New-look TVs fail the screen test
For some, they are the latest 'must-have' living room accessory, but are flat screen sets all they are cracked up to be?
Why would anyone spend more than £1,000 on a television that offers a worse picture than the one it replaces, one that will not improve significantly for five years, and is prohibitively expensive to fix if things go wrong? These are the questions that consumers should ask themselves before they splash out on flat screen LCD and plasma televisions - if they want to avoid disappointment.
This week a researcher at Which? and a senior academic have both confirmed that many flat screens are simply not up to the job, particularly the more popular models that cost less than £1,000.
Over the past 12 months, LCD and plasma TVs have become a must-have purchase, to the extent that their sales have single-handedly restored the fortunes of several big-name retailers. Despite this, few retailers we contacted this week wanted to discuss the issue of poor picture quality.
Certainly, it is easy to be wowed by the super-thin TVs in any electrical store, as they look great. However, look a little closer and you will notice that the picture on the screen in the showroom is from a DVD player. The stores rarely show broadcast TV - which is what most of us watch on a daily basis - for the simple reason that it can look terrible.
Buyers have complained that colours look washed out, shadows appear, and in many cases the screens are unable to "keep up" with fast-moving sports action. Some who have returned their TVs to the store have been told "that's the way they are".
"We've been warning members that they're better off with their old-style CRT (cathode ray tube) TVs for some time now," says Michael Briggs, one of the Which? expert TV testers. "The new technology simply isn't compatible with the old analogue signal that most of us still watch." He says that while the old sets were designed with the signal in mind, flat screens are far more sophisticated and use software to process the signal and project it on to the screen.
"The results can be very disappointing for those who have spent thousands of pounds. For this reason, we tell people to stick with their old CRT TV. They will enjoy a much better picture quality. Films from DVDs play better, but are still not without their problems. And when they go wrong you need an electrical engineer to fix them. Put it this way, I haven't bought one," he says.
Ronnier Luo, professor of colour and imaging science at the University of Leeds and the owner of a Sony flat screen, says the problem has been caused by manufacturers who rush out cheaper models that are not of sufficient quality. "Until now there hasn't been any international standards for these TVs. The problem is that the makers don't put their name on them, and as a result the quality has suffered. Too many in the shops today are of a very poor quality. However, the technology is improving fast, and they are getting much better all the time. The future development of new ISO standards should improve things," he says.
Jake Day-Williams, editor of the gadget magazine What Video and Widescreen TV, says it is unfair to judge flat screens by watching programmes transmitted via analogue.
"The latest TVs are all designed with high definition (HD) services in mind. Watching something that comes down the aerial on your roof will never show them off at their best. It's like buying a sports car and putting thin, shoddy tyres on it. It won't function as it should. HD services are still ludicrously expensive. There are still relatively few programmes that are being recorded in the format. Sky does some of its football coverage in HD, and the BBC is starting to as well. When you seen a programme like Planet Earth on an old TV, it's pretty good, but on an HD-ready flat screen with an HD broadcast, it's amazing."
But the fundamental problem with HD is that it will not replace analogue until at least 2012. Until then, buyers will have to plod along on shoddy tyres.
John Lewis, which stopped selling conventional TVs at the beginning of 2006, says consumers are switching to the latest sets because they are more "living room friendly."
"Our customers see the switch to flat panel from the old-style CRT television as a tremendous improvement, which has led to this significant growth in our sales," says a spokesman. TV sales at its stores are up 50% since it dropped CRT TVs.
"All the large screen flat panel televisions we sell are HD-ready, which means that customers buying these are 'future-proofed' for when they want to enjoy the full benefit of HD television."
Hamish Thompson, spokesman for electrical giant Currys and owner of a Samsung flat TV, expressed surprise that consumers are unhappy. "Our research shows satisfaction levels as being very high. You have to remember that these TVs are more like a PC than the old TV and come with a range of settings that are adjustable. Most of our stores sell more than 100 different models. Which picture is best? Mostly it comes down to individual taste."
Should you buy one?
Flat screens are advertised heavily on the basis that they are all HD (high definition) ready. But the reality is that HD TV is at least five years away for the vast majority of us.
The only way to get HD TV now is to pay around £75 a month to Sky or the recently rebranded cable TV firm Virgin Media. To access it, you need an HD digital box (Sky's costs £299 if taken with a subscription). There are now just 350,000 UK consumers using it, and even they get only a proportion of programmes in the format.
The rest of us - those with a Freeview box - will have to wait until 2012 to get HD TV, and that assumes that many of the arguments raging between broadcasters and the regulator, Ofcom, are resolved quickly. The price of flat screens may have come down in recent months, but according to Michael Briggs of Which? and Leeds University's Prof Ronnier Luo, few screens costing less than £1,000 are worth buying.
