Analog vs. Digital Picture Quality

[The Madness]

I just got a New Panasonic 42" 77U. I have cable connected via a comcast high def DVR box. I ran a DVI to HDMI cable from the box to the TV HDMI in. I also ran component video from the box to the receiver and a HDMI from the receiver to TV.

THE PROBLEM

The picture quality with hi def cable feed is increadible. How ever the standtard analog channels look pretty much horrible. Is there a way to fix this?

 

[avaserfi]

That is generally a common problem with HD TVs. Normally SD doesn't look that great on them for a variety of reasons. Are you sure you just aren't comparing SD to HD because then ofcourse it will look horrible. Another problem is SD was never designed to be seen on such large panels so it looks worse when you can see the poor quality blown up.

I don't think there is an actual fix maybe you should just watch more HD .

 

[j_garcia]

No fix as of yet that I know of. A common problem because once you've seen what the set is capable of, SD broadcast just looks bad. I was in Best Buy this weekend and over heard an older lady saying "the picture looks amazing" on their LCDs and I was thinking to myself, "Yes, but that is because they are feeding it a hi-def signal too, when you go home it won't look that good for your SD TV programs..."

 

[jake5717]

Here's a n00b question. If you receiver upconverts will that clean up a SD TV signal or does that only meant that it will upconvert from RBG to HDMI?

 

[avaserfi]

Depends on the receiver. Most current receivers will just upconvert to HDMI but some of the newer Onkyo's seem to actually have the ability to upconvert PQ similar to an upconverting DVD player.

 

[jake5717]

It would be interesting to see what an SDTV signal looked like after being upconverted. Onkyo SR605?

 

[avaserfi]

It will be the same as a DVD upconverted by a good upconverting player. It looks better but still looks bad compared to a true HD signal. Most everything will become smoothed out and look less jaggie.

 

[jake5717]

I wonder why this isn't as popular as upconverting a DVD's. It seems to be a common complaint among new flat panel owners and since most people watch more TV then movies (at least the people I know) I would think there would be more TV signal upconverters.

 

[j_garcia]

Agreed. Even good upconversion can't make an average signal look spectacular.

Upconverting broadcast TV isn't necessary because it will all be digital by 2009 (required).

 

[The Madness]

Jake, interesting question about the Onkyo 605 as that is exactly what I am running. I havent tried HDMI from Cable Box through the Receiver, but the RGB from the cable box through the reciever does seem to be slightly better but the image jitters a little.

 

[avaserfi]

Its probably not more common because most people just want to watch tv they don't need a receiver to increase video quality. Most people like us (A/V geeks) are going to be placated by the new lines of receivers coming out if willing to spend the extra money. I perfer not to watch SD programing and use my bunny ears to pick up soley HD.

 

[jake5717]

Upconverting broadcast TV isn't necessary because it will all be digital by 2009 (required).

Though not required……. I would imagine my 09 a lot of people will have an HDDVD or Blue Ray player too but we still see a ton of upconverting DVD players on the market. Is an upconverted TV signal still so ugly that its not worth adding a new piece of equipment?

 

[jake5717]

I’m too cheap to pay the extra $20 a month to get channels I don’t watch in HD but I would pay a little extra for a receiver that upconverts SDTV since I run everything through the receiver anyway it would totally be a bonus.

 

[avaserfi]

I’m too cheap to pay the extra $20 a month to get channels I don’t watch in HD but I would pay a little extra for a receiver that upconverts SDTV since I run everything through the receiver anyway it would totally be a bonus.

First off you don't have to pay much. Those old school rabbit ears that cost 20 bucks at home depot will get you local broadcast in HD at higher quality than getting it from a box. Secondly, you have to ask yourself is it really worth spending the extra money to get a receiver with one feature that will be useless soon enough, especially when HD becomes more prevalent? It might be my skewed view towards TV's crappy nature, I mean 999 channels and nothing on, to say screw it, but then people like you seem interested in the upconversion.

 

[jake5717]

I get my local channels from dish in HD, the $20 is to get TNT, HGTV, Discovery HD, and few other. Other then Discovery I don’t really watch the other stations. The quality of the picture may not be as good as rabbit ears but the convenience of DVR with Dish’s guide makes up for it.
I figure I could sell my 661 for a couple bucks so it wouldn’t be much more to get a 605, of course if upconverting isn’t that good then I won’t need to do any purchasing of new hardware.

 

[jonnythan]

DVD quality is way, way above analog broadcast quality.

Upconverting broadcast TV won't make it look like upconverted DVD.

Never.

 

[Mort Corey]

Not sure why you are routing two connections to the TV (one direct from the box and one through the receiver) but you might want to experiment by running component cables directly from the box to one input and compare it to the other direct input of the DVI/HDMI connection.....leaving the receiver out of the equation (except for audio) and see if it makes a difference. The HD channels will likely look pretty close and the component connection might be an improvement (or not )

Mort

 

[avaserfi]

Not sure why you are routing two connections to the TV (one direct from the box and one through the receiver) but you might want to experiment by running component cables directly from the box to one input and compare it to the other direct input of the DVI/HDMI connection.....leaving the receiver out of the equation (except for audio) and see if it makes a difference. The HD channels will likely look pretty close and the component connection might be an improvement (or not )

Mort

Why would the receiver degrade video quality? If working properly there should be no difference at all.

 

[Mort Corey]

It shouldn't. But it's (if I read the OP correctly) doing a conversion from component to HDMI.....which shouldn't make any difference if the receiver is functing properly either. My suggestion was only to eliminate the variable....ie, one digital connection vs one straight analog connection.

I've got the same cable box hooked into an older PDP via DVI and while the lower analog (below 100) stations don't come close, the higher (100 and above) are pretty darn good. Since the PDP is doing the final converions I guess my results could be somewhat do to good processing by the display.
When I did an initial side by side comparison (component vs DVI) the difference was pretty small.

Mort

 

[Hi Ho]

It all has to do with the scaler and the signal quality. Watching standard definition TV on an HD set is like taking a low res picture on your PC and zooming way in on it. Some TVs do a better job at this than others. Sharp and Pioneer seem to to it best.

An external scaler can make a difference but only if it's doing a better job than what's in the TV. The Yamaha RX-V2700 was one of the first A/V receivers that had an actual video scaler built in. I own one along with a Mitsubishi HD1000 720p DLP projector. The scaler in the receiver does an excellent job of upscaling DVD's and a very good job with the standard signal from my Tivo box. The scaler in the receiver outperforms the one in the projector.