Phdpaul
10th December 2006, 08:52
Given that 'HD Ready' TV's have now been on the market for some considerable time you would expect everyone would now know where they stood over HD. Not so! have a look at this (taken form Cnet):
'Those who believed that buying a screen with an HD Ready logo would ensure future-proof compatibility. Some may have already discovered this isn't true, since S*y is broadcasting all its hi-def content using 1080i.'
Is there any point then in buying something like the new Sharp 'Full HD' Aquos for £1400 from Costco knowing that you won't be using Full HD because S*y and other sat providers don't broadcast HD in that format? Okay, some might say that if you use your X-box 360, PS3 (when/(if) released), Blu-ray players etc this is the best format but why pays yer money now?
Surely, you are better off buying something like a good 'budget' screen like a Mirai DTL-532W100 because given 'bangs per buck' it far outweighs 'full HD' screens. Even though its a step behind in technology terms, such budget screens offer the best value - would you rather spend £1400 on a feature that you can't use most of the time or spend £450 on something that does a good job on most things all of the time? No doubt, if you buy the Sharp in the belief that your future-proofed a new 'extra super HD' format will come out next christmas!
PhD
'Those who believed that buying a screen with an HD Ready logo would ensure future-proof compatibility. Some may have already discovered this isn't true, since S*y is broadcasting all its hi-def content using 1080i.'
Is there any point then in buying something like the new Sharp 'Full HD' Aquos for £1400 from Costco knowing that you won't be using Full HD because S*y and other sat providers don't broadcast HD in that format? Okay, some might say that if you use your X-box 360, PS3 (when/(if) released), Blu-ray players etc this is the best format but why pays yer money now?
Surely, you are better off buying something like a good 'budget' screen like a Mirai DTL-532W100 because given 'bangs per buck' it far outweighs 'full HD' screens. Even though its a step behind in technology terms, such budget screens offer the best value - would you rather spend £1400 on a feature that you can't use most of the time or spend £450 on something that does a good job on most things all of the time? No doubt, if you buy the Sharp in the belief that your future-proofed a new 'extra super HD' format will come out next christmas!
PhD