[Addicted Help!!]

I am in the process of switching HD sets, and in an effort to have as much selection as possible I am going to try a DVDO Pro model I-scan on severall of the sets that have great HD but absolutely horrible analog this weekend.


I have been told it really helps, and will be trying it out on the Mitsubishi Diamond, Diamond PLus, and Pioneer Elite Pro 730, and will put up a follow up report Sunday. I had forgotten how incredibly poor the analog was on most of the sets out there since I got a Hitachi at home, and if this solution doesn't bring incredible results, I will just have to forgo my 65 inch first choice in favor of just moving to the 57 inch Hitachi SWX.


I also discovered the DVDO has just purchased back their company this week, and they are running a price for the pro-model of $399 bucks, plus shipping of 10 bucks, when the regular price is around $600 bucks. The company also told me it does a very good job on DVD, and although both the sets mentioned above already do good DVD, I will go ahead and test that as well, to see if there is a real secondary benefit on DVD.


I was told by somebody familiar with the DVDO that it should work, but if seeing scan lines on the edges in say sporting events is really a point of concern for me, the Faroudja works better there, but obviously at a much higher price point. We will see, but I don't see any such scan lines with the Hitachi and it's own line doubler, so when comparing if that is noticeable that would be a big deal to me, unless it is just faint and not constant.


I am suprised that with all the posts about poor analog on so many of the sets, that nobody ever mentioned this type of inexpensive solution, or was already doing it, but I guess that could be that other than DVDO most line doublers are quite a bit more expensive, and while Silicon Image owned DVDO, they didn't really market like DVDO used to.

 

[bullgates]

It has been talked about in the Video Processors Forum and the HTPC forum.



bg

 

[rogo]

You can't fix a broken monkey at an auto-repair shop. The reason why this "simple fix" doesn't get hyped is that it doesn't fix things enough to be worth it.

 

[Bulldog24]

I, for one, cannot wait for you to report on your results. Many people in this forum are fond of stating, "garbage in... garbage out". Well, that is not a satisfactory answer as to why a 50" Hitachi Ultravision from 5 years ago can kick the poop out of a high definition TV when displaying SD material. I have seen an SD set next to a HD set and the differences are dramatic. A good solution is needed. Especially since the majority of programming content is still SD.

 

[dsskid]

I agree wholeheartedly Bulldog.

P.s. My nickname given to me by friends has been "Bulldog" for the last 20 years. Woof woof, lol.

 

[spidey07]

Bulldog,


The presence of scanlines "trick" you into perceiving a sharper picture, when actually all the artifacts are still there. HD sets just do a better job of displaying what you send them.

 

[Mfusick]

Quote:

Originally posted by spidey07 Bulldog, The presence of scanlines "trick" you into perceiving a sharper picture, when actually all the artifacts are still there. HD sets just do a better job of displaying what you send them.

Good answer.


Digital TV's - It's kinda like a smart person reading a book and telling you about it. You understand more because the person is smart and can explain it properly and correctly.


Analog TV's- Kinda like a stupid person or mentally retarded person reading a book and telling you about it. They are not smart enough to fully explain it to you correctly so you miss some stuff.


If you think a 5 year analog set is best... buy one.


Personally, I know that digital is comming and that DVD and such is where it is at. Analog cable is not where it is at...


I don't understand why people even worry about it... Congress is going to make analog broadcasts against the law. They are also going to make analog big screens against the law too.


Time and energy should not be spent worrying over analog tv's or analog transmissions.

 

[Larry Hutchinson]

The fundamental problem with analog on HDTV sets is that the analog picture size relative to the viewing distance is to large. Analog should be viewed from at leat 7 picture heights away while HD would be a waste if you are much further than 3-4.


Burn-in proof sets such as DLP or LCOS should allow user-selectable picture sizes.

 

[Marc Alexander]

I'm not sure I agree with everyone here (I'm with addicted baby!). I believe the Iscan will do exactly what Addicted is searching for (he is completely satisfied with the analog performance on the Hitachi). At $399 I am seriously considering adding one for my Mits.

Quote:

Originally posted by Addicted Help!! I am suprised that with all the posts about poor analog on so many of the sets, that nobody ever mentioned this type of inexpensive solution, or was already doing it, but I guess that could be that other than DVDO most line doublers are quite a bit more expensive, and while Silicon Image owned DVDO, they didn't really market like DVDO used to.

There are quite a number of spotties who utilize the DVDO in combination with Mits for the ultimate combo/best of both worlds. AVS folks may not be fans...but there are many with IScans.

 

[gerhard911]

Quote:

Originally posted by Larry Hutchinson Burn-in proof sets such as DLP or LCOS should allow user-selectable picture sizes.

A great idea ! I use Picture with Picture with no signal on one side of my Sammy DLP to watch particularly bad SD signals.

 

[rogo]

Well, seriously, anyone who wants to buy an iScan should.


