OK, so I had a look around, and it seems that HD-ready TVs have 
experienced a 10x price reduction since the last time I looked. In other 
words, they no longer cost more than a second-hand car, and it's 
actually feasible for ordinary people to buy them.

My mum's TV is... shagged. Both of the SCART sockets are defective, so 
you don't get any sound. (One of them only produces B/W pictures 
sometimes.) So I figured I might buy my mum a new TV for Christmas.

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.

It seems that LCD TVs go up to absurd sizes, with a price tag to match. 
But depending on where you shop, units of the sort of size I'm looking 
for seem to be much more reasonable in price.

There are, however, a few points I'd like to clarify.

- Some of the units claim a contrast ratio of 500:1. Some say 700:1. 
Others claim 1,000:1. Which is fair enough. But then some claim 
10,000:1. (And yet have similar or identical prices.) Am I *really* to 

*highly* questionable to me. And yet other units claim to have 15,000:1. 
One TV even said 30,000:1. Is that a typo or something??

- I _presume_ (since I haven't found one yet) that it is impossible to 
get a TV with full 1080 resolution that is only 30" across. Is that the 
case? (What, they figure you can't see details that small except on a 
larger device?)

- Trying to figure out which TV is going to give me a decent picture is 
maddeningly difficult. If you shop online, you can't *see* anything at 
all, so you just have the luminance, constrast ratio and response time 
to go at. (And the viewing angle - if that actually means anything.) If 
you go to a physical shop things are not much improved; all the TVs I've 
seen look terrible, most of them being driven by a simple RF signal over 
cheap coax cable. (!!) How the *hell* am I supposed to tell which ones 
are any good?

- What are the best brands to go for? (I have a Samsung computer monitor 
at home that works very well, so I've been tending to look mostly at 
Samsung. But I don't know if they're really the best.)

- Gotta love the way websites tell you a TV has audio connectors, but 
neglects to specify whether these are inputs or outputs! :-P

- What is HDMI? Does anything use it yet? Is there a specific reason why 


And of course, the million-dollar question:

- 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?)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> - Some of the units claim a contrast ratio of 500:1. Some say 700:1. 
> Others claim 1,000:1. Which is fair enough. But then some claim 
> 10,000:1. (And yet have similar or identical prices.) Am I *really* to 

> *highly* questionable to me. And yet other units claim to have 15,000:1. 
> One TV even said 30,000:1. Is that a typo or something??

The contrast ratio merely tells you how "black" a black screen really is.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

> - Some of the units claim a contrast ratio of 500:1. Some say 700:1. 
> Others claim 1,000:1. Which is fair enough.

Yep, that's the real contrast.

> But then some claim 10,000:1. (And yet have similar or identical prices.) 


That is "dynamic" contrast.  What it actually means is that when the TV 
detects the image is mostly dark, it turns down the backlight (and turns up 
each pixel a corresponding amount to keep the picture looking the same), in 
order to get darker blacks.  The number is mostly meaningless, because of 
course if the image is just plain black you could turn off the backlight 
altogether and get infinite "dynamic" contrast!

> - I _presume_ (since I haven't found one yet) that it is impossible to get 
> a TV with full 1080 resolution that is only 30" across. Is that the case? 
> (What, they figure you can't see details that small except on a larger 
> device?)

Exactly, I think in a "normal" room, anything below 37" you won't be able to 
tell the difference between 720p and 1080p (unless you sit really close).

> - Trying to figure out which TV is going to give me a decent picture is 
> maddeningly difficult. If you shop online, you can't *see* anything at 
> all, so you just have the luminance, constrast ratio and response time to 
> go at. (And the viewing angle - if that actually means anything.) If you 
> go to a physical shop things are not much improved; all the TVs I've seen 
> look terrible, most of them being driven by a simple RF signal over cheap 
> coax cable. (!!) How the *hell* am I supposed to tell which ones are any 
> good?

What are you going to be watching on it? Normal TV through coax cable? :-) 
TBH there isn't much difference between the manufacturers, most differences 
you see in the shop can be introduced or removed by playing about with the 
picture settings.  If you ever want to connect a PC (without a DVI output) 
up to it, check that it has a VGA input socket and that it will accept the 
full resolution (some 1080p sets only accept 1024x768 WTF!),

> - What are the best brands to go for? (I have a Samsung computer monitor 
> at home that works very well, so I've been tending to look mostly at 
> Samsung. But I don't know if they're really the best.)

Again, I think all are mostly the same, there are only 3 or 4 companies in 
the whole world that actually make the display panel itself, everyone else 
just buys these and puts their own electronics and plastic around it.

> - Gotta love the way websites tell you a TV has audio connectors, but 
> neglects to specify whether these are inputs or outputs! :-P

I usually go to the manufacturers site and download the user manual.

> - What is HDMI? Does anything use it yet? Is there a specific reason why 


HDMI is useful to connect your PC to the TV if it has a DVI output (DVI and 
HDMI are electrically the same, you just need a cheap converter cable). 
HDMI cables can be had for under a tenner if you look on amazon or ebay.

> - 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?)

For TV you can get a freesat receiver and dish for a one-off fee (like 
freeview but via satellite and has a few HD channels).  Or you can get Sky 
for a load more HD channels, but you will need a monthly subscription to get 
the HD channels.  Expect both of those to continue to add many more HD 
channels over the next few years.

