1080 HD TVs

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

Andrew wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:00:28 +0100, Kay Robinson
> <Kay_Robinson DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, well at least in the fact that I can see details I missed in
>> previous viewing :-) I watch a lot of art and antiques progs and the
>> close-up detail is simply astounding.
>
> On DVD? I would agree with HDDVD, but watching DVD's on a decent TV
> isn't a major revelation.

Agreed, Kays old TV must have been some old 405 line thing.

--
ThePunisher
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

In article <+KYgR4rdXdWh9OsnXKnnnqdhN=vK@4ax.com>, Kay Robinson
<Kay_Robinson.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
>On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:37:12 +0100, tony sayer <tony.RemoveThis@bancom.co.uk>
>sharpened a new quill and scratched:
>
>>>>>>That's true, we were going to buy a flat screen LCD TV to mount on the
>>>>>>wall last year as we thought it would look cool; then we decided to
>>>>>>wait until our current TV breaks down and replace it, I'm glad we have
>>>>>>as the prices have had a nice drop in the meantime and the quality is
>>>>>>getting better. I'm still not convinced with the picture quality I've
>>>>>>seen on the large LCD's in the shops, whether it's because they can't
>>>>>>be bothered to set them up correctly or they are genuinely poor I
>>>>>>don't know. I am however hoping our current TV breaks down in
>>>>>>January ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Most of the shops I go in have their displays on AV channels and very
>>>>>few ever bother to set them up properly. They never did in the days
>>>>>before digital come to think. I have two flat screen LCDs, a 26" and a
>>>>>32", both have a fabulous picture. When viewing older tv progs,
>>>>>especially on the digital only channels, definitinon isn't as great
>>>>>but that's because they were made with older technology. If you're a
>>>>>fan of 1970s/80s series no amount of modern technology is going to
>>>>>make them look good LOL
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And pray where in the modern bit rate compromised digital delivery
>>>>systems are more modern offerings any better?..
>>>
>>>You can pray all you like but please do it in plain English or is it
>>>your brain that has a bit rate compromised digital delivery system?
>>>
>>
>>OK if that was a bit difficult then, I'll put another way...
>>
>>Do you think that the absolute picture quality i.e. definition,
>>horizontal and vertical, colour grading etc, are better with current
>>standard definition digital delivery via the current terrestrial AKA
>>Freeview based system.
>>
>>
>>Or do you think it was better for the same parameters on the older
>>Analogue PAL system?....
>
>Picture quality is far superior both in definition and colour grading.
>Resolution spec is 1920 x 1080, Contrast Ratio 1200:1, Brightness
>500CD/MF. The swap from my old heavy analogue tv to the new one was as
>delightful a surprise as when I changed from B/W to colour. I'm
>enjoying re-watching all the DVDs I've bought over the past few years
>and seeing stuff I never saw before. I don't have cable, it's not
>available where I live. Tried BT system but it always broke down, so
>rely entirely on Freeview and I didn't have to have a new ariel
>fitted.
>
It seems to me that we have someone here who never saw a good analogue
picture on a CRT!. If your telling me that what you see of the current
freeview offerings at the poor bitrates currently in use then we have
rather different standards as to what a TV picture should look like!.

However I'm fast coming to the conclusion that the quality of analogue
pix out there must be rather poor, suppose thats not too surprising with
the majority of TV's and aerial installations. We have analogue and
digital here and from what I've seen of Freeview on all the TV's we have
it still leaves a lot to be desired over the analogue piccy we have:!.

However we do have digital satellite from Europe and some of the German
TV is excellent but I expect ti to be so with engineers in charge and
not marketing "suits" and accountants!...:)..


>Only drawback is that I purchased a DVD recorder with digital tuner to
>watch Freeview originally and the quality viewed via that, or from
>DVDs recorded on it is poor, however, that was the cheapest I could
>get at the time and am now going to get a new and better one with HDMI
>so once that arrives I'll give the Daewoo away.

