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 TV vs DTV Picture Quality -- which is best?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 30th 05, 12:47 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
DAB sounds worse than FM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 929
Default Analogue TV vs DTV Picture Quality -- which is best?

Loz wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

I should state that reception problems on analogue should be ignored,
because they are not problems with picture quality -- they're
reception problems.


Analogue hands down then in my opinion.



Right.


But then, how many times more
bandwidth does an analogue television station occupy in comparison to
a digital one?



Again, that is an entirely different issue altogether.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm


Ads
  #12  
Old April 30th 05, 12:48 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
DAB sounds worse than FM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 929
Default Analogue TV vs DTV Picture Quality -- which is best?

news wrote:
In message , DAB sounds
worse than FM writes
The reason I'm starting this thread is because of the following
comment: "Ad Maybe you got crap analouge, my analouge is bright,
clear and
is far
better than digital and that also means sky as well.


Dominic Shields - No, quite the contrary, people have remarked on
what a good analogue
picture I had in the old days and I haven't removed that aerial, its
just the huge improvement that digital gave me that makes the
analogue look shoddy in comparison."

I don't actually watch analogue TV at the moment because it would
mean unplugging and re-plugging in aerials, so I only watch DTT. I
don't really have a problem with DTT's picture quality, but my
recollection is that analogue TV's picture quality was always better.

So, which do people think is best in terms of picture quality:
analogue TV or DTT?


Digital



Why?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm


  #13  
Old April 30th 05, 12:48 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ben
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default Analogue TV vs DTV Picture Quality -- which is best?

Loz wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...


I should state that reception problems on analogue should be ignored,
because they are not problems with picture quality -- they're reception
problems.


This is not a meaningful comparison, reception problems like snow and
ghosting are part of the transmission system. What you're asking for is
a comparison of what digital actually looks like versus what analogue
would look like if you could bypass the transmission network and just
walk up to the TV studio and plug your telly into a socket on the wall.
Its not real.

Analogue hands down then in my opinion. But then, how many times more
bandwidth does an analogue television station occupy in comparison to a
digital one?


4 to 6 digital channels in one 8MHz analogue channel depending on
whether 16QAM (18Mbps) or 64QAM (24Mbps) is used.
  #14  
Old April 30th 05, 12:55 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
DAB sounds worse than FM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 929
Default Analogue TV vs DTV Picture Quality -- which is best?

Ben wrote:
Loz wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...


I should state that reception problems on analogue should be
ignored, because they are not problems with picture quality --
they're reception problems.


This is not a meaningful comparison,



It's not at all, because some people do have good reception.


reception problems like snow and
ghosting are part of the transmission system.



Snow and ghosting are not transmitted, so they're reception
issues/problems.


What you're asking for
is a comparison of what digital actually looks like versus what
analogue would look like if you could bypass the transmission network
and just walk up to the TV studio and plug your telly into a socket
on the wall. Its not real.



Bull****.

Fk this, I cannot be arsed. I asked a simple question, and I receive
answers to different questions.


Analogue hands down then in my opinion. But then, how many times
more bandwidth does an analogue television station occupy in
comparison to a digital one?


4 to 6 digital channels in one 8MHz analogue channel depending on
whether 16QAM (18Mbps) or 64QAM (24Mbps) is used.



And that's relevant to a question on picture quality as well, is it?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm


  #15  
Old April 30th 05, 01:22 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Dr Zoidberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default Analogue TV vs DTV Picture Quality -- which is best?

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

snip

I should state that reception problems on analogue should be ignored,
because they are not problems with picture quality -- they're
reception problems.


But as the majority of analogue viewers don't get "best" reception they
**do** have static , ghosting etc and are very real factors in people's
decision.

What's the point in comparing a digital signal that they do get with an
analogue one that they might in theory get if they lived somehwhere else

--
Alex

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.sffh.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk


  #16  
Old April 30th 05, 01:29 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ben
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default Analogue TV vs DTV Picture Quality -- which is best?

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Ben wrote:

Loz wrote:

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...



I should state that reception problems on analogue should be
ignored, because they are not problems with picture quality --
they're reception problems.


This is not a meaningful comparison,




It's not at all, because some people do have good reception.


Well I don't!

reception problems like snow and
ghosting are part of the transmission system.




Snow and ghosting are not transmitted, so they're reception
issues/problems.


But the picture you get to watch is the one that you receive, not the
one that was transmitted. In the case of digital they are one and the
same, in the case of analogue they can be very different.

What you're asking for
is a comparison of what digital actually looks like versus what
analogue would look like if you could bypass the transmission network
and just walk up to the TV studio and plug your telly into a socket
on the wall. Its not real.




Bull****.

Fk this, I cannot be arsed. I asked a simple question, and I receive
answers to different questions.


Oooh, get her! OK then, my answer to your original question is that even
if you could somehow magically remove all the snow and ghosting from an
analogue picture (WHICH YOU CAN'T!!!), digital is still better because
its not riddled with those horrible PAL artefacts that look much worse
than a bit of MPEG compression.

Analogue hands down then in my opinion. But then, how many times
more bandwidth does an analogue television station occupy in
comparison to a digital one?


4 to 6 digital channels in one 8MHz analogue channel depending on
whether 16QAM (18Mbps) or 64QAM (24Mbps) is used.




And that's relevant to a question on picture quality as well, is it?


Just answering the question.
  #17  
Old April 30th 05, 01:35 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Vin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 59
Default Analogue TV vs DTV Picture Quality -- which is best?


I'd have to say Digital here.

This is more to do the reception side of things, but it's all I have to go
on, and digital here is by far the best.

I live in a flat, with a shared aeriel system.

On analogue I get terrible snow, ghosting, and electrical interference.
Being a shared aeriel system, I need a booster to receive DTT with minimal
breakup.
I do get the odd glitch when my coffee machine thermostat kicks in, or when
the kitchen light is turned on and off, but it's nothing too drastic.

The ability to receive anamorphic widescreen when available is also
desireable to me.

I agree that sometimes when watching programmes it reminds me of an old
video CD, the Star Trek - Next Generation on BBC2 used to do that,
but analogue looks terrible on all channels here, and Channel 5 pretty much
unwatchable, so for me, DTT gives the best picture quality.

Again, my problems are down to reception issues, but I can only give my
opinion given the quality of reception, and therefore picture quality that I
receive,
so I'd have to say DTT wins here, hands down.



"Terry Eden" wrote in message
...
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
So, which do people think is best in terms of picture quality: analogue
TV or DTT?


It's the same argument of CD vs Vinyl.

Vinyl is better if you a diamond tipped 1000 precision motor driven
turntable going through high end speakers. A CD on a 25 system sounds
better than a record on a 25 system. Most people will want to buy the
cheaper system and getter fantastic quality for the price.

I get an excellent analogue BBC1 and, to be honest, the picture quality vs
digital is negligible.

By contrast I have a horrid C4 picture on analogue - but perfect on
digital.

So, I have a choice. ~150 for a new aerial and co-ax and all sorts of
anti interference gadgets, or a 40 digibox. No contest.

However, I will agree that on the low bitrate channels (like The Hits etc)
the picture quality looks like a RealVideo stream circa 1998!

Terry



  #18  
Old April 30th 05, 02:03 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Martin Underwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46
Default Analogue TV vs DTV Picture Quality -- which is best?

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Ben wrote:
Loz wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...


I should state that reception problems on analogue should be
ignored, because they are not problems with picture quality --
they're reception problems.


This is not a meaningful comparison,



It's not at all, because some people do have good reception.


reception problems like snow and
ghosting are part of the transmission system.



Snow and ghosting are not transmitted, so they're reception
issues/problems.


What you're asking for
is a comparison of what digital actually looks like versus what
analogue would look like if you could bypass the transmission network
and just walk up to the TV studio and plug your telly into a socket
on the wall. Its not real.



Bull****.

Fk this, I cannot be arsed. I asked a simple question, and I receive
answers to different questions.



You are asking a question about a very artificial situation: given a perfect
transmission medium (with no losses, added noise, digital glitches), do
analogue pictures look better than digital pictures or vice versa.

However it's very difficult for people to judge, because the only way they
see analogue or digital pictures is as they receive them - with added
analogue noise and ghosting or with glitches caused by digital dropouts.

I live close enough to a transmitter that I get almost noise-free and
ghosting-free analogue reception and almost glitch-free digital reception -
so I'm able to give a reasonably accurate answer to the question that you
asked.

One problem remains, however: my TV gives very different colour and contrast
depending on whether I view digital pictures as RGB or PAL, so I cannot
switch the PAL decoder out of "the equation" to compare analogue pictures
(via PAL) against digital pictures (as RGB, without the losses that a PAL
decoder causes). So my comments are for analogue against digital with a PAL
encoder/decoder stage included, which is not a true comparison of both
systems at their best.

With these limitations, I think that analogue looks slightly better: there
is less clipping of highlights and less loss of detail in finely-detailed
areas of almost (but not quite) the same colour (eg grass, a person's
shirt/blouse). I've not noticed any blockiness with digital on moving
pictures (eg fast camera pans) but I have noticed an artifact (possibly
blockiness) on fades from one picture to a totally different one - it
happens so fast that it's difficult to describe but there's a definite sense
that something's not quite right.

This blockiness is not an inherent failure of the digital process as such,
just an artifact caused by too low a bit rate. The clipping of highlights
probably *is* inherent in the digital process and would not be cured purely
by increasing the bit rate. Instead it's a problem with the encoding: the
A-to-D converter has its white point set too low when should be set so that
255 represents the very brightest (highest voltage) that an analogue signal
can ever attain.

One other point: do we ever see truly analogue pictures these days? Or do
most channels use digital production (recording, mixing etc) these days,
albeit using much higher bit-rates within the studio than are used for
broadcating.


  #19  
Old April 30th 05, 02:26 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Tony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Analogue TV vs DTV Picture Quality -- which is best?

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
So, which do people think is best in terms of picture quality: analogue
TV or DTT?


Hmmm, well I am old enough to remember those that were suspicious of
transitor
amplifiers and wanted to stay with the "warmth" of valve amplifiers.

The truth is that there has yet to be a perfect reproduction system and
there is a natural tendancy to tolerate and ignore the artefacts of the
system you are used to, while over-stating the unfamiliar artefacts of
the new system.

As regards analogue TV, I have invested in enough aerial and masthead
amplifier technology to ensure a pin sharp analogue picture for channels
1 to 4 (and a very snowy channel 5 - but then we're not meant to receive
it anyway).

The same aerial gives excellent digital reception.

Our main living room has a 32" Philips with Pixel Plus fed by a Thomson
DT1000 set to RGB over a SCART. There is no contest for which is the
better picture. The analogue is of course in stretch-o-vision and looks
flat compared with the much improved colours from the digital system. We
never use the analogue tuner except by mistake.

In the family room is an older Sony 24" fed by an ex-ITV Digital Philips
box, again set to RGB. Here the difference is less pronounced, but
again, the colours are better from the digital box. I suspect the Sony
has a better PAL decoder than the Philips TV.

If I set the output of the old ITV Digital boxes to composite video then
you see a different result - the digital picture appears inferior both
on colour and definition and is probably due to a relatively poor PAL
encoder in the box compared with the one used by the TV station.

My guess is that a lot of the comments on analogue being better than
digital come from setups which use composite video (or even RF) to
connect the digibox to the TV.

Remember, what is happening in the digibox is that the original digital
picture (in Y-UV) is going through a PAL encoder to merge the UV
components into a single chroma signal, a low pass filter to chop the Y
component above 4 MHz or so and then the two are merged together. The
quality of the signal sent to the TV is totally dependent on how good
these encoders and filters are, and I would not be surprised if the
basic encoders in the digiboxes are a lot poorer than the ones used for
TV transmission.

Hence, expect broadcast analogue TV to be better than a digibox feeding
a TV with composite video.

On the other hand, Y-UV to RGB is a relatively simple conversion than
even cheap electronics find difficult to get wrong, so you would expect
and do get a much better picture this way.

Yes, greedy TV companies can reduce the bit rate to below acceptable and
get digital TV a bad name (and the answer to that is (a) complain and
(b) don't watch them). On the other hand, a DTT transmitter is repoted
to need only 50KW ERP to cover the same area as a 1MW analogue
transmitter and delivers something like 4 to 9 channels compared with
one. Which is better for the environment?

With the right setup, digital TV has the potential to deliver a much
better picture than analogue. If it does not then don't blame the
technology - it's the TV company wots to blame!

Tony
  #20  
Old April 30th 05, 02:45 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
tony sayer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,001
Default Analogue TV vs DTV Picture Quality -- which is best?

In article ,
Martin Underwood writes
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Ben wrote:
Loz wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...


I should state that reception problems on analogue should be
ignored, because they are not problems with picture quality --
they're reception problems.

This is not a meaningful comparison,



It's not at all, because some people do have good reception.


reception problems like snow and
ghosting are part of the transmission system.



Snow and ghosting are not transmitted, so they're reception
issues/problems.


What you're asking for
is a comparison of what digital actually looks like versus what
analogue would look like if you could bypass the transmission network
and just walk up to the TV studio and plug your telly into a socket
on the wall. Its not real.



Bull****.

Fk this, I cannot be arsed. I asked a simple question, and I receive
answers to different questions.




What a sensible reply

You are asking a question about a very artificial situation: given a perfect
transmission medium (with no losses, added noise, digital glitches), do
analogue pictures look better than digital pictures or vice versa.

However it's very difficult for people to judge, because the only way they
see analogue or digital pictures is as they receive them - with added
analogue noise and ghosting or with glitches caused by digital dropouts.


Yes quite its like saying product A is better than B because you can run
it off a bit of crap...

I live close enough to a transmitter that I get almost noise-free and
ghosting-free analogue reception and almost glitch-free digital reception -
so I'm able to give a reasonably accurate answer to the question that you
asked.

One problem remains, however: my TV gives very different colour and contrast
depending on whether I view digital pictures as RGB or PAL, so I cannot
switch the PAL decoder out of "the equation"


Don't TV do this anyway on RGB, after all why do they remain in circuit
a PAL decoder decodes a composite input?..

to compare analogue pictures
(via PAL) against digital pictures (as RGB, without the losses that a PAL
decoder causes). So my comments are for analogue against digital with a PAL
encoder/decoder stage included, which is not a true comparison of both
systems at their best.


Theres PAL decoders, and theres PAL decoders

With these limitations, I think that analogue looks slightly better: there
is less clipping of highlights and less loss of detail in finely-detailed
areas of almost (but not quite) the same colour (eg grass, a person's
shirt/blouse). I've not noticed any blockiness with digital on moving
pictures (eg fast camera pans) but I have noticed an artifact (possibly
blockiness) on fades from one picture to a totally different one - it
happens so fast that it's difficult to describe but there's a definite sense
that something's not quite right.


Bit like low bitrate DAB....

This blockiness is not an inherent failure of the digital process as such,
just an artifact caused by too low a bit rate. The clipping of highlights
probably *is* inherent in the digital process and would not be cured purely
by increasing the bit rate. Instead it's a problem with the encoding: the
A-to-D converter has its white point set too low when should be set so that
255 represents the very brightest (highest voltage) that an analogue signal
can ever attain.


Don't they do this anyway;?...

One other point: do we ever see truly analogue pictures these days? Or do
most channels use digital production (recording, mixing etc) these days,
albeit using much higher bit-rates within the studio than are used for
broadcating.


Yes and even the PAL Encoders at the Tx's are fed by very high bitrate
digital, so yes your quite correct. There is no analogue anymore its all
digital but with the right amount of bits, and thats where the real
problem is radio and TV....

--
Tony Sayer

 




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 11:22 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.