Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="spiderwheels" data-source="post: 702875" data-attributes="member: 99116">Hello.I'm trying to work out if using a PC for my satellite TV viewing is degrading the picture quality compared to a dedicated satellite receiver box (think Sky HD here in UK).My theory is that it would be better with a Sky box because that passes the interlaced signal through to the TV. The TV then interlaces the signal - along with other video processing (e.g. noise reduction) - before display.Now when I use my PC the signal is interlaced in the graphics card and output to the TV as full frame. Then the TV just displays the frame.Now any TV (being dedicated to the task) is probably going to do a much better job of interlacing than my ATI 4200HD.I was thinking I might get a new TV in an effort to improve picture quality but I wonder if the PC is the real problem.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="spiderwheels, post: 702875, member: 99116"] Hello. I'm trying to work out if using a PC for my satellite TV viewing is degrading the picture quality compared to a dedicated satellite receiver box (think Sky HD here in UK). My theory is that it would be better with a Sky box because that passes the interlaced signal through to the TV. The TV then interlaces the signal - along with other video processing (e.g. noise reduction) - before display. Now when I use my PC the signal is interlaced in the graphics card and output to the TV as full frame. Then the TV just displays the frame. Now any TV (being dedicated to the task) is probably going to do a much better job of interlacing than my ATI 4200HD. I was thinking I might get a new TV in an effort to improve picture quality but I wonder if the PC is the real problem. :thx: [/QUOTE]

Verification