Panasonic 32-inch 1080 TV: Disappointing Picture

As long as I've seen till now, the same inputs when compared to CRT will give a worse definition because you're not improving your resolution, but displaying the same resolution in a larger screen, so... the TV itself will not improve resolution or image quality. Sorry to say that, maybe someone will give you any idea, but I've seen in the shops a really improvement in quality only by LED TVs. LCDs never catch my attention, and add some noticeable colour noise in plain images, specially those generated by computer graphics animation. Plasma even worst - there are a lot of them still for sell here, with prices going really down with the LCDs without digital receiver. I think I'll wait until the next soccer mundial (when there's a lot of sales on TVs...) and replace mine for a LED one.

Thanks for your reply.

I do take your point about the screen being larger - 32" against 26" - but it's not that big a difference and doesn't explain the pasty, washed out areas (eg faces) nor the unclear edges to text (like when you've over-sharpened an image in a graphics program on a computer).

I had wondered about screen resolutions. In another thread, someone referred to the appearance when a computer outputs a screen res different from the monitor's native resolution. But this is a television! Surely the internal software smooths that out! We're not trying to read tiny desktop icon labels - we're trying to watch TV with a decent picture.

Finally, I'm disappointed to read about LED TVs and how much potentially better they are. We now have one 32" Samsung available in John Lewis (a UK department store) and it's price has even dropped in the past few weeks to become a fair competitor. But all my reading over the past two or three years has never alerted me to the fact that digital televisions will ruin your viewing experience.

When you said "full HD" did you mean 720p, 720i, 1080p, or 1080i? The fuzzy text is a strong indication that your TV is recieving a signal that is in higher resolution than the TV can display properly. If you have a 720p TV and are reciving a 1080i signal, then this would explain the picture quality.

That's very interesting. I took a long time to make the decision (some months !! ) because I wanted to get it right. I decided (and bought) a 1080p television. I did wonder if, in the light of experience, I should have bought 720 (p or i) on the grounds that I don't own a blu ray player. But I might in future.

Last evening, we watched a commercial DVD (Narnia - the Disney film), The picture was absolutely fine. It's not HD but my Panasonic DVD recorder allegedly upscales. Either way, the picture was good, although the subtitles weren't clear-edged

This suggests that it is simply the quality of the signal when watching normal Freeview TV channels. But that returns me to my original problem - why are they so much worse than the same signals were on the CRT television?

Sorry Brian,

I think I said that backwards...

A Higher resolution image will look better on a lower resolution TV - not the other way around. The reason is, if you have a 1080 signal going to a 720 TV, then you have data for every single pixel on your TV, plus some that is thrown out. If you have a 720 signal going to a 1080 TV, then the TV has to fill in a lot of blanks. It does this by making a 'guess' as to what should go in each unmapped pixel - basically electronic zoom.

The best broadcast signals are 1080i (due to bandwidth), so your TV is better than the best. Do 1080p BluRay disks look as good as they should when you play them? If not, then there might be room for improvement in your cabling.

Good Luck!

Finally, I'm disappointed to read about LED TVs and how much potentially better they are.

Do not be mislead by the marketing hype .. these are simply a LED backlight instead of CCFL .. they are not OLED panels .. samsung is being sneaky and misleading people much to some of the other manufacturers disgust. Picture quality is identical.

As to why you have a worse picture, I have no idea.. I have a Panasonic plasma at home and think its some of the best money I've ever spent. Currently using HDMI (5m cable) from a TiVo.

My TV is only 1024x768 but I find the best picture quality is to send it 1080 and let the panasonic downscale, I did get the occasional 2 or 3 seconds dropout that I think is the TV though, so now I output in 'native' format .. so usually its 576, sometimes 1080 and the Tivo menus are in 720p .. I get less drop outs this way and the picture quality seems almost identical.

Text is never fuzzy though in any resolution.. I would suggest borrowing a HDMI cable just to see if it makes any difference.

The antenna and its alignment need to be checked as a first priority. High-gain antenna alignment is critical - it's no good investing in all this whizz-bang equipment if the antenna is pointing towards a mole's backside in the garden, for example. Antenna signal strength meters can be purchased for a few pounds, and an hour or two with the antenna and a small spanner can do a lot to improve television picture reception.

Many thanks for your comment. Yes, aerial alignment might be an issue, though it's unchanged from before when the picture quality was most acceptable. Also, I hadn't realised that signal strength meters could be bought by ordinary folk. Thanks - I'll definitely get one.

But I still find it hard to reconcile the fact that the same source (eg a recorded program) looks so much worse on the LCD than it did on the CRT. That's not an aerial alignment issue.

Someone did say to me that CRTs will always be better because the electron beam scanning across 625 horizontal lines smooths the image whereas the digital screen lights up each individual pixel and is unforgiving.

But that still doesn't explain the 'painting by numbers' blurred/out-of-focus picture.

That makes it sound like a faulty set but it's not - a cartoon viewed on a channel with a strong signal is very sharp.

PS. Folks, I greatly appreciate this debate and your time.

We haven't yet attempted to view recorded video of any kind since the switch to digital, so I may well be speaking out of turn...

From your description, it sounds like the problem isn't in the TV, but in your analog-digital converter. I've never heard of 'Freeview'; I assume it is a converter of some kind. Perhaps that is the source of your problem.

We have a Sharp 26" LCD, which replaced a 19" CRT. We have been amazed at the improvement in image quality, WHEN we have a good signal. Unfortunately my wife's favorite station is a weak signal. She was accustomed to listening while watching mostly snow on the bad days. Now there is either a great pictiure with sound, or nothing whatsoever. The trees have grown a lot since I made her a custom antenna around 20 years ago, so I guess it's time I get it mounted higher and aimed more carefully... Or maybe I should just break down and buy a satellite dish, but I watch so little TV that I hate to waste the money...

There's an inexpensive one in the Maplin catalogue (usual disclaimer). If the antenna is in a user-hostile place, for example, then it is worth getting a specialist in to check it rather than improvise access arrangements using available equipment. Consider vertigo risks before starting on a home-brew solution - is it worth the risk or is it better left to a paid specialist? To lose a CR4 subscriber would be very sad.

I believe response #6 is on the right track. You must ultimately control every signal source you throw at your new TV, or there is no telling what it will do with it. If your controller can't distinguish between sources then maybe there is a simple filter available to expand the dynamic range of a signal or in some other way solve each of your legacy imaging issues? If it isn't a defect then it probably isn't unique to you, and there may be a solution you can live with.

But here is a new thought, I think. It may be all wet, but I don't think so. Not entirely.. I think part of your issue is that your eye/brain hasn't even begun to integrate, smooth and outright fool itself into liking the image that your set puts out. And that is much more important with a digital set than with analog. I don't think this is the whole issue. But you did mention that signal clipping can't explain the whole issue, so could part of the problem be that your brain and eye are being confronted with a different "integration" challenge, like looking a different sized mosaic, and needs time to adjust? Are you spending time looking at your old set, still, or have to begun the transition from analog to digital completely? You can add a new algorithm to your brain but it takes longer if than if you switch completely.

I just wanted to plant that seed. I know it isn't the whole issue but it may give you more confidence that you can close the gap in the end without spending your evenings on a slippery, wet roof holding the antenae up and out during your wife's favorite program..

I'd like to say how much I appreciate the help you are all giving me. It really is greatly appreciated. Although I don't have a resolution as such yet, I've so much new information to experiment with, it's fantastic. Many many thanks to you all.

That's what CR4 is about. Welcome, and enjoy!

Hi Brian. When we switched to large lcd screen, I think toshiba, I noticed the videos weren't brilliant, but it was a sacrifice. It seems like your images are really bad, and you want to know is this normal, or is there a part of your setup that is faulty., or is it the TV. You need to try a different lcd tv on part of your set up. Can you take the vcr to a friends, or back to the shop. If the picture was the same, ie poor, you know you haven't bought a faulty tv at least. If it is good, then you have a lot more info and confidence that investigating your setup.

Also, you don't need to start with an apology. No-one makes us read these posts, no-one makes us answer them.

I wasn't comfortable with our 42inch to start with, and could only sit at the far side of the room to view. Now i kneel on the floor in front of it with the kids, heads going from side to side...

try a different tv.

Jim

Have you tried the different options, ie, 1080i as against 1080p, there is a big difference.

As far as LED TV's are concerned. That is an LCD TV with an LED Backlight, nothing more.

I have been following this discussion with interest as I have been thinking of upgrading to LCD or Plasma. What is the difference between p and i as in 1080p/ 1080i? I also thought LED technology worked on the basis that LED's energised to form a picture as opposed to acting as a backlight. Am I wrong in that?

Many of the newer LCD TVs use LEDs as backlights. They are more efficient than the CFLs used in the older ones, and get rid of the mercury, so are highly preferable.

A true LED TV uses a red, green, and blue LED at each pixel. That's a whole lot of LEDs!

Plasma TVs use a lot more energy (you can feel the heat when you walk close to one), and supposedly have shorter lifetimes.

I posted a blog last year on the differences between the i and p in video standards. Check it out here. I put P in Your Video: 1080i and 1080p Explained

To the OP, what other people have said about SD content not looking as good on a HDTV is true. It should still be watchable though. (If non-HD content can be considered watchable at all?)

Make sure your "zoom" or "stretch" is off. Yes, you will have black bars on the sides of the screen but that's how standard def content is supposed to be shown.

Thanks for that info Mike. Thats one thing cleared up. I'm beginning to think though, that I should stay with my old CRT for a while yet.

Hi Brian, I've read the thread with interest, as I also sometime in the future wants to upgrade(!) to somekind of flatscreen. I have not so far (I go to the local electronics shops every 3 months or so) seen any flatscreen produce a picture worth watching. No matter price or technology. It has nothing to do with resolution. The problem is that your eyes and mine see the slow shift in the individual pixels causing blur in the transitions between dark and light and between colours. Sure, a HD still picture looks like a painting, but when the camera moves, also slowly, the edges crack up and becomes noisy, blurry and a pain in the ***. Also crawl text is nonreadable/blurry on a flatscreen. Try a look at the old CRT and you can clearly read the text. And I watch TV for the moving pictures!

The good thing is, that I can get all the old TV's for free, I have just helped a colleque by removing her 28" Panasonic CRT, which was in perfect order. And the powerconsumption is quite high for flatscreens, my new (old) Panasonic uses 66W.

Maybe you can get used to watch the flatscreen, some people believe in that, I dont know.

So when the picture gets better on flatscreens I'll buy, not before.

I hope this clarifies your problems, and I'm sorry that your and your wife are disappointed with your new screen.

Regards, moe

I agree with moe that blurrr is a contributor. Response times on LCD displays continue to improve. Many have a response time of 20 mili-seconds, some 12 to 13 ms, and a few have gotten as fast as 6 ms. For a computer monitor, the speed isn't much of an issue, but for a television displaying motion it can be an annoying distraction.

But I think that if Brian follows the advice provied in post #6 that his viewing will be improved to an acceptable level. Thourough instructions on how best to adjust the settings can be found in an article called LCD TV CALIBRATION which can be found at http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv/lcd-tv-calibration.html

Here's my two cents... Older TV's/VHS tapes/media and such were made for... What? At or below 480p? Its like using 'zoom'... If your looking at an image that's at 640X480 pixles and zoom in/blow it up to 1080X720 or what ever... The viewing 'quality' of the image doesn't look that good. "Upscaling" is good and getting better but 'it' still has to 'guess' at certain parts of the image... Some manufacturers 'guess' is/are better than others... This in itself can produce 'errors' that we see... Hope you kind of understand what I'm getting at.

