|
|
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
I've been too busy to watch TV recently, so maybe I'd forgotten how
bad it could look, but... I had chance to catch the last episode of Mountain on Sunday night, and saw some of Dance X (?) the night before. I enjoyed Mountain. Not too much distracting "filmic effect" (only on a few shots), and only the MPEG encoding of moving fine details let it down. Great programme. However, Dance X... isn't the picture quality shocking? It seems ~5Mbps MPEG-2 just can't cope with flashing lights, fast movement, detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc. In the PAL days, even in "component" studios, people monitored a composite PAL version to see what it would look like at home. That way, they could avoid including fine detail that was simply going to be lost in cross-colour artefacts. Yet now, in these "MPEG-2" days, no attempt is made to avoid content that stands no chance of surviving MPEG-2 encoding. It must look great in the production gallery - but if it was possible to feed a synchronised MPEG-2 encoded version to a big screen in the gallery (impossible because of the encoding/decoding delay), I bet some different decisions would be made. It would be interesting to compare the raw uncompressed version with what reaches the home. In fact, I wish someone would force some BBC execs to sit down and watch this comparison to realise what a problem they have. (and hit any of them who mentioned a "competitive multi-channel environment" or "ITV looks even worse") Cheers, David. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
wrote in message ps.com... I've been too busy to watch TV recently, so maybe I'd forgotten how bad it could look, but... I had chance to catch the last episode of Mountain on Sunday night, and saw some of Dance X (?) the night before. I enjoyed Mountain. Not too much distracting "filmic effect" (only on a few shots), and only the MPEG encoding of moving fine details let it down. Great programme. However, Dance X... isn't the picture quality shocking? It seems ~5Mbps MPEG-2 just can't cope with flashing lights, fast movement, detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc. Perhaps you need a better telly, it looks fine on mine, a Thompson. In the PAL days, even in "component" studios, people monitored a composite PAL version to see what it would look like at home. That way, they could avoid including fine detail that was simply going to be lost in cross-colour artefacts. Yet now, in these "MPEG-2" days, no attempt is made to avoid content that stands no chance of surviving MPEG-2 encoding. It must look great in the production gallery - but if it was possible to feed a synchronised MPEG-2 encoded version to a big screen in the gallery (impossible because of the encoding/decoding delay), I bet some different decisions would be made. It would be interesting to compare the raw uncompressed version with what reaches the home. In fact, I wish someone would force some BBC execs to sit down and watch this comparison to realise what a problem they have. (and hit any of them who mentioned a "competitive multi-channel environment" or "ITV looks even worse") Cheers, David. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On Aug 28, 3:28 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
Perhaps you need a better telly, it looks fine on mine, a Thompson. You normally take the pee, not insert it. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
oups.com... On Aug 28, 3:28 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: Perhaps you need a better telly, it looks fine on mine, a Thompson. You normally take the pee, not insert it. Can I have a "P" please Bob? (kim) |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
In article .com, Mark
Carver scribeth thus On Aug 28, 3:28 pm, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: Perhaps you need a better telly, it looks fine on mine, a Thompson. You normally take the pee, not insert it. Perhaps that Thompson is good at hiding the digital deficiency;!... -- Tony Sayer |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
"Edster" wrote in message ... snip Like all the other UK broadcasters at the moment, the BBC seems to be trying to shed as many viewers as possible, with low quality and coming next banners all over the place. Presumably when only the blind are the only viewers left they will be able to save lots of money on costume dramas or whatever. Hmm, if TV was more like 'radio with pictures' I suspect that there would be far less style and more substance to the programmes... -- Jerry - on an different NNTP server. Someone managed to break the other one! |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
|
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
In message
"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote: wrote in message ps.com... I've been too busy to watch TV recently, so maybe I'd forgotten how bad it could look, but... I had chance to catch the last episode of Mountain on Sunday night, and saw some of Dance X (?) the night before. I enjoyed Mountain. Not too much distracting "filmic effect" (only on a few shots), and only the MPEG encoding of moving fine details let it down. Great programme. However, Dance X... isn't the picture quality shocking? It seems ~5Mbps MPEG-2 just can't cope with flashing lights, fast movement, detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc. Perhaps you need a better telly, it looks fine on mine, a Thompson. There's no such make. -- Richard L. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On 28 Aug, 22:16, Paul Ratcliffe
wrote: On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:19:53 -0700, wrote: However, Dance X... isn't the picture quality shocking? It seems ~5Mbps MPEG-2 just can't cope with flashing lights, fast movement, detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc. You are surprised? That the technology can't cope at that bitrate? No. That someone tries to broadcast that content at that bitrate? Well, yes. Even now, I find it unbelievable. I'm watching on a nice CRT - goodness knows how bad it looks on most modern flat panels. It would be interesting to compare the raw uncompressed version with what reaches the home. In fact, I wish someone would force some BBC execs to sit down and watch this comparison to realise what a problem they have. It looks great on a 2" screen though. What's yer problem? Why don't you get the hi-def version if you want qwality? I'm sure that's where we're heading. The main problem with that is that lots of content won't be on the HD channel, leaving the increasingly bitstarved SD channel as the only source. If the BBC said "we'll simulcast all our channels in HD on DSat and leave DTT for portable TVs" that would be fine. Unfortunately, it has as much chance of happening as "we'll simulcast all our radio stations in high bitrates on DSat, leaving DAB for portable radios". This would be a technically sensible solution, but would show the bandwidth limited platforms up as the second class systems that they are. The BBC couldn't possibly have that, so will instead limit what's available on all platforms, so as not to outshine the worst. Maybe I'm being too cynical - to be this scheming implies that someone in charge understands and appreciates technical quality issues. I doubt this is the case. Cheers, David. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:19:53 -0700, wrote: However, Dance X... isn't the picture quality shocking? It seems ~5Mbps MPEG-2 just can't cope with flashing lights, fast movement, detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc. You are surprised? It would be interesting to compare the raw uncompressed version with what reaches the home. In fact, I wish someone would force some BBC execs to sit down and watch this comparison to realise what a problem they have. It looks great on a 2" screen though. What's yer problem? Why don't you get the hi-def version if you want qwality? Do broadcasters still put a line of colour bars in the vertical interval? I'm sure they all used to do this last time I checked (early 90's) and often had a 2T pulse too. Graham Harvest |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On Aug 29, 1:55 pm, "Graham Harvest" wrote:
Do broadcasters still put a line of colour bars in the vertical interval? I'm sure they all used to do this last time I checked (early 90's) and often had a 2T pulse too. No colour bars, you're thinking of the first few active picture lines on Test Card F ? However there is ISTR a linearity staircase, and 2T pulse and bar. UK standard signal, carried on lines 19/332 and 20/333 I think ? Only on analogue, not via DVB where they would have no relevance of course. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
|
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
tony sayer wrote:
In fact that would probably be the best way to go, high definition radio and TV on satellite for fixed home consumption, and the more compromised product for mobile and portable use... Sssshhhhhhh!!!!.... The ex-media students running the beeb commonly use google for research about technology that confuses them. Ye don't wanna give them these ideas.... -- Adrian C |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On Aug 29, 4:29 pm, Adrian C wrote:
Sssshhhhhhh!!!!.... The ex-media students running the beeb commonly use google for research about technology that confuses them. Ye don't wanna give them these ideas.... As long as no one posts any ideas in 'text speak' we should be OK ! |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
|
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On 29 Aug, 23:41, (Peter Hayes) wrote:
wrote: I've been too busy to watch TV recently, so maybe I'd forgotten how bad it could look, but... I had chance to catch the last episode of Mountain on Sunday night, and saw some of Dance X (?) the night before. I enjoyed Mountain. Not too much distracting "filmic effect" (only on a few shots), and only the MPEG encoding of moving fine details let it down. Great programme. However, Dance X... isn't the picture quality shocking? It seems ~5Mbps MPEG-2 just can't cope with flashing lights, fast movement, detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc. In the PAL days, even in "component" studios, people monitored a composite PAL version to see what it would look like at home. That way, they could avoid including fine detail that was simply going to be lost in cross-colour artefacts. Or the strobing sports jacket. Yet now, in these "MPEG-2" days, no attempt is made to avoid content that stands no chance of surviving MPEG-2 encoding. Since it looks fine on an analogue PAL screen why should a director feel constrained because of the defects of one segment of the transmission chain? I can just see his reaction to being told he can't now shoot the way he did ten years ago "because the digital transmission chain can't cope". The answer isn't to impose silly restrictions on directors but to improve the digital transmission chain. Improvements won't be made by curtailing throughput, but by insisting that what was possible yesterday must be made possible tomorrow. The alternative eventually becomes VHS quality all round, eg ITV3/4. I agree entirely, but I think the chances of digital SD picture quality improving are about zero. If anything, I predict a continued downward trend. Analogue SD has five years left at most, and is a minority viewing platform on main sets. So, producers et al will continue to create pictures which no one outside the studio can ever appreciate? Mind you, it should help push HD, if it stays at sensibly high bitrates. Cheers, David. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
|
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
One part of the digital chain that needs improvement is the quality of most receivers. Freeview quality can be excellent, especially downconverted HD, but Judging by what I see in the likes of Curry's the receivers the public are buying are complete rubbish. I should give what you wrote there some more thought;!... So, producers et al will continue to create pictures which no one outside the studio can ever appreciate? But when they see their product destroyed in transmission they might start asking embarassing questions. That's one way to force progress, unless you are willing to surrender all policy making to bean counters. Mind you, it should help push HD, if it stays at sensibly high bitrates. And comes down substantially in price. Peter -- Tony Sayer |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On Aug 30, 11:58 am, (Peter Hayes) wrote:
One part of the digital chain that needs improvement is the quality of most receivers. Freeview quality can be excellent, especially downconverted HD, but Judging by what I see in the likes of Curry's the receivers the public are buying are complete rubbish. I'm not sure. Yes, 20 quid DTT boxes lock up, get hot, have crappy GUIs etc, but I've not seen any dramatic differences in the basic picture quality, between those and 100+ quid boxes ? With MPEG the clever bits are done by the encoder, not the decoder, so in short quality improvements can only really be achieved (and they have been over the last 10/15 years) by improving the encoders. The only element where the picture quality can suffer in a DTT box is after the D-A converter, and of course the interface to the display device. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
tony sayer wrote:
One part of the digital chain that needs improvement is the quality of most receivers. Freeview quality can be excellent, especially downconverted HD, but Judging by what I see in the likes of Curry's the receivers the public are buying are complete rubbish. I should give what you wrote there some more thought;!... Freeview quality can be excellent, see the Reporting Scotland thread, but if some content, "flashing lights, fast movement, detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc.", to quote the OP, fails, then there's room for improvement. That doesn't excuse manufacturers selling receivers that are, frankly, junk. Peter |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
In article , Peter
Hayes scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: One part of the digital chain that needs improvement is the quality of most receivers. Freeview quality can be excellent, especially downconverted HD, but Judging by what I see in the likes of Curry's the receivers the public are buying are complete rubbish. I should give what you wrote there some more thought;!... Freeview quality can be excellent, see the Reporting Scotland thread, but if some content, "flashing lights, fast movement, detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc.", to quote the OP, fails, then there's room for improvement. That doesn't excuse manufacturers selling receivers that are, frankly, junk. Now where and why are the receivers junk?, when the real problem with freeview as implemented is bit rates that are too low most all of the time.. these are the cause of when you have outlined above.... When you consider of the rates used in studios and for transmission distribution!... Peter -- Tony Sayer |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
In article .com, Mark
Carver scribeth thus On Aug 30, 11:58 am, (Peter Hayes) wrote: One part of the digital chain that needs improvement is the quality of most receivers. Freeview quality can be excellent, especially downconverted HD, but Judging by what I see in the likes of Curry's the receivers the public are buying are complete rubbish. I'm not sure. Yes, 20 quid DTT boxes lock up, get hot, have crappy GUIs etc, but I've not seen any dramatic differences in the basic picture quality, between those and 100+ quid boxes ? With MPEG the clever bits are done by the encoder, not the decoder, so in short quality improvements can only really be achieved (and they have been over the last 10/15 years) by improving the encoders. The only element where the picture quality can suffer in a DTT box is after the D-A converter, and of course the interface to the display device. Encoders can only do so much with so many bits.. ...Or rather lack of so many bits!... -- Tony Sayer |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
"tony sayer" wrote in message
