"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
I'm charmed by the idea that a TV a mere 10 years old is "showing it's
age". My living room TV is a 27 year-old Philips and is still going
strong, despite near daily use. Over that 27 years it's only had one
fault, about ten years ago the de-gauss thermistor burnt-out leaving
the screen with a wonderful array of psychedelic colours. Otherwise
it's been fault-free, I keep waiting for it to go wrong to justify
getting a new set, but it just keeps on working ;-)

The justification is that it either doesn't do 16:9, or the 16:9 picture
is simply too small. Unless you only watch analogue transmissions. An
option you may not have for long.

I don't watch analogue, the set normally functions as an RGB monitor off a
Sky+ or DVD, but 16:9 on it looks OK to me, it's 'scope (2.35:1) that looks
too small. Mind you 2.35:1 looks too small on anything, except a very wide
cinema screen. I have to say I'm no fan of wide aspect ratios and I don't
understand why 'scope is so popular with film makers. IMAX is 1.5:1, if a
sensible aspect ratio is good enough for that it should be good enough for
"normal" films as well.

If you are going for a 50" set you would be well advised to go HD at the
same time as SD does not look good on large flat-panel screens.

My set is 45" and I can assure you SD looks ok on it. Or rather it looks
sharp enough.

Well we'll have to differ on that as well. I'd far rather watch SD on a good
SD CRT display than an "HD ready" LCD display.

The movement artifacts can bee seen on any sized screen.
Sadly, HD TV from the broadcasters has had the data rate restricted to the
point where it is nothing like as good as originally. Think DAB radio...

I've no experience of broadcast HD, only Bluray.

Bluray can look stunning, though.

Agreed.

David.