Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

TV inputs for HDTV compatibility

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Chare

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 6:34:10 AM9/29/04
to
I have been looking at a couple of 26" LCD TVs

One (Sharp LC26GA3E) offers a component HDTV interface of 480P/1080i/720P

I happened to see this demonstrated in a shop. The set was showing a satellite
HDTV test/demo transmission
The set also has a DVI input but that appears to only support pc input mode
640x400, 640x480, 1024x768.

The other a (Samsung LW26A33W) has a DVI input that supports
480/60i
480/60p
576/50i
576/50p
720/60p
1080/50i
1080/60i

and has separate D-Sub PC input that supports many PC formats up to VESA 1024 x
768.


Which interface is likely to be more useful to for watching HDTV (if anyone
starts transmitting a signal that I want to watch!) Any reason why either
component or DVI might be better or more flexible?

Any other comments on the sets welcome

Michael Chare


Ben

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 7:03:26 AM9/29/04
to

For a digitally addressed display like LCD, you would expect to get
better results from DVI than component because the signal doesn't have
to go through D to A then A to D conversion. For a CRT it doesn't make
any difference. It may turn out that when HD DVDs come along, and when
Sky start transmitting some pay-per-view movie channels in high
definition, HDMI (or at least HDCP enabled DVI) could be required.

Steve Jones

unread,
Sep 29, 2004, 10:47:18 AM9/29/04
to

This remind me of a similar question I had when looking at a Philips LCD
TV. Like you the TV states a maximum of 1024x768 for PC connectivity.
This is obviously not a widescreen resolution so wouldn't any PC image
would be horribly stretched? What about if the graphics card could
display a widescreen resolution (some do) would this resolution be
usable on the TV?

Steve

Roger

unread,
Sep 30, 2004, 7:49:40 PM9/30/04
to

"Michael Chare" <Michae...@deletethis.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:P8-dnfIpW7t...@pipex.net...

> I have been looking at a couple of 26" LCD TVs
>
> One (Sharp LC26GA3E) offers a component HDTV interface of
480P/1080i/720P
>
> I happened to see this demonstrated in a shop. The set was showing a
satellite
> HDTV test/demo transmission
> The set also has a DVI input but that appears to only support pc input
mode
> 640x400, 640x480, 1024x768.
>
> The other a (Samsung LW26A33W) has a DVI input that supports
> 480/60i
> 480/60p
> 576/50i
> 576/50p
> 720/60p
> 1080/50i
> 1080/60i
> [snip]

> Which interface is likely to be more useful to for watching HDTV

The EBU document on HDTV discussed here recently considered the options
were between 720p/50 and 1080p/50. The EBU came down on in favour of
720p/50, but many here thought 1080 would win the day. Neither option is in
your list, could you have missed 720p/50?

Roger


Michael Chare

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 5:05:39 AM10/1/04
to
"Roger" <telstardotsixoneseven0threeatt@claradottnett> wrote in message
news:109658815...@damia.uk.clara.net...

My list comes straight from the Samsung user manual (cut and paste job)

It does make you wonder though!

Mike Chare


Roger

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 5:39:14 AM10/2/04
to

"Michael Chare" <Michae...@deletethis.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:2s4kv4F...@uni-berlin.de...

>
> My list comes straight from the Samsung user manual (cut and paste job)
>
> It does make you wonder though!

To give Samsung probably more than their due, they appear to be the only
manufacturer who puts the supported resolutions on the rear panel adjacent
to the connectors. Some of the larger Samsung plasma displays do include
the 720p and 1080p options.

However my info is restricted to what I see in the likes of the larger
Currys and Comet stores where its possible to walk round behind the
displays. Many manufacturers and retailers web sites seem loath to
quote the supported resolutions - I wonder why?

Roger


Jukka Aho

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 6:14:09 AM10/5/04
to
Roger wrote:

> Many manufacturers and retailers web sites seem loath to
> quote the supported resolutions - I wonder why?

Maybe because they are busy constructing flash-overdosed "web
sites" with pixel-perfected "layout" (and hard-to-navigate,
impossible-to-link-to structure), instead of providing any
useful _content_ on their site.

All "flash" web site designers and those who insist on making
URLs dynamically generated and disposable (with expiry times)
should be shot.

--
znark

Roger

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 6:45:19 PM10/5/04
to

"Jukka Aho" <jukk...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:Ptu8d.175$Tl1...@reader1.news.jippii.net...

>
> All "flash" web site designers and those who insist on making
> URLs dynamically generated and disposable (with expiry times)
> should be shot.

tick
I'm sure the rational is a (pun intended) flashy one upman ship.
Another benefit is to make poor old dial up users like me feel second class
citizens having to wait in line for the flash content to download while
broadband users surf straight in.

..and those -is it java script -items when I go off line and recall the
page..there is nothing there.

Roger


0 new messages