SD sources and motion, re current LCD or Plasma sets

[Seeker47]

It is just a matter of time before I'll need to replace an ancient, ailing 20" CRT, and -- somewhere down the line -- a 27" CRT. A lot of things will be different: CRTs are basically gone at this point; I'm really used to the old square format, so the now standard rectangular WS display is going to be a major adjustment; and the old square size much better fits at least one of the spaces where a replacement set must go. HD is less of an immediate concern, but in the interest of value for money spent and staving off obsolescence for as long as possible, it has to be taken into consideration.

From various discussions here and in other forums, I'm aware of likely issues with the display of SD sources on fixed pixel displays (and all of my extensive collection of recorded movies or programming is SD), as well as the question of motion artifacts. The latter issue has reportedly been improving, at least in regard to LCDs. Here are some excerpts from some relevant threads:

In https://forum.videohelp.com/topic331281-30.html
gshelley61 wrote:
"The latest higher contrast LCD panels are starting to look pretty good now. Comparable to plasma, even better really when you consider many LCD's are now 1920x1080 native resolution for less than what a 1366x768 plasma costs."
"Analog SD source material on large digital fixed pixel displays is a challenge, for sure. The video noise and relatively low bandwidth (resolution) of these types of sources, especially VHS, makes it hard to sample and process into an upscaled digital image that looks good.".
"Some of my better VHS to DVD conversions look OK when played back with my upscaling DVD player on my Toshiba 62" 1920x1080 DLP... but you have to sit farther back from the screen than you would for a laserdisc to DVD conversion or a standard commercial DVD. With HD sources, you definitely can sit closer and the large detailed picture is wonderful, of course."

The 1920x1080 native LCDs have not yet migrated down to, say, the 26" size yet though, or have they ? Incidentally, it had been a couple years since I took a serious look at Plasma (with a shopper's eye). They all looked kind of dark, overly coarse and grainy to me -- regardless of size or brand or cost of the panel. That might have had something to do with their setup in the display rooms, or the quality of signal being fed into them -- I don't know. But I just saw a bunch of them in two different stores, and the technology looks to me like it has made dramatic improvements.

In https://forum.videohelp.com/topic333284.html?sid=daef3694f7ce919526a92415c4900d23#1729740
Skith wrote:
"response time is not all it is cracked up to be, since there is no standard by which manufacturers measure/state the specs. In addition, to achieve ultra low response times, color accuracy is often sacrificed. It has to do with the type of panel used, and I think the cutoff is in the 6-8ms range, but I don't remember the exact details."
"If you are a heavy gamer and not into things that require color accuracy, a lower cost fast response panel may be fine. Just know that an ultra low response time is not required to perform well with video and games."

Some current LCD displays are touting 6ms. times. What is the upshot of that in real world usage ? The last LCD panel I bought was a computer monitor, 2 - 3 years ago. At that time, 25 ms. response time was the best I could get, although some 16ms. monitors were starting to come out. Video runs passably on that monitor, but not comparable to on my CRT computer monitor. (I'm no gamer, so can't make any comparisons there.) And this may not be relevant in the same way, on a TV display ? Or is it ?

In https://forum.videohelp.com/topic333468.html
edDV wrote:
"The true test of any LCD-TV is how well it displays a standard analog NTSC/PAL or an interlace SD cable signal. This is the tough case and most sales people have been instructed to not show SD source and direct attention to pretty HD images that are less demanding for the TV. "

I guess the bottom line here is whether to take the plunge -- soon -- or to keep waiting on further developments. I can already see that cabling, going in, for all my SD gear is apt to be
a problem. Most of these panels are Input Challenged, with maybe just one S-Vid connection, if you're lucky. A good switcher of some kind is probably going to be essential.

I was checking out a couple of the Sharp Acquos LCD models the other day, for example. (Costco has a good price on the 26"-er at the moment.) Are there some better Plasma options around, at this size ? Comments and recommendations welcome.

[SatStorm]

In very short terms: If SD things interest you, get a decent 37" LCD screen (from samsung or sharp - but not the latest line) and start watching 4:3 with boarders on the left and the right. That shall look like a 29" CRT and the picture won't suffer a lot. You even may like it.
Get a set at a price around 1350 euros: Those are the good ones.
With less, you may have a big display but you also have a bad picture.

By waiting for developments, you gain nothing. IMO, go and buy something today and expect to change it in the next 4 years. This is today's world.

[jman98]

There are actually 1080p LCD displays at 26", but you have to buy PC monitors that can double as TVs, but you'll need a separate receiver of some kind (cable box, HD receiver, etc.) to connect to the monitor. I haven't seen any true LCD HD TVs at 26" that can do 1080p. They may exist, but I haven't seen them. Cost of a PC monitor that can do this is now roughly $600 US.

