Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HDTV is worse than conventional TV?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
July 19, 2004 2:59:45 AM

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

After hearing about so many good things about HDTV, today I was
at store standing before a HDTV set and a conventional analog TV
set. The video looks much better and sharper on the conventional
TV than it's on the HDTV set. On the HDTV set, the usual news
program looks fuzzy and had blurry artifacts. Asked the store
guy, he said the signal isn't HDTV. Ooooooh! so it's really how
many hours of HDTV signal I'll be getting. If it's only three
hours a day, I'll be watching crystal clear sharp HD content for
3 hours, and for the rest 21 hours of the day, I'll watching
worse than conventional analog TV on the HDTV set.

For this reason, is digital cable or Direct TV or Dish Network
almost a requirement to enjoy HDTV?
Anonymous
July 19, 2004 9:52:11 AM

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

NO!!! Digitized low resolution signals look almost as bad as analog signals.
Hopefully the technologies are capable of addressing all these quandaries
when we finally switch to total HDTV sometime in the not too distant future.
"JD" <JD@aus.com> wrote in message
news:5unmf0lo56n09hkuh2kdnh71b4hjr78dru@4ax.com...
> After hearing about so many good things about HDTV, today I was
> at store standing before a HDTV set and a conventional analog TV
> set. The video looks much better and sharper on the conventional
> TV than it's on the HDTV set. On the HDTV set, the usual news
> program looks fuzzy and had blurry artifacts. Asked the store
> guy, he said the signal isn't HDTV. Ooooooh! so it's really how
> many hours of HDTV signal I'll be getting. If it's only three
> hours a day, I'll be watching crystal clear sharp HD content for
> 3 hours, and for the rest 21 hours of the day, I'll watching
> worse than conventional analog TV on the HDTV set.
>
> For this reason, is digital cable or Direct TV or Dish Network
> almost a requirement to enjoy HDTV?
Anonymous
July 19, 2004 12:01:49 PM

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

JD <JD@aus.com> wrote in message news:<5unmf0lo56n09hkuh2kdnh71b4hjr78dru@4ax.com>...
> After hearing about so many good things about HDTV, today I was
> at store standing before a HDTV set and a conventional analog TV
> set. The video looks much better and sharper on the conventional
> TV than it's on the HDTV set. On the HDTV set, the usual news
> program looks fuzzy and had blurry artifacts. Asked the store
> guy, he said the signal isn't HDTV. Ooooooh! so it's really how
> many hours of HDTV signal I'll be getting. If it's only three
> hours a day, I'll be watching crystal clear sharp HD content for
> 3 hours, and for the rest 21 hours of the day, I'll watching
> worse than conventional analog TV on the HDTV set.

Could be, but it's not because you're watching analog TV on an HD set.
It's most likely because the HD set you were watching is so much
larger than the regular tubes you're used to. Any crummy picture will
look worse on a larger set, but it has nothing to do with the fact
that you're watching it on an HD set.

> For this reason, is digital cable or Direct TV or Dish Network
> almost a requirement to enjoy HDTV?

Just get Voom! and get it over with. You'll have the most HD
programming you can get at the moment.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 19, 2004 5:35:30 PM

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

If it's only three
> hours a day, I'll be watching crystal clear sharp HD content for
> 3 hours, and for the rest 21 hours of the day, I'll watching
> worse than conventional analog TV on the HDTV set.


You watch too much TV.. ;-)
Anonymous
July 19, 2004 6:53:58 PM

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

If it's only three
>hours a day, I'll be watching crystal clear sharp HD content for
>3 hours, and for the rest 21 hours of the day, I'll watching
>worse than conventional analog TV on the HDTV set.

I think you need to cut your TV time down just a little.
July 20, 2004 1:52:16 PM

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

and the WMD's are still hidden in Iraq. I guess people chose to believe what
they're told and not know any better. When you think the moron in the store
who's trying to sell you something is an expert, then I have a war for
you.....

"JD" <JD@aus.com> wrote in message
news:5unmf0lo56n09hkuh2kdnh71b4hjr78dru@4ax.com...
> After hearing about so many good things about HDTV, today I was
> at store standing before a HDTV set and a conventional analog TV
> set. The video looks much better and sharper on the conventional
> TV than it's on the HDTV set. On the HDTV set, the usual news
> program looks fuzzy and had blurry artifacts. Asked the store
> guy, he said the signal isn't HDTV. Ooooooh! so it's really how
> many hours of HDTV signal I'll be getting. If it's only three
> hours a day, I'll be watching crystal clear sharp HD content for
> 3 hours, and for the rest 21 hours of the day, I'll watching
> worse than conventional analog TV on the HDTV set.
>
> For this reason, is digital cable or Direct TV or Dish Network
> almost a requirement to enjoy HDTV?
Anonymous
July 20, 2004 8:16:54 PM

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

I found the opposite. My TV displays analog programs better than my
cable box display digital program to my TV. Either the digital signal
is worse than the analog signal of the equivalent channel over the
cable feed. Or the circuitry in the cable box is much worse than that
in my TV. I only use the digital cable box to watch HD programs, I
use my TV to receive the analog cable whenever I have a choice.

JD <JD@aus.com> wrote in message news:<5unmf0lo56n09hkuh2kdnh71b4hjr78dru@4ax.com>...
> For this reason, is digital cable or Direct TV or Dish Network
> almost a requirement to enjoy HDTV?
Anonymous
July 21, 2004 12:45:42 AM

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

"199.45.49.11" <dogs_pee@bushes.com> wrote in message
news:kX5Lc.27173$lz2.1087@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> and the WMD's are still hidden in Iraq. I guess people chose to believe
what
> they're told and not know any better. When you think the moron in the
store
> who's trying to sell you something is an expert, then I have a war for
> you.....

and your certainty that there ARE no WMD's comes from what evidence exactly?
Who told YOU this?

EVERYONE believes what they want to believe.
July 22, 2004 3:45:41 AM

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

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:59:45 -0700, JD wrote:

> After hearing about so many good things about HDTV, today I was
> at store standing before a HDTV set and a conventional analog TV
> set. The video looks much better and sharper on the conventional
> TV than it's on the HDTV set. On the HDTV set, the usual news
> program looks fuzzy and had blurry artifacts. Asked the store
> guy, he said the signal isn't HDTV. Ooooooh! so it's really how
> many hours of HDTV signal I'll be getting. If it's only three
> hours a day, I'll be watching crystal clear sharp HD content for
> 3 hours, and for the rest 21 hours of the day, I'll watching
> worse than conventional analog TV on the HDTV set.
>
> For this reason, is digital cable or Direct TV or Dish Network
> almost a requirement to enjoy HDTV?

No. If you get an OTA HDTV tuner, all your local stations should be
available digitally, although often SDTV, not HDTV. I've found that even
SDTV is acceptable, at least as good as any analog signal, and WAY better
than satellite.
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 3:45:42 AM

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

"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:FeDLc.159067$XM6.13717@attbi_s53...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:59:45 -0700, JD wrote:
>
> > After hearing about so many good things about HDTV, today I was
> > at store standing before a HDTV set and a conventional analog TV
> > set. The video looks much better

Better how, exactly. To determine why this is the case we need to be clear
on what you mean by better.

> and sharper

Is it really sharper or is it "cleaner"?

> on the conventional
> > TV than it's on the HDTV set. On the HDTV set, the usual news
> > program looks fuzzy and had blurry artifacts. Asked the store
> > guy, he said the signal isn't HDTV. Ooooooh! so it's really how
> > many hours of HDTV signal I'll be getting. If it's only three
> > hours a day, I'll be watching crystal clear sharp HD content for
> > 3 hours, and for the rest 21 hours of the day, I'll watching
> > worse than conventional analog TV on the HDTV set.
> >
> > For this reason, is digital cable or Direct TV or Dish Network
> > almost a requirement to enjoy HDTV?

It depends on what you are sensitive to. Many people find the compression
on these sources to be most offensive.

Leonard
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 4:21:03 AM

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

When you get tune into an OTA SD quality DTV broadcast, the picture is
abosultely free of noise and constantly wanering PQ that you see typically
on an analog feed. The picture does not seem as soft either, but that just
may be my TV.

"Leonard G. Caillouet" <lcaillo_ns_@devoynet.com> wrote in message
news:uFDLc.14196$GT3.6581@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:FeDLc.159067$XM6.13717@attbi_s53...
> > On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:59:45 -0700, JD wrote:
> >
> > > After hearing about so many good things about HDTV, today I was
> > > at store standing before a HDTV set and a conventional analog TV
> > > set. The video looks much better
>
> Better how, exactly. To determine why this is the case we need to be
clear
> on what you mean by better.
>
> > and sharper
>
> Is it really sharper or is it "cleaner"?
>
> > on the conventional
> > > TV than it's on the HDTV set. On the HDTV set, the usual news
> > > program looks fuzzy and had blurry artifacts. Asked the store
> > > guy, he said the signal isn't HDTV. Ooooooh! so it's really how
> > > many hours of HDTV signal I'll be getting. If it's only three
> > > hours a day, I'll be watching crystal clear sharp HD content for
> > > 3 hours, and for the rest 21 hours of the day, I'll watching
> > > worse than conventional analog TV on the HDTV set.
> > >
> > > For this reason, is digital cable or Direct TV or Dish Network
> > > almost a requirement to enjoy HDTV?
>
> It depends on what you are sensitive to. Many people find the compression
> on these sources to be most offensive.
>
> Leonard
>
>
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 12:03:03 PM

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

There are a few reasons for this. For starters analog NTSC signal is
very low resolution in terms of what we're accustom to in the digital
world (computer monitors, HDTV, etc..) Since NTSC is analog it doesn't
really have absolute resolution per say, that is untill it's converted
into a digital format. Digital cable boxes have been doing this for
years, but to view anything digital on a DTV the signal has to be
converted.

When the signal is converted, it's important to have a set that
performs line doubling and preferably scaling so that this signal can
look as good as possible. This is why knowing what's inside your set
is important, it's also where some of the bargin brands: RCA, JVC,
Philips, etc.. are lacking.

