[swordheart]

I am beginning to wonder, i can't seem to find a 32 incher that has 1920 x 1080 pixels, is there a problem fitting that many pixels into a 32 inch size screen ?

[ntlhellworld]

Manufacturers are only interested in producing the biggest-cheapest TVs with as low resolution as they can get away with, because sadly thats what people buy.

There arent any exactly 32" 1080p TVs as far as I could find.

Toshiba do a 37" (1920x1080) LCD £750. (model 37X3030) & Philips do a 37" (1920x1080) LCD £750. (model 37PFL7662D). Although bear in mind you can buy better 40" 1080p HDTVs for not much more than that so these are crap value.

Dell have a 30" (2560x1600) LCD but its complete overkill for most people and carries a £1,189.10 price tag. (model 3007WFP-HC).

-Chris

[GDK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordheart

I am beginning to wonder, i can't seem to find a 32 incher that has 1920 x 1080 pixels, is there a problem fitting that many pixels into a 32 inch size screen ?

I'm not sure why you would want one. At that screen size you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 1080p or 720p sceen anyway (at a normal viewing distance). There's no compatibility problem with 1080p sources either, since any TV with the HD Ready logo will accept a 1080p signal and downscale it to the screen's native resolution.

[ntlhellworld]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDK

I'm not sure why you would want one. At that screen size you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 1080p or 720p sceen anyway (at a normal viewing distance). There's no compatibility problem with 1080p sources either, since any TV with the HD Ready logo will accept a 1080p signal and downscale it to the screen's native resolution.

I can tell the difference between a 15.4" laptop screen at 1280x800 and a identicle laptop with a upgraded 1680x1050 screen, so thats clearly crap

Also very few TVs with the HDTV logo accept 1080p and downscale. Nearly all do 720p and 1080i though.

-Chris

[GDK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntlhellworld

I can tell the difference between a 15.4" laptop screen at 1280x800 and a identicle laptop with a upgraded 1680x1050 screen, so thats clearly crap

Also very few TVs with the HDTV logo accept 1080p and downscale. Nearly all do 720p and 1080i though.

-Chris

Since you obviously sit much closer to a laptop screen than you do for normal TV viewing, you clearly haven't read my post properly!

[carefree cook]

a full hd 32'' would be totally pointless, youd see no difference between hd ready vs full hd in 32 inch. its too small to see that many lines.

but if your hell bent on a 1080p pic on a 32'', get a set thats 100hz, not 50hz as this would simulate full hd,

rather than having the true lines of a progressive scan naturally, a 100hz set refreshes at at double speed, in effect creating a full hd pic by inserting artificial frames at every scan. if that makes sense

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carefree cook

a full hd 32'' would be totally pointless, youd see no difference between hd ready vs full hd in 32 inch. its too small to see that many lines.

As is pretty obvious, it's viewing distance that matters - a 32 inch viewed closer is EXACTLY the same size as a larger set viewed from further away. It's only if you view a 32 from a distance suitable for a larger set that you can't see the fine detail.

Quote:

but if your hell bent on a 1080p pic on a 32'', get a set thats 100hz, not 50hz as this would simulate full hd,

rather than having the true lines of a progressive scan naturally, a 100hz set refreshes at at double speed, in effect creating a full hd pic by inserting artificial frames at every scan. if that makes sense

No idea what you're on about? - but ALL LCD's (and Plasma's) already do this sort of thing anyway, 100Hz is a complete waste of time! - and it was never much use on CRT, just a gimmick for extra profits!.

