Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sky reveals HDTV launch lineup

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:12:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

As Posted on digitalspy.co.uk

See Original Link http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds23757.html

Sky's High Definition line-up includes a Sky Sports, Sky Box Office, two Sky
movie screens and simulcast versions of Sky One and Artsworld. In addition
Sky are in negotiations with other broadcasters interested in offering High
Definition (HD) channels and Sky hope to announce those in the coming
months.

From launch Sky Sports HD will offer live and exclusive coverage of the
Barclays Premiership in HD with the added benefit of Dolby Digital 5.1
sound. In addition there will be live Rugby from the Guinness Premiership
and other HD sports programming which will be confirmed closer to the time
of launch.

The two movie screens will offer dedicated HD films and will include movies
such as Spider Man 2, The Day After Tomorrow and House of Flying Daggers. In
addition fans will be able to choose from up to 10 HD movies each week on
Sky's HD Box Office.

A simulcast version of Sky One will deliver a High Definition version of Sky's
entertainment channel with a range of shows and series in HD. There will
also be a simulcast version of Sky's existing Artsworld channel.

Sky has announced that consumers will be able to pre-register for Sky HD in
retail stores from Friday 26th August. This service will be available at
Comet stores around the country and at selected independent retailers.

Brian Sullivan, Sky's Director of Customer Products and Services, said: "The
launch of high definition will be the start of an exciting new era in
broadcasting and Sky HD will offer stunning picture and sound quality for a
broad selection of programmes. When this choice of viewing is combined with
the Sky+ functionality of the Sky HD box, consumers who upgrade to HD Ready
television sets can look forward to a viewing experience that will be truly
transformed."
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:12:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

Robert McCall wrote:
> As Posted on digitalspy.co.uk

Have any of you guys seen any HDTV offerings? Are they really that much
better than what we have at the moment?

It seems to me (knowing not very much about the whole subject) that Sky are
going to have a very long uphill struggle getting HDTV into people's homes,
based on:

- people will need to buy new TVs
- people will need to buy new Satellite receivers
- only Sky are offering this service at the moment

Is the improved picture quality really worth all of the expense of getting
access to HDTV?

I know that new technology often takes a long time to become established and
that someone needs to start pushing somewhere, but at the moment I can say
that I've no interest in shelling out thousands of pounds just to get a
sharper picture on a limited number of movies...

--

(O)enone
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:12:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

Oenone wrote:
> Robert McCall wrote:
>> As Posted on digitalspy.co.uk
>
> Have any of you guys seen any HDTV offerings? Are they really that
> much better than what we have at the moment?


If you've got broadband have a look for yourself:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_p...


> It seems to me (knowing not very much about the whole subject) that
> Sky are going to have a very long uphill struggle getting HDTV into
> people's homes, based on:
>
> - people will need to buy new TVs


Many have them already, and prices are getting cheaper.


> Is the improved picture quality really worth all of the expense of
> getting access to HDTV?


I think so.



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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
Related resources
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 6:12:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

Oenone wrote:

> Is the improved picture quality really worth all of
> the expense of getting access to HDTV?


A: yes, the picture quality is much improved

fwiw, you don't need a HD TV set

what you need is a digital TV tuner
and a TV with both antenna input
and at least one video input

>
> I know that new technology often takes a long time to become established and
> that someone needs to start pushing somewhere, but at the moment I can say
> that I've no interest in shelling out thousands of pounds just to get a
> sharper picture on a limited number of movies...


pounds?

oops

OTA digital transmission has arrived in the USA

i have no clue of what the status is in the UK

interesting crosspost by the OP. i'll have to see
if my news server carries uk.tech.digital-tv

bill
August 22, 2005 8:10:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"Robert McCall" <noonehere@hotmailccc.com> wrote in message
news:11gjjqp2gbesud5@corp.supernews.com...
> See Original Link http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds23757.html
>
> Sky's High Definition line-up includes a Sky Sports, Sky Box Office, two
> Sky movie screens and simulcast versions of Sky One and Artsworld. In
> addition Sky are in negotiations with other broadcasters interested in
> offering High Definition (HD) channels and Sky hope to announce those in
> the coming months.

