Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

Why didn't you post them then?
MrT.
Reply to
Mr.T
Loading thread data ...
Apparently you are too illiterate to understand the facts that I posted.
Reply to
whoot-at-me
You do not have any idea what the difference is between a fact and an opinion then.
MrT.
Reply to
Mr.T
And last night that ad with Catriona Rowntree extolling the virtues of digital TV came on.
The only thing they seemed to promote in the ad though is "better picture" "better sound" and "no ghosting" which seems to be the three things people in here are discussing...
They were the only benefits mentioned in the ad. Not much mention of any of the other stuff like extra channels and camera angles. They only rate one or two words while they harp on about "better picture" "better sound" and "no ghosting"
Reply to
I Caught Kate
"Mr.T" wrote
You do not have any idea what the difference is between a fact and an opinion then.
***** Yes we do!!!
A FACT is a very small rare animal that lives around the hairs of a flea's balls,which,when pursued,runs around in ever decreasing circles until it finally disappears up its own fundamental orifice leaving the pursuer completly baffled.
That's a fact!!!
Brian Goldsmith.
Reply to
Brian Goldsmith
Aha, just like the trolls here :-)
MrT.
Reply to
Mr.T
Those *are* the major benefits of digital TV after all.
Reply to
Firefly
Those are only minor attributes of digital IMHO....
If that's all it has going for it it doesn't justify mothballing the existing system...
Reply to
I Caught Kate
You are entitled to that opinion of course but the reality is that it is not the case. For the majority of Australians the benefits are mainly in providing a more consistent and better quality picture and sound although it is certainly true that many people have found the analogue signal is better for them. It's better at my house than the digital signal, which is why I haven't purchased a STB.
Obviously that's not all it has going for it as you obviously realise from your previous post.
Reply to
Firefly
So you would like to go back in time and live in "the good old days"?
How about the format of pictures at the movies? Would you rather see squarish pictures rather than the widescreen ones presented there?
Come on, all (repeat, all) analogue ATV viewers are receiving some of the benefits of digital tv now - clearer picture. All TV transmitted now is actually digital right up to the transmitter and is much much clearer than it was a few years ago.
The statements from some people that they are receiving better pictures via analogue now are just plain wrong or uninformed. Those people have not seen digital tv, presented at their place, on the right set with the right antenna system. I repair many types of electronic equipment and as a result often have to advise people on digital tv. I have never been to a house where I could not show a better picture on a digital tv set than that which they were receiving on their analogue set.
This is quite apart from the widescreen advantage.
And if you look at previous posts on this subject you will see that there are considerably more advantages than those few mentioned by these posts.
The major problems is that most people are prepared to accept a mediocre picture on too small a set at too far a viewing distance from the set. Usually simply because they have not experienced anything better.
At home my TV is one and a half metres wide (150 cm) and we sit at a distance of 3 metres from the screen. It is capable of HD, with pixels of 1920 x 1080 and has only one defect for me - it requires the lights to be dimmed in the room to get the full contrast of which it is capable. It is a Sanyo PLV-HD10 projector. If you try to watch an analogue TV picture on it (from a quality analogue tuner)everyone is disappointed with the blurred and noisy (grainy) picture compared with the equivalent extremely clear and almost zero noise widescreen digital picture.
It gives a completely different appearance and experience to TV especially as you notice things in the image that you would not on a smaller set. You become immersed in the entertainment. Everyone who experiences it wants to have the same at their house. As for the Sanyo projector itself, it is cheaper to purchase than many large screen ordinary sets. But it has the unfortunate extra cost of a requiring a new lamp every two years (at around $500 each).
Firefly wrote:
Reply to
WDino
Further, the reason why the ABC and SBS networks have gone 576p for their HD is simply so that they can fit extra SD channels into their digital spectrum space. They reason that the only way to convince many of the general public to change over to digital is for the extra programming that is available to digital tv users. And they are probably right as it seems that many people just don't care about technical quality. They have not been placed in a position where they can appreciate its value that way.
WD> So you would like to go back in time and live in "the good old days"?
Reply to
WDino
All that means is that your projector does a crap job of converting from analogue to digital. It doesn't prove anything either way about analogue or digital TV.
Cheers, Nicholas Sherlock
Reply to
Nicholas Sherlock
You've never been to my place.
Would you like me to come aroiund and fix your antenna system for you?
This is FTA right?
I'll stick with Foxtel.
Reply to
Firefly
No it doesn't. It means that analogue is not as good as digital, by a long way. Everything is magnified in such a large picture. Om our normal 68 cm TV there is no difference between the two pictures. Of one thing you can be certain, it is not due to any projector processing!
Nicholas Sherlock wrote:
Reply to
WDino
Your reply demonstrates that you consider that you are different. And you are. But statistically your place is no different to any other of the thousands of other locations that I have visited.
Re antenna the difference in noise and clarity has nothing to do with that but is simply a function of analogue TV.
FTA does have some excellent programmes - when you block out the over-abundance of commercials.
Re Foxtel, well that is a different argument altogether.
Firefly wrote:
Reply to
WDino
Actually it has a lot to do with it. A good antenna and feeder system will eliminate the pixellation that a lot of people are suffering now as a result of going to digital with a far less than adequate setup. Many people trade analogue noise and ghosting for dramatic picture breakups or even worse, a complete loss of picture with digital. They think that buying a digital STB will eliminate the problems they had on analogue when often they're just trading one set of problems for another. Instead, a better antenna system with properly terminated cables and an antenna better suited to their location and possibly adding a masthead amp will fix most problems and give them a superior picture on analogue and no pixellation on digital, if they still want to go to digital. All that is usually a lot cheaper than buying a new TV and STB.
Reply to
Firefly
I agree with Nicholas. A decent antenna system makes a world of difference to analogue and provides a quite respectable picture on a large TV.
Reply to
Firefly
Have you ever looked at an LCD when it's running in less than its native resolution (yuck!)? I bet you get similar problems with this.
Cheers, Nicholas Sherlock
Reply to
Nicholas Sherlock
Sure, but even with the best antenna system you still get noise on analogue. And it you put too much signal into your analogue TV receiver you get crosmodulation.
The whole point is that digital IS better than analogue. But it is only really effective on a large screen.
Firefly wrote:
Reply to
WDino
Of course you can be limited by the bitrate (and hence number of pixels) from the source. But thankfully in Oz they have chosen to send the maximum bitrate. As for the projector, a picture with less than the 1920 x 1080 looks better on this screen than the same picture on a lower resolution projector. For example, it has been compared with most of the SVGA projectors available in OZ and is far superior - because the pixels are just not evident, even at that lower resolution of 800 x 600 (with either a DVD or SD TV as the source). Why? Well it seems that the edges of the pixels (from the source) are softened by the processor. This is independant of using component or DVI connection.
It seems that only people who have not had this big quality screen experience argue about analogue versus digital - obviously because they have opinions but not facts.
Nicholas Sherlock wrote:
Reply to
WDino

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.