|
||||||||
Best TV for SD Picture |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4
|
Best TV for SD Picture
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 |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,992
|
Quote:
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? the best way is to go into some shops and ask to see some running the same source and not a HD one |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,447
|
Also look for an LCD with 100Hz processing
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
Also look for an LCD with 100Hz processing
Personally I've always thought 100Hz a complete waste of time. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,087
|
Quote:
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
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! |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,447
|
Buy a panasonic LCD mentioned earlier, problem solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,885
|
Quote:
The fact LG LCD's aren't any good
1000th post .
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
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"?
![]() 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,447
|
Quote:
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 .Sony, Panasonic and Toshiba and Samsung (certain models) I'd take at this price, not LG. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Loughboro', Leicester (ex NTL)
Posts: 5,953
|
Quote:
Personally I've always thought 100Hz a complete waste of time.
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Loughboro', Leicester (ex NTL)
Posts: 5,953
|
Quote:
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.
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
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 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. Quote:
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Loughboro', Leicester (ex NTL)
Posts: 5,953
|
Quote:
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?..
![]() I'm not sure how that would go down if you said tha to Joe P on national TV ![]() ![]() ![]() Quote:
It was a sales gimmick and nothing else
Quote:
, for the tiny percentage of the population who might notice some flicker, it reduced that for them,
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 . |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
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
![]() There are specific minimum viewing distances based on the screen size. Quote:
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 Quote:
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:13.



.
