Technology Thread.

[BWFC_Insane]

We have an LG 3D LED - not had any mither with it.

LG, missed them out. Good TV's generally, especially for the mid-range, usually well priced.

They have had some quality control issues but then all the major players seem to at some point.

[Worthy4England]

We have a 3D TV. The 3D bit doesn't get much use to be honest

And if I had one, neither would mine if it involved me sitting in my own living room and looking like Ronnie cunting Corbett.

I close the blinds.

[BWFC_Insane]

3d is definitely worth it for something that is actually good in 3d. As worthy says, Avatar...the film is terrible the 3d is absolutely out of this world good.

But there is so little that falls into that category of what is already a small content pool. Most sport does not work that well live in 3d and generally you're reliant on good quality films with big budgets. But even many of those simply add 3d after filming which is a cheaper but far inferior tech to native 3d filming.

[bobo the clown]

↑↑↑↑ Bob .... and, if I may say .... on.

I have a 3D telly, blue ray etc. As i don't have Sky, at all let alone 3D, I've made very limited use of that. I play some DVD's on it, there's been a handful of promotional days when you can take a deco and there's a sort of "false" 3D which gives you a fair facsimile of it. Overall though, as in the cinema for my tastes, 2D is fine. Oddly though I'd not buy a modern telly without it. Can't really explain that.

[BWFC_Insane]

Current thinking on TV's?

I've been given the go-ahead from Mrs C to update our 6yr old Panasonic 38" HD ready TV, which although still has a great & clear picture we've never been able to tell the difference between HD and not HD.

I'm thinking 42" Smart and 3D but beyond that am a little lost and not savvy enough to make a good choice. What's the difference between active and passive 3D? LED or plasma, is 4K worth going for or simply HD? What are my options on brand? I've always liked Panasonic but Samsung seem to do some good stuff.

And a sound bar? Is that a necessary add on? And a Blue Ray player I suppose?

Looking to spend about £1000. Am I best going buying 'What TV' and having a good read, cos its not like 1994 anymore when I walked into Dixons and picked up a 32" TV on the eve of that World Cup.

Active 3d- Glasses need power (batteries) and sync with your TV set. Glasses flicker, so fast that you won't probably notice it but some do. Advantage is the clarity of the 3d picture is higher than passive. The glasses are more expensive though.

Passive 3d- Same sort of glasses you get at the cinema, no batteries and dirt cheap. No flicker and generally easier on the eye. Picture is less clear however. Most people don't really notice.

There isn't much 3d content. I wouldn't use 3d in any sort of decision. Buy the best TV for you, if it has 3d bonus. Active, passive? Given the lack of content I'd not bother either way.

LED - Thin, use less leccy, picture they can produce has improved immeasurably over the past decade. Downside is that the backlighting can be inconsistent and produce a slightly patchy image in low light conditions. And blacks will be less black than a plasma.

Plasma - Generally accepted to produce the best overall picture. Downside is image retention and screen burn. Things that are left on the screen for a while, like the sky logo can retain their image even when not displayed for a while. This effect has lessened as tech improves but is still there. Permanent burn is rare nowadays but happens. And it's a ballache.

IMO only go Plasma if you're a real image quality afficianado.

As for 4k, there is barely anything to watch in 4k. We're talking a fair number of years before there will be, and that is by no means a certainty. There are bandwidth restrictions to overcome before anything is broadcast in 4k. And yes they might stream it online in 4k but again, bandwidth of broadband will dictate that. If you want your TV to be totally future proof for the next decade then yes 4k MIGHT be worth it. But I'd suggest probably not.

Sound bars are a good addition if you have no sound system already as modern TV's especially thin ones have terrible sound from their own speakers.

As for brand, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic. You'll not go far wrong and each excels in different areas.

Do you have Sky?

Virginmedia, XL

I don't know what features that gives you, can you watch iplayer through it etc?

Only asking because I have a smart TV but basically never use the smart stuff. Mainly because I have Sky and can record stuff and then it also has catchup TV on it now so never needed any Smart features....

Of course any decent TV will have smart features but you can sort of decide if it is something that matters because the quality and speed of those features varies quite considerably from what I've seen.

[Burnden Paddock]

We have a 3D TV. The 3D bit doesn't get much use to be honest

And if I had one, neither would mine if it involved me sitting in my own living room and looking like Ronnie cunting Corbett.

I believe that the tartan trousers are optional.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Having been through the whole telly buying thing in December, my findings were...

Buy the biggest screen size that reasonably fits your room for your budget. It may seem big for a few days, but after a while you don't notice until you look at a smaller tv. It makes for a good watching experience.

There are all sorts of arguments for LED v Plasma. BWFCi has said as much I would on the subject, except that if you go down that route then Panasonic are by a big margin the best brand quality wise.

3D, again most has been said on it. I went for passive as active glasses cost more to buy extras, heavier, batteries and general faff. The benefit of getting 3D is that you will get a faster refresh rate than a regular tv. This can be a benefit when watching 2D as well. I wouldn't let 3D influence your choice, but a nice to have sort of thing.

Brands - for LED I found Sony and Samsung the best quality, with LG coming in 3rd. Anything else I wouldn't bother with. I went for Sony over Samsung. Both great quality and equivalent models were the same price. The Sony had more natural colours, the Samsung had an overly vibrant picture; which I suspect they do to make the picture seem better and brighter. I preferred the more 'realistic' colours and picture.

To get the best out of a new telly, Blu-ray with a surround system is the way to go. many blu-ray players come with the sound system now (mine was freeeeeee with the telly, so one remote works the lot).

[BWFC_Insane]

Having been through the whole telly buying thing in December, my findings were...

Buy the biggest screen size that reasonably fits your room for your budget. It may seem big for a few days, but after a while you don't notice until you look at a smaller tv. It makes for a good watching experience.

There are all sorts of arguments for LED v Plasma. BWFCi has said as much I would on the subject, except that if you go down that route then Panasonic are by a big margin the best brand quality wise.

3D, again most has been said on it. I went for passive as active glasses cost more to buy extras, heavier, batteries and general faff. The benefit of getting 3D is that you will get a faster refresh rate than a regular tv. This can be a benefit when watching 2D as well. I wouldn't let 3D influence your choice, but a nice to have sort of thing.

Brands - for LED I found Sony and Samsung the best quality, with LG coming in 3rd. Anything else I wouldn't bother with. I went for Sony over Samsung. Both great quality and equivalent models were the same price. The Sony had more natural colours, the Samsung had an overly vibrant picture; which I suspect they do to make the picture seem better and brighter. I preferred the more 'realistic' colours and picture.

To get the best out of a new telly, Blu-ray with a surround system is the way to go. many blu-ray players come with the sound system now (mine was freeeeeee with the telly, so one remote works the lot).

Panasonic aren't making plasmas anymore! Only LEDs.

As for vibrancy vs natural that very much depends on what settings were applied. Samsung's default shop floor settings are incredibly vibrant and bright for marketing reasons. But of course you can tone that down. In general though it is true that Sony are more muted. For 3d viewing Samsung LEDs are better than Sony ones though for the vibrancy reason.

Not so sure on refresh rate. I thought pretty much all TV's were 50Hz with the advertised refresh rates being artificial picture enhancements that provide smooth motion but at a cost to other picture elements. I don't think 3d is a factor, though I could well be wrong!

[ChrisC]

Most has already been said but I have gone with LED the last few years and not regretted it one bit. Found my current Samsung LED 3D TV to give a better picture for me personally over the Sony I had previous. If you do go with Samsung and you want a bright, vibrant picture then hit settings and put your picture mode on dynamic

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Panasonic aren't making plasmas anymore! Only LEDs.

You can still get 2013 models though

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Just to add. I stuck my Samsung in front of the Sony the other day, displaying a photo of the Maldives from the air. The photo was displayed from the same source (laptop via a HDMI splitter job). No matter what settings I used on the Samsung, the colours weren't natural. They were brighter, but they weren't real. That said, the Sony is a newer, more expensive tv, so I suppose I should expect (in theory) a better picture.

[ChrisC]

Just to add. I stuck my Samsung in front of the Sony the other day, displaying a photo of the Maldives from the air. The photo was displayed from the same source (laptop via a HDMI splitter job). No matter what settings I used on the Samsung, the colours weren't natural. They were brighter, but they weren't real. That said, the Sony is a newer, more expensive tv, so I suppose I should expect (in theory) a better picture.

Its money well spent whichever people go with.

I am trying to convince the other half that a new curved TV is a wise investment. She isn't buying it at the moment no matter how much I tell her Corrie will look ace

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Just to add. I stuck my Samsung in front of the Sony the other day, displaying a photo of the Maldives from the air. The photo was displayed from the same source (laptop via a HDMI splitter job). No matter what settings I used on the Samsung, the colours weren't natural. They were brighter, but they weren't real. That said, the Sony is a newer, more expensive tv, so I suppose I should expect (in theory) a better picture.

Its money well spent whichever people go with.

