Rush for HD will create huge vacuum for non-HD viewing quality...

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:04:34 +0100,
wrote:

I think part of the problem is that CRT TV's only have 3 controls you
can adjust.

They only have 3 controls because they only *need* 3 controls.

The hsarpness is an important one to adjust.

Indeed. Downwards.

I prefer full sharpness.

OMFG. I bet you have massive black lines around white objects and vice
versa. And you think this is good?
That isn't sharpness.

CRT's may be more forgiving than panel displays.

Panel displays just add another layer of nasty distortions.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Steve Thackery"
saying something like:

An edge on a scaled picture may be displaced or "fuzzed" by up to one
pixel - 0.027mm on my display. And let me assure you that no domestic CRT
(TV or monitor) can focus or converge with anything like that accuracy.
Have you counted the holes in a shadow mask? I don't know, but I'm prepared
to bet that they are coarser than 0.027mm spacing.

0.027mm? FAntastic!
Why, that beats Trinitron by a factor of ten.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...


0.027mm? FAntastic!
Why, that beats Trinitron by a factor of ten.


Aarrgh! Sorry, I mean 0.27mm, obviously. Thanks for pointing it out!

STeveT

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...
In , "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

"Adrian C" wrote in message ...

Ah, 'half pint' arises?

Hmmm?

The name "glass half full" is remarkably similar to a previous poster here
called "half pint". HTH

Or Half Wit as he soon became known

--
Alex

Sorry to disappoint but am no relation... and interesting to see that
despite all the techno-babble going on here since I last viewed this
thread - the original point I made is still moot.
My argument has been further strengthened whilst viewing a friend's SKY
digital service through CRT - clearly Sky delivers more bandwidth/data per
channel than Freeview for its SD channels and the picture is obviously a
couple of leagues better than Freeview - amazingly good in other words. Same
Sky transmission on an HD-capable LCD and we find ourselves back to
nastiness.




"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 21/07/2010 21:51, Glass Half Full wrote:
Given that I have yet to see ANY HD-capable television monitor/panel TV
capable of rendering non-HD digital broadcast TV anywhere near the
quality
of a good CRT TV,

Ah, 'half pint' arises?

--
Adrian C

On 16 Aug, 15:43, "Glass Half Full" wrote:
Sorry to disappoint but am no relation... and interesting to see that
despite all the techno-babble going on here since I last viewed this
thread - the original point I made is still moot.
My argument has been further strengthened whilst viewing a friend's SKY
digital service through CRT - clearly Sky delivers more bandwidth/data per
channel than Freeview for its SD channels and the picture is obviously a
couple of leagues better than Freeview - amazingly good in other words. Same
Sky transmission on an HD-capable LCD and we find ourselves back to
nastiness.

Tried and HD capable Plasma?

On 16 Aug, 16:23, Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 16 Aug, 15:43, "Glass Half Full" wrote:

Sorry to disappoint but am no relation... and interesting to see that
despite all the techno-babble going on here since I last viewed this
thread - the original point I made is still moot.
My argument has been further strengthened whilst viewing a friend's SKY
digital service through CRT - clearly Sky delivers more bandwidth/data per
channel than Freeview for its SD channels and the picture is obviously a
couple of leagues better than Freeview - amazingly good in other words. Same
Sky transmission on an HD-capable LCD and we find ourselves back to
nastiness.

Tried and HD capable Plasma?

Dammit.
Tried an HD .....

At 15:43:21 Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Glass Half Full wrote

My argument has been further strengthened whilst viewing a friend's SKY
digital service through CRT - clearly Sky delivers more bandwidth/data per
channel than Freeview for its SD channels and the picture is obviously a
couple of leagues better than Freeview - amazingly good in other words.

It's not just Sky that's better. I recorded a few minutes of Emmerdale
simultaneously on Freesat and Freeview this evening, and found average
bit-rates of about 4.2 Mb/s for Freesat but only 2.6 Mb/s for Freeview.

--
John L

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:43:21 +0100, Glass Half Full wrote:

clearly Sky delivers more bandwidth/data per channel than
Freeview for its SD channels and the picture is obviously a couple of
leagues better than Freeview - amazingly good in other words. Same Sky
transmission on an HD-capable LCD and we find ourselves back to
nastiness.

B$kyB do not broadcast the signal, they are just an encryption and EPG
provide.

It is SES Astra and Eutelsat who actually transmit the signal to your home.

John Legon wrote:

It's not just Sky that's better. I recorded a few minutes of
Emmerdale simultaneously on Freesat and Freeview this evening, and
found average bit-rates of about 4.2 Mb/s for Freesat but only 2.6
Mb/s for Freeview.

Can any bit rate make Emmerdale watchable?