Just got an HDTV, pixelated SD content

[ZenErik]

I've used s-video - HDMI. Not good. Still pictures look a lot better, but I had issues with overscan and dot crawl. The dot crawl was about the worst I've ever seen. I think it was partly due to the way this device scaled the image. It was from Monoprice. About $40, I think. You'll probably have to spend significantly more to get one without those issues. If such a thing exists.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

I've used s-video - HDMI. Not good. Still pictures look a lot better, but I had issues with overscan and dot crawl. The dot crawl was about the worst I've ever seen. I think it was partly due to the way this device scaled the image. It was from Monoprice. About $40, I think. You'll probably have to spend significantly more to get one without those issues. If such a thing exists.

This is true. We have an Onkyo AV processor and everything looks really fantastic through it, even on a cheap LCD. On our plasma, it's even better.

But that receiver is about $600 used IIRC.

[crux]

That's the whole point. An HDTV brings clarity to the details. If you're watching low bitrate stuff those details are unfortunately all of the compression artifacts that were blurred together when watching on an older display device.

I'm astounded it took three pages for someone to say this. 640x480 on a 17" monitor is not the same thing as 640x480 on a 50" monitor, or even a 35" monitor. Comparing a 17" widescreen to a 35" widescreen, the 35" is 323% larger. With a 50" widescreen, it's 765% larger. There's no way to stretch an image that large without magnifying the flaws apparent in lower resolutions. You also can't take a lower resolution source and scale it to a larger resolution and expect the image to inherently improve.

Now the best solution you can get, which will optimize scaling as much as you can hope for, is a device made for the task like XRGB2+ or XRGB3. It's not cheap (at least $300), but it's the cheapest high quality upscanner you're going to find (they can go into the thousands).

It's important to remember that every HD television - plasma or LCD (LED's are LCD displays with LED backlighting) - has a native resolution. Contrary to popular belief, this is the only real resolution the monitor has. Any lower or higher resolution is upscaled or downscaled to fit the native resolution. Some televisions scale better than others, but using anything other than the native resolution is going to cause some problems. Those problems obviously become more severe at lower resolutions. Digital monitors also don't display interlaced images; They have to de-interlace them first, which can cause problems as well.

Now, CRT monitors do not technically have a native resolution. Most have bandwidth limits, however, which amounts to the same thing. Depending on the television, a HD CRT will either upscale to 1080i and skip every other frame or downscale to 540p at 60 FPS but with less spatial resolution. SD televisions are set for 480i, so most older sources don't have to scale. High quality CRT computer monitors can display multiple resolutions, in fact, but this isn't the case with standard CRT televisions as it's very expensive to do. Some higher end HD CRT have two "native" resolutions - 480p and 1080i - which gives much more flexibility for scaling than flatscreens, but at the loss of screen size. Screen size really does make a difference unless you sit close to the screen - the trade in image quality isn't always worth the sacrifice. If you insist on sitting five or six plus feet from the television, I advise dealing with scaling problems instead of getting a CRT. Getting an upscanner is worth the money over a CRT in that case.

Now if you're looking for the best in a HD television, it depends on your price point. It's true that a LED-backlit LCD can trump a moderately priced plasma, but LED are also more expensive. LED has inherent problems, like flashlighting, clouding, uniformity and viewing angle. The viewing angle can be particularly important to some, as if you have seating all around the screen, people on the side will get a considerably worse picture than head-on. Plasmas also have superior black levels, and while LED has a brighter screen, black levels are far more important and apparent with games and movies. If you have the money, 2012 saw the release of the Panasonic VT50, a plasma which is probably the best monitor on the market for half the price of a comparable LED-LCD. The VT50 has better black levels and color contrast than any monitor on the market (not to mention better viewing angles) and quite good brightness levels as well for a plasma. If your budget is lower, my best advice is to go to a showroom and compare similarly priced plasmas to LED-backlit LCD.

[skate323k137]

Great post crux. You should end it with

[RCBH928]

thanks fir everyone's help , I have a better idea now.

I have 3 issues with plasma :

1) I need a smaller tv 42-46 inches . Not sure if they produce them in that size.

2) I have seen plasmas and LED/LCDs next to each other. Somehow the LCDs look much better , not sure if a personal preference.

3) I am not sure if I only notice this , but with some plasma TVs I can actually see small boxes or pixels in the screen up close. Not sure if they disappear from few meters. I did not notice this issue with LCDs.

I put black levels in high regard now since my new TV has a bad black levels.


I will try just scan though.

would love to hear more helpful information

[CRTGAMER]

I have seen plasmas and LED/LCDs next to each other. Somehow the LCDs look much better , not sure if a personal preference.

would love to hear more helpful information

Try non HD signals as well as HD. Take your N64 to the store and test it on the floor models of all three types, LCD, LED and Plasma.

[isiolia]

thanks fir everyone's help , I have a better idea now.

I have 3 issues with plasma :

1) I need a smaller tv 42-46 inches . Not sure if they produce them in that size.

2) I have seen plasmas and LED/LCDs next to each other. Somehow the LCDs look much better , not sure if a personal preference.

3) I am not sure if I only notice this , but with some plasma TVs I can actually see small boxes or pixels in the screen up close. Not sure if they disappear from few meters. I did not notice this issue with LCDs.

I put black levels in high regard now since my new TV has a bad black levels.


I will try just scan though.

would love to hear more helpful information

Plasma does tend toward larger size, since the tech is harder to shrink down. Plus, it usually means a bigger TV for cheaper, which for a lot of people is a selling point.


Comparing TVs in a store can often be hard because the environment is typically different than what you have at home. To a fair point, it's a matter of relative light levels. While they've gotten better, plasmas still tend to be dimmer overall than either type of LCD backlighting. So, in a bright store showroom, a plasma display won't necessarily look that good. In a dark living room, however, they tend to exhibit more subtle color and better black levels. By comparison, the constant backlight of most LCD TVs will limit how dark they'll appear. Higher end LED backlit sets can selectively turn off parts of the backlight.

But, you'll also see LCD displays recommended for use in brighter environments too. Or you can consider using bias lighting to make the blacks in an LCD set look better.


What you're seeing is commonly referred to as "screen door effect". It is something that should be less noticeable farther away from the TV.
It's one of several downsides to plasma screens. Phosphor trails and flicker being other possible image quality ones (not everyone perceives them). Image retention can also be an annoyance - permanent burn-in is rarer, but temporary retention can still be an issue.


There's really no perfect tech out there. Just have to pick the one that you're most willing to forgive the flaws of. Though, again, with particular regard to your WDTV's video, you probably aren't going to get better results with other HDTVs. That devices is outputting an HD signal, so it's not a matter of how the TV is scaling/processing the video.

[Anapan]

I realize this is a little late, but maybe it can help.
Having used several revisions of the WDHD boxes, I've never had a problem with it's scaling of even sub-SD conenent - I think it's using trilinear scaling.
Have you changed the Audio/video settings to the native resolution of your new TV? The WDHD seems to default to 720P after being unplugged, and if your new display's native resolution is higher you'll definitely notice some unpleasant visuals having the content scaled twice. Even setting the video mode at 1080P may make the pixelation visibly reduced.
Why are you using component to your TV rather than HDMI? AFAIK all the WDHDTV models output to HDMI and only later ones supported component output. I found that on Plasma TVs the component video was more pleasant (reduced ringing artefacts which made the dithering less aparent) but on all the other displays the HDMI picture seemed to be far superior.

[RCBH928]

My WDTV is a bit older model, its not what is on the market right now. It has Composite/component/HDMI .

I currently use the component because I do not have HDMI cable(which I will get soon) but I thought component and HDMI would put equally good picture quality. Thats what the Xbox 360 has shipped with and all HDTVs support and HD devices like WDTV.

I did change my WDTV settings, it does not really make any difference.

[AppleQueso]

HDMI is better than component, but component should still look really good. If you're having those sorts of picture quality issues with component, I think it's safe to say that HDMI isn't going to look much better.

Have you tried hooking up your Mac to the TV yet btw?