Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Standard TV picture quality on HDTV set

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
June 11, 2005 6:46:25 PM

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

What is the picture quality like when watching a standard TV broadcast.
Is it watchable or very bad?
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 6:46:26 PM

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

The cable installer suggested I watch the analog signal on non HDTV stations
rather than the digital signal. But with my Sony 34" direct view HDTV, the
digital signal looks just as good. As others say, PQ depends on the source
and the electronics of your box and tv.

David
<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:cIadnUtw1ZbirDbfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
> What is the picture quality like when watching a standard TV broadcast.
> Is it watchable or very bad?
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 7:46:48 PM

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

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:cIadnUtw1ZbirDbfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
> What is the picture quality like when watching a standard TV broadcast.
> Is it watchable or very bad?

Depends on the signal and the set. A good satellite signal on, say, the JVC
D-ILA or Sony LCD is quite decent, at least according to one demonstration I
saw at a good AV store recently. Definitely better than my 5-year old 36
inch Trinitron, which at the time was state of the art. Some CRT projectors
look good too. Other sets don't do as well to my eyes.

From comments I've seen, an over-the-air or cable signal can be far worse,
especially on some sets.
Related resources
June 11, 2005 11:18:02 PM

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

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:cIadnUtw1ZbirDbfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
> What is the picture quality like when watching a standard TV broadcast.
> Is it watchable or very bad?

We bought a Sony KV27HS420 about a month ago.

[27" HDTV direct-view, 4:3 CRT , $750.]

I have *never* seen a better NTSC television picture.

The picture's probably too small when viewing [letterboxed] actual HDTV
though.
June 12, 2005 12:24:13 AM

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:13:59 -0700, "David&Joan" <djmarchand@cox.net>
wrote:

>The cable installer suggested I watch the analog signal on non HDTV stations
>rather than the digital signal. But with my Sony 34" direct view HDTV, the
>digital signal looks just as good. As others say, PQ depends on the source
>and the electronics of your box and tv.
>
It varies by channel but my picture on a 65" Hitachi looks best on HD
then next best on SSD and thirdly next on analog. A lot of that is
because of the size of the set but it can vary from cable system to
cable system.
Thumper


>David
><tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
>news:cIadnUtw1ZbirDbfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
>> What is the picture quality like when watching a standard TV broadcast.
>> Is it watchable or very bad?
>
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 1:09:46 AM

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

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:cIadnUtw1ZbirDbfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
> What is the picture quality like when watching a standard TV broadcast.
> Is it watchable or very bad?

General rule is that HDTV sets magnify the bad aspects of standard broadcast
pictures, making bad SD look worse. But there are many factors involved.

Most important is probably how big your screen is. Almost any TV picture
will look good on a little screen. Then, there's the quality of the basic
SD broadcast: HBO SD is very good, your local cable access channel is
probably very, very bad. So, an SD picture from HBO can look almost like a
DVD (but probably not like HD), on an HDTV set while the bad picture from
another channel can look so horrible you can't watch it.

Other factors are good or bad transmission through a particular cable box,
your TV set, i.e. how good its upconverting software is and how you have
that adjusted. I found that CableCard transmission from our cable company
delivered much better SD pictures than their basic HD cable box but their SA
8300HD DVR HD box delivered SD pictures just as good as the CableCard.

mack
austin
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 1:32:25 AM

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

So, will SD look better on an EDTV than an HDTV?
June 12, 2005 3:35:42 AM

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

Basically, it stinks.
Some cable network feeds over the satellite are better than others but, in
an absolute sense, particulary compared to HD, they all stink.

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:cIadnUtw1ZbirDbfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
> What is the picture quality like when watching a standard TV broadcast.
> Is it watchable or very bad?
June 12, 2005 3:35:43 AM

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

birdman wrote:

> Basically, it stinks.
> Some cable network feeds over the satellite are better than others but, in
> an absolute sense, particulary compared to HD, they all stink.
>
> <tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
> news:cIadnUtw1ZbirDbfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
>
>>What is the picture quality like when watching a standard TV broadcast.
>>Is it watchable or very bad?
>

So then, am I going to need to keep my old TV for standard TV and an LCD
HDTV (if that's what I choose) for HDTV?
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 5:54:57 AM

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

In article <T6CdnVoLnMt95DbfRVn-pg@rogers.com>,
"tim@nocomment.com" <tim@nocomment.com> writes:
> birdman wrote:
>
>> Basically, it stinks.
>> Some cable network feeds over the satellite are better than others but, in
>> an absolute sense, particulary compared to HD, they all stink.
>>
>> <tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
>> news:cIadnUtw1ZbirDbfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
>>
>>>What is the picture quality like when watching a standard TV broadcast.
>>>Is it watchable or very bad?
>>
>
> So then, am I going to need to keep my old TV for standard TV and an LCD
> HDTV (if that's what I choose) for HDTV?
>
It truly depends upon the quality of the SDTV signal chain. For example,
my HDTV provides a supurb NTSC picture, and for me, it would be a downgrade to
use most NTSC only receivers that I have seen.

John
June 12, 2005 7:17:30 AM

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:46:25 -0400, "tim@nocomment.com"
<tim@nocomment.com> wrote:

>What is the picture quality like when watching a standard TV broadcast.
>Is it watchable or very bad?

Take a pair of rabbit ears with a slip on RF connector down to your
local store. Tell the salesman to push it on the set's RF terminal
and see for yourself. If they won't do it, head on to the next store.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 8:53:39 AM

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

Nothing wrong with the question, but it makes me think this newsgroup should
have an FAQ somewhere. This one has been asked a million times!

I don't mind the standard TV on my HD set, the advantages of HD FAR outweigh
any issues with SDTV.

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
news:cIadnUtw1ZbirDbfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
> What is the picture quality like when watching a standard TV broadcast.
> Is it watchable or very bad?
June 12, 2005 12:08:12 PM

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

dg wrote:
> Nothing wrong with the question, but it makes me think this newsgroup should
> have an FAQ somewhere. This one has been asked a million times!
>
> I don't mind the standard TV on my HD set, the advantages of HD FAR outweigh
> any issues with SDTV.

I went into a store yesterday and they were showing an infomercial on a
HDTV set (Bowflex). It was a big screen set but the picture looked so
'out of focus' that I couldn't believe people would watch TV like that.
I expected a little degradation but it was ridiculous.


>
> <tim@nocomment.com> wrote in message
> news:cIadnUtw1ZbirDbfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
>
>>What is the picture quality like when watching a standard TV broadcast.
>>Is it watchable or very bad?
>
>
>
June 12, 2005 3:30:40 PM

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

On 11 Jun 2005 21:32:25 -0700, richmosar@gmail.com wrote:

>So, will SD look better on an EDTV than an HDTV?
Shouldn't
Thumper
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 4:10:07 PM

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

"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:izKqe.2394$bv7.546@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Basically, it stinks.

I find your evaluation a little harsh. Most HDTVs now have smoothing
software that removes some of the imperfections in the SD signal. Comparing
my 36 inch Trinitron with a 42 or 46 inch HDTV, which all have about the
same sized image on a 4:3 SD signal, the newer set wins hands down. And like
I said, my Trinitron was state of the art in 2000.

The thing that one can say for sure is that it's a waste of money to put out
$1500-$5000 for a modern HDTV and only provide it with an SD input. For sure
I'll be contacting my satellite provider to subscribe to their HD channels
once I make my purchase.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 6:26:10 PM

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

<tim@nocomment.com> wrote

> So then, am I going to need to keep my old TV for standard TV and an LCD
> HDTV (if that's what I choose) for HDTV?

No. You will find a lot of variation from SD channel to channel, according
to the equipment you use, how you adjust the upconversion settings on your
TV and other factors but, in the end, you will probably get your SD picture
reasonably close to what it is on an SD set with the same sized screen.

We have a 60" 16:9 Sony HDTV. With our current cable box -- an SA 8300HD
DVR -- the SD channels look about like they did on our old 48" 4:3 Sony SDTV
(same size 4:3 picture as on a 60" 16:9). Recently, I had reason to watch a
little SDTV on our even-older Sony 32" CRT set and I was surprised that
those pictures did not look as good as I had remembered that they did. The
only set I have where the SD really looks good is on a 15" LCD TV I have in
my office. If you want SDTV to look good, a small screen does more to
accomplish that than anything else! It's not really made for giant-screen
TV sets.

mack
austin
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 8:58:41 AM

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

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:30:40 -0400, Thumper <jaylsmith@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On 11 Jun 2005 21:32:25 -0700, richmosar@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>So, will SD look better on an EDTV than an HDTV?
>Shouldn't
>Thumper

I see one possibility, and that is if the negative effects of the
upconversion is more visible than the rather large pixel dimensions in
the EDTV display.

Conversion from interlaced signal to progressive (EDTV) also requires
temporal resampling but if the vertical pixels (lines) in the signal
fit the display, there is one problem less for the converter.

I haven't actually compared though, because where I live the SD signal
resolution with 575i doesn't fit the 480p displays anyway.

I can see some negative effects of the resampling in the LCD display I
have that displays 768p (for 4:3 format) and 720p (for 16:9 format).

There are other shortcomings of the different panels (of LCD and
plasma types) but on the plus side with upconversion is that at the
same apparent picture size, the screen door effect and visibility of
the sharp pixels are less with a panel of higher resolution.

The same discussion is valid when a HDTV signal does not fit the
native resolution and frame rate of the display (but I don't want to
start that discussion here about 720p/1080i/1080p, 24/30/50/60.)
/Jan
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 5:28:51 PM

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

"Richard C." <post-age@spamcop.net> wrote

> It depends entirely on the set.

Well, as a general rule, I think that is unlikely to be true. The set, i.e.
the size of the screen, overall quality of the various components and the
set's upconverting software, is one of several factors that influence the
quality of an SD picture on an HD set. Most important is the original
quality of the SD broadcast. Compare an SD picture on, say, HBO with one
from Sci-Fi Channel on the same set. Night and day. And the nature of the
transmission, though TV stations or cable companies, set-top boxes, etc.
makes a great deal of difference, as well.

Of course, if any one factor is really lousy, it will make the picture bad.
The weakest link in the chain determines final quality. That could be the
quality of the TV set -- or not.

mack
austin
!