Truly Unimpressed With Latest Widescreen Tube Sets...

[R Harkness]

...displaying regular NTSC channels. :D

Sorry, couldn't fit the whole sentence on the Thread Header. ;)

I'm sort of venting here because I'm helping a pal look for a new widescreen tube TV.

I've demoed many of the Top CRT tube sets and REALLY like their picture for DVDs, and some for Hi-Def. (The new Sony XBR910 is one of my favourite HD displays).

However, I'm amazed at how poorly they seem to do with regular NTSC.
I'm not a newbie and I'm quite familiar with the inherent limitations of NTSC etc. I find one of the biggest areas of variation in wide screen displays of all types is how well they handle NTSC in terms of adding artifacts and/or making it watchable, including good stretch modes on CRTs to avoid burn-in.

Typically the larger the image, the more artifacty, smudgy and low-res NTSC looks on a display. But frankly the NTSC I've watched on the latest wide-screen tube sets has been truly terrible. Consistently, on displays I've tried to calibrate too.

Typical of this was my experience today. A local store had a split feed running to all the tube sets. Now that can be bad to begin with but their distribution amp seemed pretty good, as even the largest 4:3 direct views had quite sharp, smooth images with NTSC. But those same NTSC channels looked like crap on the widescreen tubes sets, like the Sony 510.
I don't know what kind of processing those sets are using but it results in a particularly blocky, pixelated, digitized, utterly synthetic look to the image. (And don't get me going on the nearby DLP RPTVs playing the same channels...even worse).

I'm just not willing to let those direct views off the hook. A 34" display should have the sharpness/smoothness advantage over a larger display when displaying lower-res source signals. However, my 42" Panasonic plasma scales and stretches NTSC much better than what I've seen on the direct views. It looks smooth, sharp, detailed, and utterly free of the digital blockiness that I see on the smaller direct wide screen direct views. I've also seen RPTVs that actually reproduce NTSC with significantly smoother, less artifact-filled quality than the new tube sets.

There. I've vented. I'm just amazed that in the last two years of demoing wide-screen tube sets I haven't seen ONE that does a decent job with NTSC. CRT tube sets should be the KING of getting the best out of creaky old NTSC.

BUT...once you own a display, get it home and work on it you can usually render a better image than you've ever seen in the stores. My question to people here who have bought a wide-screen tube set:

How does NTSC look in your home, especially using one of the screen-filling modes? Does it have the synthetic, digitized look I'm describing? Or have you managed to get an NTSC image that is comparable to an analog 4:3 set in terms of smoothness and lack of artifacts.

Thanks.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

what do you expect? NSTC is 480 lines at best and most content is like around 325 lines and now you are asking a display that is meant to display 1080 lines to display a perfect 4:3 image..... aint gonna happen.

[Darren_C]

Unfortunately, if you want optimal NTSC standard definition, you should probably not purchase an HDTV. I found this to apply to "fixed pixel" displays like plasma, LCD and DLP even more than direct view and projection CRT. 4:3 and 16:9 HDTV sets I considered (including Toshiba, Panasonic, Samsung and Sony direct view, DLP and plasma) all exhibited mediocre SD picture quality. Other than removal of the scan lines, I found most HD sets to reduce the quality of an SD signal. Some were plain bad. In addition to the scaling, deinterlacing and motion artifacts, and large screen will also make any flaws even more apparent.

I had a hard time finding any HDTV models that did reasonable SD. The high end model I eventually purchased is noted for some of the best electronics in the industry. It was among the best I found on SD material. Even so, it appoaches the quality of the best SD sets only when the SD signal is very good.

Some people report excellent standard def PQ on their HD sets. I have to assume they have much better cable or OTA quality than my local retailers (usually antenna, Comcast or DirectTV) or my house.

Also:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=366660

[R Harkness]

"what do you expect? NSTC is 480 lines at best and most content is like around 325 lines and now you are asking a display that is meant to display 1080 lines to display a perfect 4:3 image..... aint gonna happen."

Yes, of course I understand that, which is why I always check the quality of an HD screen's scaling of non-HD sources as well (including DVD). Even given the imperfections inherent in NTSC, some displays certainly scale and display it much better than others.

My point is that the wide-screen tube sets have inexplicably been among the worst offenders. Their NTSC images are particularly bad compared to even some bigger displays. Even the sub-optimally set-up plasmas in the store today scaled and stretched the NTSC images better than the smaller widescreen tube sets....and those tube sets being smaller should have had an advantage in hiding NTSC flaws, not creating more flaws.

My Plasma certainly shows the flaws of NTSC, but it's not adding all the crap that the tube sets are either. (One reason I know this is that I can compare it's NTSC image to the very smooth image of my 4:3 analog, Panasonic TAU direct view, which does a terrific job with NTSC).

(The tube sets make up for some of their NTSC badness by having better blacks than many digital displays, but their stretch modes and upconverting of NTSC is really blocky and pixelated).

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I watch a 30" TV from about 10FT away so the picture looks good to me.......

[Jet Champion]

The best SD picture I've seen from an HD set wasn't from a widescreen set, but was from the Sony 40XBR800. Between tweaks for sharpness, edge enhancement, clarity, and reality you could eventually come up with a satisfying picture. I don't know why this set does this better than widescreens. I think it is because it displays 960i which is simply a doubling of SD and reserves 1080i for widescreen material. I don't know exactly what the widescreen displays do--maybe they don't present 4:3 SD material as 960i, but as 1080i and don't do the scaling very well.

[Jack White]

Originally posted by YeuEmMaiMai
what do you expect? NSTC is 480 lines at best and most content is like around 325 lines and now you are asking a display that is meant to display 1080 lines to display a perfect 4:3 image..... aint gonna happen.

That is true to some extent, but the REAL problem is that most people are not using a quality 480I source.
Analog C-band for example is an UNCOMPRESSED quality 480I source with 704x480 resolution.
All the standard def stuff on digital cable, dbs, etc is overcompressed garbage.
A good OTA signal is better than the overcompressed garbage sd dbs and digital cable.
If you want the best 480I performance possible, then C-Band and Pro Broadcast Monitors are the way to go.
I also think that just because a set is an HD set doesn't mean that it has 6 times better resolution than any NTSC set.
I've seen some rare NTSC sets with 1000 lines of horizontal resoution and standard def pro broadcast monitors with over 900 lines of horizontal resolution are very common.
It's true that these standard def sets and monitors only have about 480 visable scan lines, but they can still have a high horizontal resolution.
I've also seen HD sets with only 800 lines of horizontal resoution.
Almost all HD sets downconvert the HD signal to lower resolutions.
In theory an HD display displaying HD content can have 6 times better picture qualtiy than a Standard def tv/monitor displaying a C-band image, but in reality it's very very rare for any HD display to have that kind of resolution.
You'd need a very high end tv or Front Projection System with NATIVE 1080P resolution and a high quality source such as either a native 1080p source or a 1080I source run through a high quality video processor/scaler like the FAROUDJA DVP5000 to convert it into 1080p to even get anywhere near 6 times better than C-Band quality.

[Q of BanditZ]

Well, my Zenith c32v37 gets installed today. I'll let you know what I think, because I am going to have the cable plugged straight from the wall into the TV to see what I get.

I will also be getting a PIP splitter and be using the HD box that Time Warner gave me at the same time, and I will tell you all in the Zenith c32v37 thread how it comes out.

Definitely some legit criticisms in this thread. Basically, what I think it really boils down to is: A lot of these manufacterers are wisely thinking ahead. Two years from now, most of us who have these TV's, this will all be a moot problem as more broadcasts go HD. That's the way they saw it when they made these TV's.

The analog stuff is kind of the afterthought, and frankly, I'll live with it just fine, because as time goes by, the situtation is only going to improve.

I wouldn't let the quality of analog signals have much weight in decision making for buying an HD set. Remember, time is going to render that a moot point.

[Phil056]

I'm not too thrilled about the PQ with non HD content on my Sony XBR910, but eventually with more and more HD channels coming on my system it will offset my 'little complaints'

[Darren_C]

Originally posted by R Harkness
My point is that the wide-screen tube sets have inexplicably been among the worst offenders. Their NTSC images are particularly bad compared to even some bigger displays. Even the sub-optimally set-up plasmas in the store today scaled and stretched the NTSC images better than the smaller widescreen tube sets....and those tube sets being smaller should have had an advantage in hiding NTSC flaws, not creating more flaws.


Interestingly, I found the exact opposite. When I was purchasing a set a couple months ago, reasonable SD quality was a primary factor in the decision. Invariably, I found all the fixed pixel displays to be the worst for analog, interlaced sources. Many looked like highly compressed mpeg videos, with horrible motion artifacts and blocky, pixel-laden edges. This included DLP projection, LCD projection and ED Plasma units under 5K. I visited multiple retailers, including Best Buy, Circuit City, Tweeter and a couple smaller, high-end shops. Admittedly, I did find some of the HD plasmas to be very good, particularly the Fujitsu models. Granted, those were well over $5000 and out of my price range.

The Panasonic 37 and 42 inch ED Plasmas were among my top choices, but their SD quality was the main drawback compared to most of the direct view sets I considered. That was unfortunate, because I really wanted a DLP or plasma initially, but couldn't find one that met my requirements on SD material.

Apparently, perception of SD quality varies a lot by retailer's signal quality and personal bias. In any case, if top-notch SD quality is the main issue, then you probably won't do better than a high end analog monitor.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

TV sets also need a better scaler and deblocker chips

[Tigerriot]

Well, I have a 34" XBR910 and I can say without a doubt that even my crappy cable feed looks very nice overall.

Of course certain channels looks bad because my cable company just sucks but certain channels also looks phenomenal. I think anyone who sees a crappy feed in a store isn't getting the real picture. I've seen store tvs demoed with terrible feeds that don't look good at all. But with my poor feed at home the XBR910 still makes it look pretty darn good. Sometimes I even find myself saying "Wow, this crappy cable feed really does look good on this tv!". :D I live in an apartment and we don't even have digital cable. We just get a bare bones cable feed.


Tiger

[ChuckSolo]

All I can say is that the SD picture quality on my 27" Panny is heads and above that of my RP HDTV RCA 40". The range in quality goes from horrible to mediocre to OK depending on the channel you watch with WGN being the worst. This is through Cox Digital Cable in San Diego. I'm beginning to get used to it though. Although after viewing the HD channels, switching back to SD really pisses me off sometimes as far as PQ goes.

[jazzguy]

One of the reasons I purchased my 34XBR910, aside from the amazing HD picture quality, is the quality of the SD picture. I have never seen SD this good on any set. I use DirectTV and even the worst channels look acceptable, and the best channels are extremely good. In fact, the reviewer in The Perfect Vision stated it was the best he has seen.

After having this set calibrated, all I can say is, "Fantastic."

[Ray Parkhurst]

I haven't had my 34XBR910 calibrated and it still looks fantastic on SD. There are two factors I've found that screws up the SD picture:

1) signal quality. OTA analog from a bad source looks like crap. from a good source, it looks good. If I compare the digital feed from my Samsung T165 vs the same material on analog, the digital SD feed looks good, the analog looks bad. I assume the digital SD feed is actually lower resolution due to compression, but has a higher effective s/n due to the modulation scheme, so it looks good.

2) Picture settings. These are set up in the stores to look a certain way, to support the sales goals. You can set them up to actually look good with only a little effort.

Ray

[D'VU]

I'm trying to understand from this thread what's the real root cause of poor SD picture quality. I know the quality of signal from my cable company may leave much to be desired, and is downright poor on certain channels. What I don't understand is why, in a side-by-side comparison using the same cable signal source, my new 34" widescreen HDTV displays a distractingly bad and almost unwatchable image while my old 27" Sony analog set displays an acceptable image? (The 4:3 viewing area on both sets is roughly equal.)

I think I understand that my TV is doing a better job of upconverting than the cable box is if I see better SD PQ when the cable box outputs 480p than when it outputs 1080i (my TV converts everything to 1080i). What I don't understand is that there's also SD PQ improvement using s-video instead of component...

Still, the slightly improved SD PQ with 480p/s-video vs. 1080i/component is not significant enough to attempt training my wife and kids to select a different TV input and change the cable box output format depending on which channel they want to watch.

With DVD and HD sources my 34" HDTV is spectacular. I have 12 HD channels on my cable system. When they're supplying HD programming the PQ is breathtaking. With these sources, my Toshiba 34HFX83 looks as good as or better than any of my friend's HDTVs regardless of make, model, size or display technology.

I don't however know anyone with an XBR910, and in this thread I see comments like jazzguy's that SD signals on this set are the best they've ever seen. So what does all this really mean? Is it my TV that's lacking, that Toshiba put no engineering effort at all into the display of SD signals but Sony did on the XBR910 but not the HS510 (I know people with the 510 and their SD quality is as bad as mine)?

It still doesn't add up for me, because DVD is also lower res than HD cable (probably closer to SD?) and DVDs look fantastic on my set. Sorry for repeating myself, I'm just scratching my head reading through this and older threads on the subject and see no definitive explanations even in posts from what seem to be technically knowledgable members -- someone seemingly just as knowledgable always comes along with a somewhat different explanation.

I love my new HDTV for watching DVD and HD cable channels. I definitely bought it to enjoy those things in particular BUT why in the world shouldn't a TV that costs 4 times the amount of my old set be able to display an SD image that's at least marginally acceptable?

[P.S. a few people think the SD channels look fine on my HDTV but they're the same folks who listen to low-bit-rate poorly-encoded MP3 downloads and think they sound just great.]

[Q of BanditZ]

I can't get real technical about it, but I have the Zenith c32v37, and I would have to assume what I am going to say would apply to its widescreen brother, the c34w37, dimensions notwithstanding. Other than the screens, the two TV's are identical and every which way.

I have Time Warner Cable. To take advantage of PIP, I bought a PIP kit and I have cable directly into the TV plus the box.

Both ways, I have awesome pictures on SD, analog, and HD. Great pictures. So...<shrugs>, not sure what that means technically except...that's a nice TV I got! :)

[ADU]

Congrats, Q. :)

D'VU,

When folks say "best SD they've ever seen" I think they generally mean-- for an HDTV from a digital source. It's just my opinion, but I don't think most conventional analog 480i will look better on the XBR910 than it does on a good well-calibrated analog 480i TV by a long shot. It's just not what the XBR910 and it's ilk are designed for. Another thread you might want to explore on this subject FWIW: New 34xbr910 and old VCR connection (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=370152)

[ADU]

D'VU

It is a bit curious that you seem to get better PQ on analog 480i sources via the S-video input than component on your Toshiba though, which makes me wonder if different signal processing may be used for S-video on some TVs. I don't think that would hold true on all displays (like my Sony for example) but it's not the first time I've heard that sort of remark re some other HDTVs.

Unless I'm mistaken I think Rich prefers the S-video on his plasma as well.

Maybe there's less velocity modulation or the up-conversion is performed differently for S-video on your TV, for example.

[ObD]

Manufacturing cost. I'm sure that someone has determined SD quality is a secondary consideration in the design.

Since I have owned a 32" 4:3 for a long time, I think a 34" WS is way overpriced. For another 1K you can buy a Panny 42" ED plasma online with a much bigger screen and save 100-150 lbs in weight.

[Q of BanditZ]

Yes. That's precisely why I didn't get Zenith's c34w37. It's awesome, but like I explained in detail in probably two other threads, when I factored in the extra cost, negligible size difference in picture, having to buy a stand, etc. etc. I went ahead and got the c32v37, which up and down is precisely the same exact TV except it's not widescreen...and saved about 50 percent of what I would have had to pay.

It helped that I didn't need a $300 stand for the 32 incher as well.

I think it's unfair that they even charge you for a stand, or at least that much. All the companies do it and it's ridiculous.

[KenTech]

I'm struggling with this SD-quality problem now. I posted a new thread on the subject a couple of weeks ago, where I said I would report back after I done some shopping with my own video material in hand (DV tape and player).

As I read some of the replies here, I see folks saying, "I'm happy with the way my [specific brand] HD set displays SD video." But, this isn't very helpful because no one who reads this has a clue what this poster is used to. Have they ever *seen* a great SD analog display?

Posters like R_Harkness, D'VU, and Darren_C have all seen what I have: mediocre SD performance from a $2000+ television, and their comments are welcome. Means I'm not seeing things!

But I've gotta say: You *must* control the viewing distance in order to make comparisons. Many stores display big TVs facing walls and other TVs, and you can't get far enough away to make judgements. You've gotta hold out that fist and extended thumb at arm's length (and maybe little finger) to establish a fixed diagonal viewing angle that is the *same* from set to set. Ordinary SD TV viewed too close on a big 36" set resolves into ugly lines and weird edginess in the detail; but stand away at a fair distance, and that picture can snap into NTSC perfection! I *own* an old set, much modified and tweaked, that does this beautifully.

Stand too close to an HD set, and the digital blockiness, detail-smear, and diagonal & motion artifacts become really obvious. But, peoperly adjisted, maybe they, too, can be made to "snap" into a great picture when viewed at the right distance. That variable "DRC" on the XBR800+ sets may have to be fiddled with, if it is applied to SD signals.

Make no mistake, in SD television, the eye-brain combination is integrating a bunch of manipulated second-rate visual cues to create the effect of a picture that is much better than it really is. Ever seen a printed copy of a really good TV frame? It's horrible, but it didn't look so bad on the TV . . .

This is a *real* clumsy time to buy a new TV! I look for good, stimulating, documentary or dramatic programming -- and I find most of it on Non-HDTV sources, excepting maybe PBS and Discovery. HDTV won't help.

The more I ponder it, the more I think I will buy a really fine 32" SDTV for now. But I will report back here when I do those controlled in-store tests with my own SD material on DV tape. (Work has kept me too bust just now.)

[David777]

The main problem is not the source or the high resolution tubes. It is the sub-par quality of the sets internal scaler/deinterlacer.

If you are concerned so much with NTSC channels get an iScan Pro. With the iScan the channels will look at least as good as they do on the old analog sets and likely be much better.

I've always been puzzled as to why CRT direct view sets have such poor quality deinterlacers. If a manufacturer put DCDi in their set it would crush all of the other sets on SD PQ and get them tons of sales. There are very cheap projectors and DVD players using Faroudja chips so I can't see a financial reason to not do it.

[KenTech]

I'm an equipment junkie like the next guy, but the cost of good external deinterlacers exceeds $1200! I can get an entire high-quality SD set for that and have change left over. But those devices are really attractive!

If I already owned a first-rate fixed-res set, like a great plasma or FP unit, I think I'd put more $$$ into one of those deinterlacers. But (feet planted firmly on Earth) I can't afford it.

[Q of BanditZ]

I have heard about people having these problems... all I can vouch for is that with which I have personal experience:

Zenith's integrated HDTV's seem to able to play everything quite well, from analog, to SD, to HDTV. I guess there are variables here at play that I am not aware of...or I'm just real lucky! ;)

[KenTech]

Originally posted by David777
The main problem is not the source or the high resolution tubes. It is the sub-par quality of the sets internal scaler/deinterlacer.

Absolutely. And why is deinterlacing or scan-conversion (resampling) required? Because the sets cannot scan at 480i. Why not? Ask the makers of the sets -- but of course, it's economic, isn't it?

