Re: question about SD content on HD sets
- From: "Tam/WB2TT" <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:39:18 -0500
Before getting the (Comcast) cable card, I could get both the analog and
digital versions of about 20 channels. The digital is *much* better.
Probably Sharp did not want to spend the money on analog circuitry, which is
a dead end anyhow. The Sharp does not have a comb filter, which severely
limits the analog bandwidth. The cable card defaults to digital channels.
This may not be true in all areas, but here in the NY 'burbs, Comcast gets a
direct feed from the stations (probably digital), and does *not* rebroadcast
an OTA signal.
Tam
"The Other Mike" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j6nds19aoedngraag4rv9hn31nruc0mcro@xxxxxxxxxx
> Just so you know where I'm coming from...I consider myself on a little
> higher technical level then the average tv viewer but definately not a
> videophile. I took the plunge into HDTV last year...went from a 50"
> standard Mits. TV to a 65" Mits. HDTV using Comcast cable as my
> source. I can definately say that the SD programming through Comcast
> looks worse on my HDTV then the SD content on my standard 50" (some
> stations look like "crap"...others look just a little worse then the
> 50"). I don't know if it's because the larger screen shows off more
> of the imperfections or because the hdtv doesn't do well translating a
> SD signal...but most likely it's a combination of both.
>
> With that said, I have a friend who has DirectTV and his SD pictures
> on a 65" HDTV look much better then mine even though I have a "higher
> end" tv. (though my HD channels seem to look a little better then
> his) I think this is because his SD channels are all digital while
> mine below a certain channel are analog. I could be wrong though and
> if so I'm sure someone will correct me.
>
> Overall though, I'm happy I switched. There's plenty of prime time HD
> content to keep me happy with my purchase. My wife on the other hand
> is torn...she loves the HD picture but is really into reality
> television which none seem to be in HD so she suffers with the lower
> quality picture for those shows.
>
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:12:22 GMT, "bb2004" <beebeFOUR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>OK, so I am reading lots of reviews, etc. about different model sets as I
>>start to get ready to take the hd-plunge.
>>
>>There are many instances where a review will say something like "HD
>>programs
>>look great , but SD programs look like crap" etc...
>>
>>My question is is this SD "crap" in comparision to the HD picture on the
>>same TV? (which it really should be anyway) OR is this to say that SD
>>content actually looks WORSE on certain HDTV's than it would on a
>>"Standard
>>Def" set?
>>
>>Or is the SD content at least EQUAL to what I am getting now on my trusty
>>10-year old 25" crt?
>>
>>I am confused. So, thanks much in advance.
>>
>>--
>
.
- References:
- question about SD content on HD sets
- From: bb2004
- Re: question about SD content on HD sets
- From: The Other Mike
- question about SD content on HD sets
- Prev by Date: Re: upconverting DVD players
- Next by Date: Re: 720p vs. 1080p at (37" to 45")
- Previous by thread: Re: question about SD content on HD sets
- Next by thread: Re: question about SD content on HD sets
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading