DS Forums

 
 

Best TV for SD Picture


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15-01-2008, 09:33
markalanious
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4

Hi everyone.

I'm after buying a new LCD TV after I lost mine to the ex. Now I had a LG 37" something or other and the picture was ok but I didnt have Sky HD or an XBox360 etc and I'm not planning on buying Sky HD any time soon either.

Anyway, I visited a friends house and they had a Phillips Ambilight LCD 32" and they didnt have Sky HD either but their SD picture was amazing and a million times better than mine on my LG TV.

So now i'm looking for one and i'd much rather go for picture quality then size on SD but I don't know what it was that gave it such a good picture, so my questions are:

1. What made the SD picture so good on the Phillips TV?

2. What other TV's would people recommend for a cracking SD picture to someone who isn't planning on getting Sky HD.

Thanks
markalanious is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 15-01-2008, 13:12
Fatwaz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,992
could be a few things.what were the SD sources?if both the same say sky standard box through a fully wired up scart lead set to output RGB then his philips probably has a better upscaler than your LG.also his screen size being smaller helps his pics look better from closer distances.for a 37" you will have to sit further away
Fatwaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-2008, 13:25
Jimmy Riddle
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,447
It could be a number of things:

Pixel plus processing in the Phillips
RGB scart
The fact LG LCD's aren't any good
The TV is calibrated properly
Better ambient lighting environment

If you want the best SD picture go plasma, Panasonic PX or PZ70
Jimmy Riddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-2008, 14:17
markalanious
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4
So it's the picture enhancement stuff that gives it a good SD picture - i thought this would only available on the HD picture??

Is that the same for other picture enhancement from other suppliers such as sony bravia etc etc?
markalanious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-2008, 15:18
Jimmy Riddle
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,447
Yeah, imagine it like the engine of a car, the more power and engineering the better.

LG use cheaper upscalers and components than Sony etc so the picture looks worse, it really is a case of you get what you pay for.

With SD get a plasma, far better than an LCD.
Jimmy Riddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-2008, 15:26
stvn758
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 17,338
My Samsung has a wonderful SD picture, all depends on the channel/picture being broadcast I think.
stvn758 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-2008, 15:27
Jarrak
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075

With SD get a plasma, far better than an LCD.



Again taking into account the same principles so that there will be cheap low end plasmas they will do a worse job with SD than a top notch LCD.

It's not a simple case that any Plasma will outperform any LCD given the huge performance ranges for both products.
Jarrak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-2008, 15:30
markalanious
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4
Again taking into account the same principles so that there will be cheap low end plasmas they will do a worse job with SD than a top notch LCD.

It's not a simple case that any Plasma will outperform any LCD given the huge performance ranges for both products.
ok so in a case example, i'm far from loaded and i dont want a TV thats too big, probably just go for 32" LCD, what's going to get me the best SD picture?
markalanious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-2008, 15:36
Jimmy Riddle
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,447
Best LCD stay with a Sony or Panasonic LXD70 or 700.

As for plasma, even the budget panny will outperform an LCD that is more expensive.

If you want SD on LCD demo a Panny LCD and Sony, don't go for Samsung.
Jimmy Riddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-2008, 15:52
Fatwaz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,992
So it's the picture enhancement stuff that gives it a good SD picture - i thought this would only available on the HD picture??

Is that the same for other picture enhancement from other suppliers such as sony bravia etc etc?
you need the SD picture enhanced not the HD one.thats why you get a HD tv cos it has more lines and pixels than normal tv hence the better definition.when watching a SD source on a HD tv it has to fill in the gaps basically and depending on how well it does this you will get a good pic or a bad pic.

the best way is to go into some shops and ask to see some running the same source and not a HD one
Fatwaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-2008, 16:03
Jimmy Riddle
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,447
Also look for an LCD with 100Hz processing
Jimmy Riddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-2008, 17:20
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
Also look for an LCD with 100Hz processing
Which may, or may not, offer some improvement - compare them yourself, and make up your own mind.

Personally I've always thought 100Hz a complete waste of time.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-01-2008, 18:03
Masteriser
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,087
Best LCD stay with a Sony or Panasonic LXD70 or 700...If you want SD on LCD demo a Panny LCD and Sony, don't go for Samsung.
If you can possibly stretch your budget to a Panasonic LXD 700 get one, they are awesome on SD (and HD but you don't want that for now) it also has very good sound considering the size of the speakers (the LXD 70 has a very similar picture but less connectivity and the sound is boxy).

For me Panasonic has the edge in picture quality over Sony. When you have a demonstration, make sure you get them to show you regular TV (if they try to fob you off with some old cobblers like "Out aerial isn't working very well at the moment" walk out and find a better shop). You dont need to see a Blu-Ray or HD DVD source or a even regular DVD showing a computer generated cartoon. What you need to see is the quality of skin tones on real peoples faces from broadcast television. Skin tones seperate the men from the boys as far as TVs go.

Good luck.
Masteriser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-01-2008, 17:07
markalanious
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4
thanks for the help everyone!

If anything i'm a bit more enlightened and a bit more confused!
markalanious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-01-2008, 19:26
Jimmy Riddle
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,447
Buy a panasonic LCD mentioned earlier, problem solved.
Jimmy Riddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-01-2008, 20:40
Mystic Eddy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,885
The fact LG LCD's aren't any good
Sorry but that's rubbish! I've got an LG LCD and I know it beats the sh*t out of my friends Sony. Please enlighten me as to why LGs "aren't any good"?

1000th post.
Mystic Eddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-01-2008, 20:50
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
Sorry but that's rubbish! I've got an LG LCD and I know it beats the sh*t out of my friends Sony. Please enlighten me as to why LGs "aren't any good"?
Put then on side by side, from the same source via the same conection - you'll soon see!

We don't sell LG, but I do know that the people who do, say they aren't very reliable, and the service is very poor.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-01-2008, 20:56
Jimmy Riddle
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,447
Sorry but that's rubbish! I've got an LG LCD and I know it beats the sh*t out of my friends Sony. Please enlighten me as to why LGs "aren't any good"?

1000th post.
LG aren't one of the top dogs for TV's, I wouldn't buy one and I wouldn't recommend one.

Sony, Panasonic and Toshiba and Samsung (certain models) I'd take at this price, not LG.
Jimmy Riddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-01-2008, 21:47
JethroUK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Loughboro', Leicester (ex NTL)
Posts: 5,953
Personally I've always thought 100Hz a complete waste of time.
50 hz used to be fast enough refresh rate in the good old days - but once screen sizes broke the whooooping 26" barrier people started to notice the screen flicker as their eyes managed to chase the dot around the screen (good enough for the 1980's i supose)

And whilst some might argue the benefits of 50hz over 100 hz on a screen the size of a pea - contrarywise some of my students can even see screen flicker on a incy-wincy computer screen cycling at about 70 hz (40% faster than the ol' 50 hz Tele)

When Philips first rolled out 100 hz it met with some scepticism - but it was only a matter of a couple of years before Sony had to cave in to the obvious benefit (of not watching screen flicker) - and like wise nearly every other TV manufacturer

When discussing refresh rate in relationship to quality of the picture - and accepting that 'screen flicker' is totally unacceptable

I think it's fair to say that a screen of say 30" up would be unwatchable @ 50hz
JethroUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-01-2008, 21:53
JethroUK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Loughboro', Leicester (ex NTL)
Posts: 5,953
We don't sell LG, but I do know that the people who do, say they aren't very reliable, and the service is very poor.
neither is the Willliams-Toyota

but the argument wasn't levelled at LG reliability & service - it was levelled it's performance and that's what he's answering to here
JethroUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-01-2008, 22:44
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
50 hz used to be fast enough refresh rate in the good old days - but once screen sizes broke the whooooping 26" barrier people started to notice the screen flicker as their eyes managed to chase the dot around the screen (good enough for the 1980's i supose)

And whilst some might argue the benefits of 50hz over 100 hz on a screen the size of a pea - contrarywise some of my students can even see screen flicker on a incy-wincy computer screen cycling at about 70 hz (40% faster than the ol' 50 hz Tele)

When Philips first rolled out 100 hz it met with some scepticism - but it was only a matter of a couple of years before Sony had to cave in to the obvious benefit (of not watching screen flicker) - and like wise nearly every other TV manufacturer
And the resulting sets (all the 100Hz CRT's) had absolutely horrible pictures - they were rubbish - best describes as 'plastic' and artificial looking.

