Is all HDTV this bad?

PhilD

PhilD

Messages
1,473
Location
W. Yorks
Normally staying a safe 15 years behind current technology, I've not seen a lot of HDTV before. But having watched a bit recently, I hate it. An episode of The Rockford Files this morning had lost its 1970s warm fuzziness and looked like it was recorded yesterday. The movement on all programmes looks weirdly stark and jerky. Panning shots and foreground movements look like two layers moving separately. Films made on celluloid look like they were taped on video. Is it all like this? Can you adjust any settings to get back to normal?
 
A lot depends on how the image is being fed to the screen, so terrestrial is better than Sky/Virgin as they compress the image, yet a good BluRay and even a DVD should out shine and show what it is all about. I cheat when looking for a new screen and have a couple of USB's setup with the same footage so I can compare screens.

Fish
 
Fish said:
A lot depends on how the image is being fed to the screen, so terrestrial is better than Sky/Virgin as they compress the image
Click to expand...

They all compress the image to fit their available bandwidth... and each broadcaster (BBC, ITV, Ch4, Ch5 - not Sky/Virgin/FreeView) sets their own parameters for each platform. Typically the more niche the channel, the higher the compression (and thus more artifaction). So BBC1 (non-HD) typically has a higher bandwidth on each platform than Channel 5 and Dave and the Community channel...

Most annoyingly BBC HD signals for the UK are 720p - BBC signals for Europe (at least for Scandinavia from Thor @ 1W) are proper 1080p...

Further some compression works better than others - so you can't say a signal of x MBps will always be better than one of 90% of x - the compression algorithms employed are important too - as well as the statistical multiplexing employed on the bouquet in question (you do all know that when you're watching BBC1 that there are several other channels in the same data stream that are being 'tuned' out - actually discarded because it's not the streamID that you want to watch).

Hotel distribution systems are generally shite though - at least those that I see in hotels - I have one in my house and it's perfect (but then I'm distributing the raw signal to each point not rebroadcasting the signal locally)
 
p.b said:
PhilD said:
....fed from a hotel distribution system.
Click to expand...

That's the problem.
Click to expand...

+1, last years phillips HD screens are getting excellent reviews.

The screen is only as good as the signal its showing.

They are tricky to set up tho'. I bought a Sammy a couple
of years back and was really disappointed, so after a few months of bitching
to Samsung about clouding and back light bleed they sent out an
engineer. He found nothing wrong with the screen but did spend some
time talking me through the picture set up, which he didnt need to do but
was very kind of him. I've ended up with a fantastic picture.
 
Precisely, that's why I queried the state of the TV. What the OP describes sounds like it's symptomatic of a dodgy elderly LCD screen, motion blur, ghosting not the pixelation you'd get with a poor signal.

Anyway..to the OP, HD shouldn't look like that whether it's the signal, TV or setup.
 
carper2k said:
I am thinking of getting an uhd 4k lg 3d television are these any good
Sorry if I have gone off topic
Click to expand...

I'm sure they'll be great, if you already have Full HD TV and making the jump just because it's 4k probably not. I mean you won't be watching a broadcast 4k channel for a while.
 
There was an initial novelty and I don't think my Panny screen is the best at 3D but I can't say I've watched many even though I easily could, I'd go ans see one set up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom