|
|
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On Sep 7, 1:03 pm, Paul Ratcliffe
wrote: On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:01:04 -0700, wrote: On Sep 7, 11:52 am, Dickie mint wrote: I find it somewhat frustrating when someone like you appears to be just trolling. What are your Broadcasting qualifications? You first. Richard has posted details of his history many times. We all know it. You haven't posted yours because you're just a clueless wannabe. Now **** off. Oh, this is harassment. I could have you arrested if I wanted to. And didn't any of you take the hint from my previous comments? You're just reverting to these crude insults in order to hide the fact that you're not able to engage in a debate with me. Either get back to the issues I was discussing and debate me in a mature and factual way, or shut your mouths kthx. Jamie. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:45:32 -0700, wrote: What are your Broadcasting qualifications? You first. BBC Engineer for 34 years, retired as English Regions DTV Technical Support Manager. You? John Logie Baird. Exactly. A trolling moron. Now why do you think people are offensive towards you? We can spot your sort a mile off. I will now killfile him, thanks Paul for the backup! How old is he? 12? |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
In article .com,
wrote: Oh, this is harassment. I could have you arrested if I wanted to. And didn't any of you take the hint from my previous comments? You're just reverting to these crude insults in order to hide the fact that you're not able to engage in a debate with me. Either get back to the issues I was discussing and debate me in a mature and factual way, or shut your mouths kthx. Alright then, offer us some "mature and factual" ideas and we'll consider debating them. Ideas about television standards-conversion by discarding every 4th line and then reducing the frequency response to conceal the resultant artifacts don't really count. Broadcasters were using more sophisticated techniques than that 40 years ago when they had to do it with racks full of discrete electronic components. Rod. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
|
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:59:25 +0100, Dickie mint
wrote: Zathras wrote: On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:08:38 +0100, Dickie mint wrote: Brum practically transported all of TAR, Comms, and, of course, News engineering from Pebble Mill to the shoebox, Compact and bijou then?! Seems to be a BBC tradition now.."lets make a great new building..it needs to be too small though with room for contraction only!".. One of the Meeting rooms became an office, because even before everyone moved in there wasn't enough space. One must assume that that's the corporate policy though. It's quite depressing to see this displayed on a UK-wide basis. The showcase Pacific Quay..Canteen - too small (even after being enlarged from the original drawings and the less said about the 3-slow-queues-to-get-your-lunch design the better!), car park - too small but is planned to get smaller, 1.5 people per desktop PC as per design. Never mind though..there's now a nice big scrap metal display out the front that has been criticised in the (non-BBC) press for costing a quite staggering amount of money. Edinburgh Tun..well one assumes drugs must have been a factor there. The message is loud and clear. Sigh. -- Z |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
In article , Zathras
scribeth thus On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:26:13 +0100, (Peter Hayes) wrote: Zathras wrote: On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:08:38 +0100, Dickie mint wrote: less the statutory redundancies - of which I was one grateful taker! Got to retire early and still get a large lump sum. :-) ..and undiscounted pension? Funny how the BBC seem to have no desire to tempt folks over 50 to stay. Almost all the ex-employees over 50 I know were delirious about leaving. I'm sure there's a message in there somewhere!! :-( Indeed... :-) LOL..another one!! I'm just wondering if theres something wrong we me?, I still like working at 56 .. am I just a sad barsteward or is it because I went self employed some 20 years ago?..... -- Tony Sayer |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Zathras I'm just wondering if theres something wrong we me?, I still like working at 56 .. am I just a sad barsteward or is it because I went self employed some 20 years ago?..... Tony, I've been trying to retire for a while now. I was having some success, but suddenly we're absurdly busy. It's dreadful. Bill |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 20:33:00 +0100, tony sayer
wrote: In article , Zathras scribeth thus On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:26:13 +0100, (Peter Hayes) wrote: Zathras wrote: On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:08:38 +0100, Dickie mint wrote: less the statutory redundancies - of which I was one grateful taker! Got to retire early and still get a large lump sum. :-) ..and undiscounted pension? Funny how the BBC seem to have no desire to tempt folks over 50 to stay. Almost all the ex-employees over 50 I know were delirious about leaving. I'm sure there's a message in there somewhere!! :-( Indeed... :-) LOL..another one!! I'm just wondering if theres something wrong we me?, I still like working at 56 .. am I just a sad barsteward or is it because I went self employed some 20 years ago?..... Nothing to do with that. When people have been at the BBC for a long enough time to build up a good pension, the financial case for staying on when offered redundancy in their 50s (particularly 53-54 and later) is not there. I know a wireman who left in his early 50s - when he'd done all the calculations, he was about £100 poorer a month. He's got another (better) job now! This is the only sensible course when in this situation and applies to all pay scales not just low ones. There is another aspect..when you've been with the BBC that long and seen the boom and bust incompetence repeated time and time again, you get tired of all the nonsense and your commitment to self increases as the commitment to the BBC dissipates. The BBC seems to favour cheap, eager (gullible) kids over skill and experience. This is more evident in London than elsewhere though. -- Z |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
Zathras wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 20:33:00 +0100, tony sayer wrote: In article , Zathras scribeth thus On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:26:13 +0100, (Peter Hayes) wrote: Zathras wrote: On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:08:38 +0100, Dickie mint wrote: less the statutory redundancies - of which I was one grateful taker! Got to retire early and still get a large lump sum. :-) ..and undiscounted pension? Funny how the BBC seem to have no desire to tempt folks over 50 to stay. Almost all the ex-employees over 50 I know were delirious about leaving. I'm sure there's a message in there somewhere!! :-( Indeed... :-) LOL..another one!! I'm just wondering if theres something wrong we me?, I still like working at 56 .. am I just a sad barsteward or is it because I went self employed some 20 years ago?..... Nothing to do with that. When people have been at the BBC for a long enough time to build up a good pension, the financial case for staying on when offered redundancy in their 50s (particularly 53-54 and later) is not there. I know a wireman who left in his early 50s - when he'd done all the calculations, he was about £100 poorer a month. He's got another (better) job now! This is the only sensible course when in this situation and applies to all pay scales not just low ones. There is another aspect..when you've been with the BBC that long and seen the boom and bust incompetence repeated time and time again, you get tired of all the nonsense and your commitment to self increases as the commitment to the BBC dissipates. The BBC seems to favour cheap, eager (gullible) kids over skill and experience. This is more evident in London than elsewhere though. In my case I actually got into a job I helped create and thoroughly enjoyed doing. Plus I was learning new stuff. But the combination of my apparently accepting the very obvious and wrong management reasons for moving out of Pebble Mill by moving into the shoebox, plus the financial penalty of staying on made me decide to go. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On Sep 7, 6:15 pm, Roderick Stewart
wrote: Alright then, offer us some "mature and factual" ideas and we'll consider debating them. Ideas about television standards-conversion by discarding every 4th line and then reducing the frequency response to conceal the resultant artifacts don't really count. Broadcasters were using more sophisticated techniques than that 40 years ago when they had to do it with racks full of discrete electronic components. The frequency response is reduced before the FHA material is rescanned into the letterbox frame, which prevents aliasing from ever taking place. Incidentally, this low-pass filtering is a fundamental component of the PALplus system, but because you've all joined with Paul in refusing to believe a word I say, I googled it for you and now quote directly from this webpage: http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve/palplus.html . Note that this refers specifically to the PALplus system, but parts of it apply equally to the basic ARCing-to-16:9-letterbox used in the UK... "Before transmission, the anamorphic 16:9 image is squeezed into only three- quarters of its height. If this is to be done without horrific aliasing problems, the vertical resolution must be reduced (by vertical low-pass filtering) first. In the case of the chrominance signals, this is accomplished by simple lowpass filters. In the case of luminance, where the 'lost' resolution must be regained later, the filtering is done by use of a Quadrature Mirror Filter (QMF) highpass and lowpass pair. The characteristics of the QMF process permit the highpass and lowpass outputs to be resampled, transmitted and later recombined without loss (see [VAID87]). In this case the lower three quarters of the luminance vertical detail components are split from the top quarter. Both the lowpass and highpass outputs of the QMF pair still initially occupy a full picture. If you looked at them on a screen, the lowpass output would look just like the original but with a bit of blurring on horizontal edges. The highpass output would be blank except for a bit of signal corresponding with each of those blurred horizontal edges. Initially the output of the chrominance vertical filters also occupies a full picture too, but with a lot more blurring on horizontal edges as the roll-off frequency is well below that of the luminance. The QMF lowpass luminance output and the chroma lowpass outputs are now re-scanned into three-quarters of their original heights which is a process which loses no information because there are no vertical components in those signals with sufficent vertical detail frequency to cause aliasing. After Clean PAL encoding, they become the letterbox signal that non PALplus TVs will display. The luminance highpass output of the QMF pair becomes the "helper" signal. It contains only the top quarter of the vertical frequency components of the luminance part of the original signal and can be transmitted without loss using the spare lines above and below the letterbox picture." Jamie. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com