A question about HDTVs, since I know a fair few of you on here will have them
I'm in the market for one. Probably a 32" as space is somewhat limited. I'd like a full 1080p though. Price not really an issue as long as I know I'm getting top quality.

Looking at the Sony Bravia W series, but the one thing I'm finding quite hard to find out about it is, how well does it upscale SD sources?

I'm slightly confused about all this, people on t'internet seem to be recommending, for example, getting a DVD player that upscales in the box, so outputs a HD signal to the TV. That's all well and good, and I don't mind that much splashing out on a new DVD player cos mine's pretty shit anyway, but what about Sky?

I'm planning to get a Sky HD box anyway, but the vast majority of the content will still be in SD. Does the Sky box upscale, and is it any good at this? Or does it use the TV's ability to upscale? I won't be able to afford Sky HD for a while, so basically would like a HDTV that has decent upscaling built in, I've seen some that look a bit poo with SD sources plugged into them.

Can't find anywhere on the internet that ranks them by this though, everyone seems to be banging on about Blu-Ray and full 1080 sources etc, even though loads of people must be watching standard def content on them.

Any thoughts or recommendations guys?
(Son of Sam-i-am We're all as mad as hatters here, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 19:22, 9 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

*adopts stance upon soapbox*
Keep your CRT.

LCD tellies are crap.

Actually, that's not true. SD on an HD LCD is crap. The compression artefacts are all too obvious, even with good upscaling. You can't generate information if it's not there. BBC's not bad, but a lot of the other channels use really low bitrates and look abysmal.

It annoys me greatly every time I watch television on an LCD screen. A CRT makes a much better job of displaying SD content. Admittedly, HD is good, but the compression artefacts are still visible

Sorry for the rant - poorly executed digital radio/television transmission is one of my pet gripes.

*stands down from soapbox*

If you must go HD-LCD, Panasonic is better than Sony. Sony deliberately overdrive the electronics to enhance the LCD picture, apparently, which results in poorer reliability.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 20:13, Reply)

Sorry K2, I can't agree
While a good CRT is unbeatable at its native resolution scaling tends to suck big time.

While I can't comment on the sky boxes ability to upscale as I won't pay that Murdoch spawn of Satan one penny if I can avoid it I can highly recommend the Samsung LCDs.

They currently have the best combination of a decent panel and good scaler/internal electronics.

The Sonys are a close second but hugely overpriced for what you get.

My basic recommendation is to get the 32" samsung and gradually upgrade your sources from there as and when you feel the need.

If anyone really wants me to I can launch into some highly technical explanations of the above when I'm a little more awake.
(bill, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 20:29, Reply)

To clarify
Sorry Bill, what I meant to say was that HD looks good on a decent LCD. On a CRT it doesn't make any difference, as (to my knowledge) there aren't any HD-compatible CRTs out there, in the UK at least.

But I still think SD looks better on a CRT than an LCD.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 20:34, Reply)

allow me to interject
plasma - has to be pioneer

lcd - philips ambilight is teh biz

the old more angular shape one is a thing of beauty and the ambilight thingy maks a HUGE dif

this was a 5 grand telly 2 years ago - you will get a belter on ebay for under a grand

buy a PS3 - fuck the gaming its a CRACKING bluray player - just make sure you alow ventilaton or it gets well noisy on the fan front

do not buy sony - pretty colours everything else - SHITE

that is all
( spimf ™ is whoever you want him to be, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 20:42, Reply)

Argh my brain hurts!
How can I buy a PS3 and not buy sony?

:P
( Peej, Tue 9 Dec 2008, 9:06, Reply)

There are a few HD CRTs available
But the highest they'll do is usually 1080i and look shit with anything else.

While some LCDs look crap with an SD source it all tends to depend on the quality of the internal electronics.

The thing with this question is a lot of the decision is Down to personal preference, unfortunately I don't know where you're based Sam or I'd be able to maybe direct you to some good locations to see the screens in action. My usual recommendation for Londoners is to head for Tottenham Court Road and see what you think looks right and wrong.

One of the reasons I recommend the Sammys is they use some very good scalers from some of the same manufacturers that I use for broadcasting at work.

Anyway, Ive been pissing around with video signals all day then had a few pints on an empty stomach so am not in the best state for this discussion at this point. :-)
(bill, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 20:47, Reply)

I went to an enormous Currys the other day
and the spotty oik informed me:

a. 'Sony don't make anything smaller than 40"'

Eh?

and

b. 'Why would we have SD sources for you to view on them, they're HDTVs!'

which was obviously a useful trip.

@ k2 - I know, I know, and I used to mount the same soapbox myself. I've got a 32" flat JVC CRT, 100Hz, etc etc, bloody lovely telly but it's the size of a 3 bedroom bungalow and I'm redoing the layout of the room so it's going to have to go.

PS - 'overdriving the electronics resulting in poorer reliability' sounds more like internet Chinese whispers rather than technical fact, which unfortunately somewhat discredits the rest of your post. Also, how can upscaling a SD picture off, say, a DVD result in compression artefacts? There's no compression happening...

Given that I want a new TV it seems sensible to future proof by getting HD, and those are only realistically available as LCDs these days. Also there's the obvious size benefits. Hence stating that the quality of the scaler is paramount. I know good scaling can work as I have played at being an A/V tech a little bit (I'm a noise boy really...) and have seen decent upscaling performed by pro bits of kit onto HD plasmas and such. To be honest the compression artefacts in your average Sky digital picture, even viewed on a 20" CRT, are enough to give me a headache so I realise it's not going to make everything look spangly and HD, I just want the best compromise available.

Some food for thought, cheers bill (highly technical explanations always appreciated btw!), unfortunately I live out in the sticks so this is having to be an internet research job, don't you love em? The Samsungs were my close second to the Sonys on the research so far, looks like I may have to try and find some examples and plug SD sources into them to see what they look like.
(Son of Sam-i-am We're all as mad as hatters here, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 20:59, Reply)

@Sam
Actually, the thing about Sony overdriving their electronics was told to me by a techie at a Displays and Lighting conference! I'm inclined to believe that there's some truth in the statement.

And there is compression on a DVD. How else would you fit 2 hours of video onto a 4.7GB disc? It's not as severe as broadcast video, but it's still compressed. Uncompressed digital video, even at SD, produces prodigious amounts of data.

Edit - sorry if this sounds argumentative. It's not meant to!

@bill - good call on the Samsungs. They do make excellent LCDs. I'm using two at the moment, as it happens.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 21:22, Reply)

my two cents
in my limited experience you can't go wrong with Samsung.

Not only is my old CRT a flat Samsung which is excellent, but every other member of my family has a Samsung LCD and they all look great.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 9 Dec 2008, 10:02, Reply)