Blimey! - A full HD 32"

bristolred · 27-09-2007, 16:58

Still waiting for John Lewis to get their stock back up for the Panasonic TX32LXD700, but now I'm wondering if I should wait and get this new Sharp LC-32X20E.

http://www.sharp.co.uk/invt/lc32x20e&bklist=
http://hdtvorg.co.uk/news/articles/2007092701.htm

If I don't draw the line soon I'm never going to buy a HD TV.

Any views Guys?

Jarrak · 27-09-2007, 17:12

It'll be interesting to see if Pioneer gets their hands on this panel now they are partners with Sharp and do their magic to produce a seriously kick ass LCD to partner their G8 Plasma.

Not sure "Slimline" can be used for marketing given that I have yet to see any really deep LCD's

Nigel Goodwin · 27-09-2007, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarrak

Not sure "Slimline" can be used for marketing given that I have yet to see any really deep LCD's

Perhaps it's slimmer than their previous models? - some were a little on the chunky side.

Jarrak · 27-09-2007, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Perhaps it's slimmer than their previous models? - some were a little on the chunky side.

Good point

roddydogs · 28-09-2007, 12:42

the current 42" is about 5 1/2" deep .presumably this is slimmer!

Southak · 28-09-2007, 12:48

Why wait for a Full HD 32"? As I understand it you would have to be sitting about 12 inches from the screen to be able to see the difference between Hd & Full HD at this screen size, such is the resolution/sq inch. In addition I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about the quality of SD broadcast pictures on Full HD sets so be patient and wait for the Panasonic.

I have one on order for JL High Wycombe

Cheers,

SouthaK

Nigel Goodwin · 28-09-2007, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southak

Why wait for a Full HD 32"? As I understand it you would have to be sitting about 12 inches from the screen to be able to see the difference between Hd & Full HD at this screen size, such is the resolution/sq inch. In addition I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about the quality of SD broadcast pictures on Full HD sets so be patient and wait for the Panasonic.

The (now quite elderly) Full HD Sony KDL40W2000 gives a cracking picture on SD!.

bristolred · 28-09-2007, 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southak

Why wait for a Full HD 32"? As I understand it you would have to be sitting about 12 inches from the screen to be able to see the difference between Hd & Full HD at this screen size, such is the resolution/sq inch. In addition I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about the quality of SD broadcast pictures on Full HD sets so be patient and wait for the Panasonic.

I have one on order for JL High Wycombe

Cheers,

SouthaK

I have a very small Lounge!

ok I'm lying, but if that is the case whats the point of bringing out a Full 32"?

carefree cook · 28-09-2007, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by bristolred

I have a very small Lounge!

ok I'm lying, but if that is the case whats the point of bringing out a Full 32"?

exactly, no point. there was a thread a little while back about this. basically 2 reasons why its pointless,

1) the viewing distance as already mantioned, and

2) there are so many lines on such a 'small' (comp to larger full hd's) screen you wouldnt notice any/minimal difference.

go for the panny, sharps have good specs, and have actually come on well with their lcd, but theyre still what youd call an entry level range

Chorlton Fisher · 28-09-2007, 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by roddydogs

the current 42" is about 5 1/2" deep .presumably this is slimmer!

Good Lord.

My Sony Bravia KDL40W2000 is only 105mm (4 inches) deep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

The (now quite elderly) Full HD Sony KDL40W2000 gives a cracking picture on SD!.

Seconded. I sometimes have to check I'm not watching an HD channel the BBC pictures are so good.

bobcar · 28-09-2007, 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southak

Why wait for a Full HD 32"? As I understand it you would have to be sitting about 12 inches from the screen to be able to see the difference between Hd & Full HD at this screen size, such is the resolution/sq inch. In addition I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about the quality of SD broadcast pictures on Full HD sets so be patient and wait for the Panasonic.

I have one on order for JL High Wycombe

Cheers,

SouthaK

That's clearly not correct, as a comparison if your 12" was correct then you would have to sit about 3' from a 100" display.

You should not sit closer than about 4' to a 32" 1080 screen or you will see pixels. I agree that for most people 1080 for a 32" is unnecessary and may result in a worse picture.

Chris Simon · 28-09-2007, 15:32

I think I'd be a good case for a 32" full HD screen. I do have a very small lounge, I sit about 6'-7' from the TV even though it's the opposite end of the room! I've currently got a 28" CRT, so is about 26.5" really, but even that I think is physically too close in terms of focussing the eyes, even though I might like a larger screen. And it's deep so that accentuates the problem with the closeness.

Putting a flat screen on the wall would take it a foot or so further back, but I really think a 37" screen would be far too big for the room. So I think 7' for a 32" Full HD screen is quite reasonable and I certainly think there would be a benefit of HD at that distance. In shops, you can tell the difference between a HD and SD broadcast at that distance.

Nigel Goodwin · 28-09-2007, 21:32

With HD the closer the better, and you SHOULD view it closer then you do SD to get the benefit from it.

As I've repeatedly said, distance itself makes NO DIFFERENCE - it's distance related to screen size that makes the difference. Having a larger screen just means you can sit further away from it - but no matter what the screen size, the picture will look identical in both resolution and size if you view from the correct distance.

A 32 inch Full HD viewed at 2 feet is EXACTLY the same as a 50 inch Full HD viewed further away - such as the screen size is the same. It wouldn't even be twice as far either!.

Apart from that, a more important concern is if you think Full HD is worth it?, the difference is only minimal on HD broadcasts - I couldn't tell you which was which.

roddydogs · 29-09-2007, 07:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobcar

That's clearly not correct, as a comparison if your 12" was correct then you would have to sit about 3' from a 100" display.

You should not sit closer than about 4' to a 32" 1080 screen or you will see pixels. I agree that for most people 1080 for a 32" is unnecessary and may result in a worse picture.

Why would it be worse?

bobcar · 29-09-2007, 09:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by roddydogs

Why would it be worse?

Because full HD can require more processing power and poor processing (scaling/deinterlacing) is one of the reasons displays can look worse especially on SD.

I'm not saying it would be worse (I said may), there may be a better processor inside it to take the bigger load. Also I believe the Panny plasmas (Px70x) upscale everything to 1080 before processing so their new full HDs (PZ70x) probably don't suffer on SD.

Nigel Goodwin · 29-09-2007, 09:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobcar

Also I believe the Panny plasmas (Px70x) upscale everything to 1080 before processing so their new full HDs (PZ70x) probably don't suffer on SD.

Don't all Full HD sets do that?.

What extra processing are you expecting after it's been upscaled anyway?.

bobcar · 29-09-2007, 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Don't all Full HD sets do that?.

What extra processing are you expecting after it's been upscaled anyway?.

You're not quite reading my post correctly. The PX70 series aren't full HD but apparently always upscale to 1080p where they do their extra processing before downscaling to their native resolution which is ? (varies per model) x 768. That's why the processing (and hence PQ) for SD is likely to be similar for the PX70s and the full HD PZ70s.

There is still processing after upscaling, the biggy is deinterlacing (when required) which can wreck the PQ if done badly, its far more difficult than scaling.

27-09-2007, 16:58	#1
bristolred Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Brizzle Posts: 212	Blimey! - A full HD 32" Still waiting for John Lewis to get their stock back up for the Panasonic TX32LXD700, but now I'm wondering if I should wait and get this new Sharp LC-32X20E. http://www.sharp.co.uk/invt/lc32x20e&bklist= http://hdtvorg.co.uk/news/articles/2007092701.htm If I don't draw the line soon I'm never going to buy a HD TV. Any views Guys?

27-09-2007, 17:12	#2
Jarrak Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ilkeston Posts: 18,075	It'll be interesting to see if Pioneer gets their hands on this panel now they are partners with Sharp and do their magic to produce a seriously kick ass LCD to partner their G8 Plasma. Not sure "Slimline" can be used for marketing given that I have yet to see any really deep LCD's

27-09-2007, 17:40	#3
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by Jarrak Not sure "Slimline" can be used for marketing given that I have yet to see any really deep LCD's Perhaps it's slimmer than their previous models? - some were a little on the chunky side.

27-09-2007, 17:47	#4
Jarrak Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ilkeston Posts: 18,075	Quote: Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin Perhaps it's slimmer than their previous models? - some were a little on the chunky side. Good point

28-09-2007, 12:42	#5
roddydogs Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,353	the current 42" is about 5 1/2" deep .presumably this is slimmer!

28-09-2007, 12:48	#6
Southak Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 191	Why wait for a Full HD 32"? As I understand it you would have to be sitting about 12 inches from the screen to be able to see the difference between Hd & Full HD at this screen size, such is the resolution/sq inch. In addition I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about the quality of SD broadcast pictures on Full HD sets so be patient and wait for the Panasonic. I have one on order for JL High Wycombe Cheers, SouthaK

28-09-2007, 13:19	#7
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by Southak Why wait for a Full HD 32"? As I understand it you would have to be sitting about 12 inches from the screen to be able to see the difference between Hd & Full HD at this screen size, such is the resolution/sq inch. In addition I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about the quality of SD broadcast pictures on Full HD sets so be patient and wait for the Panasonic. The (now quite elderly) Full HD Sony KDL40W2000 gives a cracking picture on SD!.

28-09-2007, 13:44	#8
bristolred Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Brizzle Posts: 212	Quote: Originally Posted by Southak Why wait for a Full HD 32"? As I understand it you would have to be sitting about 12 inches from the screen to be able to see the difference between Hd & Full HD at this screen size, such is the resolution/sq inch. In addition I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about the quality of SD broadcast pictures on Full HD sets so be patient and wait for the Panasonic. I have one on order for JL High Wycombe Cheers, SouthaK I have a very small Lounge! ok I'm lying, but if that is the case whats the point of bringing out a Full 32"?

