Digital TV quality

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On 10 Dec 2005 07:42:11 -0800, the renowned langwadt@ieee.org wrote:


James Beck skrev:

In article <pn8mf.24763$BZ5.22600@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ,
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net says...
Hello Folks,

I just had the 'pleasure' to see digital cable at a neighbors house,
just because the TV happened to be on when we were there. The image was
'pixely' and kind of ok when viewed from the usual distance.

However, the real disappointment came during a car ad. The usual, a
sporty car driven around a race track. There were huge lags in the
movement and the rear of the car was gravely distorted. It looked as if
the data path was choking.

Is this what we are going to get once the analog channels are turned off?

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Just because his set, and maybe even the feed, was "digital" the source
material is usually the weak link. I have a 42" HDTV with digital cable
and let me tell you, the Discovery HD Channel is beyond belief. They
use nothing but the best quality source material and I could see the
individual scales on the reef fish during one program. But you know the
old saying GIGO.

Jim

I've heard theres a bit of a panic spreading because some of the pretty
tv and
movies celebs don't look quite as pretty on hdtv

-Lasse

I shudder to think of a HDTV close-up on Conan O'Brien's hideous
pockmarked mug.

Reminds me of those circle-lit magnifying mirrors that some women use,
and they are often in hotels-- they magnify every pore and whisker.

I suppose makeup artists are going to have to upgrade their skills and
materials until they figure out some electronic way to just soft-focus
the actor's faces.

lol, reminds me of the old tv-series Moonlighting with Cybill Shepherd
and Bruce Willis
every close up of her was soft focus and light

-Lasse

Chris Jones wrote:

< apologies for snippage to the really interesting content >

Yes but think of all the money the government will make when they sell off
all of the analogue spectrum to the highest bidder.

And this of course is *really* what it's all about !

I have just been reading a 1949 Wireless World magazine. The French were
broadcasting 819 line signals from the Eiffel tower back then.

Never underestimate the French. Their technical skills are often obscured by the
common obsession with the supposed fantastic German technology but only for
example, in France is 75-80% of the electricity generated by nuclear yet no one
as much a makes a murmur about it and it has operated safely for decades.

They also have trains so fast that they are a serious competitor to jet travel.

Graham

Luhan wrote:

[snip]

Hi,

Anybody ever think of putting up a FREE SATELITE (like the BBC did)?
Run it just like any other broadcast (funded solely by comercials), only
hit about 1/3 of planet earth for your 'local' viewers.

Luhan

I hate to break the news to you, but satellites aren't 'free'. The
British (and many other governments) are already in the broadcast TV
business, so scraping up a few hundred million in taxpayer dollars to
launch one isn't a big problem.

Here in the US of A, broadcasting is a private business. Government
financial involvement would be politically unacceptable. Private
enterprise has several alternatives available to raise the needed
capital. It has chosen the one that it believes is economically
efficient: subscription satellite service. The alternative, advertizing
supported TV might require too many minutes of ads for the public to
tolerate.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is like a buffet. Its not very good but there's plenty of it.

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Luhan wrote:

[snip]


Hi,

Anybody ever think of putting up a FREE SATELITE (like the BBC did)?
Run it just like any other broadcast (funded solely by comercials), only
hit about 1/3 of planet earth for your 'local' viewers.

Luhan


I hate to break the news to you, but satellites aren't 'free'. The
British (and many other governments) are already in the broadcast TV
business, so scraping up a few hundred million in taxpayer dollars to
launch one isn't a big problem.

The BBC isn't a government organisation !

A classic mistake made by 'mercuns.

And no it isn't a 'quasi' government organisation either. You should see
the flak it gets sometimes when it's *critical* of government
action. In fact I suspect it's more free to criticise government than
your US media organistions as it's not beholden to investor interests
either.


Graham