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"
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
That's a fact!!!
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.
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
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
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).
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
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"?
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:
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
Re Foxtel, well that is a different argument altogether.
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.
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.
Of course you can be limited by the bitrate (and hence number of pixels) from
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
Nicholas Sherlock wrote: