# LCD picture quality



## oberkc (Dec 3, 2009)

> My satellite receiver only has the RF, composite and s-video outputs; I am currently using the composite to the TV. The TV has RF, composite, component, HDMI and other connections. Here is my question – is there some type of adaptor that would allow me to connect to either the component or HDMI on the TV from one of the outputs on the receiver? If I can do that, would that improve my picture?


 
There are devices that can upconvert from composite and S-video to component and HDMI. They are, in my experience, in the few-hundred dollar range. I have seen devices, also, that convert to 720 and 1080 resolution. I suspect that you would not see enough improvement (if any) to justify the cost. I view these devices only as solutions to physical interface problems, rather than picture quality issues. I suppose if you have long cables between your devices, switching to hdmi or RGBHV format may improve your picture quality a bit.

If you are close enough to terrestrial broadcasts, you can try an antenna. Picture quality for over-the-air broadcasts would be noticeably better than what you are currently getting. Of course, that would apply only to local channels. I also undersood that certain sattelite providers would upgrade your reciever, even if you don't get HD. It is worth checking if you have not done so already.

I say save your money until you can get a better dish reciever.


----------



## D-2.5-GT (Nov 24, 2009)

In general standard def programing will be slightly worse on LCD / Plasma then on tube tv variations. Some model lines will be better than others though. What brand TV?

Any money spent trying to "upgrade" a standard def connection is better spent on upgrading to high def. The long exception being the HD antenna, but this will only be usable for stations, usually local, which are close enough to get a signal from.


----------



## Jack E (Mar 22, 2010)

Thanks for the replies. I kind of suspected that the cost/benefit of an adaptor may not pencil out. I have thought about the antenna for local channels but we live in the country with a hill between us and the towers. Unfortunately a receiver upgrade will cost me 100 bucks per receiver with a 100 dollar service visit  I'll either bite the finacial bullet or live with the sub-quality picture. I guess if you're going to buy a fancy HDTV you've got to be prepared to go all the way.


----------



## oberkc (Dec 3, 2009)

> Unfortunately a receiver upgrade will cost me 100 bucks per receiver with a 100 dollar service visit


Sounds like it is time to investigate direct TV. A little competition can be a good thing.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Most of the dish channels will come out better with the S-video connection, a few will look better with the composite connection. The different is probably not going to be very great. Channels that came down from the dish as digital data will probably look better with the S-video connection. Channels that came down as analog will probably look better with the composite connection. Unfortunately it is not easy to tell which channels came down as what.

If you want to do this you would need to use two inputs on the back of the TV, one with yellow/red/white jacks and the other with S-video and its own set of red/white hacks. You would need to switch back and forth between Video 1 and Video 2 or whatever they are called on your TV.


----------



## bofusmosby (Apr 30, 2007)

As already mentioned, the new flat-panel sets are made for HD. Their picture quality will not be all that good in 480 (standard def.) The only way you are going to get the picture good and crisp is to upgrade to an HD sat. system. Also, as stated before me, some sets will get a better 480 picture than others. However, still not as good as with a 480 (standard def) set.


----------



## Ronin (Dec 31, 2010)

The difference between composite video and s-video are not enough to bother with s-video.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Ronin said:


> The difference between composite video and s-video are not enough to bother with s-video.


I beg to differ. Except if the video had been composite at any earlier time during the production or transmission process then converting it to S-video or converting it back to S-video would produce very little improvement.

Sources that begins their life as S-video are primarily analog video tapes from camcorders. Folks using that format are fewer and fewer these days. While some DVD players have just S-video and composite output, DVD is fundamentally (natively) the more superior component video.


----------



## oberkc (Dec 3, 2009)

> DVD is fundamentally (natively) the more superior component video.


While a technicality, I don't believe DVD is "natively" component video. DVD information is digital. Component is analog. Perhaps I am getting too picky?


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

I think I ran out of words in a vocabulary sense and would have to use multi-word combinations (phrases) to describe the formats.

The data on DVD is sometimes described using the term Y/Cb/Cr and represents three subchannels. It can be converted to VGA or to (analog) component video aka Y/Pb/Pr, also 3 subchannels, with essentially no loss. It can be converted to an HDMI video signal with no loss. Conversion to S-video (called downconversion but actually an upconversion in terms of signal complexity and analog frequency representation) has an unavoidable noticeably loss of color sharpness.


----------



## oberkc (Dec 3, 2009)

Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## Ronin (Dec 31, 2010)

AllanJ said:


> I beg to differ. Except if the video had been composite at any earlier time during the production or transmission process then converting it to S-video or converting it back to S-video would produce very little improvement.
> 
> Sources that begins their life as S-video are primarily analog video tapes from camcorders. Folks using that format are fewer and fewer these days. While some DVD players have just S-video and composite output, DVD is fundamentally (natively) the more superior component video.


Technically speaking the S-video signal is better since it's encoded using two channels instead of one. I just don't think the difference is that much.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Yes they make external devices that you plug the S-video or composite video source into and out comes component video and/or HDMI. 

But every flat panel TV has that functionality built in, converting everything to HDMI or a similar digital form. Just a few years ago, the aforementioned external devices on average did a much better job of conversion but today the functionality inside the TV satisfies most people and in a few cases is the same circuitry found in some of the external devices. CRT (tube) TV's including those with HDMI inputs convert everything to component video or a similar analog form.

Some A/V receivers have this functionality built in, too, permitting one HDMI cable out to the TV for everything. Without this functionality, composite source plugged in can only come back out as composite out or monitor out to the TV's Video 1; S-video plugged in can only come back out as S-video out to the TV's Video 2, etc.

Companies that make (made) these external devices include DVDO, Lumagen, and (formerly) Faroudja.

While (analog) component video is called Y/Pb/Pr, S-video is also called Y/C and the Y channel can be identical to that of component video. Y represents "luminance" and by itself produces the same picture in black and white.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

You don't *have* to connect the video cables to the receiver provided that you have enough input jacks including HDMI jacks in back of the TV, and the DVD player, etc. are close enough to run individual video cables directly to the TV.


----------



## Jackofall1 (Dec 5, 2010)

Depending on where you live, purchasing a HD antena may be the answer, you can look at www.tvfool.com to see what broadcast antena's are near you and determine what kind of antena you may need.

"Over the Air" HD quality is literaly awesome and far surpasses cable, dish, DTV.

Mark


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

An "HD" TV antenna is the same as a "UHF" antenna, the elements range from 3 to 6 inches long. But a few (HDTV) TV stations these days still use VHF frequencies (channels 2-13) where the proper antenna elements are about 3 feet long.

If you have long relied on over the air TV, on average you will need a better antenna than the one you used to get comparable reception of today's digital channels, and freedom from checkerboarding and blue screening, compared with snow on yesteryear's analog broadcasts.


----------



## The Cable Guy (Jan 2, 2011)

Best bet would be to bite the bullet and upgrade to the Dish HD. They are offering their "free HD for life" deal...I believe that involves either paying a one time 99 dollar fee, OR signing up for auto pay (I do not believe there is any fee at all involved in this). You would have to sign another 2 year service agreement (not to mention that you would need a Dish installer to come out and upgrade your Dish to 1000.2 LNBF), but take it from a guy who has installed Dish for years (but now installs for Comcast...shh), Dish is the superior HD service right now. Get yourself a 722 receiver, you won't regret it.

Also, a purchase of an HD off air antenna from Wal-Mart isn't a bad investment (they run cheap)...just plug it into the Ant In port on the back of your LCD TV (coax input), and have your tv autoscan the off air digital and HD channels. You CAN hook the off air antenna into the back of most Dish receivers as well (there is a coax port for off air antenna in), and have the Dish receiver do the scan for you (most Dish receivers will put the local stations picked up off of the antenna right into the interactive program guide, and will allow you to set the DVR to grab shows off of those stations). Only drawback is that since your current Dish receiver is not an HD receiver, it will not display anything in HD.

As far as the other recommendations about the converters...I have never seen one of those work out well (picture DOES improve, but on an LCD you won't be very impressed, and they are much more pricey than just upgrading through Dish).

Hope this helps.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

ATSC converters with component and/or HDMI output (and usually costing more than $150.) can deliver picture quality equal to digital HD cable or dish HD cable. Quality is usually better if the converter outputs video at the same "speed" (resolution) as the broadcast compared with outputting at a constant speed such as always 1080i or always 720p.

Converters costing under $50. almost always have just yellow and antenna video ouputs and the quality is at best equal to locally received older (analog) broadcasts.


----------



## lendosky (Dec 23, 2010)

I have dish with a slingbox adapter and can watch my tv on my android phone! Buy the HD receiver, you're eventually going to do it anyways and spending money to avoid a inevitable cost is...well not cost efficient. also, hdmi is awesome. dish came with the component cables but I purchased 5 hdmi cables off of some website for $4 each including shipping and used that single cable instead of the 5. it made fishing the cable through the wall much easier, the picture clearer and the sound better. now, if you weren't used to dish or cable and wanted to save some bucks I would get the hd antenna and install it in your attic with a splitter and an amplifier and run the rg6 to every room in the house. the picture is better than dish because it is never compressed but you must live in a metro area. in my second home here in Phoenix I have that exact setup and it's amazing. good luck


----------



## JPL (Dec 12, 2010)

Get an HD receiver. Video is basically GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. A $150 scaler for composite to component, or worse yet, hdmi would be a waste of $150. You could spend 500-1000 bucks on an AVR that will scale and switch sources. Getting an HD receiver is the best way to go, no mater what you do in the future.


----------



## GA Squid (May 6, 2011)

Unless you opt for the HD package using the S-video or composite is your only choice and spending money on some adaptor to convert to HDMI is worthless since the signal from the receiver is still non-HD. The 5 wire component inputs will work for any HD signal (over air, cable, sat) and while the single HDMI cable makes for a cleaner install it really only matters when you are talking Blueray or PS2 that output true HD at 1080p. Most "HD" sources send 1080i or 720p and the component input is fine for this. Personally i have a 65" Panasonic plasma and use HDMI for my Blueray player, PC, but my HD cable and my Xbox 360 run on component and all look great with the Blueray obviously looking the best.


----------

