|
||||||||
1080p retail stitch up |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#226 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,206
|
Quote:
to what might you attribute this????????????????????????????????
i'll guess - a change in demand by Joe???? NO WAY! you can attribute any/all change in sales trends to "sales" - namely 'miss-selling' of full-HD - as per miss-selling of oblong TV's as per miss-selling of 'digital' TV's I'd be interested in what it was you saw to deduce this - but without even seeing it i already know for a fact it's wrong wroooooongggggggggg!!!!! you are confusing 'mis-representation' which is currently covered under "sale of good act" with 'miss-selling', to which there is no specific consumer act - yet!!! - this law arises after bad practice/crooked bahaviour on-mass has been identified - as per the crooks selling endowment mortgages the fact that don't 'get' this - washes away your credibility and with it your opinion |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#227 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,206
|
Jethro. I am amazed that you are attacking my credability when yours has been torn to shreds by almost all the posters on the thread.
As Full HD sets fall in price there are going to be more sold. END OF STORY. As people here about blu-ray or purchase a PS3, they are enquiring more about FullHD sets. As FullHD is now the only option available on the top end sets, that what people who always buy top end products will purchase. New technology always filters in from the top slowly. DVD did it, PS2/PS3 did/is doing it, CD did it, SD flat panel set did it, HD Ready flat panel sets did it, now FullHD sets are doing it. IF?, and I repeat, IF the shops were selling sets that had aspect ratios of 35:12 with resolutions of 4279X1432 and were telling people that it is the only way they can watch tv after the universal quadratic switchover happening next year. That would be mis-selling and mis-representation and that clearly does not exist and never will. For you to claim that ALL sales people deliberatly mis-sell & mis-represent all their sales and that the shops are deliberatley hiding stock away in a stock room for no-one to see, without any chance of recouping their investment is pure fantasy. |
|
|
|
|
|
#228 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,206
|
Quote:
to what might you attribute this????????????????????????????????
i'll guess - a change in demand by Joe???? NO WAY! you can attribute any/all change in sales trends to "sales" - namely 'miss-selling' of full-HD - as per miss-selling of oblong TV's as per miss-selling of 'digital' TV's I'd be interested in what it was you saw to deduce this - but without even seeing it i already know for a fact it's wrong wroooooongggggggggg!!!!! you are confusing 'mis-representation' which is currently covered under "sale of good act" with 'miss-selling', to which there is no specific consumer act - yet!!! - this law arises after bad practice/crooked bahaviour on-mass has been identified - as per the crooks selling endowment mortgages the fact that don't 'get' this - washes away your credibility and with it your opinion Jethro. I work in a small independent store that pays no commission, that has been around since the '60's. We do very little advertising and have almost no web pressence. We are thriving because we look after the cusomers that come into us. We are not always the cheapest in town but we look after the customer and they look after us by telling their friends and family. I can tell you from first hand experience that the general public generally do not want sets that could be outdated within the lifespan of the set. Their first priority is to have sets that are "ready for the changeover". Their second is to have HD Ready sets so they can be ready for it in the future if they decide to get anything that is HD. Depending on the age and wealth of the customer Full HD is then the next priority. Full HD seems, from our experience, to be most popular in the 20-50y/o market as those in the lower end want it for use with Games consoles and films, whilst the older segment want it for HD pay tv and films. I know at this point you are going to jump on the pay tv statement and claim that people do not need a 1080p set for Sky and it's all a conspiracy, but in your words you would be wwwwwwwwwrrrrrrroooooooooooonnnnnnggggggggg. Yes sky only broadcast in 1080i but that still has a res of 1080x1920 which strangley enough no Full HD sets don't,at least not any more since the manufacturers realised that it made no sense to have 1920x1080 without progressive input to match. |
|
|
|
|
|
#229 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,471
|
i dont understand what the op is on about?
is he moaning about 1080p tvs being sold when the only way of getting 1080p is to use a ps3 etc..? what is the op on about? |
|
|
|
|
|
#230 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: St Albans
Posts: 4,088
|
Quote:
i dont understand what the op is on about?
is he moaning about 1080p tvs being sold when the only way of getting 1080p is to use a ps3 etc..? what is the op on about? |
|
|
|
|
|
#231 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,471
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#232 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,471
|
Quote:
i'll let you hazzard a guestimation
|
|
|
|
|
|
#233 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 805
|
The OP hasn't got a clue?????????
Still living in the widescreen world I think???????? |
|
|
|
|
|
#234 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Yorkshire, God's County
Posts: 5,182
|
I think he {the OP} is confusing NEED with WANT (and perhaps has a hidden agenda/axe to grind about some crap he's bought?)
Having sold electronics (to business, not consumers) for 20+ years now, I know that ultimately you sell what the customer WANTS - not what he necessarily NEEDS. You can, of course, offer advice and the benefit of your experience/knowledge but if you actually want to sell something then you don't dictate what he can or can't have! The skill of a good salesperson is convincing the customer that what he needs IS what he wants. If the public WANT full HD sets then it makes sense for the stores to stock and sell them. Who tells them that they WANT full HD is not the stores problem!! At the end of the day, the manufacturers want to make and sell full HD, so they market them carefully and create the WANT within the market - that's called MARKETING. All the stores do is satisfy this demand. Whether the public actually NEED them, or can make full use of all their features at present, is another matter but if you tell the customer he is an idiot (effectively), doesn't know what he wants and basically can't have it then you won't have a business for long. ![]() As I was told many, many years ago - "the customer is always right - even when he's wrong!" |
|
|
|
|
|
#235 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: RETFORD
Posts: 63
|
Quote:
Theres an VERY good reason why "HD Ready" sets will continue to sell for a while - because anyone over 60 and about a third of the rest of the population including me! DONT HAVE 1080P EYESIGHT!!
Ive been into cCurrys and Comets and seen a vast range of both non and FullHD(1080p) sets and stood both a few inches and several feet away and cannot tell the difference with my less than perfect eyesight so i will take the cheaper Panny thanks mate! When i mentioned this fact to the Currys salesman he thought a second and said "but you would see the difference with your glasses on! hehe had to admire his cheek. The other thing i mentioned that why was it that with over 100 tvs on display the picture Q looked crap on most of them in Comets? They chap said that the signal was weak because they had so many sets sharing the same signal so I should take his word for it (!?) that the 1080p was definitely better. Think i will stick to my cheap(ish) 32" grundig for now.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#236 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: too close to Hell, Londonistan
Posts: 4,570
|
Facts are HDTV in this country 1080i requires a 1080p set to see the full resolution of it.
Apart from a few 1080i CRT's almost no tv sold here today handles interlaced HDTV natively. But it doesn't hide the fact that often the very best quality screens are still not 1080 screens. Like pioneer 1366x768( native resolution) plasma's still blow away most 1080p screens even when when fed a full HD signal. |
|
|
|
|
|
#237 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 12,173
|
Quote:
Facts are HDTV in this country 1080i requires a 1080p set to see the full resolution of it.
Apart from a few 1080i CRT's almost no tv sold here today handles interlaced HDTV natively. But it doesn't hide the fact that often the very best quality screens are still not 1080 screens. Like pioneer 1366x768( native resolution) plasma's still blow away most 1080p screens even when when fed a full HD signal. I imagine that viewing on a 768/720 screen it has to downsample the image, thus losing some of the details and giving a less clear result? (how noticiable I don't know) I'm happy to be corrected on this however! |
|
|
|
|
|
#238 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
I'd always assumed that to watch a 1080i source it should ideally be on a 1080 screen? (I or P) with 1 to 1 pixel mapping and all that jazz, to give the best chance on an LCD, otherwise it does the scaling, dithering process which surely gives a less clear image (like viewing a computer LCD panel at the non native resolution)
I imagine that viewing on a 768/720 screen it has to downsample the image, thus losing some of the details and giving a less clear result? (how noticiable I don't know) I'm happy to be corrected on this however! |
|
|
|
|
|
#239 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,355
|
Theres also an opinion that 768p is better than 1080i.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#240 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Theres also an opinion that 768p is better than 1080i.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#241 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
Yes sky only broadcast in 1080i but that still has a res of 1080x1920 which strangley enough no Full HD sets don't,at least not any more since the manufacturers realised that it made no sense to have 1920x1080 without progressive input to match.
Quote:
So why are 99% of TV sets on display in Currys, etc un-supported 1080p?