... In article , Peter Hayes scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: Now where and why are the receivers junk?, when the real problem with freeview as implemented is bit rates that are too low most all of the time.. these are the cause of when you have outlined above.... When you consider of the rates used in studios and for transmission distribution!... Yes, how much variation would you expect between the picture from a good TV and/or STB and a poor one, if they both get fed with the same aerial signal? Does the quality of the decoder hardware and software have any effect? Is a "good" decoder less prone to freezing and glitches due to local interference such as fridge switching on/off? I'd have thought that most of the variation would be in the analogue electronics between the D-A converter and the tube: amount of ringing and bandwidth (and edge-enhancement to try to compensate for loss of HF). What is regarded as an acceptible bit rate to provide no visible blockiness on fast-moving or gradually changing gradients such as smoke? I presume that it can be lower than the bit rate used internally within the studio because that has to allow for multi-generation copies without noticeable degradation. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
tony sayer writes:
Encoders can only do so much with so many bits.. ..Or rather lack of so many bits!... But if they reduced the number of channels on each MUX then the bitrate for each channel could be higher, and therefore also the quality. Do we really need so many +1 channels? If the number of repeats (especially of programmes which were only shown days or weeks previously) were reduced then not so many channels would be needed to show the same material. Come analogue switch-off, if they were to keep the current digital MUXes and convert the current analogue channels to digital then not only could they increase the number of channels on DTT but could increase the bitrate of all the channels. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On Aug 30, 2:37 pm, "Mortimer" wrote:
Is a "good" decoder less prone to freezing and glitches due to local interference such as fridge switching on/off? Some are better than others I think ? I'd have thought that most of the variation would be in the analogue electronics between the D-A converter and the tube: amount of ringing and bandwidth (and edge-enhancement to try to compensate for loss of HF). Yep, see my other post. What is regarded as an acceptible bit rate to provide no visible blockiness on fast-moving or gradually changing gradients such as smoke? Well, a DVD's max bit rate is 9.99 Mb/s, but that's not really a fair comparison as they are often mastered using multipass encoding, not 'on the fly' as used in DVB. Take a look at C5 *analogue* on any transmitter outside the London region. That's fed to the transmitters by an 8.3 Mb/s MPEG2 stream. MPEG4 and other new schemes reduce the bit rate required for the same quality as MPEG2. I presume that it can be lower than the bit rate used internally within the studio because that has to allow for multi-generation copies without noticeable degradation. Studio bit rates, (1.4 Gb/s for HD, 270 Mb/s for SD) are uncompressed. Multigeneration is not really a problem on very mildly compressed tape formats such as DigiBeta (155 Mb/s). Problems begin with some of the 50 Mb/s tape and 'storage' formats, where compression starts to become significant. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On 30 Aug, 13:37, (Peter Hayes) wrote:
tony sayer wrote: One part of the digital chain that needs improvement is the quality of most receivers. Freeview quality can be excellent, especially downconverted HD, but Judging by what I see in the likes of Curry's the receivers the public are buying are complete rubbish. I should give what you wrote there some more thought;!... Freeview quality can be excellent, see the Reporting Scotland thread, I haven't seen Reporting Scotland, either the old "bad" pictures, or the new "good" ones, but I don't think talking heads in a news studio are really testing of MPEG-2! but if some content, "flashing lights, fast movement, detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc.", to quote the OP, fails, then there's room for improvement. That doesn't excuse manufacturers selling receivers that are, frankly, junk. "Compliant" MPEG decoders do not degrade the video signal (beyond rounding errors). If you watch on a 4:3 set in letterbox mode, there's some horrible scaling going on, which can be good, bad, or indifferent (usually bad). If you watch 4:3 in centre cut, or on a 16:9 TV, there isn't. As long as the output is reasonable quality RGB (and 6MHz bandwidth, 45dB+ SNR, no screwy phase issues etc is hardy rocket science), it's not a big issue. What's important is the MPEG encoding, and the display. Cheers, David. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
"Peter Hayes" wrote in message news:1i3npvh.1syr85z1gf6rfhN%[email protected] com... wrote: Mind you, it should help push HD, if it stays at sensibly high bitrates. And comes down substantially in price. it has - compare the price of a hd capable tv now to the price 2 years ago. -- Gareth. That fly... is your magic wand. http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/ |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
"Mortimer" wrote in message ... What is regarded as an acceptible bit rate to provide no visible blockiness on fast-moving or gradually changing gradients such as smoke? I presume that it can be lower than the bit rate used internally within the studio because that has to allow for multi-generation copies without noticeable degradation. if freeview had a bitrate for each channel of up to 10mbit per second - as dvd does, which is also mpeg2, it could look every bit as good as that. -- Gareth. That fly... is your magic wand. http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/ |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
"the dog from that film you saw" wrote
