Best TV for playing LaserDisc videos?

[Jpass992]

Hey everyone,
I know this may seem a bit outrageous, but there are times that I still watch older SVHS tapes and spin LD's. The only problem I've noticed is that they look terrible on my Panasonic LCD TV. The PQ look so grainy and I can see the vertical lines running through the picture. Now, running the set through an old Panasonic CRT, the picture looks fabulous. Even the OSD on an LD player looks better compared to an LCD. (Now I still use Blu Ray and DVD though) but what would give me the best PQ? 4:3 tube, HD tube, LCD, DLP, RPTV, DLP? I've just heard from places that tube TV's give the most accurate black levels, with of course the exception of the Pioneer Kuro Plasmas. Also, the Sharp Elite PRO 60XFD, PRO 70XFD models. Any advice will be appreciated.

P.S. The players I'm using is a CLD 97 and a CLD D701

[lordsmurf]

While television manufacturers all promised "improved" quality on HDTVs, everybody quickly learned that it made older VHS tapes, Laserdiscs, and even antenna/cable analog TV look worse. The better HDTV manufacturer included several layers of playback filters, to reduce both noise and MPEG artifacts. Sony is easily the leader in this area, on it's LCDs (and former SXRD sets).

Some of the late 2011 and early 2012 models from LG and Samsung also had these features, on the higher end.

It's been several months since I looked at any HDTVs, but I do remember that the Samsung 120Hz 1080p LCDs had these features.
Pretty sure that this was one of the models: Samsung UN55EH6000 55-Inch 1080p 120 Hz LED HDTV (Black)

The nicer sets cost about $1,000, and filters tend to only be in the larger 42"+ sized sets. The small sets are deemed "too small" to see the noise, although that's a bit of a crock. I've noticed that the filters are missing in the 20/30-ranged Sony, Samsung and LG sets.

The now-outdated Sony I own is very nice. Pretty much any Sony Bravia XBR series LCD is going to be excellent.
And then those newer premium Samsung models are pretty nice, too.

[Reading Bug]

I've noticed how LCDs clearly do not capture the analog quality of CRTs. And I cringe when I see poor quality, especially SD on an HDTV (yuck).

Is there, or will there ever be, a way for digital TVs to overcome this?

[kpmedia]

The main reason interlaced video exists is because of the image lifespan (fade, degradation) of tube TV screens, combined with bandwidth limitations of the analog frequency spectrum. LCDs have no such problem, and are progressive display devices. All LCDs and HDTVs therefore deinterlace with advanced motion-compensation hardware filters, most of which are better than all but one or two software methods. This comes back to the speed and effectiveness of dedicated chips, versus that of software.

The monitors must also scale video to their native display size. If your HDTV is 1080p, the signal is sampled to 1080p. This does not magically make image quality better, of course. It just takes the existing image and dumps it into a larger "grid" (more pixels occupy the same image area).

There's quite a few really good deinterlacers out there. The only brand I can consistently remember from memory is Faroudja, but there are several other respected manufacturers out there. Faroudja is also on the moderate to high end, in terms of costs. There are cheaper chip manufacturers.

Each generation of HDTV (and LCD) has better deinterlacer/scaler/filter hardware, and I have noticed big improvements between the chip in a 2006 model Sharp LCD (then a high-dollar top-of-the-line set), and the new 2012 mid to high quality models on showroom floors. You do still see a lot of stinkers, from low-end sets sold at places like Walmart. Sears and regional electronics stores (Electronic Express, for example) have some of the nicer units. All the online stores do, too, of course: TigerDirect, Amazon, Buy.com, etc.

If anything, the problem is that LCDs capture analog TV too perfectly. The old CRT tech hid the errors and flaws. Now that you can see these issues, you want to filter it all out. Hence conversations like this, where people are looking for TV sets that improve the quality, or "look better" than what they see currently. Most people blame the LCDs and HDTVs, completely unaware that the original signals are the root culprit. The signal was always ghastly, but that "more detail" in an HDTV makes it show clearly.

[Reading Bug]

Wow, I never knew that. Everyone I've talked to on showroom floors, regardless of how well I present the issue, never have an answer other than "you have to just forget SD." And I've never accepted that because, well, SD will continue to exist (of course).

I haven't gotten nearly so good a response, and I'll keep your words in mind. Thanks KP.

[kpmedia]

Here's an edited excerpt (my edits) from a Faroudja article:

Quote:

Progressive displays, such as high-definition plasma and LCD TVs and DLP/D-iLA projectors, can only show progressive scanned images as opposed to interlaced. In order to do this, the display must scan at a higher rate, 2x the speed of NTSC. Because we are scanning at twice the speed, we can draw an entire frame in the same amount of time it takes an interlaced system to draw a single field. We learned above that an interlaced display shows 60 fields per second. But with progressive, each "field" is now a complete picture including all scan lines, top to bottom, so we will now call it a frame, and we are showing 60 of those per second (written as 60 Hz). [Of course, only 24 of those are unique if the source is film based.]

The benefits of a progressive display are no flicker, scan lines are much less visible (permitting closer seating to the display), and they have none of the artifacts we described for the interlaced display, as long as the source material is progressive in nature (film or a progressive video camera).

Deinterlacing (or re-interleaving) involves assembling pairs of interlaced fields into one progressive frame (1/60 of a second long), and showing it at least twice to use up the same amount of time as two fields. The need for 60 flashes on the screen each second stems from a biological property called the Flicker Fusion Frequency, meaning how many flashes that we need to see each second so that we (our brains) fuse the image into one where we don't see a flicker.

Deinterlacing native NTSC interlaced video material is much more complicated. In such video material, each field is a unique image in time, and in order to be deinterlaced at an acceptable level, it requires getting into motion-adaptive and motion-compensation algorithms to overcome the inherent problems of the interlaced material. There is no best method, and the two mentioned are expensive to implement.

(Note: NTSC does not really run at 60 Hz; it is technically 59.94 Hz. The industry rounds it up to make it easier to read. If you did play back video at 60 Hz instead of 59.94 Hz, you would end up with a dropped frame approximately once every 20 seconds.)

##

You can read the full thing here: http://www.faroudja.com/internet/far...rands/dcdi.jsp
It has a dozen or more sample images to help illustrate.
Realize that it also discusses film sources, and the telecine/IVTC process, so it can be a bit thick and gooey to understand.

The original intention of the article was to brag about their DCDi chipsets.

I've also attached a PDF printout, in case the page ever disappears from the site.

Be sure to never confuse frame rates with refresh rates. This article made a mistake of equating 60i with 60Hz. Display device refresh rate is independent of (but divisible by/into) framerates. Professional video encoding software refers to these types of measurements frequently, which confuses newbie pros and advanced amateurs/hobbyists.