just got a bitchin' new 60" Sharp Aquos HDTV.....great, fantastic. So.....why does everything I watch on it look like Days of Our Lives? You know what I mean...you know how daytime soap operas always looked different from regular TV shows? I guess because they're shot on video instead of film or something? I don't know what the difference is. But that's how everything looks on this TV. I don't think I like it. Everything just looks like a really super-high def home movie, know what I mean? It doesn't look natural. What is the difference I'm picking up on here? Is this preferable to the way standard definition looks? If so, sign me back up for standard definition. This stinks.

I experienced the same thing when I bought my new TV...

You have to turn off the Enhancements and mess with the settings...

Signatures are for fags

I totally agree and well this happened to me as well on my 50" LG 1080p TV.


My advice is:

A. No kidding.... READ TEH FUKKIN MANUAL! I never do but since I experienced what you just did yeah I had to.

B. Sitting too close? FOr a 60 inch I hope you are sitting more than 15 feet away. I can barely get away with sitting 10 feet away on a 50 inch.

C. remember the old sayings.... plasma tvs are for shady rooms and LED are for bright rooms with multiple light sources. based on this info make sure you are setting up the TV with those conditions in mind.

My LG is awsome but the sound sucks. I think they did that on purpose so you have to buy a sound bar or something.

If you have the option reduce the scanline rate (refresh rate) like from 180Mhz to perhaps 120 or 100 (if it even lets you do that!)

Once I took the above into account I then reduced that weird video effect by over 40%

30 fps vs 24 fps.

http://www.dv-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152

I've found that LCD and LEDs that are over 120-240Hz, I think they call it "true hd" or something look funny. Like the content was shot with a home hd camera

 

http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/12/help-key-why-hd-video-looks-weird/

Signatures are for fags

I watched Lawrence of Arabia on a 24 inch vacuum tube TV. It was not that spectacular.

Analog TV sets had more truer life picture.

3D TV.....that's bad, right? It's a gimmick....it's Bull S, right?

HD guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just got a bitchin' new 60" Sharp Aquos
> HDTV.....great, fantastic. So.....why does
> everything I watch on it look like Days of Our
> Lives? You know what I mean...you know how daytime
> soap operas always looked different from regular
> TV shows? I guess because they're shot on video
> instead of film or something? I don't know what
> the difference is. But that's how everything looks
> on this TV. I don't think I like it. Everything
> just looks like a really super-high def home
> movie, know what I mean? It doesn't look natural.
> What is the difference I'm picking up on here? Is
> this preferable to the way standard definition
> looks? If so, sign me back up for standard
> definition. This stinks.


I have news for you. That's how it's supposed to look. When the directors were viewing the footage, that's what it looked like. It's the 240hz refresh rate on newer TVs. It means the screen refreshes 240 time per second, instead of just 60 times per second that older TVs do. Plasma TVs refresh 600 times per second, but the contrast ratio is not nearly as good as the LED TVs.

I love watching movies on my new TV with 240hz. I've started going back and re-watching movies because they look so much cleaner and better.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2012 05:50PM by Alias.

A friend of mine bought a new HD TV a couple of months ago and we watched some movie on it. I thought "wow, I guess this is really low budget or the director is going for a gritty, realistic look". Turned out every movie looks that way on his TV.

It seems to remove whatever filter you would normally see in a movie. I think it sucks, don't like it at all. I wonder if you watch something like Saving Private Ryan, would it look crappy too? I like that kind of filter they used there, same as in Band of Brothers.

HD stinks. It seriously makes a Martin Scorsese film look like a really nicely directed home video with an extremely clear, sharp picture. It looks like home video of my family's vacation to the Grand Canyon. Only really good looking. It's terrible. It's the opposite of cinematic. Why do people like this?

You need a TV and disc player that will switch to 24Hz mode. Makes it look very much like the movie screen.

I have yet to see anything wrong with my 50+" Vizio HD TV - it is a total delight in all ways when it's running 240Hz and real HD.

It doesn't matter what the 1080 source is - home video camera, regular HD channel, Food Network special-framerate show, whatever.

Total delight.

I'll never go back.

`

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2015 09:39PM by WingNut.

Yeah, who wants clear, sharp, fast moving, non pixely images on their High definition TV? I hate how everything looks more like real life. Give me back my old tube TV with rabbit ears antenna, with slow frame rates, 4:3 ratio and baseband video.

I can't handle watching movies that look like something happening outside my window with 7:1 surround. I get scared.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cable Channel 53 SPIKE TV looks like shit on my
> TV's, all are HDTV.
>
> SPike looks like a video from 1982.

One moment while I go upstairs and look at that channel (Cox).

Okay, just watched a couple moments of the current Spike show (Repo Games or something like that) on both channel 53 and Cox's HD channel for Spike, channel 1053.

There is a STRONG difference in video quality between the two (without touching any setting on my TV such as expanding a display to fill the whole screen for channel 53, for example). On channel 1053 hairs on the head (or pimples on the face!) are in sharp focus, colors are fine. Channel 53, however, seems somewhat "blurry" or blurry-pixelated...or something not nice, relatively speaking.

The problem YOU'RE seeing is one of originating video, not necessarily what your HD TV is itself doing to the video.

Again, on my HD TV the "regular" channel isn't the best image, the HD channel is dynamite.

Actually, this IS what I would expect since those Cox HD channels exist for SOME reason.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, who wants clear, sharp, fast moving, non
> pixely images on their High definition TV? I hate
> how everything looks more like real life. Give me
> back my old tube TV with rabbit ears antenna, with
> slow frame rates, 4:3 ratio and baseband video.
>
> I can't handle watching movies that look like
> something happening outside my window with 7:1
> surround. I get scared.

I think your words actually reflect the mantra of those audiophiles/electrified-musicians who swear by tube amplifiers...

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, who wants clear, sharp, fast moving, non
> pixely images on their High definition TV? I hate
> how everything looks more like real life. Give me
> back my old tube TV with rabbit ears antenna, with
> slow frame rates, 4:3 ratio and baseband video.
>
> I can't handle watching movies that look like
> something happening outside my window with 7:1
> surround. I get scared.


most feature films and TV shows weren't made with the intention of looking like "real life". The "real life" look is a conscious decision the cinematographer makes along with the director, if that's the feel they're going for in their movie. Usually, that's not what they're going for. Goodfellas is a great picture; it's based on a real person and a real story....but Martin Scorsese definitely wasn't going for a "gritty" "documentary" look. It's very cinematic. It's not supposed to look like real life. Most movies aren't really supposed to look like real life. I think this whole HD "the realer the better" craze is the technology getting too far ahead of the media. Just because it's crazy expensive and has a whole mess o' technological doodads and whatnots, doesn't mean it's "better" necessarily. It certainly doesn't always make the movie you're watching it on better. I rest my case.

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> most feature films and TV shows weren't made with
> the intention of looking like "real life"...

My HD TV accurately shows whatever the original video source says to show - and does it outstandingly, IMHO.

THAT'S the "real life" I want.

And get.

then why does Reservoir Dogs look like a student film to me when I watch it in HD? It seriously looks amateur and awkward. It's the video. The HD absolutely changes the look of the picture so that it looks like the movie was shot on videotape, on a camcorder, rather than on film.

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> then why does Reservoir Dogs look like a student
> film to me when I watch it in HD?

See my comment above about regular and HD channels and what "HD" looks like on each.

Most new televisions are pretty fucked up from the factory in terms of color balance and gray scale calibration. I have a relatively inexpensive 52" Samsung LCD that I calibrated myself using a monitor calibration tool and some freeware software. Now the blacks are black, whites are white at 6500K and shades of gray in between have no hue or tint to them like they did with the factory settings. Skin tones look natural with no "red push". The calibration isn't perfect but at least I'm getting the most out of the television. I've had several people comment on how "amazing" the picture is.


Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> then why does Reservoir Dogs look like a student
> film to me when I watch it in HD? It seriously
> looks amateur and awkward. It's the video. The HD
> absolutely changes the look of the picture so that
> it looks like the movie was shot on videotape, on
> a camcorder, rather than on film.

Most folks have the sharpness and edge detection turned up way too high which really fucks up the picture. Most likely your television isn't adjusted properly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2011 11:19AM by Hank Moody.

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> most feature films and TV shows weren't made with
> the intention of looking like "real life". The
> "real life" look is a conscious decision the
> cinematographer makes along with the director, if
> that's the feel they're going for in their movie.
> Usually, that's not what they're going for.
> Goodfellas is a great picture; it's based on a
> real person and a real story....but Martin
> Scorsese definitely wasn't going for a "gritty"
> "documentary" look. It's very cinematic. It's not
> supposed to look like real life. Most movies
> aren't really supposed to look like real life.


That's bullshit! Scorcese had no other option at that time because projectors and TVs weren't capable of today's hi-resolutions.

People said this same shit when color films first came out. Those that wouldn't/couldn't adjust faded away and left it to the better, more adventurous film makers.

I watched Kubrick's "The Shining" the other night on my HDTV and it looked fantastic. It was like watching it for the first time and the way Kubrick intended it to be seen.


> think this whole HD "the realer the better" craze
> is the technology getting too far ahead of the
> media. Just because it's crazy expensive and has a
> whole mess o' technological doodads and whatnots,
> doesn't mean it's "better" necessarily. It
> certainly doesn't always make the movie you're
> watching it on better. I rest my case.


Yes, it does make it better, at least for people who love watching movies. It's convinced me go back and watch movies I've seen a million times. If you don't like sharper, cleaner, faster moving frame rates, why the fuck did you buy a TV that had all that. Just watch the standard def channels if you still prefer a shitty picture.

I'm with Numbers and Olde Fart on this one, Miz...

If you're not satisfied with your TV's picture... don't go with the knee-jerk, "technology is messing up my few favorite things", reaction...

Try adjusting your TV settings... When I first got my TV, the picture looked stupid (for lack of a better word)... I messed with the picture settings and now it looks great... It's better than any picture on any TV I've ever had before...

Have you tried adjusting the settings yet!? Well...!? Have you!?

Signatures are for fags

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm with Numbers and Olde Fart on this one,
> Miz...
>
> If you're not satisfied with your TV's picture...
> don't go with the knee-jerk, "technology is
> messing up my few favorite things", reaction...
>
> Try adjusting your TV settings... When I first got
> my TV, the picture looked stupid (for lack of a
> better word)... I messed with the picture settings
> and now it looks great... It's better than any
> picture on any TV I've ever had before...
>
> Have you tried adjusting the settings yet!?
> Well...!? Have you!?


Reservoir Dogs looks like General Hospital now. That's all I know. It's not better, it's worse. Much, much worse. It looks unnatural. Movies that were shot on film now look like they were shot on a high-end digital camcorder. I don't think Tarantino was working within the limitations of technology at the time, necessarily. A sharper, cleaner picture is great. It's the actual motion of the video that's different, and not in a good way. It's the way the action moves on the screen that makes it look unnatural, and I don't think that's necessarily how every filmmaker always would have wanted it if it weren't for technological limitations. We've had those soap operas for decades. They always looked "different", at least as far as I can remember. Why is that? What is the actual technical difference that made daytime soap operas look all weird like that and so different from primetime TV shows? It can't be the discovery of newer, better technology that accounts for the difference I'm seeing in HD versus standard; soap operas have had that same weird, unnatural, home-movie look to them for many years. What accounts for the difference in the way the picture moves? Just the way the picture and the action on screen moves. Does anyone know? I always thought it was that (using daytime soaps as a comparison again) they were shot on videotape instead of film stock. Video is cheaper, right? Film is expensive. Now we have digital, right? So, and I'm just spit-ballin' here, I assume the difference comes down to the HDTV converting the picture on a movie that was shot on film to mimic a digital look. See, Reservoir Dogs wasn't shot in HD. HD didn't exist back then. So when you see Reservoir Dogs on an HDTV, I assume the TV is trying it's best to make the picture as "HD" as possible......but the movie itself, whether the director would've preferred HD or not back when it was made, is going to look strange because you have a new digital media trying to enhance something (film) that has its own unique visual qualities. Whatever Scorsese or Tarantino or Lean would've preferred back in the day if the technology had been available, now it looks very odd indeed, because the film these movies were printed on never could've anticipated the digital enhancement we see with HDTV's.


someone brought up color films, that this is like saying black and white is better because some people fear the new technology. I see it more as the colorization of black and white films....which I think we can all agree is and always was a terrible idea. Or even the pan and scan method of altering a film's aspect ratio to fit the square-shaped TV's we used to watch. I think it's more an issue of the technology attempting to accommodate older media, which has always brought problems along with it. If you watch an old episode of Seinfeld, for example, on one of the newer, now standard rectangle-shaped flatscreen TV's, a lot of the time (unless you monkey around with the settings, and who actually does that?) you're seeing only a part of the picture. The sides and the top of the picture are cut off to fit the shape of the screen. And not all movies have the same aspect ratio, whether they're the old square-shape that was standard before the mid 1950's or the wider screen shape of films after that point. A lot of the time, your TV is just not smart enough (and neither is the viewer) to figure out how to reproduce the original aspect ratio of the film on the TV screen. There's too much variation. You'd have to mess around with your TV every time you wanted to watch a movie, depending on the movie, to be sure you were seeing the picture reproduced exactly in the same ratio as it was originally seen in theatres. That's the problem with watching movies on TV in general, and especially on the new widescreen TV's that are now the standard. To me, the strangeness of the picture on HDTV's when viewing an older movie originally shot on film is just another technical complication most of us aren't even aware of. When you watch a movie on your widescreen TV, unless you're really knowledgable about how film is transferred to tape or DVD or not Blu-Ray, you never really know how much of the movie you're missing, especially if it's an older movie. All I know for sure is that the way the picture moves on a lot of movies and TV shows in HD looks mighty odd to me.

But I like to see movies exactly as they were seen in their original release. Cleaning up the picture and remastering a bit is fine, but when it starts to look downright odd in terms of picture or aspect ratio, I get all atwitter. But that's just me.

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harry Tuttle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm with Numbers and Olde Fart on this one,
> > Miz...
> >
> > If you're not satisfied with your TV's
> picture...
> > don't go with the knee-jerk, "technology is
> > messing up my few favorite things", reaction...
> >
> > Try adjusting your TV settings... When I first
> got
> > my TV, the picture looked stupid (for lack of a
> > better word)... I messed with the picture
> settings
> > and now it looks great... It's better than any
> > picture on any TV I've ever had before...
> >
> > Have you tried adjusting the settings yet!?
> > Well...!? Have you!?
>
>
> Reservoir Dogs looks like General Hospital now.
> That's all I know. It's not better, it's worse.
> Much, much worse. It looks unnatural. Movies that
> were shot on film now look like they were shot on
> a high-end digital camcorder. I don't think
> Tarantino was working within the limitations of
> technology at the time, necessarily. A sharper,
> cleaner picture is great. It's the actual motion
> of the video that's different, and not in a good
> way. It's the way the action moves on the screen
> that makes it look unnatural, and I don't think
> that's necessarily how every filmmaker always
> would have wanted it if it weren't for
> technological limitations. We've had those soap
> operas for decades. They always looked
> "different", at least as far as I can remember.
> Why is that? What is the actual technical
> difference that made daytime soap operas look all
> weird like that and so different from primetime TV
> shows? It can't be the discovery of newer, better
> technology that accounts for the difference I'm
> seeing in HD versus standard; soap operas have had
> that same weird, unnatural, home-movie look to
> them for many years. What accounts for the
> difference in the way the picture moves? Just the
> way the picture and the action on screen moves.
> Does anyone know? I always thought it was that
> (using daytime soaps as a comparison again) they
> were shot on videotape instead of film stock.
> Video is cheaper, right? Film is expensive. Now we
> have digital, right? So, and I'm just spit-ballin'
> here, I assume the difference comes down to the
> HDTV converting the picture on a movie that was
> shot on film to mimic a digital look. See,
> Reservoir Dogs wasn't shot in HD. HD didn't exist
> back then. So when you see Reservoir Dogs on an
> HDTV, I assume the TV is trying it's best to make
> the picture as "HD" as possible......but the movie
> itself, whether the director would've preferred HD
> or not back when it was made, is going to look
> strange because you have a new digital media
> trying to enhance something (film) that has its
> own unique visual qualities. Whatever Scorsese or
> Tarantino or Lean would've preferred back in the
> day if the technology had been available, now it
> looks very odd indeed, because the film these
> movies were printed on never could've anticipated
> the digital enhancement we see with HDTV's.
>
>
> someone brought up color films, that this is like
> saying black and white is better because some
> people fear the new technology. I see it more as
> the colorization of black and white films....which
> I think we can all agree is and always was a
> terrible idea. Or even the pan and scan method of
> altering a film's aspect ratio to fit the
> square-shaped TV's we used to watch. I think it's
> more an issue of the technology attempting to
> accommodate older media, which has always brought
> problems along with it. If you watch an old
> episode of Seinfeld, for example, on one of the
> newer, now standard rectangle-shaped flatscreen
> TV's, a lot of the time (unless you monkey around
> with the settings, and who actually does that?)
> you're seeing only a part of the picture. The
> sides and the top of the picture are cut off to
> fit the shape of the screen. And not all movies
> have the same aspect ratio, whether they're the
> old square-shape that was standard before the mid
> 1950's or the wider screen shape of films after
> that point. A lot of the time, your TV is just not
> smart enough (and neither is the viewer) to figure
> out how to reproduce the original aspect ratio of
> the film on the TV screen. There's too much
> variation. You'd have to mess around with your TV
> every time you wanted to watch a movie, depending
> on the movie, to be sure you were seeing the
> picture reproduced exactly in the same ratio as it
> was originally seen in theatres. That's the
> problem with watching movies on TV in general, and
> especially on the new widescreen TV's that are now
> the standard. To me, the strangeness of the
> picture on HDTV's when viewing an older movie
> originally shot on film is just another technical
> complication most of us aren't even aware of. When
> you watch a movie on your widescreen TV, unless
> you're really knowledgable about how film is
> transferred to tape or DVD or not Blu-Ray, you
> never really know how much of the movie you're
> missing, especially if it's an older movie. All I
> know for sure is that the way the picture moves on
> a lot of movies and TV shows in HD looks mighty
> odd to me.
>
> But I like to see movies exactly as they were seen
> in their original release. Cleaning up the picture
> and remastering a bit is fine, but when it starts
> to look downright odd in terms of picture or
> aspect ratio, I get all atwitter. But that's just
> me.
Attachments:

Miz, you're over thinking shit.

First, Reservoir Dogs was shot on film with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. An HDTV has an aspect ratio of 16:9 or 1.77:1. So in this particular case you're only losing about an inch on either side of the picture, depending on how large your display is.

Second, Reservoir Dogs was shot on 35mm film. 35mm film has an effective resolution of about 20 megapixels. HDTV has a maximum resolution of just over 2 megapixels. A standard definition TV has a maximum resolution of 0.3 megapixels.

If your screening of Reservoir Dogs looks like shit, either your TV is adjusted incorrectly or you bought a Chinese bootleg DVD. Viewing the movie on a properly adjusted HDTV should give you the closest experience to seeing the film in a theater.

I said this before everyone... Its not the aspect ratio, the contrast ratio, or the 1080 that is causing movies on your home hd tv to look funny. Its the refresh rate on newer hd tvs that is over 120Hz that makes things have that home camcorder look. If you have an hd tv that is only 60Hz movies look more like they are supposed to.

 

friskydingo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I said this before everyone... Its not the aspect
> ratio, the contrast ratio, or the 1080 that is
> causing movies on your home hd tv to look funny.
> Its the refresh rate on newer hd tvs that is over
> 120Hz that makes things have that home camcorder
> look. If you have an hd tv that is only 60Hz
> movies look more like they are supposed to.

Actually, a 120Hz refresh rate should make 24fps/Hz content look better since a 24fps rate can be divided into 120 with no fractions (5), unlike 60Hz refresh monitors (2.5 aka 2:3 pulldown). If it doesn't look better, then the TV is fucked up or not adjusted correctly.

http://gizmodo.com/231872/120hz-hdtvs-the-secret-to-making-movies-look-as-smooth-as-butter

Don't confuse 24fps film content with 60Hz video, which does look more fluid since it is effectively 60fps.

Damnit, Miz... Adjust your TV settings before you start whining....

Signatures are for fags

All of this ultra high tech bullshit... just to watch the same shows that showed up just fine on the old TV's. I got rid of my satellite dish, then cable, and now I'm on a digital roof antenna with a digital to analog converter box. The channel selection and picture quality is better than standard cable and it's FREE!

I take it one step further now and then. To get the full effect of watching OLD TV shows, I have an ancient JVC VHS player that feeds into a 1964 Magnavox vacuum tube TV with a round 21" color picture tube! I normally leave both unplugged and only turn those antiques on maybe once a month, hoping to keep them alive a little while longer. Yes, the picture is still very good but, slightly fuzzy at first. It's clear once everything is warmed up.

Just like in the old days, you have to get up to turn on the TV and WAIT FOR IT TO WARM UP. Gotta adjust the tuning knob, vertical and horizontal controls, and breathe in that heavenly ozone-like aroma of fully warmed up tubes doing their thing. Pop in a VHS tape of some old Honeymooners, Thunderbirds, or Alfred Hitchcock shows and enjoy the time travel experience.

You can keep your HDTV!

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Damnit, Miz... Adjust your TV settings before you
> start whining....


F your S in the A with a big black D until you C your pants with P and pass out in your own Z


F YOU!

go F yourself

Mong0Lloyd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just like in the old days, you have to get up to
> turn on the TV and WAIT FOR IT TO WARM UP. Gotta
> adjust the tuning knob, vertical and horizontal
> controls, and breathe in that heavenly ozone-like
> aroma of fully warmed up tubes doing their thing.

I do miss that warm, dusty ozone aroma. The pitch of the flyback transformer. And when you stand behind the set you can almost feel the stray radiation soaking into your bones.

I'm right about everything. Reservoir Dogs looks like a very violent episode of All My Children in HD. End of story.

Hank Moody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...And when you stand behind the set you can almost feel the stray
> radiation soaking into your bones.

Almost?

I distinctly remember static electricity (of some type) affecting the hair on my arms in such a situation.

`



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2015 09:39PM by WingNut.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Farte
>
> Channel 53 got fixed somehow.

Cool - now on to the other channels!

My tv's an "average penis size" bigger than yours!

Got me a sixty-FIVE" Sharp Aquos!

Hank Moody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I calibrated myself using a
> monitor calibration tool and some freeware
> software.

This is your answer. Calibration. Look it up.

I am so glad that other people can see that everything starts to look like shoddy home videos, i thought i was the only one that could see it, it makes me feel a bit car sick watching shows that look like behind the scene documentaries with a wobbly cameraman.

I will try to adjust my setting as advised on here, thanks

i have the same tv as the original poster, and we were freaking out over the video look too! so went to google it- and my bf fixed it- he changed it to "film" mode in the settings, problem solved!

update on 60" sharp Aquos tv, i just got mine and had the same issue, i hated it, i read some of these blogs and i found out by hitting the menu button, then going into picture, then into advanced picture settings there was an option for 120Hz level, mine was set to the highest level, i turned it off and it looks great, it doesn't have the weird home video look, or the weird documentary look. Hope this helps

I love the way it looks now. I have went back through my entire collection. Only thing I don't like is that when u play video games there is a delay in the response of your controller actions

HD guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just got a bitchin' new 60" Sharp Aquos
> HDTV.....great, fantastic. So.....why does
> everything I watch on it look like Days of Our
> Lives? You know what I mean...you know how daytime
> soap operas always looked different from regular
> TV shows? I guess because they're shot on video
> instead of film or something? I don't know what
> the difference is. But that's how everything looks
> on this TV. I don't think I like it. Everything
> just looks like a really super-high def home
> movie, know what I mean? It doesn't look natural.
> What is the difference I'm picking up on here? Is
> this preferable to the way standard definition
> looks? If so, sign me back up for standard
> definition. This stinks.

sharp is garbage tv's..as to calibrations that is a scam brought on and sold by best buy for $400 a pop.. if its is not right out of the box then it is a warranty issue and the set is defective.

