1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Digital TV novice some observations and questions

Discussion in 'Televisions' started by DaveMac3, Dec 4, 2004.

  1. DaveMac3

    DaveMac3
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have just bought a SonyKV32fq86 and had Sky (satellite) installed and my TV viewing experience has been transformed and I am not sure that it is for the better!! As a digital TV novice I have made several observations and have some questions which I would welcome comment on. I have noticesd several differences from my old analogue viewing and wondered whether this was due to a) digital TV b) 100MHz or c) my particular TV.

    Most noticeable is the difference in quality between different broadcasts, when flicking through Sky, some channels look great and some look very ropey and I am finding my viewing is being dictated by what looks good on the TV
    More annoying is when viewing some TV e.g. Soaps (my wife honest!) the characters seem detached from their background and each character seems almost like a cardboard cut out.
    Finally the TV cannot cope with lots of movement eg sport such as football or flashing lights as on the Record of the year show on TV tonight. Is their anything I can do to improve matters e.g. change TV settings, buy some better SCART leads etc.
    I have also posted on the SonyKV32fq86 thread in case these problems are with this TV. Any comments, solutions will be gratefully appreciated.
     
  2. Owain

    Owain
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    yeah, thats because its digital some channels use low bitrates, it can be quite pixilated.

    also try checking your signal quality.
     
  3. spocktra

    spocktra
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,014
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    worcester
    Ratings:
    +40
    Im in the same boat as you and i think we might sink.I have had two different 100hz tvs in the space of 2 weeks.Both showing all the artefacts you mention.The problem is as crt tvs get more advanced and tweaked,they show any imperfection with poor images.Your tv is no different to any other .My first 100htz was the so called award winning 32pd30.Terrible just terrible,with sky but mind blowing with dvd.I now have toshiba which is a lot more nuetral although not perfect.Good crt televisions are like a top end amplifier they show EVERYTHING warts and all.
     
  4. red16v

    red16v
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    552
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +5
    I think 'Owain' and 'spoktra' have pretty much hit the 'nail on the head' - we have better quality televisions which cruelly expose any shortcomings in the transmission system. Sky indeed use a low tx bit rate, even for the major braodcasters, and of course some of the more 'novelty' channels use even lower - I am disappointed at times at what the braodcasting authorities consider to be acceptable picture quality. For me, well we don't watch a lot of tv and then only the major broadcasters. We watch on Freeview (DTT therefore of course) and as much as it isn't perfect (since the same compression techniques/principles are used I have to say that the overall picture quality is leagues ahead of Sky. Just my opinion. Regards, yt.
     
  5. spocktra

    spocktra
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,014
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    worcester
    Ratings:
    +40
    As a bit of a novice here you might have to excuse my ignorance but could the modern day tvs be built with a 50htz scan feature for poorer quality broadcasts.Probably a stupid question but at least you wont be able to see me blush when i am corrected.
     
  6. DaveMac3

    DaveMac3
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hi guys,
    Thanks for the replies, does anyone else agree with red16v that Freeview picture quality is better than Sky? The most annoying problem for me is the cardboard cutout nature of characters giving a very pronounced 3D effect - very unnatural, it seems worse on BBC/ITV, Coronation Street, Spooks and Top Gear all seemed particularly bad. Is this due to how the programmes are filmed or is it due to all the digital processing involved? Any ideas on minimising this effect eg would better leads make a difference? Spocktra I see you are on your second TV, was your retailer OK about you changing? Can you change a TV because you don't like the picture? Did it cost you anything to change?

    Regards

    DM
     
  7. spocktra

    spocktra
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,014
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    worcester
    Ratings:
    +40
    I had no probs swapping my original purchase but the key thing is to make your mind up quickly ,the longer you leave it, the less chance of a swap or replacement.My set had a buzzing noise anyway but the retailer has an obligation to ensure the product is a1 .If you are in any way unhappy you are entitled to return it[within a set time]and demand a refund/exchange.
     
  8. Tel boy

    Tel boy
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2001
    Messages:
    147
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    UK-North East
    Ratings:
    +5
    In a nut shell:
    Digital transmissions are crap & you will notice artefacts, worse on lower bit rate channels.

    100Hz TV's are rubbish….take it from me I own one (but wish I didn't) Yeah they don't flicker as much but does the rest of their short comings make up for this…I think not.

    Combine the above & you end up with a picture that's worse than we were watching 20 years ago via 50Hz & analogue transmissions….now that's progress for you!