Well that meagre lot better be cheap....

I can't see me (and I suspect I will be typical of many) wanting to pay much
to watch something like one football match, a couple of movies, and a couple
of episodes of US TV shows, each week. (the schedule will still be filled
with reruns and repeat showings remember, just like SD TV, there wont be
that much new material each week). Nor am I going to watch programs I dont
watch now, just because it is in HD. I don't watch artsworld, so HD makes no
difference. And 90% of Sky One output is tripe I dont watch either. Same for
movies and sports I am not interested in. HD wont make me want to watch them
any more than I would now.

Loz
August 22, 2005 8:16:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
news:NRkOe.831$Vt4.513@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> Oenone wrote:
>> Robert McCall wrote:
>>> As Posted on digitalspy.co.uk
>>
>> Have any of you guys seen any HDTV offerings? Are they really that
>> much better than what we have at the moment?
>
>
> If you've got broadband have a look for yourself:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_p...
>

I downloaded MP10_DigitalLife_10mbps and it wont play at 100% or fullscreen
and it makes my computer freze when I close media player even though my
computer exceeds them minimum configuration. What's more all it shows are
still frames and if I try to resize it it shows a blank screen..

>
>> It seems to me (knowing not very much about the whole subject) that
>> Sky are going to have a very long uphill struggle getting HDTV into
>> people's homes, based on:
>>
>> - people will need to buy new TVs
>
>
> Many have them already, and prices are getting cheaper.
>
>
>> Is the improved picture quality really worth all of the expense of
>> getting access to HDTV?
>
>
> I think so.
>
>
>
> --
> Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
>
> Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
>
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:16:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

Agamemnon wrote:
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
> news:NRkOe.831$Vt4.513@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>> Oenone wrote:
>>> Robert McCall wrote:
>>>> As Posted on digitalspy.co.uk
>>>
>>> Have any of you guys seen any HDTV offerings? Are they really that
>>> much better than what we have at the moment?
>>
>>
>> If you've got broadband have a look for yourself:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_p...
>>
>
> I downloaded MP10_DigitalLife_10mbps and it wont play at 100% or
> fullscreen and it makes my computer freze when I close media player
> even though my computer exceeds them minimum configuration. What's
> more all it shows are still frames and if I try to resize it it shows
> a blank screen..


I've downloaded most of them and they all work on my PC, so I'd imagine
there's some problem with your PC or the spec, such as the graphics card
in your PC.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:27:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

Weird Al wrote:

> It's hogwash...A scam by manufacturers seeing DVD sales high saying
> "Let's scam them with something else that'll cost a fortune"


Do you own a digital camera? If so, I take it you'll have heard of
"megapixels"? Then you'll understand that the higher the number of
megapixels the better the picture quality (caveat: pedants can dispute
this on various counts, but it is usually true)?

Currently the SDTV (standard definition TV) resolution is:

720 horizontal pixels x 576 vertical lines x 0.71 lowpass filter for
interlace = 294,451 pixels

HDTV 720p resolution:

1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels

HDTV 1080i resolution:

1920 x 1080 x 0.71 = 1,472,256 pixels

and

1,472,256 / 294,451 = 5.0

i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of standard
definition TV we see today.

It remains to be seen which format Sky will use out of 1080i or 720p.
720p is better for sports, but 1080i has far better resolution and so is
better for everything else apart from sports.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
August 22, 2005 8:37:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:4309ec45$0$13701$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
> news:NRkOe.831$Vt4.513@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>> Oenone wrote:
>>> Robert McCall wrote:
>>>> As Posted on digitalspy.co.uk
>>>
>>> Have any of you guys seen any HDTV offerings? Are they really that
>>> much better than what we have at the moment?
>>
>>
>> If you've got broadband have a look for yourself:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_p...
>>
>
> I downloaded MP10_DigitalLife_10mbps and it wont play at 100% or
> fullscreen and it makes my computer freze when I close media player even
> though my computer exceeds them minimum configuration. What's more all it
> shows are still frames and if I try to resize it it shows a blank screen..

