Maybe flatscreen TV is ok, after all ...

There is none, this is just one of the memes that one must espouse to belong to a particular club. Kind of like a secret handshake.

But, just like "We inherited a recession from Clinton!" and "There were no terrorist attacks in America during the Bush administration!" and all of the rest, some myths never die irrespective of what really happened.

Meat Plow wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.alt.net:

yeah,and you had so much to contribute,too....

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:hitadu$104$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

Oh,as if you can trust the news media these days.... don't you remember Dan Rather and his Bush memo fiasco? Or the GM truck fire reports,or the misinformation they hand out on gun issues?

The MSM is in the tank for DemocRATs. they omit a lot.

As if by magic you prove my point.

Now please f*ck off you flatulant fart-flap.

Where would you get a good quality analogue signal from these days? Analogue broadcasts (possibly except live) are certainly digital recordings coverted to analogue at the station or transmitter.

Sylvia.

Take a look at the Panasonic Viera series then, and see if you think that the upscaling is poor on those ...

Motion artifacts are a different thing altogether. I have seen those on both LCD and past plasmas, but so far, I have seen none on my Panasonic plas, in any resolution. The LCD in my kitchen - admittedly not a very expensive one - is perfectly dreadful in this regard, and when you add in motion blur from the slow LC cells as well, it is objectionable to watch on some content.

Amounts in practice to pretty much the same thing.

As far as I understand the technology, the drive scheme for LCD and plasma panels is quite different, and it just seems to me, purely by observation, that the scaling algorithms used to upscale signals for driving a plasma panel, work better than those for driving an LCD panel. You bought a plasma recently, as I recall. What was it that made you choose that over a cheaper LCD ?

Agreed, but the vast majority of off-air TV that is broadcast here, is of standard low res, and it is this that they will be watching *most* of the time for their regular nightly entertainment.

I'm not talking analogue signals. I'm talking the DTTV signals that are being broadcast to replace the analogue signals, and the 'standard' satellite signals. Both of these are low res, the same as the analogue signals were. There is no HD available here on DTTV at the moment. There should have been by now, but our crooked government have reneged on their promise to release more band for DTTV as the analogue services close down. This means that the broadcasters are now going to have to fit HD transmissions into the space that they already have available, so are going to have to use a different compression scheme, requiring that a separate HD receiver will be needed, even for TVs which have a DTTV receiver for the current channels, built in. This is something else that the great unwashed don't understand. Most think that their "HD Ready" TV, with built in digital tuner, is going to be able to receive these HD terrestrial transmissions when they finally - if ever - start. There is plenty of HD available by subscription however, from the primary satellite broadcaster here.

So most of the programming that is being watched here, is indeed of standard low resolution, and is being received via the owners existing or upgraded UHF rooftop antenna, and the built in DTTV tuner within their shiny new TV. So, as they are receiving digital transmissions, their expectations are, quite reasonably, that they will get a very good picture like they saw in the showroom, when they get it home. What they don't realise, is that in the store, they saw the set running on either an HD sat signal, an HD video recording, or BluRay, *not* a standard res off-air digital signal, being upscaled within the TV, like they are going to be watching *most of the time*, at home. Does that make it a little clearer what I'm saying ?

Arfa

No, it doesn't. Not at all.

The averaging reduces artifacts, especailly "stairstepping", which is the visual equivalent of aliasing in audio signals. Simply discarding lines would make the effect worse.

You are confusing analogue transmission with digital sourcing. I am talking about a signal that leaves the studio in analogue form, no matter how it was created and processed prior to that, and arrives at the transmitter to modulate the carrier in a 'conventional' analogue AM way, as opposed to a signal that is compressed and then used to modulate a large swathe of individual carriers, mixed in with compressed data streams from other sources, and which then needs a different receiver, either internal to the TV or as an external set top box, to receive and decode and process those signals back into something that can be displayed by a (formerly 'standard') analogue TV.

Arfa

It seems more than likely that these days what arrives at the transmitter is a digital signal, which is then converted to analogue for transmission. Further, it's unlikely that the digital signal is uncompressed, because such a signal has an excessive bandwidth requirement. It's probably scaled before transmission as well, which never improves things.

Sylvia.

I don't think you understand how digital TV is implemented.

How does what you think have any bearing?

Sylvia.

I'm trying to politely state that you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

I kind of guessed that, thanks. But the question stands.

Sylvia.