Is HD worth it for a mainly-TV user without a BluRay?

[StevenJJ]

OldSkoolRS said:

StevenJJ said:

I relieved myself of £1000 this weekend:

- TV Sony KDL-40EX503
- Blu Ray player Sony BDP-S370
- XBox 360
- Some Blu-Ray films and a game
- Cables


Standard Definition terrestrial pictures are drastically worse than the CRT Trinitron, the input of which was a Philips Freeview box over SCART. FreeviewHD channels are superb. HD inputs are superb. DVD's upscaled are also superb.

If you mainly use your TV for SD terrestrial it's not worth it. If you use it for other purposes then it definitely is.

Off topic, but as I have the similar little 32" version as a second set, I can recommend a couple of things to try which may improve your SD viewing:

While viewing an SD channel find the setting Home/settings/display/screen and change 'Display area' to '+1'. This will correctly size the image for the screen for SD viewing (note that when you change to a HD channel that this setting can be different) for the least overscan, making the picture slightly sharper. Also I'd recommend setting up your 'General' setting in the scene menu to be a copy of the 'Theatre' setting, but just increase the backlight setting to suit your room and ambient light. Generally not turning the backlight up full and turning off all the 'advanced' features makes quite a difference to all pictures IMHO. I found with these settings the SD picture is quite acceptable, though of course the HD channels do look better (I get my signal from Crystal Palace so I have access to the three Freeview HD channels on my 32EX703).

Also, don't futz around with the white balance controls unless you have a calibration sensor and software as you'll likely just make things worse.

Edited by OldSkoolRS on Monday 4th October 15:46

Done... '+1' for the SD terrestrial TV and 'full pixel' for 1080i HD terrestrial TV seems to have got me the picture as intended by the program makers. I also found it necessary to change the output of the S370 BD player to 'fixed aspect ratio' in order to get it to display 4:3 material properly. Slightly annoying that all this is necessary just to get an unmolested picture.

[OldSkoolRS]

I don't know why they made it default to these settings as it seems wrong to have to change the screen size to +1 for SD, even that number sounds like it will increase the size of the image when it slightly reduces it. I suppose it could be to do with the 'hash' that you sometimes get at the edge of the picture and the default setting would avoid this. I'd rather have a better SD picture and occasionally see 'hash' than a softer image all the time.

[Lost_BMW]

StevenJJ said:

I relieved myself of £1000 this weekend:

- TV Sony KDL-40EX503



Standard Definition terrestrial pictures are drastically worse than the CRT Trinitron, the input of which was a Philips Freeview box over SCART. FreeviewHD channels are superb. HD inputs are superb. DVD's upscaled are also superb.

If you mainly use your TV for SD terrestrial it's not worth it. If you use it for other purposes then it definitely is.

Same TV as mine - fed by a Sky HD box via HDMI. SD pictures e.g. BBC1 Formula 1 are rubbish however I fiddle with settings, definitely worse than on a decent Panasonic CRT or top end Sony CRT previously used. Visible artefacts and noise etc. Same as on a 37" Sony LCD at my last place or my dad's 40" Sony LCD.

[havoc]

I struggle to believe that there are posters directly contradicting each other on here* - some are saying that HD TVs, when properly set-up, are better than a good CRT, and then other posters are saying that they're not!

WTF?

As an aside - moved on Friday, and our 32" CRT is perhaps a little small for the lounge, so we probably will have to 'upgrade' at some point. Not looking forward to it...



* Yes, I know this is PH and that's what PH'ers do, but picture quality is a pretty easy one to spot...

[NewNameNeeded]

havoc said:

I struggle to believe that there are posters directly contradicting each other on here - some are saying that HD TVs, when properly set-up, are better than a good CRT, and then other posters are saying that they're not!

WTF?

Are they comparing the same TV's though? I moved from a 32" Sony Trinitron (CRT) to a 40" LCD (Samsung, £500) and I would argue that the CRT had the better picture by a mile. However I recently purchased a 42" Plasma (Panasonic, £1000) and that has a truly gorgeous picture for SD. I also admit I spent a bit more time properly setting the Plasma up. The customised settings I have now are a lot better than the out-of-the-box settings.

[TuxRacer]

Modern half-decent HDTVs are fine (at the very least) on a correctly implemented SD feed IMHO.

[moleamol]

There's not much point going to Comet to compare TVs because they are invariably set up poorly. I went into a shop (owned by deristrictor on here) and he showed me every combination of input/output. As a result I have a TV that is great and SD and stunning in HD. The noise is usually down to the Sky box being connected by SCART and not HDMI. A Sky HD box uses the latter.

[JustinP1]

havoc said:

I struggle to believe that there are posters directly contradicting each other on here* - some are saying that HD TVs, when properly set-up, are better than a good CRT, and then other posters are saying that they're not!

WTF?

As an aside - moved on Friday, and our 32" CRT is perhaps a little small for the lounge, so we probably will have to 'upgrade' at some point. Not looking forward to it...



* Yes, I know this is PH and that's what PH'ers do, but picture quality is a pretty easy one to spot...

I pretty much guarantee that if you by a good (Panasonic etc) plasma (not LCD) which is not a bottom of the range model, and you connect it with an HDMI you will get a more than acceptable picture.

[_dobbo_]

If it helps...

My plasma with an HDMI cable looks amazing with SD content, easily better than a CRT.

The exact same plasma used upstairs viewing sky over the RF connection with a sky eye has an absolutely awful picture, massively worse than a CRT with the same connection.

[havoc]

So it is mainly down to the cabling and the set-up then? Not usually this thick, but this really isn't as straightforward as you think it should be.


BTW, where is Derestrictors' shop? For future reference - likely to be next year before I'm in the market...

[moleamol]

havoc said:

So it is mainly down to the cabling and the set-up then? Not usually this thick, but this really isn't as straightforward as you think it should be.


BTW, where is Derestrictors' shop? For future reference - likely to be next year before I'm in the market...

His online shop is www.digitaldirect.co.uk, his actual shop I went to is near Bolton.

[Lost_BMW]

havoc said:

So it is mainly down to the cabling and the set-up then? Not usually this thick, but this really isn't as straightforward as you think it should be.


BTW, where is Derestrictors' shop? For future reference - likely to be next year before I'm in the market...

Admit this thread looks mighty contradictory but my remarks about SD being poor on my HD LCD Sony (x3)are based on them being fed via a Sky HD box with output set to auto (but tried manually at 576 and 1080) and via HDMI leads. I've tried all sorts within the picture settings including sharpness and noise reduction figures etc. to no avail.

At my last place with a 37" Sony I used the input from the DVD which was fed by SCART as this seemed to take some of the rough edges off. I always suspected it was the TV showing up the poor quality of lesser signals? Football on ITV before they moved to HD were a really obvious as being naff, as an example. F1 as currently on BBC is pretty poor too.

DVD pictures are not as good as HD ones but not nearly so bad as the satellite tv SD feeds.

My brother likes his (newish) Panasonic G20 (?) Plasma more than my LCD butwatches SD feeds on his CRT in the kitchen in preference to the plasma in the lounge FWIW.

[_dobbo_]

I'm astonished by those comments

Firstly, it's apples and oranges unless your brother has got a 42" CRT to compare against.

Secondly the SD feeds (such as F1 on the BBC) look amazing on my plasma. I'd MUCH rather watch that than a poxy little CRT TV - I can't imagine going upstairs to watch the CRT in preference - it's insane.

[JustinP1]

_dobbo_ said:

I'm astonished by those comments

Firstly, it's apples and oranges unless your brother has got a 42" CRT to compare against.

Secondly the SD feeds (such as F1 on the BBC) look amazing on my plasma. I'd MUCH rather watch that than a poxy little CRT TV - I can't imagine going upstairs to watch the CRT in preference - it's insane.

I agree with all three points there. Could not have said it better myself.

I am astonished that either:

People are not realising that even a poor 32 inch screen is going to look more 'sharp' and have less visible artifacts than a 42 or 50 inch at the same distance.

Or, there are some pretty awful LCD screens out there.

[Lost_BMW]

_dobbo_ said:

I'm astonished by those comments

Firstly, it's apples and oranges unless your brother has got a 42" CRT to compare against.

Secondly the SD feeds (such as F1 on the BBC) look amazing on my plasma. I'd MUCH rather watch that than a poxy little CRT TV - I can't imagine going upstairs to watch the CRT in preference - it's insane.

I may be insane, my eyes aren't.

Your TV must give better images than the 3 I have access to. NO WAY is F1 even borderline acceptable on my, admittedly, LCD HD TV. I'm talking re. my TV of HD v SD images on the same screen!

Brother's CRT is a very expensive, high end Sony CRT - massive but not sure of screen size but seem to remember him saying 38" diagonal?

[StevenJJ]

Guys - read the OP again and cut out the fluff in the middle.

He has a 32" Sony CRT and is scoping out sub-£1000 40-42" LCD's. Those of us saying our sub-£1000 40-42" LCD's are worse for SD than our 32-36" CRT's are not 'comparing apples with oranges' we're comparing the two options as laid out in the OP.

Plasmas and anything £1000+ didn't even come into the OP's question.

[havoc]

StevenJJ said:

Guys - read the OP again and cut out the fluff in the middle.

He has a 32" Sony CRT and is scoping out sub-£1000 40-42" LCD's. Those of us saying our sub-£1000 40-42" LCD's are worse for SD than our 32-36" CRT's are not 'comparing apples with oranges' we're comparing the two options as laid out in the OP.

Plasmas and anything £1000+ didn't even come into the OP's question.

Thanks!

Two caveats though:-
- happy to consider plasma, based on what I've read here and elsewhere about it being a more 'natural' successor to CRT. So it's almost certain to be Panasonic, as-and-when...
- (since making my first post) the new lounge is bigger than the old one, and the 32" CRT looks a little 'lost', plus as the viewing distance has increased ~50%, so I guess a <50% increase in screen-size won't hurt and won't be particularly noticeable.



Final question - are small (<20") LCD TVs (SD quality) alright for picture quality vs the same-size CRT in Kitchens etc?

[TuxRacer]

Yes. With the bonus that they're a lot easier to fit in a kitchen.

[havoc]

TuxRacer said:

Yes. With the bonus that they're a lot easier to fit in a kitchen.

Exactly why I'm asking - plenty of wall-space, very little spare surface-space!

Thanks,

M.