Worse picture on larger TV

Sandtree

ripplyuk said:

@Sandtree Yes, the text is blurry even in the tv’s setup menu. Not quite as blurry as other text but still bad. There’s a haze around it. 

I can understand what you mean about how SD content will look worse on an HD screen. And worse still on a bigger screen. What I don’t understand is how other people tolerate it and seem to genuinely prefer the biggest tv they can get, despite most channels still being in SD. The SD picture is great on my 32inch tv and I much prefer that to a blurry, fuzzy 48 inch. I can only imagine how bad it looks on a 60 inch tv.

The guy from Richer Sounds said the same thing, that the SD picture would likely be even worse on a 4K tv. Since that’s what most people are upgrading to, I guess the majority just don’t mind watching a blurry tv. I must be unusual. 

Not sure how much SD TV is really being watched, sure there are plenty of channels in SD still but the big channels (BBC1,2,4, ITV, C4, C5, Sky One etc) make up something in the region of 90% of all viewing and all are available in HD. 50% of households have at least one paid for streaming service that is in HD. 

As a freesat user almost the only channel we have (on TV or 110" projector screen) thats actually watched in SD is BBC1 and thats only because the SD one is listed before the HD one in the guide (I change it if I ever catch the wife doing it as sound quality is also worse).

But there are certainly some, my uncle has always had the biggest TV he could physically fit and sits about 8' from it... think on last visit he was on a 75". Most the content watched is HD as its from Sky but he still has a VHS and standard DVD player attached too so is at times watching those - have seen old family home movies on it and its awful looking but clearly no options on those things.

Carrot007

ripplyuk said:

@Cornucopia It was from this https://www.radiotimes.com/technology/technology-guides/what-size-tv-should-i-buy/ It also says the viewing distance should be 1.5 times the size of the tv, which seems crazy to me. 

I’ve seen other people’s tv’s with good pictures but I don’t know if they were HD or not. My bf’s tv definitely gets a much better SD picture but his is also smaller, at 42 inches. 

It all depends on the quality of the upscaler. Without an upscaler you would be seing a small image in the centre of the screen.

The more you pay the better the upscaler (usually).

However could not get me to watch SD these days (it all being a lot worse than analogue was in varying amounts, except maybe the bbc (on sky)) unless you paid me at least £2 a minute. It really should not be allowed (and most boxes are perfectly capable of downscaling HD for a better pic for odd people srtill using old things (in the old SKY+HD days I did it myself. compared a HD chanle over scart to the SD chanel over scart, HD channel was far better and scalers were bad then, even downscalers, though hey are easier).

Cornucopia

ripplyuk said:

@Cornucopia It was from this https://www.radiotimes.com/technology/technology-guides/what-size-tv-should-i-buy/ It also says the viewing distance should be 1.5 times the size of the tv, which seems crazy to me. 

Thanks - it's interesting to see it in print.

FWIW, there are a couple of howlers in the article:

- Seeing "individual pixels" on a screen if you sit too close - unlikely, they are tiny.  

- Not being able to tell the overall size based on the stated screen diagonal size.  Nope.   There is a known relationship:  a 16:9, 43" diagonal means roughly 37.5" wide by 21" high.  

ripplyuk said:

I’ve seen other people’s tv’s with good pictures but I don’t know if they were HD or not. My bf’s tv definitely gets a much better SD picture but his is also smaller, at 42 inches. 

I don't watch TV broadcasts any more, so I don't know how obvious the distinction between SD and HD would be.   I also have a 4K TV, and I think that makes quite a good attempt at upscaling.

Neil_Jones

Carrot007 said:

Neil_Jones said:

Tinker Tailor was made in 1979 and as it was mostly done on location, it would have been done on film.  Film holds a much higher resolution than videotape for boring technical reasons I won't go into here (if you're that fussed, almost certainly a video on YouTube somewhere), but that (if they were so inclined) could be full HD 1920x1080.  Except the recent Blu-Ray release is still 4:3.  It'll look better but it's still not HD.

Some HD "remasters" are just plain awful.  The Simpsons and Buffy for example.  And Friends to a certain extent.  All because people are adverse to black bars on their TV screen.

Why wopuld a  4:3 1080 film transfer just not be HD?

Sounds like you are just as bad about the black boxes than anyone else.

Anamorphic 4:3 on bluray would be pointless as the tv would lose the pixels and do a worse job of it. anamorphic worked on DVD as many crt's would stretch/shrink (I had a 4:3 that would display real 16:9 from anamorphic by reducing the line size).

Actually I removed part of the post before I submitted it for clarity.  The show in question was 4:3 because that's how it was made.  If somebody went back to the original film inserts (ie the ones edited into the final version) they could be rescanned into full HD/widescreen picture.  However the show dates from the late 1970s, there's no guarantee they still exist.  So assuming the film master (or a sub copy of it) for the final edit still exists that could be rescanned  instead (its more likely to than the rushes).

I never mentioned anything about stuff being anamorphic.  The whole point of Blu-Ray is that its a HD format, so archive programming 4:3 should be pillar-boxed, not left to the TV to do something with as happens in 4:3 SD mode (the default for a lot of TVs is 16:9 mode, which has the effect of pulling archive 4:3 programming out to fill the screen, hence the name stretchyvision).

RumRat

SD on a 4K TV does not, necessarily, look any worse than on other TV's and in many cases, much better.
This was on Freeview channel one SD (not the iPlayer), even though the picture doesn't do it justice fully, I think it illustrates the point. (55" TV)
I rarely watch linear TV these days, so, went to check if memory was serving me well...

[Deleted User]

Neil_Jones said:

half_empty said:

Most panels today are 4k, only a few budget lower end but a good shop will have the tuner up for you. I did that comparison when I got my last one but only to see HD scaled up to 4k. I just accept that SD is SD and not a lot I can do about it. If I had a magic wand I would get rid of all the SD feeds.

The DVD's I have kept, I accept they will be fuzzy but in the main I can live with that if the program is good enough. e.g. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy filmed back in way back when for PAL consumption. Maybe its something to accept?

I have seen SD program watched when there is a HD and 4k on offer, with the comment "oh yeah" and stay on the SD. 

Tinker Tailor was made in 1979 and as it was mostly done on location, it would have been done on film.  Film holds a much higher resolution than videotape for boring technical reasons I won't go into here (if you're that fussed, almost certainly a video on YouTube somewhere), but that (if they were so inclined) could be .ull HD 1920x1080.  Except the recent Blu-Ray release is still 4:3.  It'll look better but it's still not HD.

Some HD "remasters" are just plain awful.  The Simpsons and Buffy for example.  And Friends to a certain extent.  All because people are adverse to black bars on their TV screen.

The upshot is I kept the disk as unlikely to get another version and the shows are real an absolute master class in what a good program should be, I can live with the quality (don't mention the film....).

Though I now see the likes of Babylon 5 remastered but that was a wish mash of formats (special effects etc.). That actually comes across none too bad on the larger screen for my DVD but the one version I have on streaming HD is very good all things considered.

But 4:3, cannot stand a 16:9 4:3 show, simpsons was indeed one on Disney till they did it back to 4:3.

Aware of films and resolution, 2001 was shot on a format that allowed for an 8K master, NHK I believe used that 8K for its launch of its 8K channel, I bought the 4k as soon as it was released and it is an absolute corker. Liking the other remastered from old films as well, they come across well (usually). 

Interestingly "What we do in the Shadows" is on Disney in 4k, and HD on BBCiPlayer. Not compared yet.

[Deleted User]

ripplyuk said:

@Cornucopia It was from this https://www.radiotimes.com/technology/technology-guides/what-size-tv-should-i-buy/ It also says the viewing distance should be 1.5 times the size of the tv, which seems crazy to me. 

I’ve seen other people’s tv’s with good pictures but I don’t know if they were HD or not. My bf’s tv definitely gets a much better SD picture but his is also smaller, at 42 inches. 

I wouldn't get too hung up on viewing distances, use it as a guide. The ultimate judge of distance is the person watching and if they are happy that is all that matters. If you want to test this go to a store selling large screens and stand back, close etc. and see how it looks.

(yes, I am aware that there are some clever maths on eyes, viewing angles etc. at the back of many of the calcs but we live in the real world with real world living rooms and real world eyes that differ and so on)

Heedtheadvice

@ripplyuk .

Quite a few very good posts towards the latter end of this thread.

Thank you for clarifying your picture issue.

From what you have said and responses to other questions I guess that your gifted tv is duff. Inbuilt tv text (rather than programme text) should be very crisp. Problems with the blacks and lower greys, lack of brightness variability also indicate that too.

Whilst SD is not as high a resolution (amongst other qualities) as HD current transmissions should still be good to watch on a good tv. Certainly are on my LG tv.

That tv is the main thing to change.

Other things will contribute to a poorer experience. Old programmes can be poor: original video quality, often 16mm film (apart from expensive productions and high budget cinema Films that were done on 35mm or bigger - think blockbusters!), long term storage copies that used to be made (video copied onto film for cost reasons), your older DVD player and it's technology) and more......certainly anything recored as NTSC format can be poor picture quality (nicknamed Never Twice the Same Colour!).

Modern TVs can be variable too. Viewing distance (too close and becomes tiring and the eye limits more than a high res screen) and angle to screen (depends on screen type but there are limits to viewing angles before contrast starts to fall off) plus sound is not always great and is affected, with non front facing speakers, by furnishings around and corner or flat to wall positioning muffling the sound. That is often overlooked.

Recommendation.

First solution, try and get another known good tv. All other issues secondary as relatively minor, you are stuck with them or positiining/connections can help.

Hope your viewing experience improves soon.

Sandtree

half_empty said:

ripplyuk said:

@Cornucopia It was from this https://www.radiotimes.com/technology/technology-guides/what-size-tv-should-i-buy/ It also says the viewing distance should be 1.5 times the size of the tv, which seems crazy to me. 

I’ve seen other people’s tv’s with good pictures but I don’t know if they were HD or not. My bf’s tv definitely gets a much better SD picture but his is also smaller, at 42 inches. 

I wouldn't get too hung up on viewing distances, use it as a guide. The ultimate judge of distance is the person watching and if they are happy that is all that matters. If you want to test this go to a store selling large screens and stand back, close etc. and see how it looks.

(yes, I am aware that there are some clever maths on eyes, viewing angles etc. at the back of many of the calcs but we live in the real world with real world living rooms and real world eyes that differ and so on)

Personally think it also depends on what you are watching... I personally wouldnt want to watch EastEnders (at all to be honest) on our 110" projector and the same with general day to day viewing its better on our TV thats a much more average size but when watching the blockbuster movie then the big screen comes into its own.

For us that works better than having an oversize OLED screen thats too big for daily TV but not big enough for movies. Ultimately, each to their own though.

Username03725

Most of what needs saying has been said, but a couple of points.

You ask how so many people watch such crap pictures on big tvs without complaining. The answer is we don't. SD on a 55" Sony Bravia is just the right side of acceptable for channels where there is no alternative - think Bangers & Cash on Watch (I think) - quality was dire in the early shows but it was a fun programme, and as its popularity has increased so has its absolute picture quality. It's still SD, but SD on channels carried on the Sky platform range from absolutely dire to not bad at all, and if the only way to see something is to watch it as if watching through a broken screen held together by old sellotape, so be it. But for virtually anything worth watching it'll be in HD or UHD anyway now, so we don't witter about SD because in general we don't really see it except for the odd once in a blue moon event.

British TV that originates from the 70s was actually quite good quality; most of it was shot on the EMI 2001 colour camera which produced very good results given enough light and enough care in setting it up for the day. Watch old Top Of The Pops (pre-1980s) on BBC4, or clips of Bowie on OGWT. Clear, bright & sharp, but just not HD. The reason most old tv looks so abysmal is that it's been copied so many times, initially from tape to tape, then through various converters as each new generation of broadcast tv tech comes along. It's no good having a perfect copy of On The Buses on a reel of Quad videotape if the BBC / Red Bee playout servers require it in this format. So old tv looks crap because the quality has been lost over the years, and can't be reclaimed.

Mainly though it sounds like your friends gave their tv away because it was crap and they bought a new one, and you've ended up with the job of disposing of it instead of them. Your best bet is to leave it outside your house with a Post-It note on it inviting people to help themselves. It'll be gone in 20 minutes, then you can forget about it.