And lo on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:33:31 -0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake, saying:

>>> The existing TV is roughly 50cm x 50cm. (Obviously the *screen* has a  
>>> 4:3 aspect - but the *casing* doesn't!) After playing with my  
>>> measuring stick, it appears that a device with a width of 70cm or even  
>>> 80cm might plausibly fit into the gap. Depending on the aspect ratio  
>>> and the styling of the casing, that gives me a 20" - 30" screen size.
>>  Not forgetting that a lot of the TV's now have speakers situated below  
>> or behind the screen and not by the side, that can make a big  
>> difference in width. Give me the diagonal of the current one and I'll  
>> tell you the size of a 16:9 to match either current height or width.
>
> It's roughly 21" diagonally across the screen itself, or roughly 50cm  
> square in terms of actual casing.

For the 21" to get the same height you'd need a 26", to get the same width  
you're looking at a 19" in widescreen. As I said though watch the casing,  
if the speakers are thinner you can obviously go up a size.

>>> It seems that LCD TVs go up to absurd sizes,
>>  Nah that's plasma's which can hit wall size
>
> Well I don't know - they seem to go up to 40" and more...

LCD's seem to peak at the 42" mark then you switch to Plasma.

>>> How the *hell* am I supposed to tell which ones are any good?
>>  You can't, the HD-feed is reserved for the 42" plus ones with extra  
>> gubbins.
>
> Hmm... well *that's* helpful! :-P

Indeed hence my questioning of the staff.

>> On the other hand if all you're going to feed it is an SD source then  
>> it's actually a reasonable comparision method
>
> Not really. I'm fairly sure that you wouldn't normally have the degree  
> of ghosting and snow I've observed in shops. (It looks like they just  
> took an analogue signal and put it into a 200-way splitter and tried to  
> drive 200 TVs with it!)

There's a good reason for that :-(

>> Sony tend to have the quality, Panasonic the black levels, LG more  
>> extras, and Philips all three ;-)
>
> Mmm, interesting...

So far the Panasonic 32LZD85 is my top buy at this size. But if you're not  
bothered by 100MHz PC World (I know) are doing a special on the LG5700 for  
£500 and that's an HD Ready 1080p for 32".

>>> - What is HDMI?
>>  Essentially the HD equivalent of SCART in that in carries both video  
>> and audio in one cable
>
> But it's digital too, right?

Depends, in theory there's nothing stopping you from feeding an analogue  
source via HDMI.

>>> Is there a specific reason why the leads are £80 each?
>>  Some are better then others, some just say they are.
>
> ...but if it's digital then, by definition, it *doesn't matter* how good  
> the lead is. (So long as the S/N ratio isn't *absurdly* low.)
>
>>> - Are there any ways to obtain HD signals yet? (I gather BluRay  
>>> players are actually on sale now, but still prohibitively expensive.  
>>> Are there any other possible sources?)
>>  Scott's covered this too. Freesat is the only free main-stream source  
>> of HD signals, though from my last tally there's only about two set-top  
>> boxes and built-in televisions available (may well have jumped in the  
>> last month). SkyHD with its monthly subscription, or FreeView after the  
>> big switchover in 20xx is set to deallocate two muxes for HD  
>> broadcasting only - except I doubt any older freeview receivers will be  
>> able to decode the signals.
>
> My dad did ask me if our BT Vision box has an HDMI connection. I haven't  
> looked yet, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer...

A very quick search indicates that the answer may surprise you.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message