# Connecting to HDTV - Quality Questions



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

If you currently do not have HD service or a HD box, that is the first two things you need.
As for hooking it up, connect via a hdmi cable.

Really did not need a whole book on this, due to this is not rocket science.


----------



## nismo972 (Sep 23, 2013)

As long as you have rg6(cable) you will be fine. Getting HD requires a tech to come out to house. He will ensure you have the best signal possible for Hd. HDMI are good best prices are on Amazon.


----------



## nismo972 (Sep 23, 2013)

Sorry I'm posting on my phone. I'm glad some of my punctuation went thru. Lol


----------



## djlandkpl (Jan 29, 2013)

You only need to get an HD box for your new TV and have HD service turned on for your house. The other boxes can remain SD. 

Comcast usually provides the HDMI cable for free. 

After you get it hooked up and if you experience picture/sound quality issues, have Comcast send out a tech to check your signals. If you have bad connectors or splitters, the tech will replace them.


----------



## nismo972 (Sep 23, 2013)

How many times that line is split also comes into play. I always ran the HD to the first splitter and the SD off the pigtailed splitter.


----------



## TheBobmanNH (Oct 23, 2012)

To answer one of the questions in your original post



> How is using HDMI between my cable box and HDTV going to improve my picture quality, if the main cable coming into the house is still coaxial?


You can have RG6 ("regular cable") going to the box from the wall just because of the way the compression and whatnot works. The box just downloads the raw info as a block of data, and then converts it. THat conversion makes it so that same information can't just be pushed out the same wire to the TV, it needs a little more bandwidth.


----------



## hpyjack2013 (Sep 16, 2013)

look up your tv on line there probably isn't a s-video socket on it.


----------



## mbender2004 (Mar 19, 2014)

All I can say is don't buy a cable at a box store, online all the way.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Component video is a "better" connection to the TV than S-video.

That said, there are a few standard def' stations on some cable systems where composite video (the yellow jack) gives a better picture. This is a case by case, channel by channel, cable box by cable box, TV by TV situation.

The same coax cable coming in from the utility pole can carry HDTV stations' programs equally well. However sometimes higher numbered channels (cable box channel numbers, not the channel numbers in the station logos) can sometimes have difficulty in which case an upgraded coax (looks about the same) would need to be installed.


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

AllanJ said:


> Component video is a "better" connection to the TV than S-video.
> 
> That said, there are a few standard def' stations on some cable systems where composite video (the yellow jack) gives a better picture. This is a case by case, channel by channel, cable box by cable box, TV by TV situation.
> 
> The same coax cable coming in from the utility pole can carry HDTV stations' programs equally well. However sometimes higher numbered channels (cable box channel numbers, not the channel numbers in the station logos) can sometimes have difficulty in which case an upgraded coax (looks about the same) would need to be installed.



Wow, old thread.

Can you explain why composite would ever look better than svideo, let alone component? Composit and svideo are both 480i so I can't see it being a scaling issue.

I'm thinking maybe there is something I don't know so figured I'd ask.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

If the original source material was composite, which would include any analog channel still on the cable, the cable box would have converted it to S-video and then into component video before delivering it out those output jacks respectively.

Meanwhile the TV also converts any input it gets from the yellow jack into S-video and then into component video which is then processed internally in the same fashion as source material coming in as S-video or component video..

If the source was composite and the TV did a better job of converting then taking it from the yellow jack on the cable box would give better results than taking it from the S-video jack.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

AllenJ, source material is not in Composite, Component, HDMI, S-Video, S-Cart. It is either going to be the following: 480i/480p 4:3 or 720p/1080i 16:9 or 1080p/24. Now add to that 4K/UHD.

Regardless of the output on the device. Your tv will only display the resolution that the device is capable of. With upscaling on Blu-Ray players and the older DVD players with upscaling to 720p/1080i 16:9. Along with how the device as I stated before, is connected to your tv or projector.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

gregzoll said:


> AllenJ, source material is not in Composite, Component, HDMI, S-Video, S-Cart. It is either going to be the following: 480i/480p 4:3 or 720p/1080i 16:9 or 1080p/24. Now add to that 4K/UHD.
> 
> Regardless of the output on the device. Your tv will only display the resolution that the device is capable of. With upscaling on Blu-Ray players and the older DVD players with upscaling to 720p/1080i 16:9. Along with how the device as I stated before, is connected to your tv or projector.


Yes, source material is transmitted as Composite, etc.

Composite video in the US is 480i only and can be 4:3 full screen, 4:3 letterboxed, or 16:9 full screen (the latter is sometimes called anamorphic).

S-video in the US is also 480i only and can be the same things as composite video.

Component video in the US can be 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p. Most TV sets will autoselect which one it is although some TV sets won't accept some of these resolutions.

Blu-Ray disks have enough material to produce a 1080i program with approx. 60 fields (half frames) per second or a 1080p program with approx. 24 frames per second. The 1080p24 comes out only as HDMI; 1080p24 programs (film source) are converted to 1080i30 (or 720p60) if output as HDTV component video.

Intrinsically, video has no aspect ratio. (If you have a CRT TV, you can adjust the controls to make the picture into any aspect ratio you choose or imagine although the content would look strange.) Aspect ratios are associated with video according to standards and conventions, for example 1080i and 1080p are supposed to always be 16:9.

Inside the TV, the source material is converted as needed to fit on the screen, for example some screens are 1344 x 768 (a form of 768p) which means all of the standard resolutions will need some kind of scaling.


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

My previous TV would only accept 480P, 720P or 1080I via component.
It was a Unity Motion UHD-3200 serial #100.


----------



## ktkelly (Apr 7, 2007)

I love it when these old threads are dredged up...


1. Composite video is *1 channel* Black & White video with color interlaced, and it was run through a comb filter in the color TV set, and it is in 480i or 576i format, which is standard definition. F connector or RCA connector, it's the same thing. The difference being with the RCA connector the signal need not go through the tuner section, so the picture MAY be slightly improved.

2. S-Video is a *2 channel* Black and White signal with color de-interlaced at the source component,and it also is in 480i 0r 576i format, which is standard definition. Here again, there would be a very slight picture improvement, since the video no longer goes through the tuner, Or the comb filter.

3. Component video is a *3 channel* color signal, which is in 480i, 480p, 576i, 576p, 720P, 1080i, and *1080P. Here there is a vastly improved picture quality, as the signal is output from the device to the display directly in color only.

That's it for analog.

Digital (HDMI) most obviously has the bandwitdh for all those formats, and is (supposedly) not recordable.


* Since the analog "sunset", 1080P is no longer output on any legal source equipment via component video. Yes it can be done (HDFury), but it was outlawed.



Yes, I'm being a bit terse on this, as the full explanation can take pages, and I'm not up for that....


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

ktkelly said:


> I love it when these old threads are dredged up...
> 
> 
> 1. Composite video is *1 channel* Black & White video with color interlaced, and it was run through a comb filter in the color TV set, and it is in 480i or 576i format, which is standard definition. F connector or RCA connector, it's the same thing. The difference being with the RCA connector the signal need not go through the tuner section, so the picture MAY be slightly improved.
> ...



From what I recall when I was big into svideo in the early to mid 90s it was a separate chroma and luma signal (2 channel) and was actually a pretty big improvement over composit.

Specifically on 32-35" TV's I remember dot crawl being a huge problem with composit.

Maybe I was just really picky?


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

cj133, Chroma is Color, Luma is the Black & White or Signal Sync pulse. Composite combined all for the video output.

As for larger tv's having an issue with Composite & dot crawl. That would be due to the input device was not giving the proper pulse sync signal, or just had too long or bad cables.

RG-6 is usually used for Component & Composite cables that use an RC connector. RG-6 is now used for BNC.

As for HDMI & DVI. It is just 1's & 0's. If you were to hook an Oscilloscope up to the output for HDMI or DVI. It would be the same wave form as Component, but in a Square wave, not Sine.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Dot crawl (serrated edge where different colored patches meet) or a thin discoloration where color patches one atop another meet are the result of a not so good comb filter. Another problem is blurring out of an old fashioned upright wedge test pattern for horizontal resolution around 240-250 on the scale. These are two things to test for when comparing composite (TV does the comb filtering) versus component/S-video/HDMI (cable box does the comb filtering if needed) from cable box to TV.

Using a cable system that has both analog and digital channels on it, in some cases both a composite and an HDMI connection to the TV could be desirable.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

AllanJ. A Tv does not decide the Aspect Ratio, the input signal is what decides the tv will use as the aspect ratio. The firmware on the tv, will decide whether the tv is capable of handling that Aspect Ratio or not.