It won't play Alexander either.

>
>>
>>> It seems to me (knowing not very much about the whole subject) that
>>> Sky are going to have a very long uphill struggle getting HDTV into
>>> people's homes, based on:
>>>
>>> - people will need to buy new TVs
>>
>>
>> Many have them already, and prices are getting cheaper.
>>
>>
>>> Is the improved picture quality really worth all of the expense of
>>> getting access to HDTV?
>>
>>
>> I think so.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
>>
>> Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
>>
>
>
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:52:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"Oenone" <oenone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:D eckqi$bj4$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Robert McCall wrote:
>> As Posted on digitalspy.co.uk
>
> Have any of you guys seen any HDTV offerings? Are they really that much
> better than what we have at the moment?



people probably thought that when tv moved to 625 line from the 400 odd line
previous.
and when they moved to colour - plus teletext, remote control, stereo sound.
it's a gradual thing - over time it will happen, not overnight.


--
Gareth.
my Dad took me out for the evening and some girl was being a right
embarrassment
trying to get off with him, i had to pretend that i was his girlfreind
so that the stupid bitch would leave him alone, and we had a right
good laugh ahout it too.
'varizo' 26th Nov 04
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 9:07:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"Oenone" <oenone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:D eckqi$bj4$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Robert McCall wrote:
>> As Posted on digitalspy.co.uk
>
> Have any of you guys seen any HDTV offerings? Are they really that much
> better than what we have at the moment?

Saw an awesome demo at the Bristol Hi-Fi show back in February and also a HD
telly being run off a HD tape source. Suitably impressed enough to want to
upgrade when prices are right for me

> It seems to me (knowing not very much about the whole subject) that Sky
> are going to have a very long uphill struggle getting HDTV into people's
> homes, based on:
>
> - people will need to buy new TVs
> - people will need to buy new Satellite receivers
> - only Sky are offering this service at the moment
>
> Is the improved picture quality really worth all of the expense of getting
> access to HDTV?
>
> I know that new technology often takes a long time to become established
> and that someone needs to start pushing somewhere, but at the moment I can
> say that I've no interest in shelling out thousands of pounds just to get
> a sharper picture on a limited number of movies...

My first DVD player was £650 - now you can get them for £20. When I bought
my DVD player HMV had about 20 titles. That was only six years ago.

Two points: what is the penetration of DVD players into UK households these
days and how many square metres of Virgin & HMV are given over to DVDs now?

It was the same with TV games and VCRs and it will be the same with Hi-Def
(whatever flavour wins out in the format war)

Tricky
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 9:12:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> Weird Al wrote:
>
>
>>It's hogwash...A scam by manufacturers seeing DVD sales high saying
>>"Let's scam them with something else that'll cost a fortune"
>
>
>
> Do you own a digital camera? If so, I take it you'll have heard of
> "megapixels"? Then you'll understand that the higher the number of
> megapixels the better the picture quality (caveat: pedants can dispute
> this on various counts, but it is usually true)?
>
> Currently the SDTV (standard definition TV) resolution is:
>
> 720 horizontal pixels x 576 vertical lines x 0.71 lowpass filter for
> interlace = 294,451 pixels
>
> HDTV 720p resolution:
>
> 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
>
> HDTV 1080i resolution:
>
> 1920 x 1080 x 0.71 = 1,472,256 pixels

>
Only if you are looking at still pictures. If everything is moving then
you have more like half that resolution or 736,128 which is less than
720P and only 2.5 times SD

> and
>
> 1,472,256 / 294,451 = 5.0
>
> i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of standard
> definition TV we see today.
>
> It remains to be seen which format Sky will use out of 1080i or 720p.
> 720p is better for sports, but 1080i has far better resolution and so is
> better for everything else apart from sports.
>
Everything else apart from sports or anything else that moves. 1080i is
real good for showing scenery where everything is real still and you can
hear birds chirping. Slow pans of Italian scenery works OK too. Thats
about it though.

Bob Miller
>
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 9:18:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"Oenone" <oenone@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:D eckqi$bj4$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:

>
> Have any of you guys seen any HDTV offerings? Are they really that much
> better than what we have at the moment?

I'm sure the HDTV demos have been very carefully chosen, and given very
high bitrates, neither of which are likely to be indicative of actual
broadcasts once it's on stream.

I have downloaded some actual broadcast HDTV (Japanese anime at 1280 x 720
x 24fps) and on my very sharp 1280x1024 computer monitor viewed from about
50cm it does look better than normal resolution: it's sharper and the
cgi backdrops are more detailed, but the difference isn't that huge, and at
a regular TV viewing distance, or on a normal TV, I doubt you'd see any
difference at all. (Let's face it, many TVs can't even reproduce standard
definition TV at full resolution.)

If you're sitting too far away to discern the individual pixels of a
1280x720 display then I think HDTV is not going to do anything for you,
except perhaps from the general improvement you'd get if you bumped a
standard broadcast up to the same bitrate HDTV is uses.


--
It was a place to kill time, for those who like it better dead.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 9:39:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

Oenone wrote:

> Is the improved picture quality really worth all of the expense of getting
> access to HDTV?


YES

That's all there is to it.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 9:47:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

>
> i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of standard
> definition TV we see today.


That depends on the meaning of the word "is".

There "is" no source of live 1080i TV that is anywhere near
using out to 1920 pixels resolution. Usually it is totally
dead at 1440. The cameras are not better than that. Now a telecined 70
mm movie could be a different matter ... but apparently, they are not.

Cameras CAN be made that are that good, of course, and eventually
will be.

Note that 1080i is an INFERIOR format. At least in the
US there are 1080p formats (30 Hz and 24 Hz) which are in fact
being used for taking and archival purposes. Our standards allow
them to be transmitted over the air, but they are in fact not being
so used. They lack the "0.71" problem.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 9:52:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

if wrote:

>
> I'm sure the HDTV demos have been very carefully chosen, and given very
> high bitrates, neither of which are likely to be indicative of actual
> broadcasts once it's on stream.
>


SO FAR, in the US, some, though not all, material actually
transmitted (I'm referring to free, over the air stuff, since
that is all I get) in HDTV is certainly just as good as any demo I've
seen.

Much 720p sports and live on tape 1080i talk shows (i.e. Leno)
are in this category, as are some PBS nature shows.

Other shows have varied from fair (some movies don't come across
all that well) to unbearably execrable (i.e. the Olympics, because
it was European 50Hz originated).

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:00:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> Weird Al wrote:
>
>
>>It's hogwash...A scam by manufacturers seeing DVD sales high saying
>>"Let's scam them with something else that'll cost a fortune"
>
>
>
> Do you own a digital camera? If so, I take it you'll have heard of
> "megapixels"? Then you'll understand that the higher the number of
> megapixels the better the picture quality (caveat: pedants can dispute
> this on various counts, but it is usually true)?
>
> Currently the SDTV (standard definition TV) resolution is:
>
> 720 horizontal pixels x 576 vertical lines x 0.71 lowpass filter for
> interlace = 294,451 pixels
>
> HDTV 720p resolution:
>
> 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
>
> HDTV 1080i resolution:
>
> 1920 x 1080 x 0.71 = 1,472,256 pixels
>
> and
>
> 1,472,256 / 294,451 = 5.0
>
> i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of standard
> definition TV we see today.
>
> It remains to be seen which format Sky will use out of 1080i or 720p.
> 720p is better for sports, but 1080i has far better resolution and so is
> better for everything else apart from sports.
>
>
That all may be true. HD will do very nicely on films and suchlike shot
from the early 90's onwards with good prints and DD5.1/DTS audio, but
what about the vast back catalogue that's not so suitable for HD? Right
now we're still getting stuff broadcast originally in the year dot.
IMHO, this will look utter shite on HD, even if it is upscaled in some
way. Until we only have high quality material to watch there's quite a
scope to make HD look well and truly naff. The latest whizz-bang
technology isn't always the best for the job. Take an example - 1970s
Ronnie Barker's Open All Hours. The BBC transmit this type of programme
with alarming regularity. It looks pretty poor on SD. God knows what it
will look like when it gets to HD!


Clem
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:00:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

Clem Dye wrote:


>>
> That all may be true. HD will do very nicely on films and suchlike shot
> from the early 90's onwards with good prints and DD5.1/DTS audio, but
> what about the vast back catalogue that's not so suitable for HD?

Age is no barrier, starting about 1930, for movies. Plenty of 1930s
movies are stunningly good in B&W HD. Plenty of 1990s color
movies are poor in HD, for various, usually "artistic" reasons. An
out of focus background that is grainy is a disaster.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:15:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"the dog from that film you saw" wrote

>> HDTV? Are they really that much better than what we have at the moment?
>
> people probably thought that when tv moved to 625 lineS

Nope, it was obvious!
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:48:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

>> 1,472,256 / 294,451 = 5.0
>>
>> i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of
>> standard definition TV we see today.
>>
>> It remains to be seen which format Sky will use out of 1080i or 720p.
>> 720p is better for sports, but 1080i has far better resolution and
>> so is better for everything else apart from sports.
>>
> Everything else apart from sports or anything else that moves. 1080i
> is real good for showing scenery where everything is real still and
> you can hear birds chirping. Slow pans of Italian scenery works OK
> too. Thats about it though.


So please explain to me why in a viewing test *ALL* scenes apart from
the Park Run were deemed to have significantly higher picture quality
for 1080i than for 720p at all but the absolute lowest bit rate tested.
See pages 41-51:

http://svt.se/content/1/c6/41/21/70/svt_widexga_final.p... (3.5 GB)



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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:48:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

>
> So please explain to me why in a viewing test *ALL* scenes apart from
> the Park Run were deemed to have significantly higher picture quality
> for 1080i than for 720p at all but the absolute lowest bit rate tested.
> See pages 41-51:
>

Probably because they were TESTS. In the real world, interlace has
proven disastrous for all except static scenes. Leno, for instance,
is interlaced, and looks great. But it is static. Sports (basketball and
football) don't look so good unless they are filtered down to 720p
resolution. If they ARE filtered they look just fine.

NOTE: for a proper test, one must view 720p material on a TRUE 720p
set, and for 1080i, on a true 1080i set. This is seldom done ... and
until about right now, equivalent technology sets of equal high quality
have not been availahle. CRT sets need not apply for these tests. They
lack either the resolution or the high screen brightness necessary for
a test in the year 2005. Low screen brightness, or a fuzzy screen,
which have usually been used for socalled "scientific" tests, can cover
up many sins.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:48:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:


One more thing: DAB sounds worse than FM, yes, that's your name, but
it's clearly true, and the badness is ANNOYING, from the web
reporductions I have heard.

In the US, the OTA HD broadcasters have tuned their encoders over
time since they started so that while one can see, some of the time,
in some HD material, digital artifacts, it's not annoying. The
improvement of US OTA HD over even the best studio SDTV and over the
best DVD DSDV, is stunning. And the DD 5.1, even though limited to
384 kb/sec total, seems to sound OK, at least in the front three
channels. I think that you personally, however, might have some
nasty things to say about the two side channels in isolation. I have
DD5.1 and am very happy with it on the OTA shows that have it.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:50:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"loz" <lawrencenospam@nospamwilkesworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D ectdq$38q$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> Well that meagre lot better be cheap....
>
> I can't see me (and I suspect I will be typical of many) wanting to pay
> much to watch something like one football match, a couple of movies, and a
> couple of episodes of US TV shows, each week. (the schedule will still be
> filled with reruns and repeat showings remember, just like SD TV, there
> wont be that much new material each week). Nor am I going to watch
> programs I dont watch now, just because it is in HD. I don't watch
> artsworld, so HD makes no difference. And 90% of Sky One output is tripe I
> dont watch either. Same for movies and sports I am not interested in. HD
> wont make me want to watch them any more than I would now.
>
> Loz

And the same thing was said when SKY first started and the same thing was
said when SKY+ came along AND the same thing was said when Prem Plus was
launched......

