Whats the point of Freeview?
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
...
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

laugh, I almost nearly thought about it

--
Best Regards

Mark & Diana

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

In article 5b101c37-63f4-45e1-a9d6-
, Larkim wrote:
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.

I think you're right - it's got to where it is now largely by accident,
and although it's not too bad, there are a lot of things about it that
could have been done so much better if they'd been planned in a
coordinated way, e.g.-

* Really better picture quality, rather than digital artefacts instead
of analogue ones. (If you think Freeview is good, you can't have seen
what can be obtained straight out of a well set up television camera).

* Consistent automatic switching of different screen modes.

* Digital encoding of signing for the deaf so it can be switched
optionally at the receiver, like subtitles, instead of being added
indelibly to selected broadcasts at source.

* Provision for multichannel sound for those that want it.

* Provision for different picture resolutions, as with internet video on
computers (except higher resolutions of course).

* Provision for the data capacity of several channels to be combined to
provide one channel with higher resolution for special occasions when
they would otherwise be wasting resources by carrying the same material.

* Consistent digital flagging of start and finish times and programme
categories, to make it easier to find and record stuff.

You can probably think of more things that could be done with digital
television if it had been designed around computer technology instead of
being locked to one standard by being simply a digital encoding of
existing analogue waveforms.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

In article , J G Miller wrote:
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.

Early 1970s if you added a decoder to a Hacker yourself.
(I still have a letter from Hacker saying it wasn't possible).

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

"Barry Oakley" wrote in message
...
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.
Upto a certain point DTT will continue to work perfectly as co-channel
interference worsens. The problem arises when that certain point is reached,
because the picture will disappear quite rapidly.


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.
You should condemn an entire technology because of one incompetent
installer.

Bill

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

J G Miller wrote:

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.

I bought myself a portable stereo radio/cassette, now called a 'Getto Blaster'
of course, in 1980. Still got it today, use it in my garage.

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.

Well Holme Moss would have provided stereo BBC from the early 1970s for some
of N Wales.


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

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

Bill Wright wrote:
"Barry Oakley" wrote in message
...
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.
Upto a certain point DTT will continue to work perfectly as co-channel
interference worsens. The problem arises when that certain point is
reached, because the picture will disappear quite rapidly.


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.
You should condemn an entire technology because of one incompetent
installer.

Bill

I assume that should be "shouldn't"!

But it may not be anything to do with the installer, who may have done a
good job at the time. It's just that those bloody trees have an annoying
habit of growing, and what was a clear signal path is now intermittently
interrupted by the trees.

--
Jeff
(cut "thetape" to reply)

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

Boltar wrote:
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.

Unless you feed a 16:9 display with a 16:9 *anamorphic* signal you're going to
get a picture that has black borders, and/or is cropped, and/or is
geometrically distorted. It's as simple as that.

You cannot obtain a 16:9 anamorphic signal from analogue broadcasts. The only
sources are digital terrestrial and satellite broadcasts, DVDs, or a 16:9 camera.

HTH

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

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

Marcussy wrote:
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.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head with your "for much of the
population". But there is a problem for those who don't have a satisfactory
freeview signal. Which would you rather have for the final episode in a
long-running serial you've been waiting for - some snow or ghosting, and an
infrequent sound buzz, or nothing at all (maybe a few interrupted blocky
pictures with broken sound if you were lucky)? I'd be a bit annoyed with the
former, but have steam coming out my ears with the latter.

It will be interesting to see if there are far less complaints about
blocking, etc when analogue goes and the freeview signal strength increases.

--
Jeff
(cut "thetape" to reply)

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

Right on - I'm with you - well said!!

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


Marcussy wrote on Thu, 9 Oct 2008:

Hi, My 2 pence worth

Freeview picture quality is not crap, 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.

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.

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)

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.

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

5. Subtle combinations of items 1 to 4 above.

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.

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.

For what it costs me annually I think it is a pretty good service and
any time I have evaluated the costs of changing to SKY it has not
seemed worth the price by a long shot.

Right, let the bitching commence !!!

Marcus

Whats the point of Freeview?
 

In article , J G Miller scribeth
thus
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."


There is nothing wrong with digital transmission as such in fact it is a
very good way to carry signals around. In we first heard just how good
FM stereo could be when PCM replaced the PO analogue line distribution
in the 70's..

And FWIW most all TV is originated in a digital format usually around
270 odd Megabits..

Its then sent out to the analogue PAL encoded transmitters at 34
M/bits..

On freeview it ends up at the viewers telly at some 1 to 4 if your lucky
M/bits..

Nothing wrong with digital transmission as such, its just what's done
with it before its delivered;(...
--
Tony Sayer