Currys and Dixons 1080p 32LG7000 £349

cianclarke

Aw crap, I was all set on buying one of these and then realised 32" = massive, not really a feasible sit-at-your-desk monitor, haha back to the drawing board..

vectra

Mossy Monk wrote: »

It is a television. Any tv under 40" is pointless for 1080p unless you are sitting inches away from it. Ask anybody and they will tell you the same.

Actually it comes into play if you sit closer than 8 feet from the screen which I happen to do.
I can say from 1st hand experience that it does make a difference in 32"

What you are saying is wrong and bad advice.

Kintarō Hattori

vectra wrote: »

What you are saying is wrong and bad advice.

What he's saying is accepted wisdom and is the general consensus. His opinion is neither wrong or bad.

vectra

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

What he's saying is accepted wisdom .

Are you his minder or something? :rolleyes:
what you said makes absolutely no snece to anyone that would have little or no knowledge of this issue but was merely looking for advice.

It is not very WISE to issue comments like that :P

JHMEG

Mossy Monk wrote: »

It is a television. Any tv under 40" is pointless for 1080p unless you are sitting inches away from it.

Will you stop exaggerating please. Speaking from experience 1080p is noticeable up to quite a distance as long as your eyesight is ok.

If two TVs are the same price or close and one is 720 and the other is 1080, the 1080 is better value for money, regardless of eyesight.

A lot of HD stuff is 1080. A 1080 TV is the best for watching 1080 material on.

spockety

Bond-007 wrote: »

There is no difference when viewing Sky HD as it is all 1080i. Now with BD there is a noticeable difference when it is in 1080p 24P mode.

I have noticed the difference when I switched from a 32 inch to a 37 inch.

Er, interlaced or progressive signal don't make a damn bit of difference, given that all LCD's are progressive anyway.

The resolution makes a difference, and no matter what anybody tells you, there is a difference between 1280x720 , and 1920x1080.

Sure, most people won't notice any difference, but don't assume that for everyone in every circumstance a 32 inch 720 line TV is just as good as 32 inch 1080 line TV.

Da GOAT

thinking of heading gto newry for the 32 inch LG. Can anyone tell me (a noob) that it will defo work here in Ireland? What exactly do i need to look out for when buying from UK for tvs to ensure they are compatible.

coldfire1x

^^ Dont make a trip, at the moment its out of stock in newry.

Gadgetman496

Da GOAT wrote: »

thinking of heading gto newry for the 32 inch LG. Can anyone tell me (a noob) that it will defo work here in Ireland? What exactly do i need to look out for when buying from UK for tvs to ensure they are compatible.

If you are not going to be using it in conjunction with a set top box you would need to make sure it has a tuner capable of tuning both UHF & VHF.

Most of the sets from the UK have UHF only (but not all).

-

whackball

€549 sale price in the Irish News of the World today - think it was Dixons or PC World (aren`t they all the one company)

Thats some exchange rate difference!!!!

whackball

whackball wrote: »

€549 sale price in the Irish News of the World today - think it was Dixons or PC World (aren`t they all the one company)

Thats some exchange rate difference!!!!

Curry's, Dixons & PC World are all the one, DSG International.

copacetic

spockety wrote: »

Er, interlaced or progressive signal don't make a damn bit of difference, given that all LCD's are progressive anyway.

The resolution makes a difference, and no matter what anybody tells you, there is a difference between 1280x720 , and 1920x1080.

Sure, most people won't notice any difference, but don't assume that for everyone in every circumstance a 32 inch 720 line TV is just as good as 32 inch 1080 line TV.

In most circumstances it is spockety, a lot of the better TV companies don't make 32inch full HD units as they feel they are pointless. It isn't that 'most people' won't notice any difference, it's that our eyes just can't resolve the improvements at our normal sitting distances. Sure some people will say they can see 'some' difference, but no-one can claim they are getting the full experience on such a small screen unless they are inches from the panel.

There is loads of stuff on the web and more respected forums also. HD guru is a nice intro and a chart on viewing distances: http://hdguru.com/?p=21

It's pretty simple maths, not sure how people can argue against it tbh.

spockety

copacetic wrote: »

In most circumstances it is spockety, a lot of the better TV companies don't make 32inch full HD units as they feel they are pointless. It isn't that 'most people' won't notice any difference, it's that our eyes just can't resolve the improvements at our normal sitting distances. Sure some people will say they can see 'some' difference, but no-one can claim they are getting the full experience on such a small screen unless they are inches from the panel.
There is loads of stuff on the web and more respected forums also. HD guru is a nice intro and a chart on viewing distances: http://hdguru.com/?p=21
It's pretty simple maths, not sure how people can argue against it tbh.

I'm not arguing against the "simple" maths, I'm arguing against sweeping generalisations.

Even the site you point to tells me that there are perceptible differences between a 1080 line 32 inch and a 720 line 32 inch at certain distances. In this case, the optimal viewing distance to appreciate 1080 lines on a 32 inch set is 50 inches. How do you know that someone won't want to buy this set for putting right beside their bed, etc?

How do you know that someone won't be buying it primarily for PC gaming, and sitting right close to it to appreciate high resolution immersion?

The study on the web site you linked assumes a median viewing distance of 9 feet, the researcher has obviously never been in Ireland's shoe box 1 bed apartments!

Given that it is only 350 quid, I'm surprised at people jumping on the fact that it's 1080 lines, it's not like a premium is being paid for it!

copacetic

For 350 I would snap it up! I'm just giving the other side of the argument. At that price it is the same as most 720s so is the better deal.

I don't think 9 feet is unreasonable in Ireland, certainly more likely than 4 and a bit feet.