[swordheart]

Because of the shape of my room my viewing distance is 400 cm, i can't understand why people say on a 32 inch screen you can't tell the difference, why not ?, it would have a third + more pixels of course its going to be a better picture, purely for the fact it would show more detail wouldn't it ? i am loath to buy a screen that doesn't have 1920 x 1080 screen res because i know i will in the future be buying a Blue laser dvd player and i want the least amount of processing between the dvd player and picture as i believe all hd dvd's are encoded in 1920 x 1080 ( i think i am right saying that )

I thought that 100hz refresh rate improved the motion blur.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordheart

Because of the shape of my room my viewing distance is 400 cm, i can't understand why people say on a 32 inch screen you can't tell the difference, why not ?, it would have a third + more pixels of course its going to be a better picture, purely for the fact it would show more detail wouldn't it ? i am loath to buy a screen that doesn't have 1920 x 1080 screen res because i know i will in the future be buying a Blue laser dvd player and i want the least amount of processing between the dvd player and picture as i believe all hd dvd's are encoded in 1920 x 1080 ( i think i am right saying that )

It's only a very small number of people who claim that, but at 400cm with a 32 inch you're probably too far away to see much difference from 768 to full HD? - and not much from too far away to get the benefit of HD at all. Even close up the difference between the two is really very slight, we've put similar Sony BRAVIA's on side by side (one full HD, one 768) connected to the same HD box - with them side by side, and viewing a couple of feet away, you can JUST tell the difference. Personally I've never thought the price premium is worth it?. In blind tests, with one set at a time, I doubt I could pick the full HD set?.

Quote:

I thought that 100hz refresh rate improved the motion blur.

No, it's supposedly to reduce field 'flicker', but I've never seen that effect anyway?, the only real effect on CRT sets was to give them a poorer 'artificial, plastic looking' picture.

[Chris Simon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

No, it's supposedly to reduce field 'flicker', but I've never seen that effect anyway?, the only real effect on CRT sets was to give them a poorer 'artificial, plastic looking' picture.

100Hz is very important to some people (e.g. me!) on a CRT because they can detect the 50Hz flicker. Whether the picture quality suffers from this I can't say though, and it's irrelevant anyway because I just can't watch a 50Hz picture comfortably. I'm sure I can detect flicker in plasma displays too.

I believe the 100Hz on LCDs isn't anything about flicker, because they don't flicker anyway, but it is to hide the fade-in/fade-out/slow response nature of the pixels and so reduce motion blur and judderiness, so that the panel is only illuminated at the precise moment that all pixels are fully adjusted. Same principle as doing animations on a CRT - you want to make sure all changes are made during the vertical blank period to prevent partial updates appearing on the screen. Gosh, I'm going back 25 years there! Is this what's known as field flicker?

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Simon

100Hz is very important to some people (e.g. me!) on a CRT because they can detect the 50Hz flicker. Whether the picture quality suffers from this I can't say though, and it's irrelevant anyway because I just can't watch a 50Hz picture comfortably. I'm sure I can detect flicker in plasma displays too.

Plasma works differently - because you can't change the brightness of a Plasma pixel - it's either ON or OFF. So each frame is displayed 256 times, with individual pixels being ON or OFF a number of times depending on their required brightness - so for half brightness it would be ON only 128 times (and so on).

Quote:

I believe the 100Hz on LCDs isn't anything about flicker, because they don't flicker anyway, but it is to hide the fade-in/fade-out/slow response nature of the pixels and so reduce motion blur and judderiness, so that the panel is only illuminated at the precise moment that all pixels are fully adjusted. Same principle as doing animations on a CRT - you want to make sure all changes are made during the vertical blank period to prevent partial updates appearing on the screen.

I presume the LCD display is double buffered?, so the buffer is updated with the next frame and then switched to be visible?.

[Chris Simon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Plasma works differently..

Ah yes, I think you've explained it before, sorry. It was going through my mind as I wrote it that I'd heard an explanation somewhere but couldn't bring it to mind. I think we came to the conclusion that yes, plasma does flicker, but it's only certain brightness levels that do it. Presumably everything that's a mid-brightness would change on every iteration so that it's off as may times as it's on, which would be too fast for even my eyes to perceive.

Or it could be the other way around, in that mid-levels are on 128 times in a row then off 128 times, which would indeed be a slow flicker.

Either way, the mid-levels are a different case from low and high brightness levels! Flicker would be perceived in one but not the other.

Quote:

I presume the LCD display is double buffered?, so the buffer is updated with the next frame and then switched to be visible?.

No idea *how* it does it I'm afraid! I assumed there was no difference in how the frames are displayed, it's just that the backlight has a 100Hz flicker instead of remaining constant. That would help to ensure that you don't see the inbetween stages where the pixles are changing state.

[thms]

ViewSonic Launches 28in 1080p LCD

http://www.trustedreviews.com/displa...n-1080p-LCD/p1

still looking for a 32''

[carefree cook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

As is pretty obvious, it's viewing distance that matters - a 32 inch viewed closer is EXACTLY the same size as a larger set viewed from further away. It's only if you view a 32 from a distance suitable for a larger set that you can't see the fine detail.



No idea what you're on about? - but ALL LCD's (and Plasma's) already do this sort of thing anyway, 100Hz is a complete waste of time! - and it was never much use on CRT, just a gimmick for extra profits!.

same reply as in the other thread nigel, i understand what you mean about viewing distance, but a screen still has a fixed number of lines horizontal and vertically, fitting let alone making it functional would be pointless even if manufacturers could actually fit that many lines on!


100hz has only just really been 'launched', in LCDs anyway. what i mean is that a screen being refreshed at 100hz not 50hz (effectivly double speed) in effect will give the same speed refresh as a 1080 screen being refreshed progressively, ie every line every second, [b]so[b] a non full hd screen that is 100hz not 50hz, will show a 1080p picture by having to, due to the nature of its refresh rate, create artificial frame. i

f you dont understand read up on the gen on the sony d series, or even better get a d series , connect it to a ps3 and select screen resolution to 1080p. the pic will show eventhough the d series is not full hd

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carefree cook

if you dont understand read up on the gen on the sony d series, or even better get a d series , connect it to a ps3 and select screen resolution to 1080p. the pic will show eventhough the d series is not full hd

I thought quite a few sets did that anyway?, but we don't have a PS3 to try - in fact I've never even seen a PS3!

I think the Blu Ray player in the shop outputs 1080P?, I'll have to check it next time I'm in the shop - and it works fine on any of the Sony's it's been connected to. Interestingly it's an American spec demonstration model - which we aren't allowed to sell - and it wouldn't play a normal DVD that I recorded of my daughters band.

[carefree cook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

I think the Blu Ray player in the shop outputs 1080P?,

Interestingly it's an American spec demonstration model - which we aren't allowed to sell - and it wouldn't play a normal DVD that I recorded of my daughters band.

hummm the dvd wouldnt be region locked?? the blu-ray player in the shop i work at plays normal dvds ok upscaled, not tried recorded though

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carefree cook

hummm the dvd wouldnt be region locked?? the blu-ray player in the shop i work at plays normal dvds ok upscaled, not tried recorded though

No, the DVD isn't region locked, I recorded it on my PC using Nero, from a Sony digital cam-corder - it plays fine on all other DVD players (or recorders) I've tried it on.

[bristolred]

There is now

http://www.sharp.co.uk/invt/lc32x20e&bklist=

[Chorlton Fisher]

This is also being disussed elsewhere...
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...d.php?t=669838

[swordheart]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bristolred

There is now

http://www.sharp.co.uk/invt/lc32x20e&bklist=

Damn i already got a Panasonic 26 incher after deciding i couldn't find a 1920 1080 set typical

Although i have to say i am very happy with my new lcd tv especially the pictures from my philips 5960 dvd player via HDMI, very nice indeed. Been able to hook up a hard drive on the usb port and am able to watch avi's i have it via the philips dvd player

[thms]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordheart

Damn i already got a Panasonic 26 incher after deciding i couldn't find a 1920 1080 set typical

Although i have to say i am very happy with my new lcd tv especially the pictures from my philips 5960 dvd player via HDMI, very nice indeed. Been able to hook up a hard drive on the usb port and am able to watch avi's i have it via the philips dvd player

this review on the full hd 32'' sharp is not that good..
http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-t...-32306283.html