Are the TV reviews written keeping in mind real life facts ?

Zubkabera

New member
Nov 15, 2007
131
0
0
Visit site
During past few months I've been consistently reading reviews of all the TVs in WHFSV mag and have been surprised at the content and tests (well not much technical details on tests are shared) written.

I've been annoyed by the fact that all these reviews focus on just how well the TV displays the HD contents, while in reality my guess is 90% of general populations still using SD sources and terrestrial TV.

Why is WHFSV editors are keeping their eyes closed on this fact that majority of the reviewers want to know how well the TV displays SD contents. You can see that lot of these poor readers buy the TV based on the review and star ratings and pretty disappointed to see artefact's & big square blocks all over their faces.

My humble request to WHFSV editors is to divide each review of TV into two section how well TV performs displaying HD contents and how well it is able to display/upscale SD contents. This will help majority of buyers to decide which TV to go for.
 

Clare Newsome

New member
Jun 4, 2007
1,657
0
0
Visit site
Thanks for your feedback and suggestions.

To clarify, all TVs are fully tested with SD and HD sources, from analogue and Freeview TV to DVD, Sky, and then Blu-ray/HD DVD.

A set's positive and negative points are always highlighted, and we stress any particular issues - we'll often say, for example, that a set only thrives with better sources, or does/doesn't have a strong TV tuner.

But yes, we mention the newer formats, too, as it's an indication of a TV's full potential - whether you're likely to use that potential right now or in the future. Because let's face it, a TV is a long-term purchase for most people.

I am, however, slightly stumped on how best to address the issue of poor-quality broadcasts that cause artefacts/blocking on any modern larger flatscreen - other than suggest people buy past-generation, low-resolution sets in small sizes, which might possibly show up the broadcast deficiencies less, but look otherwise dreadful.

Much of SD TV is still great-quality - I just watched Ashes to Ashes on BBC1 via a Full HD projector on an 80in screen, and it was fine (though HD would have been even better - bloomin' Beeb). Switch to a lower bit-rate digital channel, however, and it's all-but-unwatchable - even with a fantastic upscaler in play. Even an otherwise superb (with good TV channels and, say, DVD) 26in HD Ready LCD can struggle with the poorer Freeview channels.

The harsh fact is that modern TV technology (hardware) has outstripped modern broadcast technology in its poorer forms.... Here's to more HD broadcasts - via Freeview, please!
 

Zubkabera

New member
Nov 15, 2007
131
0
0
Visit site
Thanks Clare for your quick response and detailed explanation. I understand your point about poor broadcast in lowest resolution will be obviously unwatchable on any HD TV and any decent TV will be unable to coupe with that. But still there are good SD sources lets say Sky 1 and 2 which broadcast at 720x480 pixels on SD box so if you watch it side by side on lets say Pioneer 508D or Sony X3500 you can tell Pioneer is far ahead in displaying SD content then Sony and that little detail will help all of us decide.

Or in your opinion if our preference is watching SD content only then stay away from high resolution (full HD) TV and stick to HD-ready sets only.
 

Clare Newsome

New member
Jun 4, 2007
1,657
0
0
Visit site
[quote user="Zubkabera"]

Or in your opinion if our preference is watching SD content only then stay away from high resolution (full HD) TV and stick to HD-ready sets only.

[/quote]

It may be no coincidence that all-but-one of our 2007 Award-winning TVs was HD Ready
emotion-5.gif
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts