Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

SD Quality...it is true!


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,229 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:12 AM

SD? What is this SD you speak of? :D

When I do watch SD it looks pretty much the same as it ever did on my 26" LCD, moving to the 42" it gets to not looking so good and I pretty much refuse to tune into a SD channel on the 55". Compared to OTA and to me it pretty much a horse a piece. So, I am going with the scaling concept.


The problem I have with placing the blame on scaling is that if this technical description is correct, scaling should be a rather simple straightforward process that all to even the cheapest HD sets today shouldn't screw-up;

http://www.dbstalk.c...211#post2743211

Thanks to TomCat for the tutorial info.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#22 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,954 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:19 AM

I still have two SD TVs in the house, one of which gets watched every single day. Directv SD is awful.

It isn't about scaling or HD televisions doing a poor job, it is the source, which is low rez and highly compressed. Not sure why that is tough to acknowledge.

The source has a lot to do with it, but what you do with it does also.
My Sony XBR can zoom a letterbox SD to fill the screen and the PQ isn't that bad. It isn't HD [duh], but for the 480i resolution it can look surprisingly good considering only 1 out of 9 pixels comes from the source.
A.K.A VOS

#23 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,954 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:22 AM

The problem I have with placing the blame on scaling is that if this technical description is correct, scaling should be a rather simple straightforward process that all to even the cheapest HD sets today shouldn't screw-up;

http://www.dbstalk.c...211#post2743211

Thanks to TomCat for the tutorial info.

And here's my counter point with pictures:

http://www.dbstalk.c...30&postcount=37

Maybe you can't see the difference, but I can.
A.K.A VOS

#24 OFFLINE   bobnielsen

bobnielsen

    Éminence grise

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,063 posts
  • LocationBainbridge Island, WA
Joined: Jun 29, 2006

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:34 AM

Several months ago a new local SD channel (KVOS) was added to the Seattle DMA but it is on one of the newer sats with MPEG-4 compression. This looks much better than the MPEG-2 stuff on 101.

#25 OFFLINE   raott

raott

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,144 posts
Joined: Nov 23, 2005

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:45 AM

The source has a lot to do with it, but what you do with it does also.
My Sony XBR can zoom a letterbox SD to fill the screen and the PQ isn't that bad. It isn't HD [duh], but for the 480i resolution it can look surprisingly good considering only 1 out of 9 pixels comes from the source.


I have no doubt that what you are saying is correct regarding scaling. My point was that I have two TVs where nothing is being done to it (32 inch and 36 inch SD TVs) and the quality certainly isn't what it used to be years ago and IMO, the source is the major issue. In fact, the quality on some of the channels is outright terrible.

I'd get rid of the TVs but the 36 inch is too heavy to move until it dies and I absolutely have to.
SONY KDS-55A3000 and a couple of Vizios; SWM16; HR34 NR; HR22 NR; HR20-700 NR; H23-600 NR; R22 NR

#26 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 972 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: Oct 02, 2004

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:54 AM

I love VHS movies!!!! (Movies that have not been compromised digitally (Digitally Mastered,Digitally Recorded,Dolby Digital,etc) as it takes the quality away from them and they dont sound/look as good))


I was looking at some old stuff from a hard-drive on my FTA receiver last night, and saw part of a special from GKW (that's "God Knows Where",....I think it might have been a Russian TV channel) that originally aired many decades ago.
It showed a tech loading an Ampex 2" Quad (Quadruplex) VTR, with those big reels of tape, and looking at the video on a CRT monitor.
I chuckled as I realized just how good the "old" analog stuff can be. Old Vidicon cameras (or, even, Image Orthicon), a well-maintained quad machine, and a properly set up CRT monitor, can look pretty darned good, even by today's standards.
Just don't ask me to lift them.

#27 OFFLINE   PCampbell

PCampbell

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,421 posts
Joined: Nov 18, 2006

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:56 AM

VHS looks bad to me on my 46 Samsung but so do the OTA sub channels, they look very good on an old 19 inch Zenith with a converter box. Part of it is blowing up a SD to fit a big display. Also IMHO Directv SD was almost DVD like back in the 90s not so good today.

DirecTV since 1996

Slimline 5 SWM 16
HR24-100
HR24-500
HR24-500

HR44-500
ATT uverse internet


#28 OFFLINE   raj2001

raj2001

    Icon/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 929 posts
Joined: Nov 02, 2002

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:05 AM

SD used to be really, really good until they began stuffing LiL into the mix. It all went rapidly downhill from there.

In fact at one time all LiL used to be CONUS beam before they had spots.

Even before that they just had one national feed for the big 4 until the FCC shut them down.

#29 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,954 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:06 AM

I have no doubt that what you are saying is correct regarding scaling. My point was that I have two TVs where nothing is being done to it (32 inch and 36 inch SD TVs) and the quality certainly isn't what it used to be years ago and IMO, the source is the major issue. In fact, the quality on some of the channels is outright terrible.

I'd get rid of the TVs but the 36 inch is too heavy to move until it dies and I absolutely have to.

My last SD TV was only 27", and is long dead by now.
I really hated when my cable changed from analog to digital as the picture looked like crap.
DirecTV does compress what might be 640x480 to 480x480 and then scale it back to something close to 560x480.

It's been many years since I used a VCR, but when I did I have both VHS & Betamax, and the Betamax was much better than VHS, so I find it hard to believe an old VHS tape looks better than the "over compressed" SD from DirecTV.
Maybe this isn't "apples to apples" as everything was analog then and everything is digital now. :shrug:
A.K.A VOS

#30 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,229 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:13 PM

And here's my counter point with pictures:

http://www.dbstalk.c...30&postcount=37

Maybe you can't see the difference, but I can.


