Television Aspect Ratio -Some thoughts on image quality

But 4:3 was obsolete here well over a decade ago.

Click to expand...

Tell that to channel 4.... The simpsons STILL keep banging the TV back to 4:3... Very annoying.

Standard def DVB TV is inferior to the old analogue scheme, and is widely accepted as so in academia and industry (HD systems are good though). I still can not get used to the artefacts on digital transmissions personally, my brain seems to focus in on them.

I can not see the days of 8 MHz bandwidth per channel ever coming back, they can fit 4 or 5 digital channels (or more) in that bandwidth. The spectrum is extremely valuable...

Hi Guys

FWIW, current LG or Samsung or even Philips CRT sets are still way better than any offering from LCD( same Manufacturers) and anything else out there here in SA right now.

It will still change sometime.....

Nothing irritates me more than to visit a lovely home with these things mounted on the wall's like paintings....and they look like a piece of crap. As a Tech, I pick up picture faults etc. in a sec.

Flat heads and wide people are not cool to me...... and then I take a step back....and realize that it is maybe a true representation of the majority here. Suits them. The wider or fatter the better. And the healthier they appear to their fellow Tribal zombies.

Fat mean's you ain't got AIDS. Yet.

This is Africa after all .

Regards,
tvtech

NigelGoodwin] Again said:

...
Nothing irritates me more than to visit a lovely home with these things mounted on the wall's like paintings....and they look like a piece of crap. As a Tech, I pick up picture faults etc. in a sec.
...

Click to expand...

That part of your post mirrors my experience very closely.

Another interesting point is regarding audio performance.

I have experienced a number of CRT sets offered great sound quality with rear top woofers and good quality surround speakers/tweeters in front. I remember movie experience was nice with these sets. Manufactures were actually changing from their old fashion like putting a single speaker in either side of the TV just for a sound.

In fact in a CRT set, there is plenty of room to accommodate a good sound system, in LCD's the thing is different. People are looking for 'slimmest' TV's and again they forgot about audio performance?

I think manufactures are hiding this fact as they know that with flat LCD's, we need to compromise with the audio part. I think nobody complains about that.

Mr RB said:

That does seem to have some bearing on the issue. Some of the problems I'm talking about are from plugging new 16:9 LCD TVs into older DVD/satellite boxes etc.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you need new DVD/Satellite boxes then?.

However, DVD has always been widescreen over here, I don't see as it would be any different there?, or is it?.

Then again Nigel, how long is it since you watched a really nice CRT TV plugged into a good quality satellite box with analogue output?

Click to expand...

There are no analogue stations here to do that with, and it's pretty pointless using a satellite box to convert from digital to analogue (which most are used as anyhow).

Certainly excessive compression (used for cost reasons) has reduced the quality of digital transmissions, but in many respects it's better than analogue ever was, although in a few respects analogue was better (because of no compression).

But it's probably 15 years since I was able to do a direct side by side comparison (Sky News on analogue satellite against Sky News on Digital satellite).

Maybe you've forgotten the beauty of total blacks and absence of MPEGing artifacts? It seems from my friends that even a few weeks with these new TVs and their brain adapts and they cannot see all their flaws.

Click to expand...

Decent quality LCD's have good quality blacks, and if you can see MPEG artefacts you're either watching a crap quality TV, a crap quality channel, or watching from too close.

transistor495 said:

In fact in a CRT set, there is plenty of room to accommodate a good sound system, in LCD's the thing is different. People are looking for 'slimmest' TV's and again they forgot about audio performance?

Click to expand...

No room for speakers - end of story

You're supposed to use a surround sound system.

I think manufactures are hiding this fact as they know that with flat LCD's, we need to compromise with the audio part. I think nobody complains about that.

Click to expand...

EVERYBODY complains about it.

I think there are some models, like SONY Bravia T series with side duct woofers. Can we call that a slim TV or flat TV not sure what category it is

This one is 5W+5W+15W(Woofer)

**broken link removed**

IEEE has a story about the history of LCD technology. It's pretty sad how it worked out for RCA.

**broken link removed**

RCA owned the early patents but failed to commercialize the liquid crystal display

Click to expand...

transistor495 said:

I think there are some models, like SONY Bravia T series with side duct woofers. Can we call that a slim TV or flat TV not sure what category it is

Click to expand...

I'm a service engineer for a Sony main dealer, even the ones with (supposedly) sub-woofers in are still pretty poor sound.

That picture though looks nothing like any I've seen.

Nigel Goodwin said:

Perhaps you need new DVD/Satellite boxes then?.

However, DVD has always been widescreen over here, I don't see as it would be any different there?, or is it?.

Click to expand...

The DVD players have a "setting" where you can set 4:3 or 16:9 usually called "cropped" or widescreen" and with both settings the aspect is correct when viewed on a 4:3 CRT set, but both appear imperfect aspect viewed on a new LCD.

I get your point on the Sony sets having a good picture, and have to confess that all the LCDs I have seen and whined about are of cheap Chinese/Malasian etc manufacture. Nobody I know would buy a $2500 Sony set when they can have a $700 other-brand set of the same size and similar features.

Mr RB said:

The DVD players have a "setting" where you can set 4:3 or 16:9 usually called "cropped" or widescreen" and with both settings the aspect is correct when viewed on a 4:3 CRT set, but both appear imperfect aspect viewed on a new LCD.

Click to expand...

Not in Europe they don't

I get your point on the Sony sets having a good picture, and have to confess that all the LCDs I have seen and whined about are of cheap Chinese/Malasian etc manufacture. Nobody I know would buy a $2500 Sony set when they can have a $700 other-brand set of the same size and similar features.

Click to expand...

So you buy the cheapest crappiest set you can, and then complain it's not very good?

How large a TV are you talking about here?, those prices look VERY high - and the difference between cheap crap and Sony isn't anything like that wide here either.

Well from what I've seen everybody buys the cheap crappy sets, because when you walk through the store the pictures all look the same (ie look crappy to me compared to my nice CRT), so why would you buy the expensive set?

I went to a store back couple of months and quite surprised that a 'crap' inexpensive set outperformed all Sony/Toshiba etc. We checked the picture quality by connecting the hdmi port to the satellite receiver. The branded ones looked inferior to the cheap one because it offered more elegant, bright and vivid pictures regardless of the local adjustments. There was a very noticeable difference and the storekeeper advised to buy the cheap one.

There can be an issue with lifespan and quality/durability of components used in the cheap ones, but heh their picture quality is awesome.

Mr RB said:

Well from what I've seen everybody buys the cheap crappy sets, because when you walk through the store the pictures all look the same (ie look crappy to me compared to my nice CRT), so why would you buy the expensive set?

Click to expand...

Because the expensive sets out perform the old CRT ones - I fit hundreds of Sony LCD's, and they almost always give a better picture than the top end CRT they are replacing - and massively so on aspect ratio and picture geometry (where CRT were particularly dire).

My CRT PC monitor had better resolution than my 1080p samsung monitor, colour rendition and black level was far superior than the Samsung that has replaced it. Can any LCD's do 160 Hz refresh rate and 2,304 x 1,440 for example?

I was running about 1.3 Megapixels of EXTRA screen real estate more than so called "HD" on a CRT. My new monitor was nothing but a downgrade.

High end CRTs really did perform. I know for some time high end CRT's was still the defacto for designers - not sure if it still stands not spoke to any of my designer friends for some time now.

In my point of view I don't notice any difference between a 80Hz and 160Hz refresh rate. I think LCD's doing a nice job in that regard as long as the response time is <5ms and acceptable for normal applications.

I'm all for a decent LCD if it can provide the accurate aspect ratio, preferably some square LCD models that supports 4:3 because in India, the majority of television programs are still in 4:3 and it will take another couple of years to move on to full widescreen concept.

I can compensate on the black level of LCD's as long as it gives a perfect aspect ratio , and I believe the manufactures should provide their models as per the specific location needs, for eg, in UK, the widescreen concept is much implemented and in India it's not. So it's like giving a 45 inch long trousers to a 5 yrs old child assuming that he will anyway grow up in future

Also I don't support CRT's anymore, and we shouldn't I think, I'm sure while looking back from another 25yrs or so, we will find CRT's in the same place as we give to vacuum tubes now?

It's a kind of outdated display technology that consumes much power, dangerous high voltage inside, bulk and heavy.

I believe OLED displays will be a perfect answer to the future.

transistor495 said:

I'm all for a decent LCD if it can provide the accurate aspect ratio, preferably some square LCD models that supports 4:3 because in India, the majority of television programs are still in 4:3 and it will take another couple of years to move on to full widescreen concept.

Click to expand...

LCD do provide perfect aspect ratios, do simply placing the picture in the middle of the screen, leaving black bars down the sides.

Apparently American TV's can't do this?, but I can't really understand why?.

It's unlikely that manufacturers are going to start making 4:3 LCD's again, just for a few customers in a few countries.

Nigel Goodwin said:

LCD do provide perfect aspect ratios, do simply placing the picture in the middle of the screen, leaving black bars down the sides.

Apparently American TV's can't do this?, but I can't really understand why?.

It's unlikely that manufacturers are going to start making 4:3 LCD's again, just for a few customers in a few countries.

Click to expand...

I have to say this..a good CRT kicks an LCD....everytime.

And yes Nigel I know you are a Sony service Manager and all. With flat screen etc.

Take a step back Nigel. Think back to the good times..and you will eventually admit to the fact that CRT is old, outdated...but good. And I might add...repairable

Regards,
tvtech

tvtech said:

I have to say this..a good CRT kicks an LCD....everytime.

Click to expand...

As I said above, I install hundreds of Sony LCD's, and they generally out perform the CRT they are replacing.

CRT - poor geometry, poor grey scale, poor purity, poor convergence - the list goes on

And yes Nigel I know you are a Sony service Manager and all. With flat screen etc.

Take a step back Nigel. Think back to the good times..and you will eventually admit to the fact that CRT is old, outdated...but good. And I might add...repairable

Click to expand...

I would agree with repairable