> Riiight. That's cute...

I guess it's down to personal preference whether you like that dynamic 
contrast or not.  I think it makes some really dark scenes look better if 
you are watching in a dark room, but I can notice when the backlight is 
changing brightness and it annoys me.

> Can you typically tell the difference between progressive-scan and 
> interlaced? (Obviously I've been watching interlaced all my life, and I 
> don't think I've ever seen progressive-scan - except on computer 
> monitors.)

Not really (at least I've never noticed any difference), all TVs will 
display a progressive scan picture, it's the electronics that converts from 
the interlaced picture to a progressive scan one.  Some TVs are capable of 
accepting real 24 Hz video data (for watching films), so that might be a 
good feature to look for.  I guess they are really running at 48 Hz and just 
doubling the data, but it is certainly better than running at 50 or 60 Hz 
and trying to display 24 Hz data.

Also some newer TVs run at 100Hz or even 200Hz, this *does* make a 
difference to fast moving objects.  Even if you have a response time of 0 ms 
you will still get motion blur on LCDs because of the way they work (the 
pixel is always on, not just a burst of light like a CRT).  Doubling the 
refresh to 100Hz or higher by inserting extra black frames or using some 
clever interpolation certainly reduces blurring on fast moving text and 
images.

> Actually, normal TV from a digital receiver and then through a SCART 
> cable.

I think you'll find that most (all?) LCDs have a digital receiver built in, 
just plug the aerial straight into it - no need for an extra box or scart 
cables.

> (BTW, do we know why there's so much ghosting on the picture, even from a 
> DVD?

No, sounds like a dodgy TV to me, or maybe some earth-loop problem?

> Yeah, that's the other thing. Is that TV naff, or does it just need the 
> settings tweaking?

Find somewhere that will let you take it home for a few days and then take 
it back and exchange it for a different one.  I find that smaller 
independent shops seem to be much more up for this than places like Currys.

> So far, I've observed that the very low-price models have almost no 
> connectors at all, and the expensive ones have lots of them. It's the only 
> real difference I can see. (Other than trying to interpret the brightness 
> / contrast / speed ratings.)

Makes sense, I imagine the actual display panels cost about the same.  Oh 
and on that front, watch out for bright pixels!  I've not seen this with TVs 
yet, but some cheap manufacturers might be trying to shift cheap panels with 
bright pixels - make sure the place you buy it from will let you return it 
if you find one, once you've found one you will never stop looking at it!



Yeh well that figures.  I bought a long DVI->HDMI cable to connect my PC to 
the TV for under a tenner.  If you look on amazon there are loads to choose 
from.  HDMI is used to transport digital video and audio information, 
anything you buy that can give digital HD output will have this connector 
(all bluray players, HD satelite/cable boxes, PS3, some new DVD players 
etc).

> (Seriously... why would you put gold on a connector? The very first time 
> you use it all the gold will rub off!)

You put gold on there to stop the copper corroding that is in contact with 
the environment.  Why do you think the gold will rub off the first time you 
use it?  It's usually plated thick enough to last at least a few thousand 
connection cycles!

> [I don't know what freeview is either, but apparently some TVs have it 
> "built-in".]

Freeview is what your digital box receives and converts to analogue for your 
current TV.  New TVs do this internally.

> Yeah. If I was a serious HD nut I might do that. Actually, from what I've 
> seen, HD doesn't look any different to SD.

It won't look much different if you sit 4 metres away from a 20" TV.  But 
sit closer to a 40" TV and there will be a huge difference.

> My sister's boyfriend has a TV the size of a small star system and a PS3. 
> (And a Wii, actually.) I had a go at playing "CoD4" on it. It seemed weird 
> seeing such a vast picture all sharply in focus. Seemed a tad blurry 
> during movement though...

For most TVs the pixel response times are well below the display refresh 
rate now, so the only way to get less blur is to use higher refresh rates 
(eg 100 and 200 Hz) to try and mimic the CRT style of "impulse" drive.  THe 
problem only gets worse with larger TVs because the pixels are bigger and 
you therefore see more blurring.

Post a reply to this message