Oh I don't dispute there are apparent qualitative differences in the display of up-scaled SD images among various HDTV sets. Just hard (for me anyhow) to see the fault for such differences lying in the particular scaler circuity used by the different sets if the process is as relatively simple to implement as TomCat illustrates.

#31 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,954 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:26 PM

Oh I don't dispute there are apparent qualitative differences in the display of up-scaled SD images among various HDTV sets. Just hard (for me anyhow) to see the fault for such differences lying in the particular scaler circuity used by the different sets if the process is as relatively simple to implement as TomCat illustrates.

His "illustration" doesn't match my screen shots, which was my point, and not the first time I've had to post screen shots to show TC isn't addressing everything involved.
A.K.A VOS

#32 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,229 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:37 PM

Uncompressed SD can look very good, even on an HD TV. I still have a large library of DVDs that look as good or better than most of the movies shown on the so-called HD movie channels. DVDs are 480p. VHS is 250i, so VHS will never be as good as DVD. ...


Just for clarity both DVD and VHS formats are in 480i with pixel resolutions 720 x 480 (540 l/ph) and 330 x 480 (250 l/ph) respectively.

#33 OFFLINE   Phil17108

Phil17108

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 85 posts
  • LocationOrange County California
Joined: Apr 10, 2010

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:33 AM

I am with V.O.S on the betamax, vhs and back in the 80's they were not that great. I have a lot into the Hi Def equipment even the type and placement of furniture, so I never watch anything thats not H.D. I have 1 dvd, hunt for red october, an upscaling 3D blue-ray and that looks OK on a 65 inch led from 15 feet away but very grainy from half of that. I was happy with the F1 stuff, the Tour De France, and then when they went H.D. it really came to life.

#34 OFFLINE   fleckrj

fleckrj

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,157 posts
  • LocationCary, NC
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:00 AM

I am with V.O.S on the betamax, vhs and back in the 80's they were not that great. I have a lot into the Hi Def equipment even the type and placement of furniture, so I never watch anything thats not H.D. I have 1 dvd, hunt for red october, an upscaling 3D blue-ray and that looks OK on a 65 inch led from 15 feet away but very grainy from half of that. I was happy with the F1 stuff, the Tour De France, and then when they went H.D. it really came to life.


Betamax was definitely the better format, but Sony doomed it because of their refusal to license the technology to other companies. VHS won out, not because it was better, but because Phillips was more reasonable about allowing others to use the technology.

#35 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,229 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:20 AM

Betamax was definitely the better format, but Sony doomed it because of their refusal to license the technology to other companies. VHS won out, not because it was better, but because Phillips was more reasonable about allowing others to use the technology.


Phillips?

I always thought the VHS format was originally created and distributed by JVC all this time ... ;)

#36 OFFLINE   bobnielsen

bobnielsen

    Éminence grise

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,063 posts
  • LocationBainbridge Island, WA
Joined: Jun 29, 2006

Posted 19 February 2013 - 10:31 AM

Phillips?

I always thought the VHS format was originally created and distributed by JVC all this time ... ;)


You are correct.

#37 OFFLINE   fleckrj

fleckrj

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,157 posts
  • LocationCary, NC
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Posted 19 February 2013 - 10:58 AM

Phillips?

I always thought the VHS format was originally created and distributed by JVC all this time ... ;)


My mistake. I will attribute that to a senior moment. Phillips and Sony were Compact Disc, and Phillips, Sony, Toshiba and Panasonic were DVD. VHS was JVC.

My point regarding the failure of Betamax is still correct. Sony tried to keep it in house, and JVC licensed VHS to multiple players. Sony learned from that mistake and worked with others on CD and DVD

#38 OFFLINE   PCampbell

PCampbell

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,421 posts
Joined: Nov 18, 2006

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:24 AM

I loved my Betamax. It was very hard to use VHS after it died.

DirecTV since 1996

Slimline 5 SWM 16
HR24-100
HR24-500
HR24-500

HR44-500
ATT uverse internet


#39 OFFLINE   CCarncross

CCarncross

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 7,058 posts
  • LocationJackson
Joined: Jul 19, 2005

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:32 AM

My mistake. I will attribute that to a senior moment. Phillips and Sony were Compact Disc, and Phillips, Sony, Toshiba and Panasonic were DVD. VHS was JVC.

My point regarding the failure of Betamax is still correct. Sony tried to keep it in house, and JVC licensed VHS to multiple players. Sony learned from that mistake and worked with others on CD and DVD


But the actual success of the VHS format was its adoption by the porn industry....:lol:

Also the deciding factor in the HD-DVD/BD format war.

#40 OFFLINE   fleckrj

fleckrj

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,157 posts
  • LocationCary, NC
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:56 AM

But the actual success of the VHS format was its adoption by the porn industry....:lol:

Also the deciding factor in the HD-DVD/BD format war.


It was a chicken and egg thing. Movie studios, including the porn industry, supported VHS because the royalties were lower and because the market penetration of the players was higher for VHS. Once there were more titles available on VHS than Betamax, consumers who were not early adoptors went for VHS because that was where the content was.

HD-DVD/BD is somewhat similar in that HD-DVD was just Toshiba and Microsoft, while Blu-ray was developed and supported initially by nine companies - Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, and Samsung, with many more companies coming on board in late 2004. What really doomed HD-DVD was Sony deciding to include a blu-ray player in its PlayStation 3. Content providers picked the option that had the most potential viewers.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...