However possibly the pricing has overtaken the argument, it was more valid when 720p sets were €1000 and 1080p sets double that. i.e there was no point paying the difference. Now that the prices have come together it doesn't really matter.

JHMEG

Nicely said.

I sit about 8 feet back from a 32" 1080, and I notice the difference in detail between 1080 and 720 on the TV that was there before it, also a 32". Maybe I've superior brain power.

Kintarō Hattori

JHMEG wrote: »

Nicely said.

I sit about 8 feet back from a 32" 1080, and I notice the difference in detail between 1080 and 720 on the TV that was there before it, also a 32". Maybe I've superior brain power.

Now now I wouldn't go that far. :pac:

Rsaeire

spockety wrote: »

I'm not arguing against the "simple" maths, I'm arguing against sweeping generalisations.

Even the site you point to tells me that there are perceptible differences between a 1080 line 32 inch and a 720 line 32 inch at certain distances. In this case, the optimal viewing distance to appreciate 1080 lines on a 32 inch set is 50 inches. How do you know that someone won't want to buy this set for putting right beside their bed, etc?

How do you know that someone won't be buying it primarily for PC gaming, and sitting right close to it to appreciate high resolution immersion?

The study on the web site you linked assumes a median viewing distance of 9 feet, the researcher has obviously never been in Ireland's shoe box 1 bed apartments!

Given that it is only 350 quid, I'm surprised at people jumping on the fact that it's 1080 lines, it's not like a premium is being paid for it!

I agree with your remarks. People who argue against 1080p 32" TVs being useful need to actually view such a TV before passing comments.

dec2000

This tv now appears to be gone from all three of the sites (PC World, currys, dixons) - am just back from dixons and saw it there for 599euro!! what a rip..

Snake Plisken

ok this set is 549 in Currys liffey valley, next door in PC World its listed as 699! Nice set great picture, looks great with PS3 & Xbox360!

Zonda999

Was in Currys in Mahon point Cork there earlier. The 32LG7000 was there for 549e too. It was playing an upscaled dvd and it looked alright. There did seem to be a fair bit of motion blur though, highlighting the lack of a 100hz processor on the 32"

The 42LG7000 was 1199e there. That tv was 799e until yesterday but that deal must be over. So, think about this, you could have gone into a Currys in England yesterday, and bought that tv there for 549£. Thats about 570e. Then, you could have gone into a Currys branch here today and bought exactly the same tv for 1199e. More than twice as much!!(:eek::eek::eek:)

The actual tv wasn't all that impressive either, i have to say. The blacks looked very gray compared to the Samsung 40a656 right next to it. And the 100hz feature didn't smoothen motion as good as the Samsungs 100hz either.

Bill-e

spockety wrote: »

Er, interlaced or progressive signal don't make a damn bit of difference, given that all LCD's are progressive anyway.

The resolution makes a difference, and no matter what anybody tells you, there is a difference between 1280x720 , and 1920x1080.

Sure, most people won't notice any difference, but don't assume that for everyone in every circumstance a 32 inch 720 line TV is just as good as 32 inch 1080 line TV.

I'm not so sure that I agree with your point that there is no difference between p and i.
With interlaced you are only seeing half the info at any one time. With each frame only half the resolution is shown. so 1080i is really only 540. The quick jump between two frames showing 540 of the even lines of one frame and the other 540 of the odd lines in the next frame fools the brain into seeing 1080 lines which is just fine if the image isn't moving. However, if there is a difference between the 2 frames you get a blur ja know what I mean?
Progressive shows you all 1080 lines of every frame so there will be no blur. (Oasis or Blur?)
Even tho lcds display progressively, what it is displaying is interlaced so it doesn't count.

spockety

Bill-e wrote: »

I'm not so sure that I agree with your point that there is no difference between p and i.
With interlaced you are only seeing half the info at any one time. With each frame only half the resolution is shown. so 1080i is really only 540. The quick jump between two frames showing 540 of the even lines of one frame and the other 540 of the odd lines in the next frame fools the brain into seeing 1080 lines which is just fine if the image isn't moving. However, if there is a difference between the 2 frames you get a blur ja know what I mean?
Progressive shows you all 1080 lines of every frame so there will be no blur. (Oasis or Blur?)
Even tho lcds display progressively, what it is displaying is interlaced so it doesn't count.

Read my posting again, and read its context, I was responding to a poster who said

"There is no difference when viewing Sky HD as it is all 1080i"

I was pointing out, rightly, that the input signal progressive or interlaced makes no difference, the number of lines overall (resolution) does. If you want to correctly display a 1080i input signal as the producer of the signal intended, you need a 1080 line display (i.e. 1920x1080). It's not as simple as saying it's just like 540 lines, as even on an interlaced display, you would still need 1080 lines in total as each field is displayed on alternating horizontal lines.

So please stop to help the spread of confusion! To PROPERLY display Sky HD channels that are sourced 1080i, you need a 1920x1080 display. In LCD's, they are all progressive (1080p) anyway. If you see a TV that says "720p,1080i", and it has a resolution of something like 1366x768, it means that it can HANDLE a 1080i input signal, but ultimately the frames are getting resampled from 1920x1080 to 1366x768 for display at the native resolution of the TV set, as well as being de-interlaced by the processors in the set.

Also, if you can find me a TV in any shop that has a 1920x1080 display but cannot handle a 1080p input signal I will eat my shorts.

boopolo

m.j.w wrote: »

i thought samsung were one of the better names, what should i look out for then?

Yes indeed they are. far better than LG etc. The OP just happened to get a bad one. I have a 40" samsung for 2.5 years without a problem. As have other users here. See the other TV thread.