It was a sales gimmick and nothing else, for the tiny percentage of the population who might notice some flicker, it reduced that for them, but at the expense of a poorer picture.


When discussing refresh rate in relationship to quality of the picture - and accepting that 'screen flicker' is totally unacceptable

I think it's fair to say that a screen of say 30" up would be unwatchable @ 50hz
No, I (along with the vast majority of the population) think 50Hz is perfectly fine, on any size of TV. If the screen is bigger you sit further away, what has screen size got to do with it?.

In any case, LCD's and Plasma's already do a similar thing, they convert the interlaced signal (25 pictures a second) to a progressive picture (50 pictures a second), and the picture isn't scanned at all like a CRT.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-01-2008, 22:57
simon69c
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,415
neither is the Willliams-Toyota

but the argument wasn't levelled at LG reliability & service - it was levelled it's performance and that's what he's answering to here
Well I have a 32" LG LCD as a second TV and it has some extremely annoying niggles - the worst being the EPG has a tendency to get itself into a massive slowdown while loading up its various icons when on certain channels and you can't quit it until it has finished sorting itself out (which can take upwards of a minute - which is very annoying if you just want to glance at what is next). The PQ also isn't particularly great either and the internal upscaler is pretty basic (lower bandwidth freeview channels tend to look really awful) - it's ok as a budget set though, or if you will be feeding it from an external source that can upscale. My main TV now is a 42" Panny plasma and it completely blows the LG out of the water in every way.
simon69c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2008, 00:14
JethroUK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Loughboro', Leicester (ex NTL)
Posts: 5,953
No, I (along with the vast majority of the population) think 50Hz is perfectly fine, on any size of TV. If the screen is bigger you sit further away, what has screen size got to do with it?..
Well to extend that to it's logical conclusion - You are suggesting that people should not buy bigger screens and instead just sit nearer to the one they've got

I'm not sure how that would go down if you said tha to Joe P on national TV

It was a sales gimmick and nothing else
you mean 'yet another' sales gimmick that we've all been suckered into - the industry might be guilty of a lot of stunts but let see whether it is a gimmick

, for the tiny percentage of the population who might notice some flicker, it reduced that for them,
us poor fools - here we are expounding the very boundaries of A/V technlogy and we can not even put up with a bit of 1960's screen flicker - what's the world coming to

I say we all go back to 405 lines - now that was proper TV

I think it's only fair that whilst you speak of 50 hz with such fondness (which could influence a purchase) that everyone understand that it comes with the benefit of screen flicker -which i would find unacceptable - and for you to say "the vast majority of the population think 50Hz is perfectly fine" is simply putting words in their unsuspecting mouths

.
JethroUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2008, 09:57
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
Well to extend that to it's logical conclusion - You are suggesting that people should not buy bigger screens and instead just sit nearer to the one they've got
The size of set 'should' be governed by the viewing distance, and (obviously room size) - bigger the room, the larger the set you need to view it from across the room.

There are specific minimum viewing distances based on the screen size.


you mean 'yet another' sales gimmick that we've all been suckered into - the industry might be guilty of a lot of stunts but let see whether it is a gimmick
100Hz has been so far, I see no reason for it to change now?.


I think it's only fair that whilst you speak of 50 hz with such fondness (which could influence a purchase) that everyone understand that it comes with the benefit of screen flicker -which i would find unacceptable - and for you to say "the vast majority of the population think 50Hz is perfectly fine" is simply putting words in their unsuspecting mouths
No, it's "taking words from their mouths", 50Hz is perfectly fine, and the vast majority of the population can't see any flickering at all. Huge numbers of customers complained about 100Hz CRT TV's - wanting to know why they had paid extra money for an inferior picture.

Like I explained above as well, the progressive nature of an LCD or Plasma panel (by not being scanned) already doubles your frame rate anyway - so no need for 100Hz, or any advantage from it.!

If you're one of the tiny numer of people who can see 50Hz flicker on a TV, then fair enough, buy one - but it's pointless recommending it to the rest of the population who won't get any benefit at all from it.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2008, 11:33
niall campbell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Aberfeldy
Posts: 7,035
I must be a higher mortal

my two sonys crts have 100Hz and they are great, fantastic picture


but picture important to me and sound I couldnt care too much about
niall campbell is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:13.