Metropol

with the lobster credit card paid off, it's time to refill it again by purchasing a really big telly.

what do you think of the options out there?

every chain store i go into, they spend about half an hour telling me how i really should by a tv which is hd ready.

now, the problem is this: hd isn't going to start broadcasting in the uk until later next year, and even then, only a handfull of programmes will be made in hd, and after that, only a few channels will be hd.

just like widescreen (as you know, only a handful of channels broadcast in widescreen years after its introduction), so i suspect take up will be patchy since there isn't nearly enough bandwidth on the digital platform and the cost to broadcasters upgrading all their studios, cameras, mixers etc.

so, now, the decision is between lcd, plasma and rear projection.

rear projection is the biggest load of shit i've ever seen, you can only see a bright picture if you're sitting head on, and although they are quite a bit cheaper than their lcd and plasma counterparts, i will give this technology a miss.

that leaves lcd and plasma. I really like how bright and clear plasma is, whilst lcd sets seem to have a blured picture once the sizes start getting up to 40", but on the other hand, i'm worried about image retention on plasma.

which way should i go? and what are the pitfalls with each technology?

Rear projector tvs look ghastly and I don't like them. However:

Projectors are cheap and impressive, but lamps are the sticking point.

Projector lamp modules are built specifically for each new model of projector, and are manufactured under licence to the manufacturer meaning cheap "generic" replacements are unavailable. Watch out for those prices when choosing the projector (or speak to me in private as I can source them for up to 40% off the list prices).

With high contrast ratios, effectively silent operation, high lumen output and many being HD ready, projectors would be my choice right now.

I wouldn't buy a plasma unless you were prepared to spend over 3K, as the budget models look soft and nasty.

LCD is a good option, but at the moment screens aren't much more than 36" wide. They are stunning though, and most have HD inputs on them. I have one on the wall near me - and it nearly always get a comment from visitors.

What's your budget, Doctor?

Thanks for the information, Gavin.

I'd probably want to spend no more than £1500, with a stand, I'd love a big projection on our living room wall, but alas, it isn't really feasible because of how we'd need to run the cables, and plus, as you say, the cost of bulbs is astronomical.

Some of the more budget plasmas, from Matsui seem to have a really nice clear picture when fed from a RGB scart. I had a look in our local currys and i was really impressed.

Do you think there is any point in getting a 'hd' ready set?

If I were you I would spend £300 on a Panasonic 32" CRT and keep the rest of the money for 12-18 months when you will get a much better LCD than you can buy now.

You may well be right there Mark. There were some stunning displays at the IBC in Amsterdam, but more notably, TONS of HD MPEG4 decoders for use with cable and satellite.

The picture quality truly blew me away - especially when they had these screens shoulder to shoulder with lots of different images being shown.

The new HD decoders apparently use no more bandwidth than current SD broadcasts - such is the compression ability. I honestly didn't see an artifact of compression on any of the screens I looked at, although its worth noting that they probably chose what they were diplaying very carefully!

HD really is just round the corner, and I must admit I'd like to be in on the ground floor with this one. Sure there won't be a huge amount of British programming at first, but there are lots of US programmes I imagine Sky will use to showcase the new boxes.

Always be suspicious of the material being used to demonstrate such things. I once saw a display at IBC where a company said they could fit 15 channels onto a single satellite transponder. This was displayed on a whole pile of monitors.

I was impressed that they were using football to demonstrate the compression... until I realised that it was in slow motion.

thanks for that people - i will certainly think about holding off for a while.

the problem i have with the assertion that sd and hd broadcasts take the same amount of space due to compression is that i come from a software development background and have studied lossless and lossy compression in some depth, and whilst it is possible to send high resolution video down a comparitively small amount of space, the savings have to come from somewhere. for instance, fewer key frames (so fast motion is blocky) and audio channels are cut or compressed even further. Some image compression technologies for instance send a much small image downstream and use interpollation to fill in the missing pieces. look at what happens to full size real media or windows media mp4 captures for an example.

it's simply not possible to deliver what they say. it's not a limit imposed by current hardware and software, but by the mathematics used to compose the stream.

Logic and experience tells me you are right, but I've seen it with my own eyes. Compared to what we have now it is jaw droppingly good.

Even allowing for the cautionary note Mark expressed, you will be impressed, I guarantee it.