Looking at TVs, some say 1080p, which I thought was the best, but then others say 1080p Full HD.....and cost more than their 1080p equivalent. Whats the real difference??
1080p is full hd, as its the biggest hd resolution. basically there are 3 types of hd:
720p
1080i
1080p
What it might be is that some HD tvs can take a 1080p input, but their resolution is only 720p, so it scales the image down.
Oh right, I see. So the TVs that say 1080p might not pump out 1080p. But the ones that say 1080p Full HD do pump out 1080p?
Yes, while youre looking at them make sure you get a screen that does 1:1 pixel mapping so that images that arnt in a native resolution dont end up looking stretched and distorted.
There is also the 1440p standard, but it may be a while before we see that in action.
lol, thats gonna make things more complicated adding another one!
Just on this web site for example, it says most the tvs are 1080p, but only some have the Full HD 1080 little gold image thingy!! So does that mean the ones without the gold labels arent proper 1080p?
http://www.cheapelectricals.co.uk/acatalog/Sony_46_LCD_sony_46_lcd_sony_46_lcd.html
I think what they are trying to say is that "Full HD" = 1080p. This is because some consumers know that 720p HD, although by its own definition is HD, its not HD enough!
I know my 32" LCD is HD, but only 720p, so its not "Full" HD. :)
Although what they fail to tell you is that when the 1080p market is saturated, 1440p will probably start filtering out.
Your probably confused, a TV can say 1080, like mine but it only goes up to 1080i, not 1080p
Quote from: CheuleI think what they are trying to say is that "Full HD" = 1080p. This is because some consumers know that 720p HD, although by its own definition is HD, its not HD enough!
I know my 32" LCD is HD, but only 720p, so its not "Full" HD. :)
Although what they fail to tell you is that when the 1080p market is saturated, 1440p will probably start filtering out.
Your correct as well
1080p is full hd for big stickers to make it clear becuase tvs have stickers saying "hd" on them and only 720 and sneaky a lot actually do not list what they are and only say hd on the display stats etc and you got to ask a store oddbod what it actually is and you got to take their word for it. Seen a few people be caught out on tv sites with stories of people getting hd etc and why 1080p has full hd on them all the time
Ok since I disagree with everyone elses post above me take this with a pinch of salt as its possible Im wrong and everyone else in heres right. But... afaik...
A tv is either 1080p capable or not. Putting 1080p Full Hd doesnt make it any different to a 1080p HD tv.
Full HD is just a marketing ploy with no meaning. Im not sure where the guys in this thread have got the full HD sticker meaining its better at handling the signal or can cope with more inputs etc from... A tv saying full HD should include all the 1080p stuff but if the tv next to it says 1080p as well then theyre both 1080p. Clockd and Nexus seem very up on the consumer HD stuff so since theyre both saying something different to me Im thinking I may be incorrect but I really think it was simply a marketing stunt. It certainly doesnt mean anything at the manufacturing/system end.
The tricks theyre talking about with the scaling hacks exist in several full 1080 systems as well from what I know.
---
Slightly off topic but may be useful:
Unfortuntely the 1080p badge on tvs only means the resolution of the screen and is no guide for anything else (or in fact that the tv can actually show real 1080p). A lot of "full 1080HD" tvs simply cant process 1080i/p signals and can only display them. They have the resolution, but little else. Youd hope the full HD means they dont use hacks to show the 1080 but some do.
Example: Some 1080 tvs reuse the same processing chips as their 720p solutions. In many 720p solutions the processors just throw away half the vertical resolution of a 1080i signal leaving a 540p stream. They then process this much smaller picture and do a quick scale back up to 720p. The tv can be sold as 720p as it is indeed showing 720 vertical pixels, just not 720 different pixels since some will be repeated/blended in the scaling.
Put the same chip in a 1080 tv and youre basically taking a 1080 signal, making it 540 and then displaying it back as 1080 again through scaling. As long as it has 1080 vertical pixels it can be sold as 1080HD tv/full HD/ super mega HD 1080/whatever. Theyre not lieing. Theyre just not showing you something that has 1080 throughout the whole signal.
Full HD would be a great label for tvs not doing this but afaik this isnt how its being used. Its meaningless fluff to make you buy that tv over another one. And unfortunately customers are influenced by things like the word full...
In this day and age you cant include a processing chip with more than a couple of milliseconds delay in it. You could make a tvs picture much much better by spending more time on the processing and simply showing the picture a few moments after the signal arrives in the tv. It doesnt affect the cutsomer seeing the image 0.2 seconds later tbh (can be turned off for games where you cant have delays) and the picture quality would go up. You know why its not done?
Because when you put two tvs side by side in a shop showing a satellite feed. If one tv shows the picture after the other one, the customer will often buy the tv that shows the picture first because its "faster". The worlds gone mad tbh.
So this is just for marketing? (http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv/jan07Full%20HD.gif)
Steves right. Theres plenty of Full-HD screens on the market which have the resolution but little else. You just have to look at the likes of the Sharp XD1E range to know that.
End of the day you get what you pay for - weve all seen super cheap 1080p screens but theyre virtually all plagued with problems. Hell even supposedly half decent screens like the Sony W2000 series have ghosting issues.
Pioneers 428XD and 508XD are excellent when viewing SD or HD, cost an arm and a leg and dont even have 1080p panels - their native resolution is 1024x768.
Resolution isnt everything, its how the screen uses the pixels.
Is the Sony KDL46V3000 ok?
This is usually a good place to start, theyll have threads discussing virtually every screen you can think of :
http://www.avforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=155
Do you have a size/budget in mind?
Well its for a friend really. Hes been messed about by currys. He was getting £300 off any Philips, but they arent getting the TV in for aaaaaaaaages, and hes just pissed off.
So this afternoon he was looking at Sony LCDs which he could order online and have this week! and just came across the KDL46V3000. He was going for Sony now to match is home cinema hes just got as well. Hed found the Sony KDL46V3000 for around £1350 with 5 years warrenty.
Quote from: SteveFClockd and Nexus seem very up on the consumer HD stuff so since theyre both saying something different to me Im thinking I may be incorrect but I really think it was simply a marketing stunt. It certainly doesnt mean anything at the manufacturing/system end.
The tricks theyre talking about with the scaling hacks exist in several full 1080 systems as well from what I know.
I never commented on that point as I wasnt 100% sure either way, but I was pretty certain like you are that its all marketing BS.
Its best to take a lot of specs when it comes to LCDs with a pinch of salt, just like the ropey 2ms response times quoted for monitor TFTs, theres a lot of similar number based jargon that flies around for for HD panels, and some of it is very misleading.
The key things to look at for full HD are, does it do the true native 720p/1080p resolution (depending on which youd rather stick with for your screen size) and do they do 1:1 pixel mapping. You also
really want a screen that is 24fps/100hz, as models that arnt cant actually keep up the frame rate required for playback of HD material. Then of course theres the contrast ratio...
Its easy to think you are getting a bargain when really you are buying a POS. Be smart and read up. AVForums and DVDForums are full of great product recommendations and advice, go lurk :)
No no no no no, dont let him get a Sony, they arnt that good. A decent Samsung/Panasonic will pee all over their panels.
Personally Im a Samsung panel lover, they not only fuction marvellously and give great image quality, but they look damn stylish too.
Out of interest whats peoples opinions on the glass vs plastic for the scree?
Id recommend Samsungs as well. Sonys are OK but so overpriced.
Im actually typing this up using a Samsung LE-46M87BDX, which is one of Samsungs 46" 1080p screens (borrowed it from the rents while theyre out the country - Im holding out till the Jan sales to get one of the new Samsung F96 LED screens ;) ). Weve got a 40" M87 at work as well. This models actually been replaced by the F86 series which is the one Id recommend.
The M87 has issue with Freeview judder, although I havent really noticed it as I havent used Freeview yet.
The one you want to check out is the Samsung LE-46F86BDX. Its a very good looking screen which handles 1080p very well, has 3 x HDMI 1.3 sockets and a 25,000:1 dynamic contrast (ok so dynamic figures can be deceiving, but its still excellent).
Heres a rewview of the 40" F86:
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Samsung-LE40F86BD/
You can quite easily pick up the 46" F86 for £1375-1400.
Quote from: SteveFOk since I disagree with everyone elses post above me take this with a pinch of salt as its possible Im wrong and everyone else in heres right. But... afaik...
A tv is either 1080p capable or not. Putting 1080p Full Hd doesnt make it any different to a 1080p HD tv.
Full HD is just a marketing ploy with no meaning. Im not sure where the guys in this thread have got the full HD sticker meaining its better at handling the signal or can cope with more inputs etc from... A tv saying full HD should include all the 1080p stuff but if the tv next to it says 1080p as well then theyre both 1080p. Clockd and Nexus seem very up on the consumer HD stuff so since theyre both saying something different to me Im thinking I may be incorrect but I really think it was simply a marketing stunt. It certainly doesnt mean anything at the manufacturing/system end.
The tricks theyre talking about with the scaling hacks exist in several full 1080 systems as well from what I know.
The normal ones are often labelled HD Ready, meaning they can take the full signal but will downgrade it to whatever resolution the screen can handle. This has been going on for several years and the issue is a problem. This would allow some definition of the problem, even though it isnt standard. Havent seen the stickers myself yet but its bound to happen sooner or later.
If you can afford a good Sony Bravia then right now Id take that. The latest generation with the inserted blank frames (I forget what its called but its the fake 120Hz refresh system).
AV forums wont see you far wrong. Unless hes dropping a serious amount of cash or buying an industrial panel instead of a consumer screen hed get a lot out of a slightly cheaper screen and a good (seperate) upscaler/decoding box.
Quote from: SeriousThe normal ones are often labelled HD Ready, meaning they can take the full signal but will downgrade it to whatever resolution the screen can handle. This has been going on for several years and the issue is a problem. This would allow some definition of the problem, even though it isnt standard. Havent seen the stickers myself yet but its bound to happen sooner or later.
HD ready actually meant something. It wasnt specific but it meant they could handle certain inputs. The Full HD was introduced by some company in their marketing iirc. Then some of the others copied it because customers fell for it thinking it was better than normal HD.
Its incredibly confusing at the moment. Unfortunately about 10 technologies, the analogue switchoff and new encoding decoding formats all arrived at the same time. Industry seem to be saying theres about 18 months more of this until the market and technologies stop churning.
I think youre talking about the new Sony X3500 series Steve, which is their flagship LCD with 100/120hz and the glass frame. OK its definitely a cracking TV but the 40" version is £18-1900! Thats absolutely mental in my opinion, £200 more and you can pick up an LED backlit 52" Samsung with local dimming or a 50" Pioneer Kuro with the best image processing money can buy in the consumer bracket.
yeah - I dont actually pay for them. But I have been absolutely blown away by its performance tbh. Its the first commercially available LCD Ive seen that is not to overstate it... Breathtaking!
Not sure what the retail product name for the screen is but its available to buy now so probably the same one
Yeah at that price point I would be looking at a Pioneer Kuro for sure. Image quality still tends to be better on the top end plasmas than for the LCDs, if only they didnt have the cons of screen burn and such they would still be seen as a mainstream alternative to LCD I think.
Panasonic plasmas are also excellent and virtually impossible to go wrong with.
42PX70 can be picked up for 700 quid while the 1080p version the 42PZ70 is around the £1000 mark.
If you really want to be blown away go to the Samsung shop on Tottenham Court Road and take a look at the Samsung LE-52F96BDX. Currently only comes in 52 and 70", it features locally dimming LEDs for its backlight.
Were all used to seeing blacks look like grey with light bleeding through an LCD, this is truely a jaw dropping experience, where the screen is actually OFF where its black. Its in the same price league as the 50" Pioneer Kuro, and even then Im still blown away by the Samsung.
I think LED backlighting will really give Plasmas a bloody nose over the next couple of years.
Quote from: SteveFQuote from: SeriousThe normal ones are often labelled HD Ready, meaning they can take the full signal but will downgrade it to whatever resolution the screen can handle. This has been going on for several years and the issue is a problem. This would allow some definition of the problem, even though it isnt standard. Havent seen the stickers myself yet but its bound to happen sooner or later.
HD ready actually meant something. It wasnt specific but it meant they could handle certain inputs. The Full HD was introduced by some company in their marketing iirc. Then some of the others copied it because customers fell for it thinking it was better than normal HD.
Its incredibly confusing at the moment. Unfortunately about 10 technologies, the analogue switchoff and new encoding decoding formats all arrived at the same time. Industry seem to be saying theres about 18 months more of this until the market and technologies stop churning.
Its even worse simply because shop assistants wont tell customers the truth. I can still remember being acosted by a pleb in Currys wanting a sale and each time I asked what the actual resolution was he replied that it was HD Ready except it wasnt really an answer. Interested people started gathering so he eventually he admitted it was 480 widescreen. Not a genuine HD screen at all. It doesnt give you any confidence in the staff.
And he was actually one of the more knowledgeable ones, another in a different store had to go and try to find out for me, except it wasnt in the literature or on the box and the other people in the shop and who they phoned didnt know either.
Cant wait to see what lazer tvs turn out as
Serious! Stop buying HD plasma tvs! Youre on benefits!!! It makes the rest of us sat at work want the day off ;-D
Cheers for the advise guys :)
It seems then, with all the internal chips etc etc, you dont really know what your buying, even if the Res looks good.
Think my mate is going to go for the Samsung for around £1100 now.
Quote from: Clockd 0NeYeah at that price point I would be looking at a Pioneer Kuro for sure. Image quality still tends to be better on the top end plasmas than for the LCDs, if only they didnt have the cons of screen burn and such they would still be seen as a mainstream alternative to LCD I think.
Its worth pointing out that iirc plasmas have slowly crept up and overtaken on lifetime expextancy if that was one of the issues you were thinking off.
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk
Quote from: SteveFSerious! Stop buying HD plasma tvs! Youre on benefits!!! It makes the rest of us sat at work want the day off ;-D
Wasnt a plasma, it was a 47" LCD I ended up with early this year ;)
Unfortunately I had to do it or at least spend the money due to government restrictions on how much I could have. Got several thousand after my mother died, which I would have rather not have had, so some of the money I still had in the bank had to go.
OTOH I probably have practically the lowest spending rate on this forum, I get £47 a week excluding the money I have in reserve and dont always spend all of it... :shock:
Dont know what I am going to do if they actually decide to publish the book I sent and its successful.
QuoteUnfortunately I had to do it or at least spend the money due to government restrictions on how much I could have
dude you receive several grand. You should have come off the dole and used that for a while instead of spending it all so you could keep claiming! You didnt have to dump it all overboard. Its the culture youre in that thinks you did.
The savings limit is there so the state only pays those who are unable to support themselves. You could have supported yourself for a while. Youre not supposed to dump any cash you come into in order to keep claiming. Off topic but seriously!!!
QuoteDont know what I am going to do if they actually decide to publish the book I sent and its successful.
Id hazard a guess youll dump it into something so you can continue claiming and then complain how youre not allowed to have savings.
Anyway this is for another thread but frankly youre taking the piss.
Quote from: SteveFQuoteUnfortunately I had to do it or at least spend the money due to government restrictions on how much I could have
dude you receive several grand. You should have come off the dole and used that for a while instead of spending it all so you could keep claiming! You didnt have to dump it all overboard. Its the culture youre in that thinks you did.
The savings limit is there so the state only pays those who are unable to support themselves. You could have supported yourself for a while. Youre not supposed to dump any cash you come into in order to keep claiming. Off topic but seriously!!!
QuoteDont know what I am going to do if they actually decide to publish the book I sent and its successful.
Id hazard a guess youll dump it into something so you can continue claiming and then complain how youre not allowed to have savings.
Anyway this is for another thread but frankly youre taking the piss.
Good lad, saved me writing that post there. :!:
Quote from: SteveFQuoteUnfortunately I had to do it or at least spend the money due to government restrictions on how much I could have
dude you receive several grand. You should have come off the dole and used that for a while instead of spending it all so you could keep claiming! You didnt have to dump it all overboard. Its the culture youre in that thinks you did.
The savings limit is there so the state only pays those who are unable to support themselves. You could have supported yourself for a while. Youre not supposed to dump any cash you come into in order to keep claiming. Off topic but seriously!!!
QuoteDont know what I am going to do if they actually decide to publish the book I sent and its successful.
Id hazard a guess youll dump it into something so you can continue claiming and then complain how youre not allowed to have savings.
Anyway this is for another thread but frankly youre taking the piss.
Obviously youve just stuck your head up your own asshole and farted to get the fumes. You dont get very far on a thousand quid these days, and if I had of quit the dole as you suggest then when I went back I would have lost a lot of money that Im not getting anyway. Actually if you count it that way I would have lost over two grand for a gain of one.
I knew it was coming, I had two f**king grand in a bank account so I spent it, that meant when I got just about five thousand from my mother dying I wouldnt be penalised over having nothing. Effectively the two grand was saved up from earlier money so I could have just spent it previous and when it came up I would have been in the same situation.
Oh and the government knows about it, you are allowed to have six grand before they do anything. The last thing you do is quit the dole as you put it, a load of people who received redundancy did the same thing you suggest, thing was they could have protected the money and set themselves up using it. Theyre probably still stuck on basic social security.
If I hadnt spent it I would have had £7,000, still not enough to wipe out benefits, I would have lost a tenner a week up until the point that it dropped a bit, every £100 spent would have been one less pound removed.
So now could you stop being a holier than thou idiot and ask before you assume something that isnt right? I certainly havent been covering this up on here, if you look back through the threads its all documented.
Quote from: SeriousYou dont get very far on a thousand quid these days
True enough, but you didnt only get £1000, and youre not exactly a big spender.
Quote from: SeriousGot several thousand after my mother died
Quote from: SeriousI probably have practically the lowest spending rate on this forum, I get £47 a week excluding the money I have in reserve and dont always spend all of it...
By your own claims, that 7k could have lasted you 2.8 years at your current rate of expense. Lets say youre basically ignoring the fact that your 47 a week doesnt include council tax etc etc. Youve still got over a year and a half of not claiming benefits. You totally fail to see the point - you could have survived like that and you should have. It would certainly be harder on you to drop out of the system for 12 months and live off savings (I dont deny that for even a second). But thats the whole point! The systems meant to be a last possible safety line not just a better option because its easier than living off savings.
QuoteIf I hadnt spent it I would have had £7,000, still not enough to wipe out benefits, I would have lost a tenner a week up until the point that it dropped a bit
Boo f**king hoo tbh. Youd have lost a tenner a week. You could have survived quite comfortably for a while and thats what its meant to be about. Can you survive without full benefits? Yes it would have eaten into your savings... But thats the same for everyone who spends more than theyre earning. When you cant possibly survive thats the point the beneifts system should kick in. The very fact that throwing away £2k on things you dont need was the better option is exactly whats so stupid!
I think you are so buried inside the system you dont even engage your brain anymore....
You had 7k.
Your living costs are basically nothing.
You could have lived on that money instead of the state for a while.
Instead you chose to essentially throw away 2k so you could keep claiming.
Now youre winging that someone points out how retarded that is.
Frankly, its a good job youre on benefits and the system exists because with that mentality youd die in the real world.
PS:
Quote from: SeriousI would have lost over two grand for a gain of one
Its not your 1k or 2k in the first place... Your inheritance
was your money. The other money you supposedly "lost" wasnt yours to lose. It was a gift from everyone else in the country on the condition you had no other way of staying alive. The moment you got that inheritance you did have another way out. Instead of using it as a way to lower everyone elses burden you made sure it didnt by wasting it.
OK lets start from the top, how many holidays have you had in the last ten years? I have had one. I suffered quite badly during it due to not being able to sleep, it was a nightmare. I dont run a car either, another legitimate expense I could buy.
How many times have you been to the pub in the last year? I have been once, and that was when my second eldest brother arrived here from his home in Australia. I dont drink much, I dont smoke so very little outgoings on that part. I dont pay rent because I own half the house as does my brother.
Next, while I could live for 2.8 years on the money what happens if the roof leaks or the central heating breaks down? We have to repair it ourselves meaning I have to pay half. The money now forms a reserve.
The big one, as the government know about it then it is obviously legal for me to have the money and draw the money Im getting. Thankfully Steve I am a genius Fishwick doesnt run the social security system or people might be having to sell their furniture to eat. Weak argument though it is it is still valid. I dont see you selling off the stuff you dont really need to feed the world.
The government says that legally I have to have X pounds a week and I dont even get that. I get 20% under subsistence level until I sort out the benefits problem. If its legally mine what are you gobbing on about?
Oh working it out, if you had worked for the last ten years and actually paid tax during the whole of that time you would have contributed to me rather less than one penny. Look in this thread.
http://www.tekforums.co.uk/posts/list/10078.page
I have given more than the entire population of these forums would give me in a hundred years, where is your donation? Or perhaps I should start calling you Mr Scroogewick?
Quote from: SteveFQuoteDont know what I am going to do if they actually decide to publish the book I sent and its successful.
Id hazard a guess youll dump it into something so you can continue claiming and then complain how youre not allowed to have savings.
Going back to this. If the book is successful I would be effectively self employed you idiot. I couldnt put it into savings anywhere without the government knowing about it and I wouldnt want to.
At the point of it being successful I get to dump being on the social, a road mark that I hope to hit, although I cant guarantee getting there.
The comment, although originally intended as tongue in cheek, still stands. What do you think I would do with a hundred thousand squid after living off well under a hundred quid a week for so long? I would still be psychologically unprepared for any such happening. Even if I managed to spend £10K a year I would just be living on it for well over a decade because of the interest. I really dont know what the hell I would do. I certainly wouldnt end up on a spending spree.
Think we have taken this thread far enough off topic. If you really want to argue about the money I get either put up a new thread elsewhere or go to PMs.
Instead of answering all your questions seperately... The answer to the holidays and days in the pub is simple. Every one of those holidays and days in the pub has been paid for by me being in work. None of them have come from anyones pocket and I can only go because I was sat at a desk or in a meeting the month before.
I started writing a proper reply but screw it. Go about your life however you please. I think dumping cash so you can kep claiming is wrong. You think its fine and trying to justify it - whatever. If you really think thats the right way to behave then we have no frame of reference to move forwards
FYI I raise comfortably more than your annual income for charity each year by sponsored events let alone what I give through the constant deluge of raffles, sponsor forms and charitable auctions I attend. I just choose not to sponsor people I dont know on a forum. Frankly if everyone starts posting sponsor forms every time we do a charitable event, this place will be flooded.
The comedy thing is the focus on our, as individual forum members, taxes paying for Serious existence. That does somewhat miss the point, in that its about every tax payers contribution, and the extra demand placed on that by people who are claiming benefits but are in a position not to be.
Also, anyone with literary pretenses Im sure would love the opportunity to stay at home and write at the governments expense, but frankly most of those people choose not to live like that and work for a better standard of living instead. So the whole, how many holidays have you been, how many times do you go to the pub argument is totally spurious. If you work for a living, you get to enjoy the benefits of your success, if you dont, then you get the opportunity to enjoy surviving. ;)
can i get a refund? i mean everyone pays vat, that gets swallowed by the big benefit bill.
back on topic,
If i splunk some money on a new 24" benq monitor, would i be able to flick between two hd devices willy nilly?
Quote from: SteveFFYI I raise comfortably more than your annual income for charity each year by sponsored events let alone what I give through the constant deluge of raffles, sponsor forms and charitable auctions I attend. I just choose not to sponsor people I dont know on a forum. Frankly if everyone starts posting sponsor forms every time we do a charitable event, this place will be flooded.
Yeah, but you are very open about and willing to diss them off like crazy. I paid my share of tax while I worked, thats the deal, if you can work you pay tax, if you cant then you get benefits. They dont ask you how much do you need either, or everyone would be saying as much as possible.
If your boss came up to you and said, well Steve, heres a thousand quid bonus, you wouldnt be refusing it. There are some on here who actively attempt to avoid paying tax at every opportunity.
So if you as a scientist invent a nice little cure to remove my pain then I will gladly go and do work, even if its something as interesting as stacking shelves in a supermarket. Until you manage to do that accept that I am ill and will take no more than a reasonable amount out of the pot.
My brother who lives here certainly does pay tax. To be honest if he wasnt here I would be having a difficult time keeping going. I may be able to live on £47 a week but thats because I have a very minimalist lifestyle other than the TV and computer.
BTW you have PM.