Originally Posted by rlindo
haha nice on the metric comment. Here in Canuckland though we basically go by feet.
Do you think the worse satellite image is because this tv is superior at transparency (garbage in, garbage out) or that the resolution enhancement (if you are using it) is causing the issues?
The cnet reviewer reported the enhancement magnifying noise and other artifacts and I think I have seen examples of that but only when I was near the TV. Then there is that consumereports article that implies the feature is also causing some issues in dark areas.
I'll probably be back at my folks tomorrow to watch the dogs so I will bring my Darblet and see what improvement it offers. It's huge on my RS50, not really anything on my 50" Panny VT25 plasma and a nice but not big gain on my 46" Sammy D630 LCD. This Sharp seems to be so uh sharp that I am wondering if it'll be anything noticeable.
I'm much happier with the results with the 'USER' setting on the UQ set.
There is a lot more chroma coming through and it is more natural. Fleshtones are peachy
and even the cyan is looking better. You would be able to tailor each input with that setting.
I remember that the 'MOVIE' setting didn't allow you that option.
Look at the stairstep grayscale to find which temperature has the smallest 'hump' because
you can't use 10-Point on the USER setting. The lowest temperature was it for the UQ and
I just brought blue and green up to kill the red cast. Not a lot of tinkering needed, otherwise!
I have the satellite box set to the same setting as the BluRay calibration disc and it is awesome.
I think you are right about the set showing more defects and maybe adding a few more noise
elements to inferior pictures. That was an issue with HDTV in conversion from NTSC, too.
A real 4K would not be much fun for watching everyday programming till providers up their
game considerably. No way does satellite look HD and cable is far worse. 4K? We'll see,