Whats the point of Freeview?
 

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:41:13 GMT, "mr deo"
wrote:

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

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.


LOL....
You "Consistently" get "DIGITAL ARTIFACTS" over an Analogue Broadcast
;P........
It's no wonder Freeview sucks!...
You have a p0000p TV..

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Oct 8, 3:30*pm, Boltar wrote:
Worse picture quality than analogue TV ( lots of nasty mpeg artifacts
and motion blur)

Worse reception than analogue TV

Receivers use more power than analogue TV (climate change , who cares
eh?)

Most of the extra channels other than perhaps BBC4 and 1 or 2 others
are either utter rubbish or endless repeats.

So what exactly is its point?

B2003

My tuppence:-
- fantastic easy (and capacity) of recording via a DVR (PVR)
- better picture quality (as my analogue area is poor)
- ability to retain broadcast quality recordings via copying the MPEG2
TS stream to DVD (if I should want to)
- my kids can access good quality age appropriate TV on demand
(CBeebies in particular), providing I agree to it!
- expanded BBC interactive services which make watching the Olympics,
Wimbledon etc far more user friendly
- expanded choice of channels, with no requirement for me to subscribe
to anything

I can't praise Freeview enough. It may have come about by accident,
and I'm sure some people are bothered about artifacts (I'm not, its a
TV after all - if I want to see wild animals in all their glory, I'll
go to the zoo or on safari), but for me its a fantastic service.

Matt

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:25:10 -0700, Boltar wrote:
Suffice to say we watch on analogue unless theres
specifically ,something on one of the non analogue
stations we want to watch.

So you do not have a wide screen television then?

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:14:32 GMT, "mr deo"
wrote:

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:41:13 GMT, "mr deo"
wrote:

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

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.


LOL....
You "Consistently" get "DIGITAL ARTIFACTS" over an Analogue Broadcast

No, Freeview is a digital system, which is very prone to the type of
over compression artifacts that plague modern digital systems.

Actually, I *have* also seen them on analogue Eurosport International,
particularly during US Tennis Tournaments and French Alpine Skiing
events - I presume they are being introduced in digital processing
before conversion for analogue broadcasting.

You have a p0000p TV..

I had, or rather had (it's just totally died), an excellent TV.

Sound to me as though you have p0000p understanding.

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:35:53 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
The simple fact is that over-compression needn't and shouldn't be there.

Does over-compression occur in other European countries where station
assignments on DVB-t have been managed to ensure that audio and picture
quality is maintained?

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 14:00:42 +0100, "Marcussy"
wrote:

Hi, My 2 pence worth

Freeview picture quality is not crap,

Disagree

I strongly suspect those that claim
this are in one of the following scenarios:

1. Watching on a HD TV, their SD performance is generally speaking quite
appalling with a few exceptions.

Not applicable to me

2. Watching on a cheap & nasty LCD TV that has crap picture quality ( i.e.
poor grey scale performance and contrast) regadless of signal input type or
source.

NO ONE in this thread has complained about GREY-SCALES, the biggest
cause of complaint has been COMPRESSION ARTIFACTS.

3. Using the RF or the composite video signal output of their STB or PVR
(RGB is best, then S-video and Composite & RF are the worst possible
quality)

Not applicable to me

4. Using the STB/PVR output set to RGB but have not configured the input on
their TV to accept that so it is still only seeing the Composite signal
which is still output from the STB/ or PVR on the SCART socket even when RGB
mode is selected as it uses different pins.

Not applicable to me

4. Using a rotten quality poorly screened £1 shop SCART lead between the STB
or PVR and the TV

Not applicable to me

5. Subtle combinations of items 1 to 4 above.

Not applicable to me

I watch Freeview on a Hyundai-Imagequest HQP421SR 42" SD plasma (calibrated
for greyscale, contrast, brightness, sharpness and colour using a test DVD
called Digital Video Essentials) from a Humax 9200TBX PVR using the RGB
output via a good quality SCART lead (e.g. about a tenner ) and it looks
fine.

Perhaps you are not watching the sort of material where compression
artifacts commonly occur, or where they are particularly intrusive,
such as wildlife documentaries.

There is wide selection of good quality watchable programs on Freeview and
also a lot of crap, just like their is on SKY, Virgin, NTL et al. also.

I can't be bothered to reread the entire thread, but to the best of my
recollection, noone has been comparing Freeview to Sky either.

Right, let the bitching commence !!!

Your post is mostly irrelevant, and I've got better things to do.

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:08:34 +0100, Light of Aria wrote:
Agreed. Digital is pointless unless you want it.

It is without doubt that people said the same thing when the BBC made
available radio services on FM in stereophonic sound.

It is without doubt that people said the same thing when BBC-2 launched
on UHF 625 lines.

It is without doubt that people said the same thing when TV services
became available to most of the population on UHF 625 lines.

It is without doubt that people said the same thing about buying a
color television receiver when color television became available.

People are saying the same thing today about HD television.

"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

Java Jive=Java hand Jiver ?


"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 14:00:42 +0100, "Marcussy"
wrote:

Hi, My 2 pence worth

Freeview picture quality is not crap,

Disagree

I strongly suspect those that claim
this are in one of the following scenarios:

1. Watching on a HD TV, their SD performance is generally speaking quite
appalling with a few exceptions.

Not applicable to me

2. Watching on a cheap & nasty LCD TV that has crap picture quality (
i.e.
poor grey scale performance and contrast) regadless of signal input type
or
source.

NO ONE in this thread has complained about GREY-SCALES, the biggest
cause of complaint has been COMPRESSION ARTIFACTS.

3. Using the RF or the composite video signal output of their STB or PVR
(RGB is best, then S-video and Composite & RF are the worst possible
quality)

Not applicable to me

4. Using the STB/PVR output set to RGB but have not configured the input
on
their TV to accept that so it is still only seeing the Composite signal
which is still output from the STB/ or PVR on the SCART socket even when
RGB
mode is selected as it uses different pins.

Not applicable to me

4. Using a rotten quality poorly screened £1 shop SCART lead between the
STB
or PVR and the TV

Not applicable to me

5. Subtle combinations of items 1 to 4 above.

Not applicable to me

I watch Freeview on a Hyundai-Imagequest HQP421SR 42" SD plasma
(calibrated
for greyscale, contrast, brightness, sharpness and colour using a test
DVD
called Digital Video Essentials) from a Humax 9200TBX PVR using the RGB
output via a good quality SCART lead (e.g. about a tenner ) and it looks
fine.

Perhaps you are not watching the sort of material where compression
artifacts commonly occur, or where they are particularly intrusive,
such as wildlife documentaries.

There is wide selection of good quality watchable programs on Freeview
and
also a lot of crap, just like their is on SKY, Virgin, NTL et al. also.

I can't be bothered to reread the entire thread, but to the best of my
recollection, noone has been comparing Freeview to Sky either.

Right, let the bitching commence !!!

Your post is mostly irrelevant, and I've got better things to do.



--
Best Regards

Mark & Diana

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

I sometimes, but not very often, wander around the FTA stations from
the rest of Europe, but the sort of programs I would most want to
watch - Discovery, National Geographic, etc - are upmarket and
therefore encrypted, which explains why I don't bother to do it very
often.

As already posted, I have definitely seen really bad over compression
on French sourced Alpine Skiing, but it was 2-3 years ago, and AFAICR
last year's French events were somewhat better (that is, some
over-compression, and any is too much, but not so devastatingly as
previously).

As for others, the worst are, well, we all know the type of phone-in
programmes that are never encrypted, and sometimes while wandering
through I think: "She looks nice!", and watch for a while, but the
bitrate is usually so abysmal that not even a pretty girl can keep me
watching for long! Particular ones from the middle east are the
worst, entire frames seem to be dropped, like watching internet video
over a dialup connection!

I'm afraid I can't comment further.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:01:24 +0200, J G Miller
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:35:53 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
The simple fact is that over-compression needn't and shouldn't be there.

Does over-compression occur in other European countries where station
assignments on DVB-t have been managed to ensure that audio and picture
quality is maintained?

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:08:17 +0200, J G Miller
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:08:34 +0100, Light of Aria wrote:
Agreed. Digital is pointless unless you want it.

It is without doubt that people said the same thing when the BBC made
available radio services on FM in stereophonic sound.

But how many? I for one really wanted stereo radio, I remember
badgering my parents for an FM trannie.

It is without doubt that people said the same thing when BBC-2 launched
on UHF 625 lines.

But how many? I really wanted to see the mostly much better
programmes on BBC2.

It is without doubt that people said the same thing when TV services
became available to most of the population on UHF 625 lines.

No, not at all. The step up in resolution from 405 in B&W to 625
lines in colour was by then clear and unmistakable.

It is without doubt that people said the same thing about buying a
color television receiver when color television became available.

No, my only complaint was that my parents' first one had a green cast.

People are saying the same thing today about HD television.

Not really, but someone in this very group, I can't remember who, once
said that he feared that HD would simply just end up being what SD
could and should've been. So right, so bl*dy right.

"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."

Not really. If you previously had good analogue reception, free of
ghosting and interference, then, apart from widescreen which is
certainly a plus, Freeview just isn't as good, and 90% of the reason
for that is over-compression.