If the qualities compromised in the first instance with the source
materiel in use ,then whatever the equipment its not going to make it
better!...
--
Tony Sayer
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:00:28 +0100, Kay Robinson
<Kay_Robinson RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>Yes, well at least in the fact that I can see details I missed in
>previous viewing :-) I watch a lot of art and antiques progs and the
>close-up detail is simply astounding.

On DVD? I would agree with HDDVD, but watching DVD's on a decent TV
isn't a major revelation.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

In article <VA.00000185.003f8c0a.TakeThisOut@removethisbit.beeb.net>,
escapetime.TakeThisOut@removethisbit.beeb.net says...
> HDTV systems with 1000 lines or more have been around for about a
> quarter of a century, but none of them has yet been implemented on a
> significant scale. If this ever happens, and if the programmes seem to
> be worth watching, *then* will be the time to shop for gear.
>
Precisely. This is what I've said all along. All the stores shout "Come and
buy our HD TVs", yet what exactly is there to watch?

Sky show some sport and films and US dramas, some of which are once-watch at
best, and BBC shows erm... Torchwood, Robin Hood and.... Not Going Out. Oh,
and Planet Earth, but if you want to look at the world around you then step
outside your front door for a while.
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1135 DVDs, 355 games, 338 CDs, 110 cinema films, 51 concerts, videos & news
/* shinobido psp, stuntman ignition, damien rice, pink floyd, baraka, sunshine
New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DVDfeverDom
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:34:44 +0100, Dom Robinson
<Usetheaddress RemoveThis @inthesig.com> wrote:

>Precisely. This is what I've said all along. All the stores shout "Come and
>buy our HD TVs", yet what exactly is there to watch?

HD games consoles and HDDVD/Blueray movies. A TV set isn't just about
watching broadcast TV for a lot of people.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:44:40 +0100, Kay Robinson
<Kay_Robinson DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> On DVD? I would agree with HDDVD, but watching DVD's on a decent TV
>>> isn't a major revelation.
>>
>>Agreed, Kays old TV must have been some old 405 line thing.
>
>There's no convincing some technophobes LOL

Yeah, I am such a technophobe I have a HDDVD drive. DVD may be a
reasonable improvement over VHS, but it was always limited in terms of
detail.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

In article <bbMhR6=Wmg=aUn2wW28ZJ7fUv=W=@4ax.com>, Kay Robinson wrote:
> I used to be a real HiFi enthusiast back in the 60s,
> however, unlike many who were only born then and make claims that the
> CD can never compete with vinyl, I know, from my ears that this isn't
> so.

Thank goodness I'm not the only one.

Rod.
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

In article <bbMhR6=Wmg=aUn2wW28ZJ7fUv=W=@4ax.com>, Kay Robinson
<Kay_Robinson.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:31:54 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap.DeleteThis@127.0.0.1>
>sharpened a new quill and scratched:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:44:40 +0100, Kay Robinson
>><Kay_Robinson.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On DVD? I would agree with HDDVD, but watching DVD's on a decent TV
>>>>> isn't a major revelation.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed, Kays old TV must have been some old 405 line thing.
>>>
>>>There's no convincing some technophobes LOL
>>
>>Yeah, I am such a technophobe I have a HDDVD drive. DVD may be a
>>reasonable improvement over VHS, but it was always limited in terms of
>>detail.
>
>As are all home recording systems. Most of my DVDs are shop bought but
>it was Freeview that my comments as to quality of picture mainly
>applied to.

You mean the lack of quality on 3 view?..

>I used to be a real HiFi enthusiast back in the 60s,
>however, unlike many who were only born then and make claims that the
>CD can never compete with vinyl, I know, from my ears that this isn't
>so. True master copies on vinyl, played via equipment costing a couple
>of thousand pounds or more, can be better but standard vinyl played on
>bog-standard stereo systems could never compete with similar standard
>CDs played on a similar stereo system. It's just a nostalgia thing :-)

Vinyl can be good but its nowhere near as good as what CD can do, the
only problem is that people like the coloration of vinyl and it can mask
some things they don't like to hear like some early recordings just
showed up what was realty there that the vinyl gently masked.