It's actually SIMPLER to provide 'direct' access to the panel's native scanning mode than provision for the interlaced signal; which they have to do anyway to yield compatibility with the broadcast HD signal... And the broadcast HD signal IS a 1080 line signal, which is better displayed on a panel that can map pixels on at least a 1:1 basis. Whether you're watching a 1080i or 1080p signal you are watching EXACTLY the same number of pixels on screen and. despite what the confused gibbering of various journalists (who out to know better) might leave you to believe there is no difference in resolution between the two formats. What is different is the TEMPORAL element of the signal...... 1080P is floated as a 'holy grail' because it better maps the temporal nature of film sources, and thus gives a more 'cinematic' look as well as simplified match to film sources. In that sense yes, the marketeers have perhaps placed a slight 'spin' on 1080P.... The notion that 1080p is 'full HD' while 1080i is not is just plain daft.... It's a bit like saying an imperial gallon is a 'full' gallon while 4.54609 litres isn't ... But it's inclusion on a TV set is a complete non issue. 1920X1080 displays provide the best mapping for 1920X1080 signal sources... such as HD broadcasts.... And thus provide a real advantage to the consumer. To build a 1080 set and not include 1080p capability would be like building a car with four doors but not fitting handles on the back ones.... |
|
|
|
|
|
#242 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
768p doesn't exist as a broadcast standard so presumably you are referring to the display part, well 1080i is almost non existent in display terms - certainly less than 1% of forum members will be using a 1080i display.
I'd be VERY surprised to learn anyone keeps one of them in their living room....
|
|
|
|
|
|
#243 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
The only native 1080I display I've EVER seen is a 28" Barco HD broadcast studio monitor which was CRT based....
I'd be VERY surprised to learn anyone keeps one of them in their living room.... ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#244 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
I have absolutely no idea how many people have a native interlaced display that's why I said less than 1%. Wasn't the Samsung Slimfit amongst others 1080i? (I thought it was something like 800x1080i).
It's right up there with the Nipkow disk. Fact is (as you suggested) you'd struggle to find one! |
|
|
|
|
|
#245 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 166
|
I think the Samsung utilised a chipset that TRIED to utilised the 1080I as native. But right under the hood was a de-interlacing converter.....
These chips; there's ;ess than 10p's difference between one chipset and another. It's a 'political' thing... |
|
|
|
|
|
#246 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Who care mate?
It's right up there with the Nipkow disk. Fact is (as you suggested) you'd struggle to find one! |
|
|
|
|
|
#247 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
......Quite so. The panel is NATIVELY progressive scan. And the 1080i input is de-interlaced to yield frame that can be displayed progressively....
|
|
|
|
|
|
#248 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
Actually not really true - panels aren't 'natively progressive', as they aren't scanned devices neither progressive nor interlaced applies to them. Progressive inputs are built up in exactly the same way as interlaced ones are - and a 1080P/25 and 1080i/50 picture (both from a progressive source) would be identical.
![]() Essentially YES the picture, or rather the addressing sequence, IS built up in exactly the same way regardless of source. Although the first step in processing an interlaced input is generally to (effectively) de-interlace it. Thus notionally the system is natively progressive. As an aside that's actually what I was getting at when I mentioned the Barco monitor. I'm amazed to learn that 1080 CRT TV sets were ever sold in Europe... Or that they were common in the US. When Bob mentioned the Samsung set I actually thought he was talking about a Plasma model! And I honestly don't know of anyone, even anyone in the industry, who has an HD CRT display outside of an edit suite or studio.... And as another aside yes; this would most probably have been a natively 1080i set for the simple reason that, like the Barco studio monitor, it's a CRT based set and not a flat panel.... To get back to the point I agree that from a progressive source (film for instance telecined in progressive format) the net effect would indeed be precisely the same. The only possible argument here being that the process of deriving an interlaced signal from a non-interlaced source is unnecessary.... Theoretically degrading. I say theoretically because I seriously doubt if the process would produce any measurable let alone visible degradation. But if a processing step isn't necessary it makes no sense to introduce it! |
|
|
|
|
|
#249 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,589
|
I'm sure this has been covered, but just to remind folks, there's still an interesting selection of 1080 TVs that do not pixel map 1080 sources, but scale them up and overscan to prevent you seeing any dodgy edges of the picture. Another reason why full HD is not the be all and end all, why it's hard to tell the difference between a 768 set and a 1080 set. I know of none which do pixel mapping out of the box, you always have to ask for it in a menu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#250 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
I'm sure this has been covered, but just to remind folks, there's still an interesting selection of 1080 TVs that do not pixel map 1080 sources, but scale them up and overscan to prevent you seeing any dodgy edges of the picture. Another reason why full HD is not the be all and end all, why it's hard to tell the difference between a 768 set and a 1080 set. I know of none which do pixel mapping out of the box, you always have to ask for it in a menu.
Although it could be reduced nowadays there are still quite marked differences in the outputs from various types of camera. Monitors designed for broadcast use often have an underscan function to allow the full raster to be viewed; useful for preventing mic booms coming into shot (among other things) And theoretically any 1080 set that DID offer 1:1 mapping should have the edges of the panel physically masked off to account for the TV safe area. ...a '768' set should also be overscanned so as the very edges of the raster are NOT visible! |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:40.





