XPost: rec.music.gdead, sci.electronics.design
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:23:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>"Trevor" wrote in message
>news:4d76a4be$0$2445$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au
>
>> "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
>> news:G_-dnfIFNr1ErevQnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>>> In many locations the analog signal will never be
>>> totally free of ghosts, while the digital signal will be
>>> unchanged from optimal.
>
>> Right, and in some locations you can get a picture on
>> analog that many found watchable, but NO picture on
>> digital at all.
>
>That has to be true - different frequencies is probably the major reason
>why.
WRONG!
>> And so far no one has mentioned bit rates. The trend here
>> unfortunately has been to constantly lower bit rates to
>> fit in more channels, so that what was once a FAR better
>> picture on digital, is often no better than analog.
>
>Your "no better than analog" claim has to be true if someone goes off the
>deep end, but in practice, nobody seems to be going there.
Actually, they are. Perhaps you just aren't sensitive to the digital
artifacts (or willfully ignore them).
>For example the local PBS output runs 3 services, 2 16:9 HD and 1 4:3
>digital format.
>
>> We have just swapped noise for pixelation.
>
>Thats not how it works. With scalers and transcoding the distinctions are
>blurred. The two 16:9 services on our PBS outlet show a clear hierarchy of
>quality, but it is non trivial for me to characterize the difference. I
>think they are both the same number of vertical pixels, but one has a
>clearer more dynamic picture than the other. The Blu Ray palayer, the cable
>box and DLP TV have scalers, so the display is always painted @ 1080i.
That may not be "how it works", but it *is* the result.
>Just because there are pixels on the screen doesn't mean that they get the
>data that is required to make them strut their stuff.
Whatever that means...
>> At least we have a few more channels to choose from however, so it's not
>> all bad. But to make the problem worse, we now have most
>> of our High Definition channels broadcasting 1960's
>> re-runs that are obviously NOT high definition in any
>> sense of the word, and not even wide-screen format.]
>
>Ca. 1960 movies might have content that taxes even modern HD. Cinerama and
>the high end Cinemascope releases come to mind.
Try reading.
>> What a waste of all those new big screen HiDef TV's people
>> have bought! Obviously a ploy to force people onto pay TV
>> channels. Is it as bad in the USA?
>
>YMMV. Things are pretty good here in the city, but I've spent some time
>upstate and its mixed bag. Down here the cable services are now 100%
>digital with 100s of channels and with all but the local OTA channel
>distribution coded. Local OTA channels are clear QAM. The actual bitrates
>seem to vary all over the place. Upstate the cable system was a hodgepodge
>of < 100 channels both digital and analog, and the implementation of digital
>was a mixture of encoded premium services and clear QAM standard services. I
>believe the local OTA channels were clear QAM.
I thought you just said that "no one seems to be going there"?
>> And how about digital radio. Such low bit rates it's
>> always worse than FM. Add in real reception problems in
>> cars where people often listen to radio, and one is
>> almost forced to the conclusion that there is a
>> deliberate conspiracy to create problems rather than
>> solve them! The technology is certainly not to blame,
>> just it's implementation by non technical politicians
>> paid by vested interest groups :-(
>
>And then there are the satellite services, both TV and radio...
Yes, and they suck too (XM less so than Dish).
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