You really need to go back and study on this stuff. You are so far off base on what you posted. I even had to wonder where you got it from.


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

I don't know.

I only watch HD channels on cable. If it's not in HD, I'm not watching it.
I mean, seriously it's 2014, HDTV started in what, 1998ish? I forget when my Unity Motion UHD-3200 was from but I think it was around 1998.

There is just no excuse for any channel not being in HD (720P or better) and if it's not I have to assume it's not worth watching.


I guess what I'm saying is I won't be testing or comparing composit to svideo ever again and neither should anyone else. If it's not HDMI,DVI or display port don't waste your time.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Correction: The X by Y array of pixels for the video frame has no intrinsic aspect ratio. Flags elsewhere in the 480i or 480p video signal, say, in a packet of data between video frames, and if present, provide the ability of TV firmware to set the aspect ratio.

Some years ago a few brands of TV sets had firmware that assumed that any 480p program was 16:9. This forced the consumer to watch a 4:3 SDTV show stretched out horizontally, or have and use a 480i connection from source to the TV. Manual aspect ratio override (via the remote control), if present which it was not always, would have helped.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

AllanJ. Actually Dot Crawl was used for a reason in some devices. Computers like the Apple II took advantage to it. More info, suggest reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_crawl

Most times it was due to cross talk between the Chroma & Luminance circuit on the tv, or the Comb filter was not doing its job. Usually due to the tv was either cheap, or slowly dying.

You will still see it today, on channels such as MeTV or Cozi-TV, that shows older tv shows.


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

How about a blast from the past?

32" of the best CRT tv ever made in my opinion.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

cj133 said:


> I don't know.
> 
> I only watch HD channels on cable. If it's not in HD, I'm not watching it.
> I mean, seriously it's 2014, HDTV started in what, 1998ish? I forget when my Unity Motion UHD-3200 was from but I think it was around 1998.
> ...


Actually HD has been around since the August of 1936. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdtv


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

gregzoll said:


> Actually HD has been around since the August of 1936. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdtv


 
"The term _high definition_ once described a series of television systems originating from August 1936; however, these systems were only high definition when compared to earlier systems that were based on mechanical systems with as few as 30 lines of resolution. "


We're talking HD now meaning 720P and better.

Not better than 30 lines.


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

For those who don't remember it.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/1998/09/21/story7.html?page=all

Unity Motion is the same company that hired Princeton to build the tv I had as shown in the picture above. It only accepted 480P, 720P and 1080I via its two sets of component BNC connectors.

Or, as it's inputs were labeled YPbPr 1 an YPbPr 2


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

cj133 said:


> "The term _high definition_ once described a series of television systems originating from August 1936; however, these systems were only high definition when compared to earlier systems that were based on mechanical systems with as few as 30 lines of resolution. "
> 
> 
> We're talking HD now meaning 720P and better.
> ...


That would have been during the Tokyo Olympics, with the demonstration from NHK, if you read the Wiki.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

cj133 said:


> For those who don't remember it.
> 
> http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/1998/09/21/story7.html?page=all
> 
> ...


Not in the U.S. at that time. HD was being broadcast in Europe & Asia though.

The U.S. has always been slow to adopt. As for BNC connectors. Those are only found on Professional gear. You will still find them on high end gear, in Home Theaters, or tv production rooms & studios.

Reason being is that BNC is a quick connect. Could not screw up, when you are in a hurry hooking up or unhooking gear in the field or studio.


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

gregzoll said:


> Not in the U.S. at that time. HD was being broadcast in Europe & Asia though.
> 
> The U.S. has always been slow to adopt. As for BNC connectors. Those are only found on Professional gear. You will still find them on high end gear, in Home Theaters, or tv production rooms & studios.
> 
> Reason being is that BNC is a quick connect. Could not screw up, when you are in a hurry hooking up or unhooking gear in the field or studio.



I'm a bit confused by your "not in the US at that time".

Yes, in the US at that time. That article is about a US company broadcasting in HD 24 hrs a day.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

cj133, Unity Motion also did not last long. They disappeared, just as quick as they showed up. Their problem was that there was not a market at that time. They came in with a good plan. But it was the pure fact that manufacturers had yet to start selling the end product for consumers at that time.