If the vertical scan were 480i and the horizontal was scanned at 4/3 height (normal) or stretched (same frequency, different video processing), all that would be required is excellent a/d conversion of the analog video signal, something I have bought in a Canopus ADVC-100 for a bit over US$200. It's so good, in fact, that I have to fight to see any degradation in going from analog SDTV -> Canopus -> DV Tape -> Canopus -> TV monitor. Would that an HDTV could accomplish this.

But no. The manufacturers want to keep the scanning circuit as simple as possible. Never mind that computer monitors abound that will sync up with anything you throw at them, with a scanning precision that puts consumer TV to shame. The technology is there, but you can't buy it, apparently.

Deinterlacing interlaced sources isn't a Holy Grail. Picture quality is! So scan each possible signal in the world at its native rate, and concentrate on great A/D conversion.

[ADU]

Up-converting via an HTPC is another option. This isn't an area I know much about, but with the right combination of tools, I think it's possible to do some pretty good conversion. Might not even set you back much, if you've already got a decent PC. I was reading a little about DScaler (http://www.dscaler.org/index.php) recently for example.

[WOLVERNOLE]

Originally posted by jazzguy
One of the reasons I purchased my 34XBR910, aside from the amazing HD picture quality, is the quality of the SD picture. I have never seen SD this good on any set. I use DirectTV and even the worst channels look acceptable, and the best channels are extremely good. In fact, the reviewer in The Perfect Vision stated it was the best he has seen.

After having this set calibrated, all I can say is, "Fantastic."

So, let's just put things in perspective. My TWELVE year old Mitsubishi 19" analog...for about $200. (back in about 1992) looks better than your 34XBR910 HD...for about what?...$1900. (we won't quibble about a few dollars, here or there).

I understand that yours "blows the doors off" of my twelve year old TV when comparing the best video (HD)...but the issue brought up here is that SD stinks on HD units. I do not care what kind of case you make about it...I always hear "Well mine kinda sorta looks 'OK' with some programming." Well, we are talking about something that is between about $1000 and $12K...$14K...whatever.
The solution seems to me to be, right now, to have an analog set "back-up" for some NTSC / SD programming, such as PGA golf, football, other analog programming that is important enough for you to watch.
Oh, BTW, you mentioned "Directv" (picture). Directv NTSC material is sooo horrible on an HD unit, compared to OTA (digital antenna). I CAN watch NTSC, OTA, on an HD unit, at least without getting sick, but any decent analog TV still leaves all of them in the dust.

[R Harkness]

Some good points there WOLVERNOLE.

Originally posted by WOLVERNOLE
The solution seems to me to be, right now, to have an analog set "back-up" for some NTSC / SD programming, such as PGA golf, football, other analog programming that is important enough for you to watch.
Oh, BTW, you mentioned "Directv" (picture). Directv NTSC material is sooo horrible on an HD unit, compared to OTA (digital antenna). I CAN watch NTSC, OTA, on an HD unit, at least without getting sick, but any decent analog TV still leaves all of them in the dust.

I feel fortunate then. I own a Panasonic Tau 27" 4:3 set which has always looked excellent with NTSC. I was afraid of how NTSC was going to look on my plasma. I bought if for how great it looked for DVDs, but I didn't want my wife to kill me for spending a lot of dough on something that made the majority of her viewing material (NTSC) look like crap.

What a wonderful surprise it was to find NTSC actually looked overall BETTER on the Panny ED plasma than on my tube set. The scaling is so smooth it simply looks like the analog signal, only bigger. Of course this does make the variable quality of each channel more obvious. However, most channels look great, and many can look truly superb...watching the Animal Channel can be like a window on the action, much more impressive than NTSC on any CRT I've experienced. (And not once I've had friends who know AV assume we were watching a Hi-Def channel on some good feeds).

So, at least in this case I've found a display that serves all my sources in a more than satisfactory manner. Which is one reason I am so taken aback that the analog widescreen direct-views haven't measured up.

Perhaps it's because a digital display inherently puts scaling quality front and center for the designers, whereas the scan-conversion (or whatever) of tube sets is somehow given less priority in their design (????). But I'm just shocked at how digitized the NTSC images have looked on the wides-screen CRTs I've demoed.

[cajieboy]

I've lived w/my Sony 40XBR for a little over a year, and at times I'm simply blown away by the excellent PQ on SD Cable (Brighthouse). This is a 4:3 HDTV, and when viewing a 4:3 SD program on its 40" fullscreen at approx. 9-10' away, the pics look near DVD quality. I may be wrong, but after viewing this TV for over a year w/countless 4:3 programming, I think a 4:3 HDTV (especially a Sony) will definitely out perform any 16:9 Widescreen Tube when viewing 4:3 programming. At least this has been my experience when comparing the models in the stores. I've kept my MUCH older Sony 27"XBR analog TV, and use it occasionally, but honestly the 40XBR still beats it hands down in PQ & overall performance. I won't even discuss how fantastic the pic looks on HD, but lets just say that this TV has performed flawless since day one, and has been my best answer to this broadcast transition period whereby I'll most likely be upgrading to a super 55"-60" Plasma!!

[eric.krieg]

Could the complainers be more specific? What are you guys watching in SD that looks so bad?

I have the Zentih 32V37.

DVDs look great, even though I have the DVD conected through composite!

My son's Thomas the Tank Engine videos look like crap... but who the hell cares? He doesn't!

VCR tapes from the library look like crap too, but they don't look any worse than on my previous analog TV. I could probably improve things a bit by using composite rather than RF, but it is too much of a hassle.

I have an antenna. Digital, upconverted SD material look very good (smeary, but otherwise clear). Analog SD looks bad, but it is more of a function of poor reception (ghosting) than anything else. Again, it looked like crap on my old analog TV too.

Is the issue cable television?

[cajieboy]

eric,

Your problem may be rooted to the cable itself. When moving into a new home last July, I immediately noticed that Cable TV did not look up to snuff compared to the cable where I'd lived previously, but it was the same company. After calling up the cable guys, they showed up at my door and ended up spending over 3 hours checking and replacing cable lines and connectors, junction boxes, the works. Afterwards, the SD PQ was back to its excellent former self, and has been great ever since. BTW, the Cable Service Call did not cost me a dime!

[Tigerriot]

I have had the exact same experience as cajieboy.

My bad SD feed look really good for the most part. I can say without a doubt it looks better than 24" Trinitron does with SD.

I think that Sony includes a very high quality upconverter in their XBR models because it seems that Sony's seem to do the best with SD.


Tiger

[YeuEmMaiMai]

funny how some guys in here put down my 19" monitor that displays a better picture than their 2K TV.

Want to see something impressive? Buy T2 extreme DVD and play the 1080 source in PROGRESSIVE SCAN. Unfortunately you will need 3Ghz to do it...................so what that 2K TV can do 1080i my $250 flatscreen monitor and $200 video card can display video in 1080p.

[STEELERSRULE]

I think this SD issue really does stem from everyone's own cable hookup as cajie and eric have mentioned. People for the most part don't realize how poor their own cable signal(or satellite for that matter) is until they get a digital or HD display. I needed to call my cable company to come out and check the signal and after about a couple of hours of new lines, connectors, splitters, etc... is was greatly improved. Same as cajie.

The best thing to do is to get on your supplier's a#* and make them come out and check your set-up and force them to put in some new hookups and equipment if necessary. Most people find out their reception is not up to snuff only after getting one of these new displays because these displays are not forgiving to poor signals like analogs

[eric.krieg]

>>so what that 2K TV can do 1080i my $250 flatscreen monitor and $200 video card can display video in 1080p

Well, how about view stuff a lot bigger than 19"?!?

HD material on big, widescreen HDTVs just kills any computer monitor. If it is a big enough TV and the resolution is high enough, it almost appears 3D.

I mean, someone could argue that you are crazy to spend $250 on a LCD when a much larger CRT monitor could be purchased for half that price. Where does it end?

And I have a $250 15" LCD monitor. It's a piece of garbage. Picture quality is awful. I needed the space savings, and it was all I could afford. But if PQ is a priority, you have to spend more than $250.

[R Harkness]

"I think this SD issue really does stem from everyone's own cable hookup as cajie and eric have mentioned."

In one sense that is very, very true. That's why it is sooooo hard to get a handle in the stores as to whether a display will be satisfactory with NTSC . They so often have crappy feeds (or have crappified them by splitting them, along with indiscriminate set-ups for their displays).

In another sense - the one in my original post - as I pointed out the same SD feed was being split to a wall of 4:3 analog sets and to the widescreen high-end CRTs. Almost every one of the much-cheaper 4:3 sets, large and small, looked much better with the signal, displaying none of the synthetic artifacts of NTSC on the widescreen HD models. This has been usually the case in most of my auditioning of various HD CRTs. I think it's a cheap processing thing, and not simply an issue of varying cable feed quality.

NTSC is most often called the culprit when people complain of SD/Cable channels on their new HT display. The typical reply from "sage" AV buffs is "your new display is better quality (and larger), so it's showing you how poor NTSC really looks. Don't blame the display."

When in fact handling of NTSC is one of the most variable traits among the new generation of displays. NTSC can look near DVD quality when done right. Much of what is blamed on NTSC - noise, softness, smudginess etc. - can often come from crappy up-ressing and processing from the display itself.

[eric.krieg]

>>Much of what is blamed on NTSC - noise, softness, smudginess etc. - can often come from crappy up-ressing and processing from the display itself.

I don't know if I agree with that. I think most of the crud comes from poor reception.

Look, a non progressive scan DVD is NTSC, right? 480i. How does a DVD look on those widescreens?

Also, in my experience smaller analog TVs have sharper pictures, which makes sense from a pixel point of view. Is the problem with NTSC on widescreens the de-interlacing circuit or simply the fact that its a 50" screen, or whatever.

I have never thought that analog projection TVs were much to look at.

[R Harkness]

"I don't know if I agree with that. I think most of the crud comes from poor reception."

Yes crud comes from poor reception. But the point is that you can look at _the same feed_ split to different displays of the same general size, and see quite a variation on how good it looks on each display.

When plasmas first came out they looked universally like crap with NTSC - at the very same 42" size that I own. Now many of them look quite good with NTSC, some even great. All that's changed is the displays (better picture quality and better image scaling).

Right now NTSC looks uniformly awful on LCD flat screen displays. They can't process NTSC to look natural worth a damn...I can barely watch them with a cable/SD feeds, even on the smallest LCD flat screens. But it's the capabilities of the display technology that is causing the added problems, not something inherent in NTSC.

[eric.krieg]

Rich,

You know what the answer to your problem is?

Don't watch SD material anymore!

I have deleted all the analog channels from my channel lineup. The only time I watch SD is to compare it to digital on the occasions when I have dropouts on digital (looking for electrical interference).

Okay, a lot of the digital stuff on TV is upconverted SD. It still looks good with my Zenith 32V37. Maybe it is a 16:9 issue?

[R Harkness]

"I have deleted all the analog channels from my channel lineup."

Dude, that's hard core! :-)

I actually have a very good analog feed. The first 100 channels on my cable box are analog, the rest are digital. I've found a strong analog feed can look as good, sometimes better, than the digital channels. The analog channels are not digitally compressed at all, so when it's a strong, clean signal it can look even sharper and more detailed than a lot of the digital channels.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

1. picture size is != quality.
2. ViewSonic open box A90F I bought for $250. Now they can be had for less than $200 on line
3. I dunno what monitor you have but Sony ViewSonic and Samsung are among the best on the CRT side

I am sorry but there has to be something wrong with your eyes....I have yet to experience any 3d picture out of a 2 deminsional screen without the aide of colored filters. does not matter if the screen is the sixe of a drive in, it is still 2 deminsional for the content that it displays.

1080i can do 1280*1024 reasonably well in your HD TV but a good monitor can do it better....



Originally posted by eric.krieg
>>so what that 2K TV can do 1080i my $250 flatscreen monitor and $200 video card can display video in 1080p

Well, how about view stuff a lot bigger than 19"?!?

HD material on big, widescreen HDTVs just kills any computer monitor. If it is a big enough TV and the resolution is high enough, it almost appears 3D.

I mean, someone could argue that you are crazy to spend $250 on a LCD when a much larger CRT monitor could be purchased for half that price. Where does it end?

And I have a $250 15" LCD monitor. It's a piece of garbage. Picture quality is awful. I needed the space savings, and it was all I could afford. But if PQ is a priority, you have to spend more than $250.

[R Harkness]

(Oh man, I guess I have too much time on my hands today).

"I have yet to experience any 3d picture out of a 2 dimensional screen without the aide of colored filters."

Of course. But do you not experience the fact some 2 dimensional images look more three dimensional than others? (Movie lighting is based around the fact you can play with apparent dimensionality).

I find great DVD transfers can look strongly dimensional, with the feeling of looking through a window on a good display. One comment I've heard a surprising number of times from guests is: "The image has such depth, it's like watching 3D without the glasses.'

(I also find a great CRT tube set, like the Sony XBR910, can give a sculptural dimension to the images. Although, the limited size restrains the "window effect" somewhat, to my eyes).

[eric.krieg]

I was at Best Buy, looking at that Sony Grand Wega DLP RP monster. The PQ was simply stunning. Okay, nitpicker, it wasn't actual 3D. But man, it really was almost like looking out a window.

I have seen a similar effect on computer monitors on high resolution photos.

Speaking of resolution, it occured to me that LCD monitors are fixed pixel devices. Can a 15" LCD really display something at 1080p? Native?

I'm willing to bet good money that your average AVS forum schmo is into home theater more than mere HD. HD is just a part of the larger home theater experience (which includes surround sound, etc.)

To this person, size does matter, among many other things. 1080p doesn't impress if it is on a 19" monitor. AVS-ers will take a 720p 42" 16:9 plasma over a 1080p 21" CRT computer monitor anyday.

[eric.krieg]

Rich, I know what you are talking about with regards to "good" analog. My antenna gets upper VHF channels very well. Ch.9 in particular. On a good night, it looks very good, very sharp.

However, the PQ of the digital signal is still superior. The colors are brighter. It is an even sharper picture.

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between OTA 480i digital TV and the digital crap that the cable company is sending you. Non-HD digital satellite isn't any better. They are compressing the signal a lot more than the OTAs are.

[R Harkness]

eric,

Roger that.

[Jet Champion]

Does any cable company or sattelite company in the country offer absolutely NO COMPRESSION? How many satations could you offer with NO COMPRESSION? Wouldn't there be a market for a provider like that?

[Q of BanditZ]

I am getting to this point as well.

I find that when I use cable at night, I look at all the HD channels first, then SD, and if I see nothing, I shut the thing off. In other words...lol, I am ignoring the analog as well, because I am all ready so spoiled by HDTV I just can't go back.

I love my Zenith c32v37. It was worth every single penny and has to be one of the best purchases I have ever made. HDTV is so worth it, and I didn't think it could be done this well at this price at this time period. It runs everything, including analogs, perfectly fine.

I just can't stand to watch them anymore! LOL

[igreg]

"The best SD picture I've seen from an HD set wasn't from a widescreen set, but was from the Sony 40XBR800. Between tweaks for sharpness, edge enhancement, clarity, and reality you could eventually come up with a satisfying picture. I don't know why this set does this better than widescreens. I think it is because it displays 960i which is simply a doubling of SD and reserves 1080i for widescreen material. I don't know exactly what the widescreen displays do--maybe they don't present 4:3 SD material as 960i, but as 1080i and don't do the scaling very well."

Jet champion - interesting post! In my search for a HDTV I have been very disappointed with the SD quality....it has been unviersally terrible. Probably the best picture was just an over the air analog signal fed into the 40XBR 800. Perhaps there is something to your point about 4:3 sets having an inherently better picture with SD sources.

Could you tell me the source of your quote regarding the 960 display? Thanks!

[Jet Champion]

I believe it's in the owner's manual--it's part of the digital reality circuitry. I believe I also saw it in an HDTV buyer's guide. While many sets upconverted to 1080i, there were very few that upconverted to either 960i or 960p--I believe the Sony 40XBR800 does both 960 and 1080.

[cajieboy]

Originally posted by igreg
"The best SD picture I've seen from an HD set wasn't from a widescreen set, but was from the Sony 40XBR800. Between tweaks for sharpness, edge enhancement, clarity, and reality you could eventually come up with a satisfying picture. I don't know why this set does this better than widescreens. I think it is because it displays 960i which is simply a doubling of SD and reserves 1080i for widescreen material. I don't know exactly what the widescreen displays do--maybe they don't present 4:3 SD material as 960i, but as 1080i and don't do the scaling very well."

Jet champion - interesting post! In my search for a HDTV I have been very disappointed with the SD quality....it has been unviersally terrible. Probably the best picture was just an over the air analog signal fed into the 40XBR 800. Perhaps there is something to your point about 4:3 sets having an inherently better picture with SD sources.

Could you tell me the source of your quote regarding the 960 display? Thanks!


The superior SD on the 40XBR has amazed me as well. It's hard to believe such a huge Tube could produce such a beautiful PQ w/standard analog cable feed. You would think the analog pic would look terrible and just blown up to the larger screen size, but this isn't the case at all. After living w/this 40"er for over 1.6 years, I can still say that it displays the absolute best 4:3 SD I've ever seen, and at times rivals DVD quality.

I've thought about this fact from time to time, and me being somewhat video tech challenged in this area I came up w/the idea that as the 40XBR is a 4:3 HDTV, it simply has this superior SD PQ by its design, rather than a 16:9 HDTV. I'd be very curious to see how the all new 36" Super Fine Pitch Tube handles the 4:3 SD.

Also, 4:3 SD still remains in the majority of my viewing. Mostly during the day, I'm viewing CNN, MSNBC, or FOX, or CSPAN...neither of which broadcasts in HD. In the evening, this changes from day to day depending on if I want to see a network program, or PBS, or Larry King on CNN, or just a DVD movie. You should really examine your viewing habits before taking the plunge, as we are STILL in the middle of the broadcast transition period w/4:3 SD dominating the programming.

[atreat]

I bought the DVD disc 9/11 in memoriam after viewing it with limited commercials by Nextel Corp. on my Hdtv, black bars were seen in the wide screen presentation from the brothers Naudet.

[MrGonk]

Hey all,

Been a while since I've been on these boards, but Rich's name usually grabs my attention. The steaming rat, I see, has returned.

There's a simple explanation, I think, for the low quality of SD signals on HD tubes -- quite simply, because tubes are a more affordable technology, and thus their target market is in a lower spending range, you're going to get more compromise to get the prices as low as possible. I've found that pretty much the last thing to get any attention in an HD tube is the scaler, and that's where SD signals are made or broken.

Fixed-pixel technologies have to scale EVERYTHING, so they pretty much have to have good scalers, at the very least, for ANY content to look good on them. This will obviously affect how well the SD pictures are treated.

As for projection TVs, well, they reach up to a higher price bracket in the better sets. Those will have better scalers in them. I've seen plenty of projection TVs, though, with really sad SD pictures on them too. I suppose, if you're a CE manufacturer, there's an overwhelming temptation to skimp on the scaler with CRT-based displays. Think about it --- most users will have their HD cable box or satellite receiver outputting the sigal to their TV in 1080i anyway, and those users usually watch a lot of HD and DVD stuff. What are the chances of the scaler even being used? And even when it is, the uneducated viewer is likely not to say "Wow, the internal scaling in this set is shamefully bad." Instead, they'll say, "Look, honey. That's how bad standard cable looks once you've seen HDTV!"

I guess what I'm saying is that, in terms of the production chain and the demands of the market, as long as CRT is for the masses, it'll always play host to the worst quality in what manufacturers consider the least important parts. If you want good scaling in a CRT, be prepared to pay for it. It's a luxury item.

My advice? Buy a Loewe. It cleans up my cable so nicely, it looks like C-band satellite. Hehe.


Dan

P.S. Rich -- you'll be glad to hear that unless 1080p DLP blows me away, my next display will be a high-def plasma. Probably either Pioneer or Panasonic, depending on how acceptable I can get the black level detail and color to look in the Panasonic (or the black levels in the Pioneer) after careful calibration. But, considering that I'm broke, that'll have to wait until I get my first real job...

[igreg]

Don't any of the current direct view HDTV sets allow the user the option of not converting to signal to 1080i?

And if not a user option, can the same be accomplsihed by changing the input source for the signal (e.g., using S-video for SDTV and DVI/HDMI for HDTV?

"All HD-ready and integrated sets on the market at least line-double (i.e. de-interlace) NTSC sources; and some do more. Toshiba's 2002 models upconvert 480i and 480p content to 540p (which has the same scan rate as 1080i). Hitachi's latest premium HD monitors will upconvert to 540p or 1080i (the user's choice) while Sony gives users a choice of viewing NTSC sources in 480p or 960i. One caution: while HD-ready sets offer genuine benefits with high-quality sources like DVD, upconverting low-quality sources (such as VHS and noisy cable feeds) can make the picture look worse."

http://www.marketnews.ca/hdtv_3_6.html


Thanks.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

your're missing the point. if they can put the technology into a $250 flatscreen CRT monitor to accurately display an image at 640*480 all the way up to 1600*1200 with fresfresh rates ranging from 43interlaced to 200hz non-interlaced, then I am sure that they can do it in a TV as well with little change in cost.


Originally posted by eric.krieg
>>so what that 2K TV can do 1080i my $250 flatscreen monitor and $200 video card can display video in 1080p

Well, how about view stuff a lot bigger than 19"?!?

HD material on big, widescreen HDTVs just kills any computer monitor. If it is a big enough TV and the resolution is high enough, it almost appears 3D.

I mean, someone could argue that you are crazy to spend $250 on a LCD when a much larger CRT monitor could be purchased for half that price. Where does it end?

And I have a $250 15" LCD monitor. It's a piece of garbage. Picture quality is awful. I needed the space savings, and it was all I could afford. But if PQ is a priority, you have to spend more than $250.

[miamicanes]

your're missing the point. if they can put the technology into a $250 flatscreen CRT monitor to accurately display an image at 640*480 all the way up to 1600*1200 with fresfresh rates ranging from 43interlaced to 200hz non-interlaced, then I am sure that they can do it in a TV as well with little change in cost.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, the marketoids and suits are firmly in charge instead of the engineers. They have two serious problems with multisync TVs:

* it costs more. Yeah, I agree that it's borderline criminal to shackle a $2,000 display to a single rez/refresh to save, oh, $2 or so. But seriously, they're cheap and penny-pinching to a scope and degree that would make even a cut-rate PC component manufacturer like PC Chips blush with embarrassment.

* Radically switching modes would black out the display for a second or so, the same way making a command prompt full-screen under Windows does. This, in their view, is the killing blow. Of course, MY answer would be to leave the TV in its current mode while channel-surfing (converting if necessary), then switch to the optimal mode when the user hits some other button on the remote. So visiting family members could watch Oprah in 480p without realizing that anything's wrong, but YOU could get the best of both worlds... thunk-free channel surfing, with optimal mode switching when appropriate.

[Charlie Martin]

I am impressed with the technical expertise of the posts in this thread and I ask for your advice. Do the SD picture quality problems discussed here apply to digital signals or only to analog signals? I am considering the purchase of a 34" direct view wide-screen HD TV (Sony XBR960). I have Dish Network satellite 811 HD receiver. I presume all the signals I receive from the 811, both HD and non-HD, are digital.

[Joxer]

The artifacts you see with SD analog vs SD digital are different but both are evident. With analog you can get a softer picture and analog noise. With digital from satellite sources you can see artifacts due to over-compression, this can include macro-blocks, pixelation, or lower quality in fast motion scenes. Both vary with the channel and the program.

[florida_guy]

Originally posted by Joxer
The artifacts you see with SD analog vs SD digital are different but both are evident. With analog you can get a softer picture and analog noise. With digital from satellite sources you can see artifacts due to over-compression, this can include macro-blocks, pixelation, or lower quality in fast motion scenes. Both vary with the channel and the program.
Hello to all, this is my first post here

I am not an expert but unfortunately have a lot of practical experience with this issue. As a result I have talked to a lot of people and read a lot about it.

I recently bought and then returned a 46" Samsung DLP because I could not live with the horrible picture quality on some of the Analog channels and was told by a co-worker who owns a Mitsubishi HDTV that my HD quality was substandard as well. I thought the HD looked great but didn't have any comparison.

Anyway, the main thing I wanted to say was my real problem was the Analog SD channels from my cable company. The digital channels looked fine.

I believe that if I had satellite which is all digital I would have kept the TV but a lot of my favorite programming is on the Analog HD channels.

For now I'm living with a $250 Walmart 27" flat screen (my 27" Sony died after 10 years) and joining boards like this to try to figure out what I should do... I suspect that I need to wait for advances in technology or conversion of the channels from analog to digital.

[florida_guy]

Originally posted by Joxer
The artifacts you see with SD analog vs SD digital are different but both are evident. With analog you can get a softer picture and analog noise. With digital from satellite sources you can see artifacts due to over-compression, this can include macro-blocks, pixelation, or lower quality in fast motion scenes. Both vary with the channel and the program.
I had horrible pixelation on my Analog SD channels. It was particularly evident on golf programming where the grass and trees were all a bunch of squares that looked like you had zoomed into a picture too far when looking at a picture on your PC. I also occurred often in the eyes of reporters on news programs and other programs as well.

The thing about my experience was I had cable techs and TV techs come out to my house and another HDTV owner. All of them were more put off by my picture quality than I was. The only person that came over and said "Normal" was my salesman who unsuccessfully tried to tweak it.

BTW I came to the CRT portion of this forum to see if the problem exists with them as well and I see it does.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Well I finally got Dish Network and the picture on S-Video is amazing to say the least on my Philips 30PW850H. The only time I notice any major pixelation with my picture is when the signal starts to degrade.

If I sit way too close to my TV then I can notice certain things about the picture that I do not notice when I sit at the PROPER viewing distance.

In order to cut costs, dish and direct TV will try and install a receiver with RF out only(model 111). I told the tech that it aint gonna happen and I got them to give me a 311 receiver instead of the 111 receiver. He only had one 311 receiver and I am stuck with RF only for my PC that is my TV/DVD player for my bedroom. I explicitly asked Dish if BOTH of my receivers would have both composite and S-Video and they stated yes (I was supposed to have 2 311 receivers)

[norm3]

I had an LG brand 44" LCD Projection TV. I was so disappointed the quality of it with regular Direct TV. I exchanged it for an EAS Plasma EDTV, and it isn't any better. I'm shipping that back for a Panny CT-34WX54 tomorrow. I had to go lower in size because of weight reasons, but from what I saw at the store, I hope I can get by with this model, if not I may go to an old Analog style TV. Since I feel there just isn't enough HD programming on Direct TV for me to feel like I'm getting good value with these sets.

[norm3]

Well I've run my new Panny through my tests & so far SD looks a hell of a lot better on the Panny CT-34WX54 than on the EAS Plasma EDTV & LG 44" LCD Projection TVs I've tried.

Are the manufactures making sure SD looks better on the lower end sets, feeling those buyers are most likely not going to upgrade right away to HD as the higher end users will. Or is it just the smaller size tv. I'm a happy camper right now. I was really stretching my budget with that EAS.

[Q of BanditZ]

Screen dimensions, in of themselves, cannot and do not effect actual picture quality. That doesn't even make sense.

I can assure everyone: my 16:9 Sony 34XBR960, without even having been calibrated very carefully, has a wonderful PQ for ALL material, including 4:3 NTSC.

But, like any other TV, and especially any HDTV, it's garbage in, garbage out. If the signal is some weak, crappy analog, then it doesn't matter what my screen dimensions are: The picture will not be good.

[kny3twalker]

my only issue
is the races on speed (formerly speed vision)

I see some of the worse picture from that channel and its races

even if I try to run them through my HTPC
I still see double

and the source is DirecTV (shame on you, just as long as its look good on a SDTV)

I checked on a SDTV here at home, and it tooks fine

I could probably post a screen shot
if you have not screen this before
but you literally see double as the super bike or car take a corner

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=kny3twalker]my only issue
is the races on speed (formerly speed vision)

I see some of the worse picture from that channel and its races

even if I try to run them through my HTPC
I still see double

and the source is DirecTV (shame on you, just as long as its look good on a SDTV)

I checked on a SDTV here at home, and it tooks fine

I could probably post a screen shot
if you have not screen this before
but you literally see double as the super bike or car take a corner[/QUOTE]

So, do you really think that issue is simply, and specifically, caused by watching said material on a 16:9 TV instead of a 4:3 TV?

[drogulus]

[QUOTE=R Harkness]...displaying regular NTSC channels. :D

Sorry, couldn't fit the whole sentence on the Thread Header. ;)

I'm sort of venting here because I'm helping a pal look for a new widescreen tube TV.

I've demoed many of the Top CRT tube sets and REALLY like their picture for DVDs, and some for Hi-Def. (The new Sony XBR910 is one of my favourite HD displays).

However, I'm amazed at how poorly they seem to do with regular NTSC.
I'm not a newbie and I'm quite familiar with the inherent limitations of NTSC etc. I find one of the biggest areas of variation in wide screen displays of all types is how well they handle NTSC in terms of adding artifacts and/or making it watchable, including good stretch modes on CRTs to avoid burn-in.

Typically the larger the image, the more artifacty, smudgy and low-res NTSC looks on a display. But frankly the NTSC I've watched on the latest wide-screen tube sets has been truly terrible. Consistently, on displays I've tried to calibrate too.

Typical of this was my experience today. A local store had a split feed running to all the tube sets. Now that can be bad to begin with but their distribution amp seemed pretty good, as even the largest 4:3 direct views had quite sharp, smooth images with NTSC. But those same NTSC channels looked like crap on the widescreen tubes sets, like the Sony 510.
I don't know what kind of processing those sets are using but it results in a particularly blocky, pixelated, digitized, utterly synthetic look to the image. (And don't get me going on the nearby DLP RPTVs playing the same channels...even worse).

I'm just not willing to let those direct views off the hook. A 34" display should have the sharpness/smoothness advantage over a larger display when displaying lower-res source signals. However, my 42" Panasonic plasma scales and stretches NTSC much better than what I've seen on the direct views. It looks smooth, sharp, detailed, and utterly free of the digital blockiness that I see on the smaller direct wide screen direct views. I've also seen RPTVs that actually reproduce NTSC with significantly smoother, less artifact-filled quality than the new tube sets.

There. I've vented. I'm just amazed that in the last two years of demoing wide-screen tube sets I haven't seen ONE that does a decent job with NTSC. CRT tube sets should be the KING of getting the best out of creaky old NTSC.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]

This is not about ED plasma displays.

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=drogulus]This is not about ED plasma displays.[/QUOTE]

THANK YOU!

That's why I was getting annoyed with seeing someone attempt blatant spin in another thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=553442

They were trying to cite this thread as if it were some kind of source to back up the failed, erroneous, and 100 PERCENT DEAD WRONG STATEMENT OF: "ALL Widescreen TV's do 4:3 and NTSC inferior to 4:3 sets."

Rubbish! FALSE!

Maybe an ED plasma isn't going to do the job right but that doesn't mean plenty of other sets, like my Sony KD-34XBR960, don't do as good, if not BETTER job at 4:3 NTSC than ANY 4:3 set I have EVER owned. PERIOD.

[kny3twalker]

So, do you really think that issue is simply, and specifically, caused by watching said material on a 16:9 TV instead of a 4:3 TV?

no I think it is cause of DirecTV crappy compression and the poor quality of hardware used to record the races at speed

furthermore when I run the signal through my HTPC
it is upscaled to 1080i
so this is not a problem with my TV or cause its widescreen

I thought this thread was to simply complain about crappy SD content that I watch on my WS

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=kny3twalker]no I think it is cause of DirecTV crappy compression and the poor quality of hardware used to record the races at speed.[/quote]

YUP!



furthermore when I run the signal through my HTPC
it is upscaled to 1080i
so this is not a problem with my TV or cause its widescreen

I thought this thread was to simply complain about crappy SD content that I watch on my WS

You're alright! :)

To be perfectly fair, I'm not doubting R. Harkness's word at all as it pertains to his ED plasma.

[Artwood]

R.Harkness should be supplied with an ED Panny for the rest of his life by Sony!

[drogulus]

Just to set the record straight. I'm not trying to spin it at all. He seems to think the scalers in widescreen tube sets just don't handle 4:3 well. But here he's talking about stretch modes, although he also says "including" so I assume he means all modes.

[kny3twalker]

what?

and why do you keep posting this same statement?

certainly sounds like you need a Standard Definition TV though

[drogulus]

[QUOTE=kny3twalker]what?

and why do you keep posting this same statement?

certainly sounds like you need a Standard Definition TV though[/QUOTE]
How do you interpret the quote? I'm interested, because if his remarks are atypical or out of date I'd like to know.

I posted this because there was a question about me supposedly spinning against widescreen tubes. It's not true, and I wanted to show my view was not unreasonable.

Edit: Sorry, I meant to quote in one post, not two. I removed the second instance of the Harkness quote.

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=drogulus]How do you interpret the quote? I'm interested, because if his remarks are atypical or out of date I'd like to know.

I posted this because there was a question about me supposedly spinning against widescreen tubes. It's not true, and I wanted to show my view was not unreasonable.

Edit: Sorry, I meant to quote in one post, not two. I removed the second instance of the Harkness quote.[/QUOTE]



My answer from the other thread, where this fallacy and spin began: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=553442&page=2


[QUOTE=drogulus]

Q of Bandit Z,

When you say "that's not true" do you mean SD looks good on your widescreen, or do you mean I misrepresented Harkness views? And I have to insist, I am not trying to influence anyone either for or against a particular type of HD CRT.[/QUOTE]

Your own words from the first page of this thread:

[QUOTE=drogulus]If you know for certain that all you will be watching is widescreen movies and HD, then 34" widescreen is the best choice for CRT. For many people who watch older movies, classic TV series, SD broadcasts, IOW anything in 4:3, the 36" is a better choice. People who recommend their favorite AR without regard to these factors are just ratifying their own preferences. What you watch is the criteria.

And remember also that 4:3 sets display 16:9 quite well but 16:9 sets are not as good for 4:3 as you see here. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=372270) Notice that he makes the point that widescreens are "particularly bad" with NTSC.[/QUOTE]

That is a complete lie and fallacy to overgeneralize and state that ALL 16:9 sets are "not as good" for 4:3 material. I don't care who said it. It is 100 percent DEAD WRONG.

[cajieboy]

Q,
Granted you own the very best widescreen 34" TV ever built, but I must disagree w/you when it comes to 4:3 broadcasts on a 16:9 TV. I've yet to see ANY 16:9 TV look better than my 40XBR when viewing SD 4:3 broadcasts. Many times, I get near DVD PQ on my 40"er that would amaze you as it does me at times. You may get a "nice" pic on that beautiful 960, but remember how you hate black bars & pillars, or does that zoom/stretched 4:3 image do it for ya?:D

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=cajieboy]Q,
Granted you own the very best widescreen 34" TV ever built, but I must disagree w/you when it comes to 4:3 broadcasts on a 16:9 TV. I've yet to see ANY 16:9 TV look better than my 40XBR when viewing SD 4:3 broadcasts. Many times, I get near DVD PQ on my 40"er that would amaze you as it does me at times. You may get a "nice" pic on that beautiful 960, but remember how you hate black bars & pillars, or does that zoom/stretched 4:3 image do it for ya?:D[/QUOTE]

By your own admission, I own one of the best WS sets, right?

Take this to its extreme, for the sake of the argument:

Even if it JUST my TV that is the "exception" (even though I know it isn't), THAT alone completely invalidates the all encompassing, overgeneralized, and FALSE statement that: "ALL Widescreen sets do 4:3 inferior to a 4:3 set."

I have the 36XBR400 down in my living room.

My late father purchased it a few years ago. Except for the obvious size difference (and pillar box on a WS set of course) that PQ is at least equal to what my XBR960 does with the same material. (No zooms or stretch modes.)

Furthermore, the 27 inch Sony WEGA in the other room, analog only, is again, about the same PQ.

My point? My XBR960 is AT LEAST equal to any of those other sets in terms of Analog and SD PQ, thereby completely invalidating this statement:
And remember also that 4:3 sets display 16:9 quite well but 16:9 sets are not as good for 4:3 as you see here. Notice that he makes the point that widescreens are "particularly bad" with NTSC.

FALSE!

I'd willingly accept either one of these statements instead:

SOME Widescreen sets do not do 4:3 as well as a 4:3 set does.

I think this is the only fair, truthful, and accurate statement, but I'd even go along with this with little hassle:

MOST Widescreen sets do not do 4:3 as well as a 4:3 set does.
Not the greatest, but I can live with this.


We already know two exceptions that completely destroy the "ALL" statement.
The Sony KD34xbr960 and its twin brother by extension, the 34xs955, which has the same exact tube and circuitry.

[Bill]

C'mon guys, analog, SD and even DVD are only tolerated when one is used to HD. Crap is crap. Who cares about slightly better crap? And believe me, on my set everything compared to HD looks like crap. :)

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=Bill]C'mon guys, analog, SD and even DVD are only tolerated when one is used to HD. Crap is crap. Who cares about slightly better crap? And believe me, on my set everything compared to HD looks like crap. :)[/QUOTE]

There ya go! Hear, hear! :D

[drogulus]

[QUOTE=Q of BanditZ]http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=553442&page=2


That is a complete lie and fallacy to overgeneralize and state that ALL 16:9 sets are "not as good" for 4:3 material. I don't care who said it. It is 100 percent DEAD WRONG.[/QUOTE]

It would never occur to me that because your experience differs from mine that you must be lying about what you see. I would seek out another explanation first.

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=drogulus]It would never occur to me that because your experience differs from mine that you must be lying about what you see. I would seek out another explanation first.[/QUOTE]

That makes no sense. Are you really trying to tell us that you have seen EVERY widescreen TV that exists out there and compared it to EVERY 4:3 TV that exists?

That's the ONLY way that the statement of "ALL Widescreen TV's cannot do 4:3 material as well as a 4:3 TV can" could even begin to make sense, or be accurate, even from a subjective point of view.

This has nothing to do with anyone's experience.

This has to do with someone blatantly overgeneralizing towards a mistruth that I've already cited at least two exceptions that completely destroy that failed thesis.

Let's end this. I've already destroyed this lie a hundred fold by now. Standing by such a failed argument can only lead to further embarassment and credibility loss.

Here's my answer to you in the other thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=553442&page=2

[QUOTE=drogulus]I am not lying about what I've seen, and I doubt Harkness is lying either. It is possible that our experiences differ, that's usually the better explanation.[/quote]

And I doubt your word nor Harkness, who I've know around here for a long time.
The ONLY thing I was taking exception to was the damning of ALL Widescreen TV's, universally, across the boards.


But I didn't mean to imply that all widescreens display 4:3 badly, only the ones I've seen.

Again, that I do not doubt.


Personal experience is usually the best, but it's always good to get testimony from knowledgeable sources. That's what I'm trying to do.

Fair enough.

I'll probably be heading over to Sears this weekend, and if they have the 34" Toshiba there I'll check it out. They have a sale on and the price is nice.

The Sony 36xs955 is in many ways ideal for my purposes, but it's huge.... so the Toshiba with its smaller case may be the best choice.

Good luck!

[justsc]

Maybe we can all find common ground on this debate about 4:3 material. How about this:

-The nation's transition to digital broadcasting has begun.

-The law, as stated, does not require all broadcasters to go HD, but all must be digital, with the analog frequencies being returned to the government.

-The transition includes the manufacture of DTVs as well. DTVs must include ATSC tuners. In a phased-in approach, certain DTV sizes must become integrated DTVs first, with the larger DTVs being required to include ATSC tuners over time.

-The transition to all-digital broadcasting includes some HD formats, some ED formats with the remainder being SD format. All digital, but not all widescreen. Eighteen digital formats in all.

-There are more and more stations going digital, and HD all the time, even though many of the "digital" broadcasts are digitized "analog" signals, typically offering little or no improvement over the analog original.

-Digitized-analog signals tend to look best on smaller DTV sets, whether they be 4:3 or 16:9, since larger sets tend to magnify the impurities and innaccuracies. Hence, the larger the DTV set, generally, the worse the digitized-analog signal appears.

-Certain DTVs do a better job of displaying 4:3 content than others. PQ is a function of the graphics processor, not the AR.

-When the dust settles, and the transition to Digital TV has been achieved, consumers will have a wide range of choices. Since the digital formats range from SD, to ED to HD, including 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios, the DTVs will most probably be a reflection the broadcast spectrum, meaning amongst the 16:9 choices, there may still be 4:3 sets manufactured so as to accomodate various tastes for sizes and shapes to best fit users' homes. (true?)

-It appears the goal in all of this is to ultimately reach the pinnacle of digital television which is HD displayed in 16:9 aspect ratio, but no such requirement is found in writing.

So, no, 4:3 material does not inherently look better on either aspect ratio.

One day, maybe this will all be moot and, maybe, all that will be available are widescreen HD sets, taking in a single HD broadcast format.

Just rambling.... ;)

[Q of BanditZ]

^^ Good stuff.

We all know that HD's, in general, have a "garbage in, garbage out" thing going for them. If the source signal is weak, it will look like crap.

However, screen dimension in and of itself, cannot and does not affect picture quality. The only way you start messing with PQ is if you start using funky zoom modes and things of that nature.

[Bill]

Alright guys, let's get to the bottom line. Is bigger better? Is 4x3 on a 40" 4x3 set better than 4x3 on a 34" 16x9? Well ladies let's hear it. :D

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=Bill]Alright guys, let's get to the bottom line. Is bigger better? Is 4x3 on a 40" 4x3 set better than 4x3 on a 34" 16x9? Well ladies let's hear it. :D[/QUOTE]

Heh. :p

[Artwood]

The Sony 34XBR960 does 4X3 better than any other Widescreen set--in fact it does 4X3 better than any set EXCEPT the Sony 40XBR800. I don't know why MY eyes tell me this is true and my eyes could be wrong--ultimate reality and truth do not revolve around my subjective perception of it. I can't believe it--even if I know it all I don't know anything! TV really looks good when you're blasted!

[cajieboy]

[QUOTE=Bill]Alright guys, let's get to the bottom line. Is bigger better? Is 4x3 on a 40" 4x3 set better than 4x3 on a 34" 16x9? Well ladies let's hear it. :D[/QUOTE]

You can bet the Farm on this one, my friend. At least this is true of the 34'ers I've viewed in the stores...including the gorgeous 960! I tell ya, when you see a 40"er Tube fill up its entire screen w/SD 4:3 material that rivals DVD it'll make your jaw drop like a rock. I've had many folks ask me if they were watching HD, until I switched to Discovery HD on its 37" 16:9 screen. Let's face it guys, we LOVE our TUBE TV's!

Hey Art, didn't your folks get a 40XBR awhile back?

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=cajieboy]You can bet the Farm on this one, my friend. At least this is true of the 34'ers I've viewed in the stores...including the gorgeous 960! I tell ya, when you see a 40"er Tube fill up its entire screen w/SD 4:3 material that rivals DVD it'll make your jaw drop like a rock. I've had many folks ask me if they were watching HD, until I switched to Discovery HD on its 37" 16:9 screen. Let's face it guys, we LOVE our TUBE TV's!

Hey Art, didn't your folks get a 40XBR awhile back?[/QUOTE]

Size in and of itself doesn't affect PQ, either, although yes, the 40XBR800 doing 4:3 is THE king of all 4:3.

[kny3twalker]

We already know two exceptions that completely destroy the "ALL" statement.
The Sony KD34xbr960 and its twin brother by extension, the 34xs955, which has the same exact tube and circuitry.

go ahead and add the KD30 XS955 to that
as it displays everything as good as its big brothers but with just a smaller screen

C'mon guys, analog, SD and even DVD are only tolerated when one is used to HD. Crap is crap. Who cares about slightly better crap? And believe me, on my set everything compared to HD looks like crap.

time to learn about upscaling DVD players or HTPCs

DVDs look nearly as good as most HDTV
and better than some

digital and analogue TV I will agree with though

Alright guys, let's get to the bottom line. Is bigger better? Is 4x3 on a 40" 4x3 set better than 4x3 on a 34" 16x9? Well ladies let's hear it.

I would bet when comparing the XBR800 to the XBR960
the XBR800 does better with SDTV and the XBR960 does better with HDTV

but I doubt there is a big difference with SDTV
and the XBR960 does a much better job with HDTV than the XBR800
as you said

C'mon guys, analog, SD and even DVD are only tolerated when one is used to HD. Crap is crap.

[Bill]

Have both, DVD close to HD, nope. HD is better in more ways than resolution. Let's upscale HD and make it look like IMAX, I don't think so. Oh and SD-DTV is better than DVD. I find arguing about 4x3 very amusing, hence my flippant remarks. :) HD-DVD can't come any to soon!

[kny3twalker]

Have both, DVD close to HD, nope. HD is better in more ways than resolution. Let's upscale HD and make it look like IMAX, I don't think so. Oh and SD-DTV is better than DVD. I find arguing about 4x3 very amusing, hence my flippant remarks. HD-DVD can't come any to soon!

SD DTV is better than DVD????
how so?


DVDs are meticulously professionally encoded and flagged for deinterlacing

and so what if a couple of OTA stations are broadcasted at 480p
digital cable and satellite is still 480i just like DVDs



and I understand HDTV uses a wider color sceptrum as well as has a higher resolution

but what else?

and yes my DVD scaled through my HTPC do look as good as some HDTV and better than a few shows I have seen
(of course on the flip side, I have seen some HDTV that is really incredible)

and I see upscaling a DVD to HDTV that was filmed at 1080p or better
no different than upscaling HDTV that was originally filmed with an IMAX camera

with the right equipment
you could have very good results

but unlike IMAX films
not all HDTV is equal

and I know HDTV comes in a wide variety of flavors
OTA, compressed cable and satellite, D VHS, WMV HD, Quicktime's new codec, soon Blue Ray and HD DVD

but the source I am comparing to
is Over the Air HDTV
as that is what I view the most

also I do have a 1080p WMV HD film
Terminator 2
of course it is downscaled on my TV to 1080i

so I know the capabilities of High Definition professional encoding

[cajieboy]

[QUOTE=Bill]Have both, DVD close to HD, nope. HD is better in more ways than resolution. Let's upscale HD and make it look like IMAX, I don't think so. Oh and SD-DTV is better than DVD. I find arguing about 4x3 very amusing, hence my flippant remarks. :) HD-DVD can't come any to soon![/QUOTE]

I don't think you could define our discussion of the quality of 4:3 broadcast viewing on our HDTV's as "arguing". For myself, I view 4:3 approx. 60% of the time on any given week. Well over 80% of all broadcasting in the US is still 4:3, no matter how much we would like to see differently. Just to name a few 4:3 Channels...History, A&E, USA, FX, Sci-Fi, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, FOX NEWS, local PBS, BRAVO, AMC, TBS, C-SPAN, COURT TV, etc... You figure it out.

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=cajieboy]I don't think you could define our discussion of the quality of 4:3 broadcast viewing on our HDTV's as "arguing". For myself, I view 4:3 approx. 60% of the time on any given week. Well over 80% of all broadcasting in the US is still 4:3, no matter how much we would like to see differently. Just to name a few 4:3 Channels...History, A&E, USA, FX, Sci-Fi, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, FOX NEWS, local PBS, BRAVO, AMC, TBS, C-SPAN, COURT TV, etc... You figure it out.[/QUOTE]

And I have no problems watching all of that 4:3 material in PRISTINE, unbeatable quality, with minor pillar boxes, on my WIDESCREEN XBR960. :D

[cajieboy]

[QUOTE=Q of BanditZ]And I have no problems watching all of that 4:3 material in PRISTINE, unbeatable quality, with minor pillar boxes, on my WIDESCREEN XBR960. :D[/QUOTE]


Yeah Q, I bet you do, and you picked a first class champ TV to do just that & MORE! Congrats on your wise choice of TUBES! :D

[CrocHunter]

any of you guys center your image in the service menu when you got your set?

Mine was off a bit so i went into the service menu and adjusted HPOS and VPOS and all is fine, did'nt really touch the overscan settings for HSIZ & VSIZ since i found out they were pretty much dead on 5% out of the box.

I lowered the HSIZ for "Widezoom" though so 4:3 material will look less stretched and more watchable on that stretch mode.

Any of you guys by the way attempt any service menu tweaks, because i know a lot if you need advice on getting a better PQ.

Also i love T2 also, my fav movie:) i prefur the ultimate edition though because of the DTS and DD 5.1 and 6.1 tracks.

[kny3twalker]

Also i love T2 also, my fav movie i prefur the ultimate edition though because of the DTS and DD 5.1 and 6.1 tracks.

T2 extreme edition WMV HD has 6.1 EX

[Snooptonydog]

Well, I have Sony KD-XS955 which is supposedly an XBR picture tube with less inputs and I'm having probs with cable pics as well as DVDs. Picture looks granular, and there is distortion when I view letters or scores when watching sports etc... DVD is hooked via S-video so maybe component would be significant step-up. But I called Sony about the distorted lettering because even the black bars are distorted a little on each side and there is a lot of shadowing around any letters. It sounds like some internal geometry/convergence issues? But I'm not hassling with it - I'll let Sony have a guy come and look at it instead.

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=Snooptonydog]Well, I have Sony KD-XS955 which is supposedly an XBR picture tube with less inputs and I'm having probs with cable pics as well as DVDs. [/quote]

Garbage in, garbage out.

Picture looks granular, and there is distortion when I view letters or scores when watching sports etc... DVD is hooked via S-video so maybe component would be significant step-up.

THAT is your first problem, right there. Go to component, AT LEAST!


But I called Sony about the distorted lettering because even the black bars are distorted a little on each side and there is a lot of shadowing around any letters. It sounds like some internal geometry/convergence issues? But I'm not hassling with it - I'll let Sony have a guy come and look at it instead.

Very likely. I have a slight vertical convergeance issue myself.

Also try this: Set your TV to "pro" and "monitor" (If you have those settings.) Don't put your brightness or contrast past 50, at absolute max. Keep the color at no higher than 31 or so. Same goes for sharpness. Set VM to low. Calibrate from here.

I think you'll find things look a lot better.

FWIW, my cable company (TWC) has HORRIBLE hardware. The PQ takes an OBVIOUS drop off on ANY TV if I use ANY of their boxes. The PQ is much better if I have just the coax cable going from the wall straight intot the TV. Even my mom noticed it right away.

I suspect a lot of people out there have this problem but either:

1.) Don't know it

2.) Don't want to deal with it.

[CrocHunter]

[QUOTE=kny3twalker]T2 extreme edition WMV HD has 6.1 EX[/QUOTE]

No DTS though:D

[Q of BanditZ]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why should I care about WMV HD at all in light of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD around the corner? I hardly see glowing software support for WMV anyways.

[CrocHunter]

Exactly:)

The "real deal" will be here soon,can't wait!

[Snooptonydog]

QofBanditz:

Thanks for the information - I have the CATV cable going directly into the TV (have Motorola Cablecard). With respect to Cablecard - I had to have Comcast come twice to get it to receive digital plus channels like Encore and cable HD channels like ESPNHD and DSCHD - and to get TV menu to load channel listings. Once it worked, the HD channels come in very nicely - no complaints especially with INHD1 and INHD2 and PBSHD.

I did those adjustments and it is definitely better picture - although lettering still looks a somewhat distorted - I figure Sony technician can fix that if it is convergence issue.

[Artwood]

Cajieboy and Q of Banditz both have greart displays--my mom has a 40XBR800 that still runs great ad if you'll notice at this forum there are some people with RCA 38 inch widescreen direct-view CRTs that still run great. In the future it will be the ex Direct-view CRT lovers who will drive the push for quality in other types of technologies. It feels so great to be in a forum with people who know what they're talking about! My advice to everyone in the future is to try to compromise the LEAST you can in the future with other technologies--remember your Direct-view CRT roots and enjoy--SED might indeed save us all!

[Q of BanditZ]

[QUOTE=Artwood]Cajieboy and Q of Banditz both have greart displays--my mom has a 40XBR800 that still runs great ad if you'll notice at this forum there are some people with RCA 38 inch widescreen direct-view CRTs that still run great. In the future it will be the ex Direct-view CRT lovers who will drive the push for quality in other types of technologies. It feels so great to be in a forum with people who know what they're talking about! My advice to everyone in the future is to try to compromise the LEAST you can in the future with other technologies--remember your Direct-view CRT roots and enjoy--SED might indeed save us all![/QUOTE]

I'm keeping this 960 until the sad day it literally dies in my face. I hope that's many years from now.

[kny3twalker]

No DTS though

Maybe I'm missing something, but why should I care about WMV HD at all in light of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD around the corner? I hardly see glowing software support for WMV anyways


quoted both together

ok no DTS but its still 1080p

and why care about WMV HD
well cause it is one fo the codecs that will be used in HD DVDs!!!! (not with Blue Ray though)


and if you have a HTPC it is an easy way to watch some 1080p HD movies

[Bill]

[QUOTE=cajieboy]I don't think you could define our discussion of the quality of 4:3 broadcast viewing on our HDTV's as "arguing". For myself, I view 4:3 approx. 60% of the time on any given week. Well over 80% of all broadcasting in the US is still 4:3, no matter how much we would like to see differently. Just to name a few 4:3 Channels...History, A&E, USA, FX, Sci-Fi, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, FOX NEWS, local PBS, BRAVO, AMC, TBS, C-SPAN, COURT TV, etc... You figure it out.[/QUOTE]

I watch 90% HD. Can't hardly stand to watch those non HD channels or DVD anymore. Having an HD-DVR makes it easy. A "Good" 4x3 picture to me is an oxymoron. :) If Nielson used me every channel would have to go HD!

[Schick7]

[COLOR=Yellow]I can't complain for a 30" CRT HDTV for under $600[/COLOR][COLOR=Yellow][COLOR=Yellow]4 x 3 Ratio NTSC looks good on my inexpensive 30" CRT Tube HDTV in all but the "Full" mode, everything has a stretched look. The modes I have are Normal, Full, Zoom 1 and Zoom 2. Full mode gives anything originally filmed in a 4 x 3 ratio that stretched look. 4 x 3 Ratio pictures don't look that bad in the Zoom 1 mode although you do lose a little at the top and bottom. Other than that I can't complain. I do have satellite tv for my signal input with S-video though which probabably makes a difference on the picture quality with NTSC programs.

I'll admit to some artifacts in Large areas of Solid Colors or the Same Color that gradually Lightens or Darkens (depending on if you're an Optimist or Pessimist) ;) NTSC is on it's way out and we'll all be using the ATSC Format or HDTV eventually on everything.

I mainly bought this tv because I liked the picture in the store with a High Definition Input next to a more expensive 30" CRT, a Phillips that didn't even have the ATSC Tuner included. I'm assuming the High Definition Input was from an ATSC Tuner but don't know for sure.[/COLOR]

DVD's look Great on it. Some DVD's are ok on Full mode but somewhat Letterboxed even on "Enhanced for Widescreen TV's" DVD's. It's really up to the viewer as to watching a somewhat letterboxed DVD in Full mode or use the Zoom 1 mode.[/COLOR]

[Dark Rain]

[QUOTE=Q of BanditZ]
FWIW, my cable company (TWC) has HORRIBLE hardware. The PQ takes an OBVIOUS drop off on ANY TV if I use ANY of their boxes. The PQ is much better if I have just the coax cable going from the wall straight intot the TV. Even my mom noticed it right away.

I suspect a lot of people out there have this problem but either:

1.) Don't know it

2.) Don't want to deal with it.[/QUOTE]

Same here. The analog channels look better using a splitter. I have one cable going to the box (Motorola 6412) for digital and HD, and the other cable going to the TV for analog. Digital channels look compressed to the point of "is this really worth paying for." The movie channels look better, and HD is excellent.

[Q of BanditZ]

Schick, you wanna edit your post and kil the yellow, please?

Dark Rain: That's why I'm wating to see what happens with satellite, MPEG4, and so forth. I certainly am not going to pay the cable company extra money to take a PQ drop because of their TERRIBLE hardware.

[cajieboy]

[QUOTE=Q of BanditZ]I'm keeping this 960 until the sad day it literally dies in my face. I hope that's many years from now.[/QUOTE]

Same here. In fact, I've already picked out a retirement home for my 40XBR...a nice corner in kitchen dining area where my 14 year old 27XBR sits now. Whenever I do decide to replace my Baby Huey, it's gonna be for something VERY BIG and possess super PQ...a 65"er w/1080p looks about right at the moment & I look forward to checking out SED if & when it hits the market.

[Ladd]

[QUOTE=cajieboy] ...a nice corner in kitchen dining area where my 14 year old 27XBR sits now. [/QUOTE]
My main TV is an old 27" XBR of identical vintage; probably the same one as yours. Darned if it hasn't offered yeoman service with no end in sight, but I'm dying to get one of the 960s.

I was hoping that it would be this summer, but that pesky "just finished absolutely having to replace a bunch of rotted windows in the house" issue pretty much closed the Wife Acceptance Factor window for major expenditures for the time being. :-(

[cajieboy]

My beloved 27XBR was purchased around 1989 and opted for the optional base stand w/sub woofer. The base stand has a shelf dividing the inside which is great for a VCR/DVD & Cable Box, and a slightly curved tempered glass door keeps the dust away. Everything still works. About a year ago, I found an identical remote on Ebay, and replaced mine that I had hit the floor one too many times over the years. There's a cable connection in that kitchen corner I mentioned, and I still use this TV from time to time while cooking, etc. Still a good pic, but not really any competition in PQ to my 40XBR.