I was just wondering, is there TV's out there that can reduce the ugliness of SD TV on a HDTV.

I know it's technically hard, seeing as you've got a truck load of extra pixels to fill, but some of these chanels are absolutely horrible.

Ya, SD can look bad sometimes but as you noticed some channels are worse then others. It is more the quality of the signal then the TV, there are some things you can do. An external VP or a noise reducer like the Algoith Flea can really help, they are not cheap but work great IMOH.

The OLEVIA TV is said to do a good job cleaning up SD but I have never seen one 1st hand.

Why dont you have two tv's? A regular CRT tv to watch all the stuff that your nice TV doesnt show well, and then all HD shows or movies and sports watch on the nicer TV. An awesome TV deserves to show awesome content, dont you think?

A analog SDTV crt is the only way to go for standard definition. Much cheaper than a processor but getting hard to find. I upgraded all of the my analog sets in 2002 just as they were starting to be replaced with digital flat panels. Glad I did. My ED plasma does a good job with SDTV but my projectors produce unwatchable SD output.

I was just wondering, is there TV's out there that can reduce the ugliness of SD TV on a HDTV.

I know it's technically hard, seeing as you've got a truck load of extra pixels to fill, but some of these chanels are absolutely horrible.You said it right there - some of the channels look horrible. With a good signal (like cable or OTA) a good HDTV will display SD very well. Satellite SD is not so good unfortunately, especially for me because i can save a ton of money if i were to switch from cable to satellite but there's no way i'll settle for the PQ reduction on SD or HD. I'd rather pay more for the better signal.

Analog SD cable looks very good on my Plasma but not nearly as good on my LCD TV. However, my digital SD cable channels look better than any of the analog channels - almost DVD quality. And the digital channels on the LCD look almost as good as on the Plasma so the fact that the signal is digital really helps the LCD perform better and reveals it's poor performance with an analog signal.

It really depends upon the quality of the video processor (within your set) and the input signal. SD on my hdtv is excellent - on many cable SD channels, the picture is nearly DVD quality.

I was just wondering, is there TV's out there that can reduce the ugliness of SD TV on a HDTV.

I know it's technically hard, seeing as you've got a truck load of extra pixels to fill, but some of these chanels are absolutely horrible.

SD PQ on my Panasonic 42PX60U is excellent, better than on my old Phillips 27 CRT. Its pretty good on my Westinghouse 32W6 lcd as well. I believe the biggest factor is the quality of the source.

It really depends upon the quality of the video processor (within your set) and the input signal. SD on my hdtv is excellent - on many cable SD channels, the picture is nearly DVD quality.

What set are you using? I'd like to know.... :p

I have a JVC LT-40FH96. The current model FN97s are highly rated as well. "All of this TV's video processing muscle, which reduces noise and improves scaler performance, pays off when displaying SD content." http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/JVC_LT-46FN97_Review.htm

Analog channels on my cable system look better than the SD digital ones. The cable company really compresses the hell out of the digital channels. Some of the digital channels look like you're watching streaming video from the internet.

Analog channels on my cable system look better than the SD digital ones. The cable company really compresses the hell out of the digital channels. Some of the digital channels look like you're watching streaming video from the internet.I just want to point out that this is fairly rare for a cable company to compress their digital signal like this. Most do no do this so it's important to note that some neighborhoods or cities do give sub-par picture quality, usually because their network is old and not up to date. The problem is that if you live in such a neighborhood, switching from a 32" tube TV to a 50" bigscreen TV will reveal flaws in the SD that were mostly masked by the smaller non-digital tube TV.

But i must say my TWC picture quality on analog SD, digital SD, and HD is as good as or better than anything i've ever seen in other cities. The whole town is all fiber optic right up to the pole out behind my house. Before, when the town was wired with cable the PQ was much worse, but the day they switched over to the new fiber optic network i got home from work and was blown away at the huge improvement in all my channels ! It's been heaven ever since . . . . .

I just want to point out that this is fairly rare for a cable company to compress their digital signal like this. Most do no do this so it's important to note that some neighborhoods or cities do give sub-par picture quality, usually because their network is old and not up to date.
I have to disagree. My next door neighbor owns two regional cable systems in the northeast and has done lots of work overseas and we have had many conversations about various aspects of the cable industry. A few years ago, he brought me along to the cable industry convention in Philadelphia. The big news was about being able to load 10 digital channels on the same 6 MHz? channel (I don't recall the technical term) that would be used for 1 analog channel. My neighbor says he loads no more than 6 digital channels on a specific frequency to preserve PQ. Anyways, to say that this is not a common practice is laughable. The extent of the compression depends on the specific cable system but do not think that they do not commonly compress digital channels.

Some of the digital channels look like you're watching streaming video from the internet.
This is not common for digital channels but some compression on these digital channels is.

I have to disagree. My next door neighbor owns two regional cable systems in the northeast and has done lots of work overseas and we have had many conversations about various aspects of the cable industry. A few years ago, he brought me along to the cable industry convention in Philadelphia. The big news was about being able to load 10 digital channels on the same 6 MHz? channel (I don't recall the technical term) that would be used for 1 analog channel. My neighbor says he loads no more than 6 digital channels on a specific frequency to preserve PQ. Anyways, to say that this is not a common practice is laughable. The extent of the compression depends on the specific cable system but do not think that they do not commonly compress digital channels.Relax - i didn't say the cable companies don't compress the digital channels at all - i was saying they don't overly-compress them to the point that they are actually WORSE than the analog channels like the way DeltaMW's cable company does. It's rare that the digital channels look worse than the analog channels.

That's true. For the most part, digital channels do look better than analog. When the day that everything is all digital day, compression shouldn't be as much of a problem. There won't be analog channels hogging a great deal of bandwidth.

That's true. For the most part, digital channels do look better than analog. When the day that everything is all digital day, compression shouldn't be as much of a problem. There won't be analog channels hogging a great deal of bandwidth.

unfortunately IMO macroblocks and pixelation are more fugly on a digital display than analog signal noise. oh well, the price of progress I guess. Just watch more HDTV. :)

...on many cable SD channels, the picture is nearly DVD quality.
I agree, and I agree with Randy. I have no problem viewing standard def digital cable channels on any of my three high-def displays. I will say that Verizon's FiOS is the best signal I've had, but the Comcast digital stuff wasn't bad. FiOS delivers a very strong signal, and from what I'm told, it won't degrade as the user numbers increase unlike the standard cable system distribution. If it's available in your area, or when, jump on it. In the meantime, don't be afraid to make the switch to a high def display. Of course, the larger the screen size, the more coarse the picture will be, so judge accordingly.

My cable system is fairly up-to-date. A company called Prestige owned the system in the '90's and was a horrendously out-of-date network. Only analog channels, nothing digital or internet service. The analog channels offered were pretty fuzzy most of the time. Adelphia bought that company in the late '90's/early '00's and upgraded the network tremendously...basically modernized it. Of course, we know what happened to Adelphia. Comcast bought them out here, and I have to say, I can't complain about the service, except for the compression on digital channels and the high prices. The cable internet is fantastic, with downstream throughput of over 8 megs most of the time. On my old (well, a few years old) 27" analog set, some of the digital channels looked bad on that too, so I was prepared for the worst on my plasma. The worst channel of them all is VH1 Classic, I believe. But if the content is there, I'll watch it. VH1 Classic is what drew my attention to the compression artifacts on my previous 27" standard def set. The other digital channels looked ok to very good for the most part on the old 27" set.

The analog channels are all pretty clean, but obviously, no compression artifacts. The picture quality is actually pretty good on the plasma. Almost like watching a huge standard def CRT. I would actually rather put up with some mild fuzz on analog video than the compression artifacts on digital video. Digital is one of those things where if it's done properly, the results can be fantastic, but if done poorly, I'd take the analog version any day.

I agree, and I agree with Randy. I have no problem viewing standard def digital cable channels on any of my three high-def displays. I will say that Verizon's FiOS is the best signal I've had, but the Comcast digital stuff wasn't bad. FiOS delivers a very strong signal, and from what I'm told, it won't degrade as the user numbers increase unlike the standard cable system distribution. If it's available in your area, or when, jump on it. In the meantime, don't be afraid to make the switch to a high def display. Of course, the larger the screen size, the more coarse the picture will be, so judge accordingly.

I can't wait until FiOS comes out to my neighborhood. FiOS offers a tremendous amount of bandwidth, so they don't need to compress the video like the cable companies do. Should be a very clean SD feed.

Interestingly, when I was with Comcast, the techs had to boost the signals entering my home with amplifiers, so I had an amplifier that was then amplified by another, just to try to free me of the pixelation and audio drop-outs. When FiOS was installed, the first few TVs on my system had attenuators added to knock down the signal strength, and those that were long runs had a full signal without any amplification. Nice stuff, and you can't beat their internet connection!

I can't wait until FiOS comes out to my neighborhood. FiOS offers a tremendous amount of bandwidth, so they don't need to compress the video like the cable companies do. Should be a very clean SD feed.For whatever reason, FiOS still applies a significant amount of compression to their SD channels. They apply less compression than Comcast (and much less than DirecTV, Dish Network), but not that much less. As far as I can tell, they still distribute all of their cable SD channels as 528x480, just like Comcast. That's better than satellite's 480x480, but not the full 704x480 or 720x480 resolution of some feeds. FiOS does pass the full 720x480 D1 resolution of local SD channels, presumably fed from local affiliates via fiber.

Fortunately, they don't apply the same compression to their HD signals, which they pass at full resolution without rate shaping.

I was just wondering, is there TV's out there that can reduce the ugliness of SD TV on a HDTV.

I know it's technically hard, seeing as you've got a truck load of extra pixels to fill, but some of these chanels are absolutely horrible.

I have a Pioneer 4270, with cablevision cable. It looks great. The HD channels look the best, some of the digital channels are pretty close, the SD analog channels look good, and only a couple of the remaining digital channels look bad. The bad ones looked bad on my 32" SD CRT too. Overall I'm very impressed with the picture quality for SD television, and DVD's look practically HD. The gap between the HD and SD channels is not nearly as big as on my friend's DLP, but I think that may just be because mine is 42" and his is 61".

My Panasonic 42" ED (42PA25U) displays SD channels exceptionally well, though it does depend on the source. First you have to clarify what you mean by SD - analog signals are crapola by definition and usually look even worse converted to digital. Keep in mind DVDs are SD and they look wonderful on all HDTVs. Broadcast SD varies all over the place from converted analog (ugh) to digital HD downconverted to SD (terrific). Many of the BBC programs on my local Comcast originate in HD but are carried as (digital) SD and still look great - Robin Hood for example looks very good even when I zoom it to fill the screen. But the bigger the screen the worse a poor source will look. GIGO! One thing I do is to use my TV tuner for analog cable channels (<100) since the STB digitizes them further and makes them look worse.

So I have a question for you guys:

Which do you think is the bigger factor (in perceived SD quality), screen real-estate or VP quality?

The replies seem to gloss over the screen size factor. Over time I find myself feeling more and more that size is the biggest factor in revealing SD flaws and causing the HDTV newcomer to puke. Not only that, I've begun to wonder whether there is some sort of non-linear funtion to it -- that as screen size goes up through the 40"s things begin to get worse but then as you cross over 50" or so, it gets dramatically more awful to the point where the people with giant projection screens just laugh about it.

On the other hand, I'm not very experienced with expensive external video processors and maybe they can work miracles even on big screens. My experience has been that screens at about 46" and above seem to provide an accelerated learning experience about the many, many special ways that SD can look really bad. Oh and another interesting thing I've noticed are the times when you happen to watch a reduced area version of an SD picture placed somewhere on your big HD screen, say via PIP or some special programming where they are showing a picutre within a picture, and the reduced area SD suddenly looks stunningly better -- to me that supports the feeling that SD quality perception is more about picture size than about video quality (not to say VQ isn't important!)

-pixelswim

Which do you think is the bigger factor (in perceived SD quality), screen real-estate or VP quality?


My uneducated guess: video processor. Although I also think the size does have an impact, but mainly because the larger sizes usually have more pixels, and that puts more load on the video processor. I have a family member with a LCD television that looks terrible (to me - they think it's great), which is attached to cable, is displaying a SD channel, and is only probably in the upper 20's in size. My 32" CRT looks significantly better. They should have the advantage due to the smaller size, but I think cheap electronics ruin the picture.

As for displaying a SD picture in only a portion of the screen, I think the video processor has less work to do, and that's why it looks better. Again, these are just guesses.

My uneducated guess: video processor. Although I also think the size does have an impact, but mainly because the larger sizes usually have more pixels, and that puts more load on the video processor. I have a family member with a LCD television that looks terrible (to me - they think it's great), which is attached to cable, is displaying a SD channel, and is only probably in the upper 20's in size. My 32" CRT looks significantly better. They should have the advantage due to the smaller size, but I think cheap electronics ruin the picture.

As for displaying a SD picture in only a portion of the screen, I think the video processor has less work to do, and that's why it looks better. Again, these are just guesses. Processing, signal quality and screen size all play a part. Size does have an impact, but not because of more pixels, but because of increased pixel size. The larger the pixel, the more noticeable an imperfection becomes. On a smaller set, with smaller pixels the imperfections are harder to notice. I have a 1920x1080p display with an excellent SD. . . my display is only 40".

I agree with both sides of the argument, although I feel strongly that size is the main culprit for SD image problems. Have you ever seen a standard def large rear projection TV that you were satisfied with? Even by good manufacturers with good electronics, a 65" 640x480 image is dull and lifeless. The video processors of the "Big 3 or 4" of plasma and LCD displays seem okay, but certainly are what the critics speak about when they say, "spend all that money for a bad picture" tuning in standard def programming. I find the standard def picture quality on my relatively inexpensive displays to be quite nice, but the largest I have right now is 37".

My Panasonic 42" ED (42PA25U) displays SD channels exceptionally well, though it does dependo on the source. First you have to clarify what you mean by SD - analog signals are crapola by definition and usually look even worse converted to digital. Keep in mind DVDs are SD and they look wonderful on all HDTVs. Broadcast SD varies all over the place from converted analog (ugh) to digital HD downconverted to SD (terrific). Many of the BBC programs on my local Comcast originate in HD but are carried as (digital) SD and still look great - Robin Hood for example looks very good even when I zoom it to fill the screen. But the bigger the screen the worse a poor source will look. GIGO! One thing I do is to use my TV tuner for analog cable channels (<100) since the STB digitizes them further and makes them look worse.

SD is SD regardless of analog or digital delivery. Quality depends on the bandwidth. Not all DVDs look wonderful; it depends on the source and the compression (more compression if there is a lot of material being shoehorned on the DVD). Remember, a lot of people are watching DVDs via component outputs, which are analog...although converted from digital on the DVD, which in many cases was originally converted to digital from analog (film, videotape). Of course, the TV has to convert it back to digital and scale it.

It's true that the bigger the screen, the worse it will look. Remember, when the NTSC standard was made, people were watching 10" screens. It was never thought that it would be blown up to a 60"+ screen. It is truely remarkable that the NTSC standard has served us for this long. I saw a working TV from the late '40's that was a rear-projection on to a 24" screen. I never knew that RPTVs dated back that far until I saw that set. The picture on it wasn't bad!

That's very cool. As a youngster, with my father working for Philco at the time, we had the first TV in the neighborhood, a 9" screen that was round. I would have liked to have seen the 24" screen back then, even with only an "Indian chief" test pattern to watch prior to Uncle Milty! :D

What we are all talking about is dot density and lines per inch. The issue is that displays look good with about 120 lines per inch. The larger the display, the more lines there are. More lines means more pixels, A LOT MORE PIXELS. Well, if the video source has a low dot count (NTSC/SD), then the dots on the screen have to come from somewhere. They are, of course, invented by the video processor. There are good ones and crummy ones. The good ones cost money and the crummy ones don't. Most people are buying sets on price and then comment on how bad they look.

"The food here is terrible and is such small portions"

That's very cool. As a youngster, with my father working for Philco at the time, we had the first TV in the neighborhood, a 9" screen that was round. I would have liked to have seen the 24" screen back then, even with only an "Indian chief" test pattern to watch prior to Uncle Milty! :D

Yeah, as big of a fan of high-tech stuff as I am, I also love the old tech stuff too. Basically, I am an electronics fan. I have several antique radios from the '20's and '30's, and one from the '40's. Most of them work. I also have a nice tube AM transmitter so I can listen to anything I want on them!

Anyway, I have only been able to aquire one antique TV from '47. It doesn't totally work; it has a problem with the vertical circuit. Apparently, more people saved their old radios than their old TVs.

Finding tubes can't be all that easy either! I remember that every 7-11 had a tube tester and tubes for sale. I don't think any guy in RadioShack at this point would know what you were asking for.

SD is SD regardless of analog or digital delivery. Quality depends on the bandwidth. Not all DVDs look wonderful; it depends on the source and the compression (more compression if there is a lot of material being shoehorned on the DVD). Remember, a lot of people are watching DVDs via component outputs, which are analog...although converted !

I think to say that SD is SD is misleading, though I certainly agree bandwidth is important whether broadcast or on DVD. SD (Standard Digital) is defined as 480i (Enhanced Digital is 480p), however many analog sources originate at much less resolution than that. But digitizing an analog source that may be 280i (VHS) or not much higher (NTSC OTA) is not the same thing as 480i on a SD DVD. Most DVDs are actuallly mastered at 1080p, so what you see on a SD DVD is HD downcoverted to SD - a huge difference from digitizing and upscaling a NTSC analog signal which is full of RF noise in addition to low resolution. Many posters here refer to SD when they are in fact talking about legacy analog channels being converted to SD by their cable company or satellite provider, which is the bulk of what we see other than prime time on HD channels.

I think to say that SD is SD is misleading, though I certainly agree bandwidth is important whether broadcast or on DVD. SD (Standard Digital) is defined as 480i (Enhanced Digital is 480p), however many analog sources originate at much less resolution than that. But digitizing an analog source that may be 280i (VHS) or not much higher (NTSC OTA) is not the same thing as 480i on a SD DVD. Most DVDs are actuallly mastered at 1080p, so what you see on a SD DVD is HD downcoverted to SD - a huge difference from digitizing and upscaling a NTSC analog signal which is full of RF noise in addition to low resolution. Many posters here refer to SD when they are in fact talking about legacy analog channels being converted to SD by their cable company or satellite provider, which is the bulk of what we see other than prime time on HD channels.


When I say SD, I'm saying "standard definition." That's 480i. That's what broadcast stations broadcast. VHS is not standard definition; it's about half the resolution of standard def...and that is because the format was limited in bandwidth. RF interference is an inherent problem with analog transmission for sure. But as far as signal quality, I would rather watch an analog broadcast with a little fuzz than a super compressed digital signal with macroblocking and all the rest of the artifacts that go along with digital compression.

I hope you're right about DVDs being mastered in 1080p...that means that all the SD DVD stuff I have is all ready for HD DVD. I like to watch old TV shows on DVD, and most of those were filmed, so those should look good in HD DVD. The shows recorded on video tape are going to look bad, just as they do coming off of my SD DVD player on my 60" plasma TV.

Finding tubes can't be all that easy either! I remember that every 7-11 had a tube tester and tubes for sale. I don't think any guy in RadioShack at this point would know what you were asking for.

You would be surprised at how easily you can find tubes at specialty places! There are plenty of NOS (new old stock) tubes that have been sitting on warehouse shelves for 60 years. Such a place is Antique Electronic Supply in Tempe AZ.

I am "only" 39 (on Sunday), and even I can remember the old tube testers in Radio Shack. When I was a kid, I used to go to Radio Shack and buy their electronics kits. You're right, I don't think I have seen anyone working in a Radio Shack in decades who would know what ANY electronic component is, nevermind a tube. If I do need a component that Radio Shack might have, I usually just go back there and look through the drawers myself. I wouldn't even think about asking those people for any assistance...lol.

Well, I was born the same year as your TV, so I guess that makes me an "antique" also!

Happy Birthday!

1) Try changing your connection type. If you are using HDMI, try connecting component.

2) If your TV has a good scaler, make sure your cable box is outputting 480i for SD, NOT 480p. Cable boxes are known for having ****** scalers.

Though I'm too lazy to find out which fix helped, by making both of them, I was significantly able to reduce SD noise and made the standard channels quite watchable.

Happy Birthday!

Thanks!

Well, this thread has done a great job of explaining different forum members definition of "SD", but that wasn't the question!

Which TV's do SD well?

Well, this thread has done a great job of explaining different forum members definition of "SD", but that wasn't the question!

Which TV's do SD well? No that was not the question. The OP did not ask which tv's do SD well. He asked if there were any that "reduce the ugliness of SD". There is a difference. If anyone wanted to be blunt, the question could have been answered with a simple Yes or No. However, posters offered hints, explainations, and their own experiences. A few brands were identified. Basically, the OP's question was answered.