if your looking for perfection you are looking in the wrong world

dfghjkl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HD guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > just got a bitchin' new 60" Sharp Aquos
> > HDTV.....great, fantastic. So.....why does
> > everything I watch on it look like Days of Our
> > Lives? You know what I mean...you know how
> daytime
> > soap operas always looked different from
> regular
> > TV shows? I guess because they're shot on video
> > instead of film or something? I don't know what
> > the difference is. But that's how everything
> looks
> > on this TV. I don't think I like it. Everything
> > just looks like a really super-high def home
> > movie, know what I mean? It doesn't look
> natural.
> > What is the difference I'm picking up on here?
> Is
> > this preferable to the way standard definition
> > looks? If so, sign me back up for standard
> > definition. This stinks.
>
> sharp is garbage tv's..as to calibrations that is
> a scam brought on and sold by best buy for $400 a
> pop.. if its is not right out of the box then it
> is a warranty issue and the set is defective.
>
> if your looking for perfection you are looking in
> the wrong world

First, anyone who pays $400 for a monitor calibration is an idiot, especially anyone who deals with Best Buy. The tools and software to perform a simple but very effective calibration are available for ~$100.

Second, you obviously haven't seen a monitor properly calibrated for 6400K color temperature. Either that or you're color blind. They are rarely correct out of the box.

Most television manufacturers don't give a flying shit about accurate color rendition. And clearly neither do you. LOL!

go join the listings on craigs crime list and go out to scam people out of money doing your fake calibrations.

if out of the box it is not adjusted properly it is the manufactures responsibility. they will adjust it for free under warranty

Change the Hrtz setting from 120 to 60. Or change it from movie mode. Mine did this, it all has to to with the settings.

qsdjytr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> go join the listings on craigs crime list and go
> out to scam people out of money doing your fake
> calibrations.
>
> if out of the box it is not adjusted properly it
> is the manufactures responsibility. they will
> adjust it for free under warranty


As I said, you're either color blind or you've never seen a calibrated monitor. Even a half-assed calibration can make a cheap LCD TV outshine a much pricier high-end uncalibrated model. The improvement is usually apparent even to an unsophisticated dolt such as yourself.

Hank Moody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> qsdjytr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > go join the listings on craigs crime list and
> go
> > out to scam people out of money doing your fake
> > calibrations.
> >
> > if out of the box it is not adjusted properly
> it
> > is the manufactures responsibility. they will
> > adjust it for free under warranty
>
>
> As I said, you're either color blind or you've
> never seen a calibrated monitor. Even a half-assed
> calibration can make a cheap LCD TV outshine a
> much pricier high-end uncalibrated model. The
> improvement is usually apparent even to an
> unsophisticated dolt such as yourself.


I just had my 6 month plasma recharge done

Olde Farte Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have yet to see anything wrong with my 50+"
> Vizio HD TV - it is a total delight in all ways
> when it's running 240Hz and real HD.
>
> It doesn't matter what the 1080 source is - home
> video camera, regular HD channel, Food Network
> special-framerate show, whatever.
>
> Total delight.
>
> I'll never go back.

i always make sure to get 3 repair calls while it is still in warranty. then by law the store has to give you a new one. last one they gave me a bigger one and a little over $200 back because prices went down

plusitdone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hank Moody Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > qsdjytr Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > go join the listings on craigs crime list and
> > go
> > > out to scam people out of money doing your
> fake
> > > calibrations.
> > >
> > > if out of the box it is not adjusted properly
> > it
> > > is the manufactures responsibility. they will
> > > adjust it for free under warranty
> >
> >
> > As I said, you're either color blind or you've
> > never seen a calibrated monitor. Even a
> half-assed
> > calibration can make a cheap LCD TV outshine a
> > much pricier high-end uncalibrated model. The
> > improvement is usually apparent even to an
> > unsophisticated dolt such as yourself.
>
>
> I just had my 6 month plasma recharge done

De-ionized plasma or standard?

For Samsung HDTV Smart 120-240 TV, press "menu" on remote;
Move cursor down blue "Picture" options until you get to "Picture Options";
Select "Auto Motion Plus": THIS IS DEFAULTED TO HIGH AT THE MANUFACTURING PLANT, and this is what causes the too-clear screen.
Samsung tech support told me to switch to "OFF", which is not necessary, I selected "Clear" and have a super sharp, high quality pic WITHOUT looking like closed-circuit TV.


After you change this setting, press menu again, and you are done.

BTW, a lot of modification of the defualt settings - all of the default settings - is required before you get a good pic, but once you are done the picture quality is fantastic..