Even if they did. It would have been more then what it cost at the time. That the first devices that were 720p capable cost.

You can tell that after they realized the company was bust. They parted ways shortly after. Sean Henry is now the President & COO of the Nashville Predators. Maurice Weilbacher is the President of Argos & Avalon Construction in St. Louis. Larry Miller is just a shyster, who has not done much after the company went bust, when the dot com bust happened.


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

gregzoll said:


> cj133, Unity Motion also did not last long. They disappeared, just as quick as they showed up. Their problem was that there was not a market at that time. They came in with a good plan. But it was the pure fact that manufacturers had yet to start selling the end product for consumers at that time.
> 
> Even if they did. It would have been more then what it cost at the time. That the first devices that were 720p capable cost.



I didn't buy it new, but I believe my UHD-3200 32" was $4500 new in 1998.


So yeah, they were really expensive and I remember people being perfectly happy with a $200 RCA 32" POS.



Honestly, I've yet to find another tv that has as accurate color as that Unity Motion did. It's picture was small, but it was really really amazing especially for a CRT. Extremely accurate color and very bright.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

> There is just no excuse for any channel not being in HD (720P or better) and if it's not I have to assume it's not worth watching.


A few reasons for channels not being in HD:
1. So the station can broadcast several shows at the same time. The channel bandwidth I think allows only one show to be in HD. A station could broadcast up to six shows simultaneously but if it does broadcast all six then I think all have to be in SD.
2. If the original source material was SD.


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

AllanJ said:


> A few reasons for channels not being in HD:
> 1. So the station can broadcast several shows at the same time. The channel bandwidth I think allows only one show to be in HD. A station could broadcast up to six shows simultaneously but if it does broadcast all six then I think all have to be in SD.
> 2. If the original source material was SD.



Neither are acceptable.

Broadcast higher quality and less quantity.
Original source in SD? Perhaps if it's some cheesy tv show from the 1970s but any modern show, modern commercial or any movie period should be in HD.

I've even got Dumbo and Pinocchio on bluray.
My Busty Keaton stuff is still on dvd, not sure if that will benefit from bluray, but you never know.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

cj133 said:


> I'm a bit confused by your "not in the US at that time".
> 
> Yes, in the US at that time. That article is about a US company broadcasting in HD 24 hrs a day.


Yes Unity was broadcasting in HD at that time. But the only way you could view it, if you had the $3,000.00 to purchase one of their DBS systems. Was through 480i Tube TV.

Go back and read the wikipedia article I posted. Pay attention to the history section about Bell Labs. The first field tests were in 1994. First public broadcast was 7/23/96 by WRAL-HD in Raleigh, NC.

BTW, why am I telling you this. Go read the article. I hate doing other people's homework. Due to they do not want to take the time to do it their self.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

Dumb is 1.37:1, mono sound, 35mm film. Pinocchio is the same. 1.37:1 is a 4:3 resolution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

Any movie or program, that is below 1.77:1 Aspect Ratio, is 4:3.

I am done at this point. Do your homework now, before posting anything more please.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

AllanJ said:


> A few reasons for channels not being in HD:
> 1. So the station can broadcast several shows at the same time. The channel bandwidth I think allows only one show to be in HD. A station could broadcast up to six shows simultaneously but if it does broadcast all six then I think all have to be in SD.
> 2. If the original source material was SD.


For Number 1, it does matter. The more sub channels that you use on a broadcast band. Will degrade not only the HD channel, but all of the other sub-channels. That is why you no longer will find an HD channel, let alone a lot of local broadcasters have done away with sub-channels all together.

As for #2, it does not matter. The broadcaster will either use a scaler to upscale it, or use master material from the film company to show in original format, or newer digital format. The problem with digital editing. Is that you remove a lot of the stuff that was unique for the film or show, when it was originally shown.

You can usually tell when older SD 4:3 material is upscaled, shown on a 720p or 1080i 16:9 channel. It will appear soft, washed out, artifacts during pan & scan.


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

gregzoll said:


> Dumb is 1.37:1, mono sound, 35mm film. Pinocchio is the same. 1.37:1 is a 4:3 resolution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)
> 
> Any movie or program, that is below 1.77:1 Aspect Ratio, is 4:3.
> 
> I am done at this point. Do your homework now, before posting anything more please.



What exactly is your point?
4:3 is an aspect ratio not a resolution.

480I is not even remotely close to 35MM film.


Now of course besides resolution there is of course the difference in quality between DVD and Bluray, especially when it comes to reds.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Yes I realize that it is better to upscale older SD material to HD for transmission on the station's "main" channel rather than reconfigure the latter to SD on the fly each time an SD show is broadcast. But some stations specialize in reruns of old SD shows and maintain a subchannel in SD for those.

Now who was saying that if the broadcast is not in HD it's not worth watching? Could the same show only available as SD videotape now be worth watching simply because it was upconverted to HD at the studio and broadcast as HD?


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

AllanJ said:


> Yes I realize that it is better to upscale older SD material to HD for transmission on the station's "main" channel rather than reconfigure the latter to SD on the fly each time an SD show is broadcast. But some stations specialize in reruns of old SD shows and maintain a subchannel in SD for those.
> 
> *Now who was saying that if the broadcast is not in HD it's not worth watching? Could the same, originally SD, show now be worth watching simply because it was upconverted to HD at the studio and broadcast as HD?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

cj133 said:


> What exactly is your point?
> 4:3 is an aspect ratio not a resolution.
> 
> 480I is not even remotely close to 35MM film.
> ...


You really need to do your homework.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

AllanJ said:


> Yes I realize that it is better to upscale older SD material to HD for transmission on the station's "main" channel rather than reconfigure the latter to SD on the fly each time an SD show is broadcast. But some stations specialize in reruns of old SD shows and maintain a subchannel in SD for those.
> 
> Now who was saying that if the broadcast is not in HD it's not worth watching? Could the same show only available as SD videotape now be worth watching simply because it was upconverted to HD at the studio and broadcast as HD?


The broadcaster is not always upscaling. Most times they have gotten the material through digital download. Broadcasters use servers that cost as much as most homes, to serve shows out to the public, through whatever source they view it through (catv, iptv, satellite, ota).

There is also a lot of older stuff out there that does not even need to be upscaled. It was filmed in 16:9 aspect Ratio, and the master is so good, that the broadcaster can send it out in their native format of either 720p or 1080i.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

cj133 said:


> AllanJ said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I realize that it is better to upscale older SD material to HD for transmission on the station's "main" channel rather than reconfigure the latter to SD on the fly each time an SD show is broadcast. But some stations specialize in reruns of old SD shows and maintain a subchannel in SD for those.
> ...


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

gregzoll said:


> You really need to do your homework.



Excellent response.

Either you're trolling, or nitpicking that 4:3 movies filmed on 35MM or better film are not technically HD because they are not 16:9 even though they will take advantage of high resolution.

If I recall, even 4K cannot fully resolve 35mm film therefore a 1940s-1950s 4:3 movie over 1920x1080P will look better, a lot better than the same thing over 480I or 480P as long as you're not using the same crappy 480I/P copy.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

If the station has the 35mm (or even a good 16mm) film and an appropriate HDTV telecine machine in its hands, it can make a quality 1080i or 720p HD source for broadcast.

The telecined 4:3 film source properly appears as 4:3 with black side bars in a 16:9 frame for HDTV.

There are some very old films that are not that sharp; also there is a lot of hand drawn animation (including the original Dumbo?) whose finest details are conveyed fully in digital SD. The only advantage of HD here would be smaller "jaggies" in diagonal edges.


----------



## cj133 (May 16, 2011)

AllanJ said:


> If the station has the 35mm (or even a good 16mm) film and an appropriate HDTV telecine machine in its hands, it can make a quality 1080i or 720p HD source for broadcast.
> 
> The telecined 4:3 film source properly appears as 4:3 with black side bars in a 16:9 frame for HDTV.
> 
> There are some very old films that are not that sharp; also there is a lot of hand drawn animation (including the original Dumbo?) whose finest details are conveyed fully in digital SD. The only advantage of HD here would be smaller "jaggies" in diagonal edges.



Allan,
This may be true depending on what compression is used.
I can say it is not true for DVD. DVD looks awful with pretty much any material newer than the 1930s in my opinion.

When it comes to the compression cable providers, local channels and satellite providers use I have no idea. My assumption would be their SD compression isn't much better if even as good as what DVD uses but I really have no idea. I have not watched any SD cable channels in many years.

My other assumption is that stations didn't use film, but rather had some digital copy of movies and shows on hand.


----------

