# Image quality not good on my new HD TV



## mattone (Aug 21, 2006)

hi.

this is my first posting here.

i've had my directvtivo for several years and really like it. recently, i bought a new 50" plasma tv and connected it to the tivo using the s-video connectors to maximize the picture quality. looking at regular programming, the picture appears a bit blurred and overly compressed. when i watch dvds, also connected using s-video, everything looks awesome. the dvd picture tells me the plasma is doing its job fairly well.

- why would the picture be so much worse?

i understand there are differences between dvd resolution and standard def tv programming but this seems too much.

- how much difference will a higher quality s-video cable make to improve the picture quality? (mine is a 25' $12 model i bought at bestbuy. nothing fancy.)

- will standard def tv programming always look worse on a hi-def tv? i thought it would look much better.

thanks in advance.

matt


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

matt,

sorry to disappoint but what you are seeing is a result of the high quality tv and the low quality signal. I am pretty sure that almost everyone of us who went HDTV got the shock of the low quality picture when we fired up our wonderful tvs on our old equipment.

a new cable will not help. cables are cables, and any cable even the lowest end of lowest end willl produce the same quality picture. (Never let anyone try and sell you on expensive cables)

there are some adjustments you can make on the tv itself for your dtv source to help a tiny bit. but ultimately its all a matter of the source.

in this case, its directv and their horrid source material. sure, it was great before, but suddenly you realize its not so great. I believe their material is all just barely above VCR in quality somewhere around 400x400. thats just how it goes. :/

trust me. ive had an HDTV since december of last year and I have yet to see a picture off the SD channels that was actually watchable to me.

i just kind of suffer thru the blurry pixelated images as best I can.

but we all feel the same pain you do. trust me.


----------



## ayrton911 (Sep 4, 2000)

Yeah you're doing everything you can do with that box. S-Video is the best you can send out.

On the DVD player, you should not be using s-video though. On the DVD player you should use component cables, and the picture quality would be much better. 

Standard definition does not look good on HD televisions. They are made to shine with HD content. They (TV) are high resolution, the SD stuff is low resolution *and* terribly compressed. 

Still, I can still stand to watch standard def. I mean, you just sorta have to. Watch as much HD as you can, and then SD when you have to.


----------



## danny7481 (Dec 6, 2005)

i also have a 42" panny plasma and just a SD tivo and i feel your pain. but if you can get your locals in HD via OTA antenna, do that, those channels will look great, i already ordered an antenna myself.


----------



## Rkkeller (May 13, 2004)

rkester said:


> I am pretty sure that almost everyone of us who went HDTV got the shock of the low quality picture when we fired up our wonderful tvs on our old equipment.


I agree. Shame really especially when the small TV in the bedroom looks better on some channels.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

If I am not mistaken, the DTV signal is 400x400 pixels, scaled to fit, plus compressed which would explain why its so poor quality.

Two things of note here on this subject...

my parental units have DTV upstairs on a cheap 50" magnavox plasma and the picture there on SDTV channels off the DTV tivo box arent that bad looking. I think its because the tv is not the best. it doesnt accentuate the quality or lack thereof. the HDTV channels on the same tv don't look very HD or crisp for the same reasons.

down stairs my mom's got HD digital cable with a sharp aquos 37" and her SD channels are way clearer than mine at home via DTV. So its obvious the cable signal is higher quality or at least higher resolution.

Ultimately, the problem is partly DTV and partly the quality of the TV itself.


----------



## vector1701 (Nov 15, 2004)

I was bummed as I bought a 65 inch HD Ready 16:9 Hitachi Projection TV (Circuit City, $1424, go get one if you want) and the picture was crappy. You could really see it during screen changes with graphics (like on FOX News) and the news crawler on ESPN or any news channel. The pixelation was horrible and the news crawl on the bottom would go from fine to very blurry (almost as if it could not refresh fast enough). It was VERY dissapointing. I have a 6 year old Hitachi 61 inch 4:3 and the picture is fantastic. Ultimately, I had Circuit City take it back....I got a full refund but I am out the 50 buck delivery charge.... I am stuck in a real quandry... I love the Tivo/DTV units, dont want an R15, but I cant buy a new TV until DTV upgrades their signal. I was going to post today why the picture was so bad but the posts in tis thread seems to have explained this. The Circuit City guys said it was because I dont have an HDMI output from the box, but I didnt completely buy that arguement. They have a point that HDMI would be a great signal, but if the signal coming in is only 400 x 400 then I am screwed.... 

Whats DTV plans to upgrade? 
Is this a known problem that EVERY TV being sold looks like crap on Direct TV?????
Any thoughts on my experiance?

Any help is appreciated...

Patrick

ps...even the 200 dollar 27 inch TV in my bedroom connected via coax looked better than the HD Ready $1400 65 inch...depressing.

I guess I am looking at replacing my beloved DTV Tivo's in a couple years...and I am held hostage to the older television sets until DTV upgrades their signals...


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

vector - the reason your SD tv looks great is because it was designed to do SD and do it well. You have to remember that older TVs that are SD look good using the DTV signal because they are designed to display that resolution of picture. My JVC 32" SDTV looks outstanding running off my DTV signal. I've even gotten compliments from the DTV installers on its quality of picture.

Unfortunately I doubt that DTV will ever bump up the signal they are sending out. It's been the same as far as I know since they launched the service.

The TVs get better. The signal stays the same.

I have half expected them to at least go up to 640x480 on the SD major channels but that has never happened either.

If you buy an HDTV, you are doing so for watching HD content either OTA or off DTV/Cable HD boxes. And for DVDs/HD-DVDs/video game consoles.


----------



## vector1701 (Nov 15, 2004)

I agree with your statement, but you cannot buy a regular large screen (above 27 inch) WITHOUT HD/16:9. 

It is a reall pain in the butt... 

If you are a DTV subscriber and you want a new TV and keep your Tivo your really put between a rock and a hard place....


----------



## ravonaf (Sep 2, 2003)

I just upgraded myself. I get the HD channels offered by directv and the OTA channels in my area. I don't think the standard def is that bad. I mean, it is bad, but it's watchable. Besides, if you want the HD stuff you have to take the bad at this point. 

In a perfect world there would be an all HD service that offered all channels, NFL sunday ticket, and locals in crystal clear quality on Tivo boxes. Until then i guess we are stuck with directv.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

Yeah, well, unfortunately unless you get a low quality HDTV, you will be suffering thru blurry pixelated SD content via DTV. And the bigger the TV, the worse it gets since you are blowing up a tiny source to immense sizes.

As a test when all this came to my attention after getting my new Sony Wega, I decided to try some assorted sources to see what I got. My end result = Everything I tried was better than the DTV signal, and I mean everything. Including a VCR, and my SD NTSC OTA channels.


----------



## vector1701 (Nov 15, 2004)

rkester said:


> Yeah, well, unfortunately unless you get a low quality HDTV, you will be suffering thru blurry pixelated SD content via DTV. And the bigger the TV, the worse it gets since you are blowing up a tiny source to immense sizes.
> 
> As a test when all this came to my attention after getting my new Sony Wega, I decided to try some assorted sources to see what I got. My end result = Everything I tried was better than the DTV signal, and I mean everything. Including a VCR, and my SD NTSC OTA channels.


Wow...that is unfortunately sobering...and it stinks. Stinks bad.

Isn't Direct TV quietly screwing the consumer promising "A digital channels, better than analog cable." And as we all know the TV's are getting bigger and bigger, and the technology of televisions are ever more and more advanced. And behind the scenes their signal cannot produce a quality picture???

*I wonder how many thousands of consumers each week buy a television and get home, set it up, fire up thier Direct TV expecting a superior picture over thier crappy 10 year old television, and they are greeted with a WORSE picture than thier 10 year old TV set???*

Direct TV over the past 2 years is really starting to piss me off...

I started as a very happy consumer 5 years ago...loved the channels, loved the NFL Package, and when they came out with the TIVO recorder Direct TV could do no wrong in my eyes...since then:

- NFL Package went up in price
- Tivo HEAVILY MARKETED, limited disclosure on not having full TIVO functuionality/crippled, no future upgrades
- New TIVO-Like recorder quietly replaced TIVO and clearly inferior 
- Forcing a Monthly Rental fee of boxes, cannot "own" them anymore
- HD channels are few at best (promises more in the future)
- Picture quality LOW with any new televisions with thier non-HD package

I may be forced to switch to cable depending how the next year shakes out....and I would not want to do that...


----------



## duanej (Oct 28, 2004)

One thing that helps SD is viewing it using a HDMI or component connection. Unfortunately, only the HD boxes have these connection types (I believe).


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

I see no difference between RCA, S-Video and HDMI output from my HD DTV box on SD content.


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

vector1701 said:


> If you are a DTV subscriber and you want a new TV and keep your Tivo your really put between a rock and a hard place....


  http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=303111&highlight=free


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

The HD box is great if you want to watch all of what 8 channels or something in HD. Still doesnt take care of the 150+ SD channels all of which look poor comparibly.


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

SD looks better through HDMI on my HR10-250 than it does through S-Video on my D-TiVo. Then again, I didn't buy an HD set to watch SD on it. I keep a RPTV for that.


----------



## vector1701 (Nov 15, 2004)

rkester said:


> The HD box is great if you want to watch all of what 8 channels or something in HD. Still doesnt take care of the 150+ SD channels all of which look poor comparibly.


Exactly.

And you will ave to pay MORE money when they changover to the "new HD" with MPEG-4 and your new unit becomes a door stop!!! Yeah, sign me up!!! More money out f my pocket and I can get a new *DTV-branded/NON-TIVO * unit and help DTV figure out all the bugs for them and thier new first-generation unit!!!! YEA!!!! And when I get the new box, say hello to another *2-Year commitment*!!!!! Lovely!!!!!

Wouldnt it have been easier, but less revenue for DTV, to just have stayed with TIVO???? Happy customers, no 1st generation units, HMO, Internet scheduling, etc... AND Tivo units are many generation mature and a DTV combo HD box would be easy to make, especially since thier previous generations DTV-Tivo combo units...

To sum up, for me, taking into effect the past couple years experiances with DTV, thier position as a good content provider is slipping....I can see myself goign back to cable real soon depending how the next 6 months go....


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

bidger, ive got the non-tivo HD box and I see no difference. ive tried svideo, component and hdmi to see if any one was better than the other for SD content.

I need to do the test again with the same content and see what i see now. i origially did the test when I first got the tv and have since adjusted it to lessen the bad SD quality.


----------



## darthrsg (Jul 25, 2005)

danny7481 said:


> i also have a 42" panny plasma and just a SD tivo and i feel your pain. but if you can get your locals in HD via OTA antenna, do that, those channels will look great, i already ordered an antenna myself.


I see you hail from MS, where 'bouts? I reside in Starkvegas.


----------



## mattone (Aug 21, 2006)

ayrton911 said:


> Yeah you're doing everything you can do with that box. S-Video is the best you can send out.
> 
> On the DVD player, you should not be using s-video though. On the DVD player you should use component cables, and the picture quality would be much better.
> 
> ...


thanks to everyone for commiserating with me.

it sounds like everyone it saying the same thing: dtv's 400x400 resolution just doesn't translate well onto new hdtvs at higher res. and dtv is not motivated to upgrade that signal since they'd rather have customers upgrade to hd. at the same time, i read about others who have called directv's retention dept and gotten upgraded to the hughes hd tivo for a nominal fee. sounds like a good way to go...?

re: s-video cable vs. component: in the past i have used my component cable (only 3ft) with my dvd player. i recent switched to the s-video as a convenience since my component cable was too short. i plan to replace it with a longer one. any suggestions on where to get a reasonable component cable? my 3ft monster cable cost me $60 - this seemed outrageous - which is why i haven't replaced it.

thanks for the terrific feedback. this is an awesome community.

matt


----------



## Leila (Apr 28, 2006)

I experienced the same thing when I bought my HDTV.(a top of the line Pioneer Elite plasma) Whey playing back HD programs(OTA or DTV), it looked incredible.

However, when viewing SD programs via DirecTivo, the picture is worse than
playing back VHS tapes.  

The strange thing is that my 8-year-old Sony 36" XBR CRT TV plays back the same
SD chennles(via DirecTivo) perfectly. The picture is still incredibly bright and 
beautiful. It seems like these older CRT TVs are much better than plasma/LCD
flat panels when it comes to playing back SD programming.

Still can't figure out why...


----------



## danny7481 (Dec 6, 2005)

Leila said:


> I experienced the same thing when I bought my HDTV.(a top of the line Pioneer Elite plasma) Whey playing back HD programs(OTA or DTV), it looked incredible.
> 
> However, when viewing SD programs via DirecTivo, the picture is worse than
> playing back VHS tapes.
> ...


yeah, not only does a HD tv bring out the best in HD, but i also bring out the worst in SD, i guess nothing is perfect.


----------



## danny7481 (Dec 6, 2005)

darthrsg said:


> I see you hail from MS, where 'bouts? I reside in Starkvegas.


Brandon, MS here.



rkester said:


> I need to do the test again with the same content and see what i see now. i origially did the test when I first got the tv and have since adjusted it to lessen the bad SD quality.


how did you adjust to lessen the bad SD quality?


----------



## vector1701 (Nov 15, 2004)

mattone said:


> thanks to everyone for commiserating with me.
> 
> it sounds like everyone it saying the same thing: dtv's 400x400 resolution just doesn't translate well onto new hdtvs at higher res. and dtv is not motivated to upgrade that signal since they'd rather have customers upgrade to hd. at the same time, i read about others who have called directv's retention dept and gotten upgraded to the hughes hd tivo for a nominal fee. sounds like a good way to go...?
> 
> ...


http://www.showmecables.com/

http://www.cablesforless.com/

as a prvious poster said...cables are cables...dont get sucked into the 60 dollar ones...


----------



## vector1701 (Nov 15, 2004)

Leila said:


> I experienced the same thing when I bought my HDTV.(a top of the line Pioneer Elite plasma) Whey playing back HD programs(OTA or DTV), it looked incredible.
> 
> However, when viewing SD programs via DirecTivo, the picture is worse than
> playing back VHS tapes.
> ...


What you are experiancing is what is being discussed in the previous posts in this thread...basically poor SD signals are brought out very good on SD sets, but with the higher resolution sets (HD) the direct TV signal looks like dog poop. You could go for direct tv HD, but there are only a couple channels available at this time, so it will do you little good. Basically your in teh same boat as many people...stuck.


----------



## vector1701 (Nov 15, 2004)

I must reiterate what I said before...

I wonder how many thousands of consumers each week buy a television and get home, set it up, fire up thier Direct TV expecting a superior picture over thier crappy 10 year old television, and they are greeted with a WORSE picture than thier 10 year old TV set???

Direct TV is really deceiving its customers...


----------



## danny7481 (Dec 6, 2005)

vector1701 said:


> I must reiterate what I said before...
> 
> I wonder how many thousands of consumers each week buy a television and get home, set it up, fire up thier Direct TV expecting a superior picture over thier crappy 10 year old television, and they are greeted with a WORSE picture than thier 10 year old TV set???
> 
> Direct TV is really deceiving its customers...


so actually SD channels could look better if D* actually wanted to invest the money?
bummer


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

danny7481 said:


> yeah, not only does a HD tv bring out the best in HD, but i also bring out the worst in SD, i guess nothing is perfect.


That is the perfect way to explain it! One line, summarizes it all. Excellent.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

danny7481 said:


> how did you adjust to lessen the bad SD quality?


Most of what I did was adjustments to the brightness and contrast and other picture settings.

I found a guide for my particular tv to help minimize the lack of picture quality on SD sources including DTV. I beleive it was linked in a thread about the Sony Wega 50" 3LCD tvs here on TCF.

The difference before and after is probably not that significant, but it was a step in the right direction.


----------



## amory (Jan 24, 2002)

Hmm. Getting ready to upgrade from a 65 inch RPTV to a projector/106 inch screen. Sounds like I will be disappointed with SD DTV (already sucks on the RPTV as it is).

Anyway, can upconversion help? I am also upgrading my pre/pro, and I am considering the Pioneer Elite VSX-84TXSi with the built in Faroudja DCDi scaler. I can use the HDMI output on my HR10-250.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

Upscaling will not help an already low quality picture. You _might_ see some reduction in jaggies or some sharpening if you have equipment to do this, but ultimately when you start wiht poop you are going to still have poop after the fact.


----------



## amory (Jan 24, 2002)

Yep, afraid of that. Poop in -> poop out. Can't make it smell like a rose.

As such, what's the real benefit of the scaler in the Pioneer then? I can get an upconverting Oppo DVD player for $150, and whatever satt HD I'm feeding in doesn't need it. Those are really my only two sources, other than my dvd-recorder which I only record SD DTV on anyway, and it shouldn't make that look any better either.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

The scaler will help on some sources, just probably not with the DTV source. I'd bet it does a fine job with the SD OTA and maybe cable sources.


----------



## amory (Jan 24, 2002)

As I am waaaay out in the sticks, no OTA for me in either SD or HD (sigh). And certainly no cable. DTV or Dish is it, plus a DVD player.

So, at least in my case, I can see no real reason to worry about a receiver with a built-in scaler. But I may get the Pioneer anyway just because all of its other features and MCACC.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

Well, the way I see it, if you get it for the other features and it DOES help a little wiht the DTV picture, its a bonus. And you then have to report to us so we can all go buy one.


----------



## amory (Jan 24, 2002)

I'll move forward with some cautious optimism; hopeful that many here will end up wanting the Pioneer . . . thanks for the insight.


----------



## marktd (Jan 9, 2005)

I think there may be a (partial) misconception drifting through this thread.

There are really two issues with image quality in this case: the first is HD/SD; the second is image compression.

HD (and there are several different resolutions of HD) has a higher resolution (number of pixels making up the picture) than SD. All else being equal, a higher resolution image will look better than a lower resolution image. Note that I am not talking about the display device only, but the source+display device. That being said...

What you are largely seeing are called "compression artifacts." When image data is encoded and transmitted digitally, a given, _uncompressed_ video stream will require a certain number of bits be transmitted every second (bitrate measured in bits/sec). In general, this number of bits/sec is much too large to be transmitted practically (especially if you want to transmit lots and lots of these streams, i.e., lots and lots of channels). So what is done is called compression. There are two classes of compression - lossless and lossy. In lossless compression the data rate is somehow reduced but all of the data is still preserved (like a .zip file), in lossy compression the data rate is reduced but data is thrown out (like in .jpg and .mp3 files). Lossy compression alows much, much more compression than lossless. DirecTV, and everyone else, use lossy compression. When lossy compression is used, there are compression artifacts - imperfections that are a result of the data that is left out. (The way lossy compression is done is _very_ sophisticated and a surprising amount of data can be thrown out with still acceptable - even excellent - results).

Anyway, DirecTV uses a lot of lossy compression. A lot. They didn't used to use this much - when I first got DirecTV about 10 years ago (because of the image quality) it was night and day better than it is now. (This quality reduction is a result of DirecTV adding more and more channels into a limited overall available bandwidth - each channel needs to use fewer and fewer bits/sec as the number of channels increases). It also appears that DirecTV assigns different bitrates to different channels as most premium channels look (and sound) better than most of the basics.

Note that HD is no guarantee that this problem won't still exist as HD is also compressed, and, higher resolution or not, HD can be compressed to the point that it too looks awful.

Cables won't help. Neither will up-resing. Old TV's look better because (1) they are generally smaller, and (2) they tend to smooth out (low-pass filter) the image so that the compression artifacts are less visible, but the overall effective resolution is no better - it just looks better (If your TV has a sharpness adjustment, try turning it down, that might help some). With the amount of compression that DirecTV is currently using: broadcast tv looks better, VCR's look better, DVD's look much better (if DirecTV were to crank down the compression, their picture could look as good as, or better, than a DVD as they are both SD and use similar compression methodologies - DirecTV just uses tons of it).

In sum, short of complaining to DirecTV, there is nothing you can do.

Mark

Note: For those who worry about such things, when I say "resolution" above, I am referring to number of pixels encoded/decoded/displayed, not effective resolution.


----------



## Tkilmer (Dec 25, 2003)

I know this is an old thread, but this is exactly my problem, does anyone know if Digital Cable is better on Compression?

I will not give up TiVo and I want the ability to record HD, so that leads me toward an S3 TiVo and Digital Cable. But if I am going to get no better source, it may not be worth it in the end. I love my DTivo and don't want to lose anything moving to HD. But with so little HD programming, the cost of moving to an S3 may not be worth it yet unless SDTV recordings will be better from digital cable these days.

Does anyone know if Cable companies used the same ridiculous compression DTV does?


----------



## rlj5242 (Dec 20, 2000)

Tkilmer said:


> does anyone know if Digital Cable is better on Compression?........Does anyone know if Cable companies used the same ridiculous compression DTV does?


 Depends on your cable company and their equipment in your city. It should be easy to compare the two if you have friends/neighbors. I tried our local cable for 29 days of a free 30 day trial a few years ago.



Tkilmer said:


> But with so little HD programming, the cost of moving to an S3 may not be worth it yet unless SDTV recordings will be better from digital cable these days.


 I think 40 of the 45 season passes on my HR10-250 are in HD. This weekend I watched my favorite college basketball team and professional football team in HD. What shows do you watch that aren't available in HD?

-Robert


----------



## Tkilmer (Dec 25, 2003)

rlj5242 said:


> I think 40 of the 45 season passes on my HR10-250 are in HD. This weekend I watched my favorite college basketball team and professional football team in HD. What shows do you watch that aren't available in HD?
> 
> -Robert


Mostly kid stuff that really probably doesn't matter, comedy central and the sci fi channel.

The rest your right would probably come off of the major networks.


----------



## l2bengtrek (May 31, 2006)

Hey guys.....

Will a 1080p help smooth out an SD pic better than 720p?

I just bought a 56" Toshiba and while some of the SD content looks ok, the locals in SD suck....pixelly, oversaturated colors, etc. I'm embarassed to show it to people right now. 

I was thinking that shrinking the pic size to 50" and raising the resolution to 1080p would at least help...what do you think?


----------



## John T Smith (Jun 17, 2004)

I think a lot of what you see when upconverting the SD signal into HD is going to depend on the quality of the upconvert processor

My wife designed a theater room in our new house, so I feed an SD signal into a Sony VPL-VW50 "Pearl" projector onto a 93" screen, and let the projector do all the work (also have a DVD player going to the projector)

I don't have a HiDef source to use for comparison, but what we both see on screen is much better than any of the other TV's in the house... so I will "guess" it is 3/4 or so of a true HD output

No problems at all with the picture or colors... but, considering what I paid for the Pearl, I would EXPECT it to do a good job!


----------



## Budget_HT (Jan 2, 2001)

l2bengtrek said:


> Hey guys.....
> 
> Will a 1080p help smooth out an SD pic better than 720p?
> 
> ...


Typically, the higher the resolution of the display device, the worse the low resolution (SD digital and NTSC analog) video looks, because the imperfections and artifacts in the source are effectively magnified. This is similar to using the enlarge capability on a copying machine, starting with a very small sample and trying to enlarge it to full page, and finding that little specs became bigger blothches.

1080p on the smaller screen should improve your HD video if your prior display was somewhat lower resolution. But, many HDTV programs are shot with cameras that cannot deliver the full horizontal resolution supported by the ATSC standards for HDTV, so your results may vary by specific programs.

Best test is with your own eyes in an HDTV showroom. Specifications relate to electronic and physical potential quality, but the actual delivered result can vary a lot.

Good luck!


----------



## l2bengtrek (May 31, 2006)

Budget_HT said:


> Typically, the higher the resolution of the display device, the worse the low resolution (SD digital and NTSC analog) video looks, because the imperfections and artifacts in the source are effectively magnified. This is similar to using the enlarge capability on a copying machine, starting with a very small sample and trying to enlarge it to full page, and finding that little specs became bigger blothches.
> 
> I get ya on that part, I was just thinkin' that if the screen were smaller, and the resolution increased, it would put a greater amount of pixels into a tighter screen making the pic smoother...is that right or is that not the case?


----------



## rlj5242 (Dec 20, 2000)

You are correct. The larger the screen the more apt you are to see the compression artifacts. And once you see an HD source on a big screen it's really difficult to watch anything else.

-Robert


----------



## l2bengtrek (May 31, 2006)

rlj5242 said:


> You are correct. The larger the screen the more apt you are to see the compression artifacts. And once you see an HD source on a big screen it's really difficult to watch anything else.
> 
> -Robert


So will this theory help with at least making SD signal a little better?


----------



## Squonk (Jun 8, 2005)

Leila said:


> I experienced the same thing when I bought my HDTV.(a top of the line Pioneer Elite plasma) Whey playing back HD programs(OTA or DTV), it looked incredible.
> 
> However, when viewing SD programs via DirecTivo, the picture is worse than
> playing back VHS tapes.
> ...


still can't figure out why? Because they are CRTs and they are better made. Its as simple as that. The plain truth of the matter is that CRT technology still blows away virtually any LCD or plasma TV out there. That's why I bought one of the last CRT tube hidef TVs made--the 36" XS955 (same picture tube as the 34" XBR960--super fine pitch). The drawback of CRTs was their limited size because of their massive wieght. Everyone wanted lighter TVs that were bigger. That doesn't mean they are better.


----------



## dougw (Nov 14, 2003)

Very interesting thread.

I recently moved from NY where I had Directv and 3 hughes tivo units which I loved. When I moved to NC and bought a HD TV I was now faced with a choice. Get Directv and pay for one of there non Tivo HD DVR's and have to also get an antenna mounted for OTA local channels or go with Time Warner Cable HD package with their HD DVR with no money outlay.

Since it really annoyed me that I had to pay Directv for a unit that I did not own, plus wasn't a Tivo unit and had the antenna issue, I went with Cable. Of course the DVR could never compare to Tivo but the picture is great on HD. I get all my local channels in HD along with other HD programming. SD channels are acceptable but since there are so many HD channels I very rarely need to use them anyway.

So all in all I think I made the right move. 5 years ago I would never have switched but Directv is not making the right decisions (at least for me) to keep me as a customer. In addition with Cable I at least have an option to use Tivo again with the S3 model if I decide to do so.


----------

