|
||||||||
46" to 55", 1080p or not for Standard Def Sky viewing |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
|
46" to 55", 1080p or not for Standard Def Sky viewing
Hi,
I'm debating 1080p vs HD compatible televisions for viewing mostly standard definition Sky. Limited budget of £1,500, and I'm keen on getting the largest screen possible with that cash. Is it worth compromising and going in for a HD compatible panel with a larger screen size as opposed to a smaller screen which has Full HD? Terribly confused! |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Aberfeldy
Posts: 7,035
|
get the 1080P
some people in here will say what a lot of rubbish but your trying to future proof and once the blu ray / hd format war is over most dvds will be 1080 p anyway playstation x-box 1080p just now so what are you waiting for? get a 46 " and perfect for sd watching |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
Hi,
I'm debating 1080p vs HD compatible televisions for viewing mostly standard definition Sky. Limited budget of £1,500, and I'm keen on getting the largest screen possible with that cash. Is it worth compromising and going in for a HD compatible panel with a larger screen size as opposed to a smaller screen which has Full HD? As for SD viewing, certainly the Sony KDL40W2000 Full HD set is absolutely stunning on SD pictures. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
The most important thing is to get the best screen size for the distance you sit from it, big is not always better and may well be worse especially since you are only using SD. How far do you sit from the screen?
I would recommend that probably you should not go for full HD as they cost more and often give worse PQ than a non full HD set (mostly for SD though also for HD given that you can buy a better set for the same money). Going for a 1080p set that was not full HD might make sense though for future compatibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
Unless you're viewing much too close for SD, any potential difference between Full HD and HD Ready can't really be seen. Certainly on broadcasts, even at VERY close range, the difference is just barely visible with two sets side by side. Viewing them seperately I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which.
As for SD viewing, certainly the Sony KDL40W2000 Full HD set is absolutely stunning on SD pictures. Ofcourse these are both 1080p panels. Since you suggest that there is not much of a difference would you recommend a plasma Panasonic? Say Panasonic Viera TH-50PX70 |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
The most important thing is to get the best screen size for the distance you sit from it, big is not always better and may well be worse especially since you are only using SD. How far do you sit from the screen?
I would recommend that probably you should not go for full HD as they cost more and often give worse PQ than a non full HD set (mostly for SD though also for HD given that you can buy a better set for the same money). Going for a 1080p set that was not full HD might make sense though for future compatibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
get the 1080P
some people in here will say what a lot of rubbish but your trying to future proof and once the blu ray / hd format war is over most dvds will be 1080 p anyway playstation x-box 1080p just now so what are you waiting for? get a 46 " and perfect for sd watching |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
|
i know you said you were on a budget, but if you could splash out a little more for the w3000, it will be better far better than the w2000 on sd pictures as the bravia ex engine has a built in upscaler.
the w2000 is still a brilliant set though |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
i know you said you were on a budget, but if you could splash out a little more for the w3000, it will be better far better than the w2000 on sd pictures as the bravia ex engine has a built in upscaler.
the w2000 is still a brilliant set though |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
i know you said you were on a budget, but if you could splash out a little more for the w3000, it will be better far better than the w2000 on sd pictures as the bravia ex engine has a built in upscaler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
is there a 46" w3000 though? haven't heard of one. forgive my ignorance, but what does the bravia ex engine do with upscaling?
Quote:
All HD TV sets that will display SD have a built in upscaler otherwise they wouldn't work.
![]() what i was meaning to say is the W series now has the superior bravia ex engine/ processor/ scaler, normally reserved for the top of the range X series Correct the w3000 comes in 40, 46, 52 inch size. but you are paying £1999 for the 40 inch alone! |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
|
however im sure that if you did not have a problem with internet buying you could find a good price on there
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 207
|
Quote:
sorry my english is not very good there.
what i was meaning to say is the W series now has the superior bravia ex engine/ processor/ scaler, normally reserved for the top of the range X series Correct the w3000 comes in 40, 46, 52 inch size. but you are paying £1999 for the 40 inch alone! £1,799.99 http://www.robertwhyteltd.co.uk/Site...20PLAYSTATION3 |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
Here is a brilliant deal for the 46 inch w3000 and you get a free playstation 3
£1,799.99 http://www.robertwhyteltd.co.uk/Site...20PLAYSTATION3 |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,948
|
Quote:
I'm keen on getting a larger screen (something atleast above 45"). Viewing distrance is about 10ft. I've looked at info around appropriate viewing distances, and found equal amount of contradiction and controversy. I think what I need is a TV which shows good SD pictures on the largest possible screen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
Most of the guidance you get in specialist press (e.g. What Hi-Fi) disagrees with you. 10 foot = 3 metres = 28-32" screen. Perhaps you should consider the 40" sets on the market like the KDL40W2000 or 3000 (which are all 1080p)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
Hmmm..thanks. maybe I should reconsider getting 50+ inch screen. I'll probably end up being unhappy with the picture as I'll end up being too close to the screen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
sorry my english is not very good there.
what i was meaning to say is the W series now has the superior bravia ex engine/ processor/ scaler, normally reserved for the top of the range X series Correct the w3000 comes in 40, 46, 52 inch size. but you are paying £1999 for the 40 inch alone! |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 631
|
Why the Hell do you want a Sony?
get the Samsung 50" Plasma, its got a 15,000 contrast, loads better than the sony, its 1080p, and does not suffer from the slow refresh of the LCDs. Im sure I have seen it for about £1,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,948
|
Quote:
Why the Hell do you want a Sony?
get the Samsung 50" Plasma, its got a 15,000 contrast, loads better than the sony, its 1080p, and does not suffer from the slow refresh of the LCDs. Im sure I have seen it for about £1,500 There is no set standard for measuring contrast so each company measures in a different way making comparing them based on this figure difficult. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:41.

