A Discussion On Poor SD On HDTVs

Zaphod · 02-11-2007, 09:16 PM

Several thoughts from a new HD owner.

I'm one of the skeptics that posted about bad SD earlier in this post.

I've seen SD on a HDTV at friends houses and thought the picture sucked. If you try to fill the 1080 screen by making the processor stretch the picture. It's quite good if you don't mind watching with boarders on each side in native 480.

I read here that you can't judge the picture at the store as being what you get at home.. but its tough to spend that kind of money to take that chance. I did and the picture at home is much better than in the store as you don't have the share the signal with 40 TV's.

I joined this forum to gain information before making what to me is a big purchase. So far I'm extreemely pleased and thank the many posters who helped me make an educated decision.

**rbinck** · 02-12-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Several thoughts from a new HD owner.

I'm one of the skeptics that posted about bad SD earlier in this post.

I've seen SD on a HDTV at friends houses and thought the picture sucked. If you try to fill the 1080 screen by making the processor stretch the picture. It's quite good if you don't mind watching with boarders on each side in native 480.

I read here that you can't judge the picture at the store as being what you get at home.. but its tough to spend that kind of money to take that chance. I did and the picture at home is much better than in the store as you don't have the share the signal with 40 TV's.

I joined this forum to gain information before making what to me is a big purchase. So far I'm extremely pleased and thank the many posters who helped me make an educated decision.

But readers should be aware of the source for SD. Extremely important because the quality varies greatly depending on the source with the worse being VHS followed by satellite/cable, next assuming a good signal, OTA analog, then OTA digital and the best DVD. It would be good to add what the source is for the SD when commenting or questioning because the source matters.

paulc · 02-13-2007, 10:44 AM

Boy is that ever true... I went around with a friend when I was first in the market. At one retailer AND at the Samsung factory showcase we insisted on seeing SD. Both times were so bad as to be laughable. Although I didn't know that much then, I knew enough to insist on seeing a DVD. It was fine (actually, it was very good because it filled SOOO much more of the screen than my 4:3 CRT did), so I "knew" how the set dealt with a 480i signal.

Distance from the screen is a BIG factor in SD as well. So when looking at stuff in the stores, bring a DVD you know fairly well and place your face at the distance it WOULD be. Any other way is invalid for judging SD on HD quality.

Illustrator76 · 02-21-2007, 03:23 PM

Hi guys I am VERY interested in this thread because I just got an HDTV and I was astounded by how horrible my standard def channels look. They are definatley worse than how they looked on my old SDTV. I have begun looking at the Electroline amps, as someone else suggested, and I have found this model: "Electroline Drop Amp EDA 2100 Cable TV Signal Amplifier". I just wanted to know if this was a good amp to use and if I HAVE to install it outside at the junction box, or can I simply connect it to the cable box that is connected to my HDTV? Thanks in advance for any help given!

**rbinck** · 02-21-2007, 03:44 PM

My suggestion would be to check out the picture in a PIP window, or preferably in the POP windows where the pictures are equal size side by side. If the picture is clear chances are the amp will not help, you just need a smaller TV or sit further away. If you are watching digital cable an amp will not help anyway. I use my old 27" SD for most all of my satellite SD viewing.

Illustrator76 · 02-21-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbinck

My suggestion would be to check out the picture in a PIP window, or preferably in the POP windows where the pictures are equal size side by side. If the picture is clear chances are the amp will not help, you just need a smaller TV or sit further away. If you are watching digital cable an amp will not help anyway. I use my old 27" SD for most all of my satellite SD viewing.

Actually I have checked the PIP and you are correct, the picture looks awesome in that small window. I do have a 42 inch television and I am sitting about 10 1/2 feet away from it (which I THINK is recommended for 42 inch TV's, but please correct me if I'm wrong). So you are saying that even an amp will not help me? I don't want to go smaller on my TV because I got a GREAT deal on it, and I would also like to move everything down to the basement (if I ever get it finished) where I may have more room. Looks I'm pretty much out of options then? BTW thanks for the reply, I really appreciate your expert advice!

stonedog23 · 03-05-2007, 02:05 PM

I feel fortunate as my JVC 52" 1080p handles my Directv SD pretty well. My SD channels look a lot better on my set than SD on my friends' sets. It's unbearable on their sets (Mitsubishi, Samsung, and Toshiba) while pretty tolerable on mine.

HDConv · 03-14-2007, 10:42 AM

I have just gotten digital cable and an HD tv. The tv is a Gateway p42m102 and the cable provider is antietam cable (hd dvr box). sometimes the image on hd and sd channels goes either very dark or it looks like the same effect as if looking at a very colorful image on a computer screen set only to show 256 colors. I notice it more on peoples faces and when there is a large portion of the image that is the same color. The darkening of the image and this "color lessening" are really frustrating and ruining what would normally be a very satisfying new experience. Can someone please tell me what the problem is and how to fix it?
p.s. the cable company says it is a brand new box. the tv is a used one from a friend i trust who says that it has been very rarely used during the time they had it. i am using a set of THX component cables between the cable box and tv
I will try to attach a simulation of the effect...

borromini · 03-17-2007, 10:24 PM

That "256-color" look is likely due to your cable company compressing the signals at a high rate.

ponder · 04-05-2007, 12:28 PM

I find it so interesting the debate on high definition seems to always center on the transmission of the signal and the equipment the consumer has to view high definition but the original source of the program show or movie, is asked for.... and it gets vague.

I think it would be very telling if something was billed as being high def was required to have a tag revealing if the original equipment used for production was, indeed, high definition camera and recording equipment. Also add a quick tag that reveals the transmission quality from the station or provider....

A long time ago I remember getting a new CD and upon playing it was stunned at the quality compared to the other CD's I had. It was something from "Sting" and there was an obvious difference. A friend that was an audiophile simply pointed out the "DDD" code on the disc. and said "That means it was all digital, right across the board." He then plucked out another CD and pointed to the code that had "ADD", he said this was originally recorded in analog equipment and then digitally converted to the disc. Huge difference in sound quality!

This seems to be the same problem with high definition these days.... What's the source? It starts at the camera, not the media provider.

bboyneko · 04-10-2007, 10:48 AM

Oops I posted this in its own thread, it should have gone in this thread:

Question -

It seems that when SD is watched on a 1080 HDTV, the picture looks like crap:

From what I understand, the TV upconverts everything to the high resolution 1080 format.

As the image above illustrates, taking something meant for a 480 resolution monitor and stretching to fit a 1080 monitor makes it look crappy.

It seems (correct me if I am wrong) the best way to watch regular DVDs and SD broadcasts is on a SD TV, especially a direct view CRT.

I have a 36" direct view SD CRT and I am thinking of keeping it around solely for watching my regular DVDs.

They seem to look much better in their native resolution rather than stretched to fit my 57" Rear Projection CRT HDTV.

What is everyone's advice for SD viewing? Watch it on a good SD CRT tube or are there other options? Id really rather not stretch SD content to fit a 1080 resolution TV.

Is there any way to change the resolution of the HDTV, like you do with CRT computer monitors? Like instead of stretching a 640x480 image to fit the entire size of my 30" computer monitor when its a 1280 resolution, I can just change the resolution to 640 and then view the image taking up my entire computer monitor without as much distortion.

paulc · 04-10-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bboyneko

It seems (correct me if I am wrong) the best way to watch regular DVDs and SD broadcasts is on a SD TV, especially a direct view CRT.

Not really. Of course, one assumption is that a "SD TV" is a 4:3 display. An HD TV is 16:9.

When I moved from 4:3 to 16:9, I wanted to have image displayed be the same size relative to my seating position. So I saw my 32" 4:3 had a specific vertical height. It happened to very closely match a 40" 16:9 display. On a typical DVD, that means the image I see is 80% LARGER on the 16:9 than the 4:3. So even absent additional resolution, I get a much larger image to look at. AND I also find the quality is damn good, depending on the movie, it's not that easy to spot the additional resolution as long as it's really filling up a much bigger percentage of your screen.

bboyneko · 04-10-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulc

Not really. Of course, one assumption is that a "SD TV" is a 4:3 display. An HD TV is 16:9.

When I moved from 4:3 to 16:9, I wanted to have image displayed be the same size relative to my seating position. So I saw my 32" 4:3 had a specific vertical height. It happened to very closely match a 40" 16:9 display. On a typical DVD, that means the image I see is 80% LARGER on the 16:9 than the 4:3. So even absent additional resolution, I get a much larger image to look at. AND I also find the quality is damn good, depending on the movie, it's not that easy to spot the additional resolution as long as it's really filling up a much bigger percentage of your screen.

But the problem remains..you are taking video meant to play on a 480 resolution TV and blowing it up to scale to a 1080 display, which means enormous crappy image.

The HDTVs are fixed resolution, so they will always take a small scale SD image and blow it up, making for crappy video.

So again, it seems the best way to watch SD video (tv, dvd) is on a good SD TV that displays the content at its native resolution with zero scaling.

BobY · 04-10-2007, 09:25 PM

Firstly, you shouldn't stretch typical SD and not expect it to look bad. It's not a widescreen picture and trying to display it as widescreen can't do anything but degrade it.

Secondly, any good HD display does not just take SD and "blow it up" to a higher resolution, it *scales* it up to a higher resolution using interpolation, or more accuratley interpolates the picture up to a higher pixel density.

A mediocre scaler will soften the picture, as interpolation is essentially a low-pass filter, but a good scaler will do a decent job of making a low resolution image look acceptable on a larger display.

It's not fair to consider SD DTV as being equivalent to analog TV. Analog TV does not have pixels. It's resolution is limited by the bandwidth of the analog decoding circuitry--the effective visual resolution of an analog video signal can be dramatically higher than a 480i DTV signal which has a fixed number of pixels.

e-lcos · 07-03-2007, 07:47 PM

To follow up: most HDTV's have "inferior" scalers, to keep the cost of the TV down. Wherever possible, I recommend an external scaler to provide the TV with the highest quality signal, regardless of the source. The process has gotten very technical, with the movement from DVD players outputting 480i, then deinterlacing and putting out 480p, to those that scale to 1080i, and now with HD technology that will upscale to 1080p. The quality of the scaler hardware is significant (not directly equivalent to price, as research shows).

My personal experience moving into HD has shown a very watchable SD picture from HD satellite receivers, since you set the satellite receiver to a particular (usually scaled) output to match your TV (I live rurally, and cable is not available, so I can't comment on cable equipment). The first Dish HD-DVR I had (942) did a good job of scaling, better than the TV (also, forget about watching anything via composite or S-video on a DLP IMHO, PQ was terrible when output from the 942 via composite or S-Video). The newer 622 does an even better job, and on my 65" DLP, SD channels are very "watchable". Don't even bother with analog signals OTA, if your HD-TV has a tuner, it probably has 2, both for NTSC and ATSC, and there are few if any locals that don't have some digital signal (distance being a big factor, but I am over 40 miles from broadcast and get a great picture with an 8-foot UHF antenna...see antennaweb.org).

02-11-2007, 09:16 PM	#91
Zaphod My Resolution is Definite Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 70	I'm All In Several thoughts from a new HD owner. I'm one of the skeptics that posted about bad SD earlier in this post. I've seen SD on a HDTV at friends houses and thought the picture sucked. If you try to fill the 1080 screen by making the processor stretch the picture. It's quite good if you don't mind watching with boarders on each side in native 480. I read here that you can't judge the picture at the store as being what you get at home.. but its tough to spend that kind of money to take that chance. I did and the picture at home is much better than in the store as you don't have the share the signal with 40 TV's. I joined this forum to gain information before making what to me is a big purchase. So far I'm extreemely pleased and thank the many posters who helped me make an educated decision.

02-21-2007, 03:44 PM	#95
rbinck Administrator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Katy, Texas Posts: 12,335	My suggestion would be to check out the picture in a PIP window, or preferably in the POP windows where the pictures are equal size side by side. If the picture is clear chances are the amp will not help, you just need a smaller TV or sit further away. If you are watching digital cable an amp will not help anyway. I use my old 27" SD for most all of my satellite SD viewing. __________________ www.highdefinitionblog.com www.BlogOfHawaii.com

03-17-2007, 10:24 PM	#99
borromini HT Frontiersman Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Northern California Posts: 9,822	That "256-color" look is likely due to your cable company compressing the signals at a high rate. __________________ "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

04-05-2007, 12:28 PM	#100
ponder High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 50	Always Overlooked..... I find it so interesting the debate on high definition seems to always center on the transmission of the signal and the equipment the consumer has to view high definition but the original source of the program show or movie, is asked for.... and it gets vague. I think it would be very telling if something was billed as being high def was required to have a tag revealing if the original equipment used for production was, indeed, high definition camera and recording equipment. Also add a quick tag that reveals the transmission quality from the station or provider.... A long time ago I remember getting a new CD and upon playing it was stunned at the quality compared to the other CD's I had. It was something from "Sting" and there was an obvious difference. A friend that was an audiophile simply pointed out the "DDD" code on the disc. and said "That means it was all digital, right across the board." He then plucked out another CD and pointed to the code that had "ADD", he said this was originally recorded in analog equipment and then digitally converted to the disc. Huge difference in sound quality! This seems to be the same problem with high definition these days.... What's the source? It starts at the camera, not the media provider.

07-03-2007, 07:47 PM	#105
e-lcos TV is my friend Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Jackson, CA Posts: 26	To follow up: most HDTV's have "inferior" scalers, to keep the cost of the TV down. Wherever possible, I recommend an external scaler to provide the TV with the highest quality signal, regardless of the source. The process has gotten very technical, with the movement from DVD players outputting 480i, then deinterlacing and putting out 480p, to those that scale to 1080i, and now with HD technology that will upscale to 1080p. The quality of the scaler hardware is significant (not directly equivalent to price, as research shows). My personal experience moving into HD has shown a very watchable SD picture from HD satellite receivers, since you set the satellite receiver to a particular (usually scaled) output to match your TV (I live rurally, and cable is not available, so I can't comment on cable equipment). The first Dish HD-DVR I had (942) did a good job of scaling, better than the TV (also, forget about watching anything via composite or S-video on a DLP IMHO, PQ was terrible when output from the 942 via composite or S-Video). The newer 622 does an even better job, and on my 65" DLP, SD channels are very "watchable". Don't even bother with analog signals OTA, if your HD-TV has a tuner, it probably has 2, both for NTSC and ATSC, and there are few if any locals that don't have some digital signal (distance being a big factor, but I am over 40 miles from broadcast and get a great picture with an 8-foot UHF antenna...see antennaweb.org). __________________ Pioneer Elite VSX-72TXV Toshiba 65HM167 DLP TV Sony PS-3 Games/Blu-Ray Toshiba HD-A20 HD-DVD Samsung 841 for DVD-Audio/SACD/CD ViP622 DVR/501 DVR/301 Energy 5.1 Surround Speakers Dish 1000 Ant/DBR 2 DP-34 Switches America's Everything Pak + HD w/locals Harmony 880 Universal Remote Last edited by e-lcos; 07-03-2007 at 07:59 PM.

02-13-2007, 10:44 AM	#93
paulc Very Grizzled Vet of 1 yr Join Date: May 2006 Location: New York City Posts: 1,764	Boy is that ever true... I went around with a friend when I was first in the market. At one retailer AND at the Samsung factory showcase we insisted on seeing SD. Both times were so bad as to be laughable. Although I didn't know that much then, I knew enough to insist on seeing a DVD. It was fine (actually, it was very good because it filled SOOO much more of the screen than my 4:3 CRT did), so I "knew" how the set dealt with a 480i signal. Distance from the screen is a BIG factor in SD as well. So when looking at stuff in the stores, bring a DVD you know fairly well and place your face at the distance it WOULD be. Any other way is invalid for judging SD on HD quality.

02-21-2007, 03:23 PM	#94
Illustrator76 How can anyone watch standard def? Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 15	Hi guys I am VERY interested in this thread because I just got an HDTV and I was astounded by how horrible my standard def channels look. They are definatley worse than how they looked on my old SDTV. I have begun looking at the Electroline amps, as someone else suggested, and I have found this model: "Electroline Drop Amp EDA 2100 Cable TV Signal Amplifier". I just wanted to know if this was a good amp to use and if I HAVE to install it outside at the junction box, or can I simply connect it to the cable box that is connected to my HDTV? Thanks in advance for any help given!

03-05-2007, 02:05 PM	#97
stonedog23 High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 726	I feel fortunate as my JVC 52" 1080p handles my Directv SD pretty well. My SD channels look a lot better on my set than SD on my friends' sets. It's unbearable on their sets (Mitsubishi, Samsung, and Toshiba) while pretty tolerable on mine.

04-10-2007, 10:48 AM	#101
bboyneko My plasma is High Def. Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Savage, MD Age: 30 Posts: 9	Oops I posted this in its own thread, it should have gone in this thread: Question - It seems that when SD is watched on a 1080 HDTV, the picture looks like crap: From what I understand, the TV upconverts everything to the high resolution 1080 format. As the image above illustrates, taking something meant for a 480 resolution monitor and stretching to fit a 1080 monitor makes it look crappy. It seems (correct me if I am wrong) the best way to watch regular DVDs and SD broadcasts is on a SD TV, especially a direct view CRT. I have a 36" direct view SD CRT and I am thinking of keeping it around solely for watching my regular DVDs. They seem to look much better in their native resolution rather than stretched to fit my 57" Rear Projection CRT HDTV. What is everyone's advice for SD viewing? Watch it on a good SD CRT tube or are there other options? Id really rather not stretch SD content to fit a 1080 resolution TV. Is there any way to change the resolution of the HDTV, like you do with CRT computer monitors? Like instead of stretching a 640x480 image to fit the entire size of my 30" computer monitor when its a 1280 resolution, I can just change the resolution to 640 and then view the image taking up my entire computer monitor without as much distortion.

04-10-2007, 09:25 PM	#104
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	Firstly, you shouldn't stretch typical SD and not expect it to look bad. It's not a widescreen picture and trying to display it as widescreen can't do anything but degrade it. Secondly, any good HD display does not just take SD and "blow it up" to a higher resolution, it scales it up to a higher resolution using interpolation, or more accuratley interpolates the picture up to a higher pixel density. A mediocre scaler will soften the picture, as interpolation is essentially a low-pass filter, but a good scaler will do a decent job of making a low resolution image look acceptable on a larger display. It's not fair to consider SD DTV as being equivalent to analog TV. Analog TV does not have pixels. It's resolution is limited by the bandwidth of the analog decoding circuitry--the effective visual resolution of an analog video signal can be dramatically higher than a 480i DTV signal which has a fixed number of pixels.