 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:54:18 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
spake, saying:
> 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.
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 seems that LCD TVs go up to absurd sizes,
Nah that's plasma's which can hit wall size
> - 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?)
As mentioned by me elsewhere [cough see signature] you're unlikely to find
any TVs below 32" at 1080.
> - 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?
You can't, the HD-feed is reserved for the 42" plus ones with extra
gubbins. On the other hand if all you're going to feed it is an SD source
then it's actually a reasonable comparision method
> - 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.)
Sony tend to have the quality, Panasonic the black levels, LG more extras,
and Philips all three ;-)
> - Gotta love the way websites tell you a TV has audio connectors, but
> neglects to specify whether these are inputs or outputs! :-P
As Scott said ignore the web-dumbdown and go straight for the manual.
> - What is HDMI?
Essentially the HD equivalent of SCART in that in carries both video and
audio in one cable
> Does anything use it yet?
Yes pretty much every HD source
> Is there a specific reason why the leads are £80 each?
Some are better then others, some just say they are.
> 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?)
>
> (So, that'd be, what, a £650,000 question then? ;-) )
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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> 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!
>
Minor note on this though. With mine at least (which is a fairly big
one), I find watching SD over the HD cables makes for a grainier
picture. Don't ask me why.. Something about how it gets encoded from the
cable box or how the TV handles it once it has it, but the "coax"
connector worse "far" better for SD than does any of the high def
cables. In contrast, of course, the opposite is true when using the true
HD signals.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> It seems that LCD TVs go up to absurd sizes, with a price tag to match.
Having just shopped around for and bought one of these, I can answer some
of
these questions...
> - 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
Part of it is the kind of glass they put in front of the LCD. Some of the
Samsungs, for example, go from 10,000:1 to 40,000:1 by putting a shiny
tinted glass in front instead of a matte glass. You'll probably get more
glare with the higher contrast ratios if it's in a bright room.
> - Gotta love the way websites tell you a TV has audio connectors, but n
eglects to specify whether these are inputs or outputs! :-P
Probably inputs, with one being outputs. That's so you can connect your V
CR,
your video game, your DVD player, etc to the TV. Why would you need lots
of
outputs?
> - 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?)
You can get a monitor like that, but it won't have a tuner built in. And
yes, on my 46" HDTV (1080p), it's hard to see all the pixels standing a f
oot
away. Seriously, compare your current computer display's pixels-per-cm to
the 30" 720p display and see.
> - 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'v
e
> seen look terrible, most of them being driven by a simple RF signal ove
r
> cheap coax cable. (!!) How the *hell* am I supposed to tell which ones
> are any good?
Go to amazon.com and read the reviews by people who actually already boug
ht
it. Or go to a better store where they're actually interested in selling
them. If you're spending $2000 on one, drive to London and look or someth
ing.
> - What are the best brands to go for? (I have a Samsung computer monito
r
> 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.)
Dunno. Mine is nice. Many of the differences is stuff you're not likely t
o
use - does it have a USB port where you can plug in a camera and look at
the
images? Does it have an ethernet port that will pick up local weather
reports and put them on screen? Does it have a connector that plugs into
the
bracket that holds the thing to the wall so you can turn it left and righ
t
with the remote control? Does it have (WTF) a recipe book built in?
> - What is HDMI? Does anything use it yet? Is there a specific reason wh
y
HDMI is basically DVI (digital video) plus sound on the same cable. It's
$80
because they can. Radio Shack (the fast food store of electronics around
here) has cables for $20; you can get the same length "monster" cables fo
r
$150. Shop around. It's marketing.
> 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?)
Computers. Video games. Cable TV here carries some HD channels. Satellite
dishes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 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 monito
rs.)
Yes, on fast-moving scenes. But not a lot.
> signals. Similarly, why do I get electric shocks every time I touch our
> video equipment?)
Stuff's broken? :-)
> A lot of the TV descriptions seem to leave confusion as to whether
> you're buying a "TV" or a "monitor". Hmm... ;-)
Works for both. Generally a "monitor" won't have a tuner built in.
> 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.)
Actually, the larger ones often have 120Hz refresh rates, with some wild
software inside that figures out what's moving and interpolates it into
actual new frames. Which is cool. And mind-boggling to someone who was
programming when JPEG decoding took special hardware, let along real-time
MPEG-style motion detection. That *does* make a visible difference, at le
ast
for some things.
hy
> would you put gold on a connector? The very first time you use it all
> the gold will rub off!)
It conducts better. And it never corrodes, so it'll keep conducting bette
r.
And it doesn't rub off unless you plug it in and out a few hundred times.
> 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.
I thought that too, until I compared a SD channel with the same thing on
HD.
It's actually really quite a startling difference.
> seemed weird seeing such a vast picture all sharply in focus.
Well, that's the difference between SD and HD.
> Seemed a tad blurry during movement though...
That's the other problem. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Dunno. Mine is nice. Many of the differences is stuff you're not likely
> to use - does it have a USB port where you can plug in a camera and look
> at the images? Does it have an ethernet port that will pick up local
> weather reports and put them on screen? Does it have a connector that
> plugs into the bracket that holds the thing to the wall so you can turn
> it left and right with the remote control? Does it have (WTF) a recipe
> book built in?
OK, wait... back up a sec... RIGHT THERE!!
Recipe...book...?
WHAT
THE
HELL?!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
>> 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...
>> 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
> 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!)
> Sony tend to have the quality, Panasonic the black levels, LG more
> extras, and Philips all three ;-)
Mmm, interesting...
>> - 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?
>> 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...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Similarly, why do I get electric shocks every time I touch
>> our video equipment?)
>
> Stuff's broken? :-)
...oh. O_O
>> A lot of the TV descriptions seem to leave confusion as to whether
>> you're buying a "TV" or a "monitor". Hmm... ;-)
>
> Works for both. Generally a "monitor" won't have a tuner built in.
Indeed. Except most signals aren't RF-modulated any more anyway. ;-)
>> 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.)
>
> Actually, the larger ones often have 120Hz refresh rates.
None of the ones I've looked at have this. Some of the bigger ones do,
but not the ones I'm looking to buy.
Having seen a few in the shop, there's absolutely no visible difference
at all between a normal 50 Hz TV and a 200 Hz TV right next to it
showing the same signal. (There *was*, however, a 4x price difference.)
>> why would you put gold on a connector? The very first time you use it
>> all the gold will rub off!)
>
> It conducts better. And it never corrodes, so it'll keep conducting
> better. And it doesn't rub off unless you plug it in and out a few
> hundred times.
Better... than what?
The other day I was shocked to discover that copper actually conducts
*better* than gold. (!!) That's *pure* copper, of course. The nice thing
about gold is that it doesn't corrode. Copper certainly does...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:54:18 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
> spake, saying:
>> - What is HDMI?
>
> Essentially the HD equivalent of SCART in that in carries both video and
> audio in one cable
And the DRM, don't forget that... You can't use HDCP over a different kind
of connection.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:493063a7$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Well I don't know - they seem to go up to 40" and more...
>
You can get plasmas over 100". I haven't seen an LCD over 50"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spscheele/2204073854/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail" <gail (at) sql in the wild (dot) co [dot] za> wrote:
> You can get plasmas over 100". I haven't seen an LCD over 50"
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/spscheele/2204073854/
I saw one of those in a shop. I don't think they were using 1080p. Looked
like more. I stood right next to it and could still see detail, but quite
shortly I started feeling dizzy :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