    My advice:
    Buy the cheapest 50Hz TV you can (£200) get a few years out of it then the technology may be somewhere near catching up to the picture you will be watching.

    My opinion.

    Tb.
     
  9. DRGL

    DRGL
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    746
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Shropshire,UK
    Ratings:
    +2
    That's the biggest load of crap i think i've ever read! So the picture on your new TV is not as good as a 20 year old one? There must be something wrong with it. Digital transmisions CAN look much better than analogue-and they will when the bit rates get upped to a decent level(££££).100Hz can smudge but on a lot of TV's you can turn the processing off.Comapring my new CRT to one that is 20 years old is like night & day!!
     
  10. iansums

    iansums
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    178
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ratings:
    +10
    I'm planning on buying a Toshiba 32ZP48 in the new year to use with Sky+. Does anyone out there have problems with this combination? Can you turn off the 100Hz processing on the Tosh? The trouble is you can never really test a tv until it's in your living room.
     
  11. allengn

    allengn
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    104
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Sutton Coldfield
    Ratings:
    +2
    DRGL, I appreciate you may not agree, but Tel Boy does have a point. TV is changing big time over the next few years. Analogue programmes will cease to be transmitted, compression technologies with digital will continue to improve, and hence so should picture quality, plasma screens should continue to drop in price and High Definition TV should be with us within the next 3 - 5 years.

    Therefore, whislt it may not be your choice, (and is not mine having very recently spent over £900 on a 100Hz, analogue, CRT TV), there is a lot of logic in spending around £200 on a 'bog standard' TV now, with a view towards changing it in a few years time once the 'new' technologies' have been delivered.
     
  12. allengn

    allengn
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004
    Messages:
    104
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Sutton Coldfield
    Ratings:
    +2
    Yes you can, sort of! The majority (3 out of 4) of the modes opearte at 100Hz, but in Progressive mode, it operates "at 50Hz vertical mode and the equivalent of 100Hz in horizontal mode". (From the handbook). I tend to use mine with this setting, which eliminates the problems of horizontally scrolling text on a 100Hz TV.
     
  13. DRGL

    DRGL
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    746
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Shropshire,UK
    Ratings:
    +2
    Oh yes i agree but there will ALWAYS be something better around the corner! So you may be waiting a long time..............
     
  14. Tel boy

    Tel boy
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2001
    Messages:
    147
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    UK-North East
    Ratings:
    +5
    It may be but as I said in my original post it's “my opinion” & I stand by it…..If you think 100Hz TV's are great that's your opinion ….but I won't tell you that you're talking crap…. I'll respect your opinion…more than you seem willing to do with mine!


    Yes the picture from my old 50Hz TV is far superior to this one & no there's nothing wrong with it, it's just that the technology inside of it isn't up to scratch yet!


    You are telling me that I'm talking crap than making a statement like above….your contradicting yourself M8!


    So you have bought a TV that's picture is crap also!….your hoping that the technology catches up & it will get better…. don't hold your breath, & by the way do you want to buy some magic beans! ;)


    You can on my Toshiba but it doesn't make the picture any better …. it's not the same as having a pure 50hz TV…. So don't be fooled by this feature people.


    You would say that & so would a lot of other people.…why.…because you don't want to admit that you have just spent the best part of a grand on a TV that's picture is rubbish… I guess I must be an exception to the rule cos I'll quite happily say that yes my expensive 100Hz TV is crap!



    Digital transmissions add processing to the picture, Show that transmission on a 100Hz TV & that adds it's own processing …do you see where I'm going with this?

    Its like recording a CD to tape then recording a tape from the first tape …you will loose quality & that's a fact. With 100Hz TV's you loose quality due to the processing, it's a fact!

    Now you can argue all that you want but you will not change my mind ...100Hz TV's are rubbish.

    But being sensible about it it's down to personal choice & what you like. However as I have pointed out people don't like to admit that the TV they have just spent a load of money on, has a worse picture than the set it is replacing….its just human nature.

    Tb :)
     
  15. MartinImber

    MartinImber
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,851
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Worcester
    Ratings:
    +21
    My 50Hz TV looks superb with digital transmissions
     
  16. DRGL

    DRGL
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    746
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Shropshire,UK
    Ratings:
    +2
    :offtopic:
    What a rant! You really are talking poo m8-i didn't spend a grand,i spent £1299,and this TV retails at £1699 at most places.If i wasn't happy with it it would have gone back.Stop talking rubbish and let people decide! If you think CRT TV's haven't progressed in 20 years then you either drink too much or are smoking something!! pmsl.................What model is your "crap" "expensive" 100Hz TV? ps,get used to "crap digital"-analogue won't be here forever....
    pps,re-recording a tape again and again has NOTHING to do with processing -it's to do with tape headroom and the amount of information stored!!!