If you intend to watch SD TV on an HD TV, my advice to you is NEVER watch SD TV in anything but 4:3 mode on your TV. Some people watch EVERYTHING in 16:9 and SD signals of any kind look like crap when stretched to 16:9. Also, the kind of connection you have to your TV is just critical to get a good response. I see all the time here "My SD TV sucks on my HD TV" and "It's impossible to get a good picture out of SD on an HD TV" and that's not true. If you use a high quality connection from a cable box to your TV, it will be crystal clear, provided you watch in 4:3. High quality connections are:
Cable Card
HDMI/DVI/component from cable box to the TV
Low quality connections are:
Composite
Standard old style coax video cables
S-Video

I have the Samsung LNS4096D and it has a response time of 8ms. It's a fantastic TV. Everyone who has seen it has raved about how good everything looks on it. including SD TV and even VCD. I know how to make the proper high quality connections to get good video signals and I don't watch any 4:3 video in anything but 4:3. That's the key to getting good results. You will find the people who bitch about how crappy SD stuff looks on HD TV have inevitably set their TV to display everything at 16:9 and/or used low quality connections to the TV.

[Seeker47]

In very short terms: If SD things interest you, get a decent 37" LCD screen (from samsung or sharp - but not the latest line) and start watching 4:3 with boarders on the left and the right. That shall look like a 29" CRT and the picture won't suffer a lot. You even may like it.
Get a set at a price around 1350 euros: Those are the good ones.
With less, you may have a big display but you also have a bad picture.
. . . buy something today and expect to change it in the next 4 years. This is today's world.

Thanks for your reply. For the location where this particular set happens to be, I think 26" will be about the largest size that would fit. Not sure what you are suggesting re "don't buy the latest line", since that is always what is being sold. The alternative for that is to buy used, which doesn't sound too appealing.

1350 Euros is over $1800. here. And that's some serious coin. I'd spend more than that on a larger set for the living room, but definitely not on a smaller one for the bedroom. And if we can only count on getting 4 years out of it (maybe not even that long, from the reports I'm reading about stuck pixels, and panels that buzz or just die after a relatively short time), that is just crazy . . . and unacceptable ! Jeez, what is it with this technology, deteriorating manufacturing or QC standards, and declining value for your money ? I never had a CRT TV that gave me less than 10 years of good service ! If this is all we can expect from the panels, I may go looking for a used CRT.

[Seeker47]

There are actually 1080p LCD displays at 26", but you have to buy PC monitors that can double as TVs, but you'll need a separate receiver of some kind (cable box, HD receiver, etc.) to connect to the monitor. I haven't seen any true LCD HD TVs at 26" that can do 1080p. They may exist, but I haven't seen them. Cost of a PC monitor that can do this is now roughly $600 US.

So far, not a problem. At the moment, service is through a digital cable box. I've read too many bad comments about that bargain priced 26" Sharp -- very weak speakers, slow response to channel changes, incompatibility with some cable boxes, shortcomings of the remote -- so I think that one has dropped out of contention, no matter how good the price may be.

If you intend to watch SD TV on an HD TV, my advice to you is NEVER watch SD TV in anything but 4:3 mode on your TV. Some people watch EVERYTHING in 16:9 and SD signals of any kind look like crap when stretched to 16:9. Also, the kind of connection you have to your TV is just critical to get a good response. I see all the time here "My SD TV sucks on my HD TV" and "It's impossible to get a good picture out of SD on an HD TV" and that's not true. If you use a high quality connection from a cable box to your TV, it will be crystal clear, provided you watch in 4:3. High quality connections are:
Cable Card
HDMI/DVI/component from cable box to the TV
Low quality connections are:
Composite
Standard old style coax video cables
S-Video

Appreciate the advice. Now this starts to be a problem. The best connection offered out of that cable box is S-Video. To get something better, I think you have to step up to HD service, which I have no near-term plans to do.

I have the Samsung LNS4096D and it has a response time of 8ms. It's a fantastic TV. Everyone who has seen it has raved about how good everything looks on it. including SD TV and even VCD. I know how to make the proper high quality connections to get good video signals and I don't watch any 4:3 video in anything but 4:3. That's the key to getting good results. You will find the people who bitch about how crappy SD stuff looks on HD TV have inevitably set their TV to display everything at 16:9 and/or used low quality connections to the TV.

That size might work elsewhere, but not to replace the ailing CRT. The 23" or 26" Samsungs I've been reading about all seem to have their problems. Guess I'll have to do a lot more research on these dual-use monitors.