Key Post: Widescreen TV.

S

sueellen

Guest
Anyone got any knowledge in relation to widescreen TVs. I'm in the market for one. I've been told that the 28ins ones you see in Power city/ Dixons for about £550 aren't the tru widescreen TV's. That you need to be paying about a grand for a proper one.

The staff in some of these places don't seem to know much about them either.

Slim
 
Re: Widescreen TV

Hi Slim - I spent a lot of time researching this a few months ago. My conclusions were as follows;

- Most of the staff haven't got a clue - If you're lucky, you might find somebody senior who actually understands the technology.
- Because the screen size is measured on the diagonal, the widescreen TV's are typically shorter than the corresponding non-widescreen model. In fact, the Sony 32" widescreen is a couple of inches shorter than the 29" non-widescreen.
- You won't get much value for your widescreen unless you're watching a lot of material which is shot in widescreen. Most domestic TV is not shot in widescreen, so you'll end up watching it with traditional mode with two black bars down the side, or with the picture stretched into widescreen which distorts the picture somewhat. Unless you're watching loads of DVD's, sport or computer games, I doubt if you'll really use the widescreen much.
- The advanced picture quality features (e.g. 100 MHz screen) is not much use to you unless you have a digital signal.

My personal recommendation - Go for Sony's top of the range non-widescreen 29" for about £550 - Far better value than any of the widescreens around.

Regards - RainyDay
 
Widescreen TV

Thanks 4 that Rany Day, I'll be honest I think the the 12 year old Sony I have at the moment is fine, however a serious amount of pressure is being put on me by the kids to go Widescreen. So I will probably have to give in. I might pick one up at a reasonable price after Christmas.

Thanks again for the advice.

Slim
 
Re: Widescreen TV

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> however a serious amount of pressure is being put on me by the kids to go Widescreen<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

which reminds me of the final, desparate attempt of the Sony salesman to maximise his commission as he saw me slipping from a £1500 purchase to a £600 purchase. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--> "But, you know, in a year's time, all your mates will have widescreen"<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

So it's more about fashion than functionality.....
 
Widescreen TV

Hi Rainyday

I read what you had to say with interest. I've been looking into making a purchase myself and had lined up a Sony 32" Widescreen TV, which I hoped to buy in the January sales.
I'm just wondering about the digital signal bit you spoke about. When will we have digital TV here? Can you get Sky Sports in digital here (i thought you could).

Also, is this not the future of TV? Will there be a lot of re-mastering of old TV programmes into widescreen and digital format?

After reading your piece, I'm having secong thoughts about making a purchase.

PS... in relation to Powercity TV's . I've being told that their TV's are basically Sony,JVC etc but just sold under a different 'cheapo' brand name. The parts are all from the big manufaturers, the TV's are just put together by another comapany. Dont know how true this is, but it would make sense if the big names wanted to protect their product and it's highly priced image.
 
Re: Widescreen TV

Hi Delboy - I'm delighted to see you're having second thoughts. Far too many people are buying widescreen without really understanding what they're getting. I know of at least one person who splashed out on the widescreen and spends most of their time watching shows in 'standard' mode with the black bars down the side of their screen. Note that I'm NOT saying that widescreen is not for you - just make sure you do your research first.

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> When will we have digital TV here? Can you get Sky Sports in digital here (i thought you could).<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

AFAIK, if you have a dish or a decoder, then you already have a digital signal. And yes, to get any of the 'premium' channels like Sky Sports or Sky Movies, you need to be on a digital signal. If you are using a digital signal, then you might get some benefit from the 100 MHz flicker-free screen. If you're relying on standard old NTL or Chorus analog cable, then you won't get much benefit from these features.

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> Also, is this not the future of TV? <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

Yes - widescreen definitely is the future of TV - The real question is how far in the future. You will only really benefit from widescreen if the material you are watching is shot in widescreen. The real question is 'how long will it take for most TV shows to be shot in widescreen'? After all my research, I came to the conclusion that I was better off spending £600 on a top quality 'standard' telly now, and maybe buying widescreen in 3-5 years when the material becomes more widely available and the price of the widescreen has reduced.

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> Will there be a lot of re-mastering of old TV programmes into widescreen and digital format?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

I didn't come across this during my research, so I've no hard information on this. However, I don't see how it could really work. In simple terms, the widescreen shape is just a differently shaped rectangle (16:9 ratio instead of 4:3 ratio for a standard TV). You can't make a 'standard' picture fit a widescreen TV without either
- having black bars at the sides to make it look like the normal shape
- stretching the picture to fit the new shape, which either distorts the picture or loses a 'strip' of picture from the top & bottom of your screen (One of the TV shops was demo'ing their great widescreen model using a footie match, oblivious to the fact that the scoreline couldn't be seen on the widescreen because they had lost this 'strip' of picture from the top.)

The conclusion of my research was that if you're going to be watching mostly Sky Sports or movies from Sky or DVD, then widescreen would be nice. Otherwise, it would be a waste of money.

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> I've being told that their TV's are basically Sony,JVC etc but just sold under a different 'cheapo' brand name. The parts are all from the big manufacturers, the TV's are just put together by another comapany. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

I'm sure there are some common parts across all TV manufacturers, just like their are common parts for most computers, cars, audio equipment. As with market leading companies in all markets, a significant part of the price you are paying is going towards heavy advertising costs. However, I think you also get greater security and after-sales service from the big brands (e.g. how easy will it be to get spares for your 'Panafonics' TV or similar in four years time).

Hope this helps.

Regards - RainyDay
 
widescreen

great advice folks...i was just about to buy a widescreen 32 " too...changed my mind now...cheers!
 
Re: widescreen

just a short comment on widescreen I purchased a Phillips 28 widescreen for 485 recently and quiet happy with it ,with reguard to viewing in widescreen the tv has the facility to view in widescreen without the 2 black lines down the side ,I must say I am pleased with it
 
Re: widescreen

Hi Rhenie - Glad to hear you're enjoying it. Just to clarify, you know that when you're watching a non-widescreen signal (e.g. most TV shows) in widescreen mode without the two bars on the sides, you're losing a strip of picture from the top & bottom. Check it out the next time you're watching the footie, and watch how widescreen mode affects the scoreline.

Cheers - RainyDay
 
Me too

Yes, I'm another of those "looked at the widescreen job but ended up buying the standard telly" people. But.......I'm already (almost) regretting it. Well, not really, but still...... Yeah, I know its silly money for the widescreen, but, but......


You see, the problem is that the brother has just bought the full monty, Sony DVD, 32 inch widescreen, Sky World satellite receiver and enough speakers to drown out Ian Paisley in full flow. DTS Surround Sound/Dolby etc etc. And it is only gorgeous. Absolutely bloody magnificent! But only when watching a widescreem film from DVD or SKY. It is definitely wasted on ordinary TV programmes. You either get the silly black bars complete with reduced effective screen size OR you forfeit a strip along the top or bottom of the picture OR you "Stretch" the picture to fit. Stretch of course means distort. But still, the sound and picture quality is amazing form DVD - we say the Phantom Memace and it was truly a Cinematic experience. Worth the money? Hmmm, probably not......although.......maybe for Christmas....no, no, you gotta be mad.

OK then, Christmas 2002, Should be more affordable and the digital TV scene should be clearer by then.

OK, that's that settled then?
 
Re: TV Audio

You're dead right, Observer - The widescreen really comes into it's own when watching material originally shot for widescreen. The final 'nail in the coffin' in my decision to drop widescreen was when I saw some DVD being demo'ed on a top-of-the-range widescreen TV with black bars across the top & bottom. But aren't movies shot in widescreen, I asked the assistant? "Wha?" said the assistant. But aren't movies shot in widescreen, I asked the manager? Well, most movies are shot in Panavision ratio (2:1 format) which differs slightly to the widescreen 16:9 ratio, so you still end up with the black bar/letterbox effect.

I note your drooling comments about the impact of the fancy speaker systems. I've got great results by wiring the NICAM stereo output from the TV through my audio system - It gives a pretty good cinema effect, without the need for five speakers and all the wiring that goes with that.

Regards - RainyDay
 
Re: TV Audio

Reminds me of the conversation someone I know had with a T.V. sales-unit.

Along the lines of :
Him : "So, what's the difference between NICAM and regular stereo ?"
Sales-unit : "About £50"
Him : "No, really . . . what's the difference ?
Sales-unit : "Huh ?

By the way, what is the difference between NICAM and regular stereo ?

z
 
Actually Eastenders is in Widescreen on BBC

Terestrial stations show ws programs.
SKY are going WS big time though you need sky+ to get their 5.1 broadcast.
If you only have rte i'ld say stick with 4:3.
If you have any other channel upgrade straight away.
You will notice a huge difference, especially if you go back to watch movies, sports, eastenders :) in 4:3.
Pro Logic is excellent. Most decoders will give you close enough to 5.1 with pro logic.
 
NICAM

[broken link removed] is simply one of the digital encoding schemes used to transmit two channel (usually stereo - but sometimes dual language mono) sound with the TV broadcast signal.

I too use the NICAM VCR + HiFi stereo system setup with the TV as a (sort of) centre speaker and find it OK. Not as good as Pro-Logic (4 channel - centre, 2 x stereo fronts, 2 x mono rears) or surround sound (5 or 5.1 channels - as before but stereo rears and possibly separate bass/woofer channel) but better than the TV only and much cheaper than a real "surround" package.
 
Re: TV Audio

I understood that NICAM (aka Near Instantaneous Compounded Audio Multiplex) was effectively 'stereo for telly's' - I didn't think it was possible to get a non-NICAM stereo TV. It might be possible to get a non-NICAM TV with two speakers, but the signal coming out of both speakers will be identical, so you get no spatial representation of sound.

NICAM really adds a huge amount to the TV experience, e.g. when someone knocks on the door over on the left hand side of the screen, the sound seems to come from the left hand side of the room. It might seem trivial, but it really brings the cinema experience into your home.

Regards - RainyDay
 
NICAM

<!--EZCODE BOLD START--> I didn't think it was possible to get a non-NICAM stereo TV.<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

In Ireland this is true.

Like PAL, NICAM is a de-facto standard in this part of the world. However [broken link removed] use different broadcast (e.g. SECAM, NTSC) and sound (MTS, FM-FM etc.) encodings.
 
Cheap Widescreen Versus More Expensive 'Square' Screen

This thread is now in its 4th year! It seems as if the traditionalists are winning or at least they seemed to be winning 2 years ago because w/s was so expensive.

QUESTION: is there any regulation or stated goal to which RTE and UK broadcasters must or should adhere to when it comes to switching to broadcasting in widescreen?

I asked Power City and they said that 80% of all broadcasts will be in w/s by June 04. I am not into sports, soaps or most of the stuff on the 'premium' satellite or pay-per-view channels. I do however look at a good few DVDs and have a 5.1 DVD player.

I am thinking of buying a cheap(ish) 28" w/s for between €450 and €500 (eg Sharp, Sanyo or BlackDiamond), with a view to upgradng to a plasma TV in (say) 5 years when prices drop for those. For that price you can get a 50Hz, flat screen 28" w/s TV.

Can any one convince me otherwise before I fork out my money? Or can anyone tell me whereI can get the stuff cheaper.
 
Re: Cheap Widescreen Versus More Expensive 'Square' Screen

they said that 80% of all broadcasts will be in w/s by June 04
Click to expand...
Ask them if they will give you this in writing?
 
Re: Cheap Widescreen Versus More Expensive 'Square' Screen

Anyone consider buying a video projector?

If you're going to spend a grand on a telly :rolleyes , then it might be worth considering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top