# Question about HD and SD



## Glen

Hi guys. need your advice. got my Sony 40inch U series Bravia tv today, and tbh i'm not impressed. I have my sky digibox and TiVo connected via good old scart, but is there a way i can upscale the picture as at the moment i'm thinking of taking the tele back. Shame really as its a gorgeous set and runs my 360 like a dream. All advice is welcome and needed.

Thanks


----------



## mikerr

You probably need to try mode0 if you haven't already.

You can set it up yourself by following  these instructions 
or get a preconfigured drive from the usual suspects with it already setup.


----------



## Ian_m

Without wanting to upset you (and start a flame war), I think the issues are:

- Sony
- LCD
- SD source

The latest Sony LCD's are a step backwards and have been getting quite slamming reviews compared to other manufacturers LCDs TV's and even older Sony models. Even using a HD source they have "motion blur" and using an SD source have "lack of clarity becoming and incoherent, smeary mess" (Home Cinema Choice). The reviewers are quite shocked that Sony should release a product like this.

Anyway the solution my mate tried and produced a nice picture on his Sony 42" LCD was a scaler. He borrowed this one http://www.convergent-av.co.uk/lu_proscaler.html (or previous model) and it gave a quite good SD acceptable picture. Unfortunately the scaler had to go back and he moved to Canada so set was sold and that was that.


----------



## TCM2007

Upgrade to Sky HD?


----------



## Automan

I did not realise that all current Sony LCD's TV's have the actual panels made by Samsung...

Automan.


----------



## afrokiwi

I had the same problem when i brought my 40 LCD Samsung ... HD input was unreal but Tivo was appalling. I did the mode 0 and disc upgrade and i have to say the picture is fine ... not HD quality but still very good.

I also had to play with the colour / contrast settings .... do a search on the avforums for the make and model of your TV ... they have some good advice.


----------



## martink0646

I recently (6 months ago) had to replace a 1st Gen Plasma monitor (8 years old, 20,000+ hours). I wanted to look at LCD for a number of reasons; cost, weight, power consumption & heat output. I borrowed a 40" panel from a friend & was shocked at how bad it was at showing TiVo (mode0) SD material, most noticeably grain & smear on moving objects. This just confirmed to me that a plasma was still the way to go, especially if you still have a TiVo & plan to have one for the foreseeable future.

I bought a cheap (£599) 42" Philips & I am delighted with the result. It's not full HD (1080p) but since my only HD source is BBC HD running at 1080i that is no problem for me.

At my cost level there was no comparison, plasma all the way! I don't know about higher price levels.

Martin


----------



## ericd121

martink0646 said:


> I bought a cheap (£599) 42" Philips & I am delighted with the result. It's not full HD (1080p) but since my only HD source is BBC HD running at 1080i that is no problem for me.


Martin, could you give us the model number, and if poss, the vendor for this?


----------



## martink0646

ericd121 said:


> Martin, could you give us the model number, and if poss, the vendor for this?


Hi Eric,

I have attached the link to the item below.

http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/store/[email protected]@@@[email protected]@@@&BV_EngineID=ccddadedikfflhgcflgceggdhhmdgmh.0&page=Product&fm=12&sm=0&tm=0&sku=121885&category_oid=#productInformationSection

As you can see, I got it from Currys. I wouldn't normally buy from them but my hands were tied to the DSG Group by my insurance company which was (kindly!!??) providing the funds in the form of vouchers. I went to Currys & PC World & found this model at £599. It's obviously gone up in price as I think I bought during a promo weekend.

I have just looked online & Dixons (Web only) are doing it for £578.99.

http://www.dixons.co.uk/product.php?sku=121885&camp_id=froogle

One point to mention about the pic in the DSG group's generic websites for this model. It looks grey, but it is most definitely a piano black finish that is a magnet for fingerprints. A nightmare with a 4 year old with a penchant for touching screens

As I said above I can definitely recommend this for mode0 TiVo viewing. It's not state of the art so you could probably find better for HD movies & gaming but I have neither at the mo so the SD performance was paramount & personally, I just can't get on with LCD screens.

Martin


----------



## Automan

Manuals etc for that TV are at http://www.p4c.philips.com/cgi-bin/dcbint/cpindex.pl?ctn=42PFP5532D/05&slg=ENG&scy=GB

Automan.


----------



## cyril

Ian_m said:


> Without wanting to upset you (and start a flame war), I think the issues are:
> 
> - Sony
> - LCD
> - SD source
> 
> The latest Sony LCD's are a step backwards and have been getting quite slamming reviews compared to other manufacturers LCDs TV's and even older Sony models. Even using a HD source they have "motion blur" and using an SD source have "lack of clarity becoming and incoherent, smeary mess" (Home Cinema Choice). The reviewers are quite shocked that Sony should release a product like this.
> 
> Anyway the solution my mate tried and produced a nice picture on his Sony 42" LCD was a scaler. He borrowed this one http://www.convergent-av.co.uk/lu_proscaler.html (or previous model) and it gave a quite good SD acceptable picture. Unfortunately the scaler had to go back and he moved to Canada so set was sold and that was that.


Agreed.
Get a plasma -the Kuro Pioneer and Panasonic PF9/10, PH9/10 are the best on the market under £4k for SD viewing at the moment as Fujitsu has left the UK market.


----------



## ericd121

Thanks for the info, Martin (and the link, Automan).

I, too, haven't been impressed with LCD screens as tellys, so alternatives are always of interest.

*[Edit]*


martink0646 said:


> I bought a cheap (£599) 42" Philips & I am delighted with the result. It's not full HD (1080p) but since my only HD source is BBC HD running at 1080i that is no problem for me.


*Reading the manual (PDF)* (I have no life), it appears that this model does support 1080p.
On page 43, it has a table labelled *Supported input formats* listing *720p 1080i 1080p* though I've probably misread it.


----------



## TCM2007

I think with HD fixed pixel displays, you need a great scaler to be able to get good SD. Some top end TVs, like the ones Cyril lists, have that. I use my PC to do the job.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I use my PC to do the job.


Is that why you uniquely do not seem to believe a Plasma HD television is clearly better than an LCD one for use with the SD output from a Tivo TCM?


----------



## martink0646

TCM2007 said:


> I think with HD fixed pixel displays, you need a great scaler to be able to get good SD. Some top end TVs, like the ones Cyril lists, have that. I use my PC to do the job.


TCM, could you explain that for me? Do you use your PC to scale & then send it on to a display or is it for viewing on your PC?

Martin


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Is that why you uniquely do not seem to believe a Plasma HD television is clearly better than an LCD one for use with the SD output from a Tivo TCM?


I'm not getting into that argument again Pete, especially not with someone who has 4:3 CRT. It would be like arguing about the relative merits of an Audi and a BMW with a Lada owner.


----------



## TCM2007

martink0646 said:


> TCM, could you explain that for me? Do you use your PC to scale & then send it on to a display or is it for viewing on your PC?
> 
> Martin


I have what our America cousins call a "Home Theater PC" - a PC wired directly to my TVs HDMI (in fact in my case DVI) socket. Recorded TV from my PC's hard drive is deinterlaced and scaled from 720 x 576 (or whatever it happens to be) to the TV's native 1280 x 720 by a combination of the PC's software and nVidia graphics card (I'm a bit hazy on which bit actually does the scaling). The TV does no scaling or deinterlacing, it just displays the incoming signal as is.

To my eyes the result for SD is much better then the TVs attempts to do the same things from an RGB source (TiVo, or satellite directly). I think it's also better than SD TV from a SkyHD box, whether scaled in the Sky box or TV.

You see a smooth, natural image, with far less obvious pixellation and MPEG artifacting.


----------



## Automan

If budget permits I would get one with a panel that is actually 1920x1080 pixels so when showing 1080i or 1080p the TV has to perform no pixel maths to display a image.

Not the case with the output of a Tivo of course, well not a UK anyway 

Automan.


----------



## Sneals2000

Automan said:


> If budget permits I would get one with a panel that is actually 1920x1080 pixels so when showing 1080i or 1080p the TV has to perform no pixel maths to display a image.
> 
> Not the case with the output of a Tivo of course, well not a UK anyway
> 
> Automan.


Also worth remembering that even if you have a "Full 1080/Full HD" 1920x1080 panel and are feeding it 1920x1080i or 1920x1080p unless you are in a 1:1 or "Full Pixel" mode - which is not usually the default - you are still watching a scaled image... Reason why is that most flat panel displays simulate the overscan that was present on CRTs and thus crop the top/bottom/left/right of the full 1080i/1080p image and scale the result - so that you don't see the ragged edges that many TV sources (particularly those upscaled from SD) still have.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

This seems to be a very complicated subject.

I am toying with the idea of getting a new TV, but the differences within (what I thought was) a single technology are pretty complicated.

I had just assumed that one plasma is the same as another is the same as another, a little research tells me nothing could be further from the truth.

I think my purchase is going to have to wait a while because I have alot of learning to do, but one quick question if I may.

If I get a 720p instead of 1080p, probably 42", will the difference be noticeable (for arguments sake let's say the source is HD-DVD or BR)


----------



## Automan

If you are viewing material made in 1080i/p you will see the difference if only viewed on a 720p panel.

Some panels be they LCD or Plasma are also better than others.

Some plasma have burning issues, typically older cheaper ones.

Some LCD's can have poor backlighting and of course issues with fast moving action.

Also they make your electricity meter go faster 

Automan.



Raisltin Majere said:


> This seems to be a very complicated subject.
> 
> I am toying with the idea of getting a new TV, but the differences within (what I thought was) a single technology are pretty complicated.
> 
> I had just assumed that one plasma is the same as another is the same as another, a little research tells me nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> I think my purchase is going to have to wait a while because I have alot of learning to do, but one quick question if I may.
> 
> If I get a 720p instead of 1080p, probably 42", will the difference be noticeable (for arguments sake let's say the source is HD-DVD or BR)


----------



## TCM2007

If you can afford it, getting a panel which supports 1080p at 24 frames per second (1080p/24, often given a silly tradename by the manufacturers) is as close to futureproof as you can currently get. Anything else, while it may be a great TV, is not going to make the best of all the input devices available.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Thanks both.

I had read that the difference is only really noticable on a "big" TV, but nobody really says what they mean by "big". I currently have a 32" CRT so 42" is big to me, probably not to somebody with a 50" set.

I would rather have 1080p but there is a quite considerable leap in prices between them and 720p, I don;t mind paying it if the difference is worth it.

Thanks again.


----------



## Sneals2000

As TCM2007 says - if you are going to be watching a lot of 24p content (BluRay mainly) then a TV which accepts 1080/24p (or correctly de-interlaces it from 1080/60i - which is rarer) AND displays it at a multiple of 24Hz (and not using 3:2 at 60Hz) is something worth having.

Whilst European broadcasters and DVD releases show 24p material (i.e. movies and US TV series) sped up to 25p, and shoot 25p for domestic film and drama, with 25p displayed as 2:2 50i or 50p - BluRay in Europe and the US is 24p only for movies, and thus output at 24p, 60i or 60p with the latter two options having 3:2 pulldown which creates a very noticable judder on movement. If you have a display that can run at 72Hz, 96Hz or 120Hz with 3:3, 4:4 or 5:5 display of 24p content you don't have the judder you normally get at 60Hz.

Whether a 1920x1080, 1366x768, 1280x720, 1024x1080, 1024x1024 or 1024x720 panel is better for you at the screen size and viewing distance you are watching from I'll leave to others to debate - there is no right or wrong answer. Similarly plasma vs LCD is a matter of much debate.


----------



## Ian_m

The order you should be deciding things in is (according to the home cinema mags is):-

1. Contrast ratio.
2. Colour accuracy.
3. 24p support.
4. Native panel resolution.

Whilst I agree on that contrast ratio is actually the most important display aspect after seeing lots of flat panel displays side by side and colour accuracy and 24p are also important I am still having major "issues" that native panel resolution is not so important as the other three.

I have a "gut feeling" that buying anything less than 1920x1080 pixels is not the thing to do. This is despite on Saturday watching Blu-Ray 24p film and 25p video source on a side by side Pioneer PDP-LX508 (1920 x 1080, 20,000:1 contrast at £3,500) and Pioneer PDP-508 (1366 x 768, 16,000:1 contrast at £2,000) and at 3m and greater distance both pictures looked the same. I was allowed to "callibrate" both screens to same brightness so that grey/white test squares looked the same. The 508 looked slightly brighter, probably as pixels are larger, but at 3m you couldn't make out individual pixels. The LX508 looked slightly sharper at 3m on some finer details usually a bright thin objects against dark background (good one is someone in black suit playing a flute), but in my eyes maybe not £1,500 worth of difference. Both displays looked same displaying a textured surface ie a bright geen crumpled dress, Dover cliffs, wavy surface of the sea, spray of breaking waves. Fantastic Four film looked identical especially the fast moving scenes.

I was told the 1920 x 1080 is really for people who insist they must have a 1920 x 1080 panel @ 50" size as at "normal" viewing distances it is not necessary. I have to agree with this after have tried it and seen it with my own eyes but it still "feels" wrong. (even the £1,500 cost difference isn't instantly swaying me).

I know people will argue that you must get 1920 x 1080 pixels (maybe that is true with LCD) but I am not too sure that is necessary with plasma at suitable viewing distance. Obviously if I repeated the above test and set at 2m distance, you could make out the 1366x768 individual pixels and even the 1920x1080 pixels leaning forward a bit, but 2m is realy "imposingly" close for a 50" display and you have a tendancy to move slightly further back as the screen appears "un-naturally too close". I found anyhing in the 3 - 6m range (for 50" display) perfectly acceptable. (Hint when going to see these displays in viewing rooms or shops take a tape measure so you can sit at the distance you would normally sit if you had such a display at home).

There was also a 46" new model Sony LCD (46W3000 I think) to compare against and in my eyes was a total disaster. I couldn't get the grey/white calibration squares "even" ie if you matched the brightest square against the Pioneer plasma the bottom couple of dark grey squares were non existant. Or if you got a display of the darker squares the video was too bright and I am sure colours being incorrect compared to when the brightness was turned down. The breaking waves display was funny just bluring into a mess of off white smudge rather than individual drops and sprays. It was turned off during the rest of my fiddling as being a distraction in being too easy to "take the p*ss" out of.

I am going to a another demo this Thursday (baby sitter permitting ) to see the two Pioneer displays fed from various makes of Blu-Ray player including PS3 to see if there are picture differences. I understand the latest Panasonic Blu-Ray player give a noticable better picture than all other players. Not too sure how a device that just reads the bits off a disk can give a better picture, but apparently it can


----------



## terryeden

To paraphrase, it's the bit-rate, stupid.

A UK DVB-T broadcast at 576p with a high bit-rate will look better than a 1080p broadcast with a lousy bit-rate. Compression artefacts, mosquito noise, poor fading etc all play a more active part in picture quality than sheer pixels.

Case in point. I "obtained" a DivX of an episode of 24. Resolution was something like 400*272 and it had a very high bit-rate and efficient codec. Blown up to 234cm on my projector and scaled to 720p the picture was amazing, crisp, detailed (I could count the hairs on Kim's head) and free of the big macro-blocks that you usually see on compressed video.

I compared with a 576p feed of a low bit-rate channel (BBC News 24, IIRC) - disastrous. What was gained in resolution was lost in noise and artefacts.

At 3 - 4 metres, I really doubt anyone can tell between 720p and 1080p.
Take a look at
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
and
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Get a nice 32" 720p TV for everyday watching at 3 - 4 metres. Spend what you save on a 1080p projector for big screen viewing.


----------



## davidshack

Raisltin Majere said:


> Thanks both.
> 
> I had read that the difference is only really noticable on a "big" TV, but nobody really says what they mean by "big". I currently have a 32" CRT so 42" is big to me, probably not to somebody with a 50" set.


Careful: screen "sizes" have hidden pitfalls!

If your 32" CRT is the traditional 4:3 then the picture of a new 42" set will probably not seem any bigger to you, because it will be in a different format, 16:9. The *height* of the picture will be about the same. It is wider, sure, but the apparent size of objects/heads/etc depends on their height on screen, not their width. Take a tape measure and check screens out before buying, measuring height and width rather than diagonally.

The screen size you choose shouldn't be because "that will fit" (though life can dictate that!) but should always be based on the _viewing distance_ - ie how far away you are from the screen. Your eyes have a natural viewing angle; you should sit so this matches the size of screen.

(This will have been more obvious to you in a cinema, where too close or too distant is more noticeably uncomfortable: but why make your eyes work harder at home?)

David


----------



## Ian_m

terryeden said:


> At 3 - 4 metres, I really doubt anyone can tell between 720p and 1080p.
> Take a look at
> http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
> and
> http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html


Well that nicely backs up what I saw in practice that at less than 10ft with a 50" screen you can start to see the differences between 1080p and 720p

I was also told that the reason I could see very slight differences at 3m was because the screens were next to each other (and knew which was which, I could read the price label very very clearly at 3m). If I had been shown first one screen then the other (and not been told what to look for eg bright thin objects against dark background) I would not have been able to tell which was which.


----------



## TCM2007

It's not just the resolution per se; a 1080 screen can display a SkyHD or Blu-ray 1080 image without scaling, which must have some image quality benefits.

I agree though that the differences are small, and without an A-B comparison you won't be forver looking at a 720p set and regretting it. I know, I have one!


----------



## Ian_m

TCM2007 said:


> I agree though that the differences are small, and without an A-B comparison you won't be forver looking at a 720p set and regretting it. I know, I have one!


But equally you could be regretting paying an extra £1,500 for resolution you can't see


----------



## TCM2007

I have a LX508 on order, so I hope not!


----------



## Raisltin Majere

terryeden said:


> At 3 - 4 metres, I really doubt anyone can tell between 720p and 1080p.
> Take a look at
> http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
> and
> http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
> 
> Get a nice 32" 720p TV for everyday watching at 3 - 4 metres. Spend what you save on a 1080p projector for big screen viewing.


I'm about 8ft away from the telly, which is around the point that the benefits of a 720p telly will become "fully apparent" on a 42" tv by the looks of the chart you have linked to unless I've misunderstood.

If I get a 32" it would have to be LCD, wouldn't it? I have no idea why, but I don't like LCDs.

Thanks to everyone for the info, I won;t pretend I completely understand all of it, but with a little further research I'm sure it will all help me make a decision.


----------



## Ian_m

Raisltin Majere said:


> If I get a 32" it would have to be LCD, wouldn't it? I have no idea why, but I don't like LCDs.


Some LCD comments I have picked up whilst looking...

- DSG group (Currys etc) make most profit from LCD TV's so don't push plasma displays.
- The LCD TV's in the big store look acceptable under the stores bright lights, but look considerably different when you get home. That is unless you watch TV in a very bright room.
- In LCD's the electronics goes into covering up the deficiencies of the the display technology. In plasma the electronics goes into getting the best picture.
- Why do you think high end audio/TV shops only have plasma's in their viewing rooms ?


----------



## mccg

It's LCD only below 42" (except for an old Sony model I believe, but that was 480p!)
That's why I went for a 42" Panasonic plasma (viewing from about 7ft).
It's "only" 1024x768, and that is high enough. 576i source is fine, 720p and 1080i are indistinquishable.

My LCD PC monitor is 20", 1600x1200, but from 7ft you can't tell the difference, except for the lesser quality of LCD for moving pictures 
LCD is fine for PC use, just not (yet) for TV. IMHO of course.


----------



## Ian_m

TCM2007 said:


> I have a LX508 on order, so I hope not!


 Just had an e-mail from my mate in the display biz, look at the new Panasonic TH-42PZ85 (42" £1,300) and TH-46PZ85 (46" £1,500) + forthcoming 50" version before I bought a Pioneer. All 1920x1080 and 30,000:1 contrast and proper 24p support. 42" & 46" freely available now in stock. He has a 46" one on trial (strange size 46").

Contrast ratio is certainly as good as Pioneer (he says), though black is not quite as black as Pioneer + some slight picture issues. Normal SD might be @ 100Hz as opposed to Pioneers @ 75Hz.

Just looked on Panasonics UK site, you can download the manual for the 42" and 46" version (19MB) to check spec.

46" would suit me better than 50" as my most common viewing distance would be just under 3m to possibly 4.5m. I can feel my wallet starting to open.... (just need to finish bathroom , then new TV is next job )

Update: He actually hasn't got a 46PZ85, only a 42PZ85. The 46" is on order, delivery next week. The 50" is 50PX85 due in UK in mid April, approx price £1,700. I have actually seen the 42PZ85 and 50PZ85 in Florida in February, looked good, but was unable to make any judgement as they were not supplied with HD source (only 480i) and were just all piled high in a WallMart.


----------



## terryeden

TBH, for &#163;1,500 I'd buy a Projector and screen and spend the other &#163;700ish on a smaller TV for everyday viewing.

The big screen thrill is amazing - especially if you watch regular programs on a regular TV.


----------



## Pete77

davidshack said:


> If your 32" CRT is the traditional 4:3 then the picture of a new 42" set will probably not seem any bigger to you


I would be interested if you could point me to any 32" CRT sets that have a 4:3 aspect ratio!


----------



## Pete77

Ian_m said:


> Update: He actually hasn't got a 46PZ85, only a 42PZ85. The 46" is on order, delivery next week. The 50" is 50PX85 due in UK in mid April, approx price £1,700. I have actually seen the 42PZ85 and 50PZ85 in Florida in February, looked good, but was unable to make any judgement as they were not supplied with HD source (only 480i) and were just all piled high in a WallMart.


I would think it highly likely that the 42" model in this series will be down to £1,000 or less before long but the 50" will stay around £1700 as a premium model. A Currys sale would be an especially good time to hope that the 42" set might be available at the cheaper price.

Also one can imagine the writing is now on the wall for a big price cut by Pioneer in their top model after having made hay while the sun was shining given that potential customers may otherwise now take their business elsewhere (or more specifically to Panasonic).


----------



## TCM2007

He's talking about his old TV, Pete.


----------



## TCM2007

Ian_m said:


> Just had an e-mail from my mate in the display biz, look at the new Panasonic TH-42PZ85 (42" £1,300) and TH-46PZ85 (46" £1,500) + forthcoming 50" version before I bought a Pioneer.


The Panasonics are indeed very good, but the guys on my audio-visual mags are pretty much unanimous bout the pioneer, and I have to say it looks pretty good to me1


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> I would think it highly likely that the 42" model in this series will be down to £1,000 or less before long


Within a whisker now!

http://www.1staudiovisual.co.uk/catalog/panasonic-th42pz85-inch-plasma-p-3295.html?ref=216


----------



## Pete77

> davidshack said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If your 32" CRT is the traditional 4:3* then the picture of a new 42" set will probably not seem any bigger to you, because it will be in a different format, 16:9. The height of the picture will be about the same
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TCM2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's talking about his old TV, Pete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he was talking about someone else's ("your") current "traditional 4:3" CRT television and was suggesting that CRT sets had been supplied in 4:3 format in a 32" size.
> 
> There have never been any 32" 4:3 CRT sets in general circulation but a 32" 16:9 CRT set is one of the most popular screen sizes for widescreen CRT televisions along with 28".
Click to expand...


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Within a whisker now!
> 
> http://www.1staudiovisual.co.uk/catalog/panasonic-th42pz85-inch-plasma-p-3295.html?ref=216


When I see a special offer in next year's January sales for £699 I can see that its going to be a no brainer. Or may be someone will even do it at that price in a stupid level discount sale weekend before then.

I see the non Freeview tuner version of the 46" is only £1299 from the same supplier and the version with Freeview tuner is £1399.

30000:1 contrast ratio is amazingly good for this price - anything else at this price and size and also in Full HD is only 15000:1 at best. It seems that Panasonic are trying to fully redeem themselves for their earlier brand tarnishing efforts in the Plasma display marketplace.

Of course I wonder who will bring out the first 50000:1 plasma display and will our feeble human eyeballs actually be able to tell the difference compared to 30000:1?


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> There have never been any 32" 4:3 CRT sets in general circulation
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure? It's going back a few years now, but I'm pretty sure I bought a 36-inch 16:9 CRT TV as it gave me the same screen size as the 32-inch 4:3 which it was replacing. Could be wrong as this was quite a few years ago now.
> 
> Looking on eBay they certainly seem to exist:
Click to expand...


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete77 said:


> No he was talking about someone else's ("your") current "traditional 4:3" CRT television and was suggesting that CRT sets had been supplied in 4:3 format in a 32" size.
> 
> There have never been any 32" 4:3 CRT sets in general circulation but a 32" 16:9 CRT set is one of the most popular screen sizes for widescreen CRT televisions along with 28".


He was talking about mine. Sorry to quote you but it's easier than going back to quote the original 

My current 32" is, indeed, <drumroll>

16:9 (allegedly, I still get black bars at top and bottom on DVDs, I received an exaplantion for this on here from Ozsat (I think) but didn;t really understand it.)


----------



## Raisltin Majere

TCM2007 said:


> The Panasonics are indeed very good, but the guys on my audio-visual mags are pretty much unanimous bout the pioneer, and I have to say it looks pretty good to me1


Yeah, I think Panasonic used to be the best, but everybody I listen to now tells me Pioneer are the bees knees.

As an aside, TCM when you say "my audio-visual mags" do you own the company? Which mags are they? If I'm going to read reviews I may as well help the profits of somebody I've interacted with


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> As an aside, TCM when you say "my audio-visual mags" do you own the company? Which mags are they? If I'm going to read reviews I may as well help the profits of somebody I've interacted with


I believe T3 magazine is TCM's original creative brainchild for the publisher he works for. Perhaps TCM can enlighten us as to which other technology magazines he is also editorially involved?

Of course T3 would never have got off the ground if the commercial people who call the final shots at the publisher concerned had not also backed TCM's proposal..............


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete77 said:


> Of course T3 would never have got off the ground if the commercial people who call the final shots at the publisher concerned had not also backed TCM's proposal..............


I don;t understand the point of this? If the "brainchild" was not commercially viable then the commercial people wouldn't have backed it.


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> I don;t understand the point of this? If the "brainchild" was not commercially viable then the commercial people wouldn't have backed it.


My point was that TCM is one of the editorial gurus of the publisher concerned but he is not on its main commercial board and all major commercial magazines and their launch are very much a team effort.

That is not to say that he did not play a very major part or indeed the major part in bringing about the magazine's launch.

I believe that PC Format is another magazine with which TCM may also have been involved.


----------



## TCM2007

Raisltin Majere said:


> As an aside, TCM when you say "my audio-visual mags" do you own the company? Which mags are they? If I'm going to read reviews I may as well help the profits of somebody I've interacted with


Sadly I don't own the company, but I run a group of mags and websites which include Home Cinema Choice, What Video, What Plasma and others.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> My point was that TCM is one of the editorial gurus of the publisher concerned but he is not on its main commercial board and all major commercial magazines and their launch are very much a team effort.


Actually I'm one of the suits Pete, have been for more than 15 years now!

You are right, magazines are very much a team effort, but T3 was the brainchild of myself and Steve Jarratt.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

TCM2007 said:


> Sadly I don't own the company, but I run a group of mags and websites which include Home Cinema Choice, What Video, What Plasma and others.


I've heard of those, but not "T3". I'll take a look at the site.

Is there a 'what LCD'? Not that I would look at it due to my irrational dislike of LCD.

May pick up a copy of 'what plasma' when I'm ready to buy.

Thanks


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> I've heard of those, but not "T3". I'll take a look at the site.


Even Tesco superstores have it on their shelves. Its oriented at new technology products of all kinds from Plasmas to mobiles to satnavs to notebook pcs. So only periodic articles about the latest and hottest tv screens.



> Is there a 'what LCD'? Not that I would look at it due to my irrational dislike of LCD.


Your dislike of LCD screens would appear to be entirely rational and well founded, especially so far as compatibility with Tivo viewing is concerned.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Actually I'm one of the suits Pete, have been for more than 15 years now!


Would that be one of the suits who do the commercial bidding of the guys with the cash.

But what about the share options after all this time?..............


----------



## katman

TCM2007 said:


> Are you sure? It's going back a few years now, but I'm pretty sure I bought a 36-inch 16:9 CRT TV as it gave me the same screen size as the 32-inch 4:3 which it was replacing. Could be wrong as this was quite a few years ago now.


Not sure about 32" but there were defiantely 33" 4:3 sets because Goodmans made one that was much cheaper than anyone elses.

I went from a 28" Mitsubishi 4:3 to a 32" JVC 16:9. One day I will progress to Plasma or LCD but not until I prefer the picture to the one I currently get.


----------



## verses

katman said:


> Not sure about 32" but there were defiantely 33" 4:3 sets because Goodmans made one that was much cheaper than anyone elses.


Likewise, I'm not certain about 32" sets, but a friend of mine has a 36" 4:3 CRT.

Ian


----------



## Ian_m

verses said:


> Likewise, I'm not certain about 32" sets, but a friend of mine has a 36" 4:3 CRT


My mate has a 36" Hitachi 4:3 TV. Broke down the other day, time for a replacement, took one look at LCD's screens, thought they were rubbish compared to the Hitachi so paid £47 for a man to come out and fix it. Obviously the man had to come out and fix as this is a two man lift TV to move it


----------



## Pete77

Ian_m said:


> My mate has a 36" Hitachi 4:3 TV. Broke down the other day, time for a replacement, took one look at LCD's screens, thought they were rubbish compared to the Hitachi so paid £47 for a man to come out and fix it.:


When I got my 4:3 29" set in 1998 it appeared to be the largest size available. Perhaps there were larger sizes via specialist channels or perhaps later in say 1999 or 2000. No internet on the same scale as today to check these things out in those days.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Would that be one of the suits who do the commercial bidding of the guys with the cash.


We're a listed PLC so there are no "guys with the cash" per se.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> When I got my 4:3 29" set in 1998 it appeared to be the largest size available. Perhaps there were larger sizes via specialist channels or perhaps later in say 1999 or 2000.


I bought my big 4:3 (pretty sure it was 32-inch maybe 34) second hand in 1994 or 1995. It was a Grundig IIRC, and was old enough not only to have no SCARTs but its non-RF input was a round DIN plug!


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I bought my big 4:3 (pretty sure it was 32-inch maybe 34) second hand in 1994 or 1995. It was a Grundig IIRC, and was old enough not only to have no SCARTs but its non-RF input was a round DIN plug!


My 14" Grundig Super Colour portable of 1986/1987 vintage only had an RF input but still seemed to have jolly fine colour for the time.

If I recall it correctly our teutonic and especially our Dutch neighbours had something of a thing for DIN connections back in the 1970s and 1980s. My first Philips cassette deck of around 1974 vintage only had DIN sockets for the microphone and/or any othere external connections. I remember proudly recording parts of the 1974 Eurovision on it from the telly including the winning song (Waterloo) from ABBA. Amazing what an 11 year old will find exciting isn't it.


----------



## Pete77

On further research it would appear there was once a 37" 4:3 Toshiba CRT but these must have been as rare as rear projections tvs are today.

See www.avforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-163318.html

The largest 4:3 size being sold in the Currys Slough superstore in 1998 was definitely 29"


----------



## TCM2007

I don't think Currys have ever been a good indicator of the state of the art!


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I don't think Currys have ever been a good indicator of the state of the art!


Possibly although the large Currys superstores seem to be carrying most of the Pioneer widescreen range apart from the flagship model costing over £3,000.

I suspect the sheer impracticality of a 37" set and the very high cost (due to the material costs, extra shipping costs and the extra costs of storage for a low volume model) probably made them much less popular than say 60" Widescreen tvs are today.


----------



## dvdfever

mccg said:


> It's LCD only below 42" (except for an old Sony model I believe, but that was 480p!)


There's a 37" Panny Plasma I'm looking at (the cheapest of which I've seen has been around £650 - not at the link below but it shows what it looks like):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000P0IW0U

A 42" would be too big, and given that I'm sat around 6ft from a 32" CRT (which is showing a weird tube problem that makes it exhibit what looks like ghosting and I've unplugged the analogue input so it's not that), I'd need to set the plasma back slightly to compensate. Everything I watch is SD (apart from that Xbox 360 games would be HD).

Any opinions on that telly welcome


----------



## dvdfever

Raisltin Majere said:


> He was talking about mine. Sorry to quote you but it's easier than going back to quote the original
> 
> My current 32" is, indeed, <drumroll>
> 
> 16:9 (allegedly, I still get black bars at top and bottom on DVDs, I received an exaplantion for this on here from Ozsat (I think) but didn;t really understand it.)


Most films are made in two different ratios (although there are several to choose from), the wider of which will result in black bars on a TV on DVDs and when the film is shown properly (as C4 are now doing, and - strangely - BBC3 are doing with the Indiana Jones trilogy which concludes tonight at 7pm), but this is a *good thing*


----------



## Pete77

dvdfever said:


> Any opinions on that telly welcome


There seems to be a fair bit of discussion about this unit and its 2008 model successor at:-

www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=742741


----------



## Sneals2000

dvdfever said:


> Most films are made in two different ratios (although there are several to choose from), the wider of which will result in black bars on a TV on DVDs and when the film is shown properly (as C4 are now doing, and - strangely - BBC3 are doing with the Indiana Jones trilogy which concludes tonight at 7pm), but this is a *good thing*


The original aspect ratio presentation often ties in with HD simulcasts on C4HD or BBC HD. This is because many of the HD masters of the movies being supplied to broadcasters are in OAR.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

dvdfever said:


> Most films are made in two different ratios (although there are several to choose from), the wider of which will result in black bars on a TV on DVDs and when the film is shown properly (as C4 are now doing, and - strangely - BBC3 are doing with the Indiana Jones trilogy which concludes tonight at 7pm), but this is a *good thing*


So, if I wasn't sure that my telly was on the right picture setting, I could watch Indiana Jones and, if I have black bars would know it was okay?