Analog TVs are designed to accept and display analog signal, as a
result analog signal may appear to be look better on analog TVs
(again, this is defintely not always the case).

You also have to consider size. As stated the analog NTSC signal is
being converted into a digital format for HDTV when this happens the
default resolution is less than 640x480 and that's interlaced! When
you take that image and you put it up on a 48"+ size HDTV it's just
not going to look that good, the source signal is the problem not the
TV. The ugly details that were always there are showing.





JD <JD@aus.com> wrote in message news:<5unmf0lo56n09hkuh2kdnh71b4hjr78dru@4ax.com>...
> After hearing about so many good things about HDTV, today I was
> at store standing before a HDTV set and a conventional analog TV
> set. The video looks much better and sharper on the conventional
> TV than it's on the HDTV set. On the HDTV set, the usual news
> program looks fuzzy and had blurry artifacts. Asked the store
> guy, he said the signal isn't HDTV. Ooooooh! so it's really how
> many hours of HDTV signal I'll be getting. If it's only three
> hours a day, I'll be watching crystal clear sharp HD content for
> 3 hours, and for the rest 21 hours of the day, I'll watching
> worse than conventional analog TV on the HDTV set.
>
> For this reason, is digital cable or Direct TV or Dish Network
> almost a requirement to enjoy HDTV?
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 12:18:00 PM

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

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:45:42 -0400, "Randy Sweeney"
<rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"199.45.49.11" <dogs_pee@bushes.com> wrote in message
>news:kX5Lc.27173$lz2.1087@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>> and the WMD's are still hidden in Iraq. I guess people chose to believe
>what
>> they're told and not know any better. When you think the moron in the
>store
>> who's trying to sell you something is an expert, then I have a war for
>> you.....


>
>and your certainty that there ARE no WMD's comes from what evidence exactly?
>Who told YOU this?

The lack of evidence.

>
>EVERYONE believes what they want to believe.
>
Anonymous
July 22, 2004 10:08:53 PM

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

dizzy wrote:
> I've found that even SDTV is acceptable, at least as good as any analog signal, and WAY better than satellite.

Absolutely. OTA SDTV is leaps and bounds over satellite SD.
July 23, 2004 3:40:57 AM

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

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:15:50 -0700, JDeats wrote:

> Yes Pioneer puts scaling and line doubling in all their Elite sets and
> as a result of this (combined with excellent CRT and lens technology
> the Elite sets make NTSC look fantastic. But there are other makes
> that look fantastic and do the same thing for far less money.
>
> Hitachi, Sony and Toshiba (Cinema series) are three that come to mind.

Leave anyone out? 8)

I've always thought the Mitsubishi's looked good, but I bought a Toshiba
(Cinema series), because, at the time, Mits didn't have DVI. Hitachi was
good, too, but they were $500 more for an "equivalent" model. Sony was
not competitive. Pioneer Elites are just too much money for something
that improves/depreciates as fast as this stuff does...
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 7:27:40 AM

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

In article <w6wUc.746$2L3.672@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Albert Alverez" <noneofyourbusiness@noway.org> writes:
> "JD" <JD@aus.com> wrote in message
> news:5unmf0lo56n09hkuh2kdnh71b4hjr78dru@4ax.com...
>> After hearing about so many good things about HDTV, today I was
>> at store standing before a HDTV set and a conventional analog TV
>> set. The video looks much better and sharper on the conventional
>> TV than it's on the HDTV set. On the HDTV set, the usual news
>> program looks fuzzy and had blurry artifacts. Asked the store
>> guy, he said the signal isn't HDTV. Ooooooh! so it's really how
>> many hours of HDTV signal I'll be getting. If it's only three
>> hours a day, I'll be watching crystal clear sharp HD content for
>> 3 hours, and for the rest 21 hours of the day, I'll watching
>> worse than conventional analog TV on the HDTV set.
>
> Right, HDTV's can't display SD content as well as a conventional TV.
>
Actually, that generalization isn't really true. My HDTV tends to do a
much better job of displaying/receiving composite OTA broadcasts than
many other conventional TV sets. The almost 100% lack of composite
artifacts can easily trick an unsuspecting viewer into believing that
there is less detail. Per my measurements, my HDTV blows away many
common composite-only TV sets that I have seen. (Perhaps the syndrome
is akin to listening to semi-hi-fi equipement with the bass and treble
boost, while truly flat gear will tend to sound lackluster.)

Perhaps the lack of NTSC decoding artifacts and the relatively more
flat spatial frequency response does make the HDTV look less 'brassy'
and 'harsh', but when using a multi-burst and other test patterns, the
response is pretty damned good. The actual viewable detail, even without
the worst of the horrible composite TV peaking, provides MORE rather than
less acuity.

Nowadays, the only picture that I can tolerate on a composite video set
is one that is incredibly clean from my pro (4:2:2) video decks, perhaps
sourced from my high-end SDTV cameras. The extremely clean video signal
helps to avoid some of the effects of the excess peaking (the enhancement
of noise is less problematic.) However, the transient response problems
from conventional composite sets are made worse by the wide bandwidth
signal from my good gear.

John
!