Why does sd look so


SatelliteGuys Pro
Original poster
May 20, 2006
Why does sd look so much worse on a big screen tv, all formats than it does on a crt tv.
I went to a high end video store the other day and they had a standard 32 inch tv connected to a dish rave station. Right next to it was a 42 inch hd plasma thin screen tv on the same channel. Of course the 42 looked great compared to the 32 sd.
I then asked the salesman to switch to cnn on both tvs so they would have sd on each channel and same signal.
The 32 inch looked super on cnn sd and the 42 looked blury compared to the sd.
Salesman was stumped and so was I.
Anyone know the answer.
The 32" has a resolution of 480i, it was designed for sd resolution, it doesn't have to scale or deinterlace. The plasma has to do that stuff because it runs natively at a higher resolution. It could have a cheap image processor, or it was connected to the receiver through hdmi or component which means the box does the scaling and makes it look bad. I bet it was also streching the 4:3 image to 16:9 making things look fat.

I bet sd will look better if you hook it up through s-video and make sure the tv doesn't strech the image wide.
That article is too far over the top in looking for the answer. It's actually very simple.

Why does Katie Couric, Barbara Walters or Meredith Veira look better with "silk" over the camera lens - or the electronic equivilant thereof?

Because it hides the detail that would otherwise make you puke.

With HD Monitors "the silk is removed" you see the details of how bad SD really looks. The "silk still covers" the picture on the SD Monitors.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)