Or buy a PS3 for 300 pounds, but standalone bluray players are down to under 
150 pounds now.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> - Some of the units claim a contrast ratio of 500:1. Some say 700:1. 
>> Others claim 1,000:1. Which is fair enough.
> 
> Yep, that's the real contrast.
> 
>> But then some claim 10,000:1. (And yet have similar or identical 
>> prices.) Am I *really* to believe that you can get 10x more contrast 

> 
> That is "dynamic" contrast.  What it actually means is that when the TV 
> detects the image is mostly dark, it turns down the backlight (and turns 
> up each pixel a corresponding amount to keep the picture looking the 
> same), in order to get darker blacks.  The number is mostly meaningless, 
> because of course if the image is just plain black you could turn off 
> the backlight altogether and get infinite "dynamic" contrast!

Riiight. That's cute...

> Exactly, I think in a "normal" room, anything below 37" you won't be 
> able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p (unless you sit 
> really close).

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.)

>> - Trying to figure out which TV is going to give me a decent picture 
>> is maddeningly difficult.
> 
> What are you going to be watching on it? Normal TV through coax cable? 
> :-)

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

(BTW, do we know why there's so much ghosting on the picture, even from 
a DVD? I thought SCART was supposed to be a good way to transport 
signals. Similarly, why do I get electric shocks every time I touch our 
video equipment?)

> TBH there isn't much difference between the manufacturers, most 
> differences you see in the shop can be introduced or removed by playing 
> about with the picture settings.

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

> If you ever want to connect a PC 
> (without a DVI output) up to it, check that it has a VGA input socket 
> and that it will accept the full resolution (some 1080p sets only accept 
> 1024x768 WTF!),

A lot of the TV descriptions seem to leave confusion as to whether 
you're buying a "TV" or a "monitor". Hmm... ;-)

>> - What are the best brands to go for?
> 
> Again, I think all are mostly the same, there are only 3 or 4 companies 
> in the whole world that actually make the display panel itself, everyone 
> else just buys these and puts their own electronics and plastic around it.

Heh, figures.

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.)

>> - Gotta love the way websites tell you a TV has audio connectors, but 
>> neglects to specify whether these are inputs or outputs! :-P
> 
> I usually go to the manufacturers site and download the user manual.

Yeah, I think that's probably the best way to get *accurate* data.

>> - What is HDMI? Does anything use it yet? Is there a specific reason 

> 
> HDMI is useful to connect your PC to the TV if it has a DVI output (DVI 
> and HDMI are electrically the same, you just need a cheap converter 
> cable). HDMI cables can be had for under a tenner if you look on amazon 
> or ebay.


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

> For TV you can get a freesat receiver and dish for a one-off fee (like 
> freeview but via satellite and has a few HD channels).

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

> Or you can get 
> Sky for a load more HD channels, but you will need a monthly 
> subscription to get the HD channels.  Expect both of those to continue 
> to add many more HD channels over the next few years.

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. (Face it, it's only a 
slightly higher resolution.) Basically I just want a non-broken TV! ;-)

> Or buy a PS3 for 300 pounds, but standalone bluray players are down to 
> under 150 pounds now.

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...

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:492fe869$1@news.povray.org...
>
> A lot of the TV descriptions seem to leave confusion as to whether you're 
> buying a "TV" or a "monitor". Hmm... ;-)
>

There's very little difference these days. My LCD TV has a VGA connector 
(along with a tonne of others) and my server uses it as a monitor.

Post a reply to this message

>> A lot of the TV descriptions seem to leave confusion as to whether 
>> you're buying a "TV" or a "monitor". Hmm... ;-)
> 
> There's very little difference these days. My LCD TV has a VGA connector 
> (along with a tonne of others) and my server uses it as a monitor.

Yeah. Originally a "monitor" lacked an RF demodulator and had a vastly 
superior colour grid compared to a "TV". (Because you're going to be 
sitting 3 feet away, not 13 feet away!) On an LCD, I guess there's not 
much difference.

Post a reply to this message

> 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

scott wrote:

>> 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.

That extra box can also record stuff to its internal harddrive too. ;-)

>> (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!

Because gold is one of the softest metals known to mankind?

>> 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.

They had two TVs in Curries, one showing SD and one showing HD. There 
*was* a visible difference, but it was pretty tiny. (They were both 
something like 30". I didn't press my nose up against them...)

Post a reply to this message

> That extra box can also record stuff to its internal harddrive too. ;-)

Ah I see :-)

> Because gold is one of the softest metals known to mankind?

Gold is "soft" in the sense that you can stretch it a long way without it 
breaking (the scientific word is ductile).  I don't see how that relates to 
how easily the gold plating is going to "come off" the metal core (which 
it's chemically bonded to).

> They had two TVs in Curries, one showing SD and one showing HD. There 
> *was* a visible difference, but it was pretty tiny.

Ah OK then, well the differnce I mostly notice is that when people are shown 
quite small on the screen (eg during a football match) on the SD you can't 
make out any features on their face, but on the HD you can.  And during the 
news etc when there is one big face on the screen, you can make out way more 
detail on the skin (not always a good thing!).  And of course text is much 
sharper.  But as with lots of things like this, you get used to the HD as 
being "normal" very quickly, until you see SD again!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 
> They had two TVs in Curries, one showing SD and one showing HD. There
> *was* a visible difference, but it was pretty tiny. (They were both
> something like 30". I didn't press my nose up against them...)

Similar TV's with almost similar (=difference exists only in resolution)
 signal given in?

-Aero

Post a reply to this message