 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
