Perhaps foolish question about stand def signals on HDTVs

[Patrickhat2001]

I see this statement all the time now--"Many people find standard definition signals to look better on SD televisions than HD televisions." But what, exactly, are people referring to when they say standard definition signals? Are they referring exclusively to television signals (sent over air/cable/satellite) which usually arrive via a low quality coaxial (RF) cable? Or are they also referring to other signals that are of the so called standard definition such as game consoles (especially when they do not have progressive scan enabled--not all titles support progessive scan) which can be hooked up via superior S-Video/Component cables? How about older game consoles--like those of the 32/64bit generation (PS1, N64, Sat) or even :gasp: the 16-bit generation (SNES, Gen)? Do those look better on an HD televisions or a standard one?

To say nothing about DVD, of course, which I must admit I'm a little confused on as well. I have a DVD player that can support progressive scan but would it actually improve the signal if the image is displayed on a monitor with a 1080i output (such as a direct view HD CRT). After all, why have the DVD player deinterlace the signal when it's just going to be interlaced again on the monitor? I'm a little confused?

I realize there can be a lot of variance here--after all there are only a few technologies for standard definition sets (mostly revolving around the cathode ray tube) whereas HD (and ED) can run the gamut of possible technologies (LCD, Plasma, CRT, LCOS, DLP, etc) which can differ in there ability to display lower resolution analog signals. Still, any advice is appreciated. I'm sorely in need of a new television and I'm trying to decide if I want to make the leap to a HD set (most likely a direct view CRT) or if I might be better off buying a cheap analog set to hold me over for a few years (and provide legacy support for low resolution signals in the future, if need be).

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

I have SD DishNetwork, which is hooked-up through S-video.

But I digress, SD broadcast tends to look like ass on an HDTV (the bigger the screen, the more noticable the image), kinda like the old 13" TV your parents had in their bedroom, its not great but it'll get you through a season of 24. Unlike a computer where a low-res program will open just a tiny window on screen to make it look decent, HDTVs like to show the program on the whole monitor (especially in stretch mode). All the "gaps" in resoultion lines tend to stand out, and it generally looks bad. High quality SD, like DVD fares much better, but is still lacking compared to HD. Videogames look servicable on HDTV (Thank you bright colors and simple patterns), even as far back as old-school Nintnedo (8-bit style!) but they aren't any "better" than on a regular TV. Atari's really old line-based graphics tend to distort alot on HDTV, so I would recommend buying a 55" TV to play a 2600series.

Quote:

I have a DVD player that can support progressive scan but would it actually improve the signal if the image is displayed on a monitor with a 1080i output (such as a direct view HD CRT). After all, why have the DVD player deinterlace the signal when it's just going to be interlaced again on the monitor? I'm a little confused?

Progressive scannings 480i to 480p progress was intended to be used on Enhanced Definition TVs (EDTV). Then the programming would perfectly match the TV's 480p output. So asking a DVD to look great on a 1080i monitor (or 720p or 1080p) is going beyond what DVD was meant to accomplish.

Rather than buy a progressive scan DVD player (which is so 1998), I suggest an upconverting DVD player, which "fills in the pixel gap" and fools the HDTV into thinking your DVD is really 720p or 1080i. These players are pretty cheap ($120), and your best bet until Blu*Ray or HD-DVD players arrive with true High-Def picture.

Or you could buy an EDTV plasma (usually the under $2000 models are EDTV) and enjoy your DVDs in the best possible configuration.

Quote:

I'm sorely in need of a new television and I'm trying to decide if I want to make the leap to a HD set (most likely a direct view CRT) or if I might be better off buying a cheap analog set to hold me over for a few years (and provide legacy support for low resolution signals in the future, if need be).

Now you must make a choice. If you watch mostly DVD or hi-def movies and play "new" videogames (Xbox, Xbox360, PS 2 & 3), then an HDTV will be your best bet. If you tend to only watch basic cable and own a super-nintendo, you may want to stick with a regular TV.

Visit HDTVpub.com(or a similar site) and check to see if the broadcasters (ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX) are even broadcasting HD signal in your area. If they are, great! Free HD.

As for wich HDTV to buy: Direct-view CRT gives the best possible colour, contrast, and black level. But you're limited to a 34" set. CRT RPTV gets you very large screen cheap (55" for less than $1500), but the picture will need occassional tweaking. The digital displays (LCD, Plasma, LCoS, SXRD) don't need the occassional tweak, but are alot more expensive. Digital RPTV get you the big screen, but have drawbacks: with DLP RPTVs you may notice a "rainbow" effect caused by the mirror, and with an LCD/LCoS/SXRD RPTV, you may notice a "screen door effect" where there is no picture information between pixels.

My advice:

Check to see if you get free HD broadcast. If you do buy an Xbox360, a Playstation 3 (in a month or three), and an upconverting DVD player. Then buy the biggest CRT RPTV that will fit in your room for viewing distance (under 9 feet get a 50", more than 13 feet get a 60"). The HDTV standard will be around for 30+ years, and your first HDTV will be good enough until all the kinks are worked-out of digital TVs (and the prices drop), at which point all broadcast will be HDTV (hopefully).

 

[Patrickhat2001]

Thanks for the extensive reply Rock&Roll Ninja, your advice is very much appreciated. I suppose it would have been wise for me to list my viewing habits in my first post but I forgot. So here they are--

50% DVDs
50% game consoles--I own all three from this generation (excluding Dreamcast) yet I would still like to play games on the older consoles as well. I still need to experience some of those gems I missed the first time around like Super Metroid (doh!) and a few other games on the PS1 and N64.

I don't watch any television so the quality of over-the-air/satellite/cable HD or SD channels is a moot point to me. Not that I don't like television shows--I just prefer to experience them on DVD.

If I did go the HD route I've decided on sticking with a direct view CRT. Ideally I'd like to go plasma but they're still too expensive and I'd like to see them hit 1080p (or at least 1024p--which a few models are starting to do) before I take the plunge.

 

[AdamWill]

Personally I don't really think even bog standard TV signals look worse on HDTVs than standard TVs of the same size. Sure the flaws are less obvious in a 13" TV than a 40" one, but that has nothing to do with HDTV vs. SDTV, it's just about size. The only situation where it can happen, for me, is LCD-type displays, which are only really happy at their native resolution. On a CRT-type HDTV of a given size, regular TV looks just the same as on an SDTV of the same size, for me. Of course, you should display it in the correct 4:3 aspect ratio, don't zoom or stretch the picture to fit the 16:9 HDTV display.

For me it more comes down to "NTSC TV signals look ass on big screens" than "SDTV looks bad on HDTVs". NTSC is a really crappy standard, all things considered. PAL is one of the few things about England that I miss.

 

[AlanY]

I'm in the same boat as you (considering buying a new TV). I almost never watch any TV, but watch a lot of DVDs. It's probably fair to say that DVDs are among the best quality SDTV sources. However, I found when shopping around that DVDs tended to look somewhat flawed on HDTVs. See this thread I started on Monday:
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=154301

It's kind of a dilemma. HDTVs look great with HD content, but they also expose the low resolution of the DVD format. There's only so much upconverting can do to hide it. It's not all that bad (I think it bothers me more than a lot of other people, so your mileage may vary), but I would have never guessed DVDs were such low resolution had I not gone HDTV shopping.

 

[ssblood]

We have a 61" Hitachi. It looks like crap when you watch digital cable or vcr. HD programming and DVDs look great though.

 

[aaroncort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrickhat2001 Thanks for the extensive reply Rock&Roll Ninja, your advice is very much appreciated. I suppose it would have been wise for me to list my viewing habits in my first post but I forgot. So here they are-- 50% DVDs 50% game consoles--I own all three from this generation (excluding Dreamcast) yet I would still like to play games on the older consoles as well. I still need to experience some of those gems I missed the first time around like Super Metroid (doh!) and a few other games on the PS1 and N64. I don't watch any television so the quality of over-the-air/satellite/cable HD or SD channels is a moot point to me. Not that I don't like television shows--I just prefer to experience them on DVD. If I did go the HD route I've decided on sticking with a direct view CRT. Ideally I'd like to go plasma but they're still too expensive and I'd like to see them hit 1080p (or at least 1024p--which a few models are starting to do) before I take the plunge.

Be aware that if you are going to play ps1 games with a componant video with your HD set there will most likely be no image. The Ps1 (even if playing through a PS2) uses a wierd video signal that many HD sets can't convert for some reason. ICO on the PS2 and a very small handfull of PS2 games also uses this signal . sorry to be vague I'm not sure exactly what the signal is called or why alot of HDTVs won't display an image with componant vids, I just know that if you have a TV that doesn't suport that type of archaic signal there's nothing you can do. You can use RCA or an S-video cable and it will work but I reallly don't like those types of cables

. the Svideo's image seems to strobe or vibrate and the RCA is a little too blury for my tastes. Being a true dork I like to play castlevania symphony of the night and Final Fantasy VII durring the long wet Northwest winter months.

 

[Sleestack]

I have been running a Dednon 5910 via HDMI to a Pioneer Elite 1130 HD 50". While it falls slightly short of a true HD signal, very often I forget that I'm not looking at an HD source. It really is that good. That being said, I have run other DVD/TV combos that just don't do such a great job when upscaling DVD source material.

 

[Hirsch]

Some sites with a lot of information:

http://www.avsforum.com/

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/

If a DVD looks flawed on an HDTV, it's either a bad transfer, or there's something wrong with the setup. Only one of these is correctable.

A friend showed me HDTV (recorded) and DVD of the same native HDTV material, using his $40K projector (he's a professional, and extremely careful about proper setup). Differences were minimal, which was a relief to both of us, since it was an indication that our DVD collections were not going to be obsolete anytime soon.

The scalers internal to DVD players are often not the best ones available, or well-implemented, and in some cases can introduce more artifact than would be compensated for by a perceived increase in resolution. External scalers are much more expensive, but so far will do a better job. That may be changing though, as better chips get into high-end DVD players.

 

[HiWire]

I would love for reviewers to continue including sections regarding DVD upconversion for the next few years in their reviews of the new-format players. All of us have purchased DVD collections of varying sizes, so it's important to the general population.

Kind of like reviewers continuing to review CD performance on DVD-A and SACD players.