Quality of non-HD video sources when played on LCD HDTV?
March 27, 2008 11:00 AM Subscribe
How do non-HD video sources look when displayed on a modern LCD HDTV? Is it comparable to what it looks like on a CRT-based TV?
We have a 24 year old Sony 25" XBR CRT-based TV that has begun to make strange electronic sparking noises and display flickering lines on the screen. My first thought was to get it repaired, but I'm starting to consider replacing it with an inexpensive 42" Visio LCD-based HDTV from the local Costco.
Our primary viewing sources are analog cable TV input, and an old Tivo Basic box (which has component/composite/S-video outputs). I don't really foresee us getting upgraded HD service over cable, or buying an HD-based gaming console or Blue Ray disc player in the near future. We might get an indoor tv antenna to get the few local over-the-air ATSC signals that might reach us.
How will our non-HD video sources look like on a modern LCD HDTV? Can I expect picture quality comparable to our old CRT based TV?
We have a 24 year old Sony 25" XBR CRT-based TV that has begun to make strange electronic sparking noises and display flickering lines on the screen. My first thought was to get it repaired, but I'm starting to consider replacing it with an inexpensive 42" Visio LCD-based HDTV from the local Costco.
Our primary viewing sources are analog cable TV input, and an old Tivo Basic box (which has component/composite/S-video outputs). I don't really foresee us getting upgraded HD service over cable, or buying an HD-based gaming console or Blue Ray disc player in the near future. We might get an indoor tv antenna to get the few local over-the-air ATSC signals that might reach us.
How will our non-HD video sources look like on a modern LCD HDTV? Can I expect picture quality comparable to our old CRT based TV?
How will our non-HD video sources look like on a modern LCD HDTV? Can I expect picture quality comparable to our old CRT based TV
There's a lot of variables involved, include things as simple as personal preference. What looks fine to one person might be unacceptably artifacted to another.
Since Costco has a pretty friendly return policy, I'd just go buy the TV (and get a set of cheap component cables, if you don't have any) and hook it up. Try it for a week and see if you think it's acceptable. If not, take it back and find some cheap CRT.
One good HDTV perk is that you can get an upscaling DVD player for quite cheap (for example), which makes SD DVDs look quite nice.
posted by Nelsormensch at 11:26 AM on March 27, 2008
There's a lot of variables involved, include things as simple as personal preference. What looks fine to one person might be unacceptably artifacted to another.
Since Costco has a pretty friendly return policy, I'd just go buy the TV (and get a set of cheap component cables, if you don't have any) and hook it up. Try it for a week and see if you think it's acceptable. If not, take it back and find some cheap CRT.
One good HDTV perk is that you can get an upscaling DVD player for quite cheap (for example), which makes SD DVDs look quite nice.
posted by Nelsormensch at 11:26 AM on March 27, 2008
I have a 42" Westinghouse 1080p LCD monitor.
THe SD and worse (Youtube, Tivo, analog cable, etc) looks kind of fuzzy. But my wife, who has pretty bad vision, can't see the difference between that and the HD stuff (HDDVD, etc) which (I think) looks fantastic.
But it is quite usable, and comparable to , if not better than, the 34" CRT that the panel replaced at those resolutions.
This will vary depending on several factors - the quality of the hardware upscaler, the quality of the panel, the quality of the source, etc. Which is to say your mileage may vary, but I would expect that you will find the picture quality to be acceptable.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:27 AM on March 27, 2008
THe SD and worse (Youtube, Tivo, analog cable, etc) looks kind of fuzzy. But my wife, who has pretty bad vision, can't see the difference between that and the HD stuff (HDDVD, etc) which (I think) looks fantastic.
But it is quite usable, and comparable to , if not better than, the 34" CRT that the panel replaced at those resolutions.
This will vary depending on several factors - the quality of the hardware upscaler, the quality of the panel, the quality of the source, etc. Which is to say your mileage may vary, but I would expect that you will find the picture quality to be acceptable.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:27 AM on March 27, 2008
It's not bad - I do a fair amount of watching of standard signals on my 42in HD (until Comedy Central broadcasts in HD, that's what I'm reduced to) and while you can definitely tell a difference between HD and normal, it's not that bad.
Just out of curiosity, why would you get an HDTV and not get HD cable? Seems a bit of a waste of new-TV-budget money to me. At the very least, as you mention, you should definitely get an antenna to pull in the free HD broadcasts.
posted by pdb at 11:29 AM on March 27, 2008
Just out of curiosity, why would you get an HDTV and not get HD cable? Seems a bit of a waste of new-TV-budget money to me. At the very least, as you mention, you should definitely get an antenna to pull in the free HD broadcasts.
posted by pdb at 11:29 AM on March 27, 2008
Can't you still buy CRT TVs these days?
If you're not planning on upgrading anything to HD any time in the near future, it's probably a better option just to buy a cheap new CRT and let the HD technology continue to improve. Buy yourself an HDTV in a few years when the Next Big Technology (whatever it may be) becomes a standard...
posted by jozxyqk at 11:31 AM on March 27, 2008
If you're not planning on upgrading anything to HD any time in the near future, it's probably a better option just to buy a cheap new CRT and let the HD technology continue to improve. Buy yourself an HDTV in a few years when the Next Big Technology (whatever it may be) becomes a standard...
posted by jozxyqk at 11:31 AM on March 27, 2008
I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer. Various TVs and manufacturers have varying quality scaling chips. The ability to render good quality SD programming is actually a selling point of some LCD TVs (the Olevia 747i comes to mind). But it's generally regarded that SD programming on most LCD TVs is worse than on CRT TVs. In my experience (with a Samsung 46" LCD), that's true, with one exception: SD broadcasts on the HD channels of the networks. Also, I don't find that the relatively poor SD quality bothers me as much as I thought it would when I was shopping for sets.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:33 AM on March 27, 2008
posted by pardonyou? at 11:33 AM on March 27, 2008
+1 pardonyou?. Go to a Sears or equivalent, where they've got a bunch of TVs showing broadcast channels. You'll see a big variation in the quality of the images between TVs that probably have identical LCD panels inside them. The last time I looked into this, Samsungs seemed to do the best job with OTA analog signals (I'm still waiting to buy a new TV myself).
posted by adamrice at 11:41 AM on March 27, 2008
posted by adamrice at 11:41 AM on March 27, 2008
Response by poster: Just out of curiosity, why would you get an HDTV and not get HD cable? Seems a bit of a waste of new-TV-budget money to me.
I think I was just turned off by the idea of having to pay yet another extra fee to my local cable provider for getting HD. But after looking it up just now, it's an extra $5.25/month for an HD receiver rental, which doesn't seem that bad compared to the price of a new TV.
posted by jaimev at 11:41 AM on March 27, 2008
I think I was just turned off by the idea of having to pay yet another extra fee to my local cable provider for getting HD. But after looking it up just now, it's an extra $5.25/month for an HD receiver rental, which doesn't seem that bad compared to the price of a new TV.
posted by jaimev at 11:41 AM on March 27, 2008
It depends on the source.
I've got a 32" Olevia and a 52" Toshiba. Mediacom cable's analog channels looked like total dog ass. Mediacom's digital SD channels looked tolerable but worse than CRT.
I've since switched to Directv. Not only do I get over 100 sweet pure HD channels, but all the SD channels are digital and look far better than the digital SD channels ever did on Mediacom.
If image quality matters to you, consider switching to Directv.
posted by grumpy at 11:47 AM on March 27, 2008
I've got a 32" Olevia and a 52" Toshiba. Mediacom cable's analog channels looked like total dog ass. Mediacom's digital SD channels looked tolerable but worse than CRT.
I've since switched to Directv. Not only do I get over 100 sweet pure HD channels, but all the SD channels are digital and look far better than the digital SD channels ever did on Mediacom.
If image quality matters to you, consider switching to Directv.
posted by grumpy at 11:47 AM on March 27, 2008
I find that SD video on a high-def screen tends to wind up looking bloody terrible, but only because most people want the "picture to fill the whole screen". If you *don't* upsample the video, but instead let it play at native resolution (albeit deinterlaced), and accept that there are black frames on the edges, it usually looks pretty good.
Upsampled DVDs, on the other hand, tend to look straight up awesome--depending on upscaler. We have a PS3 that makes our DVDs look damn near BluRay.
posted by Netzapper at 1:09 PM on March 27, 2008
Upsampled DVDs, on the other hand, tend to look straight up awesome--depending on upscaler. We have a PS3 that makes our DVDs look damn near BluRay.
posted by Netzapper at 1:09 PM on March 27, 2008
Oh, and for the love of God and all that is holy, do not set up your TV to stretch the 4:3 SD aspect ratio. Captain Kirk's head does *not* usually look like a lemon.
posted by Netzapper at 1:10 PM on March 27, 2008
posted by Netzapper at 1:10 PM on March 27, 2008
It looks rubbish. Get another CRT telly if you can.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 3:23 AM on March 28, 2008
posted by obiwanwasabi at 3:23 AM on March 28, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by DMan at 11:07 AM on March 27, 2008