Do all Large TVS have Bad Pic with SD?

[markw]

Gee, Iwish Y'all could come over and see what I'm talking about.

This 32" tosh LCD has an excellent SD picture from 6 -7 feet away. I just watched "The Dresden Files" and was astounded by it's quality. If a 32" can do it from that distance, why can't a smaller one do it? Perhaps the quality of the LCD's used in these projection Tv's?

I think there's more to this than some people want to think.

 

[Hi Ho]

If a 32" can do it from that distance, why can't a smaller one do it? Perhaps the quality of the LCD's used in these projection Tv's?

Microdisplays can produce a decent SD picture. It is all up to the scaler used and the other processing in the TV. It's not the micro display chip itself that's the problem.

 

[solomr2]

The quality of SD picture will vary from set to set. One of the worst I have seen for poor quality SD picture are the new 1080p top of the line Sony. However, most of the LCDs I've seen aren't all that much better.

The new Sharp 92u models are a little bit improved, but not up to par with regular CRT TVs, so don't expect any miracles. This is an unfortunate byproduct of our current state of tv broadcasting in this country. However, the regulations are changing so maybe in a couple of years we'll have more digital options.

 

[markw]

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say all along.

Microdisplays can produce a decent SD picture. It is all up to the scaler used and the other processing in the TV. It's not the micro display chip itself that's the problem.

It isn't the display type (CRT vs LCD) that's the problem.

The real problem is that "they" won't invest what's needed to get LCD's to perform up to the levels of CRT's. They hobble their own products. I won't consider rear projection sets.

 

[tbewick]

I just think it's worth mentioning that it will make a considerable difference if the standard definition signal is sourced from a progressive master. If it isn't, then deinterlacing becomes much more difficult. My display has a separate deinterlacing setting for source video which is film-specific, i.e. progressive. With stuff done in interlaced video, my TV adds 'staircasing' to some edges and picture resolution is worse. Probably non-progressive video will look better and sharper on a non-progressive CRT.

 

[Idaho]

It is both the scaling and the distance that affects SD quality. When I said before that blowing up a low resolution image to a larger size will always create artifacts I was talking about 'scaling' 480i to 720p or 1080i. The picture is larger but it is the same quality as it was originally.

I spent some time at a Best Buy today. They have a Direct TV sat feed so I compared SD and HD channels on multiple TVs. I made a point of checking smaller sets that would be comparable to my 32" CRT and viewed a various distances. I proved to my complete satisfaction that the last statement above regarding picture quality is false. Here are my conclusions to date:

1) No plasma, no DLP, and no LCD that I have seen to date can produce a picture that is the same quality as my 32" CRT from a sat SD signal. Not even close. Playing with contrast etc helps only a little.

2) There is a HUGE difference between SD sat source and DVD even though both are theoretically 480 lines.

I would be very content to watch the images that ANY of the TVs I viewed playing DVD. Obviously the signal provided by satellite is a big part of the problem, maybe the entire problem. Viewing distance is not the issue.

I would like to know the definitive answer as to why these TVs do such a bad job with sat SD but I don't. The right answers have likely been stated. I suspect it's primarily a scaler issue. My guess is manufacturers give this little attention knowing it's the HD display that will sell the TV. It seems obvious with the resolution these TVs are capable of it's not the display panel itself that's limiting but how the signal is processed.

This 32" tosh LCD has an excellent SD picture from 6 -7 feet away. I just watched "The Dresden Files" and was astounded by it's quality.

markw, what was the signal source? If it's satellite I need to check out that TV line. Perhaps they have a better scaler?

Arlie

 

[GTF]

I have a small HDTV. SONY KV34XBR910
We have Dullhouse cable.
Ok, ok they call themselves Brighthouse.
To bad they don't live up to their name.
Anyway.
HD looks wonderfull.
SD looks almost as good.
Thats one reason I bought a crt instead of a LCD, DLP, or a Plasma.
Their picture quality was to low for me.
SD service is still to prevalent.

GTF

 

[Seth=L]

I like to analogize this issue with speakers. You can listen to poor and good recordings on a boombox and it will sound OK(subjective) for what it is with all the recordings. If you play good recordings on a properly calibrated high quality sound system it will sound good, but play the nasty recordings and all mistakes are revealed.

Same for tvs, the small SD tv looks the same with good and bad video feed, but the nice larger HD tvs look terrible with those poor SD feeds. It would be like getting a $10000 sound system to listen to AM radio, it just doesn't appeal.

 

[MDS]

I spent some time at a Best Buy today. They have a Direct TV sat feed so I compared SD and HD channels on multiple TVs. I made a point of checking smaller sets that would be comparable to my 32" CRT and viewed a various distances. I proved to my complete satisfaction that the last statement above regarding picture quality is false.

Glad you proved something to yourself since you are the one buying a tv for YOU but all of the reasons you stated for your preference are false.

If you compare a low resolution image on a small CRT from a close distance to the same image scaled from 480i to 720p, 1366 x 768 (very common), or 1080p on a much larger display of course the CRT will look better from the same distance.

Go back and do the same comparison from much further away and the distinction will not be so great because you will no longer be able to see the 'structure' of the display.

 

[jonnythan]

It's a fact of life that enlarged resolutions look like crap on fixed-pixel displays. You just have to deal with it.

 

[tbewick]

I spent some time at a Best Buy today. They have a Direct TV sat feed so I compared SD and HD channels on multiple TVs. I made a point of checking smaller sets that would be comparable to my 32" CRT and viewed a various distances. I proved to my complete satisfaction that the last statement above regarding picture quality is false. Here are my conclusions to date:

1) No plasma, no DLP, and no LCD that I have seen to date can produce a picture that is the same quality as my 32" CRT from a sat SD signal. Not even close. Playing with contrast etc helps only a little.

2) There is a HUGE difference between SD sat source and DVD even though both are theoretically 480 lines.

I would be very content to watch the images that ANY of the TVs I viewed playing DVD. Obviously the signal provided by satellite is a big part of the problem, maybe the entire problem. Viewing distance is not the issue.

I would like to know the definitive answer as to why these TVs do such a bad job with sat SD but I don't. The right answers have likely been stated. I suspect it's primarily a scaler issue. My guess is manufacturers give this little attention knowing it's the HD display that will sell the TV. It seems obvious with the resolution these TVs are capable of it's not the display panel itself that's limiting but how the signal is processed.



markw, what was the signal source? If it's satellite I need to check out that TV line. Perhaps they have a better scaler?

Arlie

I think it is due to the compression used in the standard definition source material you are viewing. It could be due to the rescaler, but I think it would be best to read reviews of the sets you're considering to be sure.

'Report on the formal subjective viewing tests of MPEG-2 video encoding for High Definition and Standard Definition Television on Plasma Display Panels', T. Davies and J.O. Drewery, March 2002, BBC R&D White Paper 025.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP025.pdf

Though it might seem difficult to believe, I have the contrast setting on zero when watching broadcast TV. This hides most of the picture blockiness and still provides a reasonably bright picture. Most TV programmes have quite a high average picture brightness, so contrast isn't generally a problem. Doing this also reduces the possibility of screen burn, which is an issue with plasma TV's. I've found the noise reduction function on my TV produces an undesirable smearing effect and reduces picture detail, so I have it turned off.

For DVD's, I use the optimum contrast setting. Since movies are done on film, movie DVD's will likely have been sourced from a progressive master. It is possible, though I have no idea how, for deinterlacers to produce extremely crisp images from such source material, this despite only having 480 lines to work with. Some DVD's I'd recommend for demonstrating this would be 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the Superbit edition of Lawrence of Arabia.

One problem could be that the TV's you are viewing are incorrectly calibrated. Often TV's on display have their settings for colour, picture sharpness etc. too high, which will exaggerate noise in the picture. Another thing is that they often have all their picture processing functions turned on, and these can also worsen picture quality.

 

[Idaho]

It's quite possible calibration is a factor. I tried calibrating to no great benefit. I had the salespeople try with no better results. Of course this could be lack of expertise.

MDS
Read my post. I viewed all the TVs from different distances. I am not saying no plasma/LCD/DLP is capable of producing a decent picture with sat SD. I am saying that I have not yet seen a decent picture.
If you looked at my 32" CRT picture with sat SD beside any of the TVs I refer to (at any distance) we would have no disagreement.


Thanks for the link to that white paper, I'll definitely check that out.
Arlie

 

[tbewick]

It's quite possible calibration is a factor. I tried calibrating to no great benefit. I had the salespeople try with no better results. Of course this could be lack of expertise.

MDS
Read my post. I viewed all the TVs from different distances. I am not saying no plasma/LCD/DLP is capable of producing a decent picture with sat SD. I am saying that I have not yet seen a decent picture.
If you looked at my 32" CRT picture with sat SD beside any of the TVs I refer to (at any distance) we would have no disagreement.


Thanks for the link to that white paper, I'll definitely check that out.
Arlie

The DVD Digital Video Essentials by Joe Kane, formally of SMPTE, has useful test patterns for setting brightness, contrast, sharpness and colour levels. The 'standard' setting on my TV had the colour and sharpness settings way too high. The colour temperature was also inaccurate (too cool), even on the 'low' temperature setting. If the TV's have a 'movie' or 'accurate' memory picture setting preset, (or something named like that) then this will probably be more accurate than the original factory setting.