A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Analogue Through Rose Tints



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 5th 12, 10:03 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Silk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 565
Default Analogue Through Rose Tints

Now that analogue TV is finally coming to an end, I'm surprised to see
people commenting on what a great loss it is and how superior it is/was
to digital.

Let's look at the evidence:

Anaglogue: 4:3 aspect ratio only; Very annoying and obvious PAL
artifacts; Susceptble to noise and ghosting in all but perfect signal
areas; inefficient use of bandwidth; etc.

Digital: Widescreen; HD; immunity from ghosting, noise and PAL
artifacts; far superior spectral efficiency; etc.

Whilst I can agree that the implimentation can sometimes mean digital
falls short in certain areas, only a complete moron could honestly say
analogue is superior.

I expect, when all analogue is switched off and along with it the
evidence of its "superiority", we'll be bored sensless by those who will
still insist it was better in the "good old days".

Do people really think the picture quality of the old BBC1 on analogue
was superiour to BBC1HD or, for that mattter, BBC1SD on digital? Should
they have gone to Specsavers?

Digital is better; get over it.
Ads
  #2  
Old April 5th 12, 10:48 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,721
Default Analogue Through Rose Tints

In article , Silk wrote:
Do people really think the picture quality of the old BBC1 on analogue
was superiour to BBC1HD or, for that mattter, BBC1SD on digital? Should
they have gone to Specsavers?


As usual, better in some respects but worse in others. A good analogue
picture received via a properly installed aerial could look very good
indeed, and even a badly received signal could be good enough to follow
the content of the programme, whereas a badly receive digital signal would
give you nothing at all. Having worked in the industry I'm aware of what
PAL artefacts are, but as a viewer I don't recall ever being bothered by
them.

The biggest loss in quality is the result of bit-rate reduction and the
fact that we can't choose the quality level ourselves. It's chosen for us
by the broadcasters and that's as good as it gets. We now have artefacts
which are a great deal more annoying than a bit of streaking, noise, or
ignition interference, because they're picture related, the "jellyvision"
effect, where different parts of the picture wobble about independently of
each other at the slightest movement being by far the worst, and something
we've never had before. It takes a great deal of complex technology to
make both halves of someone's face move separately when they move their
head. It doesn't show on the full bit-rate signals from the cameras or in
edit suites. It's the result of what the broadcasters do to the final
signal before transmitting it to the public, so even a perfectly received
signal will still show the effect. We can't choose the quality level
ouselves by purchasing better equipment because the quality loss has
already happened, and with the present broadcasting system we just have to
live with it.

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

  #3  
Old April 5th 12, 10:56 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,245
Default Analogue Through Rose Tints

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:03:45 +0100, Silk wrote:


Digital is better; get over it.


Digital is different; get over it.
  #4  
Old April 5th 12, 11:04 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,125
Default Analogue Through Rose Tints

On Apr 5, 11:03*am, Silk wrote:
Do people really think the picture quality of the old BBC1 on analogue
was superiour to BBC1HD or, for that mattter, BBC1SD on digital? Should
they have gone to Specsavers?

Digital is better; get over it.


Ignoring the aspect ratio, there's some content that looked better on
BBC1 analogue than BBC1 SD Freeview, and plenty of content looked
better on ITV1 analogue than ITV1 SD Freeview.

Interlaced moving fine detail is a killer for MPEG-2 low bitrate
digital coding. By fine, I mean patterns or details of a few pixels.
Trees in a forest, grass on a football pitch, waves on water etc.
Obviously really fine detail (of a specific frequency) gives
horrendous cross-colour with PAL - though some TVs include far better
luma/chroma filters than others.

Broadcast HD beats analogue and digital SD by such a huge margin that
there's no contest. People complain it's not as good as it could be,
which is true, but it makes beautiful faultless downconverted SD.
Better than a good DVD.

Cheers,
David.
  #5  
Old April 5th 12, 11:04 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
J G Miller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Analogue Through Rose Tints

On Thursday, April 5th, 2012, at 11:03:45h +0100, Silk wrote:

Whilst I can agree that the implimentation can sometimes mean
digital falls short in certain areas


This is exactly the deficiency of digital radio and TV
in the UKofGB&NI -- cramming too many stations into a multiplex
resulting in deterioration of audio and video quality all for the
purpose of creating more profit for the multiplex operator and
more licence fee income for OFCon.

If you watch soccer matches on terrestrial digital TV in other
countries, the soccer field does not turn into a billiard table
when the players start moving.

Even on satellite the bit rates for some ITV regions are sub-standard.

Compare the quality of eg ARD, ZDF, ARTE, or France 2 standard definition
on satellite or terrestrial with UKofGB&NI TV stations and you will notice
a significant difference in picture quality.

Digital "done right" is indeed so much better than analog.
  #6  
Old April 5th 12, 11:11 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Alan White[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 447
Default Analogue Through Rose Tints

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 04:04:04 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

People complain it's not as good as it could be,...


People complain that it's not as good as it was before August 2009 which
is when the bit-rate was reduced. Before that it was superb. It is now
only very good.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
By Loch Long, twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather
  #7  
Old April 5th 12, 11:34 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Paul D Smith[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 720
Default Analogue Through Rose Tints

....snip...

If you watch soccer matches on terrestrial digital TV in other
countries, the soccer field does not turn into a billiard table
when the players start moving.


That's the main reason for Freeview-HD as far as I'm concerned. Freeview-SD
football is simply unwatchable.

Paul DS

  #8  
Old April 5th 12, 11:43 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Silk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 565
Default Analogue Through Rose Tints

Martin wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:03:45 +0100, Silk wrote:


Do people really think the picture quality of the old BBC1 on analogue
was superiour to BBC1HD or, for that mattter, BBC1SD on digital? Should
they have gone to Specsavers?


It was just that programme quality was so much better.


Modern TV doesn't have the monopoly on crap programmes.

The vast majority of sitcoms, entertainment and variety shows from the 60s,
70s and 80s were overrated ****e. The stuff that was left wasn't much
better.
  #9  
Old April 5th 12, 11:47 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Paul Ratcliffe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,486
Default Analogue Through Rose Tints

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:03:45 +0100, Silk wrote:

Anaglogue: 4:3 aspect ratio only;

Digital: Widescreen;


But it doesn't have to be. That was just a policy decision.
It is perfectly possible to have widescreen analogue and 4:3 digital.

immunity from ghosting, noise and PAL artifacts;


But susceptibility to horrid over-compressed MPEG artifacts which are
picture related and therefore subjectively MORE annoying.

Digital is better; get over it.


Better than what under what circumstances. Like most things, it depends
what they question is.
Get over it yourself.
  #10  
Old April 5th 12, 12:17 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,250
Default Analogue Through Rose Tints

Bring back 405 lines I say.

I could get far more itv regions then as well.
No I know what you mean. Though there is something more interesting about
analogue as you can see the signal condition directly. Well I can't these
days, but could once.
It was great fun watching the moving ghosts as cranes moved etc.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Silk" wrote in message
...
Now that analogue TV is finally coming to an end, I'm surprised to see
people commenting on what a great loss it is and how superior it is/was to
digital.

Let's look at the evidence:

Anaglogue: 4:3 aspect ratio only; Very annoying and obvious PAL artifacts;
Susceptble to noise and ghosting in all but perfect signal areas;
inefficient use of bandwidth; etc.

Digital: Widescreen; HD; immunity from ghosting, noise and PAL artifacts;
far superior spectral efficiency; etc.

Whilst I can agree that the implimentation can sometimes mean digital
falls short in certain areas, only a complete moron could honestly say
analogue is superior.

I expect, when all analogue is switched off and along with it the evidence
of its "superiority", we'll be bored sensless by those who will still
insist it was better in the "good old days".

Do people really think the picture quality of the old BBC1 on analogue was
superiour to BBC1HD or, for that mattter, BBC1SD on digital? Should they
have gone to Specsavers?

Digital is better; get over it.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.