"We test them in a variety of ways, watching all types of TV and films, and our research has found screens costing less are usually disappointing," says Mr Briggs.
He reckons just two brands are worth buying - Sony and Panasonic. He also warns that different models from the same manufacturer can vary enormously.
Another problem that users are reporting is the exorbitant cost of repairs. Warranty supplier Domestic and General says that while they do not appear to go wrong any more often than conventional TVs, the repair bills are significantly higher.
"If the flat panel goes, it is generally cheaper to buy a new one. Repairs across the country for a serious but not fatal fault vary between £400 and £600, while even minor faults cost £100-£180. The fact that they usually have to go back to the workshop, and require two people to carry them, only adds to the cost of repairs," says a spokeswoman.
Meanwhile, you can buy some great conventional TVs second-hand. A quick trawl on eBay this week showed one-year-old TVs with Freeview (that probably cost more than £600 new) were selling for just £50-£100.
Why I hate mine ...
My £900 32-inch Samsung TV certainly looks good, writes chief business reporter David Teather. The only problem - and arguably a large one - is that the picture can be pretty awful.
When no one is moving on screen, the quality is great. During action sequences things start getting a bit more wobbly. Tennis balls can have a streak following them like a comic book swoosh.
Even if people walk too fast, their faces look like dough being kneaded - the image is constantly overlaid by where they were a fraction of a second ago. Quality varies. The main channels are best. American shows are worst. I've had to break it off with Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I sent the set back, assuming there must be something wrong. It came back the same as ever. A second engineer confirmed my suspicions. There was nothing wrong with the set, he said, confiding that LCD TVs were never as good as an old-fashioned telly.
Why I love mine
We are not a family of TV junkies, writes City editor Julia Finch. Viewing is generally news, sport, The Simpsons and US dramas like West Wing and The Shield - and the decision to buy a flat panel TV was taken as much because they look smart and I resented the space taken up by the old, big telly as the prospect of particularly vibrant viewing.
We chose a wall-mounted Panasonic 37-inch plasma monitor and a Bose home entertainment system, which provided the television innards and replaced our DVD and CD/audio system. Total cost about £2,300.
We have had no real glitches or complaints (apart from the £450 for a wall bracket and another couple of hundred quid for leads). But the sound and picture are superb. I can't detect any of the shadows that are said to follow fast-moving soccer players on plasma screens - and that's without HD.
It's like sitting in the cinema - minus the smell of popcorn.
Miles Brignall
Saturday February 17, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
For some, they are the latest 'must-have' living room accessory, but are flat screen sets all they are cracked up to be?
Why would anyone spend more than £1,000 on a television that offers a worse picture than the one it replaces, one that will not improve significantly for five years, and is prohibitively expensive to fix if things go wrong? These are the questions that consumers should ask themselves before they splash out on flat screen LCD and plasma televisions - if they want to avoid disappointment.
This week a researcher at Which? and a senior academic have both confirmed that many flat screens are simply not up to the job, particularly the more popular models that cost less than £1,000.
Over the past 12 months, LCD and plasma TVs have become a must-have purchase, to the extent that their sales have single-handedly restored the fortunes of several big-name retailers. Despite this, few retailers we contacted this week wanted to discuss the issue of poor picture quality.
Certainly, it is easy to be wowed by the super-thin TVs in any electrical store, as they look great. However, look a little closer and you will notice that the picture on the screen in the showroom is from a DVD player. The stores rarely show broadcast TV - which is what most of us watch on a daily basis - for the simple reason that it can look terrible.
Buyers have complained that colours look washed out, shadows appear, and in many cases the screens are unable to "keep up" with fast-moving sports action. Some who have returned their TVs to the store have been told "that's the way they are".
"We've been warning members that they're better off with their old-style CRT (cathode ray tube) TVs for some time now," says Michael Briggs, one of the Which? expert TV testers. "The new technology simply isn't compatible with the old analogue signal that most of us still watch." He says that while the old sets were designed with the signal in mind, flat screens are far more sophisticated and use software to process the signal and project it on to the screen.
"The results can be very disappointing for those who have spent thousands of pounds. For this reason, we tell people to stick with their old CRT TV. They will enjoy a much better picture quality. Films from DVDs play better, but are still not without their problems. And when they go wrong you need an electrical engineer to fix them. Put it this way, I haven't bought one," he says.
Ronnier Luo, professor of colour and imaging science at the University of Leeds and the owner of a Sony flat screen, says the problem has been caused by manufacturers who rush out cheaper models that are not of sufficient quality. "Until now there hasn't been any international standards for these TVs. The problem is that the makers don't put their name on them, and as a result the quality has suffered. Too many in the shops today are of a very poor quality. However, the technology is improving fast, and they are getting much better all the time. The future development of new ISO standards should improve things," he says.
Jake Day-Williams, editor of the gadget magazine What Video and Widescreen TV, says it is unfair to judge flat screens by watching programmes transmitted via analogue.
"The latest TVs are all designed with high definition (HD) services in mind. Watching something that comes down the aerial on your roof will never show them off at their best. It's like buying a sports car and putting thin, shoddy tyres on it. It won't function as it should. HD services are still ludicrously expensive. There are still relatively few programmes that are being recorded in the format. Sky does some of its football coverage in HD, and the BBC is starting to as well. When you seen a programme like Planet Earth on an old TV, it's pretty good, but on an HD-ready flat screen with an HD broadcast, it's amazing."
But the fundamental problem with HD is that it will not replace analogue until at least 2012. Until then, buyers will have to plod along on shoddy tyres.
John Lewis, which stopped selling conventional TVs at the beginning of 2006, says consumers are switching to the latest sets because they are more "living room friendly."
"Our customers see the switch to flat panel from the old-style CRT television as a tremendous improvement, which has led to this significant growth in our sales," says a spokesman. TV sales at its stores are up 50% since it dropped CRT TVs.
"All the large screen flat panel televisions we sell are HD-ready, which means that customers buying these are 'future-proofed' for when they want to enjoy the full benefit of HD television."
Hamish Thompson, spokesman for electrical giant Currys and owner of a Samsung flat TV, expressed surprise that consumers are unhappy. "Our research shows satisfaction levels as being very high. You have to remember that these TVs are more like a PC than the old TV and come with a range of settings that are adjustable. Most of our stores sell more than 100 different models. Which picture is best? Mostly it comes down to individual taste."
Should you buy one?
Flat screens are advertised heavily on the basis that they are all HD (high definition) ready. But the reality is that HD TV is at least five years away for the vast majority of us.
The only way to get HD TV now is to pay around £75 a month to Sky or the recently rebranded cable TV firm Virgin Media. To access it, you need an HD digital box (Sky's costs £299 if taken with a subscription). There are now just 350,000 UK consumers using it, and even they get only a proportion of programmes in the format.
The rest of us - those with a Freeview box - will have to wait until 2012 to get HD TV, and that assumes that many of the arguments raging between broadcasters and the regulator, Ofcom, are resolved quickly. The price of flat screens may have come down in recent months, but according to Michael Briggs of Which? and Leeds University's Prof Ronnier Luo, few screens costing less than £1,000 are worth buying.
"We test them in a variety of ways, watching all types of TV and films, and our research has found screens costing less are usually disappointing," says Mr Briggs.
He reckons just two brands are worth buying - Sony and Panasonic. He also warns that different models from the same manufacturer can vary enormously.
Another problem that users are reporting is the exorbitant cost of repairs. Warranty supplier Domestic and General says that while they do not appear to go wrong any more often than conventional TVs, the repair bills are significantly higher.
"If the flat panel goes, it is generally cheaper to buy a new one. Repairs across the country for a serious but not fatal fault vary between £400 and £600, while even minor faults cost £100-£180. The fact that they usually have to go back to the workshop, and require two people to carry them, only adds to the cost of repairs," says a spokeswoman.
Meanwhile, you can buy some great conventional TVs second-hand. A quick trawl on eBay this week showed one-year-old TVs with Freeview (that probably cost more than £600 new) were selling for just £50-£100.
Why I hate mine ...
My £900 32-inch Samsung TV certainly looks good, writes chief business reporter David Teather. The only problem - and arguably a large one - is that the picture can be pretty awful.
When no one is moving on screen, the quality is great. During action sequences things start getting a bit more wobbly. Tennis balls can have a streak following them like a comic book swoosh.
Even if people walk too fast, their faces look like dough being kneaded - the image is constantly overlaid by where they were a fraction of a second ago. Quality varies. The main channels are best. American shows are worst. I've had to break it off with Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I sent the set back, assuming there must be something wrong. It came back the same as ever. A second engineer confirmed my suspicions. There was nothing wrong with the set, he said, confiding that LCD TVs were never as good as an old-fashioned telly.
Why I love mine
We are not a family of TV junkies, writes City editor Julia Finch. Viewing is generally news, sport, The Simpsons and US dramas like West Wing and The Shield - and the decision to buy a flat panel TV was taken as much because they look smart and I resented the space taken up by the old, big telly as the prospect of particularly vibrant viewing.
We chose a wall-mounted Panasonic 37-inch plasma monitor and a Bose home entertainment system, which provided the television innards and replaced our DVD and CD/audio system. Total cost about £2,300.
We have had no real glitches or complaints (apart from the £450 for a wall bracket and another couple of hundred quid for leads). But the sound and picture are superb. I can't detect any of the shadows that are said to follow fast-moving soccer players on plasma screens - and that's without HD.
It's like sitting in the cinema - minus the smell of popcorn.
Miles Brignall
Saturday February 17, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007