New HDTV

hobobob

hobobob

hobobob

Associate
Joined
19 Jun 2006
Posts
213
Location
Isle of Wight
Old Tv has just blown up so decided to get a new one and upgrade to HD.

Im looking for any advice. My preferences would be 42"+( the bigger the better) good picture quality, also a good surround system.

My budget is around £1,500 - £2,000 so please point me in the right direction if you know of any systems that have had good reviews.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Samsung SP50L7HX DLP

50 inch HD (1920x1080) DLP rear projection TV, costs around £1700 and they look amazing. Picture quality while running at the native res is incredible.



While your at it get me one :)
 
I'd guess for 42" you will be looking at plasma,
LCD's seem to be better re. price/perf below that point

Pioneer PDP-436 can be had for about 2K, gets good reviews, mate has one and he's a happy camper.

not sure you could get a good one that's bigger than 42" for the budget ?

Have a look at the review mags, no point looking at them in Currys cos they all look terrible.
 
Raikiri said:
Samsung SP50L7HX DLP 50 inch HD (1920x1080) DLP rear projection TV, costs around £1700 and they look amazing.
Click to expand...


I looked at rear proj, but they all looked really dark in the shop.

Are they OK at home then ?

..
 
bitslice said:
I looked at rear proj, but they all looked really dark in the shop.

Are they OK at home then ?

..
Click to expand...


I wish I knew :D

I saw it while in a shop and the picture on this one above all others was amazing, it also got 5/5 in what HiFi.
 
How big is your room & how far do you sit from your TV?

Get a TV too big for the environment and you'll always be dissapointed with the picture quality.

OK, so your mate may have a bigger one but you can rest in comfort knowing yours perfroms better.
 
MrLOL said:
which is the same resolution as 720P

1080i has to be downscaled, as hardly any HDTVs are 1080 pixels wide.
Click to expand...

720/1080 refers to the vertical resolution.

720P Sport looks fantastic. There is no real 1080 stuff yet. Yes, the odd bit is available though.
 
The 1080i shouldn't be downscaled only difference between 1080i and 1080p is the way the frames are rendered but 1080p is superior, but as said not many 1080p panels exist yet and are super expensive.

With Interlaced one half a frame is displayed then the other so each half is displayed 30 times each a second making it 60 frames

With progressive all 60 full frames are displayed

So it is said progressive is better for fast moving images such as sports, fast paced games such as racing and FPS. Although Interlaced can display it too the progressive will look better since the interlaced will appear more blurry.

I might be wrong but thats how it was explained to me.

So for fast moving images go for 720p and for things such as films and documentaries go for 1080i or just wait for 1080p and dont bother with either (which im gonna do)

Raikiri said:
Samsung SP50L7HX DLP

50 inch HD (1920x1080) DLP rear projection TV, costs around £1700 and they look amazing. Picture quality while running at the native res is incredible.

While your at it get me one :)
Click to expand...

Samsungs website says it runs at 1280x720

http://www.samsung.com/uk/products/television/dlp/sp50l7hxxxeu.asp?page=Specifications

peahead said:
Hi

checkout the new hitachi 42" pd9700 plasma its had some cracking reviews and has a great selection of connection options and has a new 1080 alas panel.

http://www.hitachidigitalmedia.com/brochures/en_GB/42pd9700_datasheet.pdf
Click to expand...

Anyone know why it has a weird resolution of 1024x1080? I thought true 1080 HD panels were 1920x1080?

Edit: after reading this review seems 1080p isn't worth it at the moment. Thought this might be useful for people wondering whether to splurge out now or wait for 1080p.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6361600-1.html
 
Last edited:
Interlaced video at the same framerate as progressive is better for movement though it doesn't look as sharp.

For example pal tv is at 25fps, 50 half verticle res pictures (fields) are shown in 1 second which gives you more movement than 25 progressive frames a second but the resolution is lower. If the progressive version used all the 50 fields as frames though it would be better for movement.

Of course for games consoles progressive is always better than interlaced because interlacing halves the framerate and decreases verticle resolution.
 
Last edited:
Your probably right just seemed to make more sense that progressive is better for movement since the full frame is rendered as opposed to 2 halves to make a whole.
 
It is if better all the frames are used but at the same framerate interlaced is better. You see what sometimes happens is that they discard half the frames to make progressive instead of rendering all the frames either to save time/space/bandwidth. If you assume that the progressive video will be 50fps though it will be better than the interlaced 25fps that sd is in.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom