Lcd Televisions, Is Hd High Res Sometimes Overkill?

[Jingthing]

Bear with me, I am not very technical.

I use my tv mostly to watch downloaded movie files, typically 700 meg to 1 gig or so. These are not high def downloads for the most part. I am noticing some very attractive prices on lower end 42 inch LCD televisions. For my purposes, wouldn't it make more sense to buy the lower end screen rather than the latest high res screen, after all if the input isn't high res, what's the point of spending more money? If you are really knowledgeable, perhaps you can suggest more specific specs I should buy for the best bang for the baht for these types of files.

[minefield]

Bear with me, I am not very technical.

I use my TV mostly to watch downloaded movie files, typically 700 meg to 1 gig or so. These are not high def downloads for the most part. I am noticing some very attractive prices on lower end 42 inch LCD televisions. For my purposes, wouldn't it make more sense to buy the lower end screen rather than the latest high res screen, after all if the input isn't high res, what's the point of spending more money? If you are really knowledgeable, perhaps you can suggest more specific specs I should buy for the best bang for the baht for these types of files.

I did a lot of research before I decided to jump to the large felt screen, plasma v LCD Full HD or not I decided that plasma beats LCD hands down ,Some of my Friends the have LCD and now have seen my 42' full HD plasma have regretted going to LCD and not spending the extra few dollars and going "Full HD", Check around there are some good deals about.

also check out "cnet.com"They are a on line consumer researcher into all electrical goods

[Jingthing]

I still don't get the benefit of having a full HD screen when almost all of your input is not HD. Am I missing something?

[basjke]

If you mostly view downloaded movies the lowest resolution plasma available will do it.Prefer plasma over lcd as it gives better black levels.Higher resolution screens are only a waste of money as the source you are viewing is a lower resolution as the cheapest tv available on the market.

[elkangorito]

Plasma TV's use a lot of power compared to other TV's.

[voracious]

I've got a plasma and love it, though it does consume an awful lot of power. I was at Central Festival last month and looked at the new Samsung LED backed televisions and they seem very very nice. I think next round I'll go with LED (unless something even better comes up). As it is, I have anywhere from 5-10 years before the plamsma goes out, I think.

[khundon]

Jingthing

It would be a pity to buy a low end HD set if after a few months you decide to invest in a Bluray disc system. I would go for a decent Full HD 1080p LCD set

or as we have done a 21.9 Phillips TV, as that allows you to watch all films in the original format but they ain't cheap.

[lopburi3]

I thought plasma bit the dust several years ago.

The reason for high specs is the future. If you start downloading current TV many are now in HD 720P format at a bit over 1gb per hour show and with the price of bandwidth coming down (most places) expect the 700mg movie to be the VHS tape of the future.

But I agree - there is no need for state of the art equipment. I have two of the cheap TCL 32" LCD units which sell for about 10k and very happy with them - while mostly used for cable TV they have HDMI 720/VGA. Am sure in a side-by-side they would not have the depth or clarity of more expensive units - but for old eyes they are more than adequate.

[Mobi]

I've always taken the view that all the TV here, Cable, UBC, and even my S. A. Sat (MUltichoice) are of pretty mediocre quality and itys not worth buying anything better than a standard LCD screen.

I also watch a fair amount of DVD's but all bought locally, and the quality is also mediocre.

So for me there's no point in investing more than I have to. I care far more about the sound than picture quality.

But for those who watch expensive DVD's from abroad, and demand the highest quality picture, then it makes sense for them to by the best quality receivers.

Up to you

[majorpacman]

technology is great an all, but they just trying to sell you with latest and greatest. Wait until they have 1000000000000000 and so on resolution,3d and blah blah The company will still be doing the same. Seriously do you want to see someone pimple or mold on the face of the actors or actress. If you want high res, take you eyes and go out side and look at nature and the world. Now that is an awesome sight. Maybe you meet a girls or guys. hey maybe find some moneys on the streets. Just buying sometime that will fit your wallet. In a months or three there will be something better that comes out and your stuffs that u bought is old.

[Jingthing]

I won't be buying high end input, 55555, I thought that was obvious from my OP. I have always liked LCD screens better but I will have a look at the plasmas. What is the expected life of both types of screens, 5 years normal use? Also, approximately how much more power would the plasma use vs. the LCD, are we talking double or much more?

[adammike]

8 months ago I got a sony 46X4500 eye wateringly expensive, the reason I got this one was that

when viewed alongside a dozen others this one jumped out.

When I first saw them all showing the promo stuff It only looked a little better not really worth

the premium,but when I put in a blueray disc the latest Batman WOW it looked great well

worth the cash.

The TV is great [cable in Amsterdam] movies great but above all I love the games on the

PS3

[davejonesbkk]

Unless you are some expert or uber geek then forget all this talk of plasma, lcd, 720i, 1080p etc. Just go and get a samsung 32 inch for around 16k (shop around cos prices can vary), normal tv wont look much better, dvds and download stuff will look a bit better. HD movies that you downloaded will look sweet and you will never want to go back to standard definition ever. Yes Im sure the latest, state of the art, 1080i plasma might look better when ist running alongside another HD tv but the difference will be miniscual...

[Donnyboy]

was luckily enough to be in NZ during the Olympics

Was watching at the folks house, they have HDTV, amazing picture quality, brilliant to see everything crystal clear...womans beach volleyball was good

[joncl]

For what is worth the Truevision HD demo channel - RS100 - is/was playing ASN HD in full 1920x1080 (it was free to view for a short time earlier this week) and it worked well on a HD set top box with a 32" LCD screen via hdmi.

EDIT: typo

[astral]

TV's have a life of 5 years or so.

By that time, hopefully all the broadcast programmes will be High Def.........

I am increasingly downloading high res versions, where I can find them,

to make the best of my new 40" Samsung TV

[Jingthing]

I talked to a sales guy today who said some interesting things to me. As I was looking 42 inch screens, he said they don't even make non-HD 42 inch LCD screens anymore. His reasons I should by HD were for blueray input, for quality DVD input, and for GAMES. All things I don't use at this time. I'll keep shopping.

[astral]

I talked to a sales guy........... he said they don't even make non-HD 42 inch LCD screens anymore.......

I am not sure that is quite true, but you do need to check the specs,

Quite few 40" TV's that I looked at, particularly plasma were only 720

Particulary the cheaper ones.

For future proofing look for 1080.

[Jingthing]

I talked to a sales guy........... he said they don't even make non-HD 42 inch LCD screens anymore.......

I am not sure that is quite true, but you do need to check the specs,

Quite few 40" TV's that I looked at, particularly plasma were only 720

Particulary the cheaper ones.

For future proofing look for 1080.

What do you mean future proofing?

I am still not convinced there is any benefit at all to having a high res HD screen for 700 meg movies file, except for the "feeling" that you have the latest stuff. Personally, I don't even watch tv on my tv screen, I use my computer LCD screen for that (streaming from America). As I said, I am not very technical and maybe I am not understanding this issue well enough. But for my purposes, it seems the only benefit of going high end would be theoretical potential future uses, rather than my current intended use.

[Benjie]

Personally I would go for a reasonable 720p Set now with a mind to upgrade later when everything is HD and newer bigger Tv's have come down in price. If you don't use a PS3, Xbox360 or Blu Ray discs then there is absolutely no need for Full HD.

[Smile4u]

My 42' Plasma lost picture after 1,5 year only.

Cost 4.500 to repair.

"Expected life"? Not much.

I checked a tv brands thai web site, only 50% of new model are full HD.

"it seems the only benefit of going high end would be theoretical potential future uses, rather than my current intended use."

I agree totally. The tv will die long before LOS get tv signals that can feed a HD tv. That goes for True vision (ubc) as well.

After alot of reading on many forums, I downgraded myself from a full HD to a less spec tv.

[waza]

For you Jingthing its not worth going full HDD 1080i, any screen will suit your needs. Full HDD is for blue ray, gamers, and full HDD TV. Plasma uses more power than LCD and the latest tech is LED screens.

[MJo]

For you Jingthing its not worth going full HDD 1080i, any screen will suit your needs. Full HDD is for blue ray, gamers, and full HDD TV. Plasma uses more power than LCD and the latest tech is LED screens.

True, if you do not watch HD content you do not need HD TV.

And, any LCD you can also use as your computer monitor. Just check out the connections, if you see the same "computer" screen connector you know you can stream your tv from us to your tv...

[jasreeve17]

It's nice to have the latest and greatest, but it's really just a ploy by the TV manufacturers...

I used to work for a manufacturer of colour correctors, which are an expensive bit of post production kit for movies, tv, etc. Everyone used to say that for home TV SD is all you need, indeed many disliked true HD because, say you're watching football, you really don't want to be distracted by a blade of grass moving (in real life our eyes / brain choose to ignore it), it makes your eyes sore and uncomfortable. We used HD (amongst other standards) for very large cinema screens, and digital is also easy for TV because production costs are cheaper, but it's not better for normal home TV watching.

Now, many of us (I love to buy the latest gimmick myself) have bought into the HD idea, but we hardly benefit by it, as the manufacturers know full well and hence why they are desperately trying to increase the screen sizes - so you can actually see the difference. Back in the good old days a 29" SD Sony TV had a great picture, a 29" HD Hi-res Super-New-Max doesn't have a better picture quality, just like a digital signal is always worse than an analogue signal, but it makes TV cheaper for the broadcasters, and an opportunity for Sony to bring out the latest new standard and sell more TV's, that's all. It's all <deleted>.

[MJo]

What ever suits you. I do love my 46" HD Sony with 200MHz Motionflow. Coupled with proper Pioneer BR player and set of decent speakers and amp the movies look and sound much better to me than they did with my 10 year old 21" tube coupled with 3000 baht chinese dvd player i bought 12 years ago. But maybe it's just a hype in my head...

[scotsman]

For the purpose of your use I would get a Cheap Panasonic 42" plasma as it will upscale to 1080p with the HDMI cable for any future Blue ray player or HDTV also Plasma TV's are better for watching fast moving TV programs like sport or action Movies. The cheaper LCD TV's just don't have the Hz for that you will have to buy the expensive 100 HZ or 200HZ motion ones to get a good picture without motion Blur. The power consumption on my Plasma is 285 Watt and the 42" LCD's are about 185 watt to 208 watt the plasma TV's also run a bit hot.

Regards

Scotsman

[jasreeve17]

What ever suits you. I do love my 46" HD Sony with 200MHz Motionflow. Coupled with proper Pioneer BR player and set of decent speakers and amp the movies look and sound much better to me than they did with my 10 year old 21" tube coupled with 3000 baht chinese dvd player i bought 12 years ago. But maybe it's just a hype in my head...

I was talking about a Sony 29" TV with SD; pretty much the standard 10 years ago.

I was not talking about an old cheap chinese branded 21".

Any digital signal, like HD, is lower quality than the the original analogue signal obviously enough - digital / HD is cheaper for producing programs and distributing those programs - so you can receive 100 channels instead of 10 for example, that's all. Good for Sony to sell more TV's too.

I used to work with many of these standards as they were being pressed forward and introduced. The broadcasting industry and film production companies and consumer groups weren't involved or interested. It was all pushed by the manufactures: Sony and Philips are traditionally the big players. Check out the boards for international standards like MHP and HD, goto the conventions and industry shows, all this stuff is controlled and pushed by manufacturers.

[MJo]

I was talking about a Sony 29" TV with SD; pretty much the standard 10 years ago.

I was not talking about an old cheap chinese branded 21".

Any digital signal, like HD, is lower quality than the the original analogue signal obviously enough - digital / HD is cheaper for producing programs and distributing those programs - so you can receive 100 channels instead of 10 for example, that's all. Good for Sony to sell more TV's too.

I used to work with many of these standards as they were being pressed forward and introduced. The broadcasting industry and film production companies and consumer groups weren't involved or interested. It was all pushed by the manufactures: Sony and Philips are traditionally the big players. Check out the boards for international standards like MHP and HD, goto the conventions and industry shows, all this stuff is controlled and pushed by manufacturers.

Sure you are right, but i still stay with my statement that modern Blue Ray movies with proper HD tv look much better than even Sony tv's 10 years ago or any SD tv.

I also agree it's cleverly marketed and some people will buy into the hype without realising they do not benefit from it as they are viewing only dvd's or SD broadcasts in general. Or maybe most people i don't know. I got one only when i could get decent BR player with reasonable price and when i saw the selection of BR movies increasing in the shops.

[jasreeve17]

It's nice to have a high-end system to come home and relax to, maybe a little fridge filled with your favourite beer next to the sofa...

I've never experienced Blue Ray - so to see it on a big TV with a good sound system would be interesting.

[astral]

I've never experienced Blue Ray - so to see it on a big TV with a good sound system would be interesting.

It is....................