RE: re Digital TV !!!OFF TOPIC!!!

["Phil Harris" <phillip.harris1@xxxxxxx>]

It's quite a sad thing to contemplate ... That my =A3500 5 year old 4:3 TV
upstairs - when fed a good quality analogue broadcast signal - gives a
better quality image than I have yet seen on a broadcast signal into my
6 month old =A3700 16:9 set downstairs.

How many people have spend in excess of =A31,500 on the best TV set that
they can afford only to be feeding it a crap source signal?

Think DVD is the best picture source you can get? Think again ... Watch
a recording straight off BetaCam and prepare to be amazed - even what
you had previously considered good quality looks like you're watching
through a net curtain in comparison!

Another thing to think about is that as more and more digital processes
are introduced we are getting processes "fighting" against each
other
.... My mum has a 100Hz TV set that when really has problems processing
images that have come from an MPEG source - whether it's DVD or $ky.
I've noticed that TiVo's MPEG compression really struggles sometimes
when it's trying to recompress a signal from OnDigital!

Phil
=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Doxey [mailto:ukha@xxxxxxx]=20
> Sent: 18 January 2002 23:14
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] re Digital TV !!!OFF TOPIC!!!
>=20
>=20
> True. Digital Terrestrial is CAPABLE of really high quality.=20
> False. Digital Terrestrial currently gives a superior picture=20
> to analogue.
>=20
> Because most of the UHF spectrum is taken up with High Power=20
> transmitters for the 4 main analogue channels (note Channel 5=20
> is also very low power in many areas), they have only been=20
> able to allocate 6 frequencies (or MUXES) to each transmitter=20
> area for the digital transmissions.
>=20
> In a vain attempt to give viewers access to extra channels of=20
> crap, the amount of bandwidth assigned to the channels is=20
> mostly inadequate for a decent quality picture so even fairly=20
> minor changes in a picture can result in pixelisation of the image.
>=20
> Another side effect of the extra compression is that the=20
> reduced data rate leaves little room  for error correction=20
> and because of the limited information transmitted in the=20
> first place, the slightest interference will cause horrendous=20
> breakup in picture and sound.
>=20
> It remains to be seen if the quality and choice will improve=20
> once the UHF band is fully assigned to digital. Somehow I=20
> doubt it. Possibly there will be some "Premium Pay
Channels"=20
> of high quality and hundreds of other channels all showing=20
> repeat of soaps and quiz shows that should never even have=20
> been made, let alone transmitted again and again and again. I=20
> have noticed the quality of several SKY Digital channels drop=20
> as they add more channels without adding extra transponders.
>=20
> Keith
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Watt [mailto:kennwatt@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 18 January 2002 21:20
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] re Digital TV !!!OFF TOPIC!!!
>=20
>=20
> Andrew,
>=20
> AFAIK, the problem is that in many areas if the broadcasters=20
> ramped the digital signal up to an acceptable level it would=20
> interfere with the old analogue transmissions, Keith went=20
> into this before as well. Then you would get an outcry that=20
> it wasn't acceptable to many people, particularly older age=20
> groups, most of whom couldn't give a fig about DTV so long as=20
> they can get Eastenders and Corry without forking out for an STB.
>=20
> The logic goes that if the broadcasters and government can=20
> get enough people switched to digital then they can shut down=20
> the analogue transmitters and use solely digital, thereby=20
> allowing them to really ramp up the signal strength.
>=20
> I have been told that, on test, a pure digital feed from a=20
> terrestrial aerial can achieve *almost* HDTV standards and=20
> this is why Europe has not gone with the Yanks & Jap HDTV=20
> system as it is a lot cheaper and easier then the US/JP system.
>=20
> HTH
>=20
> K.
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Woolass [mailto:andrew@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 18 January 2002 20:35
> > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: [ukha_d] re Digital TV
> >
> > Does this mean they have overcome the signal strength issues that
> limited
> > the coverage of OnDigital / ITV Digital?
> >
> > I had to get Sky to get digital signal, terrestrial TV reception
for
> me is
> > VERY poor.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
>=20
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to=20
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>=20
>=20
>=20
> For more information:=20
> http://www.automatedhome.co.uk=20
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx=20
> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx=20
> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx=20
> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx=20
>=20
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to=20
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=20
>=20
>=20
>=20


For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk=20
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx=20
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx=20
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx=20
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx=20

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=20