Hi folks

newbie here.

I've been gagging for ages to upgrade my TV. I've got a decent 28" CRT TV but have set my heart on a 42" Panasonic plasma.

I've been browsing these forums and have been alarmed to see that SD pictures are judged inferior on a plasma compared to a good CRT model.

I've got Sky. Is watching via SKY still defined as "SD" ? ( I can't see myself going HD for a while yet)

Am I going to be wasting my money (keen as I am to get a bigger TV picture) by swapping a very good picture for an inferior one ?

Any help gratefully received before I get myself down to Richer Sounds (or wherever)

Al

Sky is defined as SD and to be honest, people's opinions will differ on what constitutes an inferior picture.

For me, I use a Toshiba 37WLT58 LCD and whilst I noticed that the PQ on SD images was a little bit worse than my old JVC 28" CRT, the bigger screen means that I enjoy watching sport and films much more.....to be honest, if you get one of the newest flat panels available, chances are, the technology used to encode SD images will no doubt be an improvement on older flat panels....

...I say go for it, the bigger screen really will make watching TV more enjoyable!

We had a 28" CRT and wanted a 42 or 46" flat screen. Ended up with a 50" Panasonic plasma (600 series). Superb, and we only have Freeview and standard DVD. It does show the flaws in some programmes, but most stuff is better than the CRT overall. We sit about 9 ft away.

I got a Samsung SP-50L7H a year ago after having a 28" crt and its breath taking best picture quality i have seen on any tv, i would also really tell people to get a hddvd player which are about £60 or even less these days and u will be in 50 inch heaven

I kept my 32" CRT and used the money I was going to spend, on a projector. (Nice big 104" screen for movies and big sporting events)
Then the CRT gave up the ghost and I had to get a Panasonic LCD. Viewing SkyHD through both of them & Chuffed to bits with both

Thanks all.

I'm reassured !

Now, off to Kingston soon with the money burning a hole in my pocket.

Bl**dy eck! 50" at 9ft?!!! I've had 40" at 10ft and thought it was too big... but don't you find this a tad too big?

Nope

Table pinched from CrutchfieldAdvisor FAQ page
Suggested viewing distances for HDTV-capable TVs.
We provide a range because the ideal distance will
depend on several factors, including signal quality.
Screen ..... Viewing
size ...... distance range
30" ....... 3.75-6.25 feet
34" ....... 4.25-7 feet
42" ....... 5.25-8.75 feet
50" ....... 6.25-10.5 feet
56" ....... 7-11.75 feet
62" ....... 7.75-13 feet
70" ....... 8.75-14.75 feet

We did have the seats against the wall to start with (about 12ft) but after a few days my wife rearranged them forward a bit and to my surprise it works very well. It's getting on for a cinema experience

The very strange thing is that when we had the 28" CRT my wife sat about 8ft from it, but I always pulled my chair forward a couple of feet to get a bigger view. And she always moaned at me that it was quite OK from where she was

Actually it's only slightly too close - minimum suggested viewing distance (for SD) is 2.5 times the screen size, so 125 inches, or 10ft 5 inches for a 50 inch.

For HD you need to be closer than that!.

Where from?

Or have you been taken in by the marketing surrounding upscaling DVD players?

taken in i reckon

http://www.wizardprice.com/products/DVD-HD870.SA

....ignoring clarity, resolution, etc. surely sitting that close is bad for your eyes, no?

(mind you, I sit approx. 6ft from my 37" and think it's fine!!!)

No, it's a fallacy!.

Like I said, minimum 2.5 times screen size for SD is recommended, otherwise you can see the lines that make up the picture (for a CRT) or the scaling artifacts (for LCD/Plasma). For decent HD you need to be CLOSER than that, you're wanting to see the fine detail, that's the point of HD.

I'm sorry to tell you, but that's not an HD-DVD. It upscales the picture from SD discs, which is a completely different kettle of fish.

Marketing men 1, Gazzy3d 0.