Question about LCD, High Definition .......

[dvjorge]

Hi guys,

After wife pushing, finally I bought my first flat screen. After some reserching, I went with a LCD insted of a plasma. My buget was limited, so I bought a 32" Hyundai HDTV, 1366 x 768 resolution, 1000: 1 contraste radio, and diagonal 16:9. I got this for $1100. I don't know how good can be an LCD made by Hyundai but It was the best price I found in this screen side.Some guys told me Hyundai is very similar to Samsung. Ok, let me go to the point. For years, I have had a Sony trinitron which I believe has good picture. When I hooked up the new lcd to direct tv, I found the picture isn't as good as the Sony is.I don't know if this is because my receiver isn't for HD or what is wrong? I hooked the lcd to my dvd player and things were different. Using the dvd as a source, the picture is excellent. Guys, I don't know if I need a HD receiver to get what this lcd is able to delivery. Also, I don't know why with a "normal tv signal" the picture isn't as good as I was expecting. Could the HD signal have better quality than a DVD? Please, I need some advise on this topic and find the way to get better performance of my new tv.

Thanks for your time,
George.

[edtyct]

Hey, George. Since every signal that your LCD receives has to be scaled to its 1366x768 resolution, it stands to reason that HD-level formats, which are closer to it, would look better on it. Your TV was made to deliver HD; everything short of DVD (which is not HD) is, to one extent or another (depending on how good your signal processing is), anathema to it. Standard definition signals, which range from 330 or so to 480 vertically, need quite a bit of processing to stretch to your LCD's native resolution, meaning that the TV has to draw from sparse information to fill in gaps that aren't inherently present in the signal. The mere fact of blowing up this porous signal into a larger frame will reveal all of its flaws dramatically. If you're currently using an analog cable receiver, you are at a genuine disadvantage. DVDs will look substantially better than your cable feed, but when you finally spring for an HD-capable STB, your jaw will drop. Yes, it's that good. Other programming, whether from analog or digital stations, will pale in comparison, though some of the digital stations will please you. But you will be spoiled by HDTV and will be panting for DVD to go HD as well, despite the fact that current DVDs are the next best thing.

Ed

[paul_pci]

The short answer is yes: you need to get an HD receiver from Direct TV or a third party seller and you may also have to change your dish (Direct TV will tell you). But that will be mostly for receiving HD broadcasts from the networks, TNT, or the movie channels, for instance. What impact an HD receiver will have on Standard Broadcast (most of the programming out there) I cannot say.

[edtyct]

An HD receiver won't improve an SD picture on a fixed-pixel display, but until recently DirecTV's non-HD stations traditionally trumped analog or many of cable's feeds, since the signal was largely devoid of certain artifacts, even though the resolution wasn't any better. However, DirecTV has been rumored to be downconverting its broadcasts a little to save bandwidth, and it is sufffering from some of the problems associated with trying to cram lots of broadcasting into narrow slots. A very good video processor, like the DVDO, is necessary to make any noticeable difference in how SD programming looks on a microdisplay, but not even one of those can squeeze blood from a stone. The larger the display, the worse SD can look without excellent processing. Your 32" LCD should hold up as well as anything under the strain. I'll wager that once you get HD on it, you'll be relatively content to take broadcast SD with a grain of salt, if you even watch it any more. Have fun.

Ed

[topspeed]

As always, Ed just nailed it. SD picture quality is a common problem with today's HD sets for the exact reasons already noted. Get used to it or get an HD stb. Most of my friends that have HD are so enamored with the picture, they'll watch stuff they usually wouldn't just because it's in HD!

[hermanv]

I don't agree with general consensus here.

The converter to scale standard NTSC signals to HDTV compatibility is built in to most HD satellite boxes and into most HDTV sets. My experience of the ability of this circuit to do a good job varies quite a lot from one manufacturer to another. LCD (or any microdisplay TV) presents a special problem because the converter should be optimized to up convert to the exact fraction of a particullar display (example 1024 x 768 is common) yours at 1366 X768 is far less common.

I would beg or borrow other converters to test before I panicked about the TV itself. Many brands advertise some kind of extrapolator to guess about the missing pixels, reviews about various brands differ but most seem to add value to the picture.

There are a number of external upscalers in the market place even used ones (see Videogon). They start around a few hundred and reach many thousands of dollars. I know this adds to the total cost of your purchase but sometimes the lowest priced product is not the best value.

[edtyct]

Hermanv, you seem to be agreeing with the consensus. The point was that scaling of SD can be a dicey business on a microdisplay. A one-to-one conversion is preferable but relatively rare, and it doesn't guarantee that the scaling will be look great, anyway, since the problem of pumping up a low rez format to a high def pixel count without the data to plug the gaps still remains. The result is a picture with inherent flaws that are writ large. As I said, the saving grace of a 32" LCD display is that it's small enough to hide some of the artifacts. Some external scalers are better than others, but in the case at hand, the expense might not be justified; on a larger than 40" screen, it might. The best policy, so far as picture quality is concerned, is to feed the display the highest rez formats possible. By the way, horizontal resolution is not as critical to the eye as vertical. A conversion from 720p to 768p won't tax the scaler anywhere near as much as something that starts substantially below 480.

Ed

[hermanv]

I have a 55" HD (CRT) set. It has a scaler that is so so, the scaler in my satelite box is quite a bit better and NTSC scaled looks better than NTSC not scaled on my display. (By pushing enough buttons I can scale it either way)

Although I haven't brought any home, the reviews of the newer scalers (Sony calls their corporate attempt "Digital Reality Creation") certainly imply some continous progress.

In a similar vein the first oversamled CD players seemed to be mostly gimmic, but newer upsampling players really seem to work. It would seem that these technologies can't add information but they can do a better job of extracting hidden hints of missing content.

As always the consumer needs to be aware of technology details, the salesman either doesn't know or is motivated to make the best deal for him, not the customer.

[edtyct]

Yeah, I think that Sony DRC does a reasonably good job for a scaler/deinterlacer inside a TV. The Motorola scalers embedded in their cable receivers are also pretty good. It's just the nature of the fixed pixel beast to look a little soft and washed out when showing certain types of SD. Let's get this HD thing off the ground already. But scalers are getting better and better. The digital scaling in DVD players started out with all sorts of problems, like introducing the wrong colorimetry or using PC black levels. But when done right, they can relieve microdisplays of a chore that they don't always do as well, sometimes adding a measurable degree of sharpness over the same material presented in straight 480p. The Sony NS-975P, when it works, upconverts to a Sony display very effectively.

Ed