24 fps on LCD TVs?

david_tring

Well-known member
Jan 20, 2008
37
0
18,540
Visit site
A year ago I bought a Panasonic LCD TV (TX-32LXD700), having read the excellent review in What H-Fi, and it's superb on both Freeview and on video from my Denon 2930 DVD player (upscaled to 1080i in an Onkyo TX-SR875). I'm now considering upgrading to a Blu-Ray player. Most recent Blu-Ray/HD DVD player reviews in the magazine stress the advantages of 24fps video output - I phoned Panasonic UK this week and they say that all of their 1080i TVs (and most of their 1080p ones too) are not 24fps-compatible. So if my 32LXD700 can't cope with this format, what effect will this have on the quality of Blu-ray playback from a player such as the Pioneer BDP-LX70A? Is it actually worth the cost of an upgrade to Blu-Ray for me if the video, especially slow-motion tracking I believe, can't be displayed properly?
 

Clare Newsome

New member
Jun 4, 2007
1,657
0
0
Visit site
First things first - I think a Blu-ray player of the level of the Pioneer BDP-LX70A (£1000) is overkill for a 32in screen. On a TV of that size, you're going to struggle to see the difference between Blu-ray discs and the excellent upscaling job your Onkyo will be doing from your great DVD player.

The Pioneer comes into its own on much larger displays and projectors, where its extra level of picture performance comes into its own.

So, that's good news - if you want to go Blu-ray, you can go for a lower-budget player. In which case i'd hold fire for a little while, as there's some excellent-looking models due from about March, which promise better spec than current crop for less money.

Now onto the 24fps issue. True,the Pana doesn't offer native 24fps handling,but it will accept 24fps from HD sources and uses superlative picture processing to handle it.

We've seen very little evidence of judder with the set running HD, even in tricky scenes - we ran the Panasonic on our stand at our Show for three days, showing entire Blu-ray films from a PS3, and no-one made a comment on any motion issues.

Having said all that, I still feel that with such an excellent upscaling DVD solution as yours, and DVD discs here to stay for the forseesable, that an HD upgrade isn't essential at this stage. Maybe you should start saving to buy a new TV and player in a couple of years time- by which time both will be full-spec and cheaper!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hi,

I have the Sony 40inch W2000. If I get a blue ray player that offers 24fps, does anyone think that it will cause issues with the picture, as I believe 24fps isnt a functionality of my TV? If so, does that mean I have to avoid machines that offer 24fps - top on my list at the present is the PS3.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just stick with getting the PS3 then, you can turn off the 24fps feature...
 

david_tring

Well-known member
Jan 20, 2008
37
0
18,540
Visit site
Hi Claire - many thanks for your thoughts on 24fps and Blu-Ray. I bought the Denon 2930 during its 15 minutes of fame, before the Marantz DV7001 launched and knocked it off top spot - if my previous Harmon-Kardon unit had been able to limp on for just another couple of months before finally dying I'd have bought the Marantz instead.... ah well.

Yes, the prospect of improved picture quality from Blu-Ray is one issue - I understand your comments so I'll cross the Pioneer off my list. However, audio quality is also a big factor for me and I've read with envy all the reviews of Blu-Ray/HD DVD audio. Without straying too far from my own thread, even if picture quality wasn't noticeably better, I'd upgrade to a more reasonably priced Blu-Ray player if the resulting audio through my Onkyo was a step up from "ordinary" DTS? (That's the main reason I bought the SR875 following your top-class reviews).

Roll on March then, and all those new products coming through!

David
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hi clare and david_tring
can u please elaborate or give weblink to explain what is "SUPERLATIVE PICTURE PROCESSING" that Pana uses to offer 24fps handling from HD sources.This i want to know because i am a proud owner of pana TX-32LXD700 also, and please suggest whether i should go for Sony's DVP-NS78 DVD Player or Sony's BDP-S300 blu ray player or Samsung BD-P1400 blu ray player as u advised to go for a cheaper Blu-ray player right now....thanks
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[quote user="mandeep"]hi clare and david_tring can u please elaborate or give weblink to explain what is "SUPERLATIVE PICTURE PROCESSING" that Pana uses to offer 24fps handling from HD sources[/quote]

I think what Clare meant by 'superlative picture processing' with regards to 24fps was just the fact that the Panasonic produces a superb, judder-free picture, irrespective of it's particular method of handling 24fps material. The Panasonic 32LXD700 will, unlike some lesser tvs, accept a 1080p signal at 24fps. However, unlike some other tvs, it doesn't offer native 24fps playback. What it does do is convert the 24fps signal to 60Hz using a process known as "3:2 pulldown", a process which can cause lots of problems such as judder. In fact, one of the reasons that HD discs are mastered at 24fps is to eliminate problems like judder by playing the film at it's original speed. So, surely converting it to 60Hz defeats the object? Afterall, this is the same as what would happen in the HD player if it was set to convert 24fps to 60Hz in order to work with a tv that won't accept a 24fps signal. The same process is just being done by the tv instead of the player - big deal, you might think. Well, in actual fact, despite the "3:2 pulldown" conversion traditionally known to cause all sorts of problems (which it does when performed by all of the HD players on the market), the Panasonic somehow manages to avoid these and displays a 'superlative picture' with smooth motion. Basically, despite having to convert the 24fps picture into 60Hz, a procedure laden with difficulties, the Panasonic still delivers an excellent result, presumably because, whatever it does, however it does it, it certainly does perform some 'superlative picture processing.' I hope I haven't confused you even more.

Also, Kipsidhu, any HD player will offer you the option of whether you want to output 24fps - which won't be accepted by your Sony W2000 - or, convert to 60Hz which certainly will be accepted by your Sony W2000.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
THANKS....... I HAVE ALSO GATHERED SOME INFO..HOPE IT HELPS OTHERS WHO WISH TO KNOW MORE.....

In video technology, 24p refers to a video format that operates at a true 24 frames per second framerate with progressive scanning (not interlaced).

DVDs, however, are capable of storing the native 24p frames. Every Hollywood movie is laid to disc as a 24p stream. With a progressive-scan DVD player and a progressive display, such as an HDTV, only the progressive frames are displayed and there is no conversion to an interlaced format - eliminating the appearance of any interlace or de-interlacing artifacts. When displayed on a standard NTSC TV (which only display 60i) the DVD player will add 3:2 pulldown to the signal.

Both HD DVD and Blu-ray support the 24p frame rate, but technical implementations of this mode are different among the two formats. Blu-ray supports 24p with its native timing, while HD DVD uses 60i timing for 24p (replacing missing frames with "repeat field flags")

DISADVANTAGES OF 24FPS:-....

24p video has more trouble with high motion than other, higher frame rates, sometimes showing a "strobe" or "choppy" motion, just like 24 fps film will if shot as if it's video, without careful panning, zooming, and slower camera motion. It is therefore not well-suited for programming requiring spontaneous action or "reality" camerawork. 24p can also hurt the credibility of newscasts by making news footage look too much like staged movie clips - though many newscasts do incorporate 24p footage.

It should also be noted that while the strobe of 24p is in many ways considered a disadvantage, it's also part of the "film look." 24 fps film strobes in exactly the same way.

Most consumer-level video editors (particularly non-HD ones) are designed for 30 frames per second, and the addition of 24p is sometimes awkwardly implemented. Incorrect user settings can result in a 24p frame at the edge of an edit existing on only one NTSC field, thus cutting its resolution in half. If a non-linear editor is incapable of removing pulldown, the standard 3:2 pulldown pattern should be used when shooting.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[quote user="mandeep"]DVDs, however, are capable of storing the native 24p frames. Every Hollywood movie is laid to disc as a 24p stream. With a progressive-scan DVD player and a progressive display, such as an HDTV, only the progressive frames are displayed and there is no conversion to an interlaced format - eliminating the appearance of any interlace or de-interlacing artifacts. When displayed on a standard NTSC TV (which only display 60i) the DVD player will add 3:2 pulldown to the signal.[/quote]

Mandeep, I believe that while DVDs are potentially capable of storing material at 24fps, region 2 discs are 25fps and the majority of region 1 American discs are 30fps. This is so that they will work with their respective standard-def tv formats - pal and ntsc. The process of converting 24fps material into 25fps or 30fps is done in a mastering studio and in the case of region 2 pal discs simply involves speeding up the film slightly (from 24fps to 25fps - ie. 4%). This makes the films' running times 4% shorter and hightens the pitch of the sound by 4%. This is not ideal because it is distorting the original film, and is technically not 'as the director intended'. With region 1 ntsc discs the process is more complicated; a 3:2 conversion is performed which causes judder. However, as this is done in a mastering studio (and not done in 'real-time') it can be performed well with minimal distortion. Although this is true in most cases, I do believe that some American region 1 DVDs are written to disc at their original speed - 24fps. DVDs are not stored progressively, but in interlaced form: region 1 discs are 480i and region 2 discs are 576i. When progressive scan capable DVD players output progressively they have to convert interlaced into progressive themselves - in real-time. DVDs are not written natively progressive.

With Blu-ray and HD-DVD, the chance was taken to write to disc films at their correct (and original) speed of 24fps. This is great as long as your tv can take 24fps. If your tv is not capable of handling 24fps then the player will have to be set to convert the material into 60fps (or potentially 50fps) so that it can be accepted by the tv. As this has to be done in real-time, and in a commercial player, the conversion will not be performed as well as if it was done in the mastering studio. This means the results can be worse than with DVD, if your tv cannot handle 24fps. I am not an expert and I may have got things wrong but I think what I have written is accurate.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
yes , confusion exits whether DVD Video is progressive or interlaced. UR ANSWER IS RIGHT: progressive-source video is usually encoded as interlaced field pairs that can be reinterleaved by the progressive DVD player to recreate the original progressive video...................NOW THE QUESTION ARISES HOW DO WE GET PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL FROM A INTERLACED SOURCE VIDEO?ANSWER:This is done by following methods 1.LINE DOUBLING( OR BOB) 2. FIELD ADAPTIVE DEINTERLACING(EXAMINE INDIVIDUAL PIXELS ACROSS 3 OR MORE FIELDS) 3. MOTION ADAPTIVE DEINTERLACING (USES MOTION VECTORS) AND FOR DOING THIS LCD TV'S ETC HAVE CHIPS WITHIN MPEG-2 DECODER OR A SEPARATE CHIPS ALONG WITH MPEG-2 DECODER SUCH AS "GENESIS/FAROUDJA"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But DVDs are actually encoded in the interlaced format for traditional interlaced displays. They are not designed to be progressive scan. DVD players that are progressive scan have to de-interlace the stream from the DVD. When DVDs are encoded, it is not intended for them to be de-interlaced. You could say that when a DVD player de-interlaces it is modifying the content from how it was intended to be displayed when it was encoded. The irony of this is that by 'modifying' the material in this way and going against what was intended when the disc was encoded, it is actually bringing the content back to how it was originally intended by the director to be shown at the cinema.
 

Technomancer

New member
Jan 24, 2008
5
0
0
Visit site
[quote user="Clare Newsome"]

First things first - I think a Blu-ray player of the level of the Pioneer BDP-LX70A (£1000) is overkill for a 32in screen. On a TV of that size, you're going to struggle to see the difference between Blu-ray discs and the excellent upscaling job your Onkyo will be doing from your great DVD player.[/quote]

Hi Clare Newsome

If a 32" tv is not big enough how big would it have to be, as at some point I will upgrade from SDTV and video, to whatever I can afford in the way of HDTV and video. TIA.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[quote user="Technomancer"]If a 32" tv is not big enough how big would it have to be, as at some point I will upgrade from SDTV and video, to whatever I can afford in the way of HDTV and video. [/quote]

I'm obviously not Claire but I'm going to give you my views on this matter anyway. A 32" inch screen certainly is big enough to appreciate and enjoy the improvement in picture that proper 'native' high-def has over upscaled standard-def material. In my bedroom I have a 26" LCD tv and the advantages of true high-def are evident even at that size, even though I must say that I have always been very impressed by the picture I get from my Samsung upscaling DVD player that I bought nearly two years ago for just over £100 (I think). However, there is still a major step up from upscaled DVDs to true HD (Blu-ray for example). This is why I strongly believe that it is very much worth you buying a Blu-ray player for your 32". What I do not think you will notice on a 32" inch screen however is the subtle difference between different Blu-ray players: the Pioneer BDP-LX70A and the PS3, for example, will give you much the same picture on a 32" LCD. It's only on really big tvs, say, 50" and over, or at the very least 42", that you will benefit from the £1000 Pioneer Blu-ray player over the PS3.

Hope I have been of some help.
 

Clare Newsome

New member
Jun 4, 2007
1,657
0
0
Visit site
[quote user="BenjaminHart"]
In my bedroom I have a 26" LCD tv and the advantages of true high-def are evident even at that size,

[/quote]

In a bedroom when you're not that far away, yes - but in a living room where you may sit much further away, it's a different matter.

But agree totally with your point re quality of players being noticeable on a 32in set. The higher-level HD players only really come into their own partnered with a high-quality, larger flatscreen and/or projector.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[quote user="Clare Newsome"][quote user="BenjaminHart"]

In my bedroom I have a 26" LCD tv and the advantages of true high-def are evident even at that size,

[/quote]

In a bedroom when you're not that far away, yes - but in a living room where you may sit much further away, it's a different matter.

But agree totally with your point re quality of players being noticeable on a 32in set. The higher-level HD players only really come into their own partnered with a high-quality, larger flatscreen and/or projector.

[/quote]

I reckon 720p compared to SD would be beneficial at 26" if you are close enough but I cannot believe that it's worth getting an expensive 1080p source, even at 32".

and another thing

What is the point of a 1080p 32" set. How close would you have to be to see the benefit , if at all. The tv manufacturers are pandering to the uneducated masses who are being told they MUST HAVE 1080p to watch freeview!!!!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[quote user="hifi_nut"]I cannot believe that it's worth getting an expensive 1080p source, even at 32". [/quote]

That's exactly what I said, it wouldn't be worth getting a £1000 Blu-ray player. However it would definitely be worth getting a less expensive high-def source such as the PS3 which is less than £300, or one of Toshiba's recent HD-DVD players (unless HD-DVD really is as dead as some people are saying) which can also be had for less than £300.

[quote user="hifi_nut"]What is the point of a 1080p 32" set. How close would you have to be to see the benefit , if at all.[/quote]

Also, I never mentioned 1080p as that wouldn't be necessary at 32" as you wouldn't notice any extra detail at that size unless you literally had your nose pressed up against the tv! And that's if a 32" 1080p tv actually exists. It just so happens that the high-def sources we were talking about (Blu-ray, HD-DVD) are natively 1080p, but for a 32" tv then the content would have to be downscaled to 720p, which would be absolutely fine on a 32" tv as, like I just said, you wouldn't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p at that size anyway, but you certainly would notice the improvement of 720p over standard-def.

[quote user="hifi_nut"]The tv manufacturers are pandering to the uneducated masses who are being told they MUST HAVE 1080p to watch freeview!!!!!!![/quote]

I've heard a lot of rubbish from people in shops but I've never heard that one. People who believe everything that salespeople say must be stupid though. Anyone who is going to make a big purchase - ie. a big expensive flatscreen tv - should do some research first, so they know for themselves whether or not they need a 1080p screen. I mean, with salespeople surely the clue is in the name... they are there to SELL you stuff, and obviously that means that they are probably going to be just a little biased.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[quote user="BenjaminHart"]
[quote user="hifi_nut"]I cannot believe that it's worth getting an expensive 1080p source, even at 32". [/quote]

That's exactly what I said, it wouldn't be worth getting a £1000 Blu-ray player. However it would definitely be worth getting a less expensive high-def source such as the PS3 which is less than £300, or one of Toshiba's recent HD-DVD players (unless HD-DVD really is as dead as some people are saying) which can also be had for less than £300.

[quote user="hifi_nut"]What is the point of a 1080p 32" set. How close would you have to be to see the benefit , if at all.[/quote]

Also, I never mentioned 1080p as that wouldn't be necessary at 32" as you wouldn't notice any extra detail at that size unless you literally had your nose pressed up against the tv! And that's if a 32" 1080p tv actually exists. It just so happens that the high-def sources we were talking about (Blu-ray, HD-DVD) are natively 1080p, but for a 32" tv then the content would have to be downscaled to 720p, which would be absolutely fine on a 32" tv as, like I just said, you wouldn't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p at that size anyway, but you certainly would notice the improvement of 720p over standard-def.

[quote user="hifi_nut"]The tv manufacturers are pandering to the uneducated masses who are being told they MUST HAVE 1080p to watch freeview!!!!!!![/quote]

I've heard a lot of rubbish from people in shops but I've never heard that one. People who believe everything that salespeople say must be stupid though. Anyone who is going to make a big purchase - ie. a big expensive flatscreen tv - should do some research first, so they know for themselves whether or not they need a 1080p screen. I mean, with salespeople surely the clue is in the name... they are there to SELL you stuff, and obviously that means that they are probably going to be just a little biased.
[/quote]

I know you didn't and wasn't suggesting you did, just my general view and annoyance . 32" 1080p will be here next year in droves.

You and I know research is a must but when most people go into Currys and talk to a tele muppet what do they expect to learn and be told, seriously? People now know what HD is and they are curious but 95% of them will never have a source, be it blu-ray, hd-dvd or sky hd that takes advantage of their shiny new set. So they basically get a 720p/1080p set and only watch Sky or Freeview. Whats the point in that? And to add insult to injury, CRT got so good that their new set will possibly look worse with SD material, scaling or not.

Case in point, my shiny new top of the range Sony 20" LCD is far inferior to a 10-15 year old 20" Pana CRT in the spare room. Now thats progress for having a flat TV on the wall!!
 

david_tring

Well-known member
Jan 20, 2008
37
0
18,540
Visit site
Benjamin, thanks for your observations on all this! I've been reading the Instruction manuals for my Denon 2930 DVD player, Onkyo TX-SR875 amp and Panasonic 32LDX700 TV. The player can output DVDs at any resolution from vanilla 480i/576i up to 1080p, the amp can upscale any input to 1080p and the Panasonic can accept any input up to 1080p too. You mention that DVDs are inherently 480i/576i, although the 2930's default output setting is 480p/576p (all these are the HDMI connections of course).

Based on all the What Hi-Fi? reviews I'm assuming that the video processing in the Onkyo is of a better quality than that in the Denon, so does my ideal set-up involve changing the 2930 to 480/576 interlaced output and then up-convert in the Onkyo all the way to 1080p?

You say that the original source material from DVD is interlaced, so is there actually any point in introducing another level of conversion (interlaced to progressive) in addition to the up-scaling of the resolution to 1080 on my 32" screen? Is 1080i a good eneough input to the TV?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[quote user="david_tring"]You mention that DVDs are inherently 480i/576i, although the 2930's default output setting is 480p/576p (all these are the HDMI connections of course).[/quote]

Even though the default setting for HDMI output is 480p / 576p, DVDs are authored at 480i / 576i. Is it possible to have your Denon 2930 output 480i / 576i via HDMI? If it is possible then you should have the player set to output 480i / 576i via HDMI so that you leave both the de-interlacing and the upscaling to your excellent Onkyo TX-SR875, which uses a Reon-VX chipset with HQV (Hollywood Quality Video) processing, which is considered to be the best video de-interlacer / upscaler on the market. I believe this system was originally used for professional applications, in the tv and film industry (I think). Basically you should leave everything to the Onkyo, which will use it's wonderful HQV processing to get the absolute best out of your standard-def DVDs. Don't get me wrong, your Denon player does also offer very good scaling and de-interlacing, as does the lovely Panasonic 32LXD700 tv, however in this case the Onkyo is simply better equipped and should provide a cleaner, sharper, more stable and an all-together better image.

The only thing now is to decide what particular high-def resolution to set your Onkyo to upscale to and then output. As your tv's resolution is 1366 x 768, which is closest to 720p, you might think it best to set your Onkyo to output at 720p in order to get the best picture. However your particular Panasonic tv has something called a 'Digital Re-mastering Processor 1080p'. This basically means that the tv's processor has been designed to upscale incoming signals to 1080p and then perform a simple downscale to match it's 1366 x 768 resolution. Because of this, if you set the Onkyo amp to output 720p, then your Panny tv may end up upscaling to 1080p and back down again - creating an extra and unnecessary step, which will lead to loss of picture information (pixels) and therefore will cause some image deterioration. For this reason, and the fact that even though your Panny doesn't have a native 1920 x 1080 resolution it is still designed to work best with 1080p signals, I think that you are best off having the Onkyo set to output at 1080p. Then when the 1080p signal is received by your Panny tv, the tv will just have to do a simple down conversion to match it's resolution of 1366 x 768. Having your system set up in this way will actually involve the minimum amount of scaling that is possible with the particular components you have.

So, just to recap, set your Denon DVD player to output 480i / 576i via HDMI to your Onkyo amp. Then, set your Onkyo to upscale and output at 1080p via HDMI to your Panasonic tv, which will then do a simple downscale to fit it's screen. This should bring you the best possible results as it leaves the interlacing and scaling to the superb Onkyo with it's superior HQV processing.

While I very much believe that you will get the best possible results by having the Onkyo set to output 1080p (as I have already said), you may as well also try setting it to 720p just to see how well that works. I wouldn't bother to try having the Onkyo set to output 1080i as there's not really any point because 1080i isn't either a) closest to the tv's native resolution (like 720p) or b) the highest (and best) resolution that the tv will accept (like 1080p). Having said that, there's no harm in giving it a go just to experiment, even though I am absolutely positive you will get the best results by having the Onkyo set at 1080p. The main thing to remember is to leave all (or as much as is possible) the de-interlacing, scaling and processing to the superior Onkyo with it's superior Reon-Vx and HQV system.

I hope you enjoy yourself David, and I hope that I haven't been too repetitive. Also I would really like to hear from you about how you get on.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And here's my reply for the self proclaimed hifi_nutjob
emotion-5.gif
. I totally agree with everything you say about the people who buy 'HD Ready' tvs and who do know a little bit about HD, but who will probably never actually take advantage of their new tv's HDness by actually using a high-def source. I know one person who, having just bought a 42" Samsung HD ready 'plasma' - which by the way, actually turned out to be an LCD - how hard is it to understand that there are more than one type of flatscreen tv - and he 'explained' in his vague way to me that he didn't have a Sky HD box yet but his tv was still HD but it would have better HD when he bought the proper Sky HD box (which by the way never happened, suprise suprise). He reckoned that he still gets 'a bit' HD somehow via his standard-def Sky box (plugged in with a non-hd scart!) as some sort of preview on the normal SD channels - idiot! I wonder if his thought processes are as vague as the rubbish that comes out of his mouth?! Does he have no idea at all?! He also seemed to have got the idea that the whole point of Blu-ray was that it stops in different parts of the film and you can then choose what happens next like one of those awful, awful 'point and click' games people used to have on their pcs. I tried to explain otherwise, and that this isn't the 'whole point' of Blu-ray, but this multiple choice thing could possibly be some sort of 'special' feature on some random disc, and that you can actually get normal DVDs with that feature anyway, but he got annoyed which made me annoyed because after putting up with his pure ignaorance and utter utter cluelessness, and sheer stupidity he, yes, he, thought that he had all the latest knowledge and know-how - yeah, alright mate, if you say so.

