All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
P. Kieran Ward: I'm sure there are various coding systems out there, but remember that any new system has to be adopted by at least one country (and hopefully a lot more) as a standard, that internationally that standard has to be recognised, and that manufacturers and broadcasters all agree to use it. Thats a pretty tall order!
If you are making equipment for the UK, you are assured that DVB-T2 is standard. That means that you can make various models for that market, in quantities that make sense financially for you, for retailers, and customers.
In fact TV's have never been cheaper or better equiped, and judging by my departments sales figures, people have no problem buying new TV's or recorders with T2 tuners (we sell perhaps two TV's with DVB-T tuners in them). You can buy a very decent full HD TV with wifi, internet and 100hz screen for less than £300. Its actually an excellent TV anyway (LG N575), and seem to be flying off the shelves.
What is interesting is the recent Ofcom report which showed that we probably now have fewer 2nd TV's in the house than before, with that other panel now more likely to be a tablet computer. Certainly the section that deals with Ipads seems to be very very busy!
| link to this comment |
David Cromwell: Its always wise to look at a TV, especially one at this price, to see if its actually Freeview HD.
I notice that a number of the customers had bought that model via Argos or Asda Direct, and often these places tend to feature the 'Full HD' part on their websites, without explaining what that actually means. The TV itself looks fine, and if you have an HD equiped recorder, then you should be fine using that for the HD (which is exactly what my parents do).
An excellent Smart LG 32in with Freeview HD and wifi would be the N575, which is currently available for £299.95.
| link to this comment |
Brian Wright: To follow up on Michael's excellent reply - I was showing a customer that very Samsung 4K today, with Skyfall on Sky HD Movies.
It looked very nice indeed, but even with its 8 million pixels, its going to have fill in quite a lot of detail to go from 1080 to 2160, as Michael pointed out. The source is important, but it must also be appropriate, to get the best from the technology.
And, as Brianist points out, you should really be about 16 feet away from that size TV to get the best picture (although you need to get to about 3in from the screen before you see a pixel, quite amazing). On your full HD TV the BBC transmissions look very good, and much better than SD.
Rog Parsons: Re: BBC4 - 'only rarely are the programmes worth watching - then it's re-screens of 1970-80 BBC2 programmes '. Really? Over on Britmovies, BBC4 is generally seen as a national treasure, complete with its own fan club. Perhaps you are watching a different BBC4 from the rest of us? The BBC license fee is a relative bargain, and gives you far more for your money than using a subscription model.
| link to this comment |
Mrs A Hemmings: You havn't put in your postcode when you asked the question, so we have no idea which trasmitter your probably using. However, signal strength would tend to have gone up after any engineering work, so perhaps you should look at your own system, which is where most problems tend to be.
If you have the TV connected to a roof aerial, check all the connections, since corrosion or fraying can lead to signal loss, and obviously a loose aerial connection is possible when your moving a TV back and fro. If you have a portable aerial, again check it, but since they are generally rubbish, I'd invest in an aerial that was higher with a clear view of the transmitter.
| link to this comment |
trevorjharris: Once again, your arguments are based on your own views, rather than what most people want to watch, and the facts that you cite actually undermine your own argument.
I also dont like sport, but I know lots of people do, so if they want to watch snooker, so be it. You cannot condemn the BBC for showing some sport on one of their channels, and then proclaim the superior qualities of Sky by saying they have six channels just for sport...!
Ok - you dont like Strictly, but since this programme gets the most viewers on that night (over 10 million, and around 43 % share), has been licenced to 42 territories, and many other broadcasters have tried to copy it (Sky came up with 'Got to Dance'), it can be assumed that its more popular than looking at a potters wheel (which may well have its own channel on Sky).
Rob - Sky buying expensive US shows at high prices generally means that the BBC cannot afford them - but Sky also often buys up shows that other broadcasters have already made popular. Mad Men loses them money, but they outbid the BBC, which is where it was first broadcast in the UK, and where its audience was. Even for UK shows, it continues this pattern, with 'The Tunnel' being a remake of 'The Bridge', which was a Scandinavian shows first shown on BBC4.
'Mad Dogs' has a cast which pretty much all made their names on BBC or other PSB channels, and the new 'Yonderland' series for Sky is from the same people who made 'Horrible Histories' for CBBC. Without the success of that sho, Sky would never have approached them.
For those who want to see what its like with a subscription/advertising model, look at the US (PBS/NPR are a very small part of the market, and shows a large amount of BBC programmes!). Even there, there is a revolt from the majority of cable subscribers (and most do subscribe) against the bundling of costly sports channels they do not watch with channels that they do. Listen to a discussion here: The History And Future Of Cable's Bundling : NPR and here: The Future Of Television | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR
| link to this comment |
Charles Stuart: If a customer comes in, I'll ask them the size of their current TV, its age (that will tell me its physical size), and the distance from where they sit (this gets complicated when people are different distances).
If your looking at a modern flat screen, then about 1.5m (5-6ft) is where I'd recommend. Its based on manufacturers recommendations, plus my own experience. Obviously HD is better than SD, but thats a reasonable distance.
However, if you bought a TV 5-6 years ago, that 32in TV is about 31in wide, perhaps more. Lots of people bought TV's of that size, but are actually further away, and are now finding the TV a little small (about 20 people said the same thing when I worked this weekend). For a 39-42in screen, I'd say 2.5 to 3 times the size of the screen (yes you can go closer, but my customers do not want too large a TV, so 3 is my normal distance). If you are 10 feet away (40 x 3 = 120in = 10 feet), then 39-42in is perfect, although often people will want a larger screen sometimes later on, as they get used to it.
Remember that the thick frames of 4 years ago have largely gone on main brand TV's. A Samsung 40in TV is now only about 36 inches wide, and is about 10cm wider than a 32in flat screen (a customer got his wife to measure their 32in while he was in the shop it was 800mm, then Samsung was just 902mm). Distance always equals size. Of course if your watching Blu-ray, you can sit closer still, and apparently 3D is even even better, but 2.5 to 3 is still fine.
If your too close, it will look awful, too far and you wont see anything. A customer came in yesterday to buy a lovely Sony W805 42. I'd seen her the day before, and suggested she measure before buying (we are nice that way!), but tought 40-42 would be perfect based on the information she'd given me. She did exactly that, actually took a tape measue into a rival store (they had a simlar set and the clear 10ft to measure), and concluded that the size would be perfect. Thats exactly right for her room at present, and hopefully will come back to tell me thats its fine - I'll certainly ask.
4K has 8 million tiny pixels, and it means a much finer picture, and so you can sit much much closer. However, it really need to be 4K content, because otherwise, as Mike P pointed out, the TV is using interpolation to fill in 3 out of every 4 pixels.
Ultimately, you can sit where you like, but I liken it to going to the cinema/play - nobody sits right at the front of the cinema, and you try to avoid the very back for a play. The middle is just right!
| link to this comment |
John Martin: Apparently Ultra Ultra HD...(8K). The format is already used on high end plantarium projectors and apparently is being used for at least one IMAX style presentation. The Japanese are planning to film some of the 2020 Games in that format Forget Ultra HD: 8K is closer than you think - Hardware
Technology has always moved forward, and generally in the face of 'its good enough'. Given the choice, would you watch a film in monochrome or colour, or one silent or with sound? Audiences have voted with their feet over the last century, and prefer what we have now (although I very much enjoy black and white films, and many silents are quite wonderful).
The pattern over the last two hundred years is that Economies of scale rapidly bring down prices and improve technology. The first VCR's cost thousands, but ended up costing less than £20. If people like and use the format, it will survive, and perhaps become universal, but thats up to the market. There are plenty of technologies which have failed, or have not been a game changer. I have no idea what 4K (or OLED) will do in the marketplace, but it will be interesting to see.
Remember that your old CRT is great for SD transmissions - thats what its was designed for. However, SD will do less well on an HD set - but HD will look far better than SD, even on a CRT. Again, its the right format for the right technology.
There is no great secret plan to get people to buy things they do not want, but in five years, why would you want to watch something in SD when you could watch it in HD?
| link to this comment |
Charles Stuart: Firstly, get the right size - see above! Dont buy too small - my gut says your a 39-42in, and there are no 37in TV's any more anyway. If you measure the width of your 32in its basically 32in - a modern 39in is about 34 and a bit.
I think your right about repair - you can get a free quote, but you can get the excellent 39N575 from LG for £399. Buy LG 39LN575V LED HD 1080p Smart TV, 39" with Freeview HD online at John Lewis - if its £50 repair, then fine - its £150, then probably not.
(I'm not surprised its out of stock - its excellent for the money, and its high on my list if the TV goes). That will give you Full HD, Freeview HD (plus a sat. tuner they dont talk about), Smart and Wifi. Thats standard now. OK - the styling is not quite as crisp as some, but its a great screen. The 42in version is currently £429.95. The LG 620 gives you 200hz and 3D for £529 in a 42in, which is amazing value.
Without any smart or wifi, you can get a decent (but not outstanding) Samsung 42F5000 in Currys for £399 at presen (we just do the 32in version)t, but with just a single year warrenty, and none of extras (get the extras - its worth it).
These prices will wobble coming up to Christmas and just after. Since my employers will give you the difference if the TV goes down in price if it goes down with 28 days of purchase (we've always price-matched), when you buy isn't a big deal to us, but obviously 28th Dec is a good time to buy generally!
Whay your paying is the quality of the panel, which is usually expressed as hertz. This is a minefield, but basically a 100hz (thats what the manufacturer says..) screen is normal these days (and I'm sure that Mike P could explain why this might not mean 100hz!).
As the number goes up, so the panel gets better, the picture gets sharper, and the price increases. Around £399-£529 for a 39-42in 100hz 2D TV with all trimmings, depending on manufacturer. Around £599-699 for 400hz (middle level and good value) - Samsung 6500, Sony W805 (my favourite this year), LG 640, and then £899-£1399 for top level 8oohz Samsung 7000/8000, LG 740, Sony W905 or Panasonic DT/WT65. Dont be afraid of 3D - they just chuck it in with 200hz plus screens - its the better panel your paying for, not the 3D.
Go to a good retailer, who will hopefully ask the sort of questions I've asked, having done some measuring up first. See the difference in quality of each screen, dont get a one year only warrenty (and certainly dont pay for more), recognise that the TV will not have great sound, and bring manuals for other kits that your going to use with it.
I like all four big brands (dont buy a cheap nasty brand), and can pick top ones in all of them, at different levels. Give me a budget, and I'll work to it, but dont be too cheap. I assume your going to have it for at least 5 years (thats our warrenty), so I want it to look decent - the better the picture, the higher the price. That extra £50-100 will give you better picture, etc - which will work out very little extra over the long term. Buy once, buy right.
However, you can get a TV (with more on it) for £469 that would have cost you £799 three years ago, and £1299 five years ago. You will get a lot for money if you buy right.
| link to this comment |
John Martin: You are quite right that adverts do tend to feature the latest product. I believe that the three most powerful words in advertising are 'New', 'Free' & 'Young'.
However, that is nothing new, and I suspect that some homind in Olduvai Gorge looked with envy at someone's much nicer and more advanced stone tool!
Actually, your TV is perfectly fine and current, and since nobody is broadcasting in 4K (never mind 8K!) at present (if ever), you should get many years of use out of it. And of course as time goes on, those currently non-HD channels should end up in most cases as HD anyway, which will give an even better viewing experience for your family on your current set.
Charles Stuart: I would be delighted (for fairly obvious reasons) if you popped over to Cribbs Causeway, and they will give you great advice.
Since your 10 feet away from your TV (my gut does sometimes get it right), a 40-42in is perfect. The only reason I included the 39's is that they are around the same size and sometimes slightly cheaper. However, they exist as a sop to those who would have previously bought the now non-existent 37in size, but are slightly smaller than the psychologically important 40in.
Since they are a bit of a niche, you will only get a 100hz screen - perfectly fine TV's (N575, Panasonic E6 and Samsung F5500), but thats really it. You'll get far more choice if you think 40-42, including the slightly larger versions of those models. Remember that the widest 42in is 38in wide, thats only about 3in extra on each side of your current TV.
If you have impaired hearing, you will need to better than the inbuilt speakers, trust me. If you get Panasonic or Sony, you can split the audio signal from the 3.5mm phone jack so that you can hear via headphones, and the rest of the family can listen on the speakers, at volumes comfortable for all (Samsung and LG cant do this).
If you've a sound system, you might be able to use it, but a soundbar would be an excellent option, and be prepared to pay around £170 plus for a decent 120watts one (with wired subwoofer). £250 plus for 240-310 watts with wireless sub. You'll often get a deal if you buy the TV with a soundbar.
Since next year no JL sold TV will not be Smart, and precious few are not right now, I'd just go for it. You are on the net, so I'm sure, if nothing else, you'd like to see something you missed on Iplayer. And on a decent sized screen, rather than on a laptop. And that is standard on your TV, plus lots of other things.
The cost between a 32in with and without smart/wifi is £269 v about £349 (£299 if you willing to just have HD Ready). And you get an extra HDMI port. To add that functionality would probably cost more than the difference in price.
As for 3D - its the picture quality that matters - go and have a look, and see what you think. You are the customer, we are just there to guide.
Brianist: The 7-8 year cycle accords with my experience, with the older TV ending up as a handme down, in a different room, or something for the kids. Its probably closer to 5-6 years at the moment, personally speaking, but close enough.
| link to this comment |
Thursday 5 December 2013 10:19PM
KMJ,Derby: It will be interesting to see how 4K turns out in terms of market penetration - if the Japanese make a go of Ultra Ultra HD, then who knows? However, they do look lovely....and the Koreans have transmitted tests, so its doable. Price and content will be key.
As for the shopping channels, they look pretty awful now - I suspect that seeing them looking much the same when everything else is in HD is going to be even worse!
MikeP - I couldn't agree more about people mounting too high up on their walls - when customers say that they want to replace the mirror above the fireplace with a TV, I point out that such mirrors are not placed to be viewed sitting down - the nearer the eye level of the viewer, the better.
However, the standard distance recommendation is now nearer 2.5 to 3 times the size of the screen - 3 is the ratio I recommend for my customers for 40in plus screens, and we are pretty conservative. There is no way that I would venture the distance recommended by a well known tech magazine - they think a 55in is fine from 1.8m! I would think twice that distance, if not more. Of course with 4K, you can sit much closer.
In fact customers are buying much larger TV's, with my employers biggest selling TV being a 46in Samsung - five years ago it would have been a 40-42, if not smaller. Being able to wall mount,lower unit cost, the smaller frames 9and therefore overall size), and the trend towards knocking through rooms and converting large spaces have all made a difference. Who knows what will happen by 2018?