Whats the point of Freeview?
 

on a more serious note dear Java Jive

We are talking about MPEG compressed video here, it is not a lossless
compression there will be some "artefacts of compression" or "blockiness" if
you will when compared to a real world image to the eye. These become much
more apparent with the connections /equipment issues I raised.

If those things are not an issue with their kit then the vast majority of
people the vast majority of the time will not see any significant blockiness
or artefacting. As per, MP3 audio tracks sound fine to most people most of
the time but it "ain't HI-FI" and a "trained musical ear" will say it does
not sound right/the same. As a musician I can't bear to listen to MP3
tracks compressed below 192K, most people use 128K or 64K compression level
it's fine for their ears.

SO to summarise.

Freeview offers a lot more content delivered via the existing broadcasting
infrastructure, much of it is good programming, a lot of it is repeats &
crap (like all the other TV service suppliers). The picture quality is OK
and better than analogue for much of the population as you either get a
perfect transmission or you get nothing watchable as there are no issues of
ghosting and snowy pictures etc etc.

Regards
Marcus

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Oct 9, 2:00 pm, "Marcussy" wrote:
5. Subtle combinations of items 1 to 4 above.

None of which give rise to the mpeg artifact issues mentioned.

B2003

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Oct 9, 2:57 pm, J G Miller wrote:
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?

Yes we do , but only because our old TV died and only because there
are very few (any?) 4:3 TVs still on the market other than ones 20
inches made by some company you've never heard of. We generally just
leave it in 4:3 mode anyway otherwise its an endless hunt through its
modes trying to find one which doesn't chop the picture off or
horizontally stretches it or both.

B2003

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
...
On Oct 9, 2:57 pm, J G Miller wrote:
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?

Yes we do , but only because our old TV died and only because there
are very few (any?) 4:3 TVs still on the market other than ones 20
inches made by some company you've never heard of. We generally just
leave it in 4:3 mode anyway otherwise its an endless hunt through its
modes trying to find one which doesn't chop the picture off or
horizontally stretches it or both.

B2003

Heh....
So a TV built for 16:9 is getting used for 4:3 ;P....
No wonder things look so bad!

I would say a LOT of the poor picture quality you are seeing is because of
the Freeview receiver your using.. (If it's built in then I would blame
that)..
I have connected freeview receivers to my panel and I can tell you that none
of them come ANYWHERE near the quality that the built in receiver&upscaler
has.

If you want a good picture you need a Digital Reciever with a Digital
Output.

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
...
On Oct 9, 2:00 pm, "Marcussy" wrote:
5. Subtle combinations of items 1 to 4 above.

None of which give rise to the mpeg artifact issues mentioned.

B2003

Never said they did cockhead !

--
Best Regards

Mark & Diana

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

Boltar,

Just went off for a tea break and something in the kitchen reminded me of
you. Then I realised I had actually misread the loaf wrapper and what it
really said was "Thick cut".

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

Marcussy wrote:
Boltar,

Just went off for a tea break and something in the kitchen reminded
me of you. Then I realised I had actually misread the loaf wrapper
and what it really said was "Thick cut".

I'm glad I'd put my tea down when I read that.

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Oct 9, 4:13 pm, "Marcussy" wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

...

On Oct 9, 2:00 pm, "Marcussy" wrote:
5. Subtle combinations of items 1 to 4 above.

None of which give rise to the mpeg artifact issues mentioned.

B2003

Never said they did cockhead !

Then why bother posting them because thats whats under discussion or
can't you read?

B2003

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Oct 9, 4:25 pm, "Marcussy" wrote:
Boltar,

Just went off for a tea break and something in the kitchen reminded me of
you. Then I realised I had actually misread the loaf wrapper and what it
really said was "Thick cut".

If you put bread in your tea then I'll have to introduce you to Mr
Kettle.

B2003

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:39:55 +0100, Java Jive wrote:
But how many? I for one really wanted stereo radio, I remember
badgering my parents for an FM trannie.
If it was a portable transistor radio, then it certainly would not
have been stereophonic. As far as I am aware, portable stereo
radios only started becoming available in the late 1980s and
only in the 1990s in not-top-of-the-range models.

As far as I recall the BBC started transmitting stereo on some
VHF FM transmitters in the early 1960s, and I think North Wales
did not go stereo until the mid 1970s.

But how many? I really wanted to see the mostly much better
programmes on BBC2.
So just maybe some people may want to see the documentaries on UK History
or the S-F programs on Virgin 1, or the documentaries on More 4, or
the Welsh Assembly on S4C-2, or even the proceedings of the Westminster
Parliament on BBC Parliament, or the programs that would have been
on BBC-2 but, are now too intellectural for that network's perceived
audience which has become the old BBC-1 audience, and have been shunted
off to BBC-4?

No, not at all. The step up in resolution from 405 in B&W
to 625 lines colour was by then clear and unmistakable.
Actually, a lot of people did say that they would wait

a) for the color technology to improve
b) for the price of color receivers to become affordable

No, my only complaint was that my parents' first one had a green cast.
Which only too well documents my point (a) above.

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.
An SD picture of 720x576 is never going to provide the detail of a 1080i
picture.

If you cannot see the difference in picture detail between the SD
service and HD service of Luxe TV, to use a non Freeview example,
then you need your eyes testing.

If you previously had good analogue reception, free of
ghosting and interference
In practice though, even in areas where this was possible, the number
of people who fed a below par analog signal to their television was
probably greater than those who fed what you would call a Grade A
signal.

Furthermore, even with a Grade A signal, you can still perceive a
certain level of noise on the picture, whereas with a digital picture
you get a flat, no visible scanning lines image.

Freeview just isn't as good, and 90% of the reason for
that is over-compression.
With that I have no disagreement -- the issue is not the digital
transmission, it is the lack of quality control of picture quality
and "let the market decide to pack as many stations on the multiplex as
possible in order to maximize profits" approach of the UK%GB
administration.

So to emphasize DVB-t better than analog, but UKofGB&NI Freeview
implementation poor.

And as I stated in a previous post, it was never the intention of the
UK&GB administration that viewers would have more than a basic choice
of PSB free to air stations on digital terrestrial service -- the
intention was that viewers should have to pay for any real increase in
choice -- but the incompetence and greed of Carlton and Granada scuppered
that plan.