On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:30:41 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

I don't watch much sport but have spend some time comparing football in
SD and HD. If the football is originated in HD and is being broadcast
in both HD and SD, then the SD version comes close to HD quality on my
Celcus TV - i.e. you can see the grass to almost the same extent.

But it's a sorry state of affairs when, after 65 years of television,
today's measure of excellence is essentially "Under optimum conditions,
you can almost see the grass"!

Given the state of most broadcasts, the ultimate would be seeing the grass
gowing - something interesting to watch!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

In message , Davey
writes
I cannot fault the picture quality of the Toshiba, while admitting that
I am not an expert. But I have seen some sets with obvious defects, and
the Toshiba is good in those regards.
The only problem that I have with this is that unless you're viewing the
same station in the same way through the same equipment at the same
time, then you don't know if the sampling has been altered or any other
artefacts were/are changes from the broadcaster to the viewer, further,
viewing is subjective just like audio and the two can only be compared
when next to one another just like listening to speakers in a Hi-Fi
shop.
--
Clive

On Feb 7, 2:54*pm, Davey wrote:

Does your remote control have a way of recalling the previous channel,

It certainly does. But I have to say, I hardly use the feature as it's
linked to a VM cable box, so the TV is really just a monitor.

The model is 32C3030D if that's of any use. It's a few years old, but
the blacks are pretty good in my normal viewing habits. If I were to
watch the TV in completely dark rooms, then I would probably moan
about the blacks being a bit grey. I am saving up for one of these
Sony Crystal LED sets!

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:12:33 +0000
Clive wrote:

In message , Davey
writes
I cannot fault the picture quality of the Toshiba, while admitting
that I am not an expert. But I have seen some sets with obvious
defects, and the Toshiba is good in those regards.
The only problem that I have with this is that unless you're viewing
the same station in the same way through the same equipment at the
same time, then you don't know if the sampling has been altered or
any other artefacts were/are changes from the broadcaster to the
viewer, further, viewing is subjective just like audio and the two
can only be compared when next to one another just like listening to
speakers in a Hi-Fi shop.

Maybe, probably, you're correct. But I am simply saying that I have
never seen any sign of image blurring, even during sports programs, and
I have never wished that the blacks were blacker. I have seen obvious
motion blur on other sets, however, and been glad that I did not have
those sets.
--
Davey.

In message , John
Legon writes
Andy Wade wrote:
On 06/02/2012 14:09, Ian Jackson wrote:

Essentially, the statement that this is a Full HD TV is simply a
lie.
AIUI 'Full HD' only means that the native resolution of the display
is (at least) the full 1920 x 1080 pixels, and that 1080p50 is
supported.
c.f. 'HD ready' which allowed less than full display resolution,
commonly 1366 x 768 (IIRC).

I don't believe that the "ready" tag was intended to make a
distinction between 720-line and 1080-line HD. It doesn't make sense!

In fact, in the Times of last Saturday there's a Comet advert for a
Sharp 40" LCD TV, which is described as "1080p full HD ready", and the
official "1080 HD ready" logo graphic is displayed on the screen.

IMO the "ready" label was introduced at a time when there were no DTT
HD broadcasts, and was supposed to mean that the TV was ready to
receive such broadcasts (using DVB-T) when the time came. The "ready"
tag could be dropped when the broadcasts began. Unfortunately this
doesn't work in the UK since we use DVB-T2 for HD.

A distinction should then have made between "HD" and "full HD" for 720-
or 1080-line HD, but for some reason "HD ready" has come to mean 720p.

This TV has both specs in it's description, at the bottom,

http://preview.tinyurl.com/856ke8f
--
Ian

At 00:25:00 Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Ian wrote

A distinction should then have made between "HD" and "full HD" for 720-
or 1080-line HD, but for some reason "HD ready" has come to mean 720p.

This TV has both specs in it's description, at the bottom,

http://preview.tinyurl.com/856ke8f

So here we have "HD TV ready" and "HD ready 1080p (Full HD)"

The use of the word "ready" seems pointless and absurd - a display is
either 1080p HD or it isn't. Nobody refers to computer monitors as
being "VGA ready".

John Legon wrote:

Nobody refers to computer monitors as being "VGA ready".

I'm sure if the EGA/CGA monitor manufacturers had seen VGA coming, they
would have tried!

In message , John Legon
writes
At 00:25:00 Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Ian wrote

A distinction should then have made between "HD" and "full HD" for 720-
or 1080-line HD, but for some reason "HD ready" has come to mean 720p.

This TV has both specs in it's description, at the bottom,

http://preview.tinyurl.com/856ke8f

So here we have "HD TV ready" and "HD ready 1080p (Full HD)"

The use of the word "ready" seems pointless and absurd - a display is
either 1080p HD or it isn't. Nobody refers to computer monitors as
being "VGA ready".

Being a simple member of Joe Public, I'm confused. Just what does this
TV set NOT do that I might expect it to do? Or will it fulfil all my
expectations?
--
Ian

Ian Jackson wrote:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/856ke8f

Being a simple member of Joe Public, I'm confused. Just what does this
TV set NOT do that I might expect it to do? Or will it fulfil all my
expectations?

I'd say it's a fairly decent set, the screen is the full resolution,
it'll connect via HDMI to blu-ray/PS3/stb/etc, it will receive and
display HD channels from an aerial (if you live in a post-DSO or trial
area) which is presumably the main thing?

I won't do 3D, it won't record programmes to USB devices but will play
back from them.

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , John Legon
writes
At 00:25:00 Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Ian wrote

A distinction should then have made between "HD" and "full HD" for 720-
or 1080-line HD, but for some reason "HD ready" has come to mean 720p.

This TV has both specs in it's description, at the bottom,

http://preview.tinyurl.com/856ke8f

So here we have "HD TV ready" and "HD ready 1080p (Full HD)"

The use of the word "ready" seems pointless and absurd - a display is
either 1080p HD or it isn't. Nobody refers to computer monitors as
being "VGA ready".

Being a simple member of Joe Public, I'm confused. Just what does this
TV set NOT do that I might expect it to do? Or will it fulfil all my
expectations?

This is why the use of the "ready" tag is so silly - it seems to imply
an ability to perform according to a certain specification at some
future date, when in fact the TV meets the spec here and now.

One thing I hadn't realised is that the "HD ready 1080p" label and logo,
as used by the Sharp TV I mentioned before, indicates conformance to a
particular DigitalEurope specification, whereas the "Full HD 1080p"
label, which most manufacturers now seem to be using, does not. Hence a
Full HD 1080p set is not necessarily as highly specified as an HD
ready 1080p set.