# LCD TVs & terrestrial Reception



## racso (13 Feb 2006)

Hi planning on buying an LCD TV but while looking at different models i found that some models have difficulties picking up terrestrial reception. As that is all i get i was wondering if anybody out there had this difficulty. Thanks


----------



## RainyDay (14 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*

Just tuned in my new LCD tonight - we have NTL terrestrial. All signals are fine, though BBC2 seems to be less crisp than others. My only problem is that material not shot in widescreen (e.g. Q&A on RTE1) looks funny when stretched to fit widescreen, even when using the 'smart' stretching option.


----------



## racso (14 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*

maybe i post the question wrong but we have not ntl/chorus/sky and currnetly get all 4 irish stations through the aerial on back of t.v. but was wondering if this would be possible with an LCD. We will eventually get in some package but if LCD wont pick up the channels then may wait till we get the package


----------



## Leo (14 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*

Any box sold as a TV will have an integral tuner to tune signals from the arial. Where were you looking at LCDs that had "difficulties picking up terrestrial reception"? Note that the bigger the screen, the more important the qulity of the feed signal. Don't think a large screen will ever look good with a feed from an arial.
Leo


----------



## racso (14 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*

Had been looking at that website for the shop in northern ireland i think it's empire direct but had also looked on ebay and this is where i saw the notice re: terrestrial reception and checked to make sure it was not just a monitor for sale. I am only looking for a 15-16 inch screen as it's for a bedroom.


----------



## Grumpy (14 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*

Have a Dell 26" LCD TV.
Use an indoor aerial for RTE stations and its difficult to get a good picture
However, taking signal from a VCR produces a very good picture.
Hope this helps.


----------



## lemeister (14 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*



			
				Grumpy said:
			
		

> Have a Dell 26" LCD TV.
> Use an indoor aerial for RTE stations and its difficult to get a good picture
> However, taking signal from a VCR produces a very good picture.
> Hope this helps.


I also have the Dell 26" LCD and I use it with a Sky box.  Whilst most channels come through very clearly, some channels are poor and I believe this to be the quality of the recording/broadcast as opposed to the LCD itself.  Just so as to not automatically expect a crystal clear picture even when you believe you have a good picture source


----------



## dam099 (14 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*



			
				Grumpy said:
			
		

> Have a Dell 26" LCD TV.
> Use an indoor aerial for RTE stations and its difficult to get a good picture
> However, taking signal from a VCR produces a very good picture.
> Hope this helps.


 
The VCR may have some built in amplification, buying an amplifier might achieve the same result.


----------



## Leo (14 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*



			
				lemeister said:
			
		

> I also have the Dell 26" LCD and I use it with a Sky box. Whilst most channels come through very clearly, some channels are poor and I believe this to be the quality of the recording/broadcast as opposed to the LCD itself. Just so as to not automatically expect a crystal clear picture even when you believe you have a good picture source


 
Most are pretty good on my 42" , some of the lower bandwith channels are slightly grainy, but I wouldn't describe any of them as poor. That'd be down more to the panel quality.
Leo


----------



## extopia (14 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*



			
				RainyDay said:
			
		

> My only problem is that material not shot in widescreen (e.g. Q&A on RTE1) looks funny when stretched to fit widescreen, even when using the 'smart' stretching option.



Well, that's not the TV's fault, as non-wide material cannot be displayed in widescreen without either being pillarboxed (centred on screen with black bars at the sides), severely stretched (i.e. "wide" mode), somewhat stretched (e.g. "smart" mode, which usually tries to keep the centre of the pic unstretched but stretches the sides of the picture more, to compensate), or cropped at top and bottom and zoomed in, with obvious loss of resolution ("zoom" mode).


----------



## RainyDay (14 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*



			
				extopia said:
			
		

> Well, that's not the TV's fault, as non-wide material cannot be displayed in widescreen without either being pillarboxed (centred on screen with black bars at the sides), severely stretched (i.e. "wide" mode), somewhat stretched (e.g. "smart" mode, which usually tries to keep the centre of the pic unstretched but stretches the sides of the picture more, to compensate), or cropped at top and bottom and zoomed in, with obvious loss of resolution ("zoom" mode).


Agreed - I wasn't blaming the TV - I've argued for years against going widescreen as the majority of material isn't shot in widescreen. But I've finally been swept along with the tide, and I've seen lots of US-originated material seems to be native widescreen. But it still seems that lots of original RTE material is the old 4:3 format.


----------



## extopia (15 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*



			
				RainyDay said:
			
		

> But it still seems that lots of original RTE material is the old 4:3 format.



Most of RTE's primetime material at least is now widescreen, except news for some reason (probably due to the high cost of replacing older ENG equipment). All material commissioned by RTE must be produced in widescreen, and it's been that way for a couple of years now. Commercials are also supposed to be wide, although you still see the odd 4:3 ad (hard to refuse the cash I suppose).

You say you have NTL terrestrial - do you have analogue or digital? RTE went "wide" on NTL digital sometime last year.


----------



## RainyDay (15 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*

Q&A certainly looked like a native 4:3 material to my inexpert eye. I'm cynical when I hear that they went 'wide' on NTL digital - surely it has little to do with the transmission medium and all to do with the original format for shooting. So regardless of whether you are on digital or analogue, the key issue is what format was used to shoot the material.


----------



## extopia (16 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*

Most material is shot in 16:9 these days, as I've said. I presume the reason for going wide on digital is that viewers can switch the digibox to 4:3 if they don't have a widescreen set. You can't do the same on analogue obviously, and RTE don't want to alienate the many people who don't have widescreen sets. Not yet anyway. That's why RTE's analogue transmission is actually 14:9 (half the difference between 4:3 and 16:9) most of the time. They are just converting the same "native" 16:9 transmission that NTL relays to 14:9 for their analogue transmission.


----------



## ribena (17 Feb 2006)

Hi Rasco. I have a 23" LCD in my kitchen which looks fab when watching Chorus Digital but the ordinary aerial reception isn't great at all, I definitely had a better aerial reception with my old 21" TV.


----------



## RainyDay (17 Feb 2006)

*Re: LCD TV'S & Terrestrial Reception*



			
				extopia said:
			
		

> Most material is shot in 16:9 these days, as I've said.


I've been hearing this for years, but I've never seen any definitive evidence - My own personal experience indicates lots of 4:3 stuff still coming through.


----------



## extopia (17 Feb 2006)

What kind of evidence do you need?  All RTE drama and commissioned programmes are shot and broadcast in true anamorphic widescreen. It's a fact. Unfortunately you need NTL digital or Sky Digital to see this at the moment. BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are pretty much 100% widescreen too.


----------



## RainyDay (18 Feb 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> What kind of evidence do you need?  All RTE drama and commissioned programmes are shot and broadcast in true anamorphic widescreen. It's a fact. Unfortunately you need NTL digital or Sky Digital to see this at the moment. BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are pretty much 100% widescreen too.



In terms of evidence, wouldn't it be nice to see some TV listings with a little 'W' to indicate what has actually been shot & widescreen? So for RTE, if the drama & commissioned shows are in widescreen, that just leaves the news, the current affairs and the imported shows at not being widescreen, which is a fair percentage of their output.

My experience with BBC, ITV  & C4 must be different to yours. A quick flick through the channels now shows;

BBC1 - Sliding Doors (movie) - widescreen
BBC2 - Classic Albums (music documentary) - 4:3
UTV -  Some other music show - 4:3
C4 - Pacific Heights - Great movie - 4:3 pan/scanned version of original movie

The emperor has no clothes.


----------



## extopia (18 Feb 2006)

[Maybe this would be better as a new or split thread? There's a lot of misunderstanding out there about widescreen.]

I thought you said you have analogue cable only? If so you are not getting true widescreen -- and your experience will certainly be different to mine, as I have NTL digital. Analogue NTL is 4:3. Or did I misunderstand you?

There is no point in reformatting older 4:3 material for widescreen as the resolution loss would be unacceptable, so there is always going to be a problem with older materials such as the Classic Albums (I was watching - Nirvana's Nevermind, good show!) programme. We will get used to this eventually. We cannot expect old shows to be broadcast in widescreen as this would mean zooming in and cutting off the top and bottom of the picture.

It's nevertheless a fact that almost all new British and Irish prime timeprogramming is produced and now broadcast in widescreen, with the exception of RTE news and some current affairs (Primetime IS widescreen).

Re imported programming, pretty much all American and British drama/documentary is widescreen. But if you're watching on analogue cable you're not seeing the whole picture. European shows (e.g. Winter Olympics, Spanish football are still 4:3 in the main, AFAIK) And yes, you often see panscanned versions of older movies, which is a pity, probably because these movies predate the DVD era (DVD players being the first domestic appliances capable of decoding anamorphic material for 4:3 sets) and have not yet been re-scanned from the original print.

I agree with your point about the TV listings, that would be useful information.

Here are some links to the subject:

[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/widescreen/

What's your setup exactly, Rainyday? Maybe we're at cross purposes here!


----------



## RainyDay (18 Feb 2006)

Hi Extopia - I have NTL analogue and both a widescreen and a 4:3 TV. But I'm not sure what you mean when you say I'm not getting true widescreen. If I flick through the channels now, I find movies such as Unforgiven (RTE 2), Final Destination (C4) and The Bone Collector (BBC1) are being transmitted in true widescreen and come out perfectly on my widescreen TV (and on my 4:3 TV when switched to widescreen mode). Tubridy on RTE1 and Rosemary & Thyme drama on UTV (both current material) are in 4:3 mode.

Unless I'm missing something....?


----------



## extopia (18 Feb 2006)

How do you describe true widescreen? Do you mean letterboxed, i.e. black bars on top and bottom?

Here's how to tell if you are getting real widescreen. Put your widescreen TV in 4:3 mode. If the picture looks distorted (skinny) you're watching an anamorphic widescreen source. If it looks correct, it's a 4:3 source (which may or may not be letterboxed, i.e. black bars above and below the picture that give the impression that the picture is "wider.")

You're probably thinking that a letterboxed movie is true widescreen. It just means that the wide source has been reformatted to fit a narrower format. Note that you still get letterboxing on most movies however as the standard movie format is 2.35:1 which is wider than the TV widescreen format (16:9) -- just to add to the confusion.

Compare what you're seeing on your TV with a DVD when you force 4:3 on your TV.


----------



## RainyDay (19 Feb 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> Here's how to tell if you are getting real widescreen. Put your widescreen TV in 4:3 mode. If the picture looks distorted (skinny) you're watching an anamorphic widescreen source. If it looks correct, it's a 4:3 source.


Yep - that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm switching between wide & 4:3 format and looking for the fat heads or the skinny faces. Mind you, it took several attempts with Tubridy to work out which skinny face was the right one.



			
				extopia said:
			
		

> You're probably thinking that a letterboxed movie is true widescreen. It just means that the wide source has been reformatted to fit a narrower format. Note that you still get letterboxing on most movies however as the standard movie format is 2.35:1 which is wider than the TV widescreen format (16:9) -- just to add to the confusion.



Nope - of the 3 movies mentioned above, one was letterboxed and two were not, but all were widescreen.


----------



## extopia (19 Feb 2006)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> ...of the 3 movies mentioned above, one was letterboxed and two were not, but all were widescreen.



Can't be true, I'm afraid, if your cable is NTL analogue.

A true widescreen broadcast is anamorphic (tall and skinny when viewed in 4:3 -- the TV does the unstretching).

NTL analogue is not anamorphic. NTL digital is. Don't know how you could be getting anamorphic ("true") widescreen with your setup, it's just not possible at this time.


----------



## RainyDay (19 Feb 2006)

Wish you could come down here and see what I'm seeing.

For example, the titles at the start/end of ER on RTE1 get cropped on my 4:3 pc, so I lose letters on the right or left of the screen. But on my widescreen TV, I get the full titles with no lost letters. DOesn't this mean that I'm getting full widescreen?


----------



## extopia (19 Feb 2006)

>Wish you could come down here and see what I'm seeing.

Well I can - all digital viewers can receive the analogue signal as well....

Well I know you are not getting full widescreen because you are on NTL analogue only - sorry to labour the point. 

TVs vary widely in the amount of over/underscanning present. One TV will crop more than another. That explains the credit cropping issue you mention, it's not a good test. Here's a definite test, as you are watching ER, which is a widescreen programme (or during any RTE commmercial break, anytime of day or night, as all commercial breaks are anamorphic):

Put your widescreen TV in 4:3 mode. Do you see any black bars at the top and bottom of the screen? If so, you are watching a 4:3 broadcast, letterboxed to 14:9. If you are watching anamorphic widescreen, there will be no black bars and everything will look skinny (Note: if you have gotten used to watching a "stretched" picture a la smart mode or wide mode everything will look skinny anyway. But unstretched anamorphic is a very pronounced "skininess.")

Did you look at those links I posted above? Here's more info from aertel. page 192:

_-----------------------------------------
RTÉ MOVES TO WIDESCREEN FORMAT         
 ---------------------------------------
 Introduction of Widescreen             

 Widescreen TV cannot be universal      
 overnight. Many programmes, especially 
 archive material, will still be in the 
 traditional 4:3 format, whilst others  
 will be in the new 16:9 format.        

 Because RTÉ transmits on analogue      
 platforms via the RTENL transmitter    
 network and on digital platforms via   
 Sky Digital and NTL Digital it is      
 necessary to transmit widescreen       
 programmes in 16:9 to the digital      
 platforms and in compromise 14:9 format
 to analogue viewers._


----------



## RainyDay (21 Feb 2006)

Nope - I still don't buy it. There is no way that the cropping that I'm seeing at either side of the screen is down to under/over scanning. It is specific to a few US dramas (ER, Nip/Tuck), so it is definitely related to widescreen. NTL's customer service team have responded to my email query as follows "I can advise that Analogue customers where the programme is broadcasted in widescreen will be received in widescreen."

Where are you getting your information re. NTL analogue from?


----------



## extopia (21 Feb 2006)

Rainyday, perhaps you could split this to a new, retitled thread to encourage others can chime in?

As an NTL digital subscriber, I get both the digital and analogue signals. They're carried over the same cable and it is typical to split the signal into the digibox and into the TV, so the TV tuner picks up the analogue signal and you watch the output of the digibox through an AV input. So it's easy for me, for example to compare NTL's RTE analogue signal (letterboxed 14:9) with the RTE digital broadcast (anamorphic 16:9).  I also know several other NTL digital subscribers.

The US dramas you mention are all broadcast on NTL digital in true anamorphic widescreen. No credit cropping results here, unlesss the TV and/or digibox is set up incorrectly, or is faulty. In the analogue world, however, a widescreen TV set to zoom or smart mode (depending on the make and model) could well crop the credits.

You mentioned Turbridy Tonight earlier as being in 4:3 in your house. Like the vast majority of RTE prime time programmes (with the exception of News), Tubridy Tonight is broadcast on NTL digital in anamorphic widescreen.

That's an interesting response from NTL. It implies that analogue customers receive widescreen broadcasts. However, NTL does not broadcast any anamorphic signals on analogue. They broadcast letterboxed widescreen, which is not true widescreen as it does not take advantage of your TV's full resolution, and as it is 14:9 it crops the picture. So what they told you is misleading - because there _are_ no analogue widescreen broadcasts, only letterboxed ones. (I am sure you would agree with me that NTL's customer service is poor at best).

The reason, by the way, why broadcasters do not broadcast anamorphic widescreen over analogue is that it would alienate viewers with 4:3 sets that do not have a 16:9 setting. Anamorphic 16:9 has the same resolution as 4:3 (720x576 pixels) because it was designed to be compatible with the existing broadcasting system. The difference is in the aspect ratio of the individual pixels. If a TV is incapable of reading the electronic "flag" that says the broadcast is anamorphic (e.g. older 4:3 sets) it thinks it's a 4:3 broadcast and displays it the only way it can - tall and skinny, i.e. as if the pixels were regular 4:3 pixels.

Anyway, probably more info than you need. Did you do the simple "forced 4:3 mode" test I suggested? What was the result?


----------



## RainyDay (22 Feb 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> I am getting my info re NTL digital/widescreen from my own experience as an NTL digital customer with a widescreen TV. I also know several other NTL digital subscribers.



I'm not being smart, but I'm not asking you about digital. I'm asking about analogue. Where are you getting your info re. NTL analogue?



			
				extopia said:
			
		

> The US dramas you mention are all broadcast on NTL digital in true anamorphic widescreen. No credit cropping results here, unlesss the TV and/or digibox is set up incorrectly, or is faulty. In the analogue world, however, a widescreen TV set to zoom or smart mode (depending on the make and model) could well crop the credits.



The cropping isn't on the widescreen, it's on the 4:3 TV. It comes through perfectly on the widescreen, which is partly why I'm concluding that the broadcast is in widescreen.



			
				extopia said:
			
		

> You mentioned Turbridy Tonight earlier as being in 4:3 in your house. Like the vast majority of RTE prime time programmes (with the exception of News), Tubridy Tonight is broadcast on NTL digital in anamorphic widescreen.



Just to be clear, it is not just a question about how it is broadcast, it is about how it is originally shot/recorded. Obviously, I don't have Tubridy in front of me at the moment, but I'd swear at the time that it looked natural in 4:3 and stretched in widescreen. But maybe it is because he is such a skinny git.



			
				extopia said:
			
		

> That's an interesting response from NTL. It implies that analogue customers receive widescreen broadcasts. However, NTL does not broadcast any anamorphic signals on analogue. They broadcast letterboxed widescreen, which is not true widescreen as it does not take advantage of your TV's full resolution, and as it is 14:9 it crops the picture.



Let me try & clarify this with NTL and see what they say. Again, it would help if you could clarify the source of your knowledge/info re. NTL analogue.



			
				extopia said:
			
		

> Did you do the simple "forced 4:3 mode" test I suggested? What was the result?



I tried it tonight with Other Voices on RTE2. No difference in the position of top border when in widescreen model and in 4:3 mode. Difficult to judge the 'skinniness' issue either way. I'll try this a few more times particularly with the shows which I believe are broadcast in widescreen.


----------



## extopia (23 Feb 2006)

This post crossed while I was editing the previous one, see clarification re NTL analogue and my source of info above...

re the cropping of credits, yes, I understood that you were referring to your 4:3 TV. If it is cropping credits and your other set is not, it is indeed most likely to be an overscan problem. Both sets are receiving the same signal. There is no extra information in the analogue signal that your widescreen TV can "see" but your 4:3 cannot.

Yes, yes, yes, Tubridy, the Late Late and the vast majority of RTE (and BBC/ITV) programming is now shot and recorded in widescreen. It is broadcast in true widescreen only on NTL digital, Sky Digital and possibly other digital services. NTL analogue relays the RTE analogue signal, which is letterboxed 14:9. That's why the signal looks stretched when you put the TV in widescreen mode and normal when in 4:3 mode. 



> No difference in the position of top border when in widescreen model and in 4:3 mode



If you were watching the true widescreen broadcast you would not see any "border" (letterbox) at all. And yes, Other Voices is shot, recorded and broadcast in widescreen.

Hope this helps.


----------



## MonsieurBond (24 Feb 2006)

Extopia, what you are saying makes perfect sense to me. 

RainyDay, there is an interesting article here on the whole widescreen versus 4:3, including a discussion on anamorphic widescreen.

I must say however that I have noticed the same effect that RainyDay has encountered on my 17" LCD widescreen in my bedroom, which is connected to NTL Analogue. (I have NTL Digital downstairs on my 32" LCD widescreen and do not notice the same thing.)

No matter whether I set the NTL screen size option to 4:3 or Widescreen, I still see some cropping on the left and right hand side of the screen. Changing the TV zoom options (e.g. to 4:3 or 14:9) doesn't seem to entirely solve the problem. I therefore assume it is either a problem with the broadcast or in some way with the widescreen flagging on the broadcast.

I confess that it doesn't bother me that much as I don't often use this TV. I will play with the settings over the weekend and see if I can figure anything out.


----------



## extopia (24 Feb 2006)

MonsieurBond said:
			
		

> I must say however that I have noticed the same effect that RainyDay has encountered on my 17" LCD widescreen in my bedroom, which is connected to NTL Analogue.



Do you mean the cropping? I suppose it's normal then. These programmes originate in 16:9 widescreen. When they are 14:9 letterboxed at the television   station (nothing to do with the 14:9 setting on your TV), obviously  one eighth of the picture is thrown away. That normally would not be enough to crop credits, which are generally placed well away from the edges of the picture to prevent "overscan" cropping... but if you have your TV in "zoom" you would crop even more off the edges, so that might cause this. Rainyday sees it on a 4:3 set though (no zoom mode), so maybe that's not it... Bit of a mystery! Never watch the analogue signal these days so haven't noticed this myself. Could well be a problem at the transmission end -- this would happen for sure, for instance, to a 16:9 programme transmitted in pan-scan mode, i.e. fully a quarter of the image cropped into a full-height, unletterboxed 4:3 image.... Who knows?

Excellent link, by the way. Explains it far better than I can!


----------



## MonsieurBond (24 Feb 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> Do you mean the cropping? I suppose it's normal then. These programmes originate in 16:9 widescreen. When they are 14:9 letterboxed at the television   station (nothing to do with the 14:9 setting on your TV), obviously  one eighth of the picture is thrown away. That normally would not be enough to crop credits, which are generally placed well away from the edges of the picture to prevent "overscan" cropping... but if you have your TV in "zoom" you would crop even more off the edges, so that might cause this. Rainyday sees it on a 4:3 set though (no zoom mode), so maybe that's not it... Bit of a mystery! Never watch the analogue signal these days so haven't noticed this myself. Could well be a problem at the transmission end -- this would happen for sure, for instance, to a 16:9 programme transmitted in pan-scan mode, i.e. fully a quarter of the image cropped into a full-height, unletterboxed 4:3 image.... Who knows?
> 
> Excellent link, by the way. Explains it far better than I can!



Yes, I mean the cropping at the right and left hand side edges - "he O.C." instead of "The O.C." etc.

Haven't owned a 4:3 TV in about 10 years - so much so, that I find the "normal" display size looks very strange when I see an "old style" TV in someone's house - so I can't comment on NTL Analogue on 4:3 TVs.


----------



## extopia (24 Feb 2006)

If you put your widescreen TV is in 4:3 mode you see the pic as it would be seen on a 4:3 TV. In other words you see the entire analogue signal. If there's cropping there, it's the way it's being broadcast.

At RTE, the native anamorphic broadcast is fed through an aspect ratio converter before being sent out on analogue, This reformats the picture to the letterboxed 14:9 mode that analogue viewers see. Sometimes the guys in the control room forget to hit the switch (or hit the wrong switch) so that could explain this problem too.


----------



## MonsieurBond (26 Feb 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> If you put your widescreen TV is in 4:3 mode you see the pic as it would be seen on a 4:3 TV. In other words you see the entire analogue signal. If there's cropping there, it's the way it's being broadcast.
> 
> At RTE, the native anamorphic broadcast is fed through an aspect ratio converter before being sent out on analogue, This reformats the picture to the letterboxed 14:9 mode that analogue viewers see. Sometimes the guys in the control room forget to hit the switch (or hit the wrong switch) so that could explain this problem too.



RTE is broadcasting ads to show that they are broadcasting in Widescreen and covering the aspect ratios. The page  [broken link removed] gives more ino.


----------



## RainyDay (28 Feb 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> At RTE, the native anamorphic broadcast is fed through an aspect ratio converter before being sent out on analogue, This reformats the picture to the letterboxed 14:9 mode that analogue viewers see. Sometimes the guys in the control room forget to hit the switch (or hit the wrong switch) so that could explain this problem too.


Surely it makes very little difference whether RTE convert the signal or my TV converts the signal. The real issue is what was the original material shot in. If it was shot in widescreen, then it will come through in widescreen (14:9 or 16:9) - If it was shot in 4:3, then it will come through in 4:3.


----------



## extopia (1 Mar 2006)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Surely it makes very little difference whether RTE convert the signal or my TV converts the signal. The real issue is what was the original material shot in. If it was shot in widescreen, then it will come through in widescreen (14:9 or 16:9) - If it was shot in 4:3, then it will come through in 4:3.



No. If it was shot in widescreen, it can only be received in widescreen if it is TRANSMITTED in widescreen. That's my whole point - the RTE signal is only transmitted in anamorphic widescreen through NTL digital and Sky Digital. The analogue signal is not widescreen. These digital services actually get a DIFFERENT feed from RTE than what is sent out over the analogue network. The analogue feed is cropped slightly.

Thats' why if you put your TV in "wide mode" (which is designed for anamorphic material such as DVDs and digital widescreen broadcasts) it will distort the analogue signal. That's why everyone probably looks fat on your TV. In my experience the majority of people set up their widescreen TVs incorrectly. 

If everyone had a widescreen TV, then RTE would probably change their analogue transmission to anamorphic widescreen. We're not there yet.  

Take a look at the link Monsieur Bond posted. It explains the concept of anamorphic widescreen, essential for understanding what's going on here.


----------



## extopia (29 Jun 2006)

So, Rainy, did you upgrade to digital yet to get widescreen? The world cup is always a good excuse!


----------



## pnh (29 Jun 2006)

Sorry to bring this back to the original post-I dont know much about widescreen etc,except that having watched most of the World Cup on RTE anaolgue I have noticed Black bars top and bottom and wondered why.
But I am looking at buying a 37" LCD and have scoured the web-including AV forums -but am now more confused then ever.I watch a lot of football  and  hear conflicting comments  about motion lag  and smearing.Just interested  to hear  what your comments are -is this really an issue using an NTL analogue and/or digital signal?


----------



## extopia (29 Jun 2006)

Yeah - those black bars mean you're not watching a widescreen broadcast.

I would not buy an LCD TV, period. Samsung/Toshiba will have new sets on the market soon using new SED technology. The clarity of CRT in a slim case. Worth waiting for, and the advance reports are very positive.


----------



## pnh (7 Jul 2006)

Just to add to this -I needed a new TV and after much deliberation went for 
32" LCD-reception in the shop off a Sky digital signal looked fine .I did fear 
ordinary NTL analogue would be poor but I am very happy with the results-its
at least as good as my old CRT-except on a couple of channels which I dont watch much anyway.
The bottom line therefore on LCDs is if your signal is good the picture will be fine.I am now convinced that most of the problems associated with LCD are due to the source and not the TV.
From a happy LCD owner.


----------



## dam099 (7 Jul 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> I would not buy an LCD TV, period. Samsung/Toshiba will have new sets on the market soon using new SED technology. The clarity of CRT in a slim case. Worth waiting for, and the advance reports are very positive.


 
Toshiba will apparently not now have sets until and even then they will probably carry a price premium for a few years while production scales up. To be honest when buying electronics something better will always be available in a few years, I would not be holding off just waiting for SED (impressive as it sounds).


----------



## extopia (10 Jul 2006)

You may be happy enough - but the fact is that LCD is an inferior technology to CRT for displaying video pictures, as far as motion, sharpness, color and contrast are concerned. They look good though, no doubt about that.


----------



## extopia (10 Jul 2006)

dam099 said:
			
		

> I would not be holding off just waiting for SED (impressive as it sounds).



I wouldn't hold off either, unless there was a problem getting a new CRT TV, which there isn't! The popularity of LCDs mean that CRTs are pretty cheap.


----------



## pnh (10 Jul 2006)

extopia said:
			
		

> You may be happy enough - but the fact is that LCD is an inferior technology to CRT for displaying video pictures, as far as motion, sharpness, color and contrast are concerned. They look good though, no doubt about that.



I have had a 32" LCD now for a week-and while the above comments may have been true of older generation sets it is not true of the current crop-and certainly not the one I bought.I am very pleasantly surprised with it and the picture is -to my eyes-at laest as good as my older CRT.
I dont know what u base your comments on.As an owner I now believe much of the adverse views are from people who do not have a good source and consequently blame the set.
If u had a good picture on CRT -you will also on LCD.


----------



## Leo (11 Jul 2006)

I believe Extopia's comments are based on the technical constraints of LCD technology. While the TV picture may look good, LCD image quality currently falls short of CRTs in terms of refresh rate, response times, contrast, etc., all the impartial measures of picture quality.

Oh, and I have a 42" plasma, my parents a 26" LCD, and while I'm happy with the picture quality of both, I honestly can't say it's the same or better than a half decent CRT. Not far off to my untrained eye, but still not there.


----------



## pnh (11 Jul 2006)

Yes I take your points but I have to say-from what is now first hand experience that they have this LCD technology at a stage where it is now acceptable-and much of the stuff I have heard and read  about motion lag-response times-contrast ratio etc.etc. is no longer a major problem.
Not enough emphasis is given to quality of signal and the source is very important.
Fo instance on ordinary NTL analogue I get a great a picture on RTE and BBC1-but BBC2 is not good-but-the same applied to my CRT .
I will concede however that some of the digital channels could be better but again my understanding is that compression and bandwidth are issues on some of these channel-so LCD is less forgiving-but overall I am very happy with it.


----------



## Leo (11 Jul 2006)

I agree, in fact I think it's more than acceptable. Many of the channels on Sky use a lower bit rate, so the quality isn't as good, but I still think it's better than UHF/VHF signals.

Also, an important consideration is the quality of the cables you're using. I was sceptical of this until I saw the difference it made to my own set up.


----------



## pnh (12 Jul 2006)

Yes connections are something I may get around to-using cheap Scarts at present although I have a DVD connected with Component cables-or is that Composite-a red white and yellow?
Scart connections can be irritating to connect if you are fumbling around the back of equipment


----------



## Leo (12 Jul 2006)

That sounds like composite. Component sockets are usually coloured red, green and blue, and labelled Y, Pr, & Pb, and you need a further audio connection (red and white or a stereo jack). Component is better quality if your DVD and TV support it. S-Video is better than composite, and component is better again.

Look on EBay for interconnects, I got IXOS scarts for around €35 including shipping, Peats have these for €66 in store.
Leo


----------



## pnh (12 Jul 2006)

I am actually a little confused by Component cable/connections-presumably 
to use them you need Component Out from your equipment -cable box /video.
If you dont have these-which I dont can you get a Scart adaptor-I seem to remember seeing something like that some time ago-or would this defeat the purpose?Dont know if I am making myself clear there


----------



## Leo (12 Jul 2006)

No, you can't go from scart to component, though you can go from scart to composite. Component in/outputs are generally only found on higer end equipment.


----------



## pnh (12 Jul 2006)

Yeh I actually have a Scart to  Composite adaptor which came with a DVD player-took me a while to work out what it was for -no mention of it in manual.
I was raeding earlier a review of a new digital version of a HD recorder I have and I see that has Component out-so I guess I'm future proofed Maybe...


----------



## MonsieurBond (12 Jul 2006)

pnh said:
			
		

> Yes I take your points but I have to say-from what is now first hand experience that they have this LCD technology at a stage where it is now acceptable-and much of the stuff I have heard and read  about motion lag-response times-contrast ratio etc.etc. is no longer a major problem.
> Not enough emphasis is given to quality of signal and the source is very important.
> Fo instance on ordinary NTL analogue I get a great a picture on RTE and BBC1-but BBC2 is not good-but-the same applied to my CRT .
> I will concede however that some of the digital channels could be better but again my understanding is that compression and bandwidth are issues on some of these channel-so LCD is less forgiving-but overall I am very happy with it.


I have to agree - each succeeding generation of LCD comes with shorter and shorter refresh rate -  a number of manufacturers now have LCDs with refresh rates of 8mm, which compare favourably to 100Hz CRT TVs. (See [broken link removed] for a chart of LCD millisecond refresh compared to a CRTs refresh rate in Hertz.)

LCDs with resolutions of 1280 x 768 and above are optimised for High Definition displays of 720 progressive lines or 1080 interlaced lines. They typically upscale Standard Definition to fill in the extra pixels. This usually works quite well with good quality sources such as NTL Digital (on the high bandwidth channels anyway) and DVD. They don't work so well on lower bandwidth signals and in fact show up just how poor the quality is - I was watching a repeat of Only Fools and Horses on UKTV Gold this evening and it looked appalling on my 32" LCD. 

While there is a compromise with LCDs over high end CRTs, I think it is generally accepted that recent generations of LCD compare favourably on a price performance ratio, bearing in mind the convenience of the flat panel.

(Having said that, it is certainly true that CRTs are cheaper, so if money is the limiting factor, some good deals can be had on CRT technology, if you can find a premium brand making them!)


----------



## pnh (12 Jul 2006)

Yes I'll go along with that-but the thing that does surprise me is how well they handle SD.I have NTL analogue and digital and the main channels such as RTE,BBc;ITV etc are to my eye as good as any CRT.
Hopefully my "friends" in NTL will maintain the signal-we have had "exchanges"
in the past
I notice they are laying new cable in my area -I wonder what that will bring?


----------

