Anyone ever seen a decent picture on a plasma TV?
or an LCD for that matter
that is, one comparible with a good CRT.
or an LCD for that matter
that is, one comparible with a good CRT.
AndyMac
Retired from service
No they haven't got it right yet, LCD's look ok but probably only because they're so small.
I work for HP and they are launching a whole bunch of plasma screens soon with some major breakthrough technology.
42" will be under £1k.
Also got some cool new Home Cinema projectors coming out for £850. The technology is getting there and prices are coming down.
I work for HP and they are launching a whole bunch of plasma screens soon with some major breakthrough technology.
42" will be under £1k.
Also got some cool new Home Cinema projectors coming out for £850. The technology is getting there and prices are coming down.
Sounds good. Will the Plasmas be HDTV ?
Are the HP projecters all now with dig video i/p ?
Under 1k sounds good.
That would mean I could have a plasma over the fireplace for normal daylight watching and then s projector screen which comes down in from for films - cos you know that 42" is just too small for film !!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Are the HP projecters all now with dig video i/p ?
Under 1k sounds good.
That would mean I could have a plasma over the fireplace for normal daylight watching and then s projector screen which comes down in from for films - cos you know that 42" is just too small for film !!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
AndyMac
Retired from service
The wireless version will be added early next year, and they are HDTV compatible.
Don't have any info on the Plasma's yet, it's all a bit hush hush.
They're gonna be all over the MTV awards, where we're the main sponsor.
Don't have any info on the Plasma's yet, it's all a bit hush hush.
They're gonna be all over the MTV awards, where we're the main sponsor.
AndyMac
Retired from service
Just found this:
HP 42" PL4245N Plasma HDTV
High-definition 42" widescreen plasma display
1024 x 768 panel resolution
3000:1 contrast ratio, 16:9 aspect ratio
SRS WOW
BBE ViVA high-definition 3-D audio
Picture-in-picture viewing
Of course this is the more expensive one, not sure how much yet.
HP 42" PL4245N Plasma HDTV
High-definition 42" widescreen plasma display
1024 x 768 panel resolution
3000:1 contrast ratio, 16:9 aspect ratio
SRS WOW
BBE ViVA high-definition 3-D audio
Picture-in-picture viewing
Of course this is the more expensive one, not sure how much yet.
You guys probably havn't seen them properly. When you go into places like Currys/Comet, the screens are very rarely setup/tuned properly. This is why the picture never looks good. But in 3 years of working at Currys, you can imagine the amount of Plasma/LCD screens i have seen/demo'd. The best one by far is the Pioneer one, about £6000 (42"). The picture quality (when set up with good cables, like Monster Cable) is far better then CRT screens, and like i was when i demo'd it for the 1st time, you will probably be blown away by the quality and the features. LCD is a lot more clearer then Plasma, becuase of the way it projects, it can get a lot more pixels in. The life time is also about 3 times longer. I think in the next few years LCD's will take over from Plasma, at the moment it is only the cost getting in the way of making them bigger. Basically, if setup correctly, both are way better then CRT's. Of course close up they will not look clear, unlike a CRT, but then a 42" CRT wouldn't look very clear either from 2 metres away (if you could get one that size). These big Plasmas are made to be watched from about 5m+ distance, and if you do that, then its crystal clear.
David R,
I think you just got a problem with me, i can't explain them dumb *** comments any other way. What the fu**ck are you talking about with your shi**TTy 20 year old SX? Do you actually know anything about technology, or is it that you can't read my posts properly?
I think you just got a problem with me, i can't explain them dumb *** comments any other way. What the fu**ck are you talking about with your shi**TTy 20 year old SX? Do you actually know anything about technology, or is it that you can't read my posts properly?
AndyMac
Retired from service
I was joking about sitting closer (sorry should have clarified that)
I can tell you worked in currys as you plainly do not undertand how a TV picture is created.
Currently in UK the TV signal from Sky Digital, Cable or even terrestrial transmits 625 lines of information, 576 of which is dedicated to the picture. So regardless of the resolution of the screen (tube/plasma/lcd) the quality is limited by the signal source. So to say the number of transmitted lines doesn't come into it is incorrect.
You can have as many pixels as you want but beyond a certain point there will be no improvement, and the bigger the screen the worse it will look. Like printing a lo res photo on a high res printer.
When HDTV is finally a reality in this country, then the increased res on your screen can take advantage of the higher quality signal and we will have better quality pictures on the screens that support it.
Can't believe the yanks are ahead of us on this.
The price drop I was talking about is the huge drop brought about by mass production resulting from increased demand. As with any new technology, the price drops significantly when demand reaches a certain threshold and mass production techniques can be utilised.
Remember VCR's were £800 back in 1980, then within 2 years they halved in price. Laptops use to be £2k, now £500. They won't really get any cheaper than this, just better.
HDTV will be the same. It's not available yet so the demand for screens that support it is limited. Also the standard for HDTV is still up in the air (720 or 1080 lines), so you could end up with a screen that can't take full advantage of whatever is adopted from your preferred supplier.
Sky are saying 2006 for HDTV so there is still at least 12 months for the artificially high prices to come down significantly, which we are already seeing.
Mst early adopters of this technology are choosing it purely for aesthetic reasons, nt because the quality is anything to write home about (yet).
I can tell you worked in currys as you plainly do not undertand how a TV picture is created.
Currently in UK the TV signal from Sky Digital, Cable or even terrestrial transmits 625 lines of information, 576 of which is dedicated to the picture. So regardless of the resolution of the screen (tube/plasma/lcd) the quality is limited by the signal source. So to say the number of transmitted lines doesn't come into it is incorrect.
You can have as many pixels as you want but beyond a certain point there will be no improvement, and the bigger the screen the worse it will look. Like printing a lo res photo on a high res printer.
When HDTV is finally a reality in this country, then the increased res on your screen can take advantage of the higher quality signal and we will have better quality pictures on the screens that support it.
Can't believe the yanks are ahead of us on this.
The price drop I was talking about is the huge drop brought about by mass production resulting from increased demand. As with any new technology, the price drops significantly when demand reaches a certain threshold and mass production techniques can be utilised.
Remember VCR's were £800 back in 1980, then within 2 years they halved in price. Laptops use to be £2k, now £500. They won't really get any cheaper than this, just better.
HDTV will be the same. It's not available yet so the demand for screens that support it is limited. Also the standard for HDTV is still up in the air (720 or 1080 lines), so you could end up with a screen that can't take full advantage of whatever is adopted from your preferred supplier.
Sky are saying 2006 for HDTV so there is still at least 12 months for the artificially high prices to come down significantly, which we are already seeing.
Mst early adopters of this technology are choosing it purely for aesthetic reasons, nt because the quality is anything to write home about (yet).
DavidR
Registered User
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Scotland
- Website
- audi-sport.net
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
I think you just got a problem with me,
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah ha, that old chestnut rears its head again...
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
i can't explain them dumb *** comments any other way.
[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't surprise me.
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
What the fu**ck are you talking about with your shi**TTy 20 year old SX?
[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? What does owning an SX have to do with the somewhat tedious argument you have launched into with your usual font of wordly wisdom. The tiresome and frankly ill informed nature of your posts on this site has irked me for some time. I thought I would air my displeasure in a good humoured and slightly sarcastic way. Given that you have accused our site of being "boring" I rather though you might apprciate some light hearted banter and a bit of a discussion. It is a shame that my attempt has been met with infantile, poorly structured and unfounded personal insults. But I guess you judge a character by their conversation.
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
Do you actually know anything about technology, or is it that you can't read my posts properly?
[/ QUOTE ]
My english teacher often remarked how well I could read, and the anticipation of reading your posts fills me with pleasure. As for technology, I would like to think I am up to speed, and I conclude that the same cannot be said for you.
This board doesn't require the inputs of myopic fools, steadfast on causing friction and then spitting the dummy when some banter gets thrown back. If you want to engage in playground insults I'm sure there are plently of other boards - but not this one.
pimpmyaudi said:
I think you just got a problem with me,
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah ha, that old chestnut rears its head again...
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
i can't explain them dumb *** comments any other way.
[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't surprise me.
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
What the fu**ck are you talking about with your shi**TTy 20 year old SX?
[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? What does owning an SX have to do with the somewhat tedious argument you have launched into with your usual font of wordly wisdom. The tiresome and frankly ill informed nature of your posts on this site has irked me for some time. I thought I would air my displeasure in a good humoured and slightly sarcastic way. Given that you have accused our site of being "boring" I rather though you might apprciate some light hearted banter and a bit of a discussion. It is a shame that my attempt has been met with infantile, poorly structured and unfounded personal insults. But I guess you judge a character by their conversation.
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
Do you actually know anything about technology, or is it that you can't read my posts properly?
[/ QUOTE ]
My english teacher often remarked how well I could read, and the anticipation of reading your posts fills me with pleasure. As for technology, I would like to think I am up to speed, and I conclude that the same cannot be said for you.
This board doesn't require the inputs of myopic fools, steadfast on causing friction and then spitting the dummy when some banter gets thrown back. If you want to engage in playground insults I'm sure there are plently of other boards - but not this one.
DavidR
Registered User
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Scotland
- Website
- audi-sport.net
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
I think most people would rather get as big as they can in their room, so why would you want to get a smaller screen and sit closer? I'd rather get a bigger screen and sit further away. Would you rather have 14" and sit 1m away, or a 42" and sit 10m away?
[/ QUOTE ]
Dickhead said: In the land of infinite sitting rooms this is indeed a noble plan....
Uh, how the [censored] is 10m infinate? Am i talking about 100m rooms? 2 acre rooms? for [censored] sake, 10m!!!! Quite a lot of people have big rooms you know! No need to be jealous, open your eyes, realise that many people have more money then you and can afford bigger houses with bigger rooms. And in any case, it was just an example anyway, a random figure, how did it get interpretated in that head of yours? Are you saying that most people wouldn't want as big a TV as they can get in their room? I mean, obviously when we are talking about 42" screens, it normally means the customer has a big room, nobodys gonna put a 42" in a 10ft room. And when you are talking about £4000 on a TV, that person must have a bit of money. So all i was saying to Andy was that, why would them people choose to buy a smaller tv and sit closer, when they can buy a bigger screen, make full use of their larger-then-yours room, and sit further back? It doesn't make any sense, bit like you reply.
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
The 625 lines doesn't come into it either, the ratios are different because of the pixels. So you might have a bigger screen, but you have more pixels so the pixels end up being just as small hence just as clear.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dickhead said: ...clearly the same land as the infinetely magnifiable television broadcast...
Magnifiable? Where did you get that from? Again, do you actually know your technology? I don't think so, so i'm not going to get into a technical argument about how pixels work in a plasma, obviously it would go over your head.
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
Also, plasma/LCD tech has already developed in the main, all that you get now will be smaller developments, nothing major. And yes prices are coming down, but you can say that about everything, mobile phones, cars, clothes, films, food etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
...where everything is infinelty cheap...
Again, sounds like someone who can't afford one. I am not talking about everybody, when you talk about Ferraris you talk about millionaires, when you talk about people who buy £5000 TV's then you are talking about some pretty well off people. But again, it was just an example, i was saying is things go down in price all the time, thru-out its entire shelf life, so you can never say 'i will wait for it to come down in price' becuase it will ALWAYS be coming down in price, until it gets discontinued. So you have to choose a point where you decide to buy, otherwise, like i said, you'll be waiting forever.
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
If you keep waiting for the price to come down, you will be waiting forever. I could buy a LCD now, but if i decide to wait for the price to come down, say next year, i will get to next year, and the price will come down again, and so i wait again etc etc. At the end of the day, whenever you buy something, you always know that in a few months time you will have been able to get it cheaper, but not everyone can keep waiting, sometimes you just have to do it.
[/ QUOTE ]
...and the boy wonder is infinately knowledgable.
And from the dickhead who knows nothing. Prove me wrong and next time, you sound like someone jealous becuase you can't afford one. Come with some intelligent replies which actually point out why my comments were wrong, rather then the 'infinate' BULL**S*hit.
Thanks for those pearls of wisdom, I shall sleep soundly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good and lata.
pimpmyaudi said:
I think most people would rather get as big as they can in their room, so why would you want to get a smaller screen and sit closer? I'd rather get a bigger screen and sit further away. Would you rather have 14" and sit 1m away, or a 42" and sit 10m away?
[/ QUOTE ]
Dickhead said: In the land of infinite sitting rooms this is indeed a noble plan....
Uh, how the [censored] is 10m infinate? Am i talking about 100m rooms? 2 acre rooms? for [censored] sake, 10m!!!! Quite a lot of people have big rooms you know! No need to be jealous, open your eyes, realise that many people have more money then you and can afford bigger houses with bigger rooms. And in any case, it was just an example anyway, a random figure, how did it get interpretated in that head of yours? Are you saying that most people wouldn't want as big a TV as they can get in their room? I mean, obviously when we are talking about 42" screens, it normally means the customer has a big room, nobodys gonna put a 42" in a 10ft room. And when you are talking about £4000 on a TV, that person must have a bit of money. So all i was saying to Andy was that, why would them people choose to buy a smaller tv and sit closer, when they can buy a bigger screen, make full use of their larger-then-yours room, and sit further back? It doesn't make any sense, bit like you reply.
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
The 625 lines doesn't come into it either, the ratios are different because of the pixels. So you might have a bigger screen, but you have more pixels so the pixels end up being just as small hence just as clear.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dickhead said: ...clearly the same land as the infinetely magnifiable television broadcast...
Magnifiable? Where did you get that from? Again, do you actually know your technology? I don't think so, so i'm not going to get into a technical argument about how pixels work in a plasma, obviously it would go over your head.
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
Also, plasma/LCD tech has already developed in the main, all that you get now will be smaller developments, nothing major. And yes prices are coming down, but you can say that about everything, mobile phones, cars, clothes, films, food etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
...where everything is infinelty cheap...
Again, sounds like someone who can't afford one. I am not talking about everybody, when you talk about Ferraris you talk about millionaires, when you talk about people who buy £5000 TV's then you are talking about some pretty well off people. But again, it was just an example, i was saying is things go down in price all the time, thru-out its entire shelf life, so you can never say 'i will wait for it to come down in price' becuase it will ALWAYS be coming down in price, until it gets discontinued. So you have to choose a point where you decide to buy, otherwise, like i said, you'll be waiting forever.
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
If you keep waiting for the price to come down, you will be waiting forever. I could buy a LCD now, but if i decide to wait for the price to come down, say next year, i will get to next year, and the price will come down again, and so i wait again etc etc. At the end of the day, whenever you buy something, you always know that in a few months time you will have been able to get it cheaper, but not everyone can keep waiting, sometimes you just have to do it.
[/ QUOTE ]
...and the boy wonder is infinately knowledgable.
And from the dickhead who knows nothing. Prove me wrong and next time, you sound like someone jealous becuase you can't afford one. Come with some intelligent replies which actually point out why my comments were wrong, rather then the 'infinate' BULL**S*hit.
Thanks for those pearls of wisdom, I shall sleep soundly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good and lata.
AndyMac
Retired from service
DavidR
Registered User
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Scotland
- Website
- audi-sport.net
@pimp
Can I direct you to the post 2 prior to your lastest offering. My reply is there...
Andy has kindly explained how a TV image is not infinately magnifiable. The Oxford English Disctionary will explain the term "sarcasm".
Can I direct you to the post 2 prior to your lastest offering. My reply is there...
Andy has kindly explained how a TV image is not infinately magnifiable. The Oxford English Disctionary will explain the term "sarcasm".
DavidR
Registered User
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Scotland
- Website
- audi-sport.net
[ QUOTE ]
AndyMac said:
sorry, I think we just lit the blue touch paper again
[/ QUOTE ]
This wee minnow is the sensitive type huh?
AndyMac said:
sorry, I think we just lit the blue touch paper again
[/ QUOTE ]
This wee minnow is the sensitive type huh?
David,
I don't really see your point. Insults? What insults were being thrown before you came? Whether i might be right or wrong in my posts on this thread, where are the insults? But when someone comes along, and rather then just correcting me or giving your view, you just decide to take the [censored] and make me out to be some kind of thicko who's got it completly wrong, obviously i am gonna get [censored] off at that.
I don't really see your point. Insults? What insults were being thrown before you came? Whether i might be right or wrong in my posts on this thread, where are the insults? But when someone comes along, and rather then just correcting me or giving your view, you just decide to take the [censored] and make me out to be some kind of thicko who's got it completly wrong, obviously i am gonna get [censored] off at that.
DavidR
Registered User
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Scotland
- Website
- audi-sport.net
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
David,
I don't really see your point. Insults? What insults were being thrown before you came? Whether i might be right or wrong in my posts on this thread, where are the insults? But when someone comes along, and rather then just correcting me or giving your view, you just decide to take the [censored] and make me out to be some kind of thicko who's got it completly wrong, obviously i am gonna get [censored] off at that.
[/ QUOTE ]
You can react as you please...
You said the forum was boring, i provide some sarcasm (at your expense), you spit the dummy - what's difficult to fathom.
Anyone else got any views...?
pimpmyaudi said:
David,
I don't really see your point. Insults? What insults were being thrown before you came? Whether i might be right or wrong in my posts on this thread, where are the insults? But when someone comes along, and rather then just correcting me or giving your view, you just decide to take the [censored] and make me out to be some kind of thicko who's got it completly wrong, obviously i am gonna get [censored] off at that.
[/ QUOTE ]
You can react as you please...
You said the forum was boring, i provide some sarcasm (at your expense), you spit the dummy - what's difficult to fathom.
Anyone else got any views...?
[ QUOTE ]
AndyMac said:
I was joking about sitting closer (sorry should have clarified that)
I can tell you worked in currys as you plainly do not undertand how a TV picture is created.
Currently in UK the TV signal from Sky Digital, Cable or even terrestrial transmits 625 lines of information, 576 of which is dedicated to the picture. So regardless of the resolution of the screen (tube/plasma/lcd) the quality is limited by the signal source. So to say the number of transmitted lines doesn't come into it is incorrect.
You can have as many pixels as you want but beyond a certain point there will be no improvement, and the bigger the screen the worse it will look. Like printing a lo res photo on a high res printer.
When HDTV is finally a reality in this country, then the increased res on your screen can take advantage of the higher quality signal and we will have better quality pictures on the screens that support it.
Can't believe the yanks are ahead of us on this.
The price drop I was talking about is the huge drop brought about by mass production resulting from increased demand. As with any new technology, the price drops significantly when demand reaches a certain threshold and mass production techniques can be utilised.
Remember VCR's were £800 back in 1980, then within 2 years they halved in price. Laptops use to be £2k, now £500. They won't really get any cheaper than this, just better.
HDTV will be the same. It's not available yet so the demand for screens that support it is limited. Also the standard for HDTV is still up in the air (720 or 1080 lines), so you could end up with a screen that can't take full advantage of whatever is adopted from your preferred supplier.
Sky are saying 2006 for HDTV so there is still at least 12 months for the artificially high prices to come down significantly, which we are already seeing.
Mst early adopters of this technology are choosing it purely for aesthetic reasons, nt because the quality is anything to write home about (yet).
[/ QUOTE ]
AndyMac said:
I was joking about sitting closer (sorry should have clarified that)
I can tell you worked in currys as you plainly do not undertand how a TV picture is created.
Currently in UK the TV signal from Sky Digital, Cable or even terrestrial transmits 625 lines of information, 576 of which is dedicated to the picture. So regardless of the resolution of the screen (tube/plasma/lcd) the quality is limited by the signal source. So to say the number of transmitted lines doesn't come into it is incorrect.
You can have as many pixels as you want but beyond a certain point there will be no improvement, and the bigger the screen the worse it will look. Like printing a lo res photo on a high res printer.
When HDTV is finally a reality in this country, then the increased res on your screen can take advantage of the higher quality signal and we will have better quality pictures on the screens that support it.
Can't believe the yanks are ahead of us on this.
The price drop I was talking about is the huge drop brought about by mass production resulting from increased demand. As with any new technology, the price drops significantly when demand reaches a certain threshold and mass production techniques can be utilised.
Remember VCR's were £800 back in 1980, then within 2 years they halved in price. Laptops use to be £2k, now £500. They won't really get any cheaper than this, just better.
HDTV will be the same. It's not available yet so the demand for screens that support it is limited. Also the standard for HDTV is still up in the air (720 or 1080 lines), so you could end up with a screen that can't take full advantage of whatever is adopted from your preferred supplier.
Sky are saying 2006 for HDTV so there is still at least 12 months for the artificially high prices to come down significantly, which we are already seeing.
Mst early adopters of this technology are choosing it purely for aesthetic reasons, nt because the quality is anything to write home about (yet).
[/ QUOTE ]
David, i think its actually YOU thats spit the dummy out, cos i called 'your' precious website boring.
DavidR
Registered User
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Scotland
- Website
- audi-sport.net
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
David, i think its actually YOU thats spit the dummy out, cos i called 'your' precious website boring.
[/ QUOTE ]
On the contrary. I just ran a little of my humour in your direction as I find your replies under pressure amusing.
pimpmyaudi said:
David, i think its actually YOU thats spit the dummy out, cos i called 'your' precious website boring.
[/ QUOTE ]
On the contrary. I just ran a little of my humour in your direction as I find your replies under pressure amusing.
Oh yea, as Ess three said to me in a PM, where the [censored] were you in the RS6 rims thread? What, you decide to step in on this thread over a petty argument over a TV, yet you didn't do [censored] on that other thread which was getting very insulting towards the end.
And also, 'ill-informed nature' of my posts? Give me example? What you really mean is posts that you didn't agree with, or that didn't share your opinion or taste. Not actually ill-informed. Am i the only one who gives ill-informed views on this website? And as a owner of a audi and a reg user on this site, am i not entitled to my opinion, if i think its getting boring, i will say so. If you wanna ban me for that, then do it.
And also, 'ill-informed nature' of my posts? Give me example? What you really mean is posts that you didn't agree with, or that didn't share your opinion or taste. Not actually ill-informed. Am i the only one who gives ill-informed views on this website? And as a owner of a audi and a reg user on this site, am i not entitled to my opinion, if i think its getting boring, i will say so. If you wanna ban me for that, then do it.
DavidR
Registered User
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Scotland
- Website
- audi-sport.net
The RS6 thread ran as there is very littlecensorship here. My reasons for not being there are none of your business. The insults were directed at you presumably because of something you posted. Ban you? If you want...
To be honest, i don't care about your reasons, that wasn't my point. And i said if YOU want to ban me, not if i wan't to be banned.
DavidR
Registered User
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Scotland
- Website
- audi-sport.net
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
To be honest, i don't care about your reasons
[/ QUOTE ]
Why ask then?
pimpmyaudi said:
To be honest, i don't care about your reasons
[/ QUOTE ]
Why ask then?
AndyMac
Retired from service
Yes, more pixels is obviously better.
My point was that you said "625 lines doesn't come into it", when it obviously has a dramatic effect on picture quality, expecially at larger sizes.
With HDTV you will have at least 1080 lines (nearly double the resolution we currently enjoy). So the 60" plasma screen close up will look as good as a 30" currently, so you can then sit 5 metres away rather than 10.
The reason you currently have to sit so far away from a big screen (which seems to defeat the object of having one) is not a limitation of the screen, it is a limitation of the source signal. So until HDTV is available, no one is showing off their screens to their potential. This is why many manufacturers demo them using Macs or PC's, which aren't limited to the feeble 50 year old PAL system.
My point was that you said "625 lines doesn't come into it", when it obviously has a dramatic effect on picture quality, expecially at larger sizes.
With HDTV you will have at least 1080 lines (nearly double the resolution we currently enjoy). So the 60" plasma screen close up will look as good as a 30" currently, so you can then sit 5 metres away rather than 10.
The reason you currently have to sit so far away from a big screen (which seems to defeat the object of having one) is not a limitation of the screen, it is a limitation of the source signal. So until HDTV is available, no one is showing off their screens to their potential. This is why many manufacturers demo them using Macs or PC's, which aren't limited to the feeble 50 year old PAL system.
