Tv Picture Quality

[Devil]

Awful quality picture when connected my flashy new LCD 32" HDTV,I tried various cables, as the sales guys in homepro suggested,(wasted 1,600 baht on a Monster Svideo Cable, Tried the red,white,yellow component cables and the RF that comes with UBC.

My old CRT big TV is ok clearer for UBC, so why have a LCD HDTV only for HDDVD? So extremely disappointed to see the bad quality ( small squares on images) However hook up the my bog standard dvd player,XBOX 36O and clearer images better than my CRT TV?

Whats wrong? Is it UBC or my cables?

[george]

It's UBC's crappy resolution. It's a shame really.

[Devil]

I feared as much...wish I new that before paying 30,000 baht on a lcd tv.

[ozymandious]

yea UBC you've probably got a better and bigger screen now and so the pixelation is much more noticeable.

I went up to a 32 in my self and my wife asked if the children's VCDs have gone bad??

I told her no, it's always been that way you just haven't noticed it as much before.

In fact that's a pretty good analogy the UBC signal is about VCD quality. the bigger the screen and the faster the image is moving the more distortion you will see.

My favorite example of how bad it can get is to watch a sporting event where there are a lot of flash bulbs going off and just look at all the pixelation going on.

[ozymandious]

I feared as much...wish I new that before paying 30,000 baht on a lcd tv.

But it's so pretty....

I hope it's making your DVD's look better. I'm in the same boat as you.

[SirPaul]

Awful quality picture when connected my flashy new LCD 32" HDTV,I tried various cables, as the sales guys in homepro suggested,(wasted 1,600 baht on a Monster Svideo Cable, Tried the red,white,yellow component cables and the RF that comes with UBC.

My old CRT big TV is ok clearer for UBC, so why have a LCD HDTV only for HDDVD? So extremely disappointed to see the bad quality ( small squares on images) However hook up the my bog standard dvd player,XBOX 36O and clearer images better than my CRT TV?

Whats wrong? Is it UBC or my cables?

Just purchased a Samsung 32 HD TV, latest model. Using it in the UK. The digital TV (DTV) is outstanding picture quality when the signal strength is good. This is a fabulous looking TV with a great picture and some great features. Selling price here is £650, but I shopped around and found it in one Curry's store for £500 (note that not all Currys stores charge the same)

[mackayae]

Do you have an old UBC box? If so, they have a new version that works better with these new TV's. Ask them to change it. If you rent your equipment, they should do it at no cost. If it's your equipment you will have to buy a new box, but it's worth it.

[Richard-BKK]

UBC is much worse then VCD quality. You probably have more fun if you buy a movable satellite dish of a few meter and satellite receiver.

Edited August 2, 2007 by Richard-BKK

[Firefoxx]

The monster cables are really a waste of money. You could spend around 1/3 as much and get the same quality. Never, ever, trust what a salesperson says when he suggests to buy something high-end. It's nearly always not worth the cost. I can't count the number of times salespeople have sold these overpriced cables to clueless buyers. YOU DON'T NEED THEM.

UBC looks better on CRT and plasma TVs, it's just the way it is. Nothing is wrong with your system. LCD TVs have very high resolution and need *very* good source inputs to get a good picture. Try watching some TV input on a LCD computer monitor, it's horrible.

About the only things that actually use a LCD TV's input to the fullest right now are: 1. The Xbox 360 and PS3 2. A HD-DVD/Blu-ray player (good luck finding those) or 3. A computer input. Anything else looks pixelly, especially on the sets that do 1080i/1080p.

[Devil]

Yes I have noticed my Normal DVD player gives a great image now compared my CRT TV so that's somthing. (cant imagine how good a Blue Ray or HD DVD film looks,) And can you buy HD DVD's here? as I have seen the HD DVD Players but no movies.

Intersting point about Plasma screen TV, cause no one cold tell me the benefit of Plasma over LCD when I asked. Non of the TV's I saw in Homepro clearly marks its a Plasma screen (just guessed the 100,000+ baht models are plasma)

And the LCD Samsung had 3000:1, 5000:1, 7,000:1 and 1080 resolutions to choose when buying. So not sure if that would help with UBC picture? you suggested 1080 res gets a worse image...I will ask UBC about upgrade of Decoder box (I have rental-older type) just to be sure.

And as you said FIREFOX the XBOX 360 looks fantastic now (so kind of worth buying the LCD TV now) certainly can see the next Gen graphics at their best 'Gears of War' (no HDMI socket though on my XBOX model)

[Firefoxx]

3000:1, 5000:1, 7,000:1 are contrast ratios (and really not to be trusted). 1080i, 1080p, 720p are resolutions, as are 1368x768 and 1920x1080. Most LCD TVs have a native (as in physical) resolution of 1368x768, and high end ones (the "True HD" ones) will be 1920x1080. The three major HD resolutions output by devices are 720p (1280x720, "P"rogressive) 1080i (1920x1080 "i"nterlaced) and 1080p (1920x1080 "p"rogressive). So most modern LCD TVs will only be able to accurately display 720p signals, although they can usually also accept 1080i inputs (and display them at reduced resolution).

A HD-DVD or Blu-Ray displayed at 1080i/p looks VERY good, comparable to theater. You can find HD-DVDs at certain shops, but the selection is limited. Be sure that when you look at HD players, it's actually HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, not just a HDD (harddisk) player or a DVD player that upsizes to HD resolution (there are quite a few of these). One way to tell whether it's actually a HD player is that it will be *very* expensive.

There are cheap plasmas too. The main benefits of plasma are 1. Blacker blacks 2. Brighter colors 3. More vivid colors 4. No ghosting at all. Their color is similar to CRTs, and they're suited for watching low-resolution sources (like UBC). Their downsides are 1. Some short-term burn-in 2. Low resolution.

HDMI is only required for protected (encoded, copyrighted) sources, such as HD-DVD or Blu-ray. Otherwise, component (the red, blue, green cables) are enough, and will give you the same resolution (this actually depends on the internal encoding/decoding in the TV and the source, but theoretically it's the same).

[sahprite]

I know how you feel Devil. I have a 46 inch 1080p sony LCD TV and the UBC/TrueVisions picture and sound is still very poor. The worst channel is AXN which is a bummer because it has most of the top new shows on it. If there is any fast movement then the picture just blurs and is worse than VCD. Frustrating when you know that nearly all of these shows are shown in High Definition in the States. I now 'borrow' them from 'friends' over the internet and play them on a DVD. Now I know why Kate on Lost is called 'Freckles'...I hadn't seen them before on UBC!

However, the TV was well worth it for the amazing quality of picture and sound on Bluray discs and the new games available on PS3. Even DVDs can be given a boost from being upscaled to 1080p on a good quality player like the Denon 1930 (about 20,000 Bt).

Lets hope that the quality of TruVisions picture and sound will improve with the introduction of their new set-top boxes with built-in hard drive in September. Although I'm not going to put money on it.

[Simmo]

Never buy the expensive cables a salesperson suggest for AV. They make huge margins on them.

[nikster]

About the only things that actually use a LCD TV's input to the fullest right now are: 1. The Xbox 360 and PS3 2. A HD-DVD/Blu-ray player (good luck finding those) or 3. A computer input. Anything else looks pixelly, especially on the sets that do 1080i/1080p.

DVDs also look pretty freakin' fantastic on my 32" Samsung LCD. Especially originals and real DVD 9. I realize the DVD resolution is much lower than my 720p set (this is not a 1080p) but I was really surprised on how good these things look. It's like a mini theatre.

The LCD TVs have various algorithms built in to make bad quality inputs less pixelated... didn't even bother to hook mine up to UBC though.

If you want a great pic with UBC get a low resolution plasma screen. Looks very, very good. Good price too - I saw a 42" Samsung plasma on sale for 35K....

[ozymandious]

Lets hope that the quality of TruVisions picture and sound will improve with the introduction of their new set-top boxes with built-in hard drive in September. Although I'm not going to put money on it.

Source? Link?

I want to know more about this please.

[Firefoxx]

Nikster, if you think a DVD source looks good, you'll be blown away by a true HD source, even 720p. A DVD will look very mediocre in comparison. My TV has upscaling built-in (Faroudja) and even then a DVD source is no comparison to a HD source.

The HDTV version of CSI looks waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than UBC's. UBC's AXN channel seems to be more pixelly than the rest... you can see this a lot in CSI, where there are a lot of black-gray scenes.

For anyone contemplating buying a HD (HD=high-def, not HDD=Harddisk) camcorder to go with your high-def TV, you'll see again that there are the tape and disc/harddisk formats (just like in the standard def area). The results are the same as before, the picture quality of tape is better than disc/harddisk, and tape is easier to edit on the computer. Just so you know, and don't fall for marketing hype and the lies of the sales people.

[nikster]

Nikster, if you think a DVD source looks good, you'll be blown away by a true HD source, even 720p. A DVD will look very mediocre in comparison. My TV has upscaling built-in (Faroudja) and even then a DVD source is no comparison to a HD source.

Well - hard to imagine but will see once there's plenty of HD movies out. Are there a lot out and where do you get them in Thailand?

I don't think you'd see a big diff between my 1366x and true HD on 32". My plan was actually to get this for now and get a large TrueHD TV in a few years when HD/BlueRay media are readily available and dual format players are affordable as well.

For anyone contemplating buying a HD (HD=high-def, not HDD=Harddisk) camcorder to go with your high-def TV, you'll see again that there are the tape and disc/harddisk formats (just like in the standard def area). The results are the same as before, the picture quality of tape is better than disc/harddisk, and tape is easier to edit on the computer. Just so you know, and don't fall for marketing hype and the lies of the sales people.

Why would a hard disk camcorder have worse picture quality and be harder to edit than tape? I'd think it's the other way around - same quality, easier to edit because already on a HDD. To me, it doesn't make any sense to store digital media on tapes...

That said I would not go to sales people for advice either, I'd research cameras or camcorders on the various geek websites first and then go to the shop to buy that specific model that I want. Sales people are invariably clueless and/or lying to get some commission. Go there if you want the worst advice possible. (There are exceptions...)

[Firefoxx]

Tape camcorders use a standard codec that is very much like mpeg2, except that the resolution is high-def. It was in use a long time before these camcorders came out, so there is a lot of support for it in the various editing programs. The compression is also not very high (but there is more compression than DV... it's necessary, or the files would be huge), so that 1 hour of HD video takes about the same space as SD video, which is around 12 Gigabytes. This translates into better image quality, and also ease of editing, since you don't need a uber-computer to decode/encode the stream to view while editing.

Disc (as in mini DVD discs) and harddisk camcorders have always used a different codec from tape camcorders, basically because they can't store that much (a mini-DVD only has a little over 1GB of space on it). In the high-def camcorder scene, they use AVCHD, which actually is similar to what blu-ray uses, but with two big BUT's: First is there is little support for it in video editing programs (it's too new) and second the bitrate is VERY low and highly compressed. This makes editing on a computer quite hard, since you'll be limited in what programs can edit the stream, and you'll need a VERY powerful computer to decode all that highly compressed footage (it's a pain to edit when your expensive computer is not up to the task). Also, the high compression and low bitrate means that the picture quality suffers (just like in standard-def, there are NO (none, nil, nada) disc/harddisk based SD camcorders that have equal or better quality than tape camcorders, all are worse). How high is the compression? The MAXIMUM (highest quality) bitrate of AVCHD available in these camcorders is 15mbps (and that's if you want to sacrifice space for quality). The normal bitrate of HD tape camcorders is 25mbps. If you consider that the codec used on tapes is already highly compressed (mpeg2-like), then you'll realize that image quality is definitely going to suffer on AVCHD. Think of this: Standard def (720x576) DV video had 25mbps bitrate. Now you're trying to stuff 1920x1080 video (more than 6x the information) in 15mbps.

This is the "real" truth, not hype. You can confirm it by looking at "real" camcorder review sites (not the ones that get paid by manufacturers to write a glowing review).

[sahprite]

Lets hope that the quality of TruVisions picture and sound will improve with the introduction of their new set-top boxes with built-in hard drive in September. Although I'm not going to put money on it.

Source? Link?

I want to know more about this please.

Ozymandious, It was printed inside the cover this month's TrueVisions' Extra magazine. It's all in Thai so I called them. They said it was all starting in September but had little info right now. I just checked the website and they now have a page regarding it where you can sign up for Beta testing.

http://pvr.truevisionstv.com/marketing/index_en.html

[wpcoe]

Never buy the expensive cables a salesperson suggest for AV. They make huge margins on them.

When I bought my then state-of-the-art 23" LCD TV from Carrefour for about B40,000 two years ago, the sales guys (who rode their motorbike to my condo) offered to show me the on-screen image from a DVD using the various types of cables. I ended up buying the most expensive cable (YCbCr) as the image from the DVD player was much crisper than the other types they showed me.

My LCD TV accepts DVI, analog, VGA, SVideo, YCbCr and CATV inputs as well as some "AV" inputs.

If I were to buy a new LCD TV, which input type(s) would you recommend? And, what in the heck does YCbCr stand for?

[Firefoxx]

wpcoe, what we're saying is that you shouldn't buy the expensive *brand* cables (as in Monster brand). What you're thinking of is different *types* of cables. Different *types* of cables usually result in different results. Let's see what options we have:

1. RF cable. It's the coaxial cable used for an antenna feed. White. Can give good or bad results, depending on the source and the reception. Required for watching broadcast TV.

2. AV cable (composite). It's the cable that has 3 jacks, yellow (for picture), white and red (for audio, left and right). There is only one cable (the yellow one) for carrying the picture signal, so the picture information is all stuffed into that one signal pair. Chrominance (color information) and luminance (brightness information) are combined at the source (VCR, DVD, etc), and then separated at the TV by the TV's internal "comb filter". The picture quality depends on how good the TV's comb filter is, but there are limits.

3. S-Video cable. It's the cable that has a jack that looks like a keyboard jack. It only carries picture information, no audio (you'll need the yellow/white cables for that). The "S" stands for "separate", in that the chrominance and luminance information is separate, resulting in no need for a comb filter. Picture is better than composite, but how much better depends on how good the TV's comb filter is.

4. Component (YCbCr/YPbPr), also known as RGB. The cable that has 3 jacks, like AV, but colors are red, green, and blue. Although AV and component cable look physically the same (except for the color), you shouldn't use AV cable as component, since the internal characteristics are different. This cable carries only video, like s-video cable, but now it's 3 separate signals, Y=luminance, Cb=blue chrominance and Cr=red chrominance. Component cable supports up to a HDTV 1080p signal (1920x1080 progressive).

5. VGA. The computer video interface, DB-15 (15 pins in 3 rows). An analog interface that can support really high resolutions.

6. DVI. Digital visual interface. Used in computers, mostly. There are many flavors (with varying pin configurations), and it can carry both digital and analog video (no audio) signals. It is the digital replacement for VGA. It supports HDCP, which is the content protection scheme in Blu-ray and HD-DVD. For movies that require HDCP, if your player, cable, and TV don't support HDCP, you won't be able to watch the movie in high resolution.

7. HDMI. High-def multimedia interface. A totally digital video interface that can also carry digital audio. The video signal is the same as the signal carried in digital DVI. TVs with HDMI ports are required to support HDCP (TVs with DVI ports have the option to support HDCP, but most do).

The last 4 all support high-def resolutions. How well the picture comes out depends on how well the TV interprets each signal (like the comb filter for composite signals). It depends. Sometimes the analog component input may have a better picture than the HDMI input.

What I'm advising against is buying an expensive "X" type cable from "X" brand, rather than a "X" type cable from a moderately priced "Z" brand. They both will give a good picture, it's just the "X" brand will cost 5 times as much. I'm not saying that a composite cable will be better than a more advanced component cable. So, go ahead and buy a component cable, just don't buy an expensive brand. If it costs more than 1000 baht, it's too expensive (unless you're a videophile, but then you'll probably have the knowledge and equipment to make the best use of it).

[Plus]

I'm use AV cable for UBC, the quality is a lot better than the usual RF, but that maybe because our UBC box is upstairs and there are lots of cables running up and down through lots of connections (we use infrared link to switch channels from downstairs). Every RF connection puts a little distortion in a signal.

Another trick is to sit as far as possible from the TV. At about 3-4 meters pixellation is not noticeable.

UBC resolution is better than VCD, somewhere on their website they say about Laser Disc quality, which is about the same as a usual TV signal.

New boxes sound interesting, but unless the signal resolution is improved, nothing will get better.

I said that in some other thread, new zoom zoom illegal cam jobbies are almost as good as HBO/Cinemax. Simpsons movie is really really good, but, unfortunately, illegal.

[Firefoxx]

emperor, I used to believe that too, and I used to use a simple AV cable as a component cable. It *did* work. But then I changed to a real component cable, and the picture difference was noticeable. How noticeable? Again, it depends on your TV.

[wpcoe]

Firefoxx, many thanks for that concise tutorial on cable types. I was indeed confused. I didn't realize the quibble was with expensive brands of cables vs less expensive brands.

Now, I have another LCD issue I'd liked explained away.

Partially based on curiosity from this thread, I idly window-shopped LCD TV's in a few stores the other day. One thing that caught my eye was the "Brightness" specs quoted for different models.

I picked up a PowerBuy flyer with an ad for 23 LCD TVs with a photo and standard summary of specs (resolution, contrast, brightness, response and input type) for each. The brightness for 20 of the models falls in a close range of 450CD/m² to 550CD/m², with most being 500. Then there are three others (a Panasonic, and two LGs) that boast 1,500 CD/m². I originally thought maybe different manufacturers used different measuring standards, but the same ad has a Panasonic and an LG each advertising 500CD/m².

Now if I understand correctly, CD = candela, a direct measure of brightness. How could those three produce three times the amount of light and not damage your retinas?

Similarly, the range of "contrast" advertised ranges from 800 to 10,000 ... quite a variance. What gives?

[solo siam]

Cheating on the specs probably....

For contrast they often measure dynamic contrast and don't use standardised tests or test materials, the true specs are likely to be way way lower than the stated specs.

BTW S-Video stands for Super Video and Component and RGB are different.

[nikster]

For contrast they often measure dynamic contrast and don't use standardised tests or test materials, the true specs are likely to be way way lower than the stated specs.

Yeah, it's rather complex and there's a lot of fudging the facts - I think it's best to shop for an LCD TV in a store that has them hooked up to proper sources [*]. Then choose the picture you like and don't look at the specs until after deciding which looks the best.

I have a Samsung which boasts 8000:1 dynamic contrast. It's kinda cheating as this is technically not comparable to standard contrast others are measuring yet they call it the same name as if it were - however, just from the picture quality, it did have the best contrast in the store.

[*] Not like PowerBuy which had all those fancy 1080p HDTVs hooked up to a UBC satellite signal which was distorted by the feed system in the store, making them all look no better than your old standard def CRT.

[nikster]

This translates into better image quality, and also ease of editing, since you don't need a uber-computer to decode/encode the stream to view while editing.

....

In the high-def camcorder scene, they use AVCHD, which actually is similar to what blu-ray uses, but with two big BUT's: .... second the bitrate is VERY low and highly compressed. ...

Wow - this is crazy! I did a little research - you are absolutely right! What is amazing - and kind of mind-numbing - to me is that the camcorder manufacturers would actually come out with a new format that's worse than the old format. WFT?

Especially since they could just as well use DV - if the camcorder has a 100GB HD in it then 12GB/hour isn't bad at all. Or they could just use H.246 at a 12GB/hour bitrate and look way better than mpeg-2/DV. H.246 is a newer and better codec, simple as that. It would produce better results at the same bitrate, the only problem is that AVCHD uses it to get the bitrate way down so it ends up looking worse than DV.

I guess I'll have to settle for shooting RAW

[Firefoxx]

Ben:

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/S-Video

"S-VIDEO Separated Video (same as Y/C, Luminance and Chrominance)"

The Super video you refer to is probably from the VHS days, when there was actually something known as "super-VHS" or S-VHS. It's not the same thing, although S-VHS machines usually had a S-video connector.

As for component and RGB, people often refer to component as RGB, although, yes, they are different. The reason it's referred to as RGB by a lot of people is because of the color of the cables (red, green, and blue).

[Gumballl]

Monster Cable tends to cost more because a) it has gold-plated connectors and bee) the cable is thicker.

Would I buy a Monster Cable? Heck no! But I would tend to prefer a somewhat thicker cable than a thin one. More electrons (and hence signal) can travel along a thicker cable. (Electrons travel along the surface of the cable... the metal portion, not the insulation!).

P.S. bee) = smiley without sunglasses

Edited August 10, 2007 by Gumballl

[Mr.StickyRice]

hdtv's/flat screens/lcds/plasmas are all a scam as far a "normal" TV goes in Thailand. It is a ###### shame that anyone and everyone is going out and buying these things thinking they will get a better picture.

all the new fancy flat screen (30Kbaht+) TVs in Thailand make the picture worse than the joe-smoe 3,000baht normal TVs!

It all comes down to resolution. There is no widescreen/HDTV signal in Thailand, period. Yes...Maybe...DVDs will look better, but even then if you hook it up without knowing what you are doing (for example: not setting the TV to widescreen, no component/progressive scan setting, / red/white/yellow cable hookup aka: the "I don't know shit about modern Televisions/video setup" setting, etc...

As of right now, a modern TV in Thailand is almost completely worthless for the average user ( I don't mean those of us that have PS3's hooked up in 1080p via HDMI, etc...)<---if this doesn't make sense to you then you might be better off buying the 3,000baht rabbit ear set up for you Thai girlfriends soap-operas na...