HD "Ready" TV Buyer Beware?

musa

I was surprised to see a fairly new HD TV in a friends house in Dublin yesterday did not have a digital tuner.The ads for HD tvs in Makro stores now prefaced with "Freeview HD ready".

Mossy Monk

My tv is HD Ready and doesn't have a digital tuner but still works. What's your point exactly?

Fingleberries

"Freeview HD ready" - exactly what it says on the tin. It's ready to show HD Pictures from Freeview HD (when it starts, and if you have a Freeview HD box).

Without seeing the full spec they advertise, I can't see what you mean. Did it say on the Spec that it had a Digital Tuner?

Mountjoy Mugger

Um. We don't have Freeview in Ireland (Republic). Never have had, never will have. It's UK only.

We are trialling DTT and HD on that, but you need a special box and CAM to decode it.

spockety

Mountjoy Mugger wrote:

Um. We don't have Freeview in Ireland (Republic). Never have had, never will have. It's UK only.

We are trialling DTT and HD on that, but you need a special box and CAM to decode it.

Tell that to the 2FM dj on yesterday telling everyone that if they had a HDTV and tuned into RTE2 for the GAA they would see it in High Def! :rolleyes:

Mountjoy Mugger

Amazing. Was it corrected later?

ethernet

Mountjoy Mugger wrote:

Amazing. Was it corrected later?

Just said the same thing as spockety in another thread. It was the sports news reader who really lead Ruth Scott down the garden path on the matter. To answer your question, it wasn't corrected later [or at least I didn't hear it -- must have been too disturbed after hearing the inaccurate info ].

spockety

I think the sports news reader actually said she herself went out and bought a HDTV when she heard the leinster final was going to be HD. Oh. Dear.

musa

Fingleberries wrote:

"Freeview HD ready" - exactly what it says on the tin. It's ready to show HD Pictures from Freeview HD (when it starts, and if you have a Freeview HD box).

Without seeing the full spec they advertise, I can't see what you mean. Did it say on the Spec that it had a Digital Tuner?

I watch a Sony CRT Trinitron TV in the North.
It comes with a Digital Tuner.
I can see the four RTE channels and a lot of radio on the DTT trial,on this relatively "Old" TV.

I travel to Dublin and my friend displays his very expensive new "HD" ready TV. It has only an analogue tuner,he cannot see any of the DTT trial pictures even in Dublin!
Can I refer all to Watty's suggestion that we wait for TV with Mpeg 4 Tuners
Buyer Beware?

Fingleberries

musa wrote:

Can I refer all to Watty's suggestion that we wait for TV with Mpeg 4 Tuners
Buyer Beware?

That I can definitely agree with ... there is really no point forking out for expensive DTT equipment in the Republic at the moment because it's only a Trial - with a limited lifespan and even more limited funds.

watty

Is there ANY highstreet shop that has a 1080line 37"+ TV with an MPEG4 tuner?

DemonOfTheFall

Why not just get an external Freeview box for your HDTV and buy a TV on the merits of its picture quality and not its inbuilt features?

Ulsterman 1690

Because its yet another
1) box to clutter up ones living room
2) set of cabling behind the TV
3) mains plug required
4) damn remote control

Incidently Ive seen "HD ready" LCD's with 768 (vertical) lines of resolution.

OK perhaps for 720p but not really enogh for 1080i

When the industry came up with that damn "HDready" logo they should have made it mandatory to include the displays native resolution in small print at the bottom of the logo.

As it is "HD ready" is as meaningful as selling a late 1960's TV set as "Colour ready". Yes it may recieve colour broadcasts but it doesnt actually promise it will show them in colour !

byte

Samsung seemingly have unveiled their new LCD with 1080p and MPEG4 tuner.
http://my.ocworkbench.com/2007/samsung/av-roadshow/p1.htm

God only knows when it'll arrive on our shores, or when we'd need it.

togota

Hi,

Just to let you know that you should not invest in a HD READY TV/Monitor! They won't be able to show FULL HD which is/will be the standard. It's just TV companies making more money when everybody has to get rid of their HD Ready TVs and buy FULL HD sets!!

All the best
TOGOTA

watty

Ulsterman 1690 wrote:

Because its yet another
1) box to clutter up ones living room
2) set of cabling behind the TV
3) mains plug required
4) damn remote control

Incidently Ive seen "HD ready" LCD's with 768 (vertical) lines of resolution.

OK perhaps for 720p but not really enogh for 1080i

When the industry came up with that damn "HDready" logo they should have made it mandatory to include the displays native resolution in small print at the bottom of the logo.

As it is "HD ready" is as meaningful as selling a late 1960's TV set as "Colour ready". Yes it may recieve colour broadcasts but it doesnt actually promise it will show them in colour !

Absolutely. Till recently it was hard to find a 1080 line TV. Most were 768 or worse. 768 degrades a 720 line picture too as "filling the screen" involves non-integer rescaling that blurs the image. 768 line is a PC resolution.

And there will probably never ever be any 720p broadcasts in Europe. The 720p standard uses same bandwidth as the 1080i in transmission for a much less sharp picture. In Japan / North America it avoids the 3:2 pulldown artefacts on 30fps TV from 24fps film. The advantage for sport (high movement) is marginal. All Sport in Europe will be 1080i if HD at all.

watty

togota wrote:

Hi,

Just to let you know that you should not invest in a HD READY TV/Monitor! They won't be able to show FULL HD which is/will be the standard. It's just TV companies making more money when everybody has to get rid of their HD Ready TVs and buy FULL HD sets!!

All the best
TOGOTA

There are "HD Ready" TVs that display full 1080i properly. You just have to read the fine print on the manufacturer's web site. The shop won't know.

Valentia

watty wrote:

Is there ANY highstreet shop that has a 1080line 37"+ TV with an MPEG4 tuner?

Why is the MP4 so important? Just confused a bit because if it is why is the world's first TV with it only being released?

I know the "i" is for interlaced and the "p" for progressive. Will (are) HD DVD's progressive and broadcasts interlaced?

I bought the Hyundai LCD way back in Xtravision and it has 1080 so they weren't that hard to find if a mid the range TV like that had it surely?

spockety

Valentia wrote:

Why is the MP4 so important? Just confused a bit because if it is why is the world's first TV with it only being released?

I know the "i" is for interlaced and the "p" for progressive. Will (are) HD DVD's progressive and broadcasts interlaced?

I bought the Hyundai LCD way back in Xtravision and it has 1080 so they weren't that hard to find if a mid the range TV like that had it surely?

If you bought it 'way back', and it's 'mid range', I would hazard a guess that it can PROCESS 1080i signals, but it will display them more than likely at 1366x768, not their full 1920x1080.

1366x768 is UGH. It is the best of NO world.

Mossy Monk

togota wrote:

It's just TV companies making more money when everybody has to get rid of their HD Ready TVs and buy FULL HD sets!!

Give me one valid reason why people would need to get rid of their HD Ready televisions? I hate that scaremongering bull****.

Ulsterman 1690

One will only "Have to" get rig of their "HD ready" set is they actually want HDTV and their "HD ready" set is (like most currently on the market) not displaying a proper HD image

Valentia

spockety wrote:

If you bought it 'way back', and it's 'mid range', I would hazard a guess that it can PROCESS 1080i signals, but it will display them more than likely at 1366x768, not their full 1920x1080.

1366x768 is UGH. It is the best of NO world.

Why would you say that and how would I know what it was displaying at? The manual says 1080 and the DTT trial HD content looks fantastic on it, The only grumble with the set is that the viewing angles are crap.

spockety

Valentia wrote:

Why would you say that and how would I know what it was displaying at? The manual says 1080 and the DTT trial HD content looks fantastic on it, The only grumble with the set is that the viewing angles are crap.

I'd say that based on the fact you bought it a while ago, and at a midranged price. There are no 1920x1080 displays available a while ago, at midranged price

What's the make model number of the TV do you know?

Clean HD signals processed and displayed on 1366x768 TV's still look fantastic compared to SD anyway, especially on smaller screens (about 37-40 inch)

Alun

spockety wrote:

Clean HD signals processed and displayed on 1366x768 TV's still look fantastic compared to SD anyway, especially on smaller screens (about 37-40 inch)

So, 37"-40" is considered small now is it :eek: ?? Where do all you folks live .. in aircraft hangars?

When I was shopping around for a new TV recently it was difficult to find one in the size I wanted (32") with all the features (connections mainly) I wanted. It seemed almost as if I was expected to go to at the very least 37" to get them. I found what I wanted in the end, but still ...

Valentia

spockety wrote:

I'd say that based on the fact you bought it a while ago, and at a midranged price. There are no 1920x1080 displays available a while ago, at midranged price

What's the make model number of the TV do you know?

Clean HD signals processed and displayed on 1366x768 TV's still look fantastic compared to SD anyway, especially on smaller screens (about 37-40 inch)

Interesting, but 37-40 is not small by anyone's standards FFS. I have a humble 32 which is just fine for the room size. Don't know the model no. I bought it when Xtra were doing the promotion around the time of the World Cup.

I hear what your saying and it must be near impossible for any layperson, like myselfish, to have a shaggin' clue what's going on :rolleyes:

Back to one of my questions re the "i" and "p". Do broadcasters use progressive or is it just for Blu-Ray and HD disks?

spockety

Anyone broadcasting 1080 lines now is doing interlaced.

I didn't mean small, sorry, but small relative to LARGE LARGE screens

As in, on a screen of 37 inches or smaller, you probably won't notice the difference between 1280x720 (720p) and 1920x1080 (1080i/p) from only about 6 feet away, which is in or around the viewing distance I'd say most people have from their TV's.

So, to summarize:

1366x768.. It scales EVERY native TV format used at the moment up or down, you will not see any broadcast as it was natively intended.

Full 1920x1080 panels are only really useful on screens bigger than 42 inches, and even then only when you're sitting pretty close to them.

watty

spockety wrote:

I'd say that based on the fact you bought it a while ago, and at a midranged price. There are no 1920x1080 displays available a while ago, at midranged price

What's the make model number of the TV do you know?

Clean HD signals processed and displayed on 1366x768 TV's still look fantastic compared to SD anyway, especially on smaller screens (about 37-40 inch)

Not really, no.

HD is invented for BIG screens ... like 48" to 60"!

Really it's not needed for a 32" TV and barely makes a difference on a 37" screen 10 ft away.

And few programs suit that big. Good Cinematic etc shot for Cinema dos, but material shot for TV is mostly "too close up" for a big screen, or material susch as Soaps or News that is pointless. For Sport on a big HD screen you nearly need two feeds, a more zoomed in more panning feed for SD and a wider angle less panning (more natural) for BIG HD.

If you wacth material for Cinema it looks very small on TV. But programs shot for TV often look stupid on 50"

Broadcasters in Europe are unlikely to ever transmit p (progressive) it is same resolution and twice the bandwidth. P is for game consoles and NTSC land Film on DVD playback to avoid the US 3:2 artifacts we doen't get.

Valentia

watty wrote:

Not really, no.

HD is invented for BIG screens ... like 48" to 60"!

Really it's not needed for a 32" TV and barely makes a difference on a 37" screen 10 ft away.

And few programs suit that big. Good Cinematic etc shot for Cinema dos, but material shot for TV is mostly "too close up" for a big screen, or material susch as Soaps or News that is pointless. For Sport on a big HD screen you nearly need two feeds, a more zoomed in more panning feed for SD and a wider angle less panning (more natural) for BIG HD.

If you wacth material for Cinema it looks very small on TV. But programs shot for TV often look stupid on 50"

Broadcasters in Europe are unlikely to ever transmit p (progressive) it is same resolution and twice the bandwidth. P is for game consoles and NTSC land Film on DVD playback to avoid the US 3:2 artifacts we doen't get.

I dunno. I see a significant difference in my tiny tot 32". Much better than the pixelated crap I have just been suffering watching the golf on BBC. I know that that is a different story though.

Mossy Monk

watty wrote:

Really it's not needed for a 32" TV and barely makes a difference on a 37" screen 10 ft away

I am sorry but watching HD on my 32" the difference is huge.

byrnefm

Hi Watty,

watty wrote:

P is for game consoles and NTSC land Film on DVD playback to avoid the US 3:2 artifacts we doen't get.

What 3:2 artifacts are these? I'm curious! (I haven't watched much digital TV in the US).

mathias

I am sorry but watching HD on my 32" the difference is huge.

Agreed , 100% , My 32 " panasonic with sky HD is a huge step up in quality over anything Ive had before , yes its 1366 x 768 , and yes it scales everything , but the picture quality is the best Ive ever owned , and it is likely to be the best that anyone has ever owned if moving up from a bog standard CRT.

And all that guff about not noticing the difference on a 32 inch is just not true , its a stunning difference , as anyone who actually owns one will tell you.

In an ideal world everyone would have a 1920 x 1080 set , but not everyone has the room for a 50 inch TV , and not everyone can afford to spend 3K on a TV either , at the moment 1366 x 768 is a very affordable HD set .

It is a HD resolution , nowhere in the specifications for HD ready ( or HD resolutions for that matter ) does it say that HD is limited only to 1920 x 1080. There seems to me to be either too many perfectionists on here or too many operating on theory alone.

http://www.hdtvforum.org/HDTV-Forum/siteSections/forum/label_update/index.php

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television

watty

HD in Europe is only transmitted at 1080i lines. So anything else is really a waste. Some LCDs are poor. Most are poorer than good CRT. Many channels are poor bitrate. A GOOD DVD or SD satellite picture will not be distinguishable by 90% of population on a Good 32" set from HD at normal viewing distance (8').

byrnefm wrote:

Hi Watty,



What 3:2 artifacts are these? I'm curious! (I haven't watched much digital TV in the US).

Only visible on contrasty vertical edges during pans or horizontal movement on 30i (Analogue NTSC or Digital 30i 480 or 1080 lines) from a 24fps film source. Its like alternate lines of the image are in the wrong place, creates fine comb appearance on vertical edges.

It due to the fact that (every 5th frame?) to convert from 24 fps to 30fps interlace, which is 60 fields/sec alternate lines, on some video frames alternate lines come from two different film frames.

It's nothing to do with Digital. Happens on non-progressive Analogue or Digital.

In 50Hz AC countries (Europe) the fields are 50 /sec (alternate lines). so full interlaced frame is 25fps. For transfer they speed up the film from 24 fps to 25fps so the 50 fields / sec, the alternate lines to make a full interlaced frame, are always from the same film frame. They then reduce the pitch of the audio by about 5% so that music is not "sharpened" and out of tune.

So you can't force playback at 24fps of PAL/25i or 50p as the sound would drop in pitch. The 576 line DVD is stored that way.

But US DVDs are only 480 line and stored as 24fps progressive. The DVD player does the 3:2 pull down telecine to 30i, so with VGA monitor or HD TV there is advantage in 24fps or 60fps progressive playback. On PAL region DVDs there is no advantange and progressive playback can even blur the picture!

The 1080i is based on Old Japanese 1152 line Analogue HD derived from Analogue NTSC 525 line (480 visible lines). 720p is a compromise for 60Hz electricity countries to use 60fps progressive instead of the 30fps interlaced, to avoid telecine artifacts.

JohnC.

I too have a 768 line HD Ready 32 inch TV and it is nonsense to say it is no advantage or a waste. It may not be as good as 1080 native, but it is better than SD TVs. I've not actually watched any broadcast, like Sky HD, but it gets plenty of HD from PS3, Xbox 360, HD DVD and Blu-ray.

Ulsterman 1690

Watty (or anyone else who knows) do you have any idea why 720 and 1080 were chosen as the number of vertical lines in an HDTV picture ?

Wouldnt it have made more sense to use values that were either multiples of an existing line standard (480 or 576) or related to standard computer resolutions so that there would be less reliance on scaling to accomodate different native resolutuions and/or multiple video standards ?

musa

The cinemas are now gearing up for Digital Projection,received as live or recorded from Satellite.
This is very old technology and has a domestic offshoot.

Perhaps we will end up with no TV set,simply a projector!
The US was going in this direction four years ago.


The Sony Z3 camera,about £3000. ,accepted by the broadcasters as HD,is capable of just 720 lines.Thats a starting point,before it reaches your expensive HD living room,and do you really want to look at a flourescent tube all night?I refer to LCD.