How good should LCD TV pictures be?
Foz
I have just invested £1600 in a 37" LCD TV, and am a little disappointed
with the picture quality!
I have Sky digital and have connected the STB to the TV with SCART cables,
but I am finding that there is a lot of what I'd call "MPEG shimmering"
around the edges of detail, which is particularly bad on sports programmes.
Is this normal, or am I possibly missing out on a config setting somewhere?
Does anyone know what the optimal settings are for the Sky digibox?
Although analogue reception is lousy where I live (and there is no
terrestrial digital signal), the edges are as sharp as would be expected.
Cheers,
Fozzie
Andy Burns
> I have Sky digital and have connected the STB to the TV with SCART cables,
You have got the sky box set to use RGB instead of composite?
tony sayer
<F...@ramcottage.co.uk> writes
>Hi,
>
>I have just invested £1600 in a 37" LCD TV, and am a little disappointed
>with the picture quality!
>
>I have Sky digital and have connected the STB to the TV with SCART cables,
>but I am finding that there is a lot of what I'd call "MPEG shimmering"
>around the edges of detail, which is particularly bad on sports programmes.
Yes, its called digital telly!...
>
>Is this normal, or am I possibly missing out on a config setting somewhere?
>Does anyone know what the optimal settings are for the Sky digibox?
Nope its all down the broadcasters obsession with quantity over
quality..
>
>Although analogue reception is lousy where I live (and there is no
>terrestrial digital signal), the edges are as sharp as would be expected.
>
Pity the analogue is poor the analogue we have here pisses over
digital..
Dunno when we'll have good digital TV, perhaps when the bishops open
Joanna Southcotts box of sealed writings;!.
Best bet as ask them if they can swap it out for a smaller screen its
not so noticeable on those.
Like DAB radio much less objectionable on small speakers.....
--
Tony Sayer
Alan
<F...@ramcottage.co.uk> wrote
This weeks Gadget Show TV Program reviewed HD on three £2000+ LCD TVs.
One of the general conclusions was that LCD displays were not good
enough for HD TV.
--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com
John Russell
"Foz" <F...@ramcottage.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dvhnsv$7pg$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
An LCD is a digital device with what's called a native resolution, that's
the actual number of LCD elements that make up the screen.
If you drive an LCD display with a digital input at the native resolution
you get a fantastic image. If you use a lower resolution you start to get
down sampling anomalies.
That's why HDTV LCD's get good reviews when used to display HDTV, but the
quality at lower resolutions is a lot lower.
So it you got this display in preparation to upgrade to HDTV your going to
suffer in the mean time, and even then very few HDTV channels will be
available and your going to watch a lot of poor PAL standard channels.
Andrew
wrote:
>One of the general conclusions was that LCD displays were not good
>enough for HD TV.
No, the conclusion was that the Gadget show presenters don't know what
they are talking about.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
simon
"Alan" <junk_...@amac.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:2Jap4ZBr...@amac.f2s.com...
They're not good enough for normal TV yet. The ones in the shops now have
25-40mS refresh rates, analogue tuners and poor quality.
Try watching something other than a strong coloured still image.
I wouldn't bother with LCD until it reaches the standard of CRT for quality.
£1600 on a telly, you must be barking. You could get a decent CRT nearly
that big for far less. Obviously the snob value of CRT isn't as good, but
CRT is superior.
John Russell
"Foz" <F...@ramcottage.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dvhnsv$7pg$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
tony sayer
<si...@nospam2.net> writes
Yep.. still shows up the limitations of UK digital TV...
--
Tony Sayer
John Russell
"John Russell" <john_e_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:441c752d$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
media players are upsampling. I wonder if a mediaPC will be the best source
for a HDTV LCD display driving it at the native resolution, no matter the
resolution of the source media?
Anon
rgb, and make sure the tv is adjusted properly for the contrast and
brighness. Except of course LCD's don't to black properly... Also check that
your digibox is getting a good quality of signal.
With a CRT properly adjusted I get no mpeg shimmering on freeview using a
digifusion box. Most of the sky channels are also ok. Adjust the black level
wrong, and they are back...
Mike Redrobe
> I have just invested £1600 in a 37" LCD TV, and am a little
> disappointed with the picture quality!
>
> I have Sky digital and have connected the STB to the TV with SCART
> cables, but I am finding that there is a lot of what I'd call "MPEG
> shimmering" around the edges of detail, which is particularly bad on
> sports programmes.
If its the "beeswarm effect" around large changes/movement then its
entirely due to the channel's too-low bitrate. Check if some channels
are better than others...
Some TVs have an MPEG smoothing option (panasonics do), many
people also often have contrast and sharpness turned up too much
on LCDs
> Is this normal, or am I possibly missing out on a config setting
> somewhere? Does anyone know what the optimal settings are
> for the Sky digibox?
Make sure your SCARTs are "fully wired" (usually noticeably thicker
cable), and your STB is set to RGB.
--
Mike
Roly
>
> This weeks Gadget Show TV Program reviewed HD on three £2000+ LCD TVs.
>
> One of the general conclusions was that LCD displays were not good
> enough for HD TV.
Watch the Gadget show for a while until they review something that you
know about. Then see what they say and judge the value of their opinions
accordingly.
My experience is that they've been completely wrong on almost every such
occasion. It seems remarkable that they can get the wrong conclusion
every time by mere ignorance, maybe there has to be some other
explanation ?
peter0193...@yahoo.co.uk
think it's better to process it?
Rob
I'd be interested to see a review of this - a quick test with the
component output from my PC using some recorded freeview at 720p
*seemed* to be a fair bit sharper on a 32" LCD ...
Rob
Alan
<Roly....@NTLworld.com> wrote
Having viewed large screen LCD side by side in many retail outlets I've
come to the conclusion that there is some truly appalling technology in
the marketplace, even from some of the big brands names, and even when
viewing cartoons and advertising videos.
The comments during the Gadget Show program were less to do with High
Definition TV and more to do with the quality of the pictures, and
perhaps the (over) processing of the information, on the top end sets
from Sony, LG and Hitachi.
Given the inability of the presenters to understand many of the
technical aspects of what they were seeing their views should be
regarded as those of 'Joe public'. They didn't appear to be impressed
with any of the LCD TVs.
I wonder how many contributors to this group are like friends of mine,
who after purchasing a £700 large LCD TV, commented on the fact that it
wasn't as good are the CRT TV it replaced but now have 'got used to it'
and are willing to tolerate its deficiencies because it takes up less
space in their living room.
mike
>
> I wonder how many contributors to this group are like friends of mine,
> who after purchasing a £700 large LCD TV, commented on the fact that it
> wasn't as good are the CRT TV it replaced but now have 'got used to it'
> and are willing to tolerate its deficiencies because it takes up less
> space in their living room.
Not quite, my Philips top of the range 32" now lives with my nephew and his
kids and dog - I've gone back to a CRT.
mike
Malcolm H
"Mike Redrobe" <mi...@redrobe.net> wrote in message
news:C_1Tf.38149$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Make sure your SCARTs are "fully wired" (usually noticeably thicker
> cable), and your STB is set to RGB.
>
Also make sure that the SCART socket on the TV is RGB enabled. This may
require access to the TV setup menu.
Stan The Man
<junk_...@amac.f2s.com> wrote:
>I wonder how many contributors to this group are like friends of mine,
>who after purchasing a £700 large LCD TV, commented on the fact that it
>wasn't as good are the CRT TV it replaced but now have 'got used to it'
>and are willing to tolerate its deficiencies because it takes up less
>space in their living room.
I have been let loose in a couple of John Lewis screening rooms with
access to all the source and TV setup controls, including different
sources, ie DVD and Sky. After exhaustive testing, my conclusions were:
1. Plasma gives the best picture 90% of the time (the exceptions being
where posterisation breaks up colours into bands and when the source
material has been too heavily compressed)
2. CRT gives a good picture 100% of the time and the best picture 10%
of the time
3. LCD gives the best picture 0% of the time.
I have all three in my house - the LCD (Sharp Aquos) being the only
choice physically for a smallish (26in) screen on my office desk. With
all the sharpness and gizmo features turned down or off, it's ok and
better than other small LCDs I have seen.
A Panasonic 26in Tau flat screen CRT continues to give excellent
results in the conservatory and a Viera 37in plasma is the screen of
choice in the living room, its outstanding picture making up for the
10% of occasions when it can't display graduated tones properly.
Stan
Java Jive
there then ...
"John Russell" <john_e_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:441c752d$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
John Russell
"Foz" <F...@ramcottage.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dvhnsv$7pg$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Well there is a setting which I find causes me problems used - that's
"Contrast Enhancement", or whatever else you maker may call it.
Basically this is a contrast expander - it calculates what it thinks should
be the mid contrast, and then brightens everything above that point, and
darkens everything below.
The problem is that at some point in the MPEG encodeing/decoding process
small variances are created between neighbouring MPEG blocks, which are then
expanded by Contrast Enhancement. This is especially noticeable on Sport
where grass turns into a roman mosaic! When disabled the effect disappears.
John Russell
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com> wrote in message
news:9qmdnZgmv9p...@eclipse.net.uk...
> And CRTs have a fixed phosphor/shadow mask resolution, so no difference
> there then ...
>
So you've never used an LCD monitor!
The image degradation from the native resolution is far more noticeable than
with a CRT. Hence all the bad reviews HDTV LCD's get when used with PAL
resolution sources.
Java Jive
Regardless of their technologies, any larger picture TV will show up
deficiencies in the input signal more clearly than a smaller picture TV
viewed from the same distance. I've recently being noticing how terrible
the compression artefacts on Eurosport look when viewed from close distance
on my biggest LCD, compared with viewing from the same distance on the
smallest LCD.
Digital TV signals in the UK are far too compressed, and this is what causes
the effect you describe. You're noticing it more because the new TV is
bigger and/or because it has a sharper picture than your old one.
It's the same old story: "garbage in = garbage out"
"Foz" <F...@ramcottage.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dvhnsv$7pg$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
Peter Hayes
> > I have Sky digital and have connected the STB to the TV with SCART cables,
> > but I am finding that there is a lot of what I'd call "MPEG shimmering"
> > around the edges of detail, which is particularly bad on sports
> > programmes.
> This has nothing to do with the TV's technology.
>
> Regardless of their technologies, any larger picture TV will show up
> deficiencies in the input signal more clearly than a smaller picture TV
> viewed from the same distance. I've recently being noticing how terrible
> the compression artefacts on Eurosport look when viewed from close distance
> on my biggest LCD, compared with viewing from the same distance on the
> smallest LCD.
>
> Digital TV signals in the UK are far too compressed, and this is what causes
> the effect you describe. You're noticing it more because the new TV is
> bigger and/or because it has a sharper picture than your old one.
>
> It's the same old story: "garbage in = garbage out"
This doesn't of course, explain why the same source material looks so
different on various similarly sized LCD and CRT displays in dealers'
showrooms.
--
Peter
Alan White
Hayes) wrote:
>This doesn't of course, explain why the same source material looks so
>different on various similarly sized LCD and CRT displays in dealers'
>showrooms.
I suspect that very few dealers bother to adjust anything for optimum
and just plug in. It's still the norm to see 4:3 pictures stretched to
16:9 in every show room in sight.
I took great care to set up our 32" LCD Sony Bravia and I still think
that, given a good input, it's the best picture I've seen outside a
production area. Setting it up involved disabling all the default
'enhancements', adjusting for the best B&W picture I could get, using
a variety of inputs, and then adjusting colour to give a realistic
flesh tone. The picture isn't 'spectacular', it's 'right'.
--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Web cam and weather:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather/kabcam.htm
Some walks and treks:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/walks/
Java Jive
particular respect. To me, it's just another piece of technological
folklore.
If you seem to notice any difference, then this *may* be because ...
1) Most people replace a monitor with a bigger picture one, and then such
effects would be more noticeable simply because of the size increase.
2) An LCD gives a picture made up of relatively constantly illuminated
and well defined pixels, whereas a CRT has to illuminate the phosphor
initially, momentarily, *very* brightly for it to remain sufficiently
visible as it dies away exponentially over rest of the frame cycle, and,
despite the relatively slow reaction time of the human eye, which is what
allows this technology to work, the net effect may be that the pixel edges
seem less clearly defined to it, ie: that the edges of the pixels are
effectively blurred or 'softened'.
If it really happens, such softening would a fault, or at least a
shortcoming, in CRT technology, but it would explain why people claim to
notice your so-called 'degradation' more with LCDs.
Either way, both technologies have a fixed native resolution, and
consequently your original argument is invalid.
"John Russell" <john_e_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:441d461a$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Java Jive
similar size from the same manufacturer in an average showroom. That means
nothing here, only that possibly staff and customers have been playing with
the remotes, and that TVs vary a lot in the way they are set up in the
factory.
There did at one time seem to be more noticeable variability between CRTs
than between LCDs, probably because the latters' greater expense merited
more care in setting them up, but now I'm not so sure.
There is also a question of time. CRTs have had something of a reputation
for drifting out of optimum set up over time, while it's probably still too
early to say whether the same will prove true of LCDs.
"Peter Hayes" <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1hcg67u.10jeyzs1h741ysN%not_i...@btinternet.com...
Mark Carver
> Hi,
>
> I have just invested £1600 in a 37" LCD TV, and am a little disappointed
> with the picture quality!
>
> but I am finding that there is a lot of what I'd call "MPEG shimmering"
> around the edges of detail, which is particularly bad on sports programmes.
We baby sat on Friday night at a friend's house where they've just
taken delivery of a Sony 40 inch LCD Bravia.(KDLS40A12U)
First of all they receive an A1 analogue signal, and the six DTT muxes
are glitch free. The Bravia has integral analogue and DTT tuners.
For a laugh I had a look the analogue PAL pictures through it.
Composite artefacts that we've lived with for almost 40 years are of
course magnified considerably. Awful; ringing, and chroma dot crawl
are all over the picture, they obviously haven't applied any effort in
putting decent comb filters inside the PAL decoder, but then composite
display is not its primary intended purpose.
DTT signals looked better, but once again artefacts become magnified.
Retiring to a decent viewing distance (15 feet) things look a lot
better. What does strike you is that captions, especially all those
inane banners on News 24 and Sky News are pin sharp, and without any
jitter or flickering. The programme slide the Beeb often use with four
'cartoon' TV sets showing BBC 1-4 on a white background, was so bright
and sharp it actually hurt my eyes ! Proper 576/50i material looked no
worse as far as motion artefacts are concerned than on my 10 year old
100 Hz 32in CRT Sony w/s, however there is no detail in gloomy scenes,
it's all lost in the black. A while ago Alan White posted the optimum
settings he uses for his Bravia in here. Sorry Alan I just couldn't
get an acceptable picture, though my wife could see nothing wrong, and
called me neurotic :-).
There was one oddity, every ten minutes or so the image would freeze
for a frame, as if a buffer was trying to catch up. Not sure if it was
the tuner, or display, but I've noticed the same on another Bravia
seen a shop.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
John Russell
> consequently your original argument is invalid.
Guess poposity is still around with a new user!
tony sayer
<mark....@invalid.invalid> writes
>Foz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have just invested £1600 in a 37" LCD TV, and am a little disappointed
>> with the picture quality!
>>
>> I have Sky digital and have connected the STB to the TV with SCART cables,
>> but I am finding that there is a lot of what I'd call "MPEG shimmering"
>> around the edges of detail, which is particularly bad on sports programmes.
>
>We baby sat on Friday night at a friend's house where they've just
>taken delivery of a Sony 40 inch LCD Bravia.(KDLS40A12U)
>
>First of all they receive an A1 analogue signal, and the six DTT muxes
>are glitch free. The Bravia has integral analogue and DTT tuners.
>
>For a laugh I had a look the analogue PAL pictures through it.
>Composite artefacts that we've lived with for almost 40 years are of
>course magnified considerably. Awful; ringing, and chroma dot crawl
>are all over the picture, they obviously haven't applied any effort in
>putting decent comb filters inside the PAL decoder, but then composite
>display is not its primary intended purpose.
Thats the problem I suppose with most PAL sets, the poor decoders..
>
>DTT signals looked better, but once again artefacts become magnified.
>Retiring to a decent viewing distance (15 feet) things look a lot
>better. What does strike you is that captions, especially all those
>inane banners on News 24 and Sky News are pin sharp, and without any
>jitter or flickering. The programme slide the Beeb often use with four
>'cartoon' TV sets showing BBC 1-4 on a white background, was so bright
>and sharp it actually hurt my eyes ! Proper 576/50i material looked no
>worse as far as motion artefacts are concerned than on my 10 year old
>100 Hz 32in CRT Sony w/s, however there is no detail in gloomy scenes,
>it's all lost in the black. A while ago Alan White posted the optimum
>settings he uses for his Bravia in here. Sorry Alan I just couldn't
>get an acceptable picture, though my wife could see nothing wrong, and
>called me neurotic :-).
Don't you notice that "time lapse CCTV" effect where it looks like the
picture is updated in parts but not others, and also the lack of colour
graduation i.e. flesh tones have three shades of pink pastel?....
--
Tony Sayer
Mark Carver
> In article <48561mF...@individual.net>, Mark Carver
> <mark....@invalid.invalid> writes
>>For a laugh I had a look the analogue PAL pictures through it.
>>Composite artefacts that we've lived with for almost 40 years are of
>>course magnified considerably. Awful; ringing, and chroma dot crawl
>>are all over the picture, they obviously haven't applied any effort in
>>putting decent comb filters inside the PAL decoder, but then composite
>>display is not its primary intended purpose.
>
>
> Thats the problem I suppose with most PAL sets, the poor decoders..
Yes. My Sony DVD/HDD recorder (RDR-HXD710) on the other hand has a
superb PAL decoder, feed a composite signal in to its Ext input, and
you'd be forgiven for thinking it's component.
> Don't you notice that "time lapse CCTV" effect where it looks like the
> picture is updated in parts but not others, and also the lack of colour
> graduation i.e. flesh tones have three shades of pink pastel?....
Yes, though I see that on low bit rate DVB via CRT, some LCDs may not
help however. Wasn't evident on the Bravia watching BBC 1.
More 4 on DTT is frankly a disgrace technically, Horz res of 544, and
gawld knows what the bit rate is ? You often see the 'patchy update'
effect there.
BTW we watched a recording we'd made a couple of weeks ago from M4 of
'Life Is Sweet'. I don't know where C4 had got the print from,
especially as it was one of their own films. It was also presented in
14P16 (pillarboxed 4:3). Just about everything bad about UK DVB, and a
ham fisted telecine transfer was there to be seen. Useless.
charles
Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> There was one oddity, every ten minutes or so the image would freeze
> for a frame, as if a buffer was trying to catch up. Not sure if it was
> the tuner, or display, but I've noticed the same on another Bravia
> seen a shop.
often due to impulsive interference. Perhaps a thermostat on the heating
system cutting in, or a passing car (but that probably wouldn't be regular).
--
From KT24 - in drought-ridden Surrey
Using a RISC OS5 computer
Mark Carver
> In article <48561mF...@individual.net>,
> Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>There was one oddity, every ten minutes or so the image would freeze
>>for a frame, as if a buffer was trying to catch up. Not sure if it was
>>the tuner, or display, but I've noticed the same on another Bravia
>>seen a shop.
>
>
> often due to impulsive interference. Perhaps a thermostat on the heating
> system cutting in, or a passing car (but that probably wouldn't be regular).
It might well have been, it's just that interruptions due to impulsive
interference are not normally that 'smooth'. Whenever I've seen minor
glitches a few clusters of DCT blocks go mad, and with any more severe
problems the audio mutes and/or squeaks as well. This was more like a
'drop frame' effect.
Harold
> I've used both, and never noticed any significant difference in this
> particular respect. To me, it's just another piece of technological
> folklore.
This might be useful to you.
Java Jive
"Harold" <harold57...@nospamherethanks.net> wrote in message
news:485claF...@individual.net...
Java Jive
into plain English as sour grapes ...
"John Russell" <john_e_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:441d6bac$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Peter Hayes
> "Peter Hayes" <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1hcg67u.10jeyzs1h741ysN%not_i...@btinternet.com...
> > > Digital TV signals in the UK are far too compressed, and this is what
> > > causes the effect you describe. You're noticing it more because the
> > > new TV is bigger and/or because it has a sharper picture than your
> > > old one.
> > >
> > > It's the same old story: "garbage in = garbage out"
> >
> > This doesn't of course, explain why the same source material looks so
> > different on various similarly sized LCD and CRT displays in dealers'
> > showrooms.
>
> The same source material can look vastly different on different CRTs of
> similar size from the same manufacturer in an average showroom. That means
> nothing here, only that possibly staff and customers have been playing with
> the remotes, and that TVs vary a lot in the way they are set up in the
> factory.
Indeed, but not all source material is garbage since occasionally
there's a receiver displaying a decent picture. And some defects have
nothing to do with users fiddling with remotes but just plain awful
products.
> There did at one time seem to be more noticeable variability between CRTs
> than between LCDs, probably because the latters' greater expense merited
> more care in setting them up, but now I'm not so sure.
>
> There is also a question of time. CRTs have had something of a reputation
> for drifting out of optimum set up over time, while it's probably still too
> early to say whether the same will prove true of LCDs.
Backlights will be a problem after a few years, perhaps not within the
five year lifetime manufacturers hope for but certainly within the
lifetime buyers expect.
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
> I've used both, and never noticed any significant difference in this
> particular respect. To me, it's just another piece of technological
> folklore.
>
> If you seem to notice any difference, then this *may* be because ...
>
> 1) Most people replace a monitor with a bigger picture one, and then such
> effects would be more noticeable simply because of the size increase.
>
> 2) An LCD gives a picture made up of relatively constantly illuminated
> and well defined pixels, whereas a CRT has to illuminate the phosphor
> initially, momentarily, *very* brightly for it to remain sufficiently
> visible as it dies away exponentially over rest of the frame cycle, and,
> despite the relatively slow reaction time of the human eye, which is what
> allows this technology to work, the net effect may be that the pixel edges
> seem less clearly defined to it, ie: that the edges of the pixels are
> effectively blurred or 'softened'.
>
> If it really happens, such softening would a fault, or at least a
> shortcoming, in CRT technology, but it would explain why people claim to
> notice your so-called 'degradation' more with LCDs.
>
> Either way, both technologies have a fixed native resolution, and
> consequently your original argument is invalid.
Erm... CRTs don't have a "fixed native resolution", they will correctly
display any resolution up to the design limits of the individual
monitor.
--
Peter
Alan White
<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>A while ago Alan White posted the optimum
>settings he uses for his Bravia in here. Sorry Alan I just couldn't
>get an acceptable picture, though my wife could see nothing wrong, and
>called me neurotic :-).
The settings I found to suit our set were for a 'V' Bravia rather than
the 'S'. I don't know whether or not that's significant but there must
be a factory set up procedure and without delving into the service
menu we're not really sure whether we're comparing like with like.
Our viewing distance for the 32" is about 5 metres which is more than
the optimum so picture artifacts would be less visible. The only
criticism I have is the fifteen minute 'warm up' time before the
picture stabilises at the preset brightness (is the back light
protected against surges) and the very slight set up on blacks. DVDs
are superb. Apparently 'Shrek' is a good test...
Although you couldn't get an acceptable picture, did you note the menu
settings for your best attempt?
Mark Carver
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:52:53 +0000, Mark Carver
> <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>A while ago Alan White posted the optimum
>>settings he uses for his Bravia in here. Sorry Alan I just couldn't
>>get an acceptable picture, though my wife could see nothing wrong, and
>>called me neurotic :-).
>
>
> The settings I found to suit our set were for a 'V' Bravia rather than
> the 'S'. I don't know whether or not that's significant but there must
> be a factory set up procedure and without delving into the service
> menu we're not really sure whether we're comparing like with like.
Yes, valid point. The 'S' is a lower grade model too, so perhaps I was
expecting too much anyway.
> Our viewing distance for the 32" is about 5 metres which is more than
> the optimum so picture artifacts would be less visible. The only
> criticism I have is the fifteen minute 'warm up' time before the
> picture stabilises at the preset brightness (is the back light
> protected against surges) and the very slight set up on blacks. DVDs
> are superb. Apparently 'Shrek' is a good test...
I'll rummage through their DVD collection, they're bound to have it
:-) However I've always been cynical about the use of such material
to show off and adjust any display, because it's computer generated
video.
> Although you couldn't get an acceptable picture, did you note the menu
> settings for your best attempt?
I should have done, I will on our next visit.
Java Jive
like LCDs ...
LCDs have a fixed number of LCD pixels/sq cm, CRTs have a fixed number of
(groups of RGB) phosphor pixels/sq cm and a corresponding fixed shadow mask
pitch, in both cases these determine the maximum resolution available. In
both cases lower resolutions are obtained through the signal from the
graphics card, in effect, grouping these physical pixels into nearest fit
'virtual' pixels.
"Peter Hayes" <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1hcgjb5.q1f2f318tvn6fN%not_i...@btinternet.com...
Conor
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:35:55 +0000, Alan <junk_...@amac.f2s.com>
> wrote:
>
> >One of the general conclusions was that LCD displays were not good
> >enough for HD TV.
>
> No, the conclusion was that the Gadget show presenters don't know what
> they are talking about.
>
Obviously you have bought into the LCD TV scam.
--
Conor,
Same shit, different day.
Conor
> And CRTs have a fixed phosphor/shadow mask resolution, so no difference
> there then ...
>
Conor
> I've used both, and never noticed any significant difference in this
> particular respect.
You must be blind.
Pyriform
> Backlights will be a problem after a few years, perhaps not within the
> five year lifetime manufacturers hope for but certainly within the
> lifetime buyers expect.
And what makes you think that? You disbelieve the MTTF figures?
Pyriform
Possibly it's the way the designers have chosen to handle errors. My
Thompson DHD4000 DVR used to freeze frame, until I discovered the
relevant entry in the engineering menu and changed it to macroblocking!
Pyriform
> Dunno when we'll have good digital TV, perhaps when the bishops open
> Joanna Southcotts box of sealed writings;!.
Ah, but which one? Not this one, evidently:
http://www.harryprice.co.uk/Famous%20Cases/southcottbyharryprice.htm
Emperor's New Widescreen
>
> An LCD is a digital device with what's called a native resolution, that's
> the actual number of LCD elements that make up the screen.
>
When you say 'native resolution' do you really just mean resolution
but are just trying to sound big and clever?
Roderick Stewart
I think he means exactly what he says he means. The "native resolution" of a
flat screen display is the number of physical light emitting elements it has.
Best results are obtained by ensuring that the signal fed to it has the same
number of pixels across the width and height of the picture as the display has
physical light emitting elements across the screen. This is easily done with
computer displays because most graphics cards can be set to output a variety
of resolutions so you can choose the best one for your screen, but the
resolution of a television picture is set by the transmission standards, so
any particular display device can only be optimal for one of them.
Rod.
Emperor's New Widescreen
"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00000f7...@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
> In article <SxlTf.2375$g76....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, Emperor's New
> Widescreen wrote:
> > > Ever used an LCD monitor?
> > >
> > > An LCD is a digital device with what's called a native resolution,
that's
> > > the actual number of LCD elements that make up the screen.
> > >
> >
> > When you say 'native resolution' do you really just mean resolution
> > but are just trying to sound big and clever?
>
> I think he means exactly what he says he means. The "native resolution" of
a
> flat screen display is the number of physical light emitting elements it
has.
But he also implies this is something special about LCD displays, CRT's
also have a fixed number of pixels etc...
Why not just say when being used in its correct resolution rather than
trying
to sound all posh?
Isn't a native a red indian anyway?
Nick
I think I'll wait for a HD CRT
Nick
"Foz" <F...@ramcottage.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dvhnsv$7pg$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Hi,
>
> I have just invested £1600 in a 37" LCD TV, and am a little disappointed
> with the picture quality!
>
> I have Sky digital and have connected the STB to the TV with SCART cables,
> but I am finding that there is a lot of what I'd call "MPEG shimmering"
> around the edges of detail, which is particularly bad on sports
> programmes.
>
> Is this normal, or am I possibly missing out on a config setting
> somewhere?
> Does anyone know what the optimal settings are for the Sky digibox?
>
> Although analogue reception is lousy where I live (and there is no
> terrestrial digital signal), the edges are as sharp as would be expected.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Fozzie
>
>
Pyriform
> I'm not impressed by the flat screens I've seen.
>
> I think I'll wait for a HD CRT
You'll have a long wait.
Stan The Man
Stewart <rj...@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:
I have an Apple 23in Cinema LCD computer monitor with a native
resolution of 1920 x 1200 - and there aren't too many signal sources
which have that number of pixels in them. If I feed it a DVD, the image
will display perfectly at its own resolution within a thick black
border on all sides which fills the rest of the monitor.
Your point is only correct if I want to fill the screen with an image.
If I create a desktop picture at 1920 x 1200 pixels it fills the screen
without any resampling and displays perfectly. But if the image is
smaller, or bigger, than 1920 x 1200 and I force it to resize to fill
my screen, the quality of the image is compromised including, for
example, stairstepping on diagonal lines.
I assume that the same thing will happen with an LCD TV, to a greater
or lesser extent.
Simon
Mark Carver
Dave Farrance
>But he also implies this is something special about LCD displays, CRT's
>also have a fixed number of pixels etc...
Native resolution is the correct term. Flat-panel displays can be used
at other resolutions by using internal interpolation.
You can argue that Trinitron CRTs have a native resolution of a sort -
horizontally only because it has vertical lines - but that cannot match
the resolution of the incoming signal.
--
Dave Farrance
Peter Hayes
What's the MTTF? 70,000 hours or about 8 years of continuous use?
Some will fail a lot earlier, it's a mean time not a minimum time.
Besides, these things dim with age, the colour gamut changes.
--
Peter
Pyriform
Fair enough. I didn't realise they would be launching here. However, a
lot of users complain about geometry issues with these sets, so seekers
after ultimate picture quality may well be disappointed. Undeniably
cheap though!
Pyriform
> Pyriform <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Hayes wrote:
>>> Backlights will be a problem after a few years, perhaps not within
>>> the five year lifetime manufacturers hope for but certainly within
>>> the lifetime buyers expect.
>>
>> And what makes you think that? You disbelieve the MTTF figures?
>
> What's the MTTF? 70,000 hours or about 8 years of continuous use?
I suggest you revisit MTTF figures for CRTs, and then do your comparison
again. Hint: most people do not watch TV (whatever the display
technology) 24 hours a day.
> Some will fail a lot earlier, it's a mean time not a minimum time.
You thought perhaps I used the term without understanding what it meant?
You imagine that CRTs are somehow exempt from the same statistical
distributions?
> Besides, these things dim with age, the colour gamut changes.
Whereas CRTs function perfectly until they croak? Dream on...
Mark Carver
Pyriform wrote:
> Mark Carver wrote:
>
> > http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/03/13/samsung_hd_ready_crt_tv/
>
> Fair enough. I didn't realise they would be launching here. However, a
> lot of users complain about geometry issues with these sets, so seekers
> after ultimate picture quality may well be disappointed. Undeniably
> cheap though!
Indeed. The tube will have an incredibly large deflection angle (130
ish degs I estimate ?).
I don't know how they'll preserve the beam focus, convergence, and
geometry over the entire raster. When the local Comet gets one on
display, I'll be down there with my portable DVD player and recording
of Test Card W !
John Russell
"Stan The Man" <m...@pr100.com> wrote in message
news:200320060842111979%m...@pr100.com...
Sorry but that's a limitation of your media player. All the media players I
use allow you to have a display as large as you like, even the full desktop,
and interpolate the video if resolution of the display area is bigger than
that the video requires.
As I posted elsewhere, a mediapc could be the best sources for an LCD TV
because it can generate a Native Resolution signal no matter the source
resolution, though interpolation. It certainly does a better job than the
LCD monitor when it needs to fill the screen with a source lower than native
resolution.
Ed
Hi Alan
I'd be interested to see what numbers you settled on when you adjusted
your Bravia, cos I've had mine a week and am not happy yet. I agree
with you that when it is fed a strong source it performs brilliantly,
but it really makes a piss poor job of a bad signal, especially blacks
and shadows.
Ed
Sorry, just read the rest of the thread and apparently your settings
were for the V series. I'd still be interested to try them out. Also,
do you know how to get into the service menu so I can push the sky
sports info bar down about a centimetre? Cheers
Ed
John Russell
"Ed" <eabo...@onetel.com> wrote in message
news:1142852075....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Or up 2 cms if it's Rugby League!
Ed
Indeed! What is it with these bloody tv producers that think we want a
banner an inch down into the picture? It gets right in the way of the
action.
The infobar along the bottom I like, but only when it's RIGHT at the
bottom Unfortunately it seems to be creeping up the screen. I spoke
with one of the senior cricket producers at sky who said that the SKY
infobar wasnt getting bigger, but some of the ones from India are.
Bring back the picture. we should be able to make the graphics and
captions optional and self positionable in this digital age
Ian
snip
>
> Bring back the picture. we should be able to make the graphics and
> captions optional and self positionable in this digital age
>
Perhaps they're there to remind us that were looking at a sheet of
glass, and that we need to stop being so silly as to expect to
experience the illusion that we're looking at something real. %-(
--
Ian.
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> In article <48561mF...@individual.net>,
> Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > There was one oddity, every ten minutes or so the image would freeze
> > for a frame, as if a buffer was trying to catch up. Not sure if it was
> > the tuner, or display, but I've noticed the same on another Bravia
> > seen a shop.
>
> often due to impulsive interference. Perhaps a thermostat on the heating
> system cutting in, or a passing car (but that probably wouldn't be regular).
It doesn't have to be. It can be an attempt to keep the clock in the
STB in sync with the clock at the broadcast end.
Apparently if the crystal drifts in the decoder, these "dropped frames"
can become quite frequent. It looks like a reception fault, but isn't.
One possible way to check is to critically assess the lip sync. If it's
better after the dropped frame than before, then it's probably an
attempt to match the MPEG time stamps. If it make no difference (or
there's an audio glitch too) then it's probably a reception fault. It
can be difficult to judge lipsync down to one frame though!
Cheers,
David.
John Russell
I've complained about the Rugby League and got no where. It's one thing
having information which isn't dynamic, and hence not distracting, but it's
another when it's changing all the time ,like the Rugby League version.
Ergonomics is non-existent. Such things should be designed by a combination
of graphics artist and ergonomasist.
Roderick Stewart
> > I think I'll wait for a HD CRT
>
> You'll have a long wait.
Why? I remember seeing HDTV at broadcast trade exhibitions 20 years
ago, and it was all tube cameras and CRT displays then, so if we could
make them 20 years ago we must be able to make them now.
Rod.
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> > I think he means exactly what he says he means. The "native resolution" of
> a
> > flat screen display is the number of physical light emitting elements it
> has.
>
> But he also implies this is something special about LCD displays, CRT's
> also have a fixed number of pixels etc...
No they don't. The dot structure of the phosphors on a CRT screen is not
intended to have any particular relationship with the scanning lines. In any
case it would be impractical to do this because the dot pitch can vary slightly
across the screen, as can the pitch and angle of the scanning lines, and there
is no differentiation between "pixels" in the horizontal direction in a video
signal, because it's just a continuously varying voltage.
Digital flat panel displays on the other hand have a definite fixed number of
individually addressable display elements, so best results are obtained where
each pixel of the image controls one and only one of these physical display
elements on the screen.
> Why not just say when being used in its correct resolution rather than
> trying
> to sound all posh?
You could call it the "correct" resolution, but this wouldn't say what was
supposed to be correct about it. Alternatively, you could refer to the
"physical resolution" of the screen, which would be a bit more meaningful, but
for some reason, "native resolution" seems to be a more commonly used term for
this. I don't know why anyone should think it "posh", as it simply gives an
important piece of information about the screen.
> Isn't a native a red indian anyway?
"Native" is nothing to do with Indians, red or otherwise. It's from the Latin
word for being born, and is to do with qualities that are inherent (e.g. by
birth), rather than added. In fact, there's another idea - what about referring
to the "inherent resolution" of a screen? Nobody does, as far as I know, but we
could try to start a trend.
Rod.
Alan White
>I'd be interested to see what numbers you settled on when you adjusted
>your Bravia, cos I've had mine a week and am not happy yet. I agree
>with you that when it is fed a strong source it performs brilliantly,
>but it really makes a piss poor job of a bad signal, especially blacks
>and shadows.
I was fortunate in that 'Bleak House' was on when setting up ours so
had a very good source for setting up for black detail. As I've said
elsewhere, the picture is still slightly 'set up' to achieve that.
Here you are:-
Let it 'warm up' for twenty minutes and then try:-
Picture Adjustment:-
Mode: Custom
Contrast: 65
Brightness: 55
Colour: 25
Sharpness: 30
Backlight: 5
Colour Tone: Neutral
Dynamic Picture: Off
Gamma Correction: 5
I'd be quite interested to know how you get on.
--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Web cam and weather:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather/kabcam.htm
Some walks and treks:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/walks/
Peter Hayes
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> > Pyriform <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Hayes wrote:
> >>> Backlights will be a problem after a few years, perhaps not within
> >>> the five year lifetime manufacturers hope for but certainly within
> >>> the lifetime buyers expect.
> >>
> >> And what makes you think that? You disbelieve the MTTF figures?
> >
> > What's the MTTF? 70,000 hours or about 8 years of continuous use?
>
> I suggest you revisit MTTF figures for CRTs, and then do your comparison
> again.
Earlier, you said, "There is also a question of time. CRTs have had
something of a reputation for drifting out of optimum set up over time,
while it's probably still too early to say whether the same will prove
true of LCDs."
I replied, "Backlights will be a problem after a few years, perhaps not
within the five year lifetime manufacturers hope for but certainly
within the lifetime buyers expect."
I was merely commenting on the life expectancy of the backlight which is
probably the single most likely point of failure on a LCD receiver.
Rest snipped.
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
> Pyriform <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Peter Hayes wrote:
> > > Pyriform <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Peter Hayes wrote:
> > >>> Backlights will be a problem after a few years, perhaps not within
> > >>> the five year lifetime manufacturers hope for but certainly within
> > >>> the lifetime buyers expect.
> > >>
> > >> And what makes you think that? You disbelieve the MTTF figures?
> > >
> > > What's the MTTF? 70,000 hours or about 8 years of continuous use?
> >
> > I suggest you revisit MTTF figures for CRTs, and then do your comparison
> > again.
>
> Earlier, you
Woops, sorry, that was Java Jive, mea culpa... :-(
Java Jive
Right now, within about 20 secs of trying, using what I happened to be
watching at the time I logged on and read this, I have cued up an example
onto both an LCD and a CRT TV - just a picture of an Alpine skiing coach
in blue trousers leaning down to write using his knee as support, so the
back of his leg is at about 45deg - and in fact in this example the
stair-stepping actually looks noticeably *worse* on the CRT!
The idea that there is any real difference between the two technologies in
this respect is a myth.
"Stan The Man" <m...@pr100.com> wrote in message
news:200320060842111979%m...@pr100.com...
>
Ed
Many thanks Alan, I'll have a try when I've got half an hour tonight or
tomorrow. I notice immediately how low you have the colour. I moved
mine down to about 45 when I first got it, but watching the football
yesterday liverpool's shirts didnt look red enough...
Ed
Ed
Ed
Stupid Google. Sorry all
John Russell
"Ian" <i...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dvm3ek$5u6$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
John Russell
"Alan White" <alan....@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:sp7t12tsqiucs4sa6...@4ax.com...
> On 20 Mar 2006 02:46:25 -0800, "Ed" <eabo...@onetel.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd be interested to see what numbers you settled on when you adjusted
>>your Bravia, cos I've had mine a week and am not happy yet. I agree
>>with you that when it is fed a strong source it performs brilliantly,
>>but it really makes a piss poor job of a bad signal, especially blacks
>>and shadows.
>
> I was fortunate in that 'Bleak House' was on when setting up ours so
> had a very good source for setting up for black detail. As I've said
> elsewhere, the picture is still slightly 'set up' to achieve that.
>
> Here you are:-
>
> Let it 'warm up' for twenty minutes and then try:-
>
> Picture Adjustment:-
> Mode: Custom
> Contrast: 65
> Brightness: 55
> Colour: 25
> Sharpness: 30
> Backlight: 5
> Colour Tone: Neutral
> Dynamic Picture: Off
> Gamma Correction: 5
>
> I'd be quite interested to know how you get on.
>
> --
> Alan White
So at last someone else using this forum who lowers the Colour Saturation. I
was beginning to think the RGB police had persuaded everyone that you had to
have sets where RGB bypassed colour control and you watched no matter how
over saturated the colour was.
Ed
I remember getting a philips CRT set a few years ago and the default
colour level was about 80 out of their 100 scale. I dropped it to 30
something. Everyone looked red! Even black people!!
Alan White
>I notice immediately how low you have the colour. I moved
>mine down to about 45 when I first got it, but watching the football
>yesterday liverpool's shirts didnt look red enough...
...which is why you have to check on a number of sources. Elsewhere
you've said that on some material it performs brilliantly. Which is
correct? I spent quite a lot of time 'tweaking' from various sources
spread over two or three days before I was satisfied that the set was
displaying as well as I wanted. Some programmes still look crap and
some, ('Planet Earth') are outstanding. The inference I draw from that
is that the set is very good at showing up crap and equally good at
reproducing stuff that's outstanding, which is how it should be.
The effect is very similar to upgrading loudspeakers in an audio
system. Faults which weren't apparent with old speakers become audible
and the good stuff sounds even better. I think that a lot of CRT sets
are not doing justice to the good stuff and not showing up the crap in
the bad stuff.
It boils down to the fact that if an improvement is made to an output
device, be it loudspeaker or video display, then the input has to keep
up with that improvement or we're all wasting our money.
Ed
spread over two or three days before I was satisfied that the set was
displaying as well as I wanted. Some programmes still look crap and
some, ('Planet Earth') are outstanding.
Will do.
It's interesting you mention Planet Earth as we watched that the first
week with the set on it's standard setting, and it looked wonderful. It
is filmed in HD as well, so I presume it's about as good as anything
broadcast by the BBC will ever look via a non HD sky box.
Java Jive
news:VA.00000f7...@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
> In article <EXoTf.2740$H%3.2...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>, Emperor's New
Widescreen
> wrote:
> >
> > But he also implies this is something special about LCD displays, CRT's
> > also have a fixed number of pixels etc...
>
> No they don't. The dot structure of the phosphors on a CRT screen is not
> intended to have any particular relationship with the scanning lines. In
any
> case it would be impractical to do this because the dot pitch can vary
slightly
> across the screen, as can the pitch and angle of the scanning lines, and
> IS NO DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN "PIXELS" IN THE HORIZONTAL DIRECTION in a
video
> signal, because it's just a continuously varying voltage.
[my caps]
"Dave Farrance" <DaveFa...@OMiTTHiSyahooANDTHiS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7srs125ujlff0h0u5...@4ax.com...
>
> You can argue that Trinitron CRTs have a native resolution of a sort -
> horizontally only because it has vertical lines
Some contradiction surely?
See (http://tinyurl.co.uk/ seems to be malfunctioning today) ...
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/north_america_01-1999/50143_na.PDF
Note:
Horizontal Dot Pitch
Trio Dot Pitch
Optimal Resolution Settings
Simon Heather
news:dvhnsv$7pg$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Hi,
>
> I have just invested £1600 in a 37" LCD TV, and am a little disappointed
> with the picture quality!
>
> I have Sky digital and have connected the STB to the TV with SCART cables,
> but I am finding that there is a lot of what I'd call "MPEG shimmering"
> around the edges of detail, which is particularly bad on sports
> programmes.
Yes this is partciularly bad on LCD TVs - it is much better on plasma TVs (I
have both) - for £1600 you should buy the new 37" Panasonic TH37PX60.
>
> Is this normal, or am I possibly missing out on a config setting
> somewhere?
> Does anyone know what the optimal settings are for the Sky digibox?
You can try to reduce the contrast and sharpness settings - the default
settings are normally completely oversaturated.
Conor
> Some contradiction surely?
>
No, merely you not understanding what Google returns.
--
Conor,
Same shit, different day.
Conor
Stewart says...
the resolution of the top end HDTVs for well over a decade.
John Russell
"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00000f7...@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
Why should they make them?
Picture Quality is the be all and end all for most people buying TV's.
John Russell
> It boils down to the fact that if an improvement is made to an output
> device, be it loudspeaker or video display, then the input has to keep
> up with that improvement or we're all wasting our money.
>
of Radio Broadcasts. That's because they use it mainly for listening to the
music they want, using a format they have chosen (CD/LP etc.), on the best
equipment they can afford.
TV is indeed the opposite. We will spend more time watching broadcasts, the
quality of which we have little control over, than watching recordings on
DVD or VHS.
Peter Hayes
> It's interesting you mention Planet Earth as we watched that the first
> week with the set on it's standard setting, and it looked wonderful. It
> is filmed in HD as well,
It's filmed on 35mm film also, it would seem.
Screen grab from Part 2,
http://www.btinternet.com/~pedroh/film.jpg
> so I presume it's about as good as anything
> broadcast by the BBC will ever look via a non HD sky box.
It certainly is, excellent stuff. Looking forward to the DVD.
--
Peter
Bill Taylor
I presume there is a "not" missing in that sentence.
In my experience most viewers have a very poor appreciation of picture
quality, hence the popularity of all these horrible LCDs and plasmas.
Bill
Brian Gregory [UK]
news:VA.00000f7...@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
> intended to have any particular relationship with the scanning lines. In
> any
> case it would be impractical to do this because the dot pitch can vary
> slightly
> across the screen, as can the pitch and angle of the scanning lines, and
> there
Indeed.
CRTs are normally used at considerably lower resolution than the dot pitch.
Also if you try to fit the display pixels to the mask pitch (or a lowish
multiple of it) in a CRT you end up with Moiré effect interference. i.e.
it's no good.
--
Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
n...@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.
Mark Carver
> It's filmed on 35mm film also, it would seem.
>
> Screen grab from Part 2,
>
> http://www.btinternet.com/~pedroh/film.jpg
...or that's what the crew keep their biscuits in :-)
>>so I presume it's about as good as anything
>>broadcast by the BBC will ever look via a non HD sky box.
>
>
> It certainly is, excellent stuff. Looking forward to the DVD.
Likewise, though I did notice as the camera pulled back from the huge
flock of snow-geese, they all turned into flying cubes !
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
Dave Farrance
>Ed <eabo...@onetel.com> wrote:
>> It's interesting you mention Planet Earth as we watched that the first
>> week with the set on it's standard setting, and it looked wonderful. It
>> is filmed in HD as well,
>
>It's filmed on 35mm film also, it would seem.
>
>Screen grab from Part 2,
>
>http://www.btinternet.com/~pedroh/film.jpg
That looks a bit rough, actually. Every other line is blurred.
Something go wrong with your capturing from an interlaced source?
--
Dave Farrance
Stephen
news:dvhnsv$7pg$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Hi,
>
> I have just invested £1600 in a 37" LCD TV, and am a little disappointed
> with the picture quality!
>
> I have Sky digital and have connected the STB to the TV with SCART cables,
> but I am finding that there is a lot of what I'd call "MPEG shimmering"
> around the edges of detail, which is particularly bad on sports
programmes.
>
somewhere?
> Does anyone know what the optimal settings are for the Sky digibox?
>
> terrestrial digital signal), the edges are as sharp as would be expected.
>
As far as I can tell the digital artefacts or "MPEG shimmering" look worse
on an LCD or plasma because of the kind of "edge sharpening" and "noise
reduction" they use. These are both turned up to a high level by default,
and need to be turned down to minimum or turned off (although this is not
possible on all sets). You'll need to spend some time ploughing through the
setup menu to find them and they may be called something quite different.
For example one Sony plasma I came across called them "clarity" and
"reality". Reducing both of these to zero improved the picture considerably.
If you're up close to a large screen while you're adjusting it, it may look
soft when you turn the sharpness and noise reduction down to zero, but it
should look more natural at normal viewing distance. This is meant to be 6
times picture height for standard definition TV, or in your case 9 feet away
from the screen..
Malcolm H
"Bill Taylor" <bi...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:441efd73...@news-europe.giganews.com...
> In my experience most viewers have a very poor appreciation of picture
> quality, hence the popularity of all these horrible LCDs and plasmas.
>
> Bill
I quite agree with your first clause but strongly disagree with the
adjective in the second!
I have owned many CRT TV receivers of all varieties over the years, worked
for BBC TV engineering for a while, and regard myself as a critical and
discerning viewer. The most recent CRT TV I purchased was a Sony KV32 FX60
wide/flat screen model which seemed to be the 'best' set available on the
market at the time. This set exhibited all the defects which I had
experienced and come to expect with CRT TV. In particular geometric
distortion, beam landing and convergence problems were quite unacceptable.
After much correspondence Sony sent an engineer round to inspect the set, he
agreed with me and arranged to swap the set for a new one. The new one was
not much better!
Over the past 2/3 years I have purchased a 43" Pioneer plasma, followed by a
17" LCD and a 26" LCD, and can honestly say that I have never enjoyed TV
viewing so much. When I first got the Pioneer I spent several hours with
the set-up menus ensuring that everything was optimised. The pictures are
spectacularly good (always assuming, of course, that the source material is
good). The LCD pictures are also excellent.
Most of the criticism of plasma and LCD screens is based on seeing
appallingly set up demonstrations in retail outlets.
Roderick Stewart
> Most of the criticism of plasma and LCD screens is based on seeing
> appallingly set up demonstrations in retail outlets.
The same could be said of a lot of modern innovations, digital this,
digital that, umpteen different disk formats and umpteen different
solid-state memory systems, umpteen different ways of receiving
material to watch or listen to, and a never-ending variety of shapes
and sizes of boxes to watch or listen with, but still essentially just
more of the same as what we've always had, with each successive "new"
incarnation of it not neccessarily making anything any better, and in
some cases noticeably and measureably worse. Or is it just that I'm
getting old?
I sometimes wonder if I'd ever have been interested in radio,
television, hi-fi, electronics, photography, or any technical hobby, if
I hadn't grown up when I did, when it was still possible for the
individual to improve something by learnng about it and putting in a
bit of DIY effort. Nowadays everyone is surrounded by so much
incomprehensible factory-made technology, so much of it frankly
unneccessary, that each innovation is just another gadget and doesn't
inspire excitement any more. Everything just works, either at the push
of a button or all by itself, with little requirement for human
involvement. Flat television screens have been the subject of our
expectations through science-fiction and future-predicting
documentaries for so long that now we have them there's no sense of
wonder - we're just glad of the extra space and are dissapointed if the
pictures are not perfect.
Rod.
Ed
Hi Alan
I had a go with your settings but I dont think the V and the S series
can be compared as I turned the colour down to 25 as per your set up
and the football was almost in black and white. The reds looked pink
and colour in general was not acceptable at all. I dont have a dynamic
picture setting, nor a gamma correction.
What is the supposed to be the difference between sharpness and
contrast? I notice you have your sharpness maxed out and the contrast a
bit lower (65/100) whereas I currently have sharpness at 15/30 and
contrast at max - I'm not sure this is right but it was my first
attempt at being able to see any kind of definition on dark suits. (I
was watching the news and couldnt see the bloke's lapel)
Also, does your speaker make a noise? Or has my set got a fault? It
isnt noticeable normally, but in the evening when the kids are in bed
and the volume is down you can hear an annying electrical whistle/hum
when the speaker is turned on. Mute it and it stops.
Cheers
ed
tony sayer
Yes.. What is the source?...
>
>Most of the criticism of plasma and LCD screens is based on seeing
>appallingly set up demonstrations in retail outlets.
>
>
Goes without saying. After all theres a generation being bought up on
compromised digital quality, vision and sound, who do not know any
better;(.....
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
nkmail.sptv.demon.co.uk> writes
But how can you compensate for what the MPEG coder throws away?....
--
Tony Sayer
John Russell
> It boils down to the fact that if an improvement is made to an output
> device, be it loudspeaker or video display, then the input has to keep
> up with that improvement or we're all wasting our money.
>