28-09-2007, 13:57	#9
carefree cook Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland Posts: 421	Quote: Originally Posted by bristolred I have a very small Lounge! ok I'm lying, but if that is the case whats the point of bringing out a Full 32"? exactly, no point. there was a thread a little while back about this. basically 2 reasons why its pointless, 1) the viewing distance as already mantioned, and 2) there are so many lines on such a 'small' (comp to larger full hd's) screen you wouldnt notice any/minimal difference. go for the panny, sharps have good specs, and have actually come on well with their lcd, but theyre still what youd call an entry level range

28-09-2007, 14:28	#10
Chorlton Fisher Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: London Posts: 3,104	Quote: Originally Posted by roddydogs the current 42" is about 5 1/2" deep .presumably this is slimmer! Good Lord. My Sony Bravia KDL40W2000 is only 105mm (4 inches) deep. Quote: Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin The (now quite elderly) Full HD Sony KDL40W2000 gives a cracking picture on SD!. Seconded. I sometimes have to check I'm not watching an HD channel the BBC pictures are so good.

28-09-2007, 14:57	#11
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by Southak Why wait for a Full HD 32"? As I understand it you would have to be sitting about 12 inches from the screen to be able to see the difference between Hd & Full HD at this screen size, such is the resolution/sq inch. In addition I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about the quality of SD broadcast pictures on Full HD sets so be patient and wait for the Panasonic. I have one on order for JL High Wycombe Cheers, SouthaK That's clearly not correct, as a comparison if your 12" was correct then you would have to sit about 3' from a 100" display. You should not sit closer than about 4' to a 32" 1080 screen or you will see pixels. I agree that for most people 1080 for a 32" is unnecessary and may result in a worse picture.

28-09-2007, 15:32	#12
Chris Simon Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Snowdonia Posts: 2,725	I think I'd be a good case for a 32" full HD screen. I do have a very small lounge, I sit about 6'-7' from the TV even though it's the opposite end of the room! I've currently got a 28" CRT, so is about 26.5" really, but even that I think is physically too close in terms of focussing the eyes, even though I might like a larger screen. And it's deep so that accentuates the problem with the closeness. Putting a flat screen on the wall would take it a foot or so further back, but I really think a 37" screen would be far too big for the room. So I think 7' for a 32" Full HD screen is quite reasonable and I certainly think there would be a benefit of HD at that distance. In shops, you can tell the difference between a HD and SD broadcast at that distance.

28-09-2007, 21:32	#13
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	With HD the closer the better, and you SHOULD view it closer then you do SD to get the benefit from it. As I've repeatedly said, distance itself makes NO DIFFERENCE - it's distance related to screen size that makes the difference. Having a larger screen just means you can sit further away from it - but no matter what the screen size, the picture will look identical in both resolution and size if you view from the correct distance. A 32 inch Full HD viewed at 2 feet is EXACTLY the same as a 50 inch Full HD viewed further away - such as the screen size is the same. It wouldn't even be twice as far either!. Apart from that, a more important concern is if you think Full HD is worth it?, the difference is only minimal on HD broadcasts - I couldn't tell you which was which.

29-09-2007, 07:14	#14
roddydogs Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,353	Quote: Originally Posted by bobcar That's clearly not correct, as a comparison if your 12" was correct then you would have to sit about 3' from a 100" display. You should not sit closer than about 4' to a 32" 1080 screen or you will see pixels. I agree that for most people 1080 for a 32" is unnecessary and may result in a worse picture. Why would it be worse?

29-09-2007, 09:16	#15
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by roddydogs Why would it be worse? Because full HD can require more processing power and poor processing (scaling/deinterlacing) is one of the reasons displays can look worse especially on SD. I'm not saying it would be worse (I said may), there may be a better processor inside it to take the bigger load. Also I believe the Panny plasmas (Px70x) upscale everything to 1080 before processing so their new full HDs (PZ70x) probably don't suffer on SD.

29-09-2007, 09:40	#16
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by bobcar Also I believe the Panny plasmas (Px70x) upscale everything to 1080 before processing so their new full HDs (PZ70x) probably don't suffer on SD. Don't all Full HD sets do that?. What extra processing are you expecting after it's been upscaled anyway?.

29-09-2007, 11:57	#17
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin Don't all Full HD sets do that?. What extra processing are you expecting after it's been upscaled anyway?. You're not quite reading my post correctly. The PX70 series aren't full HD but apparently always upscale to 1080p where they do their extra processing before downscaling to their native resolution which is ? (varies per model) x 768. That's why the processing (and hence PQ) for SD is likely to be similar for the PX70s and the full HD PZ70s. There is still processing after upscaling, the biggy is deinterlacing (when required) which can wreck the PQ if done badly, its far more difficult than scaling.

DS Forums

Blimey! - A full HD 32"