It is not going to fix the problem.


It's a combination of a number of things, most of which have already been stated:


(1) Garbage in, garbage out -- This is acutely true if the channels you are watching come from DirecTV, Dish Network, or any of the "digital" channels on your "digital cable".


(2) Conversion -- Analog signals will look better when displays on analog devices. When you see them, they are often converted from analog to digital with inadequate bandwidth. They then get converted back to analog by your set-top or cable provider, back to digital by your TV, where they are then manipulated by your display into a different set of digital data.


(3) "Nativity" -- An interlaced, low-resolution picture is optimized for display on interlaced, low-resolution devices. What do you think your cable or satellite provider uses to check out signal quality? (Please, don't answer "nothing" as tempeting as that may be )


(4) Right tool for the job -- The iScan fixes exactly one problem. It has a better deinterlacer than the dreck built into most TVs. This will give you better deinterlacing, but will do nothing for the other problems. For some of you, though, it might introduce other problems in signal quality or with audio sync or what not.


I recommend buying solely from somewhere with a 30-day return.


Mark

 

[Marc Alexander]

I agree Rogo...


The Iscan will not fix the problems you described. It will fix many problems of the crappy line doublers used in most sets (specifically Mits and Panasonic).


For those who are pleased with analog performance of Toshiba, Pioneer, or Hitachi...the Iscan allows this level (probably a bit better...sans stretch modes).


Addicted and myself are simply looking for that. Analog is acceptable on my Hitachi...but my Mits is plagued with jaggies and other artifacts. Iscan will address this.

 

[Larry Hutchinson]

Quote:

Originally posted by gerhard911 A great idea ! I use Picture with Picture with no signal on one side of my Sammy DLP to watch particularly bad SD signals.

A friend of mine with a CRT RPTV is doing the same thing but he is building a "gray channel generator" to deal with the burn-in problem.

 

[MRL]

I agree with the above and have never had anyone that can explain it. My old analog Pioneer 46" elite kicked butt on any analog signal compared to any new digital set. I now wished I would have kept it for football. Football actually sucks big time on any HD set and I doubt even an iscan could help it. My wife would have complained but I got rid of the old analog RPTV way too soon... I always have to be one of the first on the block for this stuff and really could have waited. HD is nice but most things and most good things are still in analog (football).!!!

 

[rogo]

I agree that most Mitsubishi -- at least the ones I've seen at retail -- have pathetic deinterlacers.


I will say that for about 4 months I had a 42" Panasonic plasma which had a wonderful deinterlacer.


I never see Panasonic RPTVs anywhere anymore.


Mark

 

[Addicted Help!!]

Quote:

Originally posted by rogo Well, seriously, anyone who wants to buy an iScan should. It is not going to fix the problem. It's a combination of a number of things, most of which have already been stated: (1) Garbage in, garbage out -- This is acutely true if the channels you are watching come from DirecTV, Dish Network, or any of the "digital" channels on your "digital cable". (2) Conversion -- Analog signals will look better when displays on analog devices. When you see them, they are often converted from analog to digital with inadequate bandwidth. They then get converted back to analog by your set-top or cable provider, back to digital by your TV, where they are then manipulated by your display into a different set of digital data. (3) "Nativity" -- An interlaced, low-resolution picture is optimized for display on interlaced, low-resolution devices. What do you think your cable or satellite provider uses to check out signal quality? (Please, don't answer "nothing" as tempeting as that may be ) (4) Right tool for the job -- The iScan fixes exactly one problem. It has a better deinterlacer than the dreck built into most TVs. This will give you better deinterlacing, but will do nothing for the other problems. For some of you, though, it might introduce other problems in signal quality or with audio sync or what not. I recommend buying solely from somewhere with a 30-day return. Mark

Number 1 I think is wrong catagorically because of what AI stated in the premise that with the Hitachi sets, which I run with Dish network, the analog picture is just short of perfect already, so it isn't garbage in by definition. Now the 65 inch has a substandard HD picture, so that is the reason for this whole debate because if I stick with the Hitachi than I have to go 57 inches, and won't need this, but if I can get something else to clean up analog, than I have choices for bettter 65 inch HD sets. If I am wrong, than please explain it, but even with digital cable on the Hitachi it doesn't look bad, but since dish looks like it does, it appears all the flaws in cable are just the cable. If you haven't seen the new Hitachi's in analog, than I would agree with you because the others I looked at all looked bad. An ISF came to my house and said that DSS looks much worse than digital cable in our city and when he said that I showed him my dish picture and he agreed it looked alot better than the cable, and by inference even more so over DSS,so again if you haven't seen that source, than maybe another reason it could be GIGO in your example, but not in mine.


I appreciate the input but number 1 was not possible in my circumstance. I have been told that I have to look at some action, and that the I scan doesnt work well enough, than I am on to the 57 inch Hitachi SWX,and then I can get it calibrated by "Cheezmo" and still have saved some money and got a better picture.


In the end I wish Hitachi had sent an ISF out instead of a contract service tech to access my 65xwx, because unless all the people on this site with 65swx's and xwx's are just almost blind, than their sets don't look anything like mine, or everyone on display in my city of 4 million. Hitachi claims they were all produced in a few runs, in a short period, and therefore I wouldn't be surpised if a setting internally was just way off, and it will be a shame if that is the case, because with this sets' analog, and if it could get a picture in HD anywhere close to tht of the 57 inch, than it would be the finest picture I have ever seen on a TV set.

 

[Bulldog24]

OK... one question. If HD shows the artifacts that SD sets "hide", then could I please have an SD "mode" that will hide the artifacts that SD sets hide naturally? That would be really nice...

 

[Addicted Help!!]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog24 I, for one, cannot wait for you to report on your results. Many people in this forum are fond of stating, "garbage in... garbage out". Well, that is not a satisfactory answer as to why a 50" Hitachi Ultravision from 5 years ago can kick the poop out of a high definition TV when displaying SD material. I have seen an SD set next to a HD set and the differences are dramatic. A good solution is needed. Especially since the majority of programming content is still SD.

When I got my new set, I sold my Hitachi 65sbx72b to a friend and bought the 65 inch xwx based on the picture of the 57 inch version because no store had a 65 on display. The 65 has a serious imaging problem and now all the stores have them and they all look bad. I do believe it isn't the case everywhere because too many people like theirs on this site, and it is beyond liking, if it looks like the one's in my city, but the 57 inch set, has an incredible HD picture, ability for dual HD pictures side by side, and looks just short of perfect in analog on my dish network, and that is in the 16/9 mode so no burn in.


It isn't quite my top of the line analog because it is digital but it does have more brialliance than the analog, when playing the analog. That is based on the 65 inch, so I suspect that with the 57 at my home it will even look that much better. If analog is your fear, but the 57 inch sWX or xwx with no fear because you will be satisfied. After 2 or 3 days, you don't ever think about it, and sometimes on movie channels, you actually think at times it may be HD. I realize that HD on my set is below par, but still to confuse dish with it, it incredible. If analog is your fear, Hitachi has really led the planet on these new sets, and they claim it all relates to using 540p for everything that isn't 1080i. The 57 inch also gives the best HD picture of any set that I have seen, any money. I only saw the Lycos for 20 or so minutes up close, but it didn't look any better in HD, and looked great in analog, but not as good as the Hitachi.

 

[rogo]

Addicted, I wish you luck getting a better picture with the iScan.I am glad you like the analog picture on some Hitachi set that I confess to having no experience with. I will say that the Dishpicture is pretty crappy and does fulfill the GIGO rule. But if you don't think so, I really don't want to convince you to dislike something you like. Seriously.


Mark

 

[SonyCrusader]

What is missing from all of these discussions is the signal/image manipulation done by hidden service menu-level controls in most consumer display devices.


I will categorically state right up front that small-dish satellite will not, indeed CANNOT be of higher quality than a clean analog source simple due to the insane amount of compression applied in order to cram 2,394 channels into the space best suited for 238 (numbers are arbitrary but intended for dramatic impact. So don't latch onto them! I'm just digging at the "quantity over quality" mentality of satellite providers. Folks: LESS IS MORE!)


I will speak only about the sets I know, which are Sony (strangely absent from the discussion also...)


There is signal modification such as luma and chroma edge enhancement, color and hue compensation, and other "enhancements" which vary not only from "picture mode" to "picture mode" but also from source to source! It is IMPOSSIBLE to set up a set so designed to be consistant from source to source without disabling, or at least equalizing, these "distortions."


In the case of Sony, they tend to layer on great heaps of luma edge enhancement upon analog signals such incoming cable and composite video sources. They end up looking very harsh with a "grainy" character. Component-input sources (480p and 1080i, typically from DVD and satellite receivers) receive considerably less of this type of mishandling.


I have very high-quality SVHS decks which I was never impressed with due to the "grainy" nature of their image. It wasn't until I discovered all of the covert signal manipulation being performed by the TV that I fully realized how stunning they really are.... recordings virtually indistinguishable from the original broadcasts! Same thing for TiVo... while the limitations of the compression used are still obvious, the image is now much more smooth and natural instead of grainy and harsh.


At any rate, on my units where the playing field has been leveled for all signal sources and picture modes the analog upconversion performed by the Sony (to 960i) looks extremely good! My Dish content simply cannot compete except of course for the true HD content.


If you take the time to learn the depths of your unit's service menu, you should be able to dial-out offensive levels of signal processing and get the image closer to "reality." While in some cases people may initially think the image looks too soft, it's only because the artificial razor-edged transitions and other "enhancements" have been removed.... after a few days of viewing, people get the point and enjoy the "natural" image much more.