LCD TV picture quality

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
"Chas Gill" wrote in message
...


If I am watching a channel that is also
broadcast on Digital Terrestrial then that's where I will watch it,
because
(on my TV at least) the quality of the DTV picture is significantly
better
than the same programme via Sky.


If you see a noticable difference between satellite and terrestrial
versions of
the BBC, ITV and other common channels I would suggest that this is due
to your
equipment. Could be that either the output from a STB is wrong - or the a
scart
socket on the TV is wrong.

(Leaving aside compression artefacts)


--

Michael Chare





The STB is a brand new Sky HD box and I'm using the HDMI output to feed my
brand new Sony Bravia kdl40x2000. There is nothing wrong with either, as
far as I know. I've tried using the SCART link as well - it's exactly the
same. And, for good measure, I have to say that DTV pictures on my old SONY
WEGA 32 inch tv with built in DTV tuner were better than the Sky+
equivalents as well. As far as I'm concerned it's an observable fact that
Sky picture quality is not as good as DTV on the major network channels.

Surely both the Sky and DTV data streams are compressed? I'm not sure how
we can "leave aside" these artefacts - especially if they result in a poorer
picture from one source than the other. Is it not these artefacts that
cause the difference?

Chas

"Chas Gill" wrote in message
...

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
"Chas Gill" wrote in message
...


If I am watching a channel that is also
broadcast on Digital Terrestrial then that's where I will watch it,
because
(on my TV at least) the quality of the DTV picture is significantly
better
than the same programme via Sky.


If you see a noticable difference between satellite and terrestrial
versions of
the BBC, ITV and other common channels I would suggest that this is due
to your
equipment. Could be that either the output from a STB is wrong - or the a
scart
socket on the TV is wrong.

(Leaving aside compression artefacts)


--

Michael Chare

The STB is a brand new Sky HD box and I'm using the HDMI output to feed my
brand new Sony Bravia kdl40x2000. There is nothing wrong with either, as
far as I know. I've tried using the SCART link as well - it's exactly the
same. And, for good measure, I have to say that DTV pictures on my old SONY
WEGA 32 inch tv with built in DTV tuner were better than the Sky+
equivalents as well. As far as I'm concerned it's an observable fact that
Sky picture quality is not as good as DTV on the major network channels.

Surely both the Sky and DTV data streams are compressed? I'm not sure how
we can "leave aside" these artefacts - especially if they result in a poorer
picture from one source than the other. Is it not these artefacts that
cause the difference?

I was just trying to make the point that if you disregard compression artefacts
the pictures should appear the same!


--

Michael Chare

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
"Chas Gill" wrote in message
...

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
"Chas Gill" wrote in message
...


If I am watching a channel that is also
broadcast on Digital Terrestrial then that's where I will watch it,
because
(on my TV at least) the quality of the DTV picture is significantly
better
than the same programme via Sky.


If you see a noticable difference between satellite and terrestrial
versions of
the BBC, ITV and other common channels I would suggest that this is
due
to your
equipment. Could be that either the output from a STB is wrong - or the
a
scart
socket on the TV is wrong.

(Leaving aside compression artefacts)


--

Michael Chare

The STB is a brand new Sky HD box and I'm using the HDMI output to feed
my
brand new Sony Bravia kdl40x2000. There is nothing wrong with either, as
far as I know. I've tried using the SCART link as well - it's exactly
the
same. And, for good measure, I have to say that DTV pictures on my old
SONY
WEGA 32 inch tv with built in DTV tuner were better than the Sky+
equivalents as well. As far as I'm concerned it's an observable fact
that
Sky picture quality is not as good as DTV on the major network channels.

Surely both the Sky and DTV data streams are compressed? I'm not sure
how
we can "leave aside" these artefacts - especially if they result in a
poorer
picture from one source than the other. Is it not these artefacts that
cause the difference?

I was just trying to make the point that if you disregard compression
artefacts
the pictures should appear the same!


--

Michael Chare





In which case I believe we are at serious risk of agreeing! (Although I
think, perhaps, that the nature and degree of such artefacts on the SKY
pictures are such that it makes the SKY picture appear worse).

Happy New Year ;-)

Chas

In article ,
says...
I've just rung Sky and asked them directly, will getting HD improve
the picture and the guy said no. There's no difference in the signal
with HD on normal channels. Totally contradictory to what they told
me first time round.


Well it can't make any difference, because the box is receiving the same
SD channels, no matter what box you use.



The only two variables being firstly the possibility of using an HDMI
link or component leads from the digibox rather than scart, which can
improve the picture on some TVs, and the option of using the digibox to
scale and/or deinterlace.

The former makes a small improvement to my Samsung LCD TV - due to the
deficiency in the TV where the edge enhancement can't be totally removed
from the RGB scart input. It also removes a digital to analogue back to
digital conversion.