I am trying to convince the other half that a new curved TV is a wise investment. She isn't buying it at the moment no matter how much I tell her Corrie will look ace

I've heard of some issues with the curved ones. Apparantly the screens break much more easily. Not sure which brand it was though. Personally I think you'd need a giant one to really benefit from the curve. The shops here have those 85" ones on swivel stands here. One was the same cost as our new car

[ChrisC]

Just to add. I stuck my Samsung in front of the Sony the other day, displaying a photo of the Maldives from the air. The photo was displayed from the same source (laptop via a HDMI splitter job). No matter what settings I used on the Samsung, the colours weren't natural. They were brighter, but they weren't real. That said, the Sony is a newer, more expensive tv, so I suppose I should expect (in theory) a better picture.

Its money well spent whichever people go with.

I am trying to convince the other half that a new curved TV is a wise investment. She isn't buying it at the moment no matter how much I tell her Corrie will look ace

I've heard of some issues with the curved ones. Apparantly the screens break much more easily. Not sure which brand it was though. Personally I think you'd need a giant one to really benefit from the curve. The shops here have those 85" ones on swivel stands here. One was the same cost as our new car

Sell the god damn car then!!

[Dujon]

LG? They might well have changed over the years but I'd be very careful. Years ago they marketed their gear under the brand name "Goldstar" in this country. They were fine when they worked. I know, I used to sell their computer monitors. Unfortunately they were not very reliable. The return for warranty repairs was incredibly high, so high that I cut my ties with them. Perhaps (it's only a supposition) the Goldstar brand was getting such a bad reputation in the industry that the name was changed to "LG". Of course there could well have been other reasons for the name change, but . . .

As for the rest I would suggest that BWFC_Insane's advice is well worth consideration.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Just to add. I stuck my Samsung in front of the Sony the other day, displaying a photo of the Maldives from the air. The photo was displayed from the same source (laptop via a HDMI splitter job). No matter what settings I used on the Samsung, the colours weren't natural. They were brighter, but they weren't real. That said, the Sony is a newer, more expensive tv, so I suppose I should expect (in theory) a better picture.

Its money well spent whichever people go with.

I am trying to convince the other half that a new curved TV is a wise investment. She isn't buying it at the moment no matter how much I tell her Corrie will look ace

I've heard of some issues with the curved ones. Apparantly the screens break much more easily. Not sure which brand it was though. Personally I think you'd need a giant one to really benefit from the curve. The shops here have those 85" ones on swivel stands here. One was the same cost as our new car

Sell the god damn car then!!

But how would I fit the telly in the car tank then?

[Worthy4England]

Just to add. I stuck my Samsung in front of the Sony the other day, displaying a photo of the Maldives from the air. The photo was displayed from the same source (laptop via a HDMI splitter job). No matter what settings I used on the Samsung, the colours weren't natural. They were brighter, but they weren't real. That said, the Sony is a newer, more expensive tv, so I suppose I should expect (in theory) a better picture.

You might want to try getting out a little more AT.

I can honestly say, outside of the TV shop (where 2 or more TV's happen to be next to each other), I've never lined two TV's up to compare 'em.

[ChrisC]

Just to add. I stuck my Samsung in front of the Sony the other day, displaying a photo of the Maldives from the air. The photo was displayed from the same source (laptop via a HDMI splitter job). No matter what settings I used on the Samsung, the colours weren't natural. They were brighter, but they weren't real. That said, the Sony is a newer, more expensive tv, so I suppose I should expect (in theory) a better picture.

Its money well spent whichever people go with.

I am trying to convince the other half that a new curved TV is a wise investment. She isn't buying it at the moment no matter how much I tell her Corrie will look ace

I've heard of some issues with the curved ones. Apparantly the screens break much more easily. Not sure which brand it was though. Personally I think you'd need a giant one to really benefit from the curve. The shops here have those 85" ones on swivel stands here. One was the same cost as our new car

Sell the god damn car then!!

But how would I fit the telly in the car tank then?

Get them to do free delivery

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Just to add. I stuck my Samsung in front of the Sony the other day, displaying a photo of the Maldives from the air. The photo was displayed from the same source (laptop via a HDMI splitter job). No matter what settings I used on the Samsung, the colours weren't natural. They were brighter, but they weren't real. That said, the Sony is a newer, more expensive tv, so I suppose I should expect (in theory) a better picture.

You might want to try getting out a little more AT.

I can honestly say, outside of the TV shop (where 2 or more TV's happen to be next to each other), I've never lined two TV's up to compare 'em.

There was a reason for it I'd bought some HDMI splitters for the wife's company (I seem to be their buyer, unpaid I might add). They couldn't work them and neither could their so called IT bods, so the wife brought them home. The only HDMI screens I have are the 2 tvs. Anyway, in the unlikely event you're interested, the HDMI splitters worked perfectly well and I had to call into question the ability of the IT bod!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Get them to do free delivery

Have you ever tried to catch a bus in 50 degrees?