And yet still people sign up.
I have a HD ready plasma, most American shows are in HD format.22 out of the
top 23 US shows are filmed with HD cameras, The BBC are using HD cameras for
more and more films, programmes etc,the blue planet was filmed in HD for
instance..
Me? I am happy to pay more for good quality programmes, which may not be
your cup of tea.
You just stick to your SD BBC1, 2 ITV, Ch4 and Ch5. Don't you waste your
money on other channels,
I will look forward to watching the Scum getting thrashed in 5:1 sound and
HD pictures of the Scottish twat Ferguson crying his eyes out :-)
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:45:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"Oenone" <oenone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:D eckqi$bj4$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Robert McCall wrote:
>> As Posted on digitalspy.co.uk
>
> Have any of you guys seen any HDTV offerings? Are they really that much
> better than what we have at the moment?
>
> It seems to me (knowing not very much about the whole subject) that Sky
> are going to have a very long uphill struggle getting HDTV into people's
> homes, based on:
>
> - people will need to buy new TVs
> - people will need to buy new Satellite receivers
> - only Sky are offering this service at the moment
>
> Is the improved picture quality really worth all of the expense of getting
> access to HDTV?
>


I imagine the new massive 3d spinning, pulsating channel logos that will
take up 1/4 the screen, plus the flickering neon strip taking up the bottom
1/3, which tells you that Haunted House 28 will be on only 3 months time,
will look bloody fantastic!

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:50:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

>> It's hogwash...A scam by manufacturers seeing DVD sales high saying
>> "Let's scam them with something else that'll cost a fortune"
>
>Do you own a digital camera? If so, I take it you'll have heard of
>"megapixels"? Then you'll understand that the higher the number of
>megapixels the better the picture quality (caveat: pedants can dispute
>this on various counts, but it is usually true)?

However, just because more megapixels is technically better, it
doesn't mean it results in looking better as seen by human eyes,
or that it's better enough to be worth paying more for it. Chances
are the difference between baby pictures at 12 megapixels and baby
pictures at 12 terapixels can't be seen by the naked eye when printed
as 4" x 6" prints, and the 12 terapixel ones won't fit on a CD. The
same applies to 5.1 sound vs. 5000.1 sound, which is probably why
nobody produces content with over 5,000 channels of audio.

>Currently the SDTV (standard definition TV) resolution is:
>720 horizontal pixels x 576 vertical lines x 0.71 lowpass filter for
>interlace = 294,451 pixels
>HDTV 720p resolution:
>1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
>HDTV 1080i resolution:
>1920 x 1080 x 0.71 = 1,472,256 pixels
>and
>1,472,256 / 294,451 = 5.0
>i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of standard
>definition TV we see today.

Which means that you can see the graininess of old content 5 times
more clearly.

Gordon L. Burditt
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:14:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>> It's hogwash...A scam by manufacturers seeing DVD sales high saying
>>> "Let's scam them with something else that'll cost a fortune"
>>
>> Do you own a digital camera? If so, I take it you'll have heard of
>> "megapixels"? Then you'll understand that the higher the number of
>> megapixels the better the picture quality (caveat: pedants can
>> dispute this on various counts, but it is usually true)?
>
> However, just because more megapixels is technically better, it
> doesn't mean it results in looking better as seen by human eyes,
> or that it's better enough to be worth paying more for it. Chances
> are the difference between baby pictures at 12 megapixels and baby
> pictures at 12 terapixels can't be seen by the naked eye when printed
> as 4" x 6" prints,


You're right there, but you have to consider that standard definition TV
is hardly very high resolution now (ignoring the interlace factor):

720 pixels x 576 lines = 414,720 pixels

You know, digital cameras are commonly up at 6 Mpx and even 8 Mpx now,
IIRC, whereas SDTV is only 0.4 Mpx. I don't think it is quite as simple
a correspondence as that, but I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.


> and the 12 terapixel ones won't fit on a CD. The
> same applies to 5.1 sound vs. 5000.1 sound, which is probably why
> nobody produces content with over 5,000 channels of audio.


That's cos 5,000 speakers would be prohibitively expensive. Anyway, the
number of channels isn't a good analogy for quality. 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.


>> Currently the SDTV (standard definition TV) resolution is:
>> 720 horizontal pixels x 576 vertical lines x 0.71 lowpass filter for
>> interlace = 294,451 pixels
>> HDTV 720p resolution:
>> 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
>> HDTV 1080i resolution:
>> 1920 x 1080 x 0.71 = 1,472,256 pixels
>> and
>> 1,472,256 / 294,451 = 5.0
>> i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of
>> standard definition TV we see today.
>
> Which means that you can see the graininess of old content 5 times
> more clearly.


And you can see images shot in native HD with 5 times as many "dots per
inch".

You know, nobody is holding a gun to your head to get HDTV, but you will
succumb eventually, becaause eventually it'll become standard.

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.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:18:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"Clem Dye" <bite@me.com> wrote in message
news:3poOe.357$n4.112@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
=

> That all may be true. HD will do very nicely on films and suchlike shot
> from the early 90's onwards with good prints and DD5.1/DTS audio, but what
> about the vast back catalogue that's not so suitable for HD?



!?!?!??!
a 35mm film from 1950 will have all the resolution of one from today - and
far more than hi def is capable of.



--
Gareth.
my Dad took me out for the evening and some girl was being a right
embarrassment
trying to get off with him, i had to pretend that i was his girlfreind
so that the stupid bitch would leave him alone, and we had a right
good laugh ahout it too.
'varizo' 26th Nov 04
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/
August 23, 2005 12:46:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
news:XLmOe.62$JT2.58@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> Agamemnon wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
>> news:NRkOe.831$Vt4.513@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>> Oenone wrote:
>>>> Robert McCall wrote:
>>>>> As Posted on digitalspy.co.uk
>>>>
>>>> Have any of you guys seen any HDTV offerings? Are they really that
>>>> much better than what we have at the moment?
>>>
>>>
>>> If you've got broadband have a look for yourself:
>>>
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_p...
>>>
>>
>> I downloaded MP10_DigitalLife_10mbps and it wont play at 100% or
>> fullscreen and it makes my computer freze when I close media player
>> even though my computer exceeds them minimum configuration. What's
>> more all it shows are still frames and if I try to resize it it shows
>> a blank screen..
>
>
> I've downloaded most of them and they all work on my PC, so I'd imagine
> there's some problem with your PC or the spec, such as the graphics card
> in your PC.

I fixed out the problem. I went into Options > Performance > Advanced and
ticked Use high quality mode in the Video Acceleration group.

Anyway the high definition trailer for Alexander looks better than the DVD
of the Directors Cut but some of the scenes look like they've been
constructed using much lower definition computer graphics mattes.

Does anyone know how to get Media Player 10 to output Dolby 5.1 via SPDIF.
The only player I have which can do this is WinDVD 4 but that doesn't play
Microsoft HD files.

>
>
> --
> Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
>
> Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
>
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 12:46:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

Agamemnon wrote:

> Does anyone know how to get Media Player 10 to output Dolby 5.1 via
> SPDIF.


No idea, sorry.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 1:44:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

Agamemnon wrote:
> Does anyone know how to get Media Player 10 to output Dolby 5.1 via
> SPDIF. The only player I have which can do this is WinDVD 4 but that
> doesn't play Microsoft HD files.
>
Have you installed an AC3 filter decoder and configured it for SPDIF output?

Get it for free here - http://www.free-codecs.com/download/AC3_Filter.htm

--
To save on your shopping click here - http://www.rpoints.com/?ruid=44653
To sign up with PlusNet click here - http://tinyurl.com/b9wqs
August 23, 2005 1:47:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"John Russell" <john_e_russell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:430a1c76$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
o make HD

> My point exactly. Where's the content coming from?

The TV content that has been filmed in HD in the first place, for some years
now.
HD has been available for a while in the US you know.
Plus Films scanned in HD
And live sports, as mentioned in the release.

Everything isnt going to be HD - but there is going to be a reasonable
amount of content available.

Loz
August 23, 2005 1:52:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"olympus" <olympus@nononannettenospam.com> wrote in message
news:D ed6pm$ni$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> Well that meagre lot better be cheap....
>> I can't see me (and I suspect I will be typical of many) wanting to pay
>> much to watch something like one football match, a couple of movies, and
>> a couple of episodes of US TV shows, each week. (the schedule will still
>> be filled with reruns and repeat showings remember, just like SD TV,
>> there wont be that much new material each week). Nor am I going to watch
>> programs I dont watch now, just because it is in HD. I don't watch
>> artsworld, so HD makes no difference. And 90% of Sky One output is tripe
>> I dont watch either. Same for movies and sports I am not interested in.
>> HD wont make me want to watch them any more than I would now.
> I have a HD ready plasma, most American shows are in HD format.22 out of
> the top 23 US shows are filmed with HD cameras, The BBC are using HD
> cameras for more and more films, programmes etc,the blue planet was filmed
> in HD for instance..

You miss my point. There might be 22 out of the top 23 shows filmed in HD.
But I shall still only watch 2 or 3 of them because I like the show. I am
not going to suddenly watch the others just because they are HD, 'cause I
still don't like the show.

> Me? I am happy to pay more for good quality programmes, which may not be
> your cup of tea.

So am I, as long as the price is reasonable.

Loz
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:00:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

>>> Currently the SDTV (standard definition TV) resolution is:
>>> 720 horizontal pixels x 576 vertical lines x 0.71 lowpass filter for
>>> interlace = 294,451 pixels
>>> HDTV 720p resolution:
>>> 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
>>> HDTV 1080i resolution:
>>> 1920 x 1080 x 0.71 = 1,472,256 pixels
>>> and
>>> 1,472,256 / 294,451 = 5.0
>>> i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of
>>> standard definition TV we see today.
>>
>> Which means that you can see the graininess of old content 5 times
>> more clearly.
>
>
>And you can see images shot in native HD with 5 times as many "dots per
>inch".
>
>You know, nobody is holding a gun to your head to get HDTV, but you will
>succumb eventually, becaause eventually it'll become standard.
>
>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.

Also, HDTV resolutions are not available (as far as I know, at *ANY*
price) in a monitor I can transport in my car and manage to put
into position in my house. It was difficult even with a 20" TV
disassembling the box in the store parking lot to get it into my
car.

Gordon L. Burditt
August 23, 2005 2:02:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"John Russell" <john_e_russell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:430a3a1f$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> HDTV will be a premium product, the Rolls Royce of TV presentation, It
> will not be mainstream untill you can get a HDTV, a HDTV Recorder and a
> subcription service that are cheap as chips.

Well HDTVs, and HD Recorders are not going to be that expensive.
HD Ready plasma TVs are already not that much more expensive than SD
plasmas.
Some HD plasmas are in fact already selling cheaper than some SD plasmas are
still selling at.
And HD ready LCDs are pretty reasonably priced to.

Even if the Sky HD box comes in at the top end of people's estimates at
£400, thats still not a bad price for a Hard Disk recorder, especially one
capable of HD.

> The next think you'll be claiming is that Plasma TV are mainstream, that
> large screen TV's of any kind are mainstream. Not many live in the
> penthouse flats shown on TV with such items.

Most TV retailers seem to think that plasma, lcd and other large screens are
already mainstream. Go to any showroom and it is CRT displays that are the
niche tucked away in the corner.

Loz
August 23, 2005 2:03:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.00t0w@burditt.org> wrote in message
news:11gkint65i8u802@corp.supernews.com...
> Also, HDTV resolutions are not available (as far as I know, at *ANY*
> price) in a monitor I can transport in my car and manage to put
> into position in my house. It was difficult even with a 20" TV
> disassembling the box in the store parking lot to get it into my
> car.

Unless you are only referring to CRT, there are lots of HDTV resolution LCD
monitors/tvs that will fit easily in your car

Loz
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:18:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

John Russell wrote:

> Sorry I meant Amorphic PAL! PAL+ is amorphic PAL with switching encoded in
> the signal. Little point having PAL+ without anamophic?

PAL+ is a 16:9 image letterboxed into a 4:3 picture, with an *analogue* helper
or enhancement signal encoded into the upper and lower