Do you blame crappy looking StandardDefinition on TV or broadcaster?

[Smokey]

Owning my first LCD for over a month, I have to say it is definitely broadcaster fault for lousy looking SD on LCD HDTVs.

I only get OTA local channels (about 24 ch.) and about 60% of them are in SD, and most of them look pretty darn good. The ones that look bad are sub digital channels as compression and artifacts rule these channels.

I am guessing they look bad due to bandwidth limitation. My Tv is only 32 inch and I imagine these channels will look worse on bigger screens. So next time somebody said that SD programs look bad on LCDs due to upconversion, most likley the blame go to broadcaster station, not the TV

[recoveryone]

I not sure about upconversion, I would agree with the broadcasting, I have dual channel lineups and I can watch the same progam on a SD channel and a HD channel. Now the program may not actually be in HD, just broadcast on a HD channel and the difference is night and day. THe picture is cleaner and sharper, just has the black bars on the sides. LCD's do not do well with SD, my first HD TV (FPTV) did good with SD and just gave you that WOW factor with HD. I think I did a post on here a few years back about that.

[kelsci]

Hi Smokey; When my household switched from Comcast to Direct TV a few years ago, my brother and I noticed that Comcast seem to give a better SD performance than Direct TV. As far as HD went, it seemed that some looked better and Comcast and some looked better on Direct. Today, I find that some SD channels look good on Direct such as Encore westerns. I have been overall pleased with Direct for the only real interuptions are from the front of storms approaching which causes signal loss. However, all the channels audio is balanced something that was out of wack with Comcast. Overall I am pleased with the HD audio/video of Direct TV whether it be SD or HD.

I have been under the weather with diabetic complications and been in and out of hospitals. On top of that I seemed to have lost my strength which I am rebuilding with physiotherapy.

[Smokey]

I not sure about upconversion, I would agree with the broadcasting, I have dual channel lineups and I can watch the same progam on a SD channel and a HD channel. Now the program may not actually be in HD, just broadcast on a HD channel and the difference is night and day. THe picture is cleaner and sharper, just has the black bars on the sides.

Are we talking about OTA or Cable/Satelite channels as some of providers can be stingy with with their SD channels in term of bandwidth.

Today, I find that some SD channels look good on Direct such as Encore westerns. I have been overall pleased with Direct for the only real interuptions are from the front of storms approaching which causes signal loss. However, all the channels audio is balanced something that was out of wack with Comcast. Overall I am pleased with the HD audio/video of Direct TV whether it be SD or HD.

SD channels can look pretty good (albiet side black bars) if given enough bandwidth. In the old days before HD, the cable/satelitte providers usually gave premium channels higher bandwidth than standard channels. I wonder now if they still follow the same rule.

I have been under the weather with diabetic complications and been in and out of hospitals. On top of that I seemed to have lost my strength which I am rebuilding with physiotherapy.

Oh man, I hope you are feeling better as nothing is more importand than one's health. Diabetes seem to run rampant in our society as couple of members of my family also have it and have to watch what they eat. All I can say is get plenty of rest, eat alot of healthy food. And we all praying for you

[Woochifer]

I would not put this solely on the broadcasters. Indeed, it's common practice for satellite/cable providers to downscale the horizontal resolution with SD broadcasts. I know for sure that Directv and Dish Network both downscale their SD feeds, and practices with cable providers will vary. The vertical resolution remains 480 lines. My understanding is that UVerse and FiOS do not downscale

But remember that flat panel TVs are fixed pixel formats, which inherently do not handle rescaled SD sources very well. CRTs are not fixed pixel formats, so they are far more adept at rescaling to different resolutions than LCDs and plasmas. With Directv's SD channels, my old CRT TV looked better than my current TV. And everyone I knew with a CRT HDTV also did not have as big a downgrade in picture quality when displaying SD sources.

[Woochifer]

Hi Smokey; When my household switched from Comcast to Direct TV a few years ago, my brother and I noticed that Comcast seem to give a better SD performance than Direct TV. As far as HD went, it seemed that some looked better and Comcast and some looked better on Direct. Today, I find that some SD channels look good on Direct such as Encore westerns. I have been overall pleased with Direct for the only real interuptions are from the front of storms approaching which causes signal loss. However, all the channels audio is balanced something that was out of wack with Comcast. Overall I am pleased with the HD audio/video of Direct TV whether it be SD or HD.

As I pointed out to Smokey, Directv downscales the horizontal resolution on their SD signals. Their SD feeds still use the antiquated and less efficient MPEG-2 format, whereas their HD feeds use the MPEG-4 AVC format.

With the HD, I've noticed that Comcast in my area compresses the HD signal with local channels less than Directv. But, Directv's feed looks noticeably better than Comcast with the other national feeds.

I have been under the weather with diabetic complications and been in and out of hospitals. On top of that I seemed to have lost my strength which I am rebuilding with physiotherapy.

Sorry to hear about that. Hope your rehab goes well, and we can see you on the board more often (not to mention do more of the other things in everyday life).

[recoveryone]

With the HD, I've noticed that Comcast in my area compresses the HD signal with local channels less than Directv. But, Directv's feed looks noticeably better than Comcast with the other national feeds.

I notice the difference also, when I switched over a few months ago, I had Time Warner, and the PQ on Direct TV is much more detail/sharp.

[pixelthis]

Owning my first LCD for over a month, I have to say it is definitely broadcaster fault for lousy looking SD on LCD HDTVs.

I only get OTA local channels (about 24 ch.) and about 60% of them are in SD, and most of them look pretty darn good. The ones that look bad are sub digital channels as compression and artifacts rule these channels.

I am guessing they look bad due to bandwidth limitation. My Tv is only 32 inch and I imagine these channels will look worse on bigger screens. So next time somebody said that SD programs look bad on LCDs due to upconversion, most likley the blame go to broadcaster station, not the TV

WE PICK up about fifteen channels on the set at work, and its easy to tell the SD from the HD. EVEN the SD looks quite
good.
PART of it is the "no going back" syndrome.
THE LAST VHS tape I rented was "What Lies BENEATH",
and it looked like I was watching it through a screen door,
couldn't believe I had been watching this crap for a decade.
THIS WAS after a year of watching DVD.
Once you get used to HD SD, even good SD, really
doesn't measure up very well. SAME thing happens when
"breaking" in speakers, most times its just getting used to the
new ones.

[Smokey]

With Directv's SD channels, my old CRT TV looked better than my current TV.

That might not really be a fair comparison as your current TV is much larger than CRT you use to own. Same size screen comparison would be more conclusive. On my LCD, SD PQ is very comparable (if not better) with the 32 inch CRT it replaced. And the CRT is top dog Panasonic TAU flat screen series.

WE PICK up about fifteen channels on the set at work, and its easy to tell the SD from the HD. EVEN the SD looks quite good.

Given that a broadcaster is required to transmit their primary digital sub channel at the full bandwidth required for it's resolution, SD can look pretty good on the primary channels.

[Woochifer]

That might not really be a fair comparison as your current TV is much larger than CRT you use to own. Same size screen comparison would be more conclusive. On my LCD, SD PQ is very comparable (if not better) with the 32 inch CRT it replaced. And the CRT is top dog Panasonic TAU flat screen series.

Quite the contrary. The screen area on a 36" 4:3 aspect ratio TV has a 21.6" height measurement, while my 50" 16:9 aspect ratio TV has a 24.5" height dimension. Viewing SD material using a pillar box format does not result in a much larger screen size with my newer TV. Given that I calibrated both TVs using the same disc, I'm actually working from a very comparable benchmark.

If you're going to say that it's an unfair comparison to use a smaller TV for comparison, then your LCD comparison using two 32" TVs is actually more unbalanced. A 32" TV w/ 4:3 aspect ratio has a vertical dimension of 19.2" while a 32" TV at 16:9 results in a 15.7" height. In both absolute (2.9" v. 3.5" difference) and relative terms (13.4% v. 22.3% differential), your comparison is actually more skewed.

My observations about CRT TV performance compared to fixed pixel flat panels have been consistent for years. Fixed pixel TVs simply do not rescale well to SD.

Given that a broadcaster is required to transmit their primary digital sub channel at the full bandwidth required for it's resolution, SD can look pretty good on the primary channels.

But, again in practical terms, many of these SD signals get downconverted since they use the inefficient MPEG-2 format. The reality is that 90% of TV households subscribe to some form of pay TV, and that's what they have to work with.

[kelsci]

Thanks very much, Woochifier and Smokey, I will be 65 in October. It seems the older you get, more goofy things happen. With audio, I started with just a 1950s am electric radio and a one or two tube mono phonograph-hi-fi consoles to 5.1 sound. With video I started with a 10 inch rca tv in 1951 thru the black and white days with a larger screen black and white television to high def. I saw the color tv set evolve from the 1950s to what it is today. I have sure seen alot.

[Hyfi]

I have only ever had OTA reception and it is definitely the broadcasters to blame.

I have 2 SONY XBRs and 2 old style tubies w/converter box, one that is hooked just to an old school v antenna.

Even a few of the major local stations don't broadcast the news and other shows in full HD but as soon as any sporting event is shown, BAM all the detail you can ask for.

Other stations are HD all the time and a few of the sub channels are very crappy 420 but I'm still glad to have them. Where else am I gonna get Patty Duke and Mr Ed while having morning coffee than Antenna TV sub channel?

[Smokey]

If you're going to say that it's an unfair comparison to use a smaller TV for comparison, then your LCD comparison using two 32" TVs is actually more unbalanced. A 32" TV w/ 4:3 aspect ratio has a vertical dimension of 19.2" while a 32" TV at 16:9 results in a 15.7" height. In both absolute (2.9" v. 3.5" difference) and relative terms (13.4% v. 22.3% differential), your comparison is actually more skewed.

Looks like both our comparisons are skewed

But I agree that when we have bad SD signal source to begin with, the process of of upconverting will make it even look worse. Those type of signals might look better on CRT TVs.

Other stations are HD all the time and a few of the sub channels are very crappy 420 but I'm still glad to have them. Where else am I gonna get Patty Duke and Mr Ed while having morning coffee than Antenna TV sub channel?

Same here. Local station just add a sub channel called "MeTv" ant it only play old TV shows like Honeymooners and Taylor Moore show. Although the picture quality is horrible, it is still better than watching local religion channels

[Hyfi]

Same here. Local station just add a sub channel called "MeTv" ant it only play old TV shows like Honeymooners and Taylor Moore show. Although the picture quality is horrible, it is still better than watching local religion channels

And better than most cable/dish/fios or other pay tv channels.

[pixelthis]

Looks like both our comparisons are skewed

But I agree that when we have bad SD signal source to begin with, the process of of upconverting will make it even look worse. Those type of signals might look better on CRT TVs.



Same here. Local station just add a sub channel called "MeTv" ant it only play old TV shows like Honeymooners and Taylor Moore show. Although the picture quality is horrible, it is still better than watching local religion channels

THERE IS a channel called the retro channel that specializes in
480i 2nd channel oldies for stations looking for a new revenue stream.
AND there is the occasional station with an exemption to
showing HD simply because they are too poorass to afford it,
mostly locals, like my local that is a project of UA that has
college students for newscasters.