You are far more likely to get headaches from a CRT than an LCD. The CRT flickers, the LCD doesn't.
Not unless you are sitting with your eyeballs about a foot from the screen? :eek:
Can you not reject it and buy something else from Comet?
You only bought it a couple of days ago.
The above are settings for your TV after a calibration. I know you're really supposed to do it yourself but you may as well try them out and see if there's any improvement for you.
I think your main problem simply is you're viewing SD content over SCART/RGB, no matter what, I have the same TV, SD DOES look crap, this TV shines when HD is applied, turn off Dynamic Contrast, Dynamic Colour, etc so the TV isn't applying as many post filter effects and try, seriously, get a HD source, you mention Lost, Lost on Sky1 HD has brilliant picture quality, if you have a games console such as a PS3 then hook it up via HDMI and let the thing show you what the TV can do.
Also, invest in a Sky+HD Box, that provides at least an upscaler for the SD channels so the TV can display it better, plus the content will be coming over HDMI then instead of an RGB Scart!
Thank you to everyone for all your responses, I really appreciate it.
Well, I tried following the advice on here, and from other forums, and took off all the 'bells and whistles' stuff and reduced the backlighting setting etc.
Sat down to watch Lost tonight and couldn't believe the look of the programme ... for a lot of the time it looked like it had been filmed in a studio setting, rather than the glossy, 'on location' look it usually has (eg the actors walking through the jungle looked like actors walking through a set of 'a jungle' rather than the real thing). Very surreal and distracting
A similar experience whilst watching a DVD of Tarsem Singh's 'The Fall' which usually looks outstandingly filmic ... just looked like it had been filmed on the old set of Crossroads in some parts.
Also any text in adverts appears as jagged, rather than smooth lines.
Plus my OH and I have had really bad headaches all evening which we can only attribute to the screen (and we're sitting a good 8 feet away from the set).
Gutted ... I know I've got no hope of getting a refund from Currys, so I only hope I'm able to sell it and get at least some money back.
Thanks for everyone's help anyway - I was obviously born in the wrong era .
I would say 8ft is too close for viewing SD on a 37" - IMO it should be around 10ft.
I think your main problem simply is you're viewing SD content over SCART/RGB, no matter what, I have the same TV, SD DOES look crap, this TV shines when HD is applied, turn off Dynamic Contrast, Dynamic Colour, etc so the TV isn't applying as many post filter effects and try, seriously, get a HD source, you mention Lost, Lost on Sky1 HD has brilliant picture quality, if you have a games console such as a PS3 then hook it up via HDMI and let the thing show you what the TV can do.
Also, invest in a Sky+HD Box, that provides at least an upscaler for the SD channels so the TV can display it better, plus the content will be coming over HDMI then instead of an RGB Scart!
The TV already has onboard scaling, if it didn't the SD channels would just be a small image in the middle of the screen.
Yes, invest in Sky HD if you want a good selection of HD, I doubt they would see a huge difference in SD quality.
external upscaling can offer a better SD picture. we have a couple of Panasonic recorders, which have both SCART and HDMI sockets on the back. The picture through the HDMI is quite a bit better.
external upscaling can offer a better SD picture. we have a couple of Panasonic recorders, which have both SCART and HDMI sockets on the back. The picture through the HDMI is quite a bit better.
It depends how good your TV is, the better your TV then the less likely you are to see any improvement with an external upscaler - it may even be worse. With my Panny plasma and Panny DVDR I get the best DVD picture (slightly best) with 576p but with a Blu-ray player (better upscaler) its best at 1080p.
Incidentally saying the picture through HDMI is better is a bit misleading with regards upscaling. Firstly you don't have to upscale through HDMI and you can get a big improvement on DVDs just by using 576p and secondly it can be that your TV doesn't handle SCART well or that the SCART is not set to RGB.
For Sky HD I get the best SD picture from RGB SCART (box not de-interlacing) but the difference is too small to make it worth the hassle of switching between SCART and HDMI for SD so use HDMI for everything and set it to Automatic (because 1080i is such a pain).
Sat down to watch Lost tonight and couldn't believe the look of the programme ... for a lot of the time it looked like it had been filmed in a studio setting, rather than the glossy, 'on location' look it usually has (eg the actors walking through the jungle looked like actors walking through a set of 'a jungle' rather than the real thing). Very surreal and distracting
Does your TV have a 100hz option? My Samsung does the same thing if I have the 100hz on, evey thing looks like it was shot on super quality VHS and loses all filmic quality. Turning it off gives back that wonderful film look. Although to confuse things it is not actually referred to as 100hz in the settings.
Unfortunately I agree with the OP about Emperor's new clothes, that is why I have resisted the temptation to buy a nice thin flat screen TV as the SD picture on every one I've looked at (including Panasonic and Sony) is worse than my old CRT.
Afterall, HD was invented to make flat screen TVs look good as without it they are abysmal .
I have to admit, when I first got my LCD TV 2 years ago I was disapointed with the quality of SD. I think I had un-realistic expectations of how it would look with SD material. Of course when they show you the TVs in the shop they are usually with a HD source and look amazing. After tinkering about with the settings for a few days I was able to get a fair picture which overall was an improvement on my old 20'' CRT. DVDs always looked good though. The TV really shines with a HD source (SKY/Blu ray). That's when I really saw what the TV could do and really saw what a good investment I had made. However even with SD material I never experienced motion blur or bad pixilation. It sounds really bad and un-watchable. I wonder if your set is faulty.
As far as I am concerned it depends on either the set, or the perception of the viewer, as I have a cheap 22" HD ready LCD made by 'Acoustic Solutions' and I have never seen a Blu-ray nor any HD channels.
SD looks perfectly fine on it - in fact it seems it IS the input source which makes the difference because even with the exact same TV settings, I get different picture quality from Terrestrial (Via RF), Freeview (the built in freeview even differs from an external set top box) and Freesat (plugged in via scart).
I see absolutely no evidence from any of those sources that the picture is any worse than on my 22" CRT which is made by Panasonic.
I also have a ps3, so I am able to see HD quality pictures from the XMB and games (connected via HDMI).
I also have a Philips DVD Recorder with Freeview int. which upscales and there is not a great deal of difference whether I connect it by scart or HDMI.
As others have said, once you get the settings right it looks much better, and I think the OP needs to give it a couple of weeks - a few days before giving up seems a bit impatient for something that is completely new to them.
Does your TV have a 100hz option? My Samsung does the same thing if I have the 100hz on, evey thing looks like it was shot on super quality VHS and loses all filmic quality. Turning it off gives back that wonderful film look. Although to confuse things it is not actually referred to as 100hz in the settings.
This is what the problem you are experiencing is. Either it's 100hz or another mode that creates a similar 3D-like image. Simply find out what the mode is called, switch it off and you will not have to return the set.
I have a 42" Toshiba Regza. When I first set it up, I had my Sky SD and dvd going through a scart block to Scart input 1 on the tv. The picture was really good, especially some programs like the Pixar doc that was shown at Xmas. Trouble is that both scart blocks I used gave a slight 'hatching' interference especially noticable on dvds.
So I ditched the scart blocks and had the dvd into scart 1 and Sky sd into 2.
Because scart 1 is RGB, the picture on dvds is great but Sky sd looks crap, patterns around edges of colourful objects, blurring etc.
OP, try putting your sd signals though scart 1, the picture should look better.
I also have a PS3 and the HD pic looks stunning btw.
I found that in most cases LCD's beat CRT. But i certainly wasnt one of the first to buy one. I know people who did, and it cost them a fortune at the time, and now they are stuck with a panel that doesnt even do HD, or have an HDMI socket.
In my example's, I would say that LCD is better than the previous CRT's, but on a few specific issues the LCD cant quite match the CRT......
1. I have been impressed by the black screen rendering of modern LCD's. Everyone says LCD's cant do proper black - well they do. And they do it better than CRT's.
2. On CRT's and more so on Widescreen CRT's, there's an issue with unwanted image rotation due to the Earths magnetic pull. Some CRT's even had a manual correction feature for this - most didnt. No such problem on LCD.
3. Higher resolution on LCD. Even on SD pictures, LCD provides a sharper image than CRT. You can clearly see this on things like the Sky News and BBC News ticker tapes along the bottom edge of the screen. This higher res can also work against Lcd, for example when the quality of the SD material is low (some SD is better than others).
4. The old issue of poor viewing angles on LCDs have now gone. You can have just as good a viewing angle on most LCD's as you do with CRT.
5. Less colour bleeding + better colours. Whereas on CRT the edges of colour were slightly fuzzy, they are crisp on LCD. I guess a digital signal is also required to make this work.
6. Motion blur - the only time a CRT can beat an LCD today. Some LCD's do better than others. Maybe with a Bluray player and output at 1080p (just as long your tv can take 1080p), you would get round this fully on LCD. But even if it does, SkyHD, CableHD, and FreeviewHD all broadcast at 1080i.
Dont forget that HDMI doesnt just offer an upscaled image from the box, but it also removes the types of image problem related to SCART (see post above). SCART was a bad design from day 1.
The bottom line is that a lot of sd material looks shit on an LCD and there's nothing you can do about it.
Freeview and most digital tv looks awful although from your regular viewing distance you should not be able to spot these imperfections.
But unlike a CRT closeup inspection of sd looks dreadful.
DVD can look good when setup correctly as it offers MPEG2 as good as it gets while digital tv offers MPEG2 in a cut price cocked up mess.
Don't listen to those who say their sd tv looks "excellent" .All it means is that they don't have a clue about what entails a good picture.
A Bluray player set to upscale dvd's should give you as good an sd picture as you will get although sd shows upscaled on C4HD and other HD channels look good and really give away the limitations of the sd channel version
A V+ box will provide SD tv channels that look way better than the same channels via the Sky HD box.
But built in Freeview will tend to look terrible especially ITV1 so make sure your viewing distance is balanced between being easily able to spot the improvement from HD sources and not sitting so close for the problems with sd to be noticeable all the time
Unfortunately I agree with the OP about Emperor's new clothes, that is why I have resisted the temptation to buy a nice thin flat screen TV as the SD picture on every one I've looked at (including Panasonic and Sony) is worse than my old CRT.
Afterall, HD was invented to make flat screen TVs look good as without it they are abysmal .
only if you buy a junk lcd. i see people complain about 26-32" lcd performance. well no sh*t, you bought a super low end tv and you expect it to perform? at 6 feet you can barely see much anyways from a screen that small.
newer flat panels look fine, there was a time when you could claim crts were superior, but its long gone now. sure near the end of crt era the minimum standard crt was better than the minimum standard for lcd, esp when scaling sd material. but its mostly crt masking the flaws of sd material,not inherently being better.
i'm not sure why the op bought a 37" if his original set was a 32", if that was a 4:3 then his new set is actually an inch shorter in image area height:P you need to go bigger.
sd scalers are not built equal. scaling an image 3-6x depending on if you got 720/1080p takes some talent apparently. and blocky breakups are not the tvs fault. that is the broadcaster not using enough bitrate for the material and so you see image compression artifacts. if you see this it isn't really the scaler at fault, you are just seeing how garbage the original signal is. dvd's are only sd quality, so they will not show off your tv, they too are 3-6x less resolution than your tv. that being said, 37" is too small. and of course the cheaper the tv, the less well it will perform with dodgy material.
plus are you using an upscaling dvd player or a regular one, and how is it connected. i hope you aren't using analog inputs, if so of course it looks like mush. analog inputs on new tvs always reveal the fuzzy mess that such inputs provide. i'm assuming you are using your old player since you've mentioned nothing about it. in that case that will be the problem. upscsaled dvd players don't increase the resolution but they do provide the cleanest input and side step any potential dodgy scaler issues making sure most any panel tv looks decent. though if you've ever seen hd or bluray you will still notice that there is little detail in a dvd image.
it always matters what connectors you use. if you feed in garbage, you get garbage out. have you tried bbc hd?
Freeview HD: a television service that offers HD channels, including the BBC HD channel, available via your existing TV aerial, free. In order to view these HD channels you will need a Freeview HD box that connects to an HD-ready TV. You also get access to up to 50 SD digital channels and radio stations. To check if you can receive Freeview HD at your address and for more information visit Freeview. http://www.bbc.co.uk/digital/tv/tv_hd.shtml
i really hope you aren't using some old box.
I would say 8ft is too close for viewing SD on a 37" - IMO it should be around 10ft.
i take it you sit in the last row in the theater?
at 10 feet a 37" is a postage stamp. 37" is too small for any reasonable seating distance so theres no point quibbling about the right distance, its compromised by default, its not too big unless you try using it as your computer monitor. a wide screen letterboxed film on such a screen is barely more than a foot tall strip on the wall.
Thank you to everyone for all your responses, I really appreciate it.
Well, I tried following the advice on here, and from other forums, and took off all the 'bells and whistles' stuff and reduced the backlighting setting etc.
Sat down to watch Lost tonight and couldn't believe the look of the programme ... for a lot of the time it looked like it had been filmed in a studio setting, rather than the glossy, 'on location' look it usually has (eg the actors walking through the jungle looked like actors walking through a set of 'a jungle' rather than the real thing). Very surreal and distracting
A similar experience whilst watching a DVD of Tarsem Singh's 'The Fall' which usually looks outstandingly filmic ... just looked like it had been filmed on the old set of Crossroads in some parts.
Also any text in adverts appears as jagged, rather than smooth lines.
Plus my OH and I have had really bad headaches all evening which we can only attribute to the screen (and we're sitting a good 8 feet away from the set).
Gutted ... I know I've got no hope of getting a refund from Currys, so I only hope I'm able to sell it and get at least some money back.
Thanks for everyone's help anyway - I was obviously born in the wrong era .
sounds like you got motion flow aka 120+hz on. makes everything look like a soap. turn it off.
second there is no way adverts and text look blocky, unless you've hooked it up wrong or are feeding it SD material. since you've mentioned nothing about how you've actually set it up or connected it up i'm guessing you are feeding it analog and or sd input leading to your garbage output. and yes on a good tv nothing in lost looks like a set.
I think your main problem simply is you're viewing SD content over SCART/RGB, no matter what, I have the same TV, SD DOES look crap, this TV shines when HD is applied, turn off Dynamic Contrast, Dynamic Colour, etc so the TV isn't applying as many post filter effects and try, seriously, get a HD source, you mention Lost, Lost on Sky1 HD has brilliant picture quality, if you have a games console such as a PS3 then hook it up via HDMI and let the thing show you what the TV can do.
Also, invest in a Sky+HD Box, that provides at least an upscaler for the SD channels so the TV can display it better, plus the content will be coming over HDMI then instead of an RGB Scart!
that is my guess as well.
why do people complain when they don't read the manual!! its so annoying. i've seen this several times, person doesn't read manual, hooks it up wrong, complains, then proclaims all flat panels to be junk.
I found that in most cases LCD's beat CRT. <start of some snips>
1. black screen rendering
2. image rotation
3. Higher resolution on LCD.
4. viewing angles
5. Less colour bleeding
6. Motion blur
Dont forget that HDMI doesnt just offer an upscaled image from the box, but it also removes the types of image problem related to SCART (see post above). SCART was a bad design from day 1.
I thought that was a very well thought out and fairly accurate appraisal of the situation.
I admit no.2 is something I haven't got the first clue about, but I shall take your word for it lol.
at 10 feet a 37" is a postage stamp. 37" is too small for any reasonable seating distance so theres no point quibbling about the right distance, its compromised by default, its not too big unless you try using it as your computer monitor. a wide screen letterboxed film on such a screen is barely more than a foot tall strip on the wall.
You don't seem to understand about resolution and visual acuity. At 10' a 37" is slightly to large for SD because of the pixel size - presumably your eyes aren't to good and so miss this?
I have a 50" at this distance and SD performance is compromised however this is fine for HD and an even bigger set would be okay though I myself wouldn't like to fill any more of my field of vision with a larger set (that is a matter of personal taste).
You don't seem to understand about resolution and visual acuity. At 10' a 37" is slightly to large for SD because of the pixel size - presumably your eyes aren't to good and so miss this?
I have a 50" at this distance and SD performance is compromised however this is fine for HD and an even bigger set would be okay though I myself wouldn't like to fill any more of my field of vision with a larger set (that is a matter of personal taste).
they don't make 37" 480p screens. you would be right if there were 480p NATIVE 37" screens, only then you could scrutinize your ugly pixel blocks since they'd be a whopping 6 times larger.
there are no physical SD pixels, which is why your theory about distance is not valid. you are quoting theories from the SD era, where perhaps when you played back a vhs tape with 250 lines of resolution on a 37" it would look effin horrible.
You don't seem to understand about resolution and visual acuity. At 10' a 37" is slightly to large for SD because of the pixel size - presumably your eyes aren't to good and so miss this?
Not at all, minimum suggested SD viewing distance is 2.5 times screen size - 10ft is well over that for a 37 inch. Much too far away for any benefit from HD though.
everyone keeps saying about having a big screen is more or less a requirement. Eg, 32/37inch is too small. Please remember that that a lot of us are limited by the space we have in the room. Our friends very recently got a 50inc LCD, but their room is tiny. Looks stupid, and it just shows up too many SD imperfections as they cant sit far enough away from the screen.
We dont all want our rooms dominated by a massive screen.
Comments
Not unless you are sitting with your eyeballs about a foot from the screen? :eek:
Can you not reject it and buy something else from Comet?
You only bought it a couple of days ago.
The above are settings for your TV after a calibration. I know you're really supposed to do it yourself but you may as well try them out and see if there's any improvement for you.
Also, invest in a Sky+HD Box, that provides at least an upscaler for the SD channels so the TV can display it better, plus the content will be coming over HDMI then instead of an RGB Scart!
Yes, invest in Sky HD if you want a good selection of HD, I doubt they would see a huge difference in SD quality.
Incidentally saying the picture through HDMI is better is a bit misleading with regards upscaling. Firstly you don't have to upscale through HDMI and you can get a big improvement on DVDs just by using 576p and secondly it can be that your TV doesn't handle SCART well or that the SCART is not set to RGB.
For Sky HD I get the best SD picture from RGB SCART (box not de-interlacing) but the difference is too small to make it worth the hassle of switching between SCART and HDMI for SD so use HDMI for everything and set it to Automatic (because 1080i is such a pain).
Does your TV have a 100hz option? My Samsung does the same thing if I have the 100hz on, evey thing looks like it was shot on super quality VHS and loses all filmic quality. Turning it off gives back that wonderful film look. Although to confuse things it is not actually referred to as 100hz in the settings.
Afterall, HD was invented to make flat screen TVs look good as without it they are abysmal
SD looks perfectly fine on it - in fact it seems it IS the input source which makes the difference because even with the exact same TV settings, I get different picture quality from Terrestrial (Via RF), Freeview (the built in freeview even differs from an external set top box) and Freesat (plugged in via scart).
I see absolutely no evidence from any of those sources that the picture is any worse than on my 22" CRT which is made by Panasonic.
I also have a ps3, so I am able to see HD quality pictures from the XMB and games (connected via HDMI).
I also have a Philips DVD Recorder with Freeview int. which upscales and there is not a great deal of difference whether I connect it by scart or HDMI.
As others have said, once you get the settings right it looks much better, and I think the OP needs to give it a couple of weeks - a few days before giving up seems a bit impatient for something that is completely new to them.
This is what the problem you are experiencing is. Either it's 100hz or another mode that creates a similar 3D-like image. Simply find out what the mode is called, switch it off and you will not have to return the set.
So I ditched the scart blocks and had the dvd into scart 1 and Sky sd into 2.
Because scart 1 is RGB, the picture on dvds is great but Sky sd looks crap, patterns around edges of colourful objects, blurring etc.
OP, try putting your sd signals though scart 1, the picture should look better.
I also have a PS3 and the HD pic looks stunning btw.
In my example's, I would say that LCD is better than the previous CRT's, but on a few specific issues the LCD cant quite match the CRT......
1. I have been impressed by the black screen rendering of modern LCD's. Everyone says LCD's cant do proper black - well they do. And they do it better than CRT's.
2. On CRT's and more so on Widescreen CRT's, there's an issue with unwanted image rotation due to the Earths magnetic pull. Some CRT's even had a manual correction feature for this - most didnt. No such problem on LCD.
3. Higher resolution on LCD. Even on SD pictures, LCD provides a sharper image than CRT. You can clearly see this on things like the Sky News and BBC News ticker tapes along the bottom edge of the screen. This higher res can also work against Lcd, for example when the quality of the SD material is low (some SD is better than others).
4. The old issue of poor viewing angles on LCDs have now gone. You can have just as good a viewing angle on most LCD's as you do with CRT.
5. Less colour bleeding + better colours. Whereas on CRT the edges of colour were slightly fuzzy, they are crisp on LCD. I guess a digital signal is also required to make this work.
6. Motion blur - the only time a CRT can beat an LCD today. Some LCD's do better than others. Maybe with a Bluray player and output at 1080p (just as long your tv can take 1080p), you would get round this fully on LCD. But even if it does, SkyHD, CableHD, and FreeviewHD all broadcast at 1080i.
Dont forget that HDMI doesnt just offer an upscaled image from the box, but it also removes the types of image problem related to SCART (see post above). SCART was a bad design from day 1.
Freeview and most digital tv looks awful although from your regular viewing distance you should not be able to spot these imperfections.
But unlike a CRT closeup inspection of sd looks dreadful.
DVD can look good when setup correctly as it offers MPEG2 as good as it gets while digital tv offers MPEG2 in a cut price cocked up mess.
Don't listen to those who say their sd tv looks "excellent" .All it means is that they don't have a clue about what entails a good picture.
A Bluray player set to upscale dvd's should give you as good an sd picture as you will get although sd shows upscaled on C4HD and other HD channels look good and really give away the limitations of the sd channel version
A V+ box will provide SD tv channels that look way better than the same channels via the Sky HD box.
But built in Freeview will tend to look terrible especially ITV1 so make sure your viewing distance is balanced between being easily able to spot the improvement from HD sources and not sitting so close for the problems with sd to be noticeable all the time
only if you buy a junk lcd. i see people complain about 26-32" lcd performance. well no sh*t, you bought a super low end tv and you expect it to perform? at 6 feet you can barely see much anyways from a screen that small.
newer flat panels look fine, there was a time when you could claim crts were superior, but its long gone now. sure near the end of crt era the minimum standard crt was better than the minimum standard for lcd, esp when scaling sd material. but its mostly crt masking the flaws of sd material,not inherently being better.
i'm not sure why the op bought a 37" if his original set was a 32", if that was a 4:3 then his new set is actually an inch shorter in image area height:P you need to go bigger.
sd scalers are not built equal. scaling an image 3-6x depending on if you got 720/1080p takes some talent apparently. and blocky breakups are not the tvs fault. that is the broadcaster not using enough bitrate for the material and so you see image compression artifacts. if you see this it isn't really the scaler at fault, you are just seeing how garbage the original signal is. dvd's are only sd quality, so they will not show off your tv, they too are 3-6x less resolution than your tv. that being said, 37" is too small. and of course the cheaper the tv, the less well it will perform with dodgy material.
plus are you using an upscaling dvd player or a regular one, and how is it connected. i hope you aren't using analog inputs, if so of course it looks like mush. analog inputs on new tvs always reveal the fuzzy mess that such inputs provide. i'm assuming you are using your old player since you've mentioned nothing about it. in that case that will be the problem. upscsaled dvd players don't increase the resolution but they do provide the cleanest input and side step any potential dodgy scaler issues making sure most any panel tv looks decent. though if you've ever seen hd or bluray you will still notice that there is little detail in a dvd image.
it always matters what connectors you use. if you feed in garbage, you get garbage out. have you tried bbc hd?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/digital/tv/tv_hd.shtml
i really hope you aren't using some old box.
i take it you sit in the last row in the theater?
at 10 feet a 37" is a postage stamp. 37" is too small for any reasonable seating distance so theres no point quibbling about the right distance, its compromised by default, its not too big unless you try using it as your computer monitor. a wide screen letterboxed film on such a screen is barely more than a foot tall strip on the wall.
sounds like you got motion flow aka 120+hz on. makes everything look like a soap. turn it off.
second there is no way adverts and text look blocky, unless you've hooked it up wrong or are feeding it SD material. since you've mentioned nothing about how you've actually set it up or connected it up i'm guessing you are feeding it analog and or sd input leading to your garbage output. and yes on a good tv nothing in lost looks like a set.
that is my guess as well.
why do people complain when they don't read the manual!! its so annoying. i've seen this several times, person doesn't read manual, hooks it up wrong, complains, then proclaims all flat panels to be junk.
I thought that was a very well thought out and fairly accurate appraisal of the situation.
I admit no.2 is something I haven't got the first clue about, but I shall take your word for it lol.
yup some screen shots taken directly from bluray.
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Inglourious%20Basterds/59f344cc.png
now if that doesn't look crisp on your lcd (computer monitor) then somethings wrong;) if you feed that into a decent tv it will look fine.
if lcd can't pull off a decent image how are you seeing this?;)
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Up/a708daa5.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Leon/2921d2eb.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Gone%20With%20The%20Wind/53190370.png
and that last one is from a film made an eternity ago
look up xylons posts on avsforum, he's got a bevy of threads with bluray screen caps.
I have a 50" at this distance and SD performance is compromised however this is fine for HD and an even bigger set would be okay though I myself wouldn't like to fill any more of my field of vision with a larger set (that is a matter of personal taste).
they don't make 37" 480p screens. you would be right if there were 480p NATIVE 37" screens, only then you could scrutinize your ugly pixel blocks since they'd be a whopping 6 times larger.
there are no physical SD pixels, which is why your theory about distance is not valid. you are quoting theories from the SD era, where perhaps when you played back a vhs tape with 250 lines of resolution on a 37" it would look effin horrible.
Not at all, minimum suggested SD viewing distance is 2.5 times screen size - 10ft is well over that for a 37 inch. Much too far away for any benefit from HD though.
We dont all want our rooms dominated by a massive screen.