Toshiba 32KV500 32" LCD HD Ready TV FREEVIEW save 39% now only £214.99 delivered @ Ebuyer Outlet - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
cant see this posted already

Toshiba 32KV500 32" LCD HD Ready TV

With an attractive glossy black design and a range of useful features, the Toshiba 32KV500B is the perfect HD-Ready addition to your living room.
As well as a detailed 32-inch high resolution 720p HD Ready display, the Toshiba 32KV500B LCD television offers integrated Freeview, giving you access to dozens of free-to-air digital channels and digital radio stations.
The Toshiba 32KV500B comes with a PC input to allow it to double as a PC monitor, while USB connectivity also enables you to view photos, watch digitally stored movies and listen to music directly on your television.
You can watch movies on your 32KV500B LCD television just as the film-makers intended, with a 24p mode that shows films as you’d see them in the cinema, while two HDMI inputs allow you to plug in your Blu-ray player, games console, DVD player, camcorder or any other HDMI compatible device.

Specifications


24p Playback - 24p Playback shows 24 image frames per second for judder free images. Films are shot at this speed
Built-in Digital Tuner - Freeview, your TV has a built-in tuner , you can enjoy free digital TV programmes via your standard digital TV aerial, without the need for a separate set top box.
Child Lock - Enables you to put a security code into your television to restrict what your children watch
Composite Video Input - A connection to link TV's and DVD players
Contrast Ratio - 30,000:1 Contrast Ratio is the difference between the brightest whites and darkest blacks. A higher ratio, means a better range of colours.
Dolby Digital Plus - Dolby Digital audio technology ensures you experience premium sound, whatever content you watch.
Energy Star Approved - Energy Star is a symbol for energy efficiency, to save money and the environment with energy-efficient products.
EPG - EPG (Electronic Programme Guide) tells you what programmes are on each day, a brief description and allows you to set reminders.
HDMI Input - 2 HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) is a connection to transfer digital data from your equipment to your TV
Motion Pattern Noise Reduction - This feature detects moving images and adjusts the picture to eliminate noise, giving you a cleaner, sharper picture.
Scart Sockets - 1 A Scart lead is used to connect a television to analogue audiovisual equipment. As HD popularity continues to grow, HDMI cables are rapidly replacing Scart connections
Off Timer - Allows you set a time for your TV to automatically turn off.
PC Input - With a PC input you can connect your PC or laptop to your TV with a VGA cable.
Picture Overscan - This function stretches the image to ensure the picture covers the entire screen.
HD Ready 720p HD Ready TVs have images made up of 720 lines, giving much better quality than TVs of old which only had 480 lines.
Rated Power Consumption - 150W The maximum continuous power that your TV handle.
Refresh Rate - 50Hz Measured in Hertz, the frequency of which the image on screen is refreshed.
Response Speed - 8ms The lower the speed in milliseconds, the better the response rate and the sharper the image.
Screen Aspect - 16 : 9 Widescreen This describes your screen shape as a ratio of width to height
Screen size - 32 inch Screen size is measured in inches, diagonally from corner to corner.
Speaker System - Stereo This feature describes the speaker configuration for each TV.
Standby Power Consumption - 1W The amount of power the TV uses when left on standby mode.
Swivel Angle - ±15° The degree to which you can adjust the viewing angle of your TV.
Television Type - LCD
USB Port - 1 USB port allows selected media to be enjoyed on a TV from a USB source, for example viewing photos stored on a USB memory stick.
Video Noise Reduction - This feature ensures a smooth and polished image when watching television.
Wall Mountable - This television is suitable to be displayed on a wall using a wall mount.
What’s in the box


Toshiba 32KV500 Television, Stand, Remote Control, Manufacturer Manual
More From eBay:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
gemwood Avatar
banned5y, 9m agoFound 5 years, 9 months ago
Options

All Comments

(28) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Display
HDTV Yes
Screen 32in
Resolution (Native) 1366 x 768 Pixels
Aspect Ratio 16:9
Brightness 450cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 30,000:1 (Dynamic)
Response time 8ms
Viewing Angle 178° (Horizontal - Max) x 178° (Vertical - Max)

TV Tuner
Tuners Supplied 1 x Analogue • 1 x Freeview Digital

Sound
Audio Capabilities Nicam Stereo

Interfaces/Ports
HDMI Ports 2 x HDMI
SCART Ports 1 x SCART
Video Component In 1 x Component
Video Composite In 1 x Composite
S-Video in 1 x S-Video
Headphone Ports 1 x Headphone Port
Audio Line Out Ports 1 x Digital Audio Out
USB Ports 1 x USB

Electrical
Voltage/Frequency 50Hz
Power Consumption Operating/Standby/Sleep Modes 150W (Max) / 1W (Saving)

Physical
Case Colour Black
Security Locking Mechanics Panel Lock
Dimensions 78.7cm (W) x 18.7cm (D) x 55.6cm (H) - Weight 12.3kg
banned#2
opps. thank you :)
#3
sorry for being a bit negative. A bit useless if will be needed to be used with a computer. I think there is plenty 1080p in the market for few teners more
#4
bobo53
sorry for being a bit negative. A bit useless if will be needed to be used with a computer. I think there is plenty 1080p in the market for few teners more


at the price tis a bargain for a spare room telly, no?
3 Likes #5
bobo53
sorry for being a bit negative. A bit useless if will be needed to be used with a computer. I think there is plenty 1080p in the market for few teners more
A member of the infamous '1080p crew' have to post on every HD ready TV thread.
What percentage of the population do you think use their TV's as monitors? I'd say it's extremely low, and not even worth mentioning.

In addition, most SD content looks better on 720p TV's (except maybe on the very latest TV's where upscaling to 1080p has been improved a fair bit), while at this size and a regular viewing distance 1080p would be pointless even for full HD content (unless you sit closer than 4 feet from the TV, and that's hardly advisable).



Edited By: jukkie on Feb 17, 2011 13:02
#6
for a 32" telly it's a cracking price.
#8

For another 20% of the price...
#9
What? You can get a better TV for over £50 (24% of this unit) more?
If you'd not mentioned it I'd never have known spending more money may get me a better product...

EDIT: Haha, Jim beat me to the point.

Oh, and for the record, Freeview HD isn't worth the extra money (especially on a 32" TV).
As for Lovefilm, if a movie isn't worth owning, there's cheaper ways to watch them (_;).

Edited By: jukkie on Feb 17, 2011 13:18
#10
Has anyone got this TV?

There have been a few deals featuring this model, though this is the cheapest to date I think, but I would like to know if its any good - reviews are ok, but personal feedback is better. IE, is the picture good, is the sound good, does it have good contrast etc.

It looks a good deal.........
#11
This looks like my girlfriends grandparents TV, they paid £300 for these. This is a steal at this price :)

If it is the same TV the contrast levels are pretty good, i'd say as good as the Sony 401 series
#12
jukkie
bobo53
sorry for being a bit negative. A bit useless if will be needed to be used with a computer. I think there is plenty 1080p in the market for few teners more
A member of the infamous '1080p crew' have to post on every HD ready TV thread.What percentage of the population do you think use their TV's as monitors? I'd say it's extremely low, and not even worth mentioning.In addition, most SD content looks better on 720p TV's (except maybe on the very latest TV's where upscaling to 1080p has been improved a fair bit), while at this size and a regular viewing distance 1080p would be pointless even for full HD content (unless you sit closer than 4 feet from the TV, and that's hardly advisable).

Here you go again with regular viewing distance nonsesne. Why can't you just accept that people who don't use their TV's as monitors also view them up close Your just as worse as the person you were quoting.
#13
jukkie
What? You can get a better TV for over £50 (24% of this unit) more?If you'd not mentioned it I'd never have known spending more money may get me a better product...EDIT: Haha, Jim beat me to the point.Oh, and for the record, Freeview HD isn't worth the extra money (especially on a 32" TV).As for Lovefilm, if a movie isn't worth owning, there's cheaper ways to watch them (_;).

What has the size of the TV got to do with freeview HD being worth the money? You are talking nonsense.
#14
shawty1984
jukkie
bobo53
sorry for being a bit negative. A bit useless if will be needed to be used with a computer. I think there is plenty 1080p in the market for few teners more
A member of the infamous '1080p crew' have to post on every HD ready TV thread.What percentage of the population do you think use their TV's as monitors? I'd say it's extremely low, and not even worth mentioning.In addition, most SD content looks better on 720p TV's (except maybe on the very latest TV's where upscaling to 1080p has been improved a fair bit), while at this size and a regular viewing distance 1080p would be pointless even for full HD content (unless you sit closer than 4 feet from the TV, and that's hardly advisable).
Here you go again with regular viewing distance nonsesne. Why can't you just accept that people who don't use their TV's as monitors also view them up close Your just as worse as the person you were quoting.
Regular/optimum viewing distances aren't 'nonsense', go look it up for yourself, as you clearly couldn't grasp the concept the last time I explained it (I even posted a link to an AV site explaining it...).
Like I said last time, if someone needs to sit less than 4 feet away from a 32" TV, I'd suggest they invest in some specs before shelling out for a new TV, as they must have serious problems with their sight.

If I sit that close to a 32" TV, not only would the viewing angles of the far left/right hand sides of the screen be way off, but I'd also be close enough to notice pixelation, even at HD resolutions.

shawty1984
What has the size of the TV got to do with freeview HD being worth the money? You are talking nonsense.
Go find a decent 32" TV with Freeview HD. Switch between the SD and HD channels, then come back and tell me it's worth the extra £50.
On a larger TV's, the difference is much more noticable due to the increase of pixel size. At 32", it's simply not worth the premium for only 4 channels that will look only a little better than their SD counterparts (and seeing as the people even considering buying this budget TV are trying to save money, it's very likely they'll agree with me).

Anyone that just 'must have' Freeview HD on their 32" TV are also likely to demand 100Hz+, LED back/edge lighting, DLNA, etc, etc, so they wouldn't even bother looking at this model in the first place.

Common sense, that's all it takes.






Edited By: jukkie on Feb 17, 2011 16:22: .
#15
Cracking price - I paid £275 for a similar spec Sony TV, I'd have had this one if it had been about at the time
#16
bargain. ordered
1 Like #17
jukkie
shawty1984
jukkie
bobo53
sorry for being a bit negative. A bit useless if will be needed to be used with a computer. I think there is plenty 1080p in the market for few teners more
A member of the infamous '1080p crew' have to post on every HD ready TV thread.What percentage of the population do you think use their TV's as monitors? I'd say it's extremely low, and not even worth mentioning.In addition, most SD content looks better on 720p TV's (except maybe on the very latest TV's where upscaling to 1080p has been improved a fair bit), while at this size and a regular viewing distance 1080p would be pointless even for full HD content (unless you sit closer than 4 feet from the TV, and that's hardly advisable).
Here you go again with regular viewing distance nonsesne. Why can't you just accept that people who don't use their TV's as monitors also view them up close Your just as worse as the person you were quoting.
Regular viewing distances aren't 'nonsense', go look it up for yourself, as you clearly couldn't grasp the concept the last time I explained it (I even posted a link to an AV site explaining it...).
shawty1984
What has the size of the TV got to do with freeview HD being worth the money? You are talking nonsense.
Go find a decent 32" TV with Freeview HD. Switch between the SD and HD channels, then come back and tell me it's worth the extra £50.On a larger TV's, the difference is much more noticable due to the increase of pixel size. At 32", it's simply not worth the premium for only 4 channels that will look only a little better than their SD counterparts (and seeing as the people even considering buying this budget TV are trying to save money, it's very likely they'll agree with me).Anyone that just 'must have' Freeview HD on their 32" TV are also likely to demand 100Hz+, LED back/edge lighting, DLNA, etc, etc, so they wouldn't even bother looking at this model in the first place.Common sense, that's all it takes mate.

They are nonsense. All you have done here is change average to regular. They are both nonsense statements on this subject. What is average/regular to you might be different to me. You don't know what size rooms people are viewing in so quite clearly they are nonsense.


Utter nonsense. The difference will be the same on both TV's if both are viewed from the correct distance (and all other varibles are the same). It really is funny that you think there will be little difference between 1080i HD channels and 576p SD channels on a small screen, yet think it would be better on a larger screen. You really are laughable and quite clearly from this topic and others, do not know what you are talking about, but I knew that when you started throwing around the average viewing distances on other topics.

You said Freeview HD isn't worth the extra money on this size TV. Regardless of what people are after, it doesn't really matter, everyone is different and want different things from their TV. The extra money spent on freeview HD matters to the person buying it if they want Freeview HD and has nothing to do with screen size being large or small. You are just spouting things that you think are true.

While on this subject, you may want to answer why my Virgin Media HD channels look much better than the SD channels on a 24" screen? As you quite clearly you seem to think smaller screens do not benefit HD as good as bigger screens.
#18
shawty1984
jukkie
shawty1984
jukkie
bobo53
sorry for being a bit negative. A bit useless if will be needed to be used with a computer. I think there is plenty 1080p in the market for few teners more
A member of the infamous '1080p crew' have to post on every HD ready TV thread.What percentage of the population do you think use their TV's as monitors? I'd say it's extremely low, and not even worth mentioning.In addition, most SD content looks better on 720p TV's (except maybe on the very latest TV's where upscaling to 1080p has been improved a fair bit), while at this size and a regular viewing distance 1080p would be pointless even for full HD content (unless you sit closer than 4 feet from the TV, and that's hardly advisable).
Here you go again with regular viewing distance nonsesne. Why can't you just accept that people who don't use their TV's as monitors also view them up close Your just as worse as the person you were quoting.
Regular viewing distances aren't 'nonsense', go look it up for yourself, as you clearly couldn't grasp the concept the last time I explained it (I even posted a link to an AV site explaining it...).
shawty1984
What has the size of the TV got to do with freeview HD being worth the money? You are talking nonsense.
Go find a decent 32" TV with Freeview HD. Switch between the SD and HD channels, then come back and tell me it's worth the extra £50.On a larger TV's, the difference is much more noticable due to the increase of pixel size. At 32", it's simply not worth the premium for only 4 channels that will look only a little better than their SD counterparts (and seeing as the people even considering buying this budget TV are trying to save money, it's very likely they'll agree with me).Anyone that just 'must have' Freeview HD on their 32" TV are also likely to demand 100Hz+, LED back/edge lighting, DLNA, etc, etc, so they wouldn't even bother looking at this model in the first place.Common sense, that's all it takes mate.
They are nonsense. All you have done here is change average to regular. They are both nonsense statements on this subject. What is average/regular to you might be different to me. You don't know what size rooms people are viewing in so quite clearly they are nonsense.Utter nonsense. The difference will be the same on both TV's if both are viewed from the correct distance (and all other varibles are the same). It really is funny that you think there will be little difference between 1080i HD channels and 576p SD channels on a small screen, yet think it would be better on a larger screen. You really are laughable and quite clearly from this topic and others, do not know what you are talking about, but I knew that when you started throwing around the average viewing distances on other topics.You said Freeview HD isn't worth the extra money on this size TV. Regardless of what people are after, it doesn't really matter, everyone is different and want different things from their TV. The extra money spent on freeview HD matters to the person buying it if they want Freeview HD and has nothing to do with screen size being large or small. You are just spouting things that you think are true.While on this subject, you may want to answer why my Virgin Media HD channels look much better than the SD channels on a 24" screen? As you quite clearly you seem to think smaller screens do not benefit HD as good as bigger screens.
The size of peoples rooms SHOULD determine what size TV they should buy (I say 'should', because some people think otherwise, and in doing so suffer a lower quality viewing experience than those in the know). I'm guessing you're one of these people that buys a huge TV for a small room, simply because you can.
Anyone who knows what they are doing carefully considers what their viewing distance would be, then works out which size TV would be most suitable.
That's where optimal viewing distances for each size screen come in.

Now, as to why the difference between 1080i and 576p channels are less noticable on a smaller screen.
When upscaling SD channels to 720p on a 32" TV, the flaws in the technology are much less visible. The bigger the screen gets, the more likely you are to notice flaws in the scaling (I did point out earlier they the newest good quality TV's handle upscaling better).

Also remember, this discussion started because someone said the other TV was better value because it has a HD tuner. So in both cases, the TV would be doing all the upscaling. So bringing Virgin Media HD channels into this argument is pointless, because the HD box does the upscaling and feeds the TV at whatever resolution you choose. And the VMHD box does a fairly decent job of upscaling SD channels (I know, I also have it).

As for why your Virgin media HD channels look better than SD channels on your 24" screen, it's probably because you have your nose pressed to the panel.
As you've already shown, you have no idea of the best distance to watch your TV from (in fact, you don't even believe their is an optimal viewing distance for each size of TV, which is funny in itself).

Now, do yourself a favour and get down to Betterspecs, I fear the reason your don't seem to grasp these concepts is the same reason you sit too close to your TV... you can't see a thing I'm saying :-)


Edited By: jukkie on Feb 17, 2011 17:05: .
#19
jukkie
shawty1984
jukkie
shawty1984
jukkie
bobo53
sorry for being a bit negative. A bit useless if will be needed to be used with a computer. I think there is plenty 1080p in the market for few teners more
A member of the infamous '1080p crew' have to post on every HD ready TV thread.What percentage of the population do you think use their TV's as monitors? I'd say it's extremely low, and not even worth mentioning.In addition, most SD content looks better on 720p TV's (except maybe on the very latest TV's where upscaling to 1080p has been improved a fair bit), while at this size and a regular viewing distance 1080p would be pointless even for full HD content (unless you sit closer than 4 feet from the TV, and that's hardly advisable).
Here you go again with regular viewing distance nonsesne. Why can't you just accept that people who don't use their TV's as monitors also view them up close Your just as worse as the person you were quoting.
Regular viewing distances aren't 'nonsense', go look it up for yourself, as you clearly couldn't grasp the concept the last time I explained it (I even posted a link to an AV site explaining it...).
shawty1984
What has the size of the TV got to do with freeview HD being worth the money? You are talking nonsense.
Go find a decent 32" TV with Freeview HD. Switch between the SD and HD channels, then come back and tell me it's worth the extra £50.On a larger TV's, the difference is much more noticable due to the increase of pixel size. At 32", it's simply not worth the premium for only 4 channels that will look only a little better than their SD counterparts (and seeing as the people even considering buying this budget TV are trying to save money, it's very likely they'll agree with me).Anyone that just 'must have' Freeview HD on their 32" TV are also likely to demand 100Hz+, LED back/edge lighting, DLNA, etc, etc, so they wouldn't even bother looking at this model in the first place.Common sense, that's all it takes mate.
They are nonsense. All you have done here is change average to regular. They are both nonsense statements on this subject. What is average/regular to you might be different to me. You don't know what size rooms people are viewing in so quite clearly they are nonsense.Utter nonsense. The difference will be the same on both TV's if both are viewed from the correct distance (and all other varibles are the same). It really is funny that you think there will be little difference between 1080i HD channels and 576p SD channels on a small screen, yet think it would be better on a larger screen. You really are laughable and quite clearly from this topic and others, do not know what you are talking about, but I knew that when you started throwing around the average viewing distances on other topics.You said Freeview HD isn't worth the extra money on this size TV. Regardless of what people are after, it doesn't really matter, everyone is different and want different things from their TV. The extra money spent on freeview HD matters to the person buying it if they want Freeview HD and has nothing to do with screen size being large or small. You are just spouting things that you think are true.While on this subject, you may want to answer why my Virgin Media HD channels look much better than the SD channels on a 24" screen? As you quite clearly you seem to think smaller screens do not benefit HD as good as bigger screens.
The size of peoples rooms would determine what size TV they should buy. I'm guessing you're one of these people that buys a huge TV for a small room, simply because you can.Anyone who knows what they are doing carefully considers what their viewing distance would be, then working out which size TV would be most suitable.That's where optimal viewing distances for each size screen come in.As for why your Virgin media HD channels look better than SD channels on your 24" screen, that would be because your 24" screen poorly upscales the SD channels to the screens native resolution.Some screens can upscale very well, and some can not.Now, do yourself a favour and get down to Betterspecs, I fear the reason your don't seem to grasp these concepts is the same reason you sit too close to your TV... you can't see a thing I'm saying :-)

Again, you don't know what you are talking about and you have guessed wrong. I don't know where you picked that up from anywhere in my posts.

The viewing distance needed from a 32" screen for 1080p is 4-5ft to be able to view 1080p at it's best. It has nothing to do with needing glasses, again which shows how little you know on the subject. 32" is perfectly acceptable in a small bedroom (aslong as the viewing distance is correct) To CORRECTLY buy a TV, you buy a TV which relates to what distance you are viewing at and what resolution the screen is, NOT what will fit in your room. Yes I know you mention this, but you also mention on buying a TV that fits the room, which is incorrect. That is what you need to do to be able to get the best from your TV. And if people need to sit 4-5ft from their 32" screen to be able to notice the difference, then so be it, it has nothing to do with needing glasses.

No, that would be because the HD channels are 1080i and the SD channels are 576p. There is a huge difference between said resolutions, even on small screens. It has nothing to do with the upscaling as such and everything to do with the fact the HD channels provide much more detail over SD channels. Also stated for fact is that the V+ box is upscales SD content extremly well, so the TV being a poor upscaler does clearly not work in this instance. You obviously do not know what you are talking about and just try to make things up as you go along.
#20
shawty1984
jukkie
shawty1984
jukkie
shawty1984
jukkie
bobo53
sorry for being a bit negative. A bit useless if will be needed to be used with a computer. I think there is plenty 1080p in the market for few teners more
A member of the infamous '1080p crew' have to post on every HD ready TV thread.What percentage of the population do you think use their TV's as monitors? I'd say it's extremely low, and not even worth mentioning.In addition, most SD content looks better on 720p TV's (except maybe on the very latest TV's where upscaling to 1080p has been improved a fair bit), while at this size and a regular viewing distance 1080p would be pointless even for full HD content (unless you sit closer than 4 feet from the TV, and that's hardly advisable).
Here you go again with regular viewing distance nonsesne. Why can't you just accept that people who don't use their TV's as monitors also view them up close Your just as worse as the person you were quoting.
Regular viewing distances aren't 'nonsense', go look it up for yourself, as you clearly couldn't grasp the concept the last time I explained it (I even posted a link to an AV site explaining it...).
shawty1984
What has the size of the TV got to do with freeview HD being worth the money? You are talking nonsense.
Go find a decent 32" TV with Freeview HD. Switch between the SD and HD channels, then come back and tell me it's worth the extra £50.On a larger TV's, the difference is much more noticable due to the increase of pixel size. At 32", it's simply not worth the premium for only 4 channels that will look only a little better than their SD counterparts (and seeing as the people even considering buying this budget TV are trying to save money, it's very likely they'll agree with me).Anyone that just 'must have' Freeview HD on their 32" TV are also likely to demand 100Hz+, LED back/edge lighting, DLNA, etc, etc, so they wouldn't even bother looking at this model in the first place.Common sense, that's all it takes mate.
They are nonsense. All you have done here is change average to regular. They are both nonsense statements on this subject. What is average/regular to you might be different to me. You don't know what size rooms people are viewing in so quite clearly they are nonsense.Utter nonsense. The difference will be the same on both TV's if both are viewed from the correct distance (and all other varibles are the same). It really is funny that you think there will be little difference between 1080i HD channels and 576p SD channels on a small screen, yet think it would be better on a larger screen. You really are laughable and quite clearly from this topic and others, do not know what you are talking about, but I knew that when you started throwing around the average viewing distances on other topics.You said Freeview HD isn't worth the extra money on this size TV. Regardless of what people are after, it doesn't really matter, everyone is different and want different things from their TV. The extra money spent on freeview HD matters to the person buying it if they want Freeview HD and has nothing to do with screen size being large or small. You are just spouting things that you think are true.While on this subject, you may want to answer why my Virgin Media HD channels look much better than the SD channels on a 24" screen? As you quite clearly you seem to think smaller screens do not benefit HD as good as bigger screens.
The size of peoples rooms would determine what size TV they should buy. I'm guessing you're one of these people that buys a huge TV for a small room, simply because you can.Anyone who knows what they are doing carefully considers what their viewing distance would be, then working out which size TV would be most suitable.That's where optimal viewing distances for each size screen come in.As for why your Virgin media HD channels look better than SD channels on your 24" screen, that would be because your 24" screen poorly upscales the SD channels to the screens native resolution.Some screens can upscale very well, and some can not.Now, do yourself a favour and get down to Betterspecs, I fear the reason your don't seem to grasp these concepts is the same reason you sit too close to your TV... you can't see a thing I'm saying :-)
Again, you don't know what you are talking about and you have guessed wrong. I don't know where you picked that up from anywhere in my posts.The viewing distance needed from a 32" screen for 1080p is 4-5ft to be able to view 1080p at it's best. It has nothing to do with needing glasses, again which shows how little you know on the subject. 32" is perfectly acceptable in a small bedroom (aslong as the viewing distance is correct) To CORRECTLY buy a TV, you buy a TV which relates to what distance you are viewing at and what resolution the screen is, NOT what will fit in your room. Yes I know you mention this, but you also mention on buying a TV that fits the room, which is incorrect. That is what you need to do to be able to get the best from your TV. And if people need to sit 4-5ft from their 32" screen to be able to notice the difference, then so be it, it has nothing to do with needing glasses.No, that would be because the HD channels are 1080i and the SD channels are 576p. There is a huge difference between said resolutions, even on small screens. It has nothing to do with the upscaling as such and everything to do with the fact the HD channels provide much more detail over SD channels. Also stated for fact is that the V+ box is upscales SD content extremly well, so the TV being a poor upscaler does clearly not work in this instance. You obviously do not know what you are talking about and just try to make things up as you go along.
I didn't say people should buy a TV to fit their room, I said people can determine what their viewing distance would be in a room, i.e. they would know where they want to put the TV, and where they would be viewing the TV from. Thus, knowing what their veiwing distance would be.
It's not like I'd know where people are going to put their TV's and their sofa's, no matter what the room size. That would be pretty silly (re-reading my post, I can see where I worded it incorrectly).

