|
|
Whats the point of Freeview?
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 |
Whats the point of Freeview?
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:30:45 -0700, Boltar wrote:
So what exactly is its point? More stations can be crammed into digital television bandwidth than the one per analog broadcast, so the resultant free spectrum can be auctioned off by the government, and maybe the wealthy top income group will be given a one off tax break. |
Whats the point of Freeview?
"Boltar" wrote in message ... 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 To earn people money through codec, decrypter, and other marketing sales. The picture quality isnt worse, it's not better either.. Recording the media streams becomes much easier with 0% loss from the broadcast signal.. It is possible (but they dont do it) to embed different language audi feeds with each station.. Interactive menu's are much better than the old teletext.. Ghost/Echo is removed, other RF noise no longers spoils your picture.. FreeviewHD will roll out next year and the "quality" will be obviously better.. More stations can be pushed out over the existing spectrum.. I got no idea why they want it.. |
Whats the point of Freeview?
Boltar wrote:
So what exactly is its point? Widescreen switching/support? |
Whats the point of Freeview?
J G Miller wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:30:45 -0700, Boltar wrote: So what exactly is its point? More stations can be crammed into digital television bandwidth than the one per analog broadcast, so the resultant free spectrum can be auctioned off by the government, and maybe the wealthy top income group will be given a one off tax break. I think the point was provision of multi-channel TV without a satellite subscription. Now that we have Freesat, the rest of the terrestrial TV bandwidth can be sold off as well :) |
Whats the point of Freeview?
It seemed a good idea at the time. The point is to sell hardware that will
be obsolete in about five years. Seems a bit odd to me as sat tv seems to offer more for hardly more money. I cannot see why they are bothering, they could sell the whole lot off and make lots of money on the frequencies. Like the price hike they intend to charge the RNLI. Brian -- Brian Gaff - Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! "Boltar" wrote in message ... 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 |
Whats the point of Freeview?
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:54:56 +0100, Jim wrote:
I think the point was provision of multi-channel TV without a satellite subscription. I think that you are forgetting that the original concept and implementation of digital terrestrial broadcasts in the UKofGB&NI except for a few PSB stations, was that one did have to take out a subscription for multi-channel TV -- it was called OnDigital. Freeview only happened effectively "by accident" and it was never intended that UKofGB&NI viewers should have a free terrestrial multi-channel service except for the basic PSB stations. |
Whats the point of Freeview?
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. 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?
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 |
Whats the point of Freeview?
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. |
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 |
Whats the point of Freeview?
Boltar wrote:
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. I think it's down to what you get used to. I used to hate the mpeg artifacts on fast moving scenes but I'm now used to it. I couldn't now go back to analogue as PAL artifacts are far worse in my opinion and there's also no widescreen. A lot of it may be choice of TV. There's no doubt that a good CRT is much more forgiving of mpeg artifacts than, at the other end of the scale, a budget LCD. |
Whats the point of Freeview?
Boltar wrote:
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 Same PVR, same problem. I've noticed a lot more breakup and blocking problems (and loss of sound) over the past month or three, even affecting Five on occasion. Not sure why - it doesn't seem to be weather-related. Like you, we watch in analogue when we can (we can't get Five in analogue, unfortunately). -- Jeff (cut "thetape" to reply) |
Whats the point of Freeview?
For my type of use (apartment dweller with only one satellite outlet but
multiple terrestrial aerial outlets), digital terrestrial TV (aka Freeview) is a very effective way of obtaining the wider range of channels at all of those locations in my apartment. I don't have the poor visual quality that others describe (central Birmingham location). The satellite works fine at its one location in the apartment. At the other locations, it is very restrictive - limited to the selected channel and delivers reduced quality, most obviously mono sound only. David Foster "Boltar" wrote in message ... 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 |
Whats the point of Freeview?
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:48:53 +0200, J G Miller said...
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? halfpint? -- Mark Myers usenet at mcm2007 dot plus dot com I call that a radical interpretation of the text. |
Whats the point of Freeview?
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:09:53 +0100, Barry Oakley
wrote: 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. For me analogue reception is infinitely better than freeview since I can't get freeview! -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. See http://improve-usenet.org |
Whats the point of Freeview?
"Boltar" wrote in message ... 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 Agreed. Digital is pointless unless you want it. |
Whats the point of Freeview?
On Oct 9, 10:14 am, Silk wrote: I think it's down to what you get used to. I used to hate the mpeg artifacts on fast moving scenes but I'm now used to it. I couldn't now go back to analogue as PAL artifacts are far worse in my opinion and there's also no widescreen. If your analogue signal suffers from ghosting and the like which you can't do anything about no matter where you point the antenna then it can get very irritating. The colour signal dropping out is also a big problem especially with indoor antennas , but the thing with analogue is that unless the signal gets really bad you can still see and hear whats going on through the mush. With digital , once the signal drops below a certain threshold thats it , you might as well go read a book because it'll just stop. Unfortunately that threshold seems to be pretty easy to go over in a lot of places. A lot of it may be choice of TV. There's no doubt that a good CRT is much more forgiving of mpeg artifacts than, at the other end of the scale, a budget LCD. A good CRT TV will still beat a good LCD IMO for picture quality Which is odd because I find the opposite is true with computer monitors. Must be the internal processing that LCD TVs have to do. B2003 |
Whats the point of Freeview?
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:14:38 +0100, Silk wrote:
I think it's down to what you get used to. I used to hate the mpeg artifacts on fast moving scenes but I'm now used to it. But if, as I do, you watch a great many wildlife and natural history programs, nothing on earth is going to acclimatise you to any of the following breaking up into visible squares: Anything involving water that isn't as flat as a millpond So that's rivers, rapids, waterfalls, seascapes Wild fires Flocks of birds Shoals of fish Fast chase scenes, etc The simple fact is that over-compression needn't and shouldn't be there. A lot of it may be choice of TV. There's no doubt that a good CRT is much more forgiving of mpeg artifacts than, at the other end of the scale, a budget LCD. I don't want to turn this into another CRT vs LCD argument, because really the argument is and should remain about the crap quality of our Freeview service, particularly arising from the over-compression it is abused by, but in making the above comparison it is you that is in danger of dragging the thread off-topic. For one thing it's a biased comparison, 'good' one against 'budget' the other. In direct contradiction, I have *proved*, not merely asserted, that a 'good' LCD is better than a poor CRT. http://tinyurl.com/5ccryd .... standing in for ... http://www.cemh.eclipse.co.uk/JavaJi.../CRTvsLCD.html But neither is statement is actually wrong, just, particularly in the absence of any supporting evidence such as I have at least provided, not very useful - it rather follows from our definitions of language that a 'good' anything SHOULD be better than a 'budget' or 'poor' anything. I would imagine that I am not alone in thinking that it is the purpose of a TV to display the picture fed to it as faithfully as possible - that is, it shouldn't add artifacts of its own, but it shouldn't leave out detail from the picture either, even if that detail happens to be artifacts in the source signal that shouldn't be there. If as, you seem to imply, you have a CRT that is leaving these artifacts out, while you have observed them on a budget LCD, that suggests to me that the budget LCD is displaying the picture more faithfully, and is thus the better TV. |
Whats the point of Freeview?
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?
"Mark" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:09:53 +0100, Barry Oakley wrote: 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. For me analogue reception is infinitely better than freeview since I can't get freeview! -- Lol.... That sucks... :P... I personally think every home should have got FREE BBC STB's that allowed UpScaling (bbc gets first dibs on all spectrum and the cost is passed on to the OTHER spectrum purchase holders)... If you cant get FreeView then you shouldnt have to pay the TellyLisence ;P |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com