    Sounds more like you spent a shed load on a TV and are not happy with it to me-why didn't you take it back if it's so "crap"?!
    I've just spent £££ on a mobile phone that i'm not happy with-it will be going back in the morning! Do you honestly think i would try and convince others a TV that is "crap" is really great because i've purchased it and deep down i really hate it? :suicide:
    :clown:
     
  17. Tel boy

    Tel boy
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2001
    Messages:
    147
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    UK-North East
    Ratings:
    +5
    No it's not a rant….I'm just trying to point out that 100Hz TV's aren't all that they are cracked up to be by a long way & that digital broadcasts aren't either.
    But unfortunately people (I include my self in this) think that the new technology must be better than the old & go out & buy a 100Hz TV because of what they have read about them being the in thing.
    I know because I done it, I got carried along with the newer the better & it's got to be better because it doesn't flicker etc, etc. crap


    But in reply to you other points:


    No wonder you want to defend your 100Hz TV after paying that much…sorry you got a bargain how silly of me :rolleyes:


    What like you are doing….your not allowing me to say that 100Hz TV's are crap…you feel you have to defend them.
    The funny thing is you know I'm correct as you will have seen the traits of 100Hz on your own TV with your own eyes but you won't admit it ….probably because of how much the thing cost you, Its human nature to do this.
    If it had cost you say £200 well then you might say that the picture is crap.


    Human Nature example time:

    How many people reading this know someone with a car with a massive engine…say 3 liters or so…well just go up & ask them what it gets to the gallon to see human nature in action.
    I bet they tell you that it's not that bad & it does about 28 around the doors.
    Now ask them the same question when they change the car for one with a smaller engine & they will then tell the truth & tell you that it was crap on the juice & only done 15 to the gallon around the doors.
    It's just what people do :laugh:



    Back to your points:


    I never said they hadn't progressed I just pointed out that the picture that we are now watching is no better than it was 20 years ago, if fact its worse with all the digital artefacts.
    A 50Hz TV receiving an analogue or a digital transmission will put to shame ANY 100Hz TV showing the same analogue or digital transmission.
    You agreed that digital transmissions weren't that good …well that's the way I understood it when you said:


    It's a Toshiba 32ZT29B…but it doesn't matter what make or model you watch the picture processing is crap on them all & if you are honest with me & more importantly with yourself you will agree!


    No not necessarily but you wouldn't want to admit that it was no better than the old set that it was replacing would you, hence your argument!


    Yes you are correct with this statement, however I do think that there's a good few years left yet, so we may as well make the most of them with a 50Hz TV showing a decent picture.
    The only saving grace we have is that digital transmissions don't look as bad on a 50Hz TV


    I didn't try to give a technical explanation to why the quality is lost & I knew it had nothing to do with processing, I was just trying to put it into layman's terms, which I'm sure anyone reading would have picked up on.
    The more you mess around with something the worse it gets….that's exactly what digital TV does, it adds artefacts to the picture because of the processing.


    Tb. :smashin:
     
  18. spocktra

    spocktra
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,014
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    worcester
    Ratings:
    +40
    Beginning to agree with you to a point.Had mine 3 weeks .You have to admit they are a bit tasty with dvds.
     
  19. DRGL

    DRGL
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    746
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Shropshire,UK
    Ratings:
    +2
    You have made one assumption on this one-this TV was not REPLACING ANYTHING!lol,this was our first TV when we moved in.If i didn't like it it would have gone back-plain & simple(Actually that's not true-we had a KV36FS76U before but they kept breaking down!).This is an AV forum where most on here care about AV,to call all 100Hz TV's and Digital systems "crap" is just nonsence.I suppose you going to tell me that the DVD-R i've got sat under it was a waste of money and shaky VHS is much better?lol.Seems to me YOU spent a large sum of money and are not happy with it but for some reason didn't take the thing back??(WHY DIDN'T YOU TAKE IT BACK IF IT'S SO "CRAP"??!)

    What do you think DVD is? Analogue? no it's DIGITAL,the ONLY difference between what your TV is displaying with DVD & DIGITAL TV is the quility of source-IE,the bit rate of the BROADCAST(bit more to it but in laymans terms)-NOTHING to do with the TV's technical limits,so when this improves you will simply be able to replace your DIGITAL RECIEVER.

    If you'd rather wait 5 or whatever years for that then that's your choice,but i'm sure there are a lot of people on here who are very happy with their TV(And contary to what you seem to think i REALLY AM HAPPY WITH IT!)

    I'm not going to bother replying any more as i really don't see the point.

    :offtopic: Oh,Btw,I've got a 2.5L V6 car that returns better MPG on a run than the other car we have-a 1.6L!!!!lol

    ps,I'm off to the shops now to take the £400 mobile phone I AM NOT HAPPY WITH BACK! Something i think you should have done with your TV if it bothers you this much!!!!!!
     
  20. Tel boy

    Tel boy
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2001
    Messages:
    147
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    UK-North East
    Ratings:
    +5
    Well if people cared that much they would scrutinise the picture a bit more closely & they would have to say that ANY 100Hz TV shows loads of artefacts, but as I've already said a few times now people don't like to admit that their new expensive TV hasn't got a good picture.


    What I will say is that DVD is not the miracle that the manufactures originally told us it was. If you watch a DVD closely you will soon notice it's shortcomings, & you will see artefacts on the screen. Watch a scene where for example there is & explosion & a fireball…I bet you will see a lot of pixalation in the fireball. You know what I'm talking about & if you don't I'm sure others reading will!

    ….On to VHS, No I don't think VHS is great (betamax was better & should have won that battle but that's a different story) & generally I agree that DVD is better but its not as good as everyone makes out, but you & a lot of others seem quite willing to accept it on its merits only…you refuse to accept its weaknesses & only look to its strengths…I'm only trying to be honest with you & myself.

    CD's are another example of digital shortcomings. The jump from Gramophones & 78 records to Vinyl LP's & stereo was for the better, sound quality improved in leaps & bounds…but can we say the same about CD's…I think not.
    They sold us a miracle product that was virtually indestructible under normal use & had perfect sound quality….yeah right…I have CD's that have crackles & hissing on them & so will you…also the sound quality of CD's is nowhere near as good as a Vinyl record being played on a good turntable..so where's the improvement…in short there isn't any…we've all being sold a pup!


    Actually I didn't spend a large sum of money on it …I paid £599.99 + vat (£704.99) from Makro for it (can post a copy of the receipt if you don't believe me)...but looking back I wish I hadn't!

    …You keep going on about taking TV's back…..but as I'm sure you are aware its not a simple as that….if there is nothing wrong with it you haven't got grounds for returning it…& there is nothing wrong with my TV…its just that 100Hz pictures are nowhere as good as a 50Hz...a fact that I have realised now that I have been able to watch the TV in my own surroundings & a fact that maybe a few more people should be honest about!

    (Actually the TV may be going to go back as I'm sick of the cabinet on it keep creaking & banging….see my thread “Toshiba crap build quality”…but that's a different issue)


    I have already commented on DVD's above.
    When broadcasts eventually get up to DVD bit rate (if this ever happens) they will still show weaknesses….as mentioned above


    Of course it depends on the TV's technical limits….the TV that the broadcast is being shown on is a contributing factor & if this is adding its own artefacts which is the case wit 100Hz TV's then the picture deteriorates even more.


    As I have already got a 100Hz TV its obvious that I haven't waited (but I wish I had)
    When I first posted on this thread I responded to comments made by DaveMac3 & spocktra, who were discussing the fact that they were disappointed with their 100Hz TV's …I posted my opinion which obviously you disagree with….however just because you have decided to ignore the obvious flaws that are inherent with 100Hz TV's doesn't say that others have to.

    All I have done in these posts is to highlight some of those flaws….If you are happy with the picture quality of your 100Hz TV I'm happy for you…But just because you are happy with it does not mean that I am talking rubbish & that the flaws that I mention don't exist.


    Don't forget to post back & let us know how bad it really was on the juice once you get rid of it ;)


    You are correct…there is no point as you will never convince me that what I am seeing with my own eyes on my 100Hz TV or any other 100Hz TV for that matter is a better picture than a 50Hz TV produces.


    Go for a phone that is a phone & not a gimmicky toy & you'll be all right.



    Thanks for the banter & I'm sorry we can't see eye to eye on this subject but I suppose it would be a sad World if we all liked the same things :)


    And as I said when I first posted on this thread 100Hz TV's aren't all they are cracked up to be so if you are reading this & are considering buying a 100Hz TV have a good look at the picture it is displaying & forget about all of it's bells & whistles because the picture is the fundamental role of a TV…


    …Go with what your eyes tell you & not what other people do!


    Regards, Tb.
     

Share This Page

Loading...