I believe are free.
Last edited by AubreyStevens : 04-11-2006 at 21:51

I think you can get a hd sat receiver that works with the free hd channels from off other satellites, not sure which it is though. I asked a similar question as that myself once and was told you could get one for that. And i should imagine most standard def channels on other sats would look good on lcd to.

I'm hoping that there are a few new non Sky HD receivers coming out in the next six months.

If you go into Woolies for that £399 32" LCD HD Thomson clone do they take your name and put you on a waiting list or do they have some in the shop ?

There are several things effecting quality.

Screen.
In most cases size for size, CRT is better than LCD. I saw Freeview running (Sky News channel) on a LCD last weekend and was rather shocked at the blocking lego effects around the text on the Sky ticker tape at the bottom of the screen. My 7 1/2 year old Sony CRT doesnt have any such lego effects around the same text via a Freeview box. Further, some LCD tv's are better than others. Some show up problems more than others.

Broadcast system (Freeview or satellite).
Both are digital, so we are dealing with compressed images. Satellite has more frequency capacity, which allows for more channels, but it doesnt always translate into a better picture (which is what a lot of sales people will try and tell you). The fact is that channel operators like ITV are not allowed to use all of that capacity - the operators pay to use X % of the capacity. So ITV dont have access to all the capacity, only a limited part of it, and the same goes for other operators, so Sky Sports for example usually looks good thanks to a large capacity set aside for that operation. This leads to some channels looking better than others, even though both are on satellite. With Freeview, there is less frequency capacity to share out, and its more or less full, so channels are operating close to the limits most of the time. BBC on Freeview have fixed capacity, while all the others on freeview share the remaining space. So in theory, BBC stuff on Freevierw should always look the best. With the other channels, the amount of capacity used varies depending on whats on screen and the free capacity has to be shared with the other non-BBC operators.

Source material/post processing.
This is the stage, beyond our control which is made of from the original content + any editing that is done just before broadcast. This will apply to satellite and Freeview the same. Poor quality ancient pictures stored on old studio tapes dont translate well into digital. Plus, any editing or filters added can make a difference - the last major football event showed that the BBC did it right, while the ITV coverage was plain bad.

The digital decoder.
The decoders used in either external digital adaptors, or those built into other equipment such as idtv's or freeview-dvd recorders, vary in quality. As has been well indicated on this web site, this can often make a difference in the signal reception - eg, how likely the box will suffer from interference, or how well it copes with a weaker than expected signal. But it goes further than that. The picture processing can also vary. Some decoders do produce a better image than others.

Dave