Regular cable on a HDTV

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I'm told the picture quality on a Hi Def TV using regular cable is poor, in
fact worse than on a normal non-HDTV. Is this true? Since most stations I'm
going to watch here in Vancouver are non hi def should I wait and get a non
hi def big screen?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

beernuts wrote:

> WM wrote:
>
>> I'm told the picture quality on a Hi Def TV using regular cable is
>> poor, in
>> fact worse than on a normal non-HDTV. Is this true? Since most
>> stations I'm
>> going to watch here in Vancouver are non hi def should I wait and get
>> a non
>> hi def big screen?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Depends what you want and like. If like me you watch mostly available
> HD tv and DVDs, it's a no brainer. Since going to HD, my SD viewing has
> dropped off by at least 75%, and that's only with ESPNHD, HDNET, HDNMV,
> and TNTHD. Even though my equipment is doing a very decent job of
> displaying SD, I just can't really enjoy it anymore since I'm spoiled
> with HD.
>

Forgot DSCHD, which I could sit and drool in front of for the better
part of a day.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

WM wrote:
> I'm told the picture quality on a Hi Def TV using regular cable is poor, in
> fact worse than on a normal non-HDTV. Is this true? Since most stations I'm
> going to watch here in Vancouver are non hi def should I wait and get a non
> hi def big screen?

It's this kind of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt being spread that is
hurting the HDTV market.

I have a Sony HDTV and my standard-def DISH network feed looks
fantastsic! When people say it looks worse, it is because their brand
new HDTV is *so* good, it displays a lot of the flaws that are in all
standard NTSC signals. The resolution on a standard def picture is
not that great at all, but TVs used to be so small that nobody noticed.

But if you get a good HDTV, there are filters inside that will take a
standard def image and make it look pretty darn good on a large screen.

Buy the HDTV. Get a good one. You won't regret it.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Depends more on the receiver.I had an RCA that was pretty bad,but my Zenith
is better than my non-hd receivers.

"WM" <wyattm@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:YztAc.793474$oR5.773101@pd7tw3no...
> I'm told the picture quality on a Hi Def TV using regular cable is poor,
in
> fact worse than on a normal non-HDTV. Is this true? Since most stations
I'm
> going to watch here in Vancouver are non hi def should I wait and get a
non
> hi def big screen?
>
>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"WM" <wyattm@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:YztAc.793474$oR5.773101@pd7tw3no...
> I'm told the picture quality on a Hi Def TV using regular cable is poor,
in
> fact worse than on a normal non-HDTV. Is this true? Since most stations
I'm
> going to watch here in Vancouver are non hi def should I wait and get a
non
> hi def big screen?

This is a question that continues to confuse. The fact is, it varies with
the source quality, the set, and the viewer's expectations and
sensitivities. A good HDTV will resolve more detail than a typical SD set.
This means that you will see the limitations (noise, lack of resolution,
artifacts of compression, etc.) more clearly, especially on a larger
screen. Additionally, different sets handle the signals differently. Some
do a better job than others on the upconversion, and some deal with the
noise in the original signal better or worse. The viewer who is accustomed
to random grain in normal cable signals on an analog set may find the "new"
more patterned look that most HDTVs give that grain when upconverted to be
very annoying. Others may not be bothered by it as much.

Also, some situations can make the problem worse. For instance, some people
will tune the cable in the STB and upconvert it there and feed everything
out the set in HD. The television will sometimes do a better job of tuning
and upconverting the analog signal than the STB.

The bottom line is that you should view the set that you intend to buy on
the kind of signal that you will be watching, if possible. Typically, the
set with the best performance on HD sources will likely be the best choice,
since you can just reduce the sharpness on noisy cable or other analog
signals and avoid most of the objectionable artifacts. It will look soft,
but the signal limits what you can get. Some sets, by their nature are more
tolerant of lousy signals because they soften the pix. I feel that these
are a poor choice because the HD performance suffers. You can soften a good
set for analog but you can't make a mediocre set look great on HD.

Leonard

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Welcome to nominal TV reception, until the system totally switches over to
HDTV you will need to put up with this lousy reproduction. As you stated,
the DVD playback looks great, so will HDTV.
"mudixon" <mudixon.19s5g9@nobody.satelliteguys.us> wrote in message
news:mudixon.19s5g9@nobody.satelliteguys.us...
>
> I just spent the most money I have ever spent on a TV, and it was my
> first HDTV: the DLP Samsung HL-P5063 (new 50 inch model). I still have
> a Dish 4900 receiver (non-HDTV model) and I have an antenna in the
> attic to receive over-the-air channels.
>
> I have to admit that everything except for DVDs looks awful. I'm using
> the best connections I can possibly use to connect my Dish receiver to
> the TV (S-video). The DVD player is connected via component video input
> to the TV.
>
> This TV is _definitely_ designed to provide the best experience with
> those who have HDTV channel access or who want to watch DVDs. If you
> watch SD channels via satellite or OTA, it just doesn't cut it. Dish's
> compression artifaces are so obvious on this large screen.
>
> Now, I'm considering getting the Dish 811 receiver if it will do the
> following:
>
> 1. improve Dish Network's regular channel picture quality vs. my 4900
> 2. if using its DVI connection will improve Dish Network's regular
> channel picture quality
> 3. will improve OTA digital local channels now available in my area
> (none of them broadcast HDTV, but they are "digital".)
>
> I also am considering getting the HD program package from Dish, just so
> some of the programming will look decent on this TV.
>
> If you see this TV in the stores, and it looks good, chances are
> they're playing a DVD or some HD channel. See if you can change the
> input or channel to something not in HD or on DVD...then you'll see.
>
> I'm not saying this TV is poor quality, it is just ahead of its time.
> As programming catches up, I'll be ready. Until then, I have to deal
> with watching compression artifacts on 120 Dish Network channels. If
> anyone has suggestions or ideas on improving my Dish PQ, let me know!
>
> Mike Dixon
>
>
> --
> mudixon