1080i signal into 480i 4:3 TV ???????

[toenail]

I've searched and read a ton but not qite found the answer to this one. I have a new 32" Toshiba 4:3 tv. Local programming (CBS, ABC, NBC etc) all have horrible picture. Digital channels (HBO etc) look great. I can upgrade my cable box to HD for a few $$$$'s a month and pay nothing for about 15 HD channels including the above networks etc. Keep in mind I'm not looking for HD quality picture from this venture, just the best 480i picture I can get for these channels.

If I do this;

1) will 1080i even be compatible with my 480i (component input) set or does it go the way of progressive and become completely scrambled?

2) will 16:9 image show up as it does with DVD (bars above and below) or can it be changed manually via the tv menu to letterbox/16:9/4:3?

Seems like an easy way to clean signal for the local networks.

[LEAFS264]

No toenail, 1080i is not compatiable w/ your 480i t.v. Getting HD channels would be a waste unless you have a HDTV. I find all local programming garbage no matter what TV i'm using. You would have to upgrade your t.v to get HDTV. Yes there should be a 16:9 button on your remote to change the aspect ratio of the T.V.



Jay

[edtyct]

Toenail, am I right that you have the Toshiba 32HF72, which is a digital, HD-compatible set? If so, at least one of your component inputs (if not both) is compatible with a 1080i signal, which is the HD feed of choice for your CRT, to which it converts any 720p that it receives. It should also be capable of showing 480p. Any transmitted 16:9 image will show up on your 4:3 screen with black (or grey) bars at the top and bottom, unless the TV (#) has a cropping zoom function that allows you to fill the 4:3 screen. If it does, I wouldn't use it; by the way, some broadcasts in HD, like local news, are still 4:3.

Assuming that I haven't misunderstood what TV you actually have, why aren't you looking for "HD quality" from the cable box (#)? Granted that your TV doesn't have the native aspect ratio for full resolution (the horizontal scan lines are far too few), but as a digital TV (#), it will benefit from a superior signal, which on a 32" monitor will look very tight.

Edited here to say that if Jay's right, my message is completely wrong. I seem to have misunderstood your statement that digital broadcasts look great to mean that you were actually seeing them digitally. So, as Gilda Radner used to say, "Never mind."

Ed

[LEAFS264]

Yes, but toenail if you do have the T.V that Ed thinks you have, then my post is wrong and Ed nailed it!!!!! this should be fun!

Jay

[toenail]

Should have been more specific. This is the tv in question.

http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/televisions/product.asp?model=32af44

The highest resolution it's capable of showing is 480i. From what you've said it sounds like a 480i tv can't even accept a 1080i signal and show it. I was hoping that it would accept it but only show resolution as good as 480i.

[edtyct]

A TV has to be designated as digital and at least capable of "enhanced definition" in order to accept a 1080i signal, even if it has to downconvert it to 480p to display it. Most of the HD cable boxes have analog outs for a TV like yours, but they would have no advantage over your standard cable box's analog signal (unless they accidentally happened to be of marginally higher quality). Toshiba's standard definition TVs have always been pretty good, though I wish they'd disable velocity scan modulation.

Ed

[kexodusc]

Ed, all Toshibas since at least 2000 have VSM (or SVM) disabling either explicitly or hidden, usually by selecting the "Movie" or "Theater" preset setting. You just have to save it as your "preference" or custom setting after...so before calibrating, make sure you select the "movie" user mode.
Alternatively, you can usually disable it by accesssing the serivice menu or design menu (at your own risk).

I just learned this on my new HDTV as well...had to download a test pattern with black and white bars and shapes to see what VSM actually does...I have no idea why they even bothered to put it in in the first place, it doesn't seem to improve anything IMO.

[edtyct]

Thanks, kex. I'd forgotten that. The last Toshiba that I used was a 2000 RP/HD model, which was fantastic, despite SVM. What SVM is supposed to do is enhance brightness and darkness by speeding up and slowing down scans on CRTs, in the process adding edge enhancement. If your TV is set up incorrectly, SVM will create a noticeable blur--decreasing rather than increasing resolution--which sucks in the first place, but it will also overdrive contrast, causing blooming, and distort any dark and light areas in close proximity. We're supposed to think that bloated scan lines look good. SVM probably trickled down uselessly from professional use, in which it has a place in hiding scan lines in recording equipment.

