[iw84no1]

I've been wanting to buy a tv for a while to get the benefit of my satellite, but everything I read discourages me!

I wanted to go the cheap route and get a HD CRT, but they all have their problems and the Sanyo is ok, but complaints are of the pq. I've seen it with my own eyes, not that bad, but I don't see any dramatic colours.

I came close to getting an lcd, but then was unhappy with all the pixels (LG, Sammy), the Panasonic looked ok, but too much for my tight pockets.

So, I understand Wally-mart has a good return policy and my parents will be away for 2 weeks and I thought that I might as well try 1 out.

So, I have a satellite receiver, with RCA, S-Vid & component (non-HD) output capabilities. Since it seems that I won't get HD out of the component, if I get an HD LCD, will I still get a good, non blurry picture out of it in S-Vid? They say it won't be good on a CRT, so I was thinking LCD, or even Plasma.

As for what tv's I'll be choosing from, I believe they have Sanyo, Pana, and some other crap. I am interested in the Sanyo's.

 

[miniz]

No, your satellite feed will look horrible. If you aren't going to feed your HDTV an HD signal then you should not own one. Plain and simple. HDTV's require an HD signal.

 

[Dansw]

Don't be discouraged by the purists. Get it from somewhere with a good return policy and try it. Nothing to lose.


My sharp 42U provides a beautiful SD picture from analog cable. If you read the Sharp thread, you would think all Sharps are unwatchable. Not true.


/dan

 

[Barry_R]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dansw /forum/post/0


Don't be discouraged by the purists. Get it from somewhere with a good return policy and try it. Nothing to lose.


My sharp 42U provides a beautiful SD picture from analog cable. If you read the Sharp thread, you would think all Sharps are unwatchable. Not true.


/dan

I agree with this. I have a Sharp 42" Aquos and the SD is not as bad as some make it out to be. I watch about 70% SD and 25% HD and the other 5% are those channels that are pretending to be HD.

 

[ftaok]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry_R /forum/post/0


I agree with this. I have a Sharp 42" Aquos and the SD is not as bad as some make it out to be. I watch about 70% SD and 25% HD and the other 5% are those channels that are pretending to be HD.

I will third this. Heck, just yesterday, I was watching Heroes on my 46" 1080p LCD. It was recorded with a VCR on the SD analog feed of NBC at SLP speeds on an old tape that's been used and re-used. Also, since the SD broadcast of Heroes is letterboxed 4:3, I used the Zoom function on my TV.


Bottom Line - it didn't look that good, but it was at least as good as the SD CRT that we used to have, considering the screen size is about 2.5x of what we used to have.


ft

 

[rcktpwrd]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dansw /forum/post/0


Don't be discouraged by the purists. Get it from somewhere with a good return policy and try it. Nothing to lose.


My sharp 42U provides a beautiful SD picture from analog cable. If you read the Sharp thread, you would think all Sharps are unwatchable. Not true.


/dan

I also have the Sharp 42" and the sd pic is pretty good on most channels/programs. I have Time Warner digital cable and the extra hd channels upgrade.

I only really notice a poor pq when watching an older program that didn't have the benefit of the new camera technology. I think any larger screen tv will have pq issues compared to the old crt tv using the same sd inputs. the larger screen magnifies the poor pq. with many of the new shows being filmed in hd they look great even on the regular non-hd channel, but look awesome on the hd channel

Its when you feed the HDTV an HD or good quality signal that it really shines!

 

[miniz]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dansw /forum/post/0


Don't be discouraged by the purists. Get it from somewhere with a good return policy and try it. Nothing to lose.


My sharp 42U provides a beautiful SD picture from analog cable. If you read the Sharp thread, you would think all Sharps are unwatchable. Not true.


/dan

except he will be watching an OVERCOMPESSED SD SATELLITE feed, NOT analog cable. There is a big difference!


There is no point in having an HDTV if you are not going to feed it an HD signal. I can't make it any clearer then that.

 

[boostfrenzy]

I'm getting sick of threads like this, there simply isn't enough hd content available to make the sole purchase of one of these tv's on it... we need acceptable to good SD to make the purchase feel worthwhile

 

[laurie_lu]

My 1080p 46inch Samsung LCD is being fed with standard definition via S-Video cable from a 6 yr old analog satellite box. The picture is very watchable as long as I sit beyond 8 feet from our TV. Our usual viewing distance is around 15 to 17 feet and the picture appears flawless at that distance.


You can get free high definition channels from an OTA antenna in your attic or roof.

 

[Dansw]

Re: "PLEASE HELP STOP HDTV ABUSE! FEED YOUR HDTV AN HD SIGNAL!"


To original poster, the only solution is for you to move to a place where you can get all HD signals. So instead of buying a TV, save your $ for 10 years or so and put a downpayment on a nice urban house where you can get a signal worthy of your fine electronic marvel.


Or, you could buy a TV from a place with a good return policy and see if your pictrure is worth the price of the TV. I can absolutely promise you that your TV will not be offended if you take it back. And if I'm wrong about that, just tell it " It's not you, it's the satelite".


Seriously, I have no experience with satelite TV. But I was very surprised at my own SD quality after reading all the negatives in the forum. You can only try and judge for yourself.


/Dan

 

[miniz]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dansw /forum/post/0


Re: "PLEASE HELP STOP HDTV ABUSE! FEED YOUR HDTV AN HD SIGNAL!"


To original poster, the only solution is for you to move to a place where you can get all HD signals. So instead of buying a TV, save your $ for 10 years or so and put a downpayment on a nice urban house where you can get a signal worthy of your fine electronic marvel.


Or, you could buy a TV from a place with a good return policy and see if your pictrure is worth the price of the TV. I can absolutely promise you that your TV will not be offended if you take it back. And if I'm wrong about that, just tell it " It's not you, it's the satelite".


Seriously, I have no experience with satelite TV. But I was very surprised at my own SD quality after reading all the negatives in the forum. You can only try and judge for yourself.


/Dan

An HDTV is called in HDTV for a reason. It is not called an analog possibly HDTV. It is CALLED AN HDTV. An HDTV without an HD signal is nothing more then a big FUZZY analog TV. They were designed for one reason...to display an HD signal. Now I can tell you have never seen an HD signal on an HDTV so I will not continue to go on further.

 

[tsunami2311]



Quote:
Originally Posted by miniz /forum/post/0


An HDTV is called in HDTV for a reason. It is not called an analog possibly HDTV. It is CALLED AN HDTV. An HDTV without an HD signal is nothing more then a big FUZZY analog TV. They were designed for one reason...to display an HD signal. Now I can tell you have never seen an HD signal on an HDTV so I will not continue to go on further.

its not the owner fault there are so few HD channel untill there mandatory law stating all feed must HD and 16:9 this will not happen for long time meaning SD will be here for long time


I like the picture of SD on LCD I dont like the fact LCD lag way to much cause of response time any picture I dont see pixel on is good picture


HD is way better but there are so few channels that are true HD as most are just "upscaled" and ther huge diffrence bettween the 2

 

[Barry_R]

There is no law that sais broadcasters must go HD. The only law that will be coming into effect is the Digital mandate to open up more bandwidth. It is up to us to make the transition to full HD happen. If we watch HD channels more often than SD channels then the advertising dollars will make a shift. I know this is a bit of an odd thing to say after I said that 75% of my TV watching is SD but when the HD channels have something good on I switch to them over anything else.

 

[iw84no1]

Easy guys, I didn't mean for chaos to break out over my question.


Well, with so few SD tv's available, and I don't even know if there's a lcd or plasma that isn't HD, I figured I'd have to ask, so I don't wait in line everyday at a store returning whichever tv I choose.

But ultimately, does it seem that I'm really stuck with buying a CRT? I was considering one anyway, but one that was HD.

I guess, since the topic went down this route, my next question is, who has a digital, non HD signal going into their tv, what kind of tv is it and how's the picture? Note, digital signal, not grainy analog.

 

[miniz]



Quote:
Originally Posted by iw84no1 /forum/post/0


I guess, since the topic went down this route, my next question is, who has a digital, non HD signal going into their tv, what kind of tv is it and how's the picture? Note, digital signal, not grainy analog.

You mean overcompressed satellite? In most cases SD sat looks worse then analog cable.

 

[tsunami2311]



Quote:
Originally Posted by miniz /forum/post/0


You mean overcompressed satellite? In most cases SD sat looks worse then analog cable.

Oh it does, all satalite companies compress the hell out of there SD and the HD for that mater Cable no diffrent i jus think cables companies dont butcher the feeds as bad, but i could be wrong as I haven't had cable tv in quiet some time


i have ln-s3251d and that going through DN Satallite via s-video and I notice lag from responce depend on the channel weather it really digital channel or just analog converter to digital later appear much worse in motion now if it truely a digital channel it look nicer in motion over all the pq is on par with my old 27" samsung crt so long as it acutaly digital and not analog converter to digital

 

[iw84no1]

Well we have 2 tv's. One that's a 11 year old Zenith 27" that has an analog cable feed. I can see the grain.

My satellite on a dish network feed, is going into a 19" MTC tv, from like the late 80's or early 90's, on a coax feed, and the picture is alot clearer than the cable feed, on the better tv.

I can't have my sat. on the newer tv because the audio ports don't work on the RCA out, but I had it on there before and it looked fine.

So now you're saying a satellite coax feed is better than a satellite S-vid feed?

 

[pikachu2003]

Seriously if you want a new TV and you mostly watch SD... there is also something known as ED TV which can grant the best of both worlds, HD will not be at best but deffinatly good enough... and SD will look really good on it!!! Just go with an EDTV set. just my 2 cents and yes I'm a complete noob at this stuff, but I believe others can vouch for this too.

 

[tcsekhar1]



Quote:
Originally Posted by miniz /forum/post/0


You mean overcompressed satellite? In most cases SD sat looks worse then analog cable.

I have a 40'XBR2 and I watch some cricket matches broadcast from India via Dish Network.

The picture uttery horrible, whenever there is movement on the screen, it gets smeared as if two frames are displayed at the same time.

I am not even sure this is 480i. But other channels such as CNN (SD) are better.

So looks like each channel is differently compressed.

 

[Kansas Beachboy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by miniz /forum/post/0


No, your satellite feed will look horrible. If you aren't going to feed your HDTV an HD signal then you should not own one. Plain and simple. HDTV's require an HD signal.

So what are those of us supposed to do that want a big TV and don't have access to HD signals, or just aren't interested in HD?