Recently returned from South Africa
 

I've recently returned from holiday in South Africa. My brother has
the DSTV satellite service and it was noticeable how much better the
picture quality was than Freeview. It was really as good as analogue
here. Apart from the occasional breakup on the Sky news channel you'd
really couldn't tell it was digital. How different from muddy, blurry
Freeview! OK, so I know that Freeview is subscription free but it's a
shame that the broadcasters couldn't have settled on a decent picture
quality.

Nick wrote:
I've recently returned from holiday in South Africa. My brother has
the DSTV satellite service and it was noticeable how much better the
picture quality was than Freeview. It was really as good as analogue
here. Apart from the occasional breakup on the Sky news channel you'd
really couldn't tell it was digital. How different from muddy, blurry
Freeview! OK, so I know that Freeview is subscription free but it's a
shame that the broadcasters couldn't have settled on a decent picture
quality.

If your freeview is muddy and blurry then there is something wrong with it.

A top quality analogue signal in the best reception area may be slightly
better than the freeview reception , but for most of the country freeview
provides a much better picture.

--
Alex

"We are now up against live, hostile targets"

"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
I've recently returned from holiday in South Africa. My brother has
the DSTV satellite service and it was noticeable how much better the
picture quality was than Freeview. It was really as good as analogue
here. Apart from the occasional breakup on the Sky news channel you'd
really couldn't tell it was digital. How different from muddy, blurry
Freeview! OK, so I know that Freeview is subscription free but it's a
shame that the broadcasters couldn't have settled on a decent picture
quality.

If your freeview is muddy and blurry then there is something wrong with it.

A top quality analogue signal in the best reception area may be slightly
better than the freeview reception , but for most of the country freeview
provides a much better picture.


Perhaps a wipe of the TV screen with a duster is in order ;-)

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...

If your freeview is muddy and blurry then there is something wrong with
it.

My freview is ok on large still type shots but it is muddy and blurry on
small fast moving stuff like Footie Players or Snooker Balls. I thought this
was the same for everyone?

A top quality analogue signal in the best reception area may be slightly
better than the freeview reception , but for most of the country freeview
provides a much better picture.

Overall I'd say my analogue is better and that my Freeview is below the
standard I'd want.

Frank X wrote:
"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...

If your freeview is muddy and blurry then there is something wrong
with it.

My freview is ok on large still type shots but it is muddy and blurry
on small fast moving stuff like Footie Players or Snooker Balls. I
thought this was the same for everyone?

Where the data rate isn't high enough there can be some pixellation and
artefacts if thats what you are referring to.
Compare that to the problems of grainy static infested pictures with
ghosting that you get on less than optimum analogue transmissions and its
fair to say that both systems have pros and cons.


A top quality analogue signal in the best reception area may be
slightly
better than the freeview reception , but for most of the country
freeview provides a much better picture.

Overall I'd say my analogue is better and that my Freeview is below
the standard I'd want.

--
Alex

"We are now up against live, hostile targets"

"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Frank X wrote:
My freview is ok on large still type shots but it is muddy and blurry on
small fast moving stuff like Footie Players or Snooker Balls. I thought this
was the same for everyone?

Has your TV got a poor 100Hz frame circuit? For action stuff you may get
a better picture with it turned off!

--

Adrian

"Nick" wrote in message
om...
I've recently returned from holiday in South Africa. My brother has
the DSTV satellite service and it was noticeable how much better the
picture quality was than Freeview. It was really as good as analogue
here. Apart from the occasional breakup on the Sky news channel you'd
really couldn't tell it was digital. How different from muddy, blurry
Freeview! OK, so I know that Freeview is subscription free but it's a
shame that the broadcasters couldn't have settled on a decent picture
quality.

I have a Freeview box and I get a perfect picture here (Wrexham, N
Wales) from Winter Hill.
Your Freeview box is obviously suffering from a duff installation.
Regards Mike.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 03-Sep-2004

"Frank X" wrote in
:



Overall I'd say my analogue is better and that my Freeview is below
the standard I'd want.

I have to agree, and I think it's the broadcasters, not the system,
(although IMO the system is much more vulnerable to the hazards of
electrical noise in a modern hovel than analogue)

mike

"Mike GW8IJT" wrote in message ...
...
I have a Freeview box and I get a perfect picture here (Wrexham, N
Wales) from Winter Hill.
Your Freeview box is obviously suffering from a duff installation.
Regards Mike.

According to the signal page it's getting a perfect signal (in
Southampton using a Sony Freeview box).

When you have someone sitting in a studio the picture is fine, but
when the camera moves on an outside shot the picture is blurry.

I have a 100hz TV, but the analogue signal doesn't give the same
probs.

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
A top quality analogue signal in the best reception area may be slightly
better than the freeview reception , but for most of the country freeview
provides a much better picture.

I disagree. Freeview handles the white side of the colour spectrum very
poorly. Whenever an area of the picture is unusually bright, all detail is
lost, and the area of the picture surrounding the white area tends to be
bleached. With a conventional film camera (still), a range of contrast is
visible in a properly exposed picture from light to dark with all the
gradations in between. Also with analog pictures (with a good signal), the
contrast range is even.

Freeview does not seem able to provide this. The pictures although crisp
and clear, lack the even contrast range of analog and I have view Freeview
both from a box (Daewoo Setpal) and the Nebula digitv card. Both result in
this same problem.

If BBC4 were available on analog I would sooner watch it via that medium,
until as Nick says, "broadcasters couldn't have settled on a decent picture
quality".

Paul

In article , Nick
wrote:
"Mike GW8IJT" wrote in message
...
... I have a Freeview box and I get a perfect picture here (Wrexham, N
Wales) from Winter Hill. Your Freeview box is obviously suffering from
a duff installation. Regards Mike.

According to the signal page it's getting a perfect signal (in
Southampton using a Sony Freeview box).

When you have someone sitting in a studio the picture is fine, but when
the camera moves on an outside shot the picture is blurry.

I find that this varies a great deal from station to station, time to time,
etc. Hence I would not blame 'freeview' for this, but the decisions of
individual broadcasters w.r.t the bitrates and compression choices they are
making. Worst pictures I've seen have been on one of the discussions on BBC
News24 where even static studio shots are very blurred. But the pictures on
BBCTV1/2/4 generally look good to me.

FWIW the Freeview images we get here seem on the whole much better than
the analogue ones. Only complaint is that I haven't yet got an external
antenna so get occasional ignition interference on BBCTV4. Can't really
blame freeview for this, though... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Alan Pemberton" wrote in message
ve.co.uk.invalid...
Paul Bird wrote:

I disagree. Freeview handles the white side of the colour spectrum very
poorly. Whenever an area of the picture is unusually bright, all detail
is
lost, and the area of the picture surrounding the white area tends to be
bleached.

Hardly conclusive evidence, but I have VHS recordings of TCW from
digital terrestrial and TCJ from analogue terrestrial (recorded in the
same session). On TCW both 'white-crush' flashing dots are clearly
visible, but on TCJ only the darker one is.

I don't understand either the acronyms you use, or your point. Are you
saying Freeview or analog pictures are better at dealing with light areas?

Paul

"Alan Pemberton" wrote in message
rve.co.uk.invalid...
My observation is contrary to yours, but represents a sample of only
one. Perhaps other would care to contribute thier own observations.

Fair comment. I haven't done test card comparisons of the effects I have
described, just from observation while watching videos. But I stand by my
observations.

Paul

"Nick" wrote in message
om...
I've recently returned from holiday in South Africa. My brother has
the DSTV satellite service and it was noticeable how much better the
picture quality was than Freeview. It was really as good as analogue
here. Apart from the occasional breakup on the Sky news channel you'd
really couldn't tell it was digital. How different from muddy, blurry
Freeview! OK, so I know that Freeview is subscription free but it's a
shame that the broadcasters couldn't have settled on a decent picture
quality.

You get what you pay for!


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella