Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
 

In article , Zathras
scribeth thus
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.


It seems then .. that the management of the BBC isn't what it might be
in more ways than one;(....
--
Tony Sayer

Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
 

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.

Any other employer does this?...
--
Tony Sayer

Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
 

In article .com,
wrote:
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 .
[...]

This refers to the reduction in vertical frequency response that is
necessary to reduce the height of a picture, i.e. to sample the picture
with fewer vertical samples (lines). Fair enough. This is equivalent to
the filtering you have to do to any signal before sampling it.

Now, about your idea of removing diagonal jaggies from material that has
been crudely standards-converted by dumping every fourth line... I think
you said that this could be done by reducing the horizontal frequency
response so the defects would not be so noticeable. I'm not sure whether
you meant it should be done before or after the line-dumping, but either
way it is equivalent to a deliberate reduction in picture quality in
order to conceal an unnecessary bodge. Even in the days of 625/405
conversion I don't think they did that.

Rod.

Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
 

On 7 Sep, 09:33, Dickie mint
wrote:

In fact, Jamie, why not peruse the website of one of the manufacturers
the BBC use :

http://www.snellwilcox.com/

Having mucked around with ARCing and deinterlacing (never mind
standards conversion!) in AVIsynth, I'm always amazed by how well
Snell and Wilcox do it - and the general _absence_ of artefacts on the
BBC's 14:9 transmissions.

Sure, you can see issues on near-horizontal edges, but you can see
similar issues in the original interlaced 16:9 version.

Sadly, some STBs do a horrible job of ARCing, and people watching 14:9
or 16:9 letterboxed by the STB for 4:3 displays are seeing lots of
artefacts which are generated within the box itself.

Cheers,
David.

Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
 

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 06:02:03 -0700,
wrote:

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.

Ah, diddums.

I could have you arrested if I wanted to.

Like hell you could.

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.

Didn't you get the hint? I don't want a debate with you. You have proved
yourself to be a clueless trolling moron.

Either get back to the issues I was discussing and debate me in a mature
and factual way, or shut your mouths kthx.

"This is harassment. I could have you arrested if I wanted to." yawn

Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
 

On Sep 11, 10:56 am, Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:

Oh, this is harassment.

Ah, diddums.

I could have you arrested if I wanted to.

Like hell you could.

Maybe you should read The Protection From Harassment Act 1997.

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.

Didn't you get the hint? I don't want a debate with you. You have proved
yourself to be a clueless trolling moron.

Because I said that Aspect Ratio Conversion generates artefacts?
Perhaps you'd like to explain how your magic, lossless aspect ratio
convertors work then. Maybe the source signal is in fact vector-based
and therefore fully resizeable without loss. :)
Oh but wait, you're just a technician. You think that because you've
plugged a couple of ARC units in and pressed the "on" button, you know
everything there is to know about them.


Either get back to the issues I was discussing and debate me in a mature
and factual way, or shut your mouths kthx.

"This is harassment. I could have you arrested if I wanted to." yawn

Nope. I haven't insulted you personally and my comments haven't been
of a harassing nature.

Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 11, 10:56 am, Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:

Oh, this is harassment.

Ah, diddums.

I could have you arrested if I wanted to.

Like hell you could.

Maybe you should read The Protection From Harassment Act 1997.
snip

Perhaps you should to, there is nothing in anything Paul has posted to
this thread which would constitute 'Harassment' - opinion yes,
harassment, no.

Now FOAD, you clueless, trolling waste of space.

Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
 

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:50:09 -0700,
wrote:

Oh but wait, you're just a technician.

"just"? How patronising.

I'm not actually. I don't know how you would know that I was and in any case
it is none of your business.
This just adds more weight to the apparent "make it up as you go along"
impression that you convey.