Why is it a good thing? Wouldn't it be better to use all of the screen?


----------



## dvdfever

Raisltin Majere said:


> So, if I wasn't sure that my telly was on the right picture setting, I could watch Indiana Jones and, if I have black bars would know it was okay?
> 
> Why is it a good thing? Wouldn't it be better to use all of the screen?


Most TVs will autoswitch, but if they're getting an image in anamorphic widescreen they will do this (the Wiki link below explains anamorphic in more detail - it's also the way 16:9 programmes on digital TV are displayed, but basically the picture is sent as a 'squashed' 4:3 image which is then stretched out so it looks normal on a 16:9 TV), and if it was a letterbox image (the alternative) then if your TV was also stretching that image out then everyone would look fat (my Mum keeps doing that with analogue TV and thinks it looks "normal" so I really don't like getting in a car with her based on her vision!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic

It's a good thing because you're seeing the whole of the original image, rather than just a cropped part of it. Discussion about this could go on forever, but an example of 4:3 vs 2.35:1 for LOTR Return of the King can be seen at the link below (and a 16:9 version would just be somewhere inbetween the two)
http://www.widescreen.org/examples/lord_rings_rotk/index.shtml


----------



## dvdfever

Sneals2000 said:


> The original aspect ratio presentation often ties in with HD simulcasts on C4HD or BBC HD. This is because many of the HD masters of the movies being supplied to broadcasters are in OAR.


Although I'm not at all convinced that all UK TV will end up in HD, and doesn't deserve to given the terrible bitrates of SD TV on Sky and Freeview - so they'll only end up short-changing HD as well until the next big thing comes along - the one good thing is the side effect of showing films properly, as you describe above.

For years, broadcasters have moaned that they'll get endless complaints from viewers about "the black bars" despite them having been used to it on DVDs for 10 years now, but we finally got there in the end 

(Oh, and apparently - since I didn't see it - the second Indy film didn't have the big pink BBC3 logo, so here's hoping for tonight...)


----------



## dvdfever

Pete77 said:


> There seems to be a fair bit of discussion about this unit and its 2008 model successor at:-
> 
> www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=742741


Nice one. Ta for that. Didn't know about the newer model. It's cheaper too (drool)


----------



## Sneals2000

dvdfever said:


> Although I'm not at all convinced that all UK TV will end up in HD, and doesn't deserve to given the terrible bitrates of SD TV on Sky and Freeview - so they'll only end up short-changing HD as well until the next big thing comes along - the one good thing is the side effect of showing films properly, as you describe above.


Though ironically, Sky have INCREASED their HD bitrates since launch - with some transponders only carrying two services at the moment.

The BBC have reduced their bitrate slightly - from 19Mbs to 16.5Mbs - since they launched BBC HD - and this is noticable at times.

The lowest bitrate HD channel is Luxe TV which is about 10Mbs at the moment - and only shows very untaxing material.

However I think that satellite HD rates are likely to remain quite high whilst it is still a premium service. Once it becomes the norm - as it undoubtedly will - then we should start to worry.

It is now getting very difficult to buy decent SD production gear (it's getting cheaper and the high-end stuff is being dropped) so most production will be shifting to HD over the next 5 years or so (quicker in some cases) and all new production studios are likely to be built HD capable.

Freeview - because of Ofcom's blinkered view and optimism at coding efficiency improvement - stands to be the poor relation - but HD on DSat and Cable is here to stay.



> For years, broadcasters have moaned that they'll get endless complaints from viewers about "the black bars" despite them having been used to it on DVDs for 10 years now, but we finally got there in the end


I think the assumption is that people are now getting used to movie DVDs with black bars on - and HD audiences will be likely to be watching HD sources like BluRay and HD-DVD which are also OAR.


----------



## Automan

I think my first Sony widescreen 32" PalPlus cost me &#163;2.5K in 1995.

From Sony Centre, Eastbourne.

Automan.


----------



## TCM2007

Raisltin Majere said:


> Why is it a good thing? Wouldn't it be better to use all of the screen?


Only in the sense that it would be good if all TV programmes were just a white screen, since that would use all of the pixels to the maximum. 

The Indy films were shot in 2.35:1 so that's how they are shown.


----------



## Sneals2000

Raisltin Majere said:


> Why is it a good thing? Wouldn't it be better to use all of the screen?


I'd rather see all the picture than use all the screen and crop some of the picture.

The director shot the movie in a given aspect ratio, and the camera operator and DoP lit and framed the shots to be viewed at that aspect ratio. If you change the aspect ratio by zooming in and cropping some of the image, you are altering the movie artistically.

Whilst you may have a bigger picture - you are seeing less of the movie.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Sneals2000 said:


> I'd rather see all the picture than use all the screen and crop some of the picture.
> 
> The director shot the movie in a given aspect ratio, and the camera operator and DoP lit and framed the shots to be viewed at that aspect ratio. If you change the aspect ratio by zooming in and cropping some of the image, you are altering the movie artistically.
> 
> Whilst you may have a bigger picture - you are seeing less of the movie.


I was thinking more about why don't the film makers shoot the film in 16:9



TCM2007 said:


> Only in the sense that it would be good if all TV programmes were just a white screen, since that would use all of the pixels to the maximum.


Is that not only true of LCDs?


----------



## TCM2007

Raisltin Majere said:


> I was thinking more about why don't the film makers shoot the film in 16:9


Because cinemas are wider than that. The better question might be why aren't TVs 2.35:1!


----------



## poissony

Raisltin Majere said:


> I was thinking more about why don't the film makers shoot the film in 16:9


For artisitc reasons. Imagine all those films with fantastic panaromic views less, er, panoramic due to films been shot in 1.85:1 instead of 2.35:1. I'd like to think film makers are thinking what their film will look like when exhibited at a cinema rather than in the home.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Ah, I've never really paid attention to the dimensions of cinema screens. Although they are adjustable, aren't they? Sure I've seeen the tops moving up and down.

Anyway, I have a new, better question:



TCM2007 said:


> why aren't TVs 2.35:1!


----------



## Pete77

I expect as soon as the marketing men have persuaded everyon to get a 16:9HD compatible flatscreen that they will come out with 2.35:1 screens as the next great thing that you must have.

Having said that an obvious reason why 2.35:1 wasn't adopted for CRT widescreen was because of the huge amount of space on your living room wall such a device would then have taken up. But with thin flatscreens that you can hang on the wall now possible the case for 2.35:1 widescreen tvs is clearly now greatly enhanced.


----------



## Sneals2000

Hollywood lobbied hard for 21:9 (roughly 2.35:1) to be included in the ATSC US HDTV standards - but ISTR that it wasn't adopted.

Whilst movies look good in that aspect ratio (many believe) - sport, news, entertainment etc. don't look good at all. 

Imagine Parkinson shot in that ratio - the guests would have to be sat miles apart from each other to get decent close-ups...


----------



## Raisltin Majere

I think it was TerryEden recommended a smaller TV for general viewing and a projector for films.

Can you get 21:9 projector screens?


----------



## Pete77

poissony said:


> due to films been shot in 1.85:1 instead of 2.35:1


Surely 16:9 is 1.78:1 and not 1.85:1


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> Can you get 21:9 projector screens?


21:9 is 2.33:1 and not 2.35:1 though.


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> Can you get 21:9 projector screens?


This article appears to cover the subject rather thoroughly:-

www.projectorcentral.com/formats.htm


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Surely 16:9 is 1.78:1 and not 1.85:1


The two are used interchangeably. Maybe it's an overscan thing like 625/576?


----------



## Sneals2000

TCM2007 said:


> The two are used interchangeably. Maybe it's an overscan thing like 625/576?


I think it is a Europe / US thing isn't it? We have slightly different aspect ratios for "standard widescreen" movies ISTR - but they are close enough for it not to be a problem?


----------



## TCM2007

Don't think so; just looking at the back of some region 1 DVD which have 1.85:1 on them.


----------



## davidshack

Sneals2000 said:


> Hollywood lobbied hard for 21:9 (roughly 2.35:1) . . . .
> Whilst movies look good in that aspect ratio (many believe) - sport, news, entertainment etc. don't look good at all.
> Imagine Parkinson shot in that ratio - the guests would have to be sat miles apart from each other to get decent close-ups...


And many of us think sports, news and entertainment don't look good in 16:9 compared with 4:3! 
_I keep adjusting the "brilliance" control on my TV, but the dialogue is still crap._ (the old jokes are the best).

Let's go back a step (to the last century even).

Television was introduced as 4:3 for various sensible reasons (which I would argue haven't changed much).
At that time film was shot on 35mm stock (and 16mm before that). 35mm film has a physical frame size of 36mm by 24mm - ie a format of 3:2.
This equates to the 4:3 TV screen (not all the lines on a TV screen are visible, eg only some 575 of the 625 lines are used for the picture under PAL. 4:3 equates to 12:9, including the unused lines. 3:2 equates to 12:8.)
There were also technical issues with the performance/ability of the TV cameras and TV screens at the time, which a wider format would have exacerbated.

3:2 had been chosen for filming as a good balance between _impact_ and _content_. The subject* of the picture was large and clear to see, with sufficient spread (width) to see the context. 
* (photographic termiology: "subject" is the person or item which is the key element in your shot)

Cinemascope (widescreen) and other wider ratios were introduced for_ purely_ _commercial _ reasons. People watched films in cinemas: the 3:2 format limited how many people the cinema could hold. Put in a bigger screen and the building needed to be higher. It was expensive to build movie theatres with "stalls, circle, upper circle". Moving to a wider format meant higher-capacity cinemas could be cheaply built and run, maximising profits.

In the same way that HD trial broadcasts are now marketed with films of the natural world (look in any store selling HD TVs) - as were IMAX cinemas when first introduced - so the change to cinemascope was marketed with shots of the great outdoors. Because these are the types of image that are best suited. The _subject_ is less important than the _context_.

The demand for films shot panoramically helped the careers of directors who could deliver them: leading to the growth of that type of _artistic_ filming.

Whether amorphic ratios (such as 2.35:1) are appropriate for a home is questionable. On my friend's 12 foot wide home cinema screen _appropriate_ films certainly have a scenic impact, but even at that size he and I find the _subjects _ can appear "lost" at times - and he usually watches with the picture zoomed somewhat. 
Certainly subjects have less impact than on my 8 foot wide screens in 4:3 (but I lose the edges). 
So on a 50 inch 2.35:1 screen it would be . . . But this takes us into the realms of viewing subjectivity, so let's not go there. Everybody has their own preference.

I agree with Sneals. The _subject_ determines the screen format. Happily we as viewers can choose a format to suit our watching, either by using zoom settings or even choosing to buy kit optomised to suit our preferences.

Incidentally, the largest CRT 4:3 TVs in general use were 37 inch (unless you know of a bigger one). Made by Barco and others. But that wasn't the point.
My point was that, for you to get the same _visual impact of the subject_ on the screen, you have to buy a _much_ bigger wider-format screen size than you might have imagined from your experience of your 4:3 telly. My aim is to help people avoid disappointment, by encouraging them not to just trust the numbers but to measure screens before buying. And to take into account other factors, primarily their viewing distance from the screen.

I suggest choice of screen size and choice of screen format is merely horses for courses, your personal choice for your needs. There is no "right" answer. To take an example: team sports are perhaps better in wide screen so you can see the action progressing eg down the pitch (the detail of, say, a football pass being perhaps less relevant), whereas for many individual sports (such as skiing or some athletics) I feel the close detail is all that matters: the surroundings are irrelevant.

It does no harm to remember that not everything marketed to us is a step forward: take car GPS devices.
When you are looking at a GPS route, it is _the road ahead_ that is relevant to you: the junctions or turns coming up. What is away to the left and right of your route is irrelevant. So the best screen shape is one that is longer vertically than it is wide. Which is why Palms and other vertically-oriented Pocket PCs are ideal for car navigation. A wide screen GPS is the last thing you'd want. Yet that is what many suppliers are selling you now!

David


----------



## pauljs

davidshack said:


> Incidentally, the largest CRT 4:3 TVs in general use were 37 inch


Mitsubishi made many 37 inch tv's and data monitors, they also had a 42 inch CRT apparently


----------



## Sneals2000

davidshack said:


> Television was introduced as 4:3 for various sensible reasons (which I would argue haven't changed much).


Or not. Until the 50s officially UK TV was 5:4 not 4:3 - and we won't worry about the earlier mechanical formats - many of which were more portrait than that!



> At that time film was shot on 35mm stock (and 16mm before that). 35mm film has a physical frame size of 36mm by 24mm - ie a format of 3:2.
> This equates to the 4:3 TV screen (not all the lines on a TV screen are visible, eg only some 575 of the 625 lines are used for the picture under PAL.


The 576 active lines (575 made up of 2x288.5 line fields in analogue) of a 4:3 TV picture are still 4:3 aspect ratio (576 lines of 52us active video) Overscan removes more of the 576 lines - but equally (or roughly equally) removes a bit from the left and right as well - so you still have a 4:3 display (just a slightly reduced amount of the 576 line source on most displays)

It is important not to confuse blanking (the 49 lines of the vertical interval that contain vertical syncs, equalising pulses and things like teletext in analogue video - and ancillary data and embedded audio in digits) with overscan, which is the amount of crop applied to the 576 lines of active video. (Most domestic displays - even LCDs and Plasmas which simulate overscan - apply between 5% and 10% all the way around - leaving you with 460 to 510 actual visible picture lines)



> 4:3 equates to 12:9, including the unused lines.


Exclusing the unused lines - the ACTIVE picture is 4:3. The 576 lines are active - the other lines are blanking.



> 3:2 equates to 12:8.)


Yep - so there is a bit of cropping going on the telecine - but not much.



> There were also technical issues with the performance/ability of the TV cameras and TV screens at the time, which a wider format would have exacerbated.


Yep - early CRT displays and camera tubes were circular - so the nearer the format was to square the better. Hence 5:4 before 4:3.

Making a rectangular tube was quite a challenge - and making a shallow, wide tube is even more difficult (Samsung's slim fit designs show the pitfalls)



> 3:2 had been chosen for filming as a good balance between _impact_ and _content_. The subject* of the picture was large and clear to see, with sufficient spread (width) to see the context.
> * (photographic termiology: "subject" is the person or item which is the key element in your shot)
> 
> Cinemascope (widescreen) and other wider ratios were introduced for_ purely_ _commercial _ reasons. People watched films in cinemas: the 3:2 format limited how many people the cinema could hold. Put in a bigger screen and the building needed to be higher. It was expensive to build movie theatres with "stalls, circle, upper circle". Moving to a wider format meant higher-capacity cinemas could be cheaply built and run, maximising profits.


It was also a way of countering TV - which was not widescreen - and was making inroads into entertainment!



> In the same way that HD trial broadcasts are now marketed with films of the natural world (look in any store selling HD TVs) - as were IMAX cinemas when first introduced - so the change to cinemascope was marketed with shots of the great outdoors. Because these are the types of image that are best suited. The _subject_ is less important than the _context_.


Yep - interestingly a lot of this stuff for HD demos is shot on video at 60i or 60p - giving the "through the window" effect that most cinema film, shot at 24fps, can't match.



> The demand for films shot panoramically helped the careers of directors who could deliver them: leading to the growth of that type of _artistic_ filming.
> 
> Whether amorphic ratios (such as 2.35:1) are appropriate for a home is questionable. On my friend's 12 foot wide home cinema screen _appropriate_ films certainly have a scenic impact, but even at that size he and I find the _subjects _ can appear "lost" at times - and he usually watches with the picture zoomed somewhat.
> Certainly subjects have less impact than on my 8 foot wide screens in 4:3 (but I lose the edges).
> So on a 50 inch 2.35:1 screen it would be . . . But this takes us into the realms of viewing subjectivity, so let's not go there. Everybody has their own preference.


Yep. I still find it odd switching between working in 4:3 and 16:9... 4:3 now feels like "tall screen" - particularly as many TV galleries have 4:3 monitors (so display letterboxed 16:9 content) (Very few small broadcast 16:9 CRT monitors were produced - so apart from mixer out and preview which are larger 16:9 monitors, most galleries have small 4:3 preview monitors)


----------



## poissony

Pete77 said:


> Surely 16:9 is 1.78:1 and not 1.85:1


1.85:1 is a 35mm film ratio used in cinema exhibition. 1.78:1 (16:9) is a television ratio. When a "flat" film (1.85:1) is shown on a 16:9 display black bars are used top and bottom to maintain the correct ratio, just as when "scope" films (2.35:1 or 2.39:1) are shown on a 16:9 display, it's just more noticable on the latter.


----------



## Pete77

A fascinating post David. I always have felt that the decision to move to 16:9 tvs from 4:3 tvs in the mid to late 1990s amounted to little more than a marketing fashion to sell us new televisions. And the viewing consequences during the conversion period have been dire and really not worth the pain.

The point about ultra widescreen cinema format being done only for commercial reasons is also extremely illuminating.

One day I will probably be forced to get a 16:9 widescreen plasma HD television as that format now has the greatest compatibility with most recently made broadcast television. However I will certainly bear in mind that it is not inherently better than a 4:3 format picture. Your point regarding the ideal size of satnav displays is also illuminating and may help determine my choice of model if and when I get round to purchasing one in due course.


----------



## Ian_m

dvdfever said:


> There's a 37" Panny Plasma I'm looking at (the cheapest of which I've seen has been around £650 - not at the link below but it shows what it looks like):
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000P0IW0U
> 
> A 42" would be too big, and given that I'm sat around 6ft from a 32" CRT (which is showing a weird tube problem that makes it exhibit what looks like ghosting and I've unplugged the analogue input so it's not that), I'd need to set the plasma back slightly to compensate. Everything I watch is SD (apart from that Xbox 360 games would be HD).
> 
> Any opinions on that telly welcome


I would spend quite a lot of time convincing yourself 42" is too big. I have met quite a few people who probably didn't spend enough time considering TV size and bought TV's they have now decided are too small for their rooms (one got a 28" CRT, another 37" plasma and other 32" LCD). All were moving from 4:3 CRT at the time.

I think they failed to take into account things like the screen height of a 25" 4:3 CRT is 15" and yet a 32" 16:9 screen the about same, so if you are looking for a bigger sized screen you must take this into account. Also a flat screen can be mounted futher away than a CRT.

All of them also failed to consider that when you buy a 28"/32" CRT set it often comes with a matching stand/cabinet. A plasma/LCD doesn't come with such furniture. One spend ages ar*sing around with wall brackets, basically trying to save money as didn't want to spend a fortune on top of TV price, but eventually admitted default after wasting £80 and wall brakcet that was crap and buying a £200 TV stand type thing with suitable bracket to attach a flat screen TV to. Looks nice, has room for DVD player, VCR and collection of DVD's/CD's etc.

My mate with the 37" plasma flogged it on Ebay and bought the 42" version and is now realising he should have actuall got the 50" version.

For me in selecting screen size I copied a picture of the screen dimensions from the back of the PDF user manual, pasted in into Visio, set the picture size to the stated dimension and printed out 1:1 on loads on A3 sheets which I then taped together. I then placed the papaer 42", 46" (new Panasonic) and 50" to the lounge wall at home to then sat contemplating. (kids drew pictures on the TVs, having great fun). Also repeated with various TV stands, fitted with my amp, DVD etc just to get the scale of things. In my lounge 42" is too small, picture would be not significantly larger than current 32" CRT, 50" might be too big and jury still out on new Panasonic 46".


----------



## AENG

Thanks to various contributors, a very interesting (and informative) discussion on aspect ratios. :up: We think now of 4:3 as looking pretty square. But for a while following the re-start of television in the UK it was transmitted 5:4, which made quite a lot of sense when a fair proportion of it was watched on (green!) circular, ex-WD CRTs only 7 inches in diameter. 

Sorry Sneals! only just noticed you already mentioned 5:4. There's so much on this thread now!


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Well, I've been shopping around and I *think* I have reached a decision on my new telly.

A panasonic TH-42PX80B

It seems to be about the best I can expect at the price point (£699). I'm on my way down to comet now to have a look at one "in action", hopefully.

I was wondering if anybody had any experience of this display they would like to share, any reason I shouldn't choose this model?


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> any reason I shouldn't choose this model?


You seem to be missing out on rather a lot of features compared to the new 30000:1contrast ratio Full HD 42" model previously recommended in this forum:-

See www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/2877.../displayResult.html?p=TH-42PX80B&p=TH-42PZ85B

Surely you would be better off waiting a few more months, or even a year or so, until a Panasonic set with an acceptable true HD specification comes down to the price you can afford (i.e. £699)?

Depending how you are viewing television Freeview HD does not yet exist, BBC/ITV Freesat has yet to be launched (almost certainly being held back till the C4 and Five reception issues are resolved) and the amount of FTA HD television is really not yet that substantial. Therefore what is the hurry, especially as you cannot record material in a format in which you will benefit from the enhanced resolution features of such a screen on a Tivo? You therefore can only view HD live for the time being and only then if you get a Secondhand Sky HD box. Unless that is you are willing to pay Sky £400 a year or more in subs.

Other than the feeling that other guys now have an HD flatscreen set in their living rooms what is the hurry to get one when so little FTA HD television is currently available?


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete77 said:


> You seem to be missing out on rather a lot of features compared to the new 30000:1contrast ratio Full HD 42" model previously recommended in this forum:-
> 
> See www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/2877.../displayResult.html?p=TH-42PX80B&p=TH-42PZ85B


I don't really understand what all of the specs mean, but the only ones that I do understand and are different between the two displays are the resolution and the contrast ratio.

From reading this thread, I have decided that I probably won't benefit from the better resolution, and the contrast ration isn't worth £300-400 to me.


Pete77 said:


> Surely you would be better off waiting a few more months, or even a year or so, until a Panasonic set with an acceptable true HD specification comes down to the price you can afford (i.e. £699)?


I could afford the more expensive one, but I don;t think the benefit to me is worth the extra expenditure. If I were to wait, as you suggest, up to a year for the price to fall the I imagine there would be a newer, better model out at the higher price point. Do I wait another year for that model? And another year for the model after that?


Pete77 said:


> Depending how you are viewing television Freeview HD does not yet exist, BBC/ITV Freesat has yet to be launched (almost certainly being held back till the C4 and Five reception issues are resolved) and the amount of FTA HD television is really not yet that substantial. Therefore what is the hurry, especially as you cannot record material in a format in which you will benefit from the enhanced resolution features of such a screen on a Tivo? You therefore can only view HD live for the time being and only then if you get a Secondhand Sky HD box. Unless that is you are willing to pay Sky £400 a year or more in subs.


The vast majority of my viewing is live football. This is why I want HD. This would also mean subscribing to skyHD. I already pay them a lot of money each month, a further £10 (I think this is the HD sub cost) won't hurt.

I also enjoy watching films, so Blu-Ray comes into the equation (or a very, very, cheap HD-DVD connected via my laptop, maybe. I'll have to check what films are available in that format considering there will be no (or few?) new releases)


Pete77 said:


> Other than the feeling that other guys now have an HD flatscreen set in their living rooms what is the hurry to get one when so little FTA HD television is currently available?


Other than the fact that you don't have one, why do you object to other's getting one so much?


----------



## Raisltin Majere

I've been to Comet and had a look at this telly. To my untrained eye it looked pretty impressive. Very nice indeed.

I asked the guy if I could see a SD picture so he put the rugby on, again looked very good, not noticeably different to my current telly. My main concern was that it would be worse, I don't care (and wouldn't expect it to be) if it's not better.

I asked if he would price match the £699, but the best he would offer is £799 (marked price is £899).


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> I have decided that I probably won't benefit from the better resolution, and the contrast ration isn't worth £300-400 to me.


Other members have suggested that having as high a Contrast Ratio as possible is actually all important with Plasma screens. The new Panasonics are not only actually 30000:1 (which nothing else in the market yet offers) but have some kind of dynamic system that can also create the equivalent of up to 100,000:1 contrast ratio.



> The vast majority of my viewing is live football. This is why I want HD. This would also mean subscribing to skyHD. I already pay them a lot of money each month, a further £10 (I think this is the HD sub cost) won't hurt.


Yet I always remembered you as the man (along with Carl Waring) who could not afford a lifetime sub due to extremely constrained financial circumstances. Now you say you cheerfully pay Sky over £30 per month and don't mind going up to over £40 per month. Yet you still can't afford £200 for a Sky Lifetime Sub?



> I also enjoy watching films, so Blu-Ray comes into the equation (or a very, very, cheap HD-DVD connected via my laptop, maybe. I'll have to check what films are available in that format considering there will be no (or few?) new releases)


Then you are definitely going in to run in to the issue experienced by aerialplug with these older Panasonic Plasmas with pulldown judder on a lot of Blu Ray film material. The new Panasonic overcomes this pulldown judder issue with Blu-Ray as it can display Blu-Ray at the correct frame rate.

I will try and track down the thread where this was extensively discussed between aerialplug and others.

So you pay Sky nearly £500 per annum to Sky on subs but are worried about spending less than another £400 on a telly that you will probably have for 10 years. So less than £40 per annum over its lifetime. Or less than £4 per month.

The phrase "spoiling the whole ship for a happnenny worth of tire" springs to mind.

As you shell out the big bucks for Sky Sports as a keen football man then I can certainly see the case for getting a decent HD set NOW after all. But if your tastes also run to movies too and Blu Ray then I think you will find (based admittedly on no experience of these units myself but as a research man who has read and stored in his brain the comments of the most learned experts on this forum such as Sneals2000) that these newer Pansonics are a huge leap forward compared to predecessor Panasonic units (like the one you are considering) that were generally though to suffer a lot of issues and not be nearly as good as the equivalenty sized and priced Samsung Plasma model.

See TCM2007's comment in Post 22 of this thread:-

www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6110438#post6110438



> If you can afford it, getting a panel which supports 1080p at 24 frames per second (1080p/24, often given a silly tradename by the manufacturers) is as close to futureproof as you can currently get. Anything else, while it may be a great TV, is not going to make the best of all the input devices available.


So going back to:-

http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_.../displayResult.html?p=TH-42PX80B&p=TH-42PZ85B

24p Real Cinema = "-" (that is marketing man speak for No) for the set you are considering but "yes" for the more expensive 30000:1 model just launched. As I understand it support for 24p Real Cinema is all important to getting the right results from Blu Ray disks and avoiding the dreaded "pull down judder".


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete77 said:


> Yet I always remembered you as the man (along with Carl Waring) who could not afford a lifetime sub due to extremely constrained financial circumstances. Now you say you cheerfully pay Sky over £30 per month and don't mind going up to over £40 per month. Yet you still can't afford £200 for a Sky Lifetime Sub?


I'm not sure, but I think it might have been two promotions ago that I said that 

And it really doesn't bother me now, so no, I still haven't bought a lifetime sub.

I'm no expert on these matters, but I think the "pull down" or judder issues were solved by havng a 24p capable set? The one I've chosen has that.

And, whilst I do like to watch films, I don't often have the time, so again it's not worth £3-400 to me.

As I understand it the contrast ratio measure the lightest against the darkest so I don't think it will affect my football watching (which I would guess covers about 90% of my TV usage)


----------



## Raisltin Majere

terryeden said:


> At 3 - 4 metres, I really doubt anyone can tell between 720p and 1080p.
> Take a look at
> http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
> and
> http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html


I followed your link, Pete, I based my decision, in part, on the quote (and links) above


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> I followed your link, Pete, I based my decision, in part, on the quote (and links) above


But the unit you are thinking of buying doesn't have 24p Real Cinema but only 24p.

See www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/571533/index.html



> Futhermore, *the 24p Real Cinema technology ensures enhanced judder-free playback when viewing 24 frames per second material*, such as that ouput *from Panasonic Blu-ray players*


No claims are being made about judder free playback for the model range you are considering, even though this model is also listed on the same Panasonic web page....................................
__________________


----------



## Pete77

Only £1064 for the set that does it all at:-

www.multizoneav.com/product.asp?mod=TH42PZ85B&PCFeed=Pricegrabber

Is it really worth saving the cost of 9 months Sky subs in order to buy the model that will always remind you for 10 years that you cheapskated.

They even offer 10% deposit, 0% interest, pay 9 months later, for purchases over £350.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete77 said:


> But the unit you are thinking of buying doesn't have 24p Real Cinema but only 24p.
> 
> See www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/571533/index.html
> 
> No claims are being made about judder free playback for the model range you are considering, even though this model is also listed on the same Panasonic web page....................................
> __________________


Mmm, what does "enhanced judder-free" mean? Surely somethings either judder-free or it's not?

You've made some good points, Pete. I think further research is required.

Thanks


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> Mmm, what does "enhanced judder-free" mean? Surely somethings either judder-free or it's not?
> 
> You've made some good points, Pete. I think further research is required.
> 
> Thanks


I think the only way you could tell really would be to view these sets back to back and playing a Blu-Ray movie at 24fps I don't know if there are any specialist retailers of these kind of plasma sets where you could actually do that. One thing I do know is that once you have taken delivery and started to use an item like this its too late though. A Casio Protrek watch I just went for where I was impressed by the atomic clock time syncing feature of the latest model but forgot how much I would miss not having hands is a case in point.

The only point I would make is that people were very keen indeed on that top end Pioneer set that costs over £3k as being far better than anything else technically and when these top end Panasonic models came out a few weeks back the expert opinion was that their spec was almost as good. But that's the £1k 42" model rather than the one you are considering.

Checking my viewing distances I think I either need the 46" top Panasonic model or I need to change my seating to view the tv another 2 feet closer if I can only afford the 42" model.

Although technology is always moving on to some extent we are reaching a point of stability now with Blu-Ray winning out over HD-DVD and the specs for HD Freeview also becoming known. The only way I can really see newer sets being better going forwards in the next two or three years is higher contrast ratio.

Ultimately it all comes down to budget but spending £1k on something one uses so much is probably not completely OTT. spending £3k or £5k on a television probably is OTT unless one is really very well off.


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> Mmm, what does "enhanced judder-free" mean? Surely somethings either judder-free or it's not?
> 
> You've made some good points, Pete. I think further research is required.
> 
> Thanks


From the Pansonic website:-



> 24p Playback/24p Real Cinema
> When reproducing a 24p movie source,* the 24p Real Cinema function generates smooth motion transition based on the original 24 frames. Models that do not include 24p Real Cinema are equipped with full 24p Playback support, which provides cinema-like images but with a higher refresh rate*.


and



> High Contrast Native 30,000:1 (Dynamic more than 1,000,000:1)
> *The new Real Black Drive system (a pre-discharge suppression system) and the improved panel production processes combine to reproduce outstanding blacks with the outstanding contrast. They accurately reproduce scenes, especially those with a delicate balance of light and shadow. Except PX80*


----------



## Pete77

Without wishing to depress you I think you should also read this article which shows that LED LCD sets will be coming along soon to blow everything else out of the water:-

See http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/lcd-kill...gen-plasma-hdtvs-blacker-at-200001-258771.php

The comments in response to the article are interesting. Note the guy who complains about problems with Plasma screens suffering from reflections. I have not seen that mentioned by anyone in this forum though.


----------



## Pete77

A further thought is that the Pioneer PDP-LX5080DS is still no cheaper than £3124 and yet the just over £1000 Panasonic 42" set really has all the technical features of this set and a higher contrast ratio too.

Its only main weakness is probably that its blacks are not as black as those on the Pioneer as you can get a higher contrast ratio by increasing the level of top end brightness (which may be what Panasonic has done) without making the blacks truly blacker (as Pioneer has focused on to bump up its contrast ratio). Making the blacks blacker requires a much more expensive set of components and more expensive construction process as I understand it.

If Pioneer did a 42" version of the PDP-LX-5080DS (they do a 60" version that costs nearly £5,000) it would probably cost well over £2,000 so really this Full HD 30000:1 contrast ration Panasonic set is still pretty good value for money.


----------



## dvdfever

Raisltin Majere said:


> I've been to Comet and had a look at this telly. To my untrained eye it looked pretty impressive. Very nice indeed.
> 
> I asked the guy if I could see a SD picture so he put the rugby on, again looked very good, not noticeably different to my current telly. My main concern was that it would be worse, I don't care (and wouldn't expect it to be) if it's not better.
> 
> I asked if he would price match the £699, but the best he would offer is £799 (marked price is £899).


I've just ordered the 37" version from John Lewis, who thanks to the help from this AV forums thread (http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=716395 - so there's bound to be a 42" one), JL are doing a lot of price matching with Sound & Vision's Bolton shop (which seems to be a few quid more than the online price so I got it matched at £620.90 when the online price was £617, but from JL it includes a 5-year warranty and free delivery).

I was previously looking at the 2007 version of the telly after reading about how plasmas are better for TiVo viewing than LCD, so kudos to those on this forum for pointing me in the right direction.

The S&V link for the 42" one is here and is just under £700 as I type so stuff Comet and email your local JL via their site and ask for a price match with S&V (and mention the Bolton branch) - http://www.soundandvisiononline.com/moreinfo/index.asp?product_id=15376

As for whether it's a good TV, I've been umming and ahhing a lot regarding flatscreens of late, but my 32" WS CRT is showing a couple of technical issues (nothing that'll concern my grandad who'll be happy to have a replacement for his 25" 4:3) and I want something that'll show standard defintion TV well (so that's LCD out the question), something that isn't too big (so I'll have to set the TV back a little bit compared to the CRT) and while I have no plans to watch any HD TV broadcast in the UK, it'll be nice to get better resolution for my Xbox 360 games.

It's coming in just over a week (could've had it sooner but I wouldn't be in), and I popped into JL today to actually take a look at one (as I hadn't already) and it's a very nice set. Of course, in the shop the picture was made to look dark to take into account the dire lighting in there, but there are several modes on the TV, one being for setting up in shops, and by all accounts it should do everything I need.

The only issue for some seems to be with the sound quality of the TV not being the best (since the speakers are small on a telly like this) even though it's better than the 2007 model. However, I'll be using an amp anyway and may route the sound direct from the TiVo so that's not a problem.


----------



## Milhouse

Pete77 said:


> If Pioneer did a 42" version of the PDP-LX-5080DS (they do a 60" version that costs nearly £5,000) it would probably cost well over £2,000 so really this Full HD 30000:1 contrast ration Panasonic set is still pretty good value for money.


You've quoted this "30,000:1" figure several times - you don't seriously believe it, do you? 

I hate to break this to you but the reality is that the real world contrast ratio will be far, far lower... the Panna will be lucky if it breaks into four figures:1.

A recent review of a high-spec Samsung with claimed 50,000:1 contrast ratio had a real world contrast ratio figure of just 356:1 (that's not a typo - 3-5-6:1)... a 32" Panasonic with claimed 10,000:1 c/r had real world figures of 936:1, while a 32" Philips with claimed 12,000:1 c/r had real world figures of 1,258:1.

Granted plasma panels may have better real world contrast ratios than LCD panels, but the point remains that the contrast ratios claimed by manufacturers are total bo11ox and you'd be a fool to put too much faith in those figures.


----------



## Pete77

Milhouse said:


> Granted plasma panels may have better real world contrast ratios than LCD panels, but the point remains that the contrast ratios claimed by manufacturers are total bo11ox and you'd be a fool to put too much faith in those figures.


Is there a comparable "real world" figure for the expensive Pioneer 50" and 60" so called 20000:1 models?

Do these have a much higher "real world" contrast ratio than Panasonic's so called 30000:1 models?


----------



## Milhouse

Pete77 said:


> Is there a comparable "real world" figure for the expensive Pioneer 50" and 60" so called 20000:1 models?


You mean the Kuro models? I've just done a quick search on the interweb (is your Google broken?) and I've seen a real world claim of 3000:1 against a claimed 16000:1 for a Kuro 42" panel. I could find other quotes for different/more expensive Kuro models but I had a tidy up today and slung out all my back issues of AV mags which included a few Kuro reviews. 

Again, the real world figures prove that Pioneer, just like every other manufacturer, inflates their contrast ratio figures or at the very least quotes only an extreme (best) example which doesn't reflect general or real world viewing.



Pete77 said:


> Do these have a much higher "real world" contrast ratio than Panasonic's so called 30000:1 models?


It's a pretty safe bet - based on the reviews I have read - that a Pioneer Kuro panel will have a better real world contrast (ratio) than a Panasonic (or, for that matter, any other manufacturers) panel. Pioneer appear to have put more effort into improving contrast ratio than anyone else, hence the Kuro (Japanese for "black") range.

Even so, the claimed manufacturer contrast ratios - including those of Pioneer - are utterly meaningless and cannot be used as a basis for comparison. Independently quoted real world contrast ratios are more reliable, assuming they are from the same source/method.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

I recall reading that LCD manufacturers are "fiddling" contrast ratios by making the whites whiter (ie the contrast to the darks is higher, but there is no improvement on displaying "black") I don't know if this is also true of plasma, but explains why I haven't considered c/r much.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

dvdfever

Thanks, there's some good info there.

Sadly, I don't have a local John Lewis (I'm in Torquay, the wife just grunted Bristol at me when I woke her up to ask where the closest one is)

Does Geography matter? Is their price match one of those "if you can find it cheaper within xx miles" ones? Or will it be enough to say there's a place in Bolton that does it cheaper, match that?

Cheers


----------



## dvdfever

Raisltin Majere said:


> dvdfever
> 
> Thanks, there's some good info there.
> 
> Sadly, I don't have a local John Lewis (I'm in Torquay, the wife just grunted Bristol at me when I woke her up to ask where the closest one is)
> 
> Does Geography matter? Is their price match one of those "if you can find it cheaper within xx miles" ones? Or will it be enough to say there's a place in Bolton that does it cheaper, match that?
> 
> Cheers


As for whether they'd deliver to you, I'd ask them that question just to check when you ask about the price match.

Regarding mentioning Bolton, S&V seems to be the place that gets mentioned as it's the cheapest *and* it has a physical shop whereas I also saw another site - 1staudiovisual - that had it around the same price but it's online only so was no good for this.

Anyway, if JL won't deliver, then here's the link for the online-only place, which as I type is currently at £618 inc delivery (but not the 5-year warranty)
http://www.1staudiovisual.co.uk/catalog/panasonic-th37px80-inch-plasma-p-3286.html


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> Sadly, I don't have a local John Lewis (I'm in Torquay, the wife just grunted Bristol at me when I woke her up to ask where the closest one is)


Your wife seems to be right. According to their website John Lewis group does not yet seem to acknowledge the existence of either Wales or the West of England, even though they do have branches in both the North and Scotland! For heavens sake surely they must realise that no one North of Manchester ever has any money to spend on anything. Whereas Torquay is well known as the resting place of the gentile English middle classes and is one of the top uk locations for scones and clotted cream teas.


----------



## BrianHughes

Pete77 said:


> ...
> Whereas Torquay is well known as the resting place of the gentile English middle classes and is one of the top uk locations for scones and clotted cream teas.


I hope those are kosher scones & cream teas  (or did you mean "genteel"?) 

Sorry, mate, just couldn't resist


----------



## chimaera

Pete77 said:


> You seem to be missing out on rather a lot of features compared to the new 30000:1contrast ratio Full HD 42" model previously recommended in this forum:-
> 
> See www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/2877.../displayResult.html?p=TH-42PX80B&p=TH-42PZ85B
> 
> Surely you would be better off waiting a few more months, or even a year or so, until a Panasonic set with an acceptable true HD specification comes down to the price you can afford (i.e. £699)?


I got a TH-42PZ85B a week ago and it's superb. It is a lot bigger than a 32" panel but you soon get used to it. HD performance is stunning and even SD DVD looks better than I ever thought it could. Broadcast SD is variable depending on the channel and content but generally for the mainstream channels is very good. Currently the best price for this TV is about £1100 but I expect it will be a bit lower by the summer. It's a brand new model which has only been available about two weeks.


----------



## Pete77

chimaera said:


> I got a TH-42PZ85B a week ago and it's superb. It is a lot bigger than a 32" panel but you soon get used to it. HD performance is stunning and even SD DVD looks better than I ever thought it could. Broadcast SD is variable depending on the channel and content but generally for the mainstream channels is very good. Currently the best price for this TV is about £1100 but I expect it will be a bit lower by the summer. It's a brand new model which has only been available about two weeks.


Indeed regardless of the sematic arguments about real world contrast ratios it seems obvious that these latest top end Panasonic models are very nearly as good as the Pioneer Kuro models without costing anywhere near as much money.

The Kuros are undoubtedly very good but the price is too high. If they bought out a 42" model at £1400 and charged £2,000 for their 50" model then they might start to also be value for money. The current poor rate of the pound against the Euro hardly helps in this regard. Or do the Europeans have to pay a lot more money than us for the the same tvs?

If Raisltin kept out an eye for a bargain on the TH-42PZ85B in the July sales he might well strike lucky. Don't forget that the summer is a very difficult time of year to sell widescreen televisions.


----------



## bugmenever

Raisltin Majere said:


> Does Geography matter? Is their price match one of those "if you can find it cheaper within xx miles" ones? Or will it be enough to say there's a place in Bolton that does it cheaper, match that?


English John Lewis stores will match the displayed price of a TV in any UK shop.


----------



## Pete77

bugmenever said:


> English John Lewis stores will match the displayed price of a TV in any UK shop.


Since when. It always had to be a store within so many miles radius of the one you were asking to do a price match the last time I made use of this facility.


----------



## Ian_m

Review of TH42PX80B here.
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Panasonic-TH42PX80/

Review of TH42PZ85 here:
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Panasonic-TH42PZ85B

As for compared to Pioneer Kuru 42" I have seen them alongside each other.

When viewing from 2-3 metres away the Pioneer is the clear winner, but not by much. Pioneer picture is brghter, more colourful than the Panasonics. These screens were all calibrated. There were differences between the two Panasonics but nothing majorly detracting, picture might have been crisper on Blue-ray on the 85 model and SD inernal tuner gave a better picture on 80 model (maybe, that could be explained as its easier to upscale to 1024x768, than to 1920x1080). TiVo output looked good/adequate on both Panasonic models.

As for 24p support Pioneer and 85 were similar though, though I think the Pioneer has the edge due to better real world contrast ratios (and colour rendition ?). I was convinced there was judder/flicker/artifacts with the 80 model, though dificult to put your finger on it, nothing major but the Pioneer and 85 model "looked better". Anyway the Panasonics definitely support 24p without reverting to conversion to 60i and juddder judder judder.....

As for black levels, in a darkened room the Pioneer is blacker, but not by £500 much. Using the shops ISF calibrator they measured 0.04 for Pioneer (lumens/meter^2 ???) and 0.08 for Panasonic 85 model. Measured contrast ratios were over 8000 for Pioneer (the limit of the test equipment) and measured at 6000 for Panasonics. The best LCD's measure 1500:1 (Samsung).

As for you comments on LED backlit LCDs I have viewed the Samsung model and nice idea, but forget it, just get a plasma. The issue is you are using the LED's to overcome inherent weakness's of LCD ie poor black, poor contrast ratios and colour rendition. It mght produce some nice numbers ie infinite contrast ratio but in reality is quite poor. Basically the issue is, if you have a bright area and dark area on screen, due to the limited number of LED's (128 in Saumsungs 50") the light from light areas "bleeds" into dark areas. This leads to all types of strange smudging type artifacts as darks areas are lit up when they shouldn't be. Things like, in a Blu-ray film I was watching, there was a dark doorway and the dark area in the doorway had quite a large "light bloom" around the edges. As the camera panned the "light bloom" varied in size as the LED's in the backpanel clearly came up and down in brighness, all very distracting. Also as the LEDs change in brightness the colour redition changes as well very noticable, tall dark buildings against a blue sky the sky changes colour slightly near the buildings, very noticable during a panning shot. Also try watching film titles, the writing moves up the screen surrounded by light "blotches" that don't move smoothly. Turing off the LED autolighting greatly improves things but then you are back to the 1500:1 contrast ratio of a high end LCD.


----------



## Pete77

Ian_m said:


> I was convinced there was judder/flicker/artifacts with the 80 model, though dificult to put your finger on it, nothing major but the Pioneer and 85 model "looked better".


Their own marketing sheet effectively admits the 80's 24p system is imperfect as otherwise why would they have needed to develop the various computer processing enhancements of the image for the 85.



> As for black levels, in a darkened room the Pioneer is blacker, but not by £500 much. Using the shops ISF calibrator they measured 0.04 for Pioneer (lumens/meter^2 ???) and 0.08 for Panasonic 85 model. Measured contrast ratios were over 8000 for Pioneer (the limit of the test equipment) and measured at 6000 for Panasonics. The best LCD's measure 1500:1 (Samsung).


Do you have the comparable figures for the Panasonic 80 model too?



> As for you comments on LED backlit LCDs I have viewed the Samsung model and nice idea, but forget it, just get a plasma. The issue is you are using the LED's to overcome inherent weakness's of LCD ie poor black, poor contrast ratios and colour rendition.


Nice to know we can effectively rule these out. What about the forum comments I have read complaining about issues with Plasma screens reflecting the image of the viewer in them. Is this an issue only for some exceptionally picky individuals and/or only in some kinds of viewing environments. Why would these reflection issues occur with a Plasma and not an LCD. Does one ever get reflection issues with a CRT?


----------



## Ian_m

Pete77 said:


> Do you have the comparable figures for the Panasonic 80 model too?


I think the dark level for the 80 model was the same as the 85 model. The units were candela/metre squared, just checked my notes.

Got a feeling the contrast ratio for the 80 model was higher (6,900) than the 85 model. Measuring these figures is very hard as you need quite an expensive calibrator (except of LCD's where the cheapy Belkin one is adequate), the calibrator needs calibrating itself (£125/year) and you need a reliably Blu-ray test disk (or suitable PC) to generate test patterns/pictures. Also needs to be dark, which in viewing room environment is hard, the figures I have might be higher than actual.

The place I viewed had had issues with getting differing results depending whether they played the test disk on a Pioneer Blu-Ray, Panasonic Blu-Ray and Samsung Blu-Ray as well as differing settings on the panels. I thought the player just passed "bits" to the display, but obviously not. Often the Blu-Ray players and displays come supplied with settings to give a better picture in Currys/big well lit shed rather than being colour/contrast correct. The shop is also slightly worried that with cheaper better panels their £225 calibration service is going to be needed less and less.



Pete77 said:


> Nice to know we can effectively rule these out. What about the forum comments I have read complaining about issues with Plasma screens reflecting the image of the viewer in them. Is this an issue only for some exceptionally picky individuals and/or only in some kinds of viewing environments. Why would these reflection issues occur with a Plasma and not an LCD. Does one ever get reflection issues with a CRT?


Not to sure why, but you are right Plasma's have flat shiny glass and LCD frosted/matt glass. Wonder if the frosted is to "smudge"/de-focus the finer defects in LCD ie individual TFT transisitors ?

Yes when I moved from "curved" 4:3 CRT to 32" flatscreen TV reflections were an issue, but not major. Probably because with a curved CRT you couldn't make out what was in the reflection as it was distored where as with a flat screen you can make out quite clearly what is being reflected. Anyway not an issue for me, as my new plasma (when it arrives ) will be in a position where reflection is not an issue and if it is I will get off my bottom and shut the curtains and/or turn the light down and/or rotate the screen a bit


----------



## Pete77

Ian_m said:


> Anyway not an issue for me, as my new plasma (when it arrives ) will be in a position where reflection is not an issue and if it is I will get off my bottom and shut the curtains and/or turn the light down and/or rotate the screen a bit


What did you go for in the end. The expensive £3k+ Kuro or one of the almost as good and much cheaper new Panasonic series models?


----------



## Ian_m

Pete77 said:


> What did you go for in the end. The expensive £3k+ Kuro or one of the almost as good and much cheaper new Panasonic series models?


I will be getting a Panasonic TH-46PZ85B, Panasonic DMP-BD30 Blu-Ray and either a suitable Spektral or Alphason stand, once I have finished fitting our bathroom  (not allowd to start plasma playing until bathroom done....or else bathroom will never get finished, not my ordering of priorities you understand ). Still not too sure on stand, but would like one with a swivel bracket as my lounge is long and thing (4.5m x 9m) so ability to angle screen slightly would be useful.

If you require bigger the 50PX85 is out August and top of the range 50PZ800 (supports inernet streaming) in June. And I think there are some PZ80 models as well, these are same electronics as PX80 models but a 1920x1080 panel (so no 24p frame interpolation).


----------



## Pete77

Ian_m said:


> once I have finished fitting our bathroom  (not allowd to start plasma playing until bathroom done....or else bathroom will never get finished, not my ordering of priorities you understand ).


Whereas now it will be completed in double quick time so that SWMBO can luxuriate in her bath and you can return to the lounge to enjoy the new Panasonic.



> If you require bigger the 50PX85 is out August and top of the range 50PZ800 (supports inernet streaming) in June. And I think there are some PX85 models as well, these are same electronics as PZ80 models but a 1920x1080 panel (so no 24p frame interpolation).


With the hotter competition from Panasonic at some point Pioneer will have to slash prices on the Kuro series. The only question is when.


----------



## Ian_m

Pete77 said:


> Whereas now it will be completed in double quick time so that SWMBO can luxuriate in her bath and you can return to the lounge to enjoy the new Panasonic..


Absolutely....if she can manage to spend £3k on bathroom stuff (actually on my credit card, so I messed up there) I am sure I can spend at least that much on a new TV and associated bits...



Pete77 said:


> With the hotter competition from Panasonic at some point Pioneer will have to slash prices on the Kuro series. The only question is when.


I suspect we will see full-HD panels from Pioneer, virtually the same as Panasonic. This is even more likely as Pioneer are discontinuing in-house plasma display manufacture for their next generation panels, it is rumoured Matsu****a (ie Panasonic) will be the prefered manufacturer also encouraged by a technology exchange. So Pioneer get their panels and Panasonic get their blacks.


----------



## martink0646

Pete77 said:


> What about the forum comments I have read complaining about issues with Plasma screens reflecting the image of the viewer in them. Is this an issue only for some exceptionally picky individuals and/or only in some kinds of viewing environments. Why would these reflection issues occur with a Plasma and not an LCD. Does one ever get reflection issues with a CRT?


It all depends where the screen is. In our previous house the plasma was mounted above the fireplace & when watching tv with the main room lights off (all the time) & table lamps on or in daylight there was no reflection at all.

In our current house the screen has had to be wall mounted lower than I would have ideally liked. We have 3 table lamps in the room & when the one behind where we are sitting is on there is the reflection of the lamp & some slight object reflection. Easily remedied by just turning it off thereby giving no reflections at all.

The placement of lighting within a room is an important factor when setting up/calibrating a screen. If you utilise a disc such as the video essentials series then there is a whole section on this. Lights should be behind the screen so the ambient light diffuses(?) giving a much more pleasant experience for the eyes rather than a bright screen in an ocean of dark which makes your eyes work hard & can lead to eyestrain & headaches. This is the same theory which syas never work on a PC monitor in the dark. This is the theory behind what Philips are trying to do with the Ambilight series but without the horribly distracting colour changes.

Martin


----------



## chimaera

martink0646 said:


> This is the theory behind what Philips are trying to do with the Ambilight series but without the horribly distracting colour changes.


Or alternatively it's just a gimmick and a pretty useless one at that


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> With the hotter competition from Panasonic at some point Pioneer will have to slash prices on the Kuro series. The only question is when.


Not so long as they can maintain a performance edge. There will always be people who will pay for the best.


----------



## chimaera

TCM2007 said:


> Not so long as they can maintain a performance edge. There will always be people who will pay for the best.


Evidently not enough, or they wouldn't be abandoning manufacture of their own panels.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Ian_m said:


> Review of TH42PX80B here.
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Panasonic-TH42PX80/


Thanks Ian_m.

I won't pretend I understand all of the technical aspects of that review, but it seems to be positive overall.

This bit seems to address the concerns Pete raised:


> I'm pleased to report that the Panasonic TH42PX80 properly handled 1080p/24 signal from the Sony Playstation 3 without telecine judder, as evidenced from the smoothness of the scrolling opening titles (00:02:18) and end credits, not to mention the numerous slow panning shots in the movie (e.g. when the camera panned left across a skyscraper around 00:10:18). I'm not sure whether this is achieved through 2:2/ 4:4 pulldown or frame interpolation, but it's pretty unlikely to be the latter considering that I didn't witness any "video effect" nor interpolation artefact even in scenes containing incredibly complex structures such as the pyramid-isque headquarters of Tyrell Corporation (00:16:31).


----------



## Pete77

It seems to come down mainly to whether you need the full HD 1920 x 1080 or not as the review suggests:-



> Intelligent Frame Creation doesn't work as well as we'd like it to


This seems to rather damage the value of the other main additional feature Panasonic thinks you should be paying extra for in the PZ85B.

Given the price difference perhaps a hard choice but if the PZ85B was only £850 instead of £1050 then choosing it over its cheaper sibling would probably be a no brainer.


----------



## chimaera

I've turned IFC off as I didn't care for the results. Perhaps it works better with other sources but with SD and HD from Sky and SD from a progressive DVD player it made film material look too much like video. The PZ80 is worth looking at, but it's not all that much cheaper. The PX80 is not full HD.


----------



## AMc

chimera said:


> TCM2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so long as they can maintain a performance edge. There will always be people who will pay for the best.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently not enough, or they wouldn't be abandoning manufacture of their own panels.
Click to expand...

The reports I read suggested that they were going to continue with research and development, they were simply outsourcing the manufacturing and assembly processes to save money.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/08/pioneer-isnt-abandoning-kuro-plasma-expects-same-quality-panel/


----------



## Pete77

AMc said:


> The reports I read suggested that they were going to continue with research and development, they were simply outsourcing the manufacturing and assembly processes to save money.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/08/pioneer-isnt-abandoning-kuro-plasma-expects-same-quality-panel/


Well as their current price pointing makes then uncompetitive if they want to increase their market share that looks like a rather essential thing to do.


----------



## Ian_m

Here is the UK press release on Pioneer sub-contracting manufacture

http://www.pioneer.co.uk/uk/content/press/news/corporate070308.html

Other manufacturers have their plasma panels (and LCD's) made by other people as well, so its hardly earth shattering news.

Good points are:-

- Pioneer prices might drop, doubt it as it is a premium brand.
- Other manufactures might get access to Pioneer technology. Looks like Matsu****a (Panasonic) might have already.


----------



## Ian_m

AMc said:


> The reports I read suggested that they were going to continue with research and development, they were simply outsourcing the manufacturing and assembly processes to save money.


Pioneer have already shown their next generation plasma panels, due 2009.

They have:-

- Even deeper black, than current Kuro.
- Only 9mm thick !! (actually 9mm at edges, 18mm in middle). Thinner than an iPhone.
- Are all 1920x1080 resolution.


----------



## TCM2007

Yes, but the 2009 panels are still made by Pioneer as I understand it, it's the 2010 models which will switch to bought-in glass.

I hear very good things about the 9-series Pioneers.

Pete, Pioneer aren't going for market share as an objective. They want to concentrate on the premium end.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

bugmenever said:


> English John Lewis stores will match the displayed price of a TV in any UK shop.





Pete77 said:


> Since when. It always had to be a store within so many miles radius of the one you were asking to do a price match the last time I made use of this facility.


I guess we'll find out soon.

I emailed and asked for a price match and they have just replied asking for my address.


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> I emailed and asked for a price match and they have just replied asking for my address.


Can't see why they would need that unless they only price match against a certain range of postcodes in the store area.

My experience of John Lewis is that each store has a catchment area and if you are outside that area they also won't offer you free delivery either. Imagine how much you would have to pay for a van from up north all the way to Torquay.............

You might perhaps be in the delivery area of the Bristol store or perhaps they only cover your area via the johnlewis.com website (who don't price match)


----------



## Milhouse

chimaera said:


> Or alternatively it's just a gimmick and a pretty useless one at that


Oh I dunno... 










I find it very effective - my guess is you don't own one? Quite a number of people who do wouldn't now buy a TV without Ambilight, which surely says something. The amp in the picture is a loaner from my dealer while my faulty Onkyo TX-NR905 was being replaced which will be performing 1080p upscaling duties for the TiVo...


----------



## chimaera

Yes I can see it must be working well for them as a USP 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7345806.stm


----------



## Milhouse

chimaera said:


> Yes I can see it must be working well for them as a USP
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7345806.stm


I don't believe Philips bothered to launch many of their current TVs (including the Aurea model in my picture) in North America - the recent announcement they are now pulling out of the US comes as no great surprise, it's obviously been on the cards for quite some time. Philips has been having a tough time in the US mainly due to brand rather than picture image - ask an American about Philips televisions and I bet they won't have a clue.


----------



## bugmenever

Pete77 said:


> Since when. It always had to be a store within so many miles radius of the one you were asking to do a price match the last time I made use of this facility.


Do I look like I run John Lewis? I have no idea how long this policy has been in place, other than for several years at least.

Perhaps you managed to be so annoying a sales assistant allowed you to infer otherwise so you'd go and bother some other store?


----------



## Pete77

bugmenever said:


> Do I look like I run John Lewis? I have no idea how long this policy has been in place, other than for several years at least.
> 
> Perhaps you managed to be so annoying a sales assistant allowed you to infer otherwise so you'd go and bother some other store?


It would certainly be interesting to know which is your other more regularly used Tivocommunity forum identity when you are not wearing your only occasionally used Victor Meldrew forum hat.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete77 said:


> It would certainly be interesting to know which is your other more regularly used Tivocommunity forum identity when you are not wearing your only occasionally used Victor Meldrew forum hat.


Good god, here we go again


----------



## Pete77

Seems it is not as simple as you suggest:-

See www.johnlewis.com/Help/Help.aspx?helpid=50



> "Customers trust John Lewis because they know that shopping at our stores means they will get the lowest price in their market. This is enshrined in 'Never Knowingly Undersold' (NKU) which is a key principle of John Lewis' business. This policy has not changed. We will continue to check both national and local competitors to ensure that our prices are competitive. When we find a price that is lower in the market, we reduce that price for all the customers in our store. This is a promise we have delivered to our customers since the business began and Never Knowingly Undersold remains the bedrock of our trading philosophy.
> 
> The current trial in Scotland is exploring ways to communicate this promise more clearly and to progress the rigour of our price checks so we can enhance delivery of value to our customers.
> 
> * *We continue to price match against all our national competitors. This is the key NKU policy embedded in our constitution.
> *Price checkers in each branch will continue to monitor prices within a catchment of 8 miles. All John Lewis branches will price match any product sold within a radius of 8 miles of that branch.
> * We are exploring the impact of increasing focus on our local competitors rather than matching prices with independent stores anywhere in the country. Our hypothesis is that most customers shop in the area around each store. Maximising our price checks locally will deliver value to the vast majority of customers rather than diverting resources to match prices with shops that are not widely accessible.*


So presently they do match nationally at all stores against any price that is within 8 miles of any one of their stores (even an independent store). If you find a price that is cheaper than theirs that is more than 8 miles from any John Lewis store in an Independent store (not chain) then tough they will not match it. They only price match regardless of distance from their stores with national chain stores (who are probably bound to have a branch within 8 miles of one of their stores anyway).

Reading between the lines of the PR/marketing hyperbole it seems they are now thinking of moving back to only price matching against independent stores within the 8 mile catchment of that particular John Lewis store and may not in future match that price nationally where the store within 8 miles is not a national chain store. Instead they will only match the price locally at that store. That is because it costs them too much money to match a one off special local offer by an independent (who may be clearing unsold stock) across all their stores.


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> Good god, here we go again


The good working knowledge about Ljay's Utils in this poster's first ever forum post is really quite remarkable.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Perhaps (s)he thought it would be better to lurk and learn than spam?


----------



## dvdfever

Thanks for posting the pic of your TV, Milhouse, but it does remind me of the Simpsons episode where Mr Burns was mistaken for an alien as he was glowing in the forest 

I saw a huge version of the TV in John Lewis at the weekend (costing £3000) and it would drive me up the wall to see that on my er... wall. I like the standard black surround on a telly.


----------



## Milhouse

dvdfever said:


> Thanks for posting the pic of your TV, Milhouse, but it does remind me of the Simpsons episode where Mr Burns was mistaken for an alien as he was glowing in the forest
> 
> I saw a huge version of the TV in John Lewis at the weekend (costing £3000) and it would drive me up the wall to see that on my er... wall. I like the standard black surround on a telly.


I showed that picture to a friend - his response was to ask why I had a UFO stuck to my wall...


----------



## TCM2007

> Our promise to you extends beyond the local area to cover *any conventional shop in the UK* where you find the same item on display at a lower shelf-edge price with the same availability and terms.


http://www.johnlewis.com/Help/Help.aspx?HelpId=18

Pete, your quote is from an article about a pricing trial in Scotland.


----------



## Pete77

And on the same page they also say:-



> *Each shop checks the prices of likely competitors in the local area*. (Details of the area covered are available on request from Customer Services in your local shop.) *If we find a competitor within this area selling the same product *that is part of our own standard offer* at a lower price, our shelf price will be reduced to match*


The statements in the two different paragraphs appear contradictory. Note also that if you wish to invoke their other nationwide price police you must buy first at the higher price and force them to refund you afterwards. This runs the risk of falling foul of one of their exclusions such as:-



> *We do not price match with outlets which are not conventional shops, e.g. membership clubs, market stalls, duty free shops, mail order catalogues or the Internet. We do not match closing down sales as these are not trading as normal shops*.


So what for instance does one make of Argos which is not a conventional shop like John Lewis but a box shifting catalogue shop on the high street?

In practice I would only go to the trouble of forcing John Lewis to match on something like a Plasma tv where they are bundling a 5 year warranty worth another couple of hundred quid. Otherwise for other goods (where they don't offer extended warranties) if they don't have the cheapest price in the first place then in my book they don't deserve my business.

One of John Lewis's longstanding sneaky tricks in avoiding price matches on expensive goods like televisions was to be supplied with special model variants of tvs or computers of which they were the only supplier in the UK and thus on which they thus did not have to price match.


----------



## chimaera

I believe Panasonic have a 5 year warranty anyway as part of a promotion starting 1st May, but that may exclude Internet sales.


----------



## Pete77

chimaera said:


> I believe Panasonic have a 5 year warranty anyway as part of a promotion starting 1st May, but that may exclude Internet sales.


OK but John Lewis are offering a warranty all the time for 5 years on all tvs and not just on Panasonics for 1 month.

The spring and summer is obviously a hard time to maintain tv sales, especially with the current credit crunch.


----------



## blindlemon

Pete77 said:


> Reading between the lines of the PR/marketing hyperbole it seems they are now thinking of moving back to only price matching against independent stores within the 8 mile catchment of that particular John Lewis store.


Maybe, but once you have persuaded JL branch A to match the price of a store local to it, then you can call JL branch B up the road from you and get them to match branch A's price and deliver to you free :up:

That's what I did when I bought my plasma 

Oh, and if branch C can be persuaded to drop the price even further within 28 days of your purchase, then you can call branch B again and get them to send you a refund for the difference! I did that too


----------



## martink0646

Milhouse said:


> Oh I dunno...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it very effective - my guess is you don't own one? Quite a number of people who do wouldn't now buy a TV without Ambilight, which surely says something. The amp in the picture is a loaner from my dealer while my faulty Onkyo TX-NR905 was being replaced which will be performing 1080p upscaling duties for the TiVo...


Nice install Millhouse. I like the way you have chased the cables.

The Ambilight has always looked effective to me......showing one colour. Whenever I have seen it in operation (admittedly mainly in commercial settings) I have always found the multiple hues very distracting. Maybe it's the demo material used which is designed to show off as many different colours in one go to 'highlight the technology thats put me off.

Martin


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> The statements in the two different paragraphs appear contradictory.


No. they will match any price nationwide if you ask them, but they only revise the displayed prices based on local prices. No contradiction.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> No. they will match any price nationwide if you ask them, but they only revise the displayed prices based on local prices. No contradiction.


Unless I misremember when I last used their price matching service in the late 1980s they would only match prices within a certain radius of the store in question. At some point they must have expanded that to cover any genuine retail store nationwide.

My general experience of John Lewis is that they are "never knowingly undersold" but they do have a very convenient blind eye to the best market prices unless their customers insist on drawing them to their attention. Hardly surprising perhaps in view of the obvious substantial hidden extra cost of offering the free 5 warranty on the television sets.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

They've agreed the price match


----------



## bugmenever

Pete77 said:


> Seems it is not as simple as you suggest:-


I'm glad to say it is.



TCM2007 said:


> No. they will match any price nationwide if you ask them, but they only revise the displayed prices based on local prices. No contradiction.


Indeed, you've got it spot on - although the price has to be displayed (there's a couple of dodgy small shops that only provide the price on demand, to stop all their trade going to John Lewis)



Raisltin Majere said:


> They've agreed the price match


Congratulations! Looks like you've made a great choice. Hope my information was of use.



Pete77 said:


> It would certainly be interesting to know which is your other more regularly used Tivocommunity forum identity


It's Pete77 of course.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

bugmenever said:


> Congratulations! Looks like you've made a great choice. Hope my information was of use.


It was, thankyou.


----------



## Pete77

bugmenever said:


> It's Pete77 of course.


I can say that it definitely is not.


----------



## TCM2007

But that's what you would say if it was...


----------



## ericd121

Ah well, this thread is adrift in non-topical waters, so I may as well give it a big shove.

Pete, what is this "Sky Lifetime Sub" of which you speak?

Is it related to "FreeSat from Sky"?

And are either related to that £75 thingy that was around around a year ago?


----------



## Pete77

ericd121 said:


> Pete, what is this "Sky Lifetime Sub" of which you speak?
> 
> Is it related to "FreeSat from Sky"?
> 
> And are either related to that £75 thingy that was around around a year ago?


Sky Pay Once Watch Forever is its name. £75 and in stock at any high street Currys Digital or Currys Superstore on the shelves now.