A bit of education from the manufacturers about proper setup and adherence to the professional color-temperature standard would be far preferable to manufacturers' now endless list of features, many of them assuming poor calibration. True, there are unavoidable factors that cause people to view their sets in less than ideal conditons, but it would seem to me that orientation toward the highest quality picture should be the priority, with a side option for viewing, say, in a bright room. Somehow the idea that profits increase with consumer's lack of knowledge has taken hold in the marketplace. When you consider how many features on a modern mass-market display become unattractive to anyone who scratches the surface of information about TVs, the waste is sobering.

Ed

[kexodusc]

I agree Ed. I've only had the new set for a few weeks now, but after spending many free hours researching what I should know, I've come to realize just how much useless junk these things come with (at no doubt a rediculously added cost to the consumer), and how far from even "acceptable" the picture is out of the box.

One quick question if I may...I see the term "blooming" used a lot...usually when referring to colors...for example, my test disc tells me to set the color red I think to the point where it's bright but not blooming...

"Blooming" might as well be another bloody audiophile term, as I haven't the foggies idea of what it means...I'd probably need to see an example of "blooming" vs. "not-blooming" I think, to fully understand...but maybe you could give a quick explanation?

[edtyct]

Sure. Blooming refers to contrast white or to colors that are so overdriven that they spill outside their rightful lines. On the brightness test, when the white boxes or the white line begin to look like they're spreading out or swelling, they are blooming and should be brought back just to the point before blooming to maximize dynamic range between peak light and dark. Contrast and brightness interact; to get black and white correct, you might have to toggle between brightness and contrast a few times.

Color blooming refers to the phenomenon of a color bleeding beyond its rightful place in a similar way because of oversaturation. Cut back to bring it within its legitimate range. Sometimes colors interact in such a way that you might have to choose a little blooming, or a little undersaturation, in one to get the others right--particularly in such important matters as skin tone. Many sets have an exaggerated red and/or green. Sometimes only delving into the service menu can cure it; sometimes nothing can cure it. The Japanese seem to have a thing for green that often turns sporting events into psychedelic experiences.

I've assumed that you're using a calibration disk to set up the TV. If not, you can check for contrast blooming by inspecting white titles against a black background at the end of a film. If reducing the contrast seems to make the white letters reduce in size, then they may well be blooming (unless the disk has added edge enhancement of its own). So far as color is concerned, you can try to freeze a stationary images on the screen to see whether any of the colors is too hot. You could also use the color bars on some THX films to check for blooming, but the professional test disks are the best references, since the other options might deviate in brightness and color from standard because of the mastering process.

[kexodusc]

Thanks Ed...I think I understand now...I do remember seeing some "overlap" of colours in the standard color bar test...cutting it down a bit took care of that...
Funny you should mention the pushes...I had to adjust the Red Drive and Cuts in the service menu already on my set..Red Push apparently is becoming more common these days...lucky for me doing this fixed up the gray scale as well (which was way off out of the box). I was in panic mode for about 4 hours while I drove around the city visiting TV shops until I noticed that just about every set by every manufacturer had a push one way or the other. I was at first a little upset that these things aren't calibrated properly at the factory in the first place, now I'm having a blast tweaking and tuning little settings to my satisfaction. HDTVoice.com has been an invaluable source, among others.

I don't mind having to tune my tv myself, but I feel a little bit angry that people like my mom and dad could walk in to a store, drop $3500 on a TV, and have it delivered and set up in torch-mode, with the convergence off, red push, horizontal alignment off, and no idea how to go about fixing any of these things. I understand that calibration would raise costs, but come on, nobody would buy a new car with the timing off, cylinders misfiring, and transmission slipping...it's discouraging to think that Ford sends vehicles to the showroom floors with a more aggressive degree of tolerance than some of these TV manufacturers...
Oh well...

[edtyct]

And it's weird, too. Audio standards are much more heavily implemented, if not honored by consumers, than video standards. I should let you and Sir T comment on them. But video is almost completely chaotic, except for certain manufacturers and certain sets that have adhered to professional standards (like those from Princeton, Proton, and Marantz--to name a few). The fear is widespread that if they don't push color, brightness, and edge enhancement well beyond their natural limits, they will be at a disadvantage in the market. This does not appear to be the general case in home theater audio, where THX is king, specs. are ubiquitous at every price point (even if inaccurate), and accuracy is touted as a genuine value. Accuracy is not offered as a goal in video, except by critics. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a one-dimensional sour puss about it; I'm truly amazed by the state of video these days. But somehow, the notion of standards has largely evaded it. If it weren't for watchdogs like Joe Kane and others, we'd still be completely at the mercy of commercial interests, and perhaps even technical limitations that apply to a broadcast format long ago superseded.

Ed

[mpm32]

My local channels were crap on my digital cable box. I went out and got a signal amplifier and they are much, much better now.

[kexodusc]

Well, Ed, I'm part of the problem when it comes to low standards and accuracy for video...until we got this thing I didn't give a hoot about video...sound was 90% of HT for me...the ol' 32" was more than enough...In the last few weeks I've totally jumped into Hi-Def...and now I can't believe how I did without it. And it's amazing how much larger and more "theater-like" the movies SOUND now that the video aspect has been improved...the brain is a funny thing. Point is, I think the lowest common denominator rule applies, and until the masses demand higher performance at a lower price, products will continue to merely meet expecations instead of exceeding them.

Standards are funny things too, though...as soon as you implement them and require compliance, methods of "cheating" will emerge, limiting their effectiveness anyway. Or the wrong specs will be presented and more weight will be given to these. Look at all the posts here at ar.com where people ask about which amplifiers or receivers to buy and base their decision (or advice) on watts and THD. 100 watts is sure more than 50, and wow, 0.005% THD is much less than 0.05% THD. But that 100 watts might make a barely noticeable +3dB increase in volume over 50 watts, and even though 0.005% THD is ten times better than .05%, but most evidence suggest THD of 1% (some would argue 2% or even 5%) is <b>inaudible</b> to our ears...0.5% is rediculously low, and .05% is effectively zero. Neither of these specs is necessarily by itself, or even together, an indicator of how good an amplifier sounds, which I'd argue is more important than any number in which compliance is recommended. And we haven't even begun to talk about the 1 kHz, 1-channel driven, into a fixed value resistor tests these figures might have been reported at...that's another story.

[kexodusc]

Toenail, buddy, you're gonna have to shell out some clams for a new 57", widescreen HDTV and then get the service to go with it. You've got 2 kidneys...they're fetchin' a good price on ebay these days! :D

[edtyct]

I know what you mean about half-hearted compliance and half-digested specs in audio. But in the video world, the standards are so remote that manufacturers have nothing to cheat against--except, to borrow from Winston Churchill, cheating itself. It's wide open.

[toenail]

You guys have sure made my job of gathering info about all this stuff much easier. You've answered many questions I've been meaning to ask but have not gotten around to in this thread.

You're right of course Kex, I do need to look into HD. I just bought the 32" toshi CRT in the fall, and while I got a great price on it, I'm having a hard time justifying it's replacement already. At best I'd be looking into a 16:9 or 4:3 direct view CRT in the 30"-34" range (read- below $1000) HD monitor. It's not something I'd be willing to do unless unless the original retailer where the toshi came from offers upgrade incentives (doubtfull) with trade in or I can be convinced that direct view CRT HD sets under $1000 are really that much more impressive (something I've yet to see). Every visit to Walmart, CC or BB always fails to impress because it *appears* that the direct view CRTs are fed an ungodly noisy 480i signal while the $8000 Panny is fed a true 1080i. If the picture I'm seeing on the showroom floor is any indication, those direct view HD CRTs are not a significant upgrade over what I've got now.

I did try a signal amplifier for my cable. It didn't seem to help the problem much because I believe the noise is entering the system prior to my home. In other words, I'm amplifying a dirty signal. It has visible horizontal lines (scan lines?) only on the local networks. I thought I remember the cable guy telling me this was because the local channels are simply grabbed by the cable itself, acting as an antenna or words to that effect. Also, some of the channels that were fine previously had taken on an odd "hairy" background quality similar to graniness but vibrant. I'm assuming this is the signal being overdriven.

The current toshi does offer the ability to shut off SVM or whatever that is. I'm trying to find a copy of the Avia disc locally without success in order to fine tune the picture a bit. I may end up having to order it.