Ess_Three
Registered User
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2001
- Messages
- 5,383
- Reaction score
- 20
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Aberdeenshire
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
[ QUOTE ]
David R said:
Anyone else got any views...?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
I'm bored of all this childish behaviour stemming from our man, the pimp.
We all know that working in Currys (the last bastion of AV excellence) makes you a God given authority on all things Plasma...do me a favour!
Take your opinions of people and thier situation and **** OFF!
If you cannot hold a conversation with people on an intellectual level, and accept the finer nuances of the English language - when used please vacate this board and find one where people more often fit your intellectual level.
David R said:
Anyone else got any views...?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
I'm bored of all this childish behaviour stemming from our man, the pimp.
We all know that working in Currys (the last bastion of AV excellence) makes you a God given authority on all things Plasma...do me a favour!
Take your opinions of people and thier situation and **** OFF!
If you cannot hold a conversation with people on an intellectual level, and accept the finer nuances of the English language - when used please vacate this board and find one where people more often fit your intellectual level.
[ QUOTE ]
AndyMac said:
Yes, more pixels is obviously better.
My point was that you said "625 lines doesn't come into it", when it obviously has a dramatic effect on picture quality, expecially at larger sizes.
With HDTV you will have at least 1080 lines (nearly double the resolution we currently enjoy). So the 60" plasma screen close up will look as good as a 30" currently, so you can then sit 5 metres away rather than 10.
The reason you currently have to sit so far away from a big screen (which seems to defeat the object of having one) is not a limitation of the screen, it is a limitation of the source signal. So until HDTV is available, no one is showing off their screens to their potential. This is why many manufacturers demo them using Macs or PC's, which aren't limited to the feeble 50 year old PAL system.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, maybe i shouldnt have said it like that. But all i meant was that, yes its true, the bigger the screen the less clear the picture due to the 625 lines, but also the bigger the telly the further you would be watching it from so the decrease in clarity would be overcome by the extra watching distance, which means you wouldn't really notice it. So if you had a 60" Tv, you wouldn't be bothered about how clear it was from 5m, cos you wouldn't be watching it from that distance.
AndyMac said:
Yes, more pixels is obviously better.
My point was that you said "625 lines doesn't come into it", when it obviously has a dramatic effect on picture quality, expecially at larger sizes.
With HDTV you will have at least 1080 lines (nearly double the resolution we currently enjoy). So the 60" plasma screen close up will look as good as a 30" currently, so you can then sit 5 metres away rather than 10.
The reason you currently have to sit so far away from a big screen (which seems to defeat the object of having one) is not a limitation of the screen, it is a limitation of the source signal. So until HDTV is available, no one is showing off their screens to their potential. This is why many manufacturers demo them using Macs or PC's, which aren't limited to the feeble 50 year old PAL system.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, maybe i shouldnt have said it like that. But all i meant was that, yes its true, the bigger the screen the less clear the picture due to the 625 lines, but also the bigger the telly the further you would be watching it from so the decrease in clarity would be overcome by the extra watching distance, which means you wouldn't really notice it. So if you had a 60" Tv, you wouldn't be bothered about how clear it was from 5m, cos you wouldn't be watching it from that distance.
Ess_Three
Registered User
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2001
- Messages
- 5,383
- Reaction score
- 20
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Aberdeenshire
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
[ QUOTE ]
pimpmyaudi said:
Oh yea, as Ess three said to me in a PM, where the [censored] were you in the RS6 rims thread?
[/ QUOTE ]
Oi!
If you want to use my name in your petty arguments, please have the decency to involve me...otherwise you WILL reap the wrath of my disspleasure.
[ QUOTE ]
If you wanna ban me for that, then do it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh no...
Allow me!
pimpmyaudi said:
Oh yea, as Ess three said to me in a PM, where the [censored] were you in the RS6 rims thread?
[/ QUOTE ]
Oi!
If you want to use my name in your petty arguments, please have the decency to involve me...otherwise you WILL reap the wrath of my disspleasure.
[ QUOTE ]
If you wanna ban me for that, then do it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh no...
Allow me!
AndyMac
Retired from service
Pimp, the difference here is that we aren't talking about personal taste or opinion, we are talking cold hard facts.
If my car runs on petrol you can't say that's just my opinion, and start arguing with me. That's not censorship, just reality.
If my car runs on petrol you can't say that's just my opinion, and start arguing with me. That's not censorship, just reality.
Ess_Three
Registered User
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2001
- Messages
- 5,383
- Reaction score
- 20
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Aberdeenshire
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
[ QUOTE ]
AndyMac said:
Pimp, the difference here is that we aren't talking about personal taste or opinion, we are talking cold hard facts.
If my car runs on petrol you can't say that's just my opinion, and start arguing with me. That's not censorship, just reality.
[/ QUOTE ]
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif
Amen to that...
AndyMac said:
Pimp, the difference here is that we aren't talking about personal taste or opinion, we are talking cold hard facts.