Anyway, I agree very much about your comments on the standard of picture quality with standard-def sources on flatscreen tvs. For watching standard-def tv, which is as far as most people will push their HD flatscreen tellies, CRTs probably offer much better quality. Having said this, even though I was quite unimpressed (and dissapointed) by my 26" Sony LCD's picture quality with SD sources - well, Freeview - I had this 'grass is always greener on the other side' sort of delusion that CRTs were much, much better at SD than flatscreens. However, having recently watched SD on a CRT tv I have come to the conclusion that they both produce a picture that is different and not better or worse than each other - just different. I mean, when I watched a CRT for the first time in ages I was struck by the subtle (but very noticeable) flickering or fluttering due to the interlaced nature of the picture - something that I obviously don't have to put up with when watching my flatscreen. Also, the actual individual pixels are more visible on a CRT (as opposed to the ideal situation which is that you only see the image as a whole) which kind of disguises the picture flaws. And CRTs have an unfair advantage with SD sources because they have the correct resolution unlike most flatscreen sets which we expect to somehow just 'make up' three quarters of the picture. So I guess what I am trying to say is that CRT and LCD and plasma all have their good points and their bad points, but if you find yourself wishfully thinking of the good old days of CRT then you are probably thinking through the proverbial rose-tinted glasses. Another thing, modern flatscreens tend to have screen sizes that are a hell of a lot bigger than with CRT. Nowadays 37" is quite small for the average living room, yet a few years ago 36" was the biggest CRT set you could actually buy. And then when you went over 36" you had to buy a gigantic rear-projection set which were about as bright as Heath Ledger's mood on a coke comedown!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well there is always Sonys KDL-32D3000 which if you look about can be found for under £650 which does true 24p unlike the Panasonic, the picture quality is pretty good too
emotion-5.gif
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[quote user="BenjaminHart"]
And here's my reply for the self proclaimed hifi_nutjob
emotion-5.gif
. I totally agree with everything you say about the people who buy 'HD Ready' tvs and who do know a little bit about HD, but who will probably never actually take advantage of their new tv's HDness by actually using a high-def source. I know one person who, having just bought a 42" Samsung HD ready 'plasma' - which by the way, actually turned out to be an LCD - how hard is it to understand that there are more than one type of flatscreen tv - and he 'explained' in his vague way to me that he didn't have a Sky HD box yet but his tv was still HD but it would have better HD when he bought the proper Sky HD box (which by the way never happened, suprise suprise). He reckoned that he still gets 'a bit' HD somehow via his standard-def Sky box (plugged in with a non-hd scart!) as some sort of preview on the normal SD channels - idiot! I wonder if his thought processes are as vague as the rubbish that comes out of his mouth?! Does he have no idea at all?! He also seemed to have got the idea that the whole point of Blu-ray was that it stops in different parts of the film and you can then choose what happens next like one of those awful, awful 'point and click' games people used to have on their pcs. I tried to explain otherwise, and that this isn't the 'whole point' of Blu-ray, but this multiple choice thing could possibly be some sort of 'special' feature on some random disc, and that you can actually get normal DVDs with that feature anyway, but he got annoyed which made me annoyed because after putting up with his pure ignaorance and utter utter cluelessness, and sheer stupidity he, yes, he, thought that he had all the latest knowledge and know-how - yeah, alright mate, if you say so. Anyway, I agree very much about your comments on the standard of picture quality with standard-def sources on flatscreen tvs. For watching standard-def tv, which is as far as most people will push their HD flatscreen tellies, CRTs probably offer much better quality. Having said this, even though I was quite unimpressed (and dissapointed) by my 26" Sony LCD's picture quality with SD sources - well, Freeview - I had this 'grass is always greener on the other side' sort of delusion that CRTs were much, much better at SD than flatscreens. However, having recently watched SD on a CRT tv I have come to the conclusion that they both produce a picture that is different and not better or worse than each other - just different. I mean, when I watched a CRT for the first time in ages I was struck by the subtle (but very noticeable) flickering or fluttering due to the interlaced nature of the picture - something that I obviously don't have to put up with when watching my flatscreen. Also, the pixels are more visible on a CRT which kind of disguises the picture flaws. And CRTs have an unfair advantage with SD sources because they have the correct resolution unlike most flatscreen sets which we expect to somehow just 'make up' three quarters of the picture. So I guess what I am trying to say is that CRT and LCD and plasma all have their good points and their bad points, but if you find yourself wishfully thinking of the good old days of CRT then you are probably thinking through the proverbial rose-tinted glasses. Another thing, modern flatscreens tend to have screen sizes that are a hell of a lot bigger than with CRT. Nowadays 37" is quite small for the average living room, yet a few years ago 36" was the biggest CRT set you could actually buy. And then when you went over 36" you had to buy a gigantic rear-projection set which were about as bright as the disposition of Heath Ledger.
[/quote]

Man thats hard on the eyes. To get around the dodgy formatting on the site try this Type the left arrow on the comma key and the right arrow from the full stop key, put the letter P in between and you get a new paragraph. Like this, amazing. Can't really caim to be a hi-fi nut anymore with my new kit, maybe av-nut now. hi-fi nut was from when I had proper hi-fi in my old place, Musical Fidelity, Sonus Faber, Roksan. Now what I've got is great av but not pure hi-fi.8( It's a style/space buying a place with the girlfrind thing! plus it's my gamertags too!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
[quote user="aidey68"]
Well there is always Sonys KDL-32D3000 which if you look about can be found for under £650 which does true 24p unlike the Panasonic, the picture quality is pretty good too
emotion-5.gif


[/quote]

Does it do 'true' 24p though? What Hz does it play it back?
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts