Originally Posted by Paul Ripley
I personally prefer plasma's. but not one under £1000
it does suprise me how many people buy big screens and just plug in scarts/s-vid etc and sit a meter in front of it as say it looks shit
No point in having a screen over 40" if your not using at least component inputs and can't sit at least 2/3meters away from it IMO
Plus have a minimum a progessive scan DVD player aswell
SKY HD is the absolute bollocks but its very expensive and not a great deal to watch
x-box 360 is also very impressive
Remember these screens are more monitors then Televisons so will only display what you give them.. give them shit like scart s-video or composite then don't expect it to look good
You do realise that RGB scart is actually better than component inputs tho? Reason being that component only carries three signals, red, blue and green, with the sync element being embedded in the green and blue inputs.
Scart RGB carries rec blue and green seperately, but also carries the sync channel on a seperate pin aswell. The only difference is components ability to be able to provide prog scan. But like for like, scart RGB will provide a better picture than component.
Scart CvBS isn't all that, and is basically an S-Video signal over a scart conection, and IMO isn't a great signal provider.
Up untill the days of Sky, and later, Freeview, RGB scarts and S-Video weren't all that important, as your VCR, unless it's an expensive S-VHS model, was only ever a composite signal anyway (more akin to S-Vid for S-VHS players) and your standard analogue TV signals are all sent via RF, the lowest quality signal carrier you can get.
With the advent of digital TV, the signals are sent as data, so the box does the decoding, and a pure RGB picture can be transmitted. Likewise with DVD.
But DVD pictures are as standard encoded using the YUV colour set up (YUV is the same as YPrPb = component). Now, by the time the picture hits the TV screen, it will have been converted from YUV to RGB anyway (on a CRT at least)....