in message ... "Mortimer" wrote in message ... What is regarded as an acceptible bit rate to provide no visible blockiness on fast-moving or gradually changing gradients such as smoke? I presume that it can be lower than the bit rate used internally within the studio because that has to allow for multi-generation copies without noticeable degradation. if freeview had a bitrate for each channel of up to 10mbit per second - as dvd does, which is also mpeg2, it could look every bit as good as that. Mind you, I've seen some god-awful DVDs :-( I bought a boxed set of The Sweeney and they've tried to squeeze four hours (four episodes) onto some DVDs - with consequent blocky pictures on some of the more action-packed episodes. The actual action scenes look as if they have been specially processed to give them increased bit rate (according to the figures reported by Power DVD) but some of the other scenes with a lot of movement are atrocious - bit rates down to less than 2 Mbps and blocks the size of footballs. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
Graham Murray wrote:
tony sayer writes: Encoders can only do so much with so many bits.. ..Or rather lack of so many bits!... But if they reduced the number of channels on each MUX then the bitrate for each channel could be higher, and therefore also the quality. Do we really need so many +1 channels? We don't, the channel bean counters do. Each +1 is an additional revenue stream at minimal cost. If the number of repeats (especially of programmes which were only shown days or weeks previously) were reduced then not so many channels would be needed to show the same material. The +1 channels should help fund better programmes, in theory... :-) Come analogue switch-off, if they were to keep the current digital MUXes and convert the current analogue channels to digital then not only could they increase the number of channels on DTT but could increase the bitrate of all the channels. And add a few HD channels. But will the cash strapped broadcast TV industry be able to compete for this additional spectrum? -- Immunity is better than innoculation. Peter |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Peter Hayes scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: One part of the digital chain that needs improvement is the quality of most receivers. Freeview quality can be excellent, especially downconverted HD, but Judging by what I see in the likes of Curry's the receivers the public are buying are complete rubbish. I should give what you wrote there some more thought;!... Freeview quality can be excellent, see the Reporting Scotland thread, but if some content, "flashing lights, fast movement, detail and smooth gradients on screen at the same time etc.", to quote the OP, fails, then there's room for improvement. That doesn't excuse manufacturers selling receivers that are, frankly, junk. Now where and why are the receivers junk? Have you actually SEEN what's on offer in your local TV superstore? The vast majority of receivers (not STBs) are horrendous, massive jpeg artifacts shimmering away nicely around fine detail, bad smearing on movement, you name it, etc. Some are ok, the larger Samsungs seem to be reasonable. None can compete with my MacMini and a decent LCD monitor. when the real problem with freeview as implemented is bit rates that are too low most all of the time.. these are the cause of when you have outlined above.... There's two separate problems, as I see it. One is the inability of the current freeview transmission format to cope with the kind of content the OP complains of, the other is the junk receivers on offer, unless you buy a large LCD or a plasma. When you consider of the rates used in studios and for transmission distribution!... Peter |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
"Mortimer" wrote in message ... if freeview had a bitrate for each channel of up to 10mbit per second - as dvd does, which is also mpeg2, it could look every bit as good as that. Mind you, I've seen some god-awful DVDs :-( I bought a boxed set of The Sweeney and they've tried to squeeze four hours (four episodes) onto some DVDs - with consequent blocky pictures on some of the more action-packed episodes. The actual action scenes look as if they have been specially processed to give them increased bit rate (according to the figures reported by Power DVD) but some of the other scenes with a lot of movement are atrocious - bit rates down to less than 2 Mbps and blocks the size of footballs. true - there's always someone trying to stuff too much onto one disc. with broadcast however we wouldnt have that problem - there's no finite size like with a 5/9gb dvd. if the bandwidth was available, it could be maxed throughout the tv show. -- Gareth. That fly... is your magic wand. http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/ |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On 30 Aug, 17:36, (Peter Hayes) wrote:
tony sayer wrote: Now where and why are the receivers junk? Have you actually SEEN what's on offer in your local TV superstore? The vast majority of receivers (not STBs) are horrendous Hold on a sec Peter - I thought you meant STBs. What you actually mean is TVs, which may or may not have integrated digital tuners (a fact that is almost irrelevant to this discussion). Yes, most modern flat panel TVs look terrible with digital SD content. No argument. The best LCDs are OK. The best plasmas are quite good. CRTs show up the least flaws (but have other issues - not least their disappearence from the top end of the market). There's two separate problems, as I see it. One is the inability of the current freeview transmission format to cope with the kind of content the OP complains of, the other is the junk receivers on offer, unless you buy a large LCD or a plasma. Many of the viewing public are "upgrading" to a ~£500 flat pannel display, and getting horrible picture quality. I'm sticking with my CRT for now, though would love HD in the living room if funds allowed. My original point was that, even on the most forgiving of dispays, and the most accurate of displays (£500 LCDs are neither!) these broadcasts don't look good. Of course they look awful on £500 LCDs. Cheers, David. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
wrote in message
ps.com... On 30 Aug, 17:36, (Peter Hayes) wrote: tony sayer wrote: The best LCDs are OK. The best plasmas are quite good. CRTs show up the least flaws (but have other issues - not least their disappearence from the top end of the market). There's two separate problems, as I see it. One is the inability of the current freeview transmission format to cope with the kind of content the OP complains of, the other is the junk receivers on offer, unless you buy a large LCD or a plasma. Many of the viewing public are "upgrading" to a ~£500 flat pannel display, and getting horrible picture quality. I'm sticking with my CRT for now, though would love HD in the living room if funds allowed. My original point was that, even on the most forgiving of dispays, and the most accurate of displays (£500 LCDs are neither!) these broadcasts don't look good. Of course they look awful on £500 LCDs. =========== As a matter of interest, what would a £500 LCD make of a studio-bit-rate signal (always assuming that it knew how to decode it) - would the picture still look crap because of the differences between the tonal rendering of LCD/plasma compared with CRT? |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
"Mortimer" wrote in message
[snip] : : Many of the viewing public are "upgrading" to a ~£500 : : flat pannel display, and getting horrible picture : : quality. I'm sticking with my : : CRT for now, though would love HD in the living room if : : funds allowed. The best HD I've seen so far was on a Sony CRT in the States 3 years ago. Not seen anything anywhere near as good over here. Ivor |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
Mortimer wrote:
My original point was that, even on the most forgiving of dispays, and the most accurate of displays (£500 LCDs are neither!) these broadcasts don't look good. Of course they look awful on £500 LCDs. Every working day I see 1.4 Gb/s HD digital video signals fed into 'professional' LCD displays. Still not as good as the same signals fed to a professional CRT monitor, but getting better with each new model of LCD. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
In message , Mark Carver
writes Mortimer wrote: My original point was that, even on the most forgiving of dispays, and the most accurate of displays (£500 LCDs are neither!) these broadcasts don't look good. Of course they look awful on £500 LCDs. Every working day I see 1.4 Gb/s HD digital video signals fed into 'professional' LCD displays. Still not as good as the same signals fed to a professional CRT monitor, but getting better with each new model of LCD. Sounds entirely reasonable to me .... and I'm in total agreement -- Microsoft has decided to rename 'Windows Vista' to 'Windows Diana', because it is superficially atttractive, impossible to live with, consumes masses of resources, then it crashes. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
In article , The dog from that film you saw
wrote: if freeview had a bitrate for each channel of up to 10mbit per second - as* dvd does, which is also mpeg2, it could look every bit as good as that. Possibly, but you're not taking into account the fact that the bit rate reduction for movie transfers to DVD doesn't have to be done in realtime, as it does for broadcast. So maybe not. Even if it had that advantage, a bit rate of less than 10Mb/s is nowhere near the 270Mb/s of the original SDI signal, or the typically 50Mb/s at which a broadcaster would have recorded it. The best that it is now possible to see on a TV screen at home is a travesty of what it is possible to produce from a standard 625/50 television camera, and the sad thing is a lot of people think it's really rather good. Not only that, but they think what is being flogged in the shops as "HD" is going to make it better. But never mind, they'll all be watching on laptops and mobile phones so it won't matter, and the programmes on the internet will be better anyway. Rod. |
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
|
Digital TV: the picture really is horrible!
On 30 Aug, 22:11, Roderick Stewart
wrote: In article , The dog from that film you saw wrote: if freeview had a bitrate for each channel of up to 10mbit per second - as dvd does, which is also mpeg2, it could look every bit as good as that. Possibly, but you're not taking into account the fact that the bit rate reduction for movie transfers to DVD doesn't have to be done in realtime, as it does for broadcast. So maybe not. Some of the best DVDs are sourced from uncompressed high resolution digital film masters which are 24 (25) progressive frames per second. Lots of TV programmes are still interlaced (thankfully!), come from SD cameras, and have been through mild (or not so mild) compression before the final MPEG-2 encoding. So I wouldn't be surprised to find that even 10Mbps MPEG-2 from, say, Dance X, didn't look "DVD quality" - but it would be better than what we have now. Of course the obvious argument is that if you're going to deliver 10Mbps+, you might as well deliver HD. I don't believe shows like Dance X would be artefact-free if encoded to HD 1080i50 in real time at 10Mbps, even with MPEG-4 / AVC, but I could be wrong. Cheers, David. |
| 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