 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
As you say, I think it depends on how your TV up-scales the SD signal, some
certainly do a better job than others. I suspect for a "good" result, the
TV needs to blur/hide the low-resolution of the SD signal, rather than
trying to display it as sharp as possible (while that will give the most
accurate results, it also most accurately shows you how bad the original
signal is!).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.)
>
> Hmm. I could see the difference. Maybe you need an appropriate signal. Or
> maybe I was fooling myself. :-)
No, I saw the difference too. IIRC the demo was some scrolling credits
(like at the end of a film) but scrolling pretty quickly. The screen was
actually split, the left half was standard 50Hz and the right 200Hz. The
difference was the left side was a blur, the right side sharp as a CRT :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You can get plasmas over 100". I haven't seen an LCD over 50"
http://www.techdigest.tv/2008/10/sharps_108inch.html
I think it costs like $100k and only available in Japan...
You can also get a 65" one for a more moderate price (I think around 3000
pounds) - we have one in our UK office in the conference room it's HUGE!
What you have to remember with LCD, is the actual glass the electronic
circuits are made on, is 0.7mm thick. You try transporting or working on a
sheet of glass that thin and 108" diagonal!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
What you describe is the type of anti-reflection (AR) and anti-glare (AG)
coating that is applied to the front polariser. AFAIK no LCD has an extra
sheet of glass infront of the LCD, all have the front polariser exposed to
touch if you want to.
In the past, all LCDs were designed with AR and AG coatings to stop specular
reflections that bugged CRTs so badly. But a few years ago some marketing
guru realised that if you took off the AR coating some people actually
thought it looked "better" because it looked shinier. It didn't matter that
you would end up seeing a direct reflection of your window or lights in the
TV at home, it looked shinier in the shop so it sold more units.
AR and AG coatings don't affect the contrast ratio that you see quoted in
the specs (these must all be measured in a totally black room with no
ambient light), but in real life situations it will be different.
Basically, if you are going to be watching in a dark room with no direct
light sources it won't make any difference. But if you are going to be
watching in a bright room with a window and several lights, get the AGAR
coating (the non-shiny one), it will look much better than a CRT under
bright lights.
FWIW I took my LCD to my mum's house once and put it next to her CRT. When
there was direct sunlight shining on both of them the CRT was all but
unreadable, but with the LCD you could hardly notice which part was in sun
and which part wasn't, the "real life" contrast was definitely way better on
the LCD, even if the specs disagreed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:33:31 -0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> - 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.
But just to clarify, what travels along the actual HDMI cable must be
digital, it is exactly the same as the digital part of a normal PC DVI
cable*, just with the option of digital audio data too. Of course as Phil
said there is nothing to stop you converting some crappy analogue signal to
digital and pumping it along the HDMI cable.
* OK I know most DVI cables actually have analogue and digital pins+wires,
but HDMI cables don't
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
news:4933aa84$1@news.povray.org...
>> You can get plasmas over 100". I haven't seen an LCD over 50"
>
> http://www.techdigest.tv/2008/10/sharps_108inch.html
>
> I think it costs like $100k and only available in Japan...
>
I've seen a 108" on sale on an australian site, but no where else.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:28:04 +0200, "Gail" <gail (at) sql in the wild (dot) co
[dot] za> wrote:
>
>"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
>news:4933aa84$1@news.povray.org...
>>> You can get plasmas over 100". I haven't seen an LCD over 50"
>>
>> http://www.techdigest.tv/2008/10/sharps_108inch.html
>>
>> I think it costs like $100k and only available in Japan...
>>
>
>I've seen a 108" on sale on an australian site, but no where else.
T. Pratchett had the right idea. All Australian politicians, when taking office,
go straight to goal. It saves the bother later.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> But just to clarify, what travels along the actual HDMI cable must be
> digital,
More precisely, it's an analog signal that gets interpreted as a digital
signal at the other end. Hence, the cable needs to preserve enough of the
analog signal that the digital signal gets there reliably. Which is where
the quality comes in to it.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> In the past, all LCDs were designed with AR and AG coatings to stop
> specular reflections that bugged CRTs so badly. But a few years ago
> some marketing guru realised that if you took off the AR coating some
> people actually thought it looked "better" because it looked shinier.
> It didn't matter that you would end up seeing a direct reflection of
> your window or lights in the TV at home, it looked shinier in the shop
> so it sold more units.
>
Is this why most laptops today have a goddamn mirror-display?
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
