A Discussion On Poor SD On HDTVs

Scottnot · 08-08-2008, 07:18 PM

Are you sure that you understand??

Quote:

Originally Posted by joekewl1971

I think the black (brightness), and white (contrast, or picture) levels are very important to reduce artifacts. The brighter the picture, the worse it looks. Bring the black down, and you see what detail there is to see.

If you mean "turn the brightness down" to somehow improve the picture, that won't help much.
For any TV in a specific ambient light setting, there is only ONE correct setting for brightness. Once it is correctly set, turning it down will reduce detail in dark scenes by causing the darkest shades to merge together; and turning it up will "lighten" the dark scenes making them appear washed out.
The only proper way to correctly adjust brightness is with a proper calibration disk under normal ambient viewing conditions.

Quote:

I looked at both interlaced and progressive scan before choosing progessive scan. That took me a long time to decide which I liked best.

If you think that you were somehow comparing interlaced to progressive, I'd be curious to know what you were looking at?
In the case of LCD and/or Plasma sets, they are all* progressive scan.

*with the rare exception of a few Hitachi "ALIS" products.

joekewl1971 · 08-09-2008, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottnot

Are you sure that you understand??

If you mean "turn the brightness down" to somehow improve the picture, that won't help much.
For any TV in a specific ambient light setting, there is only ONE correct setting for brightness. Once it is correctly set, turning it down will reduce detail in dark scenes by causing the darkest shades to merge together; and turning it up will "lighten" the dark scenes making them appear washed out.
The only proper way to correctly adjust brightness is with a proper calibration disk under normal ambient viewing conditions.

Very few people know how to use test paterns, or even that they exist. Where do I get test paterns from my cable box? They are not there.

Many may have thier sets too bright. The bottom line is, does the picture look good? The advice I give helped me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottnot

If you think that you were somehow comparing interlaced to progressive, I'd be curious to know what you were looking at?
In the case of LCD and/or Plasma sets, they are all* progressive scan.

On this web site people are frequently arguing about progressive scan verses interlaced. You are trying to tell me that it makes no difference? My cable box outputs 720p, 1080i, 480i, 480p, and a couple others. For SD there is extra detail in the progressive. For HD there is better fast motion. I understand that my LCD TV is native progessive. I know that I see a difference based on what I input. It is not all the same.

joekewl1971 · 08-13-2008, 01:03 PM

I was wrong about the test paterns. Wish I had not said anything.

mrhagerty · 11-11-2008, 10:18 PM

Rbinck, or anyone else here.

I read the first article and while very much appreciating the technical side of why SD is going to look like you're living in a Soviet bloc country, I'm puzzled at how the industry innovators at the start decided to simply leave SD out in the cold?

And it's no longer a matter of simply advising folks to upgrade to HD equipment and service. It's the utter failure to encounter the reality that 40 years of television heritage in this country is going to keep SD around for a very long time. And the answer isn’t, “Learn to live without ‘I Love Lucy.’”

So somewhere back when, the movers and shakers let their gleeful high on the new technology get the best of their judgment and innovation, if it comes down to “Sorry about the rest, but, hey, ain’t HD keeno?”

Nor is it a matter of waiting out the eventual demise of general interest in classic television. Even today’s up to date HD news coverage features cut aways to film clips done on VHS or low res digital, and the SD problem lives on and on, despite being as HD as one can get.

And no, I don't care to move another 4 feet back or disable my incadescent lighting, as if TV rules the realm to the sacrifice of everything else.

Perhaps someone here knows the ugly story of how the industry chose to back into the technology with so little care for the enormous demand and unavoidability of status quo of standard def?

Mike
Tucson

aed55 · 12-16-2008, 10:08 PM

Just my 2 cents, but I bought an HDTV to watch HD content. If I only cared about SD, I would have kept my old Sony 36".

I have DishNetwork and I have to subscribe to 100 crappy SD channels in order to get a handful of their HD counterparts. The SD channels are so bad, that I don't even watch them. The local cable service is just as bad, they give you a few HD channels as they say for "free", but you have to subscribe to their equally crappy SD package to get them.

Even though the majority of cable channels are now available in HD, it seems they are impossible to get by themselves. The logic of this evades me.

It seems like too much changed, too fast. The switch to digital transmission enabled HD capability and in very short order the public was presented with 2 options. If you were not interested in HD content, you just keep your old TV and your viewing experience would basically remain unchanged. However if you were like me and many others, once you saw HD, you were hooked and thus we were thrust into the whole world of HD and SD quality issues.

If only it could have been as easy as the change from black and white to color was, back in the 60's. As I recall, when color capability was first proposed by the TV industry, the only way the FCC would allow them to proceed was to insure existing B&W TV's would be able to process a color signal with no change in picture quality.

11-11-2008, 10:18 PM	#139
mrhagerty My plasma is High Def. Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 7	How Did This Industry Go Off Half Baked? Rbinck, or anyone else here. I read the first article and while very much appreciating the technical side of why SD is going to look like you're living in a Soviet bloc country, I'm puzzled at how the industry innovators at the start decided to simply leave SD out in the cold? And it's no longer a matter of simply advising folks to upgrade to HD equipment and service. It's the utter failure to encounter the reality that 40 years of television heritage in this country is going to keep SD around for a very long time. And the answer isn’t, “Learn to live without ‘I Love Lucy.’” So somewhere back when, the movers and shakers let their gleeful high on the new technology get the best of their judgment and innovation, if it comes down to “Sorry about the rest, but, hey, ain’t HD keeno?” Nor is it a matter of waiting out the eventual demise of general interest in classic television. Even today’s up to date HD news coverage features cut aways to film clips done on VHS or low res digital, and the SD problem lives on and on, despite being as HD as one can get. And no, I don't care to move another 4 feet back or disable my incadescent lighting, as if TV rules the realm to the sacrifice of everything else. Perhaps someone here knows the ugly story of how the industry chose to back into the technology with so little care for the enormous demand and unavoidability of status quo of standard def? Mike Tucson

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-13-2008, 01:03 PM	#138
joekewl1971 High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 530	I was wrong about the test paterns. Wish I had not said anything.

12-16-2008, 10:08 PM	#140
aed55 High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 66	Just my 2 cents, but I bought an HDTV to watch HD content. If I only cared about SD, I would have kept my old Sony 36". I have DishNetwork and I have to subscribe to 100 crappy SD channels in order to get a handful of their HD counterparts. The SD channels are so bad, that I don't even watch them. The local cable service is just as bad, they give you a few HD channels as they say for "free", but you have to subscribe to their equally crappy SD package to get them. Even though the majority of cable channels are now available in HD, it seems they are impossible to get by themselves. The logic of this evades me. It seems like too much changed, too fast. The switch to digital transmission enabled HD capability and in very short order the public was presented with 2 options. If you were not interested in HD content, you just keep your old TV and your viewing experience would basically remain unchanged. However if you were like me and many others, once you saw HD, you were hooked and thus we were thrust into the whole world of HD and SD quality issues. If only it could have been as easy as the change from black and white to color was, back in the 60's. As I recall, when color capability was first proposed by the TV industry, the only way the FCC would allow them to proceed was to insure existing B&W TV's would be able to process a color signal with no change in picture quality.