Sky reveals HDTV launch lineup

"fred_eg_bowinatuck" wrote in message
...
"Ivan" wrote

We had our first (dual standard GEC 2029) colour receiver in 1969. I
remember being severely ****ed off expecting to see the Moon landing
in
colour, only for it to be shown in 405 lines B\W on BBC1.

I don't think NASA provided the pictures of Apollo 11 in colour anyway,
so you weren't missing out. Colour missions only came (if at all)
towards
the end of the Apollo programme (1971 ish ?)

Didn't they take a mechanical 'sequential' 3 colour disc camera with
them?

Maybe they did, but that was stills,

Why would they have needed to go to that sort of trouble for 'still'
photography, considering that 35mm colour film was available right back in
the 1930s?


so not available for the live landing broadcast!

"Ivan" wrote

Why would they have needed to go to that sort of trouble for
'still' photography, considering that 35mm colour film was
available right back in the 1930s?

You are right, it is all a conspiracy to keep the information from us!

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary.../apollo11.html

Millions of Earthlings watched the drama unfold on TV images taken by the
black and white lunar surface camera. Here, Armstrong is standing in the
center, and Aldrin, a colonel in the Air Force, is saluting President
Richard M. Nixon, who had just spoken to the two astronauts by radio.
(NASA photo ID S69-39562)

"fred_eg_bowinatuck" wrote in message
...
"Ivan" wrote

Why would they have needed to go to that sort of trouble for
'still' photography, considering that 35mm colour film was
available right back in the 1930s?

You are right, it is all a conspiracy to keep the information from us!

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary.../apollo11.html

Perhaps those pictures were hand coloured on return to earth. :-)

According to
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi.../a11-hass.html

"The film used on Apollo-11 was the same type carried on the other flights -
a Kodak special thin-based and thin emulsion double-perforated 70 mm film -
which permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black/white in each
loading."

Loz

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

It would be better to stick with 2 channels and compare DVD-Audio
or SACD with CD, because the newer formats provide higher
resolution thann standard CD. I've never heard either of them, so
I won't comment, but I believe they do sound very good.
They do, but the reason is nothing to do with the format, or
increased resolution of the disc.
Errr, yes it is.

In theory, DVD-A and SACD should be able to give a much better sound
than CD for technical reasons. However the observation I've made is that
they sound better for other reasons which I've already gone into.

I have DVD-A versions of Faith Hill's "Cry" and Fleetwood Mac's
"Say You Will". I've compared them against CD versions borrowed
from a friend. The DVD-A versions sound better, whether you're
using the LPCM, DTS or even AC-3 soundtracks.
The reason? The audio CD is heavily compressed (as in analogue peak
limiting compression,
YOu mean dynamic range compression.

I do indeed, I had a complete mental block on the term I was looking for.

nothing to do with digital psychoacoustic compression), whereas the
DVD-A version isn't.
Maybe not for that one disc, but I very much doubt that'll be the
reason for many discs.

Most modern CDs are compressed to hell and back. As another poster said,
try ripping a track from a just-released CD and opening it up in a WAV
editor. Then do the same thing from one released in the mid-90s. Then
again with something from the early days of CD, eg Dire Straits'
"Brothers In Arms".

Another point worth noting, when I rip recent CDs to MP3 then run them
through MP3Gain, it shows most of them as clipping. With a theoretical
dynamic range of 100dB this is inexcusable, especially as the
justification is "oh, it'll sound better on the radio". Guess what, I
don't buy CDs to listen to stuff on the radio. And guess what... radio
stations compress everything anyway.

I have CDs that sound just as good as DVD-A (don't have an SACD player
so can't compare, although I have heard it). One of them was recorded in
1982!

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

AD C wrote:
In article ,
says...

Sure you can. They are quite common in the US. After all CRT
computer monitors are definitely HD ready.


That may be true, but most computer monitors are about 19inch, ok you
can get some larger ones. what you can get in the USA do not mean you
can get them here.

You can buy 40" widescreen HD CRT sets in the USA.
--
Adrian A

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Nigel Barker wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:00:29 -0000, (Gordon
Burditt) wrote:

Could I also ask whether you've seen *any* HD content yet? If not,
then why not try it before slagging it off? Virtually everybody
that sees it is impressed.

I've seen it in stores. I don't think it's much better than SD
digital TV (which, I'll admit, is a *BIG* improvement over analog
TV). I have a receiver capable of HDTV (and I'm not sure how to
tell which stations are broadcasting in HD, but I'm sure some of
them are some of the time), but not a monitor to go with it.

The only HD content I have seen playing in UK stores was from a PC
displayed on a SAGEM RPTV. The only other HD content I have seen in
European stores is the HD1 satellite channel. In both cases the
picture is amazingly good & clearly better than analogue, Freeview or
Sky.

Currently in the UK no broadcasters are showing HD. You could
subscribe to HD1 which is European wide.

All the TV stores in the US are showing HD content on their HD
capable sets. Again the picture quality is fantastically good
compared to other sources e,g, DVD.

Are you _sure_ that you have seen HDTV. It doesn't sound like it.


I think he's been watching DVD played back on an HD-Ready display.


Probably via a CVBS feed.
--
Adrian A

critcher wrote:
critcher said
one of the longest threads i've seen on here, but most enjoyable.
Who knows what the future holds?

By the time we get to end of this thread, we'll know. ;-)
--
Adrian A

critcher wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
critcher wrote:
critcher said
one of the longest threads i've seen on here, but most enjoyable.
Who knows what the future holds?


Mystic Meg.


those were the days

No, that was Mary Hopkin, not Mystic Meg. ;-)
--
Adrian A

fred_eg_bowinatuck wrote:
"loz" wrote

But amongst my friends and relatives (not counting colleagues, because
I work for a tech company) I'm struggling to think of anyone with a
widescreen TV set.

Either you or I must inhabit a strange parallel universe.
Amongst my friends and relatives I'm struggling to
think of anyone *without* a widescreen TV set.

You can tell all sorts from the post code.

Ah, but which way around? ;-)

It's more about age, and not thinking that TV is very important. Which
may bring us back to the post code - opium of the masses and all that.

Still, I don't know any relatives or friends (again, apart from at
work) who have Sky, (though most of our street appears to have had Sky
or ntl at some point).

Cheers,
David.

In uk.tech.tv.sky Nigel Barker wrote:

: The only HD content I have seen playing in UK stores was from a PC
: displayed on a SAGEM RPTV. The only other HD content I have seen in
: European stores is the HD1 satellite channel. In both cases the picture
: is amazingly good & clearly better than analogue, Freeview or Sky.

The local Currys had all their HD TVs connected up to a Windows Media Centre
PC and were showing HD content from this.

Stores with Panasonic HD TVs seem to get a smallish box covered in Japanese
writing (presumably on loan from Panasonic - as I have now seen it twice) to
demo their HD sets.

In both cases the pictures were pretty stunning!