horrible picture - are we missing something?

I don't have or want a TV myself, haven't for years. My parents
recently got rid of their big square JVC TV to make way for a 1080p
Hitachi TV, 350 quid. From as far back as the sofa, and given that
we're all
short-sighted, when I visit I think it looks fine. But I think
they're a dire product. My sister's Samsung cost a thousand quid and
the display is horrible. She has Sky, all the standard equipment and
cables as professionally fitted.

Are we doing anything wrong? My parents' TV has Freeview built in, so
it's not like a cable is degrading anything is
it? Or do you have to have digital cable to the TV aerial to get full
unpixellated clarity? Or will it still blocky then, are we being
hoodwinked about these LCD TVs?

It's like looking at a smudgy YouTube video enlarged, to me.

My parents have a DVD recorder now, and this also has Freeview built
in. Before I'd thought it through I was going to get a hdmi lead to
connect them, but that's not going to do anything is it?

Pardon any naivety, I don't find myself thinking of TVs much, but I
would like to help them out if anything can be done. They haven't
complained, although my dad had asked what I thought, possibly looking
for a confirmation of disappointment, but maybe after years of buying
garbage they're putting up.

Hi,

Basically a lot of HD TV's look terrible with SD material but none of the
brochures or the high street sales drones mention that to the great unwashed
as they part with their hard earned cash !.

For viewing SD material you are generally better off with a non full HD
(1080P spec) TV, though there are a few exceptions (but not many), and they
are usually some of the more expensive units!!.

In simple terms unless your viewing diet is exclusively Blu-Ray discs and/or
Sky HD/Freesat HD buying a TV described as HD ready (720P,1080i) will
provide a better viewing experience.

Cheap full HD (1080P) TV's tend to make a make a mess of up-scaling the SD
material due to the cost cutting/corner cutting in their design.

Regards

"Illuminated" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Basically a lot of HD TV's look terrible with SD material but none of the
brochures or the high street sales drones mention that to the great
unwashed as they part with their hard earned cash !.

For viewing SD material you are generally better off with a non full HD
(1080P spec) TV, though there are a few exceptions (but not many), and
they are usually some of the more expensive units!!.

In simple terms unless your viewing diet is exclusively Blu-Ray discs
and/or Sky HD/Freesat HD buying a TV described as HD ready (720P,1080i)
will provide a better viewing experience.

Cheap full HD (1080P) TV's tend to make a make a mess of up-scaling the SD
material due to the cost cutting/corner cutting in their design.




Troll alert, Lee has also posted to a prominently U.S. Group,
alt.video.digital-tv, under the heading of "these pixellated digital TVs -
is that all there is?"

On Mar 7, 11:11*pm, "Anth" wrote:
"Illuminated" wrote in message

...





Hi,

Basically a lot of HD TV's look terrible with SD material but none of the
brochures or the high street sales drones mention that to the great
unwashed as they part with their hard earned cash !.

For viewing SD material you are generally better off with a non full HD
(1080P spec) TV, though there are a few exceptions (but not many), and
they are usually some of the more expensive units!!.

In simple terms unless your viewing diet is exclusively Blu-Ray discs
and/or Sky HD/Freesat HD buying *a TV described as HD ready (720P,1080i)
will provide a better viewing experience.

Cheap full HD (1080P) TV's tend to make a make a mess of up-scaling the SD
material due to the cost cutting/corner cutting in their design.

Troll alert, Lee has also posted to a prominently U.S. Group,
alt.video.digital-tv, under the heading of "these pixellated digital TVs -
is that all there is?"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Doesn't mean he's a troll.

Bill

On 7 Mar, 21:39, Lee W wrote:

It's like looking at a smudgy YouTube video enlarged, to me.

Welcome to SD digital TV on a typical modern display.

FWIW it'll only get worse, but they'll be a little more HD to choose
from as the years go by - lots more if you're willing to pay.

Cheers,
David.

"Lee W" wrote in message
news:a2f0dd7e-ce2e-4467-87af-
My parents
recently got rid of their big square JVC TV to make way for a 1080p
Hitachi TV, 350 quid.

My sister's Samsung cost a thousand quid and
the display is horrible.

You've got one Sky, and one FreeView. One cost £350, the other £1000. They
have nothing in common in terms of a problem you can fix.

Blockiness is not in itself caused by a weak or noisy signal, so there's no
evidence that you need to change the downlead. If the blockiness is
accompanied by picture freezes and corruption, then yes - look for aerial or
downlead problems. But the blockiness you describe sounds like the usual
compression artefacts.

I think you are simply observing the limitations of broadcast TV, especially
standard definition material. They are particularly obvious if you watch
the lower bitrate channels (e.g. five US) and sit close to the screen.

One thing I must say, and have observed myself: an LCD or plasma screen will
show compression artefacts with beautiful fidelity due to their clinical
level of detail (no problems with focus or convergence) whereas CRT tellies
tend to be softer and more "forgiving" of compressed video, especially when
they've aged a few years. That's why, under some circumstances, they can
look "better" than an LCD or plasma screen.

The TV itself is capable of far better pictures than you ever see broadcast.
At £1000, your sister's TV may be capable of showing photographs, either via
a network connection or a USB drive. Put some high definition photographs
(i.e. higher definition than the screen itself) on the USB drive and look at
them on the TV. They will look stunningly sharp and clear. I was really
impressed when I did that on my 46" HD Sony. The best HD broadcasts I've
seen don't come close.

This demonstrates that the problems are not with your TVs, but with the
broadcasters.

SteveT

Whats all this hide quoted text view quoted text of late in posts?
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 11:11 pm, "Anth" wrote:
"Illuminated" wrote in message

...





Hi,

Basically a lot of HD TV's look terrible with SD material but none of
the
brochures or the high street sales drones mention that to the great
unwashed as they part with their hard earned cash !.

For viewing SD material you are generally better off with a non full HD
(1080P spec) TV, though there are a few exceptions (but not many), and
they are usually some of the more expensive units!!.

In simple terms unless your viewing diet is exclusively Blu-Ray discs
and/or Sky HD/Freesat HD buying a TV described as HD ready (720P,1080i)
will provide a better viewing experience.

Cheap full HD (1080P) TV's tend to make a make a mess of up-scaling the
SD
material due to the cost cutting/corner cutting in their design.

Troll alert, Lee has also posted to a prominently U.S. Group,
alt.video.digital-tv, under the heading of "these pixellated digital TVs -
is that all there is?"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Doesn't mean he's a troll.

Bill

Quarts into pint pots come to mind. Would you not have thought that after
the DAB experience, the people running these systems would realise when
there are toom many channels for any to give a good picture in the alloted
bandwidth?
Not that I care, but I hate to see things improve worse for anyone.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...
On 7 Mar, 21:39, Lee W wrote:

It's like looking at a smudgy YouTube video enlarged, to me.

Welcome to SD digital TV on a typical modern display.

FWIW it'll only get worse, but they'll be a little more HD to choose
from as the years go by - lots more if you're willing to pay.

Cheers,
David.

Hang on though, static pictures will always be better. The problem is that
in effect the picture being seen is part remembered and part updated between
frames, in effect. However you look at it you have not got the complete
bandwidth needed available all the time. The system relies on some
commonality and thus when you try to get a lot of detail that moves, you
are stuffed.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...

"Lee W" wrote in message
news:a2f0dd7e-ce2e-4467-87af-
My parents
recently got rid of their big square JVC TV to make way for a 1080p
Hitachi TV, 350 quid.

My sister's Samsung cost a thousand quid and
the display is horrible.

You've got one Sky, and one FreeView. One cost £350, the other £1000.
They have nothing in common in terms of a problem you can fix.

Blockiness is not in itself caused by a weak or noisy signal, so there's
no evidence that you need to change the downlead. If the blockiness is
accompanied by picture freezes and corruption, then yes - look for aerial
or downlead problems. But the blockiness you describe sounds like the
usual compression artefacts.

I think you are simply observing the limitations of broadcast TV,
especially standard definition material. They are particularly obvious if
you watch the lower bitrate channels (e.g. five US) and sit close to the
screen.

One thing I must say, and have observed myself: an LCD or plasma screen
will show compression artefacts with beautiful fidelity due to their
clinical level of detail (no problems with focus or convergence) whereas
CRT tellies tend to be softer and more "forgiving" of compressed video,
especially when they've aged a few years. That's why, under some
circumstances, they can look "better" than an LCD or plasma screen.

The TV itself is capable of far better pictures than you ever see
broadcast. At £1000, your sister's TV may be capable of showing
photographs, either via a network connection or a USB drive. Put some
high definition photographs (i.e. higher definition than the screen
itself) on the USB drive and look at them on the TV. They will look
stunningly sharp and clear. I was really impressed when I did that on my
46" HD Sony. The best HD broadcasts I've seen don't come close.

This demonstrates that the problems are not with your TVs, but with the
broadcasters.

SteveT

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Hang on though, static pictures will always be better. The problem is that
in effect the picture being seen is part remembered and part updated
between frames, in effect.

With interlacing, yes.

However you look at it you have not got the complete bandwidth needed
available all the time. The system relies on some commonality and thus
when you try to get a lot of detail that moves, you are stuffed.

With a progressive scan, you have the POTENTIAL to generate 25 (or 50) full
resolution still frames per second. Thus there is no THEORETICAL reason why
each of those shouldn't look as good as a still photo, and thus produce a
moving picture of comparable clarity.

Interlacing, compression and general "softness" of the source material are
all down to the broadcasters, not the TV itself.

SteveT