>
>Kay
>(away today for some much needed respite, maybe see you all in a
>couple of weeks)

Good 4 U;!..
>
--
Tony Sayer
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <+KYgR4rdXdWh9OsnXKnnnqdhN=vK@4ax.com>, Kay Robinson
> <Kay_Robinson.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:37:12 +0100, tony sayer <tony.RemoveThis@bancom.co.uk>
>> sharpened a new quill and scratched:
>>
[snip]

> It seems to me that we have someone here who never saw a good analogue
> picture on a CRT!. If your telling me that what you see of the current
> freeview offerings at the poor bitrates currently in use then we have
> rather different standards as to what a TV picture should look like!.
>

I disagree - we probably all have the same idea how the picture should
be, but some of us cannot get near that with analogue terrestrial.

> However I'm fast coming to the conclusion that the quality of analogue
> pix out there must be rather poor, suppose thats not too surprising with
> the majority of TV's and aerial installations. We have analogue and
> digital here and from what I've seen of Freeview on all the TV's we have
> it still leaves a lot to be desired over the analogue piccy we have:!.
>

I take it you have better than 49dBuV/m (33 for digital) and your aerial
is not 36m below line of sight to the transmitter (wolfbane/megalithia
estimates)?

Even under these conditions, when BBC freeview works the picture is far,
far clearer and more watchable than the analogue. If I want a decent
picture I use satellite, but that's* too much hassle for independent
viewing on multiple TVs.

[snip]

* Why is it that English schools seem unable to teach the correct use of
apostrophes? (Afterthought: is it because the "teachers" are actually
"supervisors"?)

PeeGee
--
The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs 

In article <fftj0i$fkd$1@aioe.org>, PeeGee <triessuk RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk>
scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <+KYgR4rdXdWh9OsnXKnnnqdhN=vK@4ax.com>, Kay Robinson
>> <Kay_Robinson RemoveThis @hotmail.com> scribeth thus
>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:37:12 +0100, tony sayer <tony RemoveThis @bancom.co.uk>
>>> sharpened a new quill and scratched:
>>>
>[snip]
>
>> It seems to me that we have someone here who never saw a good analogue
>> picture on a CRT!. If your telling me that what you see of the current
>> freeview offerings at the poor bitrates currently in use then we have
>> rather different standards as to what a TV picture should look like!.
>>
>
>I disagree - we probably all have the same idea how the picture should
>be, but some of us cannot get near that with analogue terrestrial.

Fair enough and thats why the BBC engineers came up with digital
transmission for TV and radio, but unfortunately the accounts and
marketing bullshitters have done a hatchet job on that with quantity
over quality!..!..

>
>> However I'm fast coming to the conclusion that the quality of analogue
>> pix out there must be rather poor, suppose thats not too surprising with
>> the majority of TV's and aerial installations. We have analogue and
>> digital here and from what I've seen of Freeview on all the TV's we have
>> it still leaves a lot to be desired over the analogue piccy we have:!.
>>
>
>I take it you have better than 49dBuV/m (33 for digital) and your aerial
>is not 36m below line of sight to the transmitter (wolfbane/megalithia
>estimates)?

24.98 Km miles from Sandy heath in Bedfordshire 128 dB path loss @700
MHz minimal Fresnel obstruction, path is LOS RX aerial 13 MAGL and
tweaked for the mid upper part of bands 4/5 i.e. not a wideband Yagi nor
a Log periodic..
>
>Even under these conditions, when BBC freeview works the picture is far,
>far clearer and more watchable than the analogue.

Humm.. another one who hasn't seen a good PAL decoder then;!...

>If I want a decent
>picture I use satellite, but that's* too much hassle for independent
>viewing on multiple TVs.

Yes thats where the real hi def TV should now be, plenty of bandwidth up
there in the Ghz regions!.... Jeez saw that when I worked at Pye
Television Transmitters in the mid Sixties!, and bloody good it was then
pity we still haven't got around to it!...
>
>[snip]
>
>* Why is it that English schools seem unable to teach the correct use of
>apostrophes? (Afterthought: is it because the "teachers" are actually
>"supervisors"?)

Thats 'cos I'm a broadcast transmission injuneer!..

--
Tony Sayer
 >> Stay informed about: 1080 HD TVs