Worse picture on larger TV

neilmcl

ripplyuk said:

@Neil_Jones Does this mean the even more modern tv’s will be even worse? I looked up a 42 inch LG and it says the resolution is 3840x2160. Will that be worse than the 1920 x 1080? 

How come no one else is complaining about this? Most people still seem to use freeview so this terrible picture quality must be common. I can’t understand why people buy big tv’s if this is what happens. 

Because not all TVs are equal and with the right settings a lot can still show SD content perfectly well.

As mentioned, even if you have an upscaling DVD player, by connecting it via SCART will not allow the player to do this, it will rely on the TV to upscale it instead, and clearly it's not doing a great job.

One thing you should do is turn off any motion processing. Have a try with the follwing settings:

https://www.avforums.com/threads/samsung-ue48h6400-reviewers-recommended-best-settings.1915442/

getmore4less

Watch the HD version of the Freeview channels.

Fine on a 55"

BBC iPlayer streams some 4k content seriously good.

Norman_Castle

ripplyuk said:

 The DVD player is connected by scart. I think it does upscale but not completely sure. 

Look at the back of the dvd player or in the manual to see if it has a HDMI output, if it has, try it. A HDMI lead will be a very cheap upgrade.

neilmcl

Norman_Castle said:

ripplyuk said:

 The DVD player is connected by scart. I think it does upscale but not completely sure. 

Look at the back of the dvd player or in the manual to see if it has a HDMI output, if it has, try it. A HDMI lead will be a very cheap upgrade.

And if it doesn't then it's definitely not an upscaling DVD player.

Norman_Castle

I’ve fiddled about with the picture settings and looked up what’s recommended but it’s still awful looking for SD and DVD’s. I watch Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube and Disney+ as well as my DVD’s. Some things look great but a lot of stuff, especially older programmes look dreadful. 

As its a used TV reseting it to factory settings might help. Older programmes were made using older technology. Your newer tv can't change that.

ripplyuk

I’ve just checked. The DVD player doesn’t have an HDMI socket. I’ll buy a Blu-ray player if I can find one that’s multi-region. A lot of my DVD’s are American. 

I think I’d prefer to buy a smaller tv than put up with this. Fuzzy-Felt is a good way of describing it. I honestly don’t understand how other people can tolerate this. At least I didn’t have to pay for this tv. I’d be seriously upset if I’d spent hundreds and ended up with such an unwatchable picture. 

Is a 43” likely to be worse than my 32” but better than this 48”? 

neilmcl

ripplyuk said:

I’ve just checked. The DVD player doesn’t have an HDMI socket. I’ll buy a Blu-ray player if I can find one that’s multi-region. A lot of my DVD’s are American. 

I think I’d prefer to buy a smaller tv than put up with this. Fuzzy-Felt is a good way of describing it. I honestly don’t understand how other people can tolerate this. At least I didn’t have to pay for this tv. I’d be seriously upset if I’d spent hundreds and ended up with such an unwatchable picture. 

Is a 43” likely to be worse than my 32” but better than this 48”? 

By all accounts the 6400 was very good TV in it's day and if your read the reviews it was also quite adequate at displaying SD content. As I said, try those settings I posted earlier and see how you get on, as well as doing as @Norman_Castle suggested and do a factory reset beforehand.

getmore4less

US dvd probably won't be helping if based on NTSC standards.

[Deleted User]

ripplyuk said:

I’ve just checked. The DVD player doesn’t have an HDMI socket. I’ll buy a Blu-ray player if I can find one that’s multi-region. A lot of my DVD’s are American. 

I think I’d prefer to buy a smaller tv than put up with this. Fuzzy-Felt is a good way of describing it. I honestly don’t understand how other people can tolerate this. At least I didn’t have to pay for this tv. I’d be seriously upset if I’d spent hundreds and ended up with such an unwatchable picture. 

Is a 43” likely to be worse than my 32” but better than this 48”? 

Apologies, I muddied the waters and I assumed it was a 4k tv. 1080 is still very good, you should get a better SD upscale to a 1080 than a 4k meaning your SD picture will look better on your screen than mine.

Others are worth listening to with regards interconnects and settings.

Heedtheadvice

Neil_Jones said:

Because most people really do not care.  Long as they can "see" Corrie, EastEnders or whatever else that's all they're interested in.  The concept and point/resolution of huge screens is lost on a lot of people and of course its cheaper for broadccasters to show stuff in mushyvision than it is in semi-decent quality.

Hmm, first part of that is quite true just show it on the biggest screen possible so it must be good.....not.

However I take issue with the comment about mushtvision being cheaper for broadcasters. Having worked at the sharp I know that the largest cost is in generating the programmes and equipment/running cost is generally a significant part of that. Commanality between low budget and high budget offerings often using the same equipment. Some of the cheaper producers do not use the best of equipment but the broadcasts on freeview and satellite cope with them all bar the 4k offerings without that part being cheaper. Limitations are often available bandwidth of transmissions whilst keeping to common standards suitable for all. As an example freeview lite does not compromise on quality but does on programme quantity.

Neil has written "Because not all TVs are equal and with the right settings a lot can still show SD content perfectly well." amd that is very true. I have a very good 48" TV and the difference between HD and SD in terms of sharpness/definition is minor.

Now the OP has not described what is meant by "worse picture". Yes some TVs are not as good as others but subjective picture quality depends upon several factors such as ambient lighting, contrast, luminance and colour gradation/rendition, viewing angle/capability etc. and of course viewing distance. 9 foot is really as close as you should be and a bit further away preferably for best experience. Contrast and gamma (contrast ratio curve) has a big affect on percieved sharpness in particular.

Quite true that older analogue pictures of the 70s, 80s  etc and even some more recently are not up to modern standards of quality but recent (last 10 years and more) from mainstream broadcasters are often of excellent picture quality. Stunning at times.

Pity the same can not often be said about the sound which can be very variable.

....so, OP whar exactly is worse about your picture? Could well be perceived sharpness.....or something else!