£75 for a Digibox and dish fully installed and 4 months of 4 Sky Mixes free.

The catch is they want a DD mandate to carry out the install and the card activation for the free Mixes. But you can cancel at the end of the 4 free months without paying anything. If cancelling with Sky is too much like hard work (they are very persistent in ignoring the idea you want to cancel) just cancel the DD at your bank. Sky are meant to ring up anyway before the first payment is made to see if you want to carry on (more like to try and sell you a more expensive package but again on say a low price for another 3 months to lure you in to say £35 per month) but as cancelling with Sky phone personnel is a hassle cancelling your DD at the bank is the easier, cheaper and more foolproof method of making sure you only ever pay £75.

Watch out for the little A5 mid blue boxes at Currys saying "Sky Pay Once Watch Forever". Same as "Freesat From Sky" but better and cheaper as long as you cancel when the four free months are up.


----------



## TCM2007

Careful Pete, that's poor advice: just canceling the DD doesn't cancel the contract; you'd still owe them the cash a sub every month whether the DD was in place or not if you haven't rung up to cancel the contract.

I canceled my Sky sub last week, and apart form the usual phone option bingo at the start, it was fine - no time on hold, actioned straight away, no funny business, confirmation letter arrived two days later.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Careful Pete, that's poor advice: just canceling the DD doesn't cancel the contract; you'd still owe them the cash a sub every month whether the DD was in place or not if you haven't rung up to cancel the contract.


But this contract is only a 4 month contract and not a 12 month one. That is the whole point of why it is different. Sky have to agree with you if you want to continue after 4 months.

On Sky Pay Once Watch Forever you are in the same situation as someone coming to the end of the first 12 months with Sky.

However I agree you probably should notify Sky making sure to use one of the ordinary non premium priced numbers for Sky listed at the www.saynoto0870.com website or using the facility on their website to send them an email if you set up an online version of your account using the Smartcard number. Sky assure me they would call you back if you sent a message requesting cancellation via this online account method (there is no direct way to cancel online).

So the best bet is to phone them or message them via the online account to notify of you wish to cancel and also terminate your DD with the bank at the same time to make sure. However if the DD is not in force when Sky try to collect payment they will simply deactivate any free pay channels by sending a signal to your card and you will not be in breach of contract unlike a normal 12 month customer who tried to cancel after 4 months. The FTV and FTA channels will carry on as normal.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> But this contract is only a 4 month contract and not a 12 month one.
> 
> ....
> 
> However if the DD is not in force when Sky try to collect payment they will simply deactivate any free pay channels by sending a signal to your card and you will not be in breach of contract unlike a normal 12 month customer who tried to cancel after 4 months. The FTV and FTA channels will carry on as normal.


Can't be sure without seeing the T&C but I'd bet it's an open ended contract, cancellable after 4 months, and with a default of switching to paid after 4 months. All your doing by cancelling the DD is failing to pay for the fifth month, which you've committed to doing if you don't cancel. So they'd be entirely wthin their rights peruing you for the money you owe.


----------



## Sneals2000

TCM2007 said:


> I canceled my Sky sub last week, and apart form the usual phone option bingo at the start, it was fine - no time on hold, actioned straight away, no funny business, confirmation letter arrived two days later.


Get ready for the deluge of junk mail you'll get for the next year or so from Sky, begging you to come back... I also got a couple of phone calls asking why I'd cancelled - took great pleasure in explaining that I had realised the only stuff I watch was on Freeview these days - so a FTV Sky box got everything I wanted from satellite.


----------



## ericd121

Pete77 said:


> Sky Pay Once Watch Forever is its name. £75 and in stock at any high street Currys Digital or Currys Superstore on the shelves now.
> 
> £75 for a Digibox and dish fully installed and 4 months of 4 Sky Mixes free.


Thanks for the clarification.

BTW Pete, now that TCM2007 has cancelled his Sky sub, are you going to abandon your 
"You're so rich, you don't care how much you spend on Sky subs." position?

Apologies to TCM2007 for obliquely referring to his personal finances.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> *I canceled my Sky sub last week*, and apart form the usual phone option bingo at the start, it was fine - no time on hold, actioned straight away, no funny business, confirmation letter arrived two days later.


Has hell officially frozen over or something then? Surely with your exorbitantly expensive Pioneer HD set on the way you can't possibly now get the most out of it without the full Sky HD channel range? Especially given your usually expressed view that Sky levy a very modest charge indeed for a thoroughly worthwhile service with far more HD than anyone else.

Or has the recent global credit crunch led to a lot less people buying those glossy £3.50 magazines and so bonuses have been slashed for senior members of the publishing trade.

By the way I hope you won't mind me mentioning that there are two letter ls in cancelled.


----------



## Pete77

ericd121 said:


> Thanks for the clarification.


If the content of the below two threads on the www.moneysavingexpert.com are accurate regarding the quite extraordinary intimidation, lies, threats and bullying that have gone on by Sky towards customers who have merely tried to "Pay Once and Watch Forever" on a service marketed on the box that it came in as "No contract=no monthly fee" then I could not possibly recommend anyone else to consider getting it and would instead recommend that they wait until BBC Freesat comes out.

Sky have totally disgraced themselves this time. This is nothing less than outright confidence trickery on their part.:down:

See

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=711597

and

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=497501


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Has hell officially frozen over or something then?


Moved to a house which is geographically unable to get Sky - can't get an unobscured line of site to Astra.

Missing live sport will be a pain I'll just have to go down the pub instead! And my stance on allowable torrenting may have to loosen a bit!


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Sky have totally disgraced themselves this time. This is nothing less than outright confidence trickery on their part.:down:


Well that rather illustrates why your advice to "just cancel the DD" was so poor.

All of these deferred offers are the same in principle; if you don't cancel in time you'll find yourself somewhere you didn't want to be. I recall once forgetting when a "12 months interest free credit" dela came to an end; by going over 12 months I became liable for interest from day one. Ouch.

If you sign up for these deals, you need to be very sure you manage them right.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Moved to a house which is geographically unable to get Sky - can't get an unobscured line of site to Astra.!


I don't believe that is really possible for a house so long as the will to have Sky is there. For a flat its an entirely different matter as you have both covenants in a lease that may prevent you and you may not own a bit of outside wall directly looking at the satellite as part of the outside wall of your flat.

Obvious solutions to the no line of sight issue are a dish on a long pole from the top of the chimney to get over whatever is obstructing the line of sight or putting a dish out somewhere in the garden where there is a line of sight and then running a cable in from there.

If there really is now way to get Sky where you are I bet you are pleased that HD on Freeview has been announced. Plus I suppose you will also now be making the case for Sky Picnic as one of the few people who cannot get a Sky signal.

Explain a little more as to why you cannot get a line of sight. I presume the expensive Pioneer HD set idea is now in the bin?


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Well that rather illustrates why your advice to "just cancel the DD" was so poor.


But my advice does work for the unusual Sky product I have and occasionally subscribe through. Sky Month By Month.

Under Sky Month By Month you have to pay up front for each month in advance and there is never a 12 month contract liability (you only have to pay the first month when the dish and box is first installed + £99). If you ever let your credit get to zero (for instance by cancelling the direct debit) they deactivate your viewing card but there is no penalty for breach of contract or chasing letters or anything as there is no further contractual liability. But Sky Month By Month has been very little sold and is little known about.



> All of these deferred offers are the same in principle; if you don't cancel in time you'll find yourself somewhere you didn't want to be. I recall once forgetting when a "12 months interest free credit" dela came to an end; by going over 12 months I became liable for interest from day one. Ouch.
> 
> If you sign up for these deals, you need to be very sure you manage them right.


But this product (Sky Pay Once Watch Forever) has actually been mis-sold and is contravening Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (governing Misleading Price Indications) and should be investigated by Trading Standards and the Office of Fair Trading

The product name can surely only be construed in one way in any legal dispute at a County Court. Also the full contract is not provided to the customer at the point of sale (the store). The contract is not even inside the sealed box which the customer cannot open in the store.

The box specifically says "No Contract=No Monthly Fee" and "6 months Sky Tv" and "Enjoy Over 200 free digital channels PLUS 6 months Sky TV". When customers have the product installed and call Sky to activate the 2 Free Sky Mixes for 6 months the dedicated team for this product tell them they will be called back in 6 months just before the free viewing ends to see if they want to continue or cancel. There is no suggestion given that if they do not pro-actively cancel they will become locked in to a contract.

What is actually happening is Sky have sold a product their IT systems have not been updated for and in effect the IT systems are treating it as a 12 month contract of which the first 6 payments have been paid internally by Sky. Then when customers try to cancel at 6 months (when the promised call about whether they want to go on and become a paying subscriber does not happen) they are told they are in a 12 month contract and must pay for 1Sky Mix for at least 6 more months. This is not the basis on which the product was packaged sold or marketed. How exactly do you think a judge in a County Court will interpret "Pay Once Watch Forever"?

This is disgraceful mis-sellling of the worst kind by Sky that will severely blacken their name with anyone who bought the product and will push their friends or relatives that they tell about it (who are not Sky subscribers) firmly in to the Freeview or BBC/ITV Freesat camps.


----------



## TCM2007

I can't get line of site because there is a steep bank, slightly taller than the house, immediately behind it to the south. On the top of this bank is a row of mature trees 50 or 60 ft high. Between the two they completely screen out everything but one German satellite. There is a 20ft hedge behind the trees which prevents me from installing a dish the other side of the trees, and I estimate a dish on a pole would need to be around 15m above the roof of the house, which would never get the required planning permission.

My only option is to sweet-talk a neighbour into allowing a dish on their land,but as I've only been here a week I don't know tem well enough to ask.

No, the TV is still going ahead (although the MD of Pioneer did suggest to me the other day that I should wait for the series 9 ones, as they are by all accounts awesome). I can still play Blu-ray disks and obtain HD files via the internet.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I can't get line of site because there is a steep bank, slightly taller than the house, immediately behind it to the south. On the top of this bank is a row of mature trees 50 or 60 ft high. Between the two they completely screen out everything but one German satellite. There is a 20ft hedge behind the trees which prevents me from installing a dish the other side of the trees, and I estimate a dish on a pole would need to be around 15m above the roof of the house, which would never get the required planning permission.


I would have thought you would have checked out the satellite signal situation long before making an offer on any house you were thinking of buying (thus also giving you time to find subtle ways to put your wife off buying it).

The chap from Sky did have a job at my mother's house as the line of sight to the outside of her South facing living room window (next to the tv) is completely blocked by the oak tree and various other trees. Fortunately he was able to run a cable all the way down the house and round to the side where a line of site could be found just above a flat roof.

Took him just short of 2 hours though (there was also a thunderstorm mid way through) for the whole job due to all the cable running along the eaves. Would have been very expensive to have that done as a Freesat install when you are paying by the hour! I got him to install a Quad LNB rather than a standard one (Free of Charge) but unfortunately I didn't realise about a "double cable" not being standard kit (he would have done it had I known and asked) until it was too late. So the Freesat PVR upgrade route would now be rather expensive.

Regarding the 20ft hedge can I presume the other side of it is in your neighbour's garden or on the main road?

What is the Freeview reception status and what is the projected broadband connection speed at this otherwise idyllic rural spot?


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> This is disgraceful mis-sellling of the worst kind by Sky that will severely blacken their name with anyone who bought the product and will push their friends or relatives that they tell about it (who are not Sky subscribers) firmly in to the Freeview or BBC/ITV Freesat camps.


What actually seems to have happened is that at some point in the last year Sky changed from "we'll ring you after six months" to "If you do nothing after six months you will be deemed to want to continue". Either is fine so long as you know what the deal is. But either deliberately or by mistake (and with all these things I tend to beleive the ****-up version of events) people who should have been called have in fact been deemed to want to continue.

When this is pointed out to Sky, they seem entirely willing to apologise, cancel he contract and refund moneys (there may have been some where it didn't - that site seems to be entirely occupied by people f the Pete77 frame of mind I couldn't read the threads to the end).

The suggestion that Sky are in some way liable because of the name of the product is laughable. It _is _pay once watch forever, you just have to make a phone call after six months.

Thinking that a package of that nature wouldn't default continuing as paid-for after the six months in naive in the extreme.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> What is the Freeview reception status and what is the projected broadband connection speed at this otherwise idyllic rural spot?


Well that had me scared for a bit, as we're on a relay here - not even any analogue Channel 5 - and even post switch off we would only have have the PSB muxes. Fortunately a good aerial and a strong amp pulls in enough of Mendip from just over the row of the hill opposite to get a full service.

The DAB radios only get a signal in a some places, and even then only the BBC mux and it's susceptible to cutting out.

It's tough to move when you were a 100% digital household!

Broadband is OK, fortunately. It's still in its training period its happily syncing at 8128K down & 448k up, which is the theoretical maximum of ADSL Max. I'm 300m from the exchange.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> The DAB radios only get a signal in a some places, and even then only the BBC mux and it's susceptible to cutting out.
> 
> It's tough to move when you were a 100% digital household!
> 
> Broadband is OK, fortunately. It's still in its training period its happily syncing at 8128K down & 448k up, which is the theoretical maximum of ADSL Max. I'm 300m from the exchange.


A number of Wifi Internet radios would therefore seem to be an eminently satisfactory replacement for the utterly paltry range of channels available on DAB.

Also at least with the full speed broadband connection you should be able to pull down plenty of HDTV, even if the downloads take quite a while. Its lucky that you weren't also 6km from the local exchange with only a 256k sync speed!


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> What actually seems to have happened is that at some point in the last year Sky changed from "we'll ring you after six months" to "If you do nothing after six months you will be deemed to want to continue". Either is fine so long as you know what the deal is. But either deliberately or by mistake (and with all these things I tend to beleive the ****-up version of events) people who should have been called have in fact been deemed to want to continue.


Don't give me the "it was a mistake" rubbish with a serial abuser like Sky who quite persistently goes out of their way to make it almost impossible to cancel their service for people of normal sensibilities who do not like to make a fuss.

The problem is the quality of staff training at their Scottish call centre. This is abysmal on any special offer non standard Sky products other than the normal free install but with 12 months contract deal. I don't fault the staff themselves as the personality of the average Sky call centre worker at Sky in Scotland is considerable more willing, cheerful and technically minded than a typical UK call centre worker (for instance BT customer services who are atrocious). But they just have not been trained in Month By Month, Pay Once Watch Forever or any other non mainstream package. Nor have the IT systems been properly structured to cope with these products.

As to Pay Once Watch Forever it is very clearly sold in a way that suggests "No Contract" and that continuing is optional. It is perfectly clear plenty of people would want to cancel and not carry on even though 50% or so might have been sucked in to carrying on subscribing voluntarily once they experienced pay tv. But Sky's product should be so good that people should voluntarily want to go on subscribing and paying. They should not be enlisting conscripts to their subscriber numbers.

Sky also knew perfectly well loads of people taking this product would be people with lousy Freeview reception and thus much more likely to be Freesatters than long term subscribers. There should have been no question of retaining these customers against their will and those customers should have had to positively opt in to continue, given how the service was sold.

Strange that you know so much about this problem TCM. I'm sure you must have a relative working at Sky?


----------



## TCM2007

I just read the same information as you did. But my experience of business suggests that these things are usually mistakes rather than malevolence, and that posters on websites are entirely capable of getting themselves into a right lather over the slightest things.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I just read the same information as you did. But my experience of business suggests that these things are usually mistakes rather than malevolence, and that posters on websites are entirely capable of getting themselves into a right lather over the slightest things.


Sky only sell a very simple range of television products with a very limited number of permutations (compare this with an automotive components or computer components supplier for instance who always dispatch the correct goods). It should not be the least bit hard to correctly flag a different contract type on the database and to properly display the details to the member of staff taking the call.

Sky go out of their way to make customers angry by providing online account management but then refusing to let you alter Mixes (even the choice of Mixes which will only make a maximum difference of £5 per month subscription to Sky or possibly cost them nothing if you are changing Mixes but will cost them if you have to spend time speaking to a human operator to do so) or either cancel or even come back to them online. For this they make you queue for ages on a covert premium rate phone line for long periods and then make you speak to more than one adviser to do a very simple thing like coming back to them for just one month (Central European Rally on Eurosport) after not subscribing for 14 months. Why on earth couldn't I resubscribe on line when they still have my smart card and direct debit details and an online account for me. A computer is much less likely to screw up or more misinform customers than a human being.

The threads on moneysavingexpert.com should be judged by the volumes and the repeat nature of the nightmare errors made by Sky in them. The odd one or two customers might be mavericks with unreasonable expectations but here they only sold 50,000 at most of these products and there are 150 or more complaints all relaying the same depressing experiences of incompetence and broken promises by Sky staff.

This is clealry not down to unreasonable customers it is down to Sky behaving unethically and incompetently. If an airline flew their aircraft in this kind of repeatedly negligent fashion the CAA would ground the fleet till they sorted things out. They wouldn't just be able to grin and say "oh dear **** up old boy" as it seems you believe is acceptable.

The problem is that the senior management at Sky only get involved in marketing hyperbole and don't pay attention to any of the details of providing a decent service at the customer service level.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Is any able to explain why some plasmas are 1024x768 and others are 1024x720? Is one "correct"?


----------



## Pete77

Surely only 1920 x 1080 is correct though?

Cue Sneals2000 to give us chapter and verse on this matter.


----------



## RichardJH

> Surely only 1920 x 1080 is correct though?


Only if the answer comes to 2 073 600


----------



## TCM2007

Raisltin Majere said:


> Is any able to explain why some plasmas are 1024x768 and others are 1024x720? Is one "correct"?


I think you mean 1280 x 720.

HD is broadcast is 1920 x 1080 in the UK; some downloaded HD files are 1280 x 720.

However the TV's panel can be any resolution, and it will scale the image to fit. Clearly there are theoretical advantages to having a panel whose resolution matches the broadcast, as scaling can degrade the picture. My personal feeling is that for the most part it's not something you'd notice in normal viewing.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

TCM2007 said:


> I think you mean 1280 x 720.


nope 


TCM2007 said:


> HD is broadcast is 1920 x 1080 in the UK; some downloaded HD files are 1280 x 720.
> 
> However the TV's panel can be any resolution, and it will scale the image to fit. Clearly there are theoretical advantages to having a panel whose resolution matches the broadcast, as scaling can degrade the picture. My personal feeling is that for the most part it's not something you'd notice in normal viewing.


I didn;t think there were any 1080 broadcasts?


----------



## Pete77

This matter was debated at some considerable length at:-

www.highdefforum.com/showthread.php?t=20198

In essence to have a True HD set you should have shelled out for the more expensive 1920 x 1080 42" Panasonic. Also if you will recall I did try to save you from buying the wrong model.

1024 x 768 is not True HD but hopefully you will sit far enough away from the set that you won't be able to tell the difference.


----------



## RichardJH

some good info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> I didn't think there were any 1080 broadcasts?


What about Blu Ray and HD internet downloads?


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete77 said:


> What about Blu Ray and HD internet downloads?


How are they "broadcasts"?


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> How are they "broadcasts"?


In the one case through online retailers who then broadcast the Blu Ray disks to you by post and in the other case they are broadcast directly over the internet instead of the airwaves.

However many hairs you may now choose to split on this matter you have previously admitted that you wanted a television on which you intended to watch Blu Ray discs.

Also there is nothing to stop Sky switching to broadcasting in 1920 x 1080 as and when they have more Astra transponder space available to acommodate it........................


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete

It's not me splitting hairs.

I specifically asked for clarification regarding broadcasts, your reply? Retailers "broadcasting" discs in the post.

You are ridiculous.


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> Pete
> 
> I specifically asked for clarification regarding broadcasts, your reply?


It remains to be seen what HD formats ITV and Five will broadcast in. They clearly may want to appear to offer better HD than Sky or the BBC.



> Retailers "broadcasting" discs in the post.


But you clearly admitted you wanted to watch Blu Ray discs sometimes. The post is a mechanism for transmitting things. It just cannot transmit them in Real Time.

Your next defensive salvo should clearly be to argue that 720 Sky HD broadcasts look worse on a 1920 x1080 tv than a 1024 x 768 one and hence why your choice of television is in fact the correct one for the programs that you most often watch, even though Sky does not broadcast in Full HD.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete77 said:


> It remains to be seen what HD formats ITV and Five will broadcast in. They clearly may want to appear to offer better HD than Sky or the BBC.
> 
> But you clearly admitted you wanted to watch Blu Ray discs sometimes. The post is a mechanism for transmitting things. It just cannot transmit them in Real Time.
> 
> Your next defensive salvo should clearly be to argue that 720 Sky HD broadcasts look worse on a 1920 x1080 tv than a 1024 x 768 one and hence why your choice of television is in fact the correct one for the programs that you most often watch, even though Sky does not broadcast in Full HD.


Pete, you really are pathetic.

TCM posted about the resolution of broadcasts, I was unaware of this so I asked a question. Your response was nothing short of asinine.

I am happy with my choice of television, I have no need for any kind of defensive salvo.


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> I am happy with my choice of television, I have no need for any kind of defensive salvo.


You were the one who chose to raise the question.

Presumably if you were totally happy with your choice of television then you would not have needed to do so.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Which question? The 1024x768/720 one?

How does that infer I'm not happy? It's just something I didn't know the answer to


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> How does that infer I'm not happy? It's just something I didn't know the answer to


If you were happy with what you were seeing on your new tv why would you need to ask the question?


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Because it is a subject of which I have little knowledge but feel I ought to have more. Google did not help, so I asked here.


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> Because it is a subject of which I have little knowledge but feel I ought to have more. Google did not help, so I asked here.


I found a Google search for *720 768 1024 1080 1920 "full HD"* returned rather a lot of relevant hits.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete77 said:


> I found a Google search for *720 768 1024 1080 1920 "full HD"* returned rather a lot of relevant hits.


relevant to what? I looked through a few and none answered my question (that I could see)


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> relevant to what? I looked through a few and none answered my question (that I could see)


See posts #195 and #196.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Where, in this thread?

I'm not seeing anything that answers my question 

Could I ask you to be less cryptic and spell it out for me?


----------



## TCM2007

Raisltin Majere said:


> I didn;t think there were any 1080 broadcasts?


ALL broadcasts in the UK are 1080.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Thanks, didn;t know that


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> ALL broadcasts in the UK are 1080.


720p appears to be 1280 x 720.

See http://www.misco.co.uk/microsites/hdtv/content/what_is_HDTV.asp?sourceid=2187&background=3

So where is the 1080 in that format?


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Also there is nothing to stop Sky switching to broadcasting in 1920 x 1080 as and when they have more Astra transponder space available to acommodate it........................


Switching? That's what they've broadcast in since day one Pete.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Your next defensive salvo should clearly be to argue that 720 Sky HD broadcasts look worse on a 1920 x1080 tv than a 1024 x 768 one and hence why your choice of television is in fact the correct one for the programs that you most often watch, even though Sky does not broadcast in Full HD.


Pete, might i suggest you refrain from offering advice about matters HD, as it seems your knowledge of the subject may lave something to be desired.

How's the 4:3 CRT doing?


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> 720p appears to be 1280 x 720.
> 
> See http://www.misco.co.uk/microsites/hdtv/content/what_is_HDTV.asp?sourceid=2187&background=3
> 
> So where is the 1080 in that format?


Read this very slowly and carefully. Sky HD is 1920 x 1080. Always has been.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Switching? That's what they've broadcast in since day one Pete.


The Misco articles suggests they broadcast in both 720p and 1080i according to the program being broadcast? As I don't have Sky HD and you have had it perhaps you would care to illuminate us further.

OK this Wikipedia article seems to help:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_HD



> All HD channels are broadcast in the 1080i format (*though the box can be set to scale this to 720p if the user wishes*), in the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC format, broadcast from the SES Astra and Eurobird 1 satellites at 28.2E and 28.5E in a new DVB standard, DVB-S2. They use HDMI to connect to an HD Ready TV. BBC HD is however DVB-S.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Read this very slowly and carefully. Sky HD is 1920 x 1080. Always has been.


So why are 720p so called HD tvs still being widely sold to people who have Sky HD boxes? Presumably because apart from the cognoscenti such as yourself very few people understand the difference.

Believe it or not I don't actually need to jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute or put my hand on a live mains wire to be fully aware that both things will kill me.


----------



## TCM2007

Keep on digging Pete.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Read this very slowly and carefully. Sky HD is 1920 x 1080. Always has been.


But is 1080i and not 1080p hence why it is not Full HD?

If the industry had adopted more strongly differentiated technical terms for different broadcasting quality standards then I am sure that us mere mortals would have been able to understand it rather better.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Why are you so hung up on "Full HD"?


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> So why are 720p so called HD tvs still being widely sold to people who have Sky HD boxes?


Why shouldn't they be, they work fine?

You might as well ask why stereo TVs are "still being sold" to SkyHD owners whose boxes output 5.1 Dolby Digital.


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> Why are you so hung up on "Full HD"?


Because its the only Full HD standard and because your television cannot support it.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> But is 1080i and not 1080p hence why it is not Full HD?


Well we could go in to why for film material (which is most of the material available in 1080p) there is no difference between 1080i and 1080p if you like.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete77 said:


> Because its the only Full HD standard and because your television cannot support it.


/ignore


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Well we could go in to why for film material (which is most of the material available in 1080p) there is no difference between 1080i and 1080p if you like.


Yes why not. Let's do that.

But then is there a difference between 720p and 1080i? Or is there a dispute as to which of those is actually better to look at?

Surely 1080i down scaled to 720p must mean an inherent loss of visual quality?

I would like to be properly informed before I buy an HD television so that I don't make the wrong choice.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Because its the only Full HD standard and because your television cannot support it.


How's yours with it?


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> How's yours with it?


That is clearly a rhetorical question but HD television didn't exist when I purchased it and I have spent no money on a television in 10 years. I may well buy an HD television within the next 6 to 18 months. The situation regarding the launch of BBC/ITV Freesat boxes and the unencryption of the Five channels and the matter of my acquiring a second satellite feed from the communal system are all relevant to any upgrade decision to an HD PVR box on my part. I would have thought that with your new found lack of line of sight to Astra you would be sympathetic to this predicament.

This article seems interesting:-

http://whathifi.com/television/archive/2008/03/11/news-industry-declares-720p-better-than-1080i.aspx

So with that being the case then why doesn't Sky broadcast in 720p until such as time as the level of Astra satellite bandwidth and the television equipment is out there to support 1080p?


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Yes why not. Let's do that.


OK;1080i can be losslessly deinterlaced to 1080p for film material, because, to simplify, the two successive fields of the interlaced signal are of the same film frame so can be reassembled into the original.



> But then is there a difference between 720p and 1080i?


Oh yes.



> Or is there a dispute as to which of those is actually better to look at?


There is, but it's purely academic as there is no commercially available or broadcast 720p in the UK.



> Surely 1080i down scaled to 720p must mean an inherent loss of visual quality?


Yes, but depending on TV size, viewing distance, how recently you've been to Specsavers and being tuned-in to what to look for, you may not be aware of it.


----------



## Pete77

You will recall that there are some people out there who do not seem to notice much degradation when viewing in Basic rather than Best on their 29" 4:3" televisions.

With my discovery of www.freecycle.org I have now found a way to consign my 29" set to history without also carting it the knacker's yard. This may make replacing it an easier decision.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> T
> So with that being the case then why doesn't Sky broadcast in 720p until such as time as the level of Astra satellite bandwidth and the television equipment is out there to support 1080p?


The bandwidth is there now, they just don't want to pay for it!

This was all debated in the run up to the launch of SkyHD. I was surprised they went the 1080i route for video material like sports. Ultimately I think they decided that having two resolutions would just be too complex to explain.

1080i is better for movies, and, importantly for marketing, it's a higher number!!

Also, I believe that most of the cameras used by Sky and the BBC are 1080i native,


----------



## Raisltin Majere

TCM2007 said:


> The bandwidth is there now, they just don't want to pay for it!


Who would they have to pay? The satelite owner? Who's that?


----------



## TCM2007

Raisltin Majere said:


> Who would they have to pay? The satelite owner? Who's that?


Astra SES.

Sky don't own the satellites.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Oh, wouldn't it be cheaper (in the long term) for them to own the satellite? Or was it already there before sky came along?

Do you know what it was doing before satellite tv?


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> Oh, wouldn't it be cheaper (in the long term) for them to own the satellite? Or was it already there before sky came along?


Sky's business isn't in building, launching and operating satellites. Its expertise is in securing broadcasting rights for programs, making agreements with equipment manufacturers, running call centres and in marketing. Launching and running satellites is a whole other ball game.

Astra will happily commission the building of more satellites and capacity if Sky believes it can persuade customers to part with enough extra money to make it viable.



> Do you know what it was doing before satellite tv?


Before they were broadcasting satllite tv the several Astra satellites were all being built in factories by the manufacturers, Boeing, EADS Astrium (formerly Matra Marconi) and Lockheed Martin. They were launched by Arianespace and International Launch Services (ILS) depending on the satellite. They were bespoke satellites designed specifically to broadcast television signals.

See www.ses-astra.com/business/uk/satellite-fleet/manufacture-launch/index.php

Arianespace launches from the European Space Centre in French Guiana and ILS uses Rusky rockets launching from Kazakhstan (well they had to do something more constructive after making rockets with nuclear warheads went out of fashion)

Again Google got me all this, although I have always been aware Sky tv was broadcast by Astra's satellites.

On the basis I have now been Ignored by Railstin perhaps TCM had better Quote the above post.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete77 said:


> You seem to be missing out on rather a lot of features compared to the new 30000:1contrast ratio Full HD 42" model previously recommended in this forum:-
> 
> See www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/2877.../displayResult.html?p=TH-42PX80B&p=TH-42PZ85B


Well, I order the one which I had originally decided on (TH42PX80B). The wife persuaded me to order it through her catalogue. They let me down on deliveries three or four times, the latest being yesterday.

So I lost my temper with them and went down to Curry's today and bought the model to which Pete has linked, they had one available to take away today so I did.

It's lovely  thanks Pete :up:

I haven't yet got a HD source, but a mate has brought around his 360. Apparently you can play games in HD? If I ever get the kids off the Wii, I'll find out.


----------



## dvdfever

Raisltin Majere said:


> I haven't yet got a HD source, but a mate has brought around his 360. Apparently you can play games in HD? If I ever get the kids off the Wii, I'll find out.


Yep, plug it in via component (or HMDI if it's one of the black Elite models) and it looks incredible.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

You're not wrong. It's connected via component and my mate's playing Call Of Duty (or something)

I'm flabbergasted.


----------



## TCM2007

If the 360's got a hard drive, and you can connect it to the net, you can download some HD movie trailers through XBox live. They are "only" 720p, but I think you'll be pleased!


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> Well, I order the one which I had originally decided on (TH42PX80B). The wife persuaded me to order it through her catalogue. They let me down on deliveries three or four times, the latest being yesterday.
> 
> So I lost my temper with them and went down to Curry's today and bought the model to which Pete has linked, they had one available to take away today so I did.
> 
> It's lovely  thanks Pete :up:


Good move Raisltin.:up:

Now you have a set that should be good for 10 years and also allows you to watch at the original HD broadcast or Blu-Ray resolution without any unsatisfactory need to downscale.

It strikes me that for a serious HD television watcher this set represents the best possible compromise without the silly money involved in some of the expensive Pioneer or Fujitsu high end HD sets. By my calculations the price difference is only around 8 months Sky subs on the package you are likely to be on.

Pretty poor about John Lewis messing you around like this though. One wonders if they were upset about having to sell the sets at such a low price under their price match policy and so were perhaps trying to negotiate a new consignment at a lower price having found out that other suppliers were perhaps getting a better deal from Panasonic. Or perhaps they just hoped to delay you for 2 to 3 months by which time the official Panasonic wholesale price for the television would have fallen to a level where they could afford to sell it to you at the price you wanted to pay.

Does this mean I am no longer on your Ignore list then.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Just to clarify, I was going to order it from John Lewis, but the wife persuaded me to buy it from Kays instead (I don;t remember why but it made sense at the time) so JL have done nothing wrong here.



Pete77 said:


> Does this mean I am no longer on your Ignore list then.


Yeah, you did piss me off but you've redeemed yourself now


----------



## Pete77

Raisltin Majere said:


> the wife persuaded me to buy it from Kays instead (I don;t remember why but it made sense at the time) so JL have done nothing wrong here.


So it was entirely her fault that you were kept hanging on for weeks by using this unreliable catalogue supplier instead of following your suggestion of reliable John Lewis and thus it was also her fault that you had no option but to then take decisive action by cancelling the Kays order and going out and getting a telly from somewhere that could supply you with one straight away.

Now I realise that wives are almost never wrong and that thus where something a wife orders is weeks late it is entirely the fault of the supplier. However nonetheless in this case she clearly knows she is morally in the wrong (even if she won't overtly admit it) so she cannot complain about you no longer being shackled by short term household budgetary constraints and thus going out to get the tv set that in your heart of hearts you knew all along to be the right choice.

The result is a win, win situation and a secret thankfulness in your heart to whoever at Kays was responsible for making such a royal screw up of the original order. With a bit of further negotiation perhaps £50 in vouchers can now be extracted from Kays by way of apology for all the inconvenience that has been caused.


----------



## Raisltin Majere

Pete

You and I know you're right, but Shhhhh!


----------

