Whats the point of Freeview?
 

Boltar wrote:
On 8 Oct, 17:26, (Mark Ingle) wrote:
Boltar wrote:
So what exactly is its point?

Widescreen switching/support?

Ah , that would be the switch between a picture where you have black
borders all around it or one where it filles the screen and a bit more
so you have bits cut off the top and bottom? And of course when you do
enlarge a standard def 16:9 picture you're actually getting less
vertical lines used in the picture than standard 4:3.
Brilliant.

B2003

You don't know what you're talking about.

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Boltar wrote:
And of course when you do
enlarge a standard def 16:9 picture you're actually getting less
vertical lines used in the picture than standard 4:3.

No, SD anamorphic 16:9 (16F16) has 576 visible vertical lines (625
including vertical blanking), just as SD 4:3 does. DTT/Freeview transmits
widescreen in that format.

You're thinking of 16:9 letterbox zoomed, a totally different kettle of
fish, and something that there's no need to do on a properly set up DTT
receiver and TV.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Thanks Mark, that's just what my reply was going to
say, but you have put it rather better than I could so I
won't bother to post it.


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
...
On 8 Oct, 17:01, "mr deo"
wrote:
FreeviewHD will roll out next year and the "quality" will be obviously
better..

Yeah , probably as long as nothing moves in the picture. As soon as it
does watch those squares appear.

Most people who complain about "blocks" just have really crappy boxes!...


More stations can be pushed out over the existing spectrum..

They could have done that with analogue if we'd have put up with ****
picture quality.

B2003

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

Absolute rubbish!

I've seen compression artifacts on Freeview (consistently), FTA (quite
consistently) and even DVDs (occasionally).

Their prevalence of Freeview is a result of greed and inadequate
standards control by handsOfCom.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:41:13 GMT, "mr deo"
wrote:

Most people who complain about "blocks" just have really crappy boxes!...

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:23:32 +0100, Adrian wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about.

Hmmmmmmm. Do you think Boltar may be related to Ian Beale?

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:05:25 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

Boltar wrote:
And of course when you do
enlarge a standard def 16:9 picture you're actually getting less
vertical lines used in the picture than standard 4:3.

No, SD anamorphic 16:9 (16F16) has 576 visible vertical lines (625 including
vertical blanking), just as SD 4:3 does. DTT/Freeview transmits widescreen in
that format.

You're thinking of 16:9 letterbox zoomed, a totally different kettle of fish,
and something that there's no need to do on a properly set up DTT receiver and TV.

Don't you mean 576 horizontal lines, i.e 576 pixels vertically?
Doesn't a 4:3 picture have 720 pixels horizontally and the same number
of pixels stretched to fill a 16:9 screen.... lower resolution?

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

Digby wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:05:25 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

Boltar wrote:
And of course when you do
enlarge a standard def 16:9 picture you're actually getting less
vertical lines used in the picture than standard 4:3.
No, SD anamorphic 16:9 (16F16) has 576 visible vertical lines (625 including
vertical blanking), just as SD 4:3 does. DTT/Freeview transmits widescreen in
that format.

You're thinking of 16:9 letterbox zoomed, a totally different kettle of fish,
and something that there's no need to do on a properly set up DTT receiver and TV.

Don't you mean 576 horizontal lines, i.e 576 pixels vertically?

Yes I do, I was merely using Boltar's terminology to retain his context.

Doesn't a 4:3 picture have 720 pixels horizontally and the same number
of pixels stretched to fill a 16:9 screen.... lower resolution?

Yes it does, and some broadcasts are lower than that at 544, but that's not
what he was saying.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

That is not my experience. I have been watching freeview exclusively for
around 18 months from the Mendip transmitter. I have an aerial in the
loft, and only very very rarely do I see any compression artifacts.
Most of the time, especially when there is high pressure, freeview
delivers a far superior picture than analogue on my system.

No doubt you will say that this is 'absolute rubbish' but I can only
speak as I find. For me, it works well and I am very satisfied.

On the other hand, my Son in Edinburgh has Sky, and every time the wind
blows, he loses the picture because (apparently) trees interrupt the
signal, and the dish vibrates.


Java Jive wrote on Wed, 8 Oct 2008:
Absolute rubbish!

I've seen compression artifacts on Freeview (consistently), FTA (quite
consistently) and even DVDs (occasionally).

Their prevalence of Freeview is a result of greed and inadequate
standards control by handsOfCom.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:41:13 GMT, "mr deo"
wrote:

Most people who complain about "blocks" just have really crappy boxes!...

--
Barry Oakley
The 'Reply-To' address will be valid for a short time.

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Oct 8, 10:41 pm, "mr deo"
wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

...

On 8 Oct, 17:01, "mr deo"
wrote:
FreeviewHD will roll out next year and the "quality" will be obviously
better..

Yeah , probably as long as nothing moves in the picture. As soon as it
does watch those squares appear.

Most people who complain about "blocks" just have really crappy boxes!...

Humax PVR9200. I think you'd agree its one of the better ones. I dread
to think what the crap ones are like. Suffice to say we watch on
analogue unless theres specifically something on one of the non
analogue stations we want to watch. Perhaps we're lucky that we're in
london and have a good line of sight to crystal palace so the analogue
signal is spot on , but then the freeview signal should be too , but
its full of nasty artifacts, the resolution drops as soon as theres
any fast movement and because of the way mpeg works theres a kind of
fixed pattern on any slow moving surfaces which looks very unnatural
on things such as faces.

B2003

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Oct 8, 9:23 pm, "Adrian" wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about.

I know what I can see mate.

B2003