[edtyct]

Toenail, cable has a history of notoriously lousy analog signals. Cable's digital signals look better, some because they couldn't possibly look any worse, and some because their path and their origins are better. The HD signals can be spectacular, regardless of the fact that major compression is often applied to them so that the cable companies can send multiple programs along the line. To my mind, the 15 or so HD stations alone are worth the price of admission--that is, if you don't get the VOOM satellite service instead. I don't know whether you want to read this, but the picture on a 34" 16x9 direct-view CRT can be breathtaking (never trust the showroom floor). Philips, Panasonic, Toshiba, and Sony--at least--make good ones, and the prices must be dropping like flies, probably with deals to be made. Usually, sets of this size set suffer in the horizontal resolution dept., since they can't fit anything like the 1920 lines, or even the 1280 lines, in the HD standards. But the pictures are often crisp, bright, and colorful, with the kind of deep primordial blacks that no microdisplay can deliver. The Sony XBR is particularly impressive, reaching about 1300 lines horizontally, though it has traditionally suffered from a scrolling white line going from left to right across the screen with 1080i feeds. Not everyone sees it immediately, but once seen, it never disappears. It's not necessarily a gamebreaker, however, by any means. I had a 34" Sony recently, and I loved the picture, despite the scrolling bar. But it is an unwieldy beast for its relatively small screen size, coming in at 200 lb., with a depth of more than 20 inches, compared to, say, Sony's 42" RP LCD, which weighs about 60 lb. and is only about 13" deep.

I hope that I haven't added to your angst about it.

[toenail]

Oh I've seen the dropping prices, trust me. What I can't decide is $1000 or less now, or more money for the whole enchilada later. Part of the hesitation stems from the fact that the majority of programming available is still in 4:3 format. I'm not keen on burning black side margins into a brand new 16:9, nor am I keen on watching the distorted image that would fill the whole screen to prevent this. Not so sure the wife would like either of those scenarios too. That's partly why I'd not ruled out a 4:3 HD monitor. It would take me into the next few years when *supposedly* most programming will be available in HD 16:9. At that point I could easily justify the expense of a decent 16:9 LCD/plasme/projo etc. Of course the 4:3 presents it's own problems in that zooming to fill top/bottom bars typically reduces resolution (kind of defeats the purpose). I currently watch 1-2 dvd's in 16:9 format per week. I leave the top/bottom bars because I'm under the impression viewing in this fromat that seldom doesn't cause major problems.

[edtyct]

Your widescreen DVDs aren't hurting your CRT if you aren't driving the contrast/brightness too hard. One of the zoom functions on a 16x9 TV simply stretches the sides and top of the frame to fill the screen, without affecting the center. I always found it a relatively painless compromise. Let's face it, depending on what you like to watch, a good deal of upconverted 4:3 programming will be with us for some time after the full "transition" to HD. You could find yourself waiting for a while. To me, however, buying a new 4:3 digital monitor would be a tactical error, failing to take advantage of HD's full benefit as it stands now--as you say. I can certainly see holding off on buying anything until the funds are there but not because of any concessions to 4:3. However, I find it hard to watch anything now that isn't in HD (except for upconverted DVDs); not much 4:3 material gets to my screen these days, since I rarely view network programming, except for the local news--in 4:3 HD, of course.

Ed

[Rhino]

I've searched and read a ton but not qite found the answer to this one. I have a new 32" Toshiba 4:3 tv. Local programming (CBS, ABC, NBC etc) all have horrible picture. Digital channels (HBO etc) look great. I can upgrade my cable box to HD for a few $$$$'s a month and pay nothing for about 15 HD channels including the above networks etc. Keep in mind I'm not looking for HD quality picture from this venture, just the best 480i picture I can get for these channels.

If I do this;

1) will 1080i even be compatible with my 480i (component input) set or does it go the way of progressive and become completely scrambled?

2) will 16:9 image show up as it does with DVD (bars above and below) or can it be changed manually via the tv menu to letterbox/16:9/4:3?

Seems like an easy way to clean signal for the local networks.

Check to see if your cable box has the option to convert to 480i, I think most HD boxes do. I can watch 1080i programming off HD channels in 480i on my TV, through either through the digital inputs or the analog. The box also has a zoom feature that lets you convert 16:9 format into 4:3. Call your cable compnay and ask them. I'm guessing it is doable.