Also, you have quoted an incorrect comment I made about your 24" screen, you typed your response while I corrected my mistake.


Edited By: jukkie on Feb 17, 2011 17:24: .
#21
jukkie
shawty1984
jukkie
shawty1984
jukkie
shawty1984
jukkie
bobo53
sorry for being a bit negative. A bit useless if will be needed to be used with a computer. I think there is plenty 1080p in the market for few teners more
A member of the infamous '1080p crew' have to post on every HD ready TV thread.What percentage of the population do you think use their TV's as monitors? I'd say it's extremely low, and not even worth mentioning.In addition, most SD content looks better on 720p TV's (except maybe on the very latest TV's where upscaling to 1080p has been improved a fair bit), while at this size and a regular viewing distance 1080p would be pointless even for full HD content (unless you sit closer than 4 feet from the TV, and that's hardly advisable).
Here you go again with regular viewing distance nonsesne. Why can't you just accept that people who don't use their TV's as monitors also view them up close Your just as worse as the person you were quoting.
Regular viewing distances aren't 'nonsense', go look it up for yourself, as you clearly couldn't grasp the concept the last time I explained it (I even posted a link to an AV site explaining it...).
shawty1984
What has the size of the TV got to do with freeview HD being worth the money? You are talking nonsense.
Go find a decent 32" TV with Freeview HD. Switch between the SD and HD channels, then come back and tell me it's worth the extra £50.On a larger TV's, the difference is much more noticable due to the increase of pixel size. At 32", it's simply not worth the premium for only 4 channels that will look only a little better than their SD counterparts (and seeing as the people even considering buying this budget TV are trying to save money, it's very likely they'll agree with me).Anyone that just 'must have' Freeview HD on their 32" TV are also likely to demand 100Hz+, LED back/edge lighting, DLNA, etc, etc, so they wouldn't even bother looking at this model in the first place.Common sense, that's all it takes mate.
They are nonsense. All you have done here is change average to regular. They are both nonsense statements on this subject. What is average/regular to you might be different to me. You don't know what size rooms people are viewing in so quite clearly they are nonsense.Utter nonsense. The difference will be the same on both TV's if both are viewed from the correct distance (and all other varibles are the same). It really is funny that you think there will be little difference between 1080i HD channels and 576p SD channels on a small screen, yet think it would be better on a larger screen. You really are laughable and quite clearly from this topic and others, do not know what you are talking about, but I knew that when you started throwing around the average viewing distances on other topics.You said Freeview HD isn't worth the extra money on this size TV. Regardless of what people are after, it doesn't really matter, everyone is different and want different things from their TV. The extra money spent on freeview HD matters to the person buying it if they want Freeview HD and has nothing to do with screen size being large or small. You are just spouting things that you think are true.While on this subject, you may want to answer why my Virgin Media HD channels look much better than the SD channels on a 24" screen? As you quite clearly you seem to think smaller screens do not benefit HD as good as bigger screens.
The size of peoples rooms would determine what size TV they should buy. I'm guessing you're one of these people that buys a huge TV for a small room, simply because you can.Anyone who knows what they are doing carefully considers what their viewing distance would be, then working out which size TV would be most suitable.That's where optimal viewing distances for each size screen come in.As for why your Virgin media HD channels look better than SD channels on your 24" screen, that would be because your 24" screen poorly upscales the SD channels to the screens native resolution.Some screens can upscale very well, and some can not.Now, do yourself a favour and get down to Betterspecs, I fear the reason your don't seem to grasp these concepts is the same reason you sit too close to your TV... you can't see a thing I'm saying :-)
Again, you don't know what you are talking about and you have guessed wrong. I don't know where you picked that up from anywhere in my posts.The viewing distance needed from a 32" screen for 1080p is 4-5ft to be able to view 1080p at it's best. It has nothing to do with needing glasses, again which shows how little you know on the subject. 32" is perfectly acceptable in a small bedroom (aslong as the viewing distance is correct) To CORRECTLY buy a TV, you buy a TV which relates to what distance you are viewing at and what resolution the screen is, NOT what will fit in your room. Yes I know you mention this, but you also mention on buying a TV that fits the room, which is incorrect. That is what you need to do to be able to get the best from your TV. And if people need to sit 4-5ft from their 32" screen to be able to notice the difference, then so be it, it has nothing to do with needing glasses.No, that would be because the HD channels are 1080i and the SD channels are 576p. There is a huge difference between said resolutions, even on small screens. It has nothing to do with the upscaling as such and everything to do with the fact the HD channels provide much more detail over SD channels. Also stated for fact is that the V+ box is upscales SD content extremly well, so the TV being a poor upscaler does clearly not work in this instance. You obviously do not know what you are talking about and just try to make things up as you go along.
I didn't say people should buy a TV to fit their room, I said people can determine what their viewing distance would be in a room, i.e. they would know where they want to put the TV, and where they would be viewing the TV from. Thus, knowing what their veiwing distance would be.It's not like I'd know where the hell people are going to put their TV's and their sofa's, no matter what the room size. That would be pretty silly... and I said nothing like that.The only time I mentioned a room is when I said you were one of these people that buy a huge TV for a small room. Obviously meaning you'd not be sitting very far away from a very large screen.Like I said, off to betterspecs you go.

To quote you - "The size of peoples rooms would determine what size TV they should buy."

Wrong, that is not how you correctly buy a TV. You also did say that which can be seen in the quote above. Do you have any knowledge on this subject at all? Or are you just making things up as you go along? Quite clearly it is the second answer as you can't even remember what you have written.

Yet all you can do is be silly and mention about needing glasses, when if you had knowledge on the subject, you would know it had nothing to do with needing glasses.
#22
Is the TV half decent? - probably
Is the TV a decent brand? - yes
Is the TV a good or excellent price? - yes
Is this a Hot or Cold deal? - select as appropriate.

There, no need for lenghty clap trap and one upmanship.

Edited By: spannerzone on Feb 17, 2011 17:28
#23
jukkie
shawty1984
jukkie
shawty1984
jukkie
shawty1984
jukkie
bobo53
sorry for being a bit negative. A bit useless if will be needed to be used with a computer. I think there is plenty 1080p in the market for few teners more
A member of the infamous '1080p crew' have to post on every HD ready TV thread.What percentage of the population do you think use their TV's as monitors? I'd say it's extremely low, and not even worth mentioning.In addition, most SD content looks better on 720p TV's (except maybe on the very latest TV's where upscaling to 1080p has been improved a fair bit), while at this size and a regular viewing distance 1080p would be pointless even for full HD content (unless you sit closer than 4 feet from the TV, and that's hardly advisable).
Here you go again with regular viewing distance nonsesne. Why can't you just accept that people who don't use their TV's as monitors also view them up close Your just as worse as the person you were quoting.
Regular viewing distances aren't 'nonsense', go look it up for yourself, as you clearly couldn't grasp the concept the last time I explained it (I even posted a link to an AV site explaining it...).
shawty1984
What has the size of the TV got to do with freeview HD being worth the money? You are talking nonsense.
Go find a decent 32" TV with Freeview HD. Switch between the SD and HD channels, then come back and tell me it's worth the extra £50.On a larger TV's, the difference is much more noticable due to the increase of pixel size. At 32", it's simply not worth the premium for only 4 channels that will look only a little better than their SD counterparts (and seeing as the people even considering buying this budget TV are trying to save money, it's very likely they'll agree with me).Anyone that just 'must have' Freeview HD on their 32" TV are also likely to demand 100Hz+, LED back/edge lighting, DLNA, etc, etc, so they wouldn't even bother looking at this model in the first place.Common sense, that's all it takes mate.
They are nonsense. All you have done here is change average to regular. They are both nonsense statements on this subject. What is average/regular to you might be different to me. You don't know what size rooms people are viewing in so quite clearly they are nonsense.Utter nonsense. The difference will be the same on both TV's if both are viewed from the correct distance (and all other varibles are the same). It really is funny that you think there will be little difference between 1080i HD channels and 576p SD channels on a small screen, yet think it would be better on a larger screen. You really are laughable and quite clearly from this topic and others, do not know what you are talking about, but I knew that when you started throwing around the average viewing distances on other topics.You said Freeview HD isn't worth the extra money on this size TV. Regardless of what people are after, it doesn't really matter, everyone is different and want different things from their TV. The extra money spent on freeview HD matters to the person buying it if they want Freeview HD and has nothing to do with screen size being large or small. You are just spouting things that you think are true.While on this subject, you may want to answer why my Virgin Media HD channels look much better than the SD channels on a 24" screen? As you quite clearly you seem to think smaller screens do not benefit HD as good as bigger screens.
The size of peoples rooms would determine what size TV they should buy. I'm guessing you're one of these people that buys a huge TV for a small room, simply because you can.Anyone who knows what they are doing carefully considers what their viewing distance would be, then working out which size TV would be most suitable.That's where optimal viewing distances for each size screen come in.As for why your Virgin media HD channels look better than SD channels on your 24" screen, that would be because your 24" screen poorly upscales the SD channels to the screens native resolution.Some screens can upscale very well, and some can not.Now, do yourself a favour and get down to Betterspecs, I fear the reason your don't seem to grasp these concepts is the same reason you sit too close to your TV... you can't see a thing I'm saying :-)
Again, you don't know what you are talking about and you have guessed wrong. I don't know where you picked that up from anywhere in my posts.The viewing distance needed from a 32" screen for 1080p is 4-5ft to be able to view 1080p at it's best. It has nothing to do with needing glasses, again which shows how little you know on the subject. 32" is perfectly acceptable in a small bedroom (aslong as the viewing distance is correct) To CORRECTLY buy a TV, you buy a TV which relates to what distance you are viewing at and what resolution the screen is, NOT what will fit in your room. Yes I know you mention this, but you also mention on buying a TV that fits the room, which is incorrect. That is what you need to do to be able to get the best from your TV. And if people need to sit 4-5ft from their 32" screen to be able to notice the difference, then so be it, it has nothing to do with needing glasses.No, that would be because the HD channels are 1080i and the SD channels are 576p. There is a huge difference between said resolutions, even on small screens. It has nothing to do with the upscaling as such and everything to do with the fact the HD channels provide much more detail over SD channels. Also stated for fact is that the V+ box is upscales SD content extremly well, so the TV being a poor upscaler does clearly not work in this instance. You obviously do not know what you are talking about and just try to make things up as you go along.
I didn't say people should buy a TV to fit their room, I said people can determine what their viewing distance would be in a room, i.e. they would know where they want to put the TV, and where they would be viewing the TV from. Thus, knowing what their veiwing distance would be.It's not like I'd know where people are going to put their TV's and their sofa's, no matter what the room size. That would be pretty silly (re-reading my post, I can see where I worded it incorrectly).Also, you have quoted an incorrect comment I made about your 24" screen, you typed your response while I corrected my mistake.

If you would stop edditing your posts and adding totally new paragraphs in, then maybe I wouldn't be quoting incorrect quotes. Thats about four times you have done it now. Which further goes to show you do now know what you are talking about.
banned 1 Like #24
YAWN at these pointless replies.

Don't any of you have jobs? Or wives? It's a tv, a good deal and it's cheap. Get a grip.

Great deal OP.
1 Like #25
What a load of nonsense, can you both agree to disagree and leave others to post comments about the TV here....
Great deal op, well spotted good price from a quality brand
#26
jukkie
bobo53
sorry for being a bit negative. A bit useless if will be needed to be used with a computer. I think there is plenty 1080p in the market for few teners more
A member of the infamous '1080p crew' have to post on every HD ready TV thread.What percentage of the population do you think use their TV's as monitors? I'd say it's extremely low, and not even worth mentioning.In addition, most SD content looks better on 720p TV's (except maybe on the very latest TV's where upscaling to 1080p has been improved a fair bit), while at this size and a regular viewing distance 1080p would be pointless even for full HD content (unless you sit closer than 4 feet from the TV, and that's hardly advisable).

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the evidence you've seen which demonstrates a correlation between the ability of a set to upscale and the resolution of the panel. Aside from that I'm a little unsure why the assertion that SD content looks better on a 720p set is of relevance to a WXGA set such as this.

Also what is a "regular viewing" distance? This is a term (along with average) which is often used to justify arguments on threads such as these without ever quantifying what it actually means or is based on.

The only defined advice I've ever read on viewing distances/screen size has been that provided by THX. Infact it is because of that advice that 1080p became the minimum target resolution for enthusiasts. This was based on the assumption that the majority of the population has 20/20 vision (20/20 is defined as normal by a popular visual acuity test, but that doesn't mean there is a weight of statistical analysis behind this) and our brain cannot resolve any further detail from our scanning stereoscopic vision. Ironically this analysis has been diluted further and is now used to argue against the need for 1080p on certain screen sizes.

In any case the pertinant facts as I see them are:

1) There is no video material with a native resolution of WXGA (except some games which can render at various res). Therefore this panel will need to scale all material it displays
2) If you are interested in the THX viewing distances and agree with their analysis of your visual acuity, you should aim for a 1080p panel.
3) There are several other factors which will affect your perception of the quality of the image displayed by a TV. Some are subjective. Therefore its best to demo if possible.
4) I don't believe you can purchase a mainstream branded 1080p set for this price at present.

Yes I am one of those "few" people who retires my panels to monitor use when I upgrade. I also have a HDMI matrix and so like to minimize the possibility of EDID issues by standardizing to 1080p panels.

But I also find the price difference small enough these days to simply stick to 1080p panels and allow my eyes to resolve what they can. Obviously if anyone feels differently thats their perogative, but theres certainly no need for vitriol or deriding others choices based on half facts, as both sides of this argument appear to enjoy.

P.S. Voted hot as I think its a good price for a mainstream branded 32" TV. Every deal seems to creep closer to breaking the £200 barrier :0


Edited By: Mentos on Feb 18, 2011 00:36: .
2 Likes #27
Good grief- get a room you two. Good price, good find lets not chunt on for 3 pages in "intellectual" debate
#28
Look, just get them out, see who's bigger and be done with it.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!