If my car runs on petrol you can't say that's just my opinion, and start arguing with me. That's not censorship, just reality.
[/ QUOTE ]
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif
Amen to that...
DavidR
Registered User
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Scotland
- Website
- audi-sport.net
Ahh....If only I had known the debate this would have started.
OK, .....Andy if right that pixels do not mean quality. especially when the best source at the mo (dvd) only has 576 lines of info - so 800 vertical lines wont help much as the picture has to be 'Stretched' to fit. - Cant wait for HDTV.
Pimp, as to you opinion on plasmas - this is pretty contrary to the majority of 'experts' in the AV press who still claim that LCD and Plasma are not up to scratch yet. Bear in mind that CRT has had 60 years to develop hear, thats a long time in techno land. Also it's analogue so doesn't suffer from all the inherent digital noise and distortion which has yet to be completely designed out from plasmas, LCD's (and projectors for that matter)
check out this site for info
http://www.av-sales.com/html/scaling_progressive_scan_resol.html
So...back to the subject.
Projectors are so much better !. If you want big (we're talking 60" upwards here) then go Projector. Great colours, smooth motion and crystal clear - fantastic. Watch your footy on a 2 metre wide screen - 42" just doesnt cut the mustard
I have a budget DLP projector and it knocks spots off any plasma i've viewed (not set up by curry's muppets but in proper AV sales rooms)
THere are of course limitations - you need a dark room for one, but believe me - SIze matters !!!
So, Projectors are ACE, Plasmers / LCD's are PANTS
discuss....... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/goofy.gif
OK, .....Andy if right that pixels do not mean quality. especially when the best source at the mo (dvd) only has 576 lines of info - so 800 vertical lines wont help much as the picture has to be 'Stretched' to fit. - Cant wait for HDTV.
Pimp, as to you opinion on plasmas - this is pretty contrary to the majority of 'experts' in the AV press who still claim that LCD and Plasma are not up to scratch yet. Bear in mind that CRT has had 60 years to develop hear, thats a long time in techno land. Also it's analogue so doesn't suffer from all the inherent digital noise and distortion which has yet to be completely designed out from plasmas, LCD's (and projectors for that matter)
check out this site for info
http://www.av-sales.com/html/scaling_progressive_scan_resol.html
So...back to the subject.
Projectors are so much better !. If you want big (we're talking 60" upwards here) then go Projector. Great colours, smooth motion and crystal clear - fantastic. Watch your footy on a 2 metre wide screen - 42" just doesnt cut the mustard
I have a budget DLP projector and it knocks spots off any plasma i've viewed (not set up by curry's muppets but in proper AV sales rooms)
THere are of course limitations - you need a dark room for one, but believe me - SIze matters !!!
So, Projectors are ACE, Plasmers / LCD's are PANTS
discuss....... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/goofy.gif
Disagree with the title
Plasma screens answers to that: you're looking for any screen size over 35'' without losing 2 sqm of your room and can watch the 3.00pm match on a saturday afternoon without having to close the curtains
There is just no other alternative yet
As for quality of picture (that is what we are refering I think), well it is like everything else, pay top money with professionals and you'll get top quality
For pimp, I would just add to his credit that eventhough working at Currys does not mean you're top notch in HI-FI well it does mean that you're crap neither. It goes both ways
BTW, I got a plasma (42'' with a 11ft room - sorry pimp) and as soon as I get my special TVroom I'll get a projector with a retractable screen to sit on top of the plasma so I'll get the best of both world. well I hope
Plasma screens answers to that: you're looking for any screen size over 35'' without losing 2 sqm of your room and can watch the 3.00pm match on a saturday afternoon without having to close the curtains
There is just no other alternative yet
As for quality of picture (that is what we are refering I think), well it is like everything else, pay top money with professionals and you'll get top quality
For pimp, I would just add to his credit that eventhough working at Currys does not mean you're top notch in HI-FI well it does mean that you're crap neither. It goes both ways
BTW, I got a plasma (42'' with a 11ft room - sorry pimp) and as soon as I get my special TVroom I'll get a projector with a retractable screen to sit on top of the plasma so I'll get the best of both world. well I hope
Lol yeah, that is the case sometimes, but to be fair, a lot of the models that come with an extra 2/3 year warranty, it is difficult for the sales people to know this, as it is not normally mentioned anywhere obvious. I am not biased towards warranties just becuase i work for Currys, its becuase i genuinly beleive in them. But, only if the warranty works out at a maximum 1/3 of the cost of what i am buying. And even then i will think about it.
You example on the washing machine is quite funny, becuase it happens a lot. I would never take a warranty on a £225 washing machine. But in general, they are good value for money. Its only on a few items (like washing machines) where the cost of the warranty is well over half the cost of the product, this is becuase them items are expensive to repair. On 90% of items, the warranties are not more then a 1/3 of the cost of the product. For example, a 3 year coverplan on a £225 tumble dryer would only be £59. Most people don't take coverplans simply becuase of the bad press, not becuase they aren't worth it.
You example on the washing machine is quite funny, becuase it happens a lot. I would never take a warranty on a £225 washing machine. But in general, they are good value for money. Its only on a few items (like washing machines) where the cost of the warranty is well over half the cost of the product, this is becuase them items are expensive to repair. On 90% of items, the warranties are not more then a 1/3 of the cost of the product. For example, a 3 year coverplan on a £225 tumble dryer would only be £59. Most people don't take coverplans simply becuase of the bad press, not becuase they aren't worth it.
[ QUOTE ]
AndyMac said:
But that's what people have said, Curry's is crap for knowledge. Why it is this way is not the issue. Unless they specialise then of course they're only gonna have a broad knowledge, which is a dangerous thing when advising people on the latest technology.
Warranties just generally have a bad name, the example you gave sounds very reasonable, but when I bought a £225 washing machine from Curry's they spent 15 minutes trying to convince me to buy a coverplan for 3 years for £180!!!
Then tried to sell me finance to cover it, even though I was paying cash. When I finally got the unit home (minus waranty) I found that the parts were guaranteed for 3 years anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Also, parts might be guaranteed, but what about the labour? On average a call out charge is £40, then labour is normally at least £30 p/h. Also, none of the companies (as far as i know) do the repairs on the first call out. You always have to book a second call out to actually do the repairs. So free parts is all very well, but say your machine broke down after 2 years. Thats £40 call out charge to diagnos problem, 2nd call out to fit the parts, say 1 hours labour, thats £110. Now if this happens a couple of times in the next 5 years, thats over £220 in repairs, even though the parts are free. You might think 'i'll just buy a new one if it goes wrong', but a new one would cost £225, so thats £40 more then you would have had to spend if you had taken out the coverplan. I am not saying you should have done it, just giving an example, that is quite likely to happen. 2 repairs on a washing machine in the space of a few years is not in the slightest bit unusual.
AndyMac said:
But that's what people have said, Curry's is crap for knowledge. Why it is this way is not the issue. Unless they specialise then of course they're only gonna have a broad knowledge, which is a dangerous thing when advising people on the latest technology.
Warranties just generally have a bad name, the example you gave sounds very reasonable, but when I bought a £225 washing machine from Curry's they spent 15 minutes trying to convince me to buy a coverplan for 3 years for £180!!!
Then tried to sell me finance to cover it, even though I was paying cash. When I finally got the unit home (minus waranty) I found that the parts were guaranteed for 3 years anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Also, parts might be guaranteed, but what about the labour? On average a call out charge is £40, then labour is normally at least £30 p/h. Also, none of the companies (as far as i know) do the repairs on the first call out. You always have to book a second call out to actually do the repairs. So free parts is all very well, but say your machine broke down after 2 years. Thats £40 call out charge to diagnos problem, 2nd call out to fit the parts, say 1 hours labour, thats £110. Now if this happens a couple of times in the next 5 years, thats over £220 in repairs, even though the parts are free. You might think 'i'll just buy a new one if it goes wrong', but a new one would cost £225, so thats £40 more then you would have had to spend if you had taken out the coverplan. I am not saying you should have done it, just giving an example, that is quite likely to happen. 2 repairs on a washing machine in the space of a few years is not in the slightest bit unusual.
I simply 'self insure' , as would most reasonably 'clued up' people.
If I had taken out warranties on all the 'goods' I have bought over the last, say, 5 years, the cost would probably be well over £1,000. The cost of repairs over this period? About £50 for a microwave touch panel. Speaks for itself......
If I had taken out warranties on all the 'goods' I have bought over the last, say, 5 years, the cost would probably be well over £1,000. The cost of repairs over this period? About £50 for a microwave touch panel. Speaks for itself......
Thats one item though. One touch panel, £50? The warranty on microwave was probably much less then £50, so that speaks for itself as well. And if it goes wrong again, thats another £50. The cost of the warranties might have been over £1000 (although i doubt it), but you'd have to be pretty lucky for them items not to have gone wrong over 5 years. Lets say one of them items you've brought included a laptop, it goes wrong/gets accidently damaged, too expensive to repair, new laptop = £800. So thats £800 for first one, another £800 for replacement. So just from that one item you would have saved yourself £800 if you take warranty. Fact is that if you had paid say, £30 for a 3 year warranty on the microwave, you'd have most likely have got a new microwave rather then a repair, or at very least got it repaired. Thats £20 you'd have saved by not having to pay £50 for a new touch panel.
PImp,
The 'facts' speak for themselves......... Thus far I' am, at least, £950 better off!! If I was to extend the period to the last 15 Years, I would be 'much' better off.
BTW, I think the warranty cost quoted for the microwave was in excess of £100.
The 'facts' speak for themselves......... Thus far I' am, at least, £950 better off!! If I was to extend the period to the last 15 Years, I would be 'much' better off.
BTW, I think the warranty cost quoted for the microwave was in excess of £100.
