HD set with regular satellite signal.... [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : HD set with regular satellite signal....



MCF
01-12-2006, 08:01 AM
A friend is moving to Louisiana (I know, why!?!?)..somewhere out in the middle of now where outside of Baton Rouge (literally in the middle of no where like in the middle of a national park or something)...anyway, he wants to get a plasma HD set but will not have Time Warner (or any quality signal provider)...he plans on getting regular satellite. I know you don't get the full benefits of an HD using a standard signal, but can a poor signal like satellite make watching regular broadcasts unbearable? Also, if you had to rank which would be the best choice for his situation, would it be plasma, DLP projection, LCD projection or LCD..or just stick with his old non-HD projection set or get an old tube style set....he will mostly be watching regular tv and DVD's...and like I said, he will not have access to HD broadcasts and he is not willing to invest in an HD DVD player yet (is anyone at these costs).....thanks!!

edtyct
01-12-2006, 08:41 AM
A lot of satellite channels and DVDs look pretty good on HD displays. But it's a hard question to answer since so much goes into how good a broadcast can look besides the basic technology, and a person's viewing situation matters, too. Why are you second-guessing his desire to get a full-tilt plasma if he wants one? At least he'll be prepared for an HD future when it arrives for him. I question the prudence of buying an SD set, or even an ED plasma, at this point, when HD is getting harder and harder to avoid.

MCF
01-12-2006, 10:45 AM
looked horrible when fed a sd signal....maybe this isn't a problem anymore...I just remember a couple of friends a couple years ago that got HD sets and couldn't stand watching SD shows because the picture quality was so poor. If this isn't the case anymore, than I will recommend to him to get an HD plasma set.....

Eric Z
01-12-2006, 11:32 AM
i heard about some HDTVs looking bad with SD signals, too- not sure if it's a thing of the past now or not.

maybe it wouldn't be too bad to deal with a SDTV for now. does he not have a basic TV? if not, he can always pick one up for dirt cheap. i know what ed means about not getting a new SDTV because the new thing is HD- i wonder if your buddy gets an outstanding deal on a 27" or something (around $100) and then waits a bit for HD.

MCF
01-12-2006, 12:02 PM
but doesn't want to spend $5000 now if he won't get a good picture quality on an HD set with an SD signal.....if he can't, he will get a $2000 HD set now and wait a couple years before dropping $5K when HD broadcasts are available in his area....

edtyct
01-12-2006, 01:01 PM
It's not just about money. There are $1000 HD CRTs that many people would rather watch than a $5000 plasma. The gulf between technologies in the relevant respects isn't as great as it used to be, but the cost of something is still more apt to reflect its newness, or its perceived value, than its PQ. I'm not putting any technology down; they all have their plus sides. But in color rendition, greyscale, and perhaps the ability to show SDTV with the least unpleasantness, CRT is still way up there, despite its lame dog status and price. I watch my daughter's SD shows on an LCD screen, and I don't think that either of us is particularly grossed out by the experience. The way that HD and ED look on it makes up for any of the shortcomings.

The truth is that the new "digital" formats were made to look their best on HD material, and true 480 material as a runner-up. The satellite services have true 480 material as well as other inherited programming that originates at a lower resolution. This SD stuff looks best on a small TV that can't reveal the shortcomings of cheap scaling. But buying a TV on the basis of an outmoded delivery system on its last legs is a little like saying, "A horse-drawn wagon is still a better buy than a car, because a car is overkill on some backwood roads." If SD shows are more important to your friend than even intermediate-resolution programming in a widescreen format, then a 20" TV is his best bet. Or he could buy himself a $1000 to $2000 set with a relatively large screen and get an outboard signal processor to ameliorate the worst of what comes his way. If you can't have everything, should you resign yourself to having almost nothing? Just a thought.

paul_pci
01-12-2006, 03:50 PM
I tend to agree with Ed, especially in the sense that one should not get wedded to a particular type of display and then worry and potentially complain about said display. There will be perceived drawbacks with any choice. My father just purchased a 65" CRT projection HDTV and we have Direct Tv. I have a 27" CRT. One thing I noticed while calibrating his component and s-video input settings with DVE, is that the component input for his DVD produces a much better picture than the s-video input which he currently uses for satellite. Now, I have a sat receiver that uses a component video input and I feel like I currently get a better picture than he does, albeit much smaller. But, of course, the DVD playback and HD OTA programming is nothing that my tv can come close to displaying. And when my father uptgrades his sat service for HD programming he will be utilizing the compononent video input and thus, I imagine, a good improvment on PQ. If your friend is so concerned it would seem that a nice Mitsubishi 1080p DLP is in order. Probably no disappointment there; just no "wow" factor as with plasma.