Hrm, they've not bothered to tell me they've got one set up!

As I've mentioned many times, Sky HD on my old MKI panel is still, in my and many other people's opinion, outstanding. Certain programmes on BBC HD are stunning and seem without flaws. Yes, the panel could be brighter and the contrast improved, but the quality is represented well.

I'd be interested in comparing standard Freeview on a MKIII compared to a HD signal on the MKII - as I've said before, the 'quality' of the panel is reflected in the source.

Simon, if the MKII has swept you off your feet, I'd say your expectations can't be exceeded. In all fairness, you might find that you only see a 10% improvement. Do remember though, the MKIII is still probably the best TV available (general opinion), has 4 HDMI sockets, 1080p screen and an upscaling DVD player, 7.1 etc. The MKII has none of these features.

I thought there was a difference. Edges seemed better defined, but with less ghosting, but I couldn't really judge much else because of where it was positioned.

Connection wise, it's a bit of a step ahead of the old one. More connections than the Italian mafia, but it looks like they've really thought about where each socket goes. No differences in terms of design as far as I could tell (a good thing IMO). Other than that, I couldn't really judge it.

Believe me, Simon, the same TV programme through standard Freeview/Sky doesn't compare to the HD equivalent. I don't really watch 'Robin Hood', but it was on Saturday evening and I compared the standard Sky broadcast with the HD version. HD version was superior, colours sharper and less artefacts (and you can only see the artefacts on the regular channel when you compared it to the HD version).

I'm confused by your posts. You said that you're really fussy about your picture, but then say you can't see how HD offers any advantages. I'd say that you'd see *more* of a difference moving from regular Sky to Sky HD through your current MKII than you would moving from regular Sky on your MKII to MKIII.
 

moxxey:

Hrm, they've not bothered to tell me they've got one set up!

As I've mentioned many times, Sky HD on my old MKI panel is still, in my and many other people's opinion, outstanding. Certain programmes on BBC HD are stunning and seem without flaws. Yes, the panel could be brighter and the contrast improved, but the quality is represented well.

I'd be interested in comparing standard Freeview on a MKIII compared to a HD signal on the MKII - as I've said before, the 'quality' of the panel is reflected in the source.

Simon, if the MKII has swept you off your feet, I'd say your expectations can't be exceeded. In all fairness, you might find that you only see a 10% improvement. Do remember though, the MKIII is still probably the best TV available (general opinion), has 4 HDMI sockets, 1080p screen and an upscaling DVD player, 7.1 etc. The MKII has none of these features.

To be fair they have been extremely busy over the last few days. Particularly yesterday, so they haven't really had a chance to get it set up properly as Nick's post suggests. I am commenting only on what I saw today and in my mind there was no notable difference. Planet Earth is the same quality 'film type' as Walking with Dinosaurs/Beasts so it was an easy and more than apt comparison for me to make. I am not sure what I was expecting the new TV to do really. I mean, apart from looking more sharper, what else 'could' a modern day TV actually do?

This is where I find HD unconvincing (so far) because I can't see how the same program broadcast in HD could be any more realistic. After today, I have decided not to subscribe £10 a month to the Sky HD service because I really don't feel HD is all it is cracked up to be. The BV7-40 Mark II has confirmed this to me 100% when you play a high quality signal/broadcast through it. In fact, looking at HD channels today did not actually seem any better to me than the Walking with Dinosaurs/Beasts footage, perhaps very very marginally but only if you had a keen eye and were really looking for it. My opinion is based purely on what I have seen and nothing else.

Perhaps I have built up in my mind some incredibly amazing picture to expect from the new BeoVision's but in fact, the reality is that such picture's don't actually exist. I have been relaxing tonight with a glass of wine watching the discovery channels, which I love, and the quality of the picture has really struck me as being very realistic and true to life, even more so I think than my mother's Avant - a bold statement I know as many of you contest that the Avant CRT technology offers the best TV picture ever. I am not of the same opinion.

As regards to camping the weekend in the shop, well I wouldn't go quite that far, but it is good to keep one on their toes. Have a good weekend all. Until Monday morning then.

Simon.

 A number of issues here!

Firstly, when it comes to HD it depends on the rate at which its transmitted and some HD quality is rather poor. In tests conducted by the BBC the conclusion was good quality SD is better than bad HD! I would not pay for SKY HD for sure! one can alwys pick examples of where HD looked good for one particular film but its just not worth he money.

All flat panel TV need  high quality signals to perform in a satisfactory way , especially LCD- the picture falls apart.

There is no doubt that the MK111 is better but its all about a measure of increase and the TV cannot overcome the basic problems that LCD has and given that B&O are not using the very latest screen- I rather suspect the new geenration panels next year will provide the sort of improvment BS3 makes now- if not more. Its all about the panel!

Whatever hype one reads about how wonderful it is- one needs to know how that technology works- understand its pitfalls- and realise that B&O are not capable of creating the impossible!

I posted earlier about the new pioneer kuros plasma- it boasts the best picture of all time for a a plasma- and indeed its very good.

In a test i was able to compare the previous generation and the latest generation pioneer panel- with the SAME source, yes there was a difference, black was slighly blacker( how black is black) the movement was a little better but unless your looking for it not a HUGE difference EXCEPT the price!

previous generation was £2100 cheaper than the latest! I would take the earlier panel anyday for that saving!

Reality is the consumer electronics business is developing an increasing number of products that the consumer sfind it difficult ttruly appreciate or justifty and are being asked to pay higher prices for very small incremental advances.