Anyway, if you happend to get your hands on a Blue Ray player and a BR disk... The picture(s) you'll see will definately be worth your 'upgrade' :) Hopefully you'll actually see what I mean... Especially if you have some old movie on your 'old media', view it... Then hopefully have the same movie on BR... Then compair the two... I'll telll you... There's no turning back!!!

Like other said, you're zooming in a bad picture on your HD TV.

A blurry photo looks good at 10 feet away but looks bad at 10 inches.

Normal NTSC signal has 486 visible lines, 576 for PAL. With your 1080p HD TV, you're looking at the images at 2x zoom. On top of the problem is your DVD recorder. I don't don't know what resolution its recording at which maybe less then NTSC. Even at NTSC resolution, your recording will be highly compressed. You won't notice the compression artifacts on a CRT but when you're looking at it with 2x zoom..... You got the picture.

HD TV is no cure for low quality picture. Too many people think everything will looks great with a HD TV. Stores won't tell customer the truth since they want to sell you the TV first then sell you other stuff. Basically you'll need HD signal from your cable to make use of the TV. You'll need BluRay or other HD source also. If you're going to stay at regular TV signal, stay with your old CRT.

Hows this for an analogy: It's like you drive the same road everyday filled with bumps and potholes but you don't notice them much in your SUV. Then you get a high-tech hybrid and drive the same road but now every bump rattles your bones. OK so I suck at analogies but the "jist" is this: You have high-end technology trying to work with standard quality signals and until the providers/broadcasters step it up not much will change. Also, the manufacturers don't seem to have any quality tuner circuits installed in their sets so whatever you get off-air will not likely be as good as it could be. One other thing, keep in mind that too much signal is just as bad as a weak signal so if you are trying to boost your levels coming in, you hopefully have an adjustable gain amplifier and should try to tweak it down or up for any possible improvement.

Resolution can be set to each source and will help a bit, but response time of the LCD cells is limited, and will never be as fast as a good old CRT or a plasma cell.

If you notice the blurr, your eye is catching the transitions of the LCD cells; and there's nothing you can do about it, but get used to it.

Yahlasit

If the picture is good on a good source, then you don't have the problem that guest mentions with Ghosting.

But many new TVs are optimized for a good source and are absolute rubbish at displaying current quality, or better said, they show it like it really is!! That is a fairly well documented phenomina.....tests by magazines mention this for many sets......

If this was a freeview "terrestrial" box (as against Sat), then the box quality comes into question as well.......see if you can "borrow" a quality box and see if the picture is improved at all......look at magazines where such things are tested.....

Forgive me for not having responded recently. I'd like to thank you all for the time and trouble you have spent answering my question. I now feel greatly reassured and I'm enjoying a much better picture.

There are several factors which have all been highlighted by different people. I think that they all play a part.

Aerial quality and signal strength are important. This is fairly obvious of course, but you have given me some good tips on testing and improving it.

The main solution for me has been to adjust the contrast, brightness, quality, etc of the displayed picture. It seems too simple, but 'as bought' the picture was too bright, too harsh and too sharp. Thanks to your advice, I've found a number of settings including obvious ones like contrast and brightness, but also presets such as 'cinema'. By tweaking these, the ragged over-sharpened edges have been softened and the burnt-out areas that made it look like 'painting-by-numbers' have gained their proper texture.

I'm aware that watching standard definition will never match HD of course but what was puzzling me was why it was worse from the same source. I now have a picture which is as good as before (allowing for the slightly larger screen) and upscaled DVDs are very good. I also have proper HD to look forward to when I get an HD source.

So a million thanks to you all. I really was quite distressed and didn't know how to proceed. With your help I've resolved my problem. It may all seem obvious to some but it had me completely foxed. And I'm not a novice - I first watched television on a Fergusson bought in 1951 by my father (which I still have, complete with its user guide).

Thanks again to you all