What I can't understand is, if these picture quality problems are so
well documented and are apparently un-solvable, why do people buy
big-screen LCDs at all? I bought mine because I thought I was going to
get an awesome picture on a TV that'd make my living room look great. I
should've checked this group first before doing so. But surely that
would be the aim of anyone buying a TV like this - and if you can't
achieve that, why do people buy them? Why are they even manufactured?
It seems almost like a company selling a car that only runs on a fuel
that hasn't yet been invented!




Richardr wrote:
In article ,
says...
I've just rung Sky and asked them directly, will getting HD improve
the picture and the guy said no. There's no difference in the signal
with HD on normal channels. Totally contradictory to what they told
me first time round.


Well it can't make any difference, because the box is receiving the same
SD channels, no matter what box you use.



The only two variables being firstly the possibility of using an HDMI
link or component leads from the digibox rather than scart, which can
improve the picture on some TVs, and the option of using the digibox to
scale and/or deinterlace.

The former makes a small improvement to my Samsung LCD TV - due to the
deficiency in the TV where the edge enhancement can't be totally removed
from the RGB scart input. It also removes a digital to analogue back to
digital conversion.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Why are they even manufactured?
It seems almost like a company selling a car that only runs on a fuel
that hasn't yet been invented!

That's a very good analogy. The problem is that the people building the TVs
are not the same as the people doing the broadcasting, and their aims are
different.

The TV manufacturers want to give you the best possible picture from the
best possible source - which would be a (HD) DVD - at a price which
gives them the best possible profit.

The TV broadcasters want to maximise profit by cramming as many different
channels as possible into the available bandwidth, ie: feed us the
crappiest signal they can get away with.

I blame the broadcasters, and OfCom for not adequately controlling minimum
standards of broadcast quality.

Java Jive wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Why are they even manufactured?
It seems almost like a company selling a car that only runs on a fuel
that hasn't yet been invented!

That's a very good analogy. The problem is that the people building
the TVs are not the same as the people doing the broadcasting, and
their aims are different.

The TV manufacturers want to give you the best possible picture from
the best possible source - which would be a (HD) DVD - at a price
which gives them the best possible profit.

The TV broadcasters want to maximise profit by cramming as many
different channels as possible into the available bandwidth, ie:
feed us the crappiest signal they can get away with.

I blame the broadcasters, and OfCom for not adequately controlling
minimum standards of broadcast quality.

You make some good points. I certainly think there should be
rigidly-enforced minimum bitrates for TV broadcasters so that we can be
assured of a reasonable picture.

I recently switched to Sky after having cable for some years. I had been
assured that the pictures coming via Astra 2 would be better than cable but
oh no they're not! They're about the same, which is on the borderline of
acceptability.

Luckily I'm in London so I have another five years of nice fat, stable, lush
analogue signals before they switch off, so I've reset my TiVo to record
terrestrial channels from analogue rather than the butchered feed I get
courtesy of the satellite.

Re. LCD televisions - there is too much Luddite thinking on this and other
forums and I actually like the quality of the picture, provided the TV is a
good spec of course. There are still problems with lateral movement, so I
can understand why sports fans are ****ed off, but the pin sharp picture,
depth and good colour rendition when watching a DVD is far better than CRT
in my opinion.

TV manufacturers must be aware of the problems in the real world regarding
penny pinching broadcasters transmitting in miniscule bitrates, therefore in
the run-up to full scale HD I would have thought it would be within their
capabilities to develop some sort of picture smoothing or softening so that
the limitations of these SD pictures can at least be disguised. Once HD is
implemented HD-ready LCDs would come into their own.

I still think it's worth buying now but only if you are a major DVD watcher
(or if you need a new TV of course!) - the benefits are well worthwhile with
DVD playback, whereas unless you want to pay a fortune for HD (and I
certainly wouldn't bother until prices come down) then watching SD on a big
LCD will be a disappointment.

In article , Vaughan
wrote:
The TV broadcasters want to maximise profit by cramming as many
different channels as possible into the available bandwidth, ie:
feed us the crappiest signal they can get away with.

I blame the broadcasters, and OfCom for not adequately controlling
minimum standards of broadcast quality.

You make some good points. I certainly think there should be
rigidly-enforced minimum bitrates for TV broadcasters so that we can be
assured of a reasonable picture.

Funnily enough, in the days when television equipment was so expensive and
specialised that the broadcasters were the only people using it, we did
have technical standards, and it was the broadcasters themselves that
maintained them. The BBC more or less laid down the standards that
everyone else followed, and the ITA, later the IBA, used a technical Code
of Practice not very different from what the BBC used.

Now that the broadcasters no longer police themselves (if they even have
anybody in positions of power and influence who would have a clue how to
organise it), and any Tom Dick or Harry can buy a camcorder for a few
hundred quid, technical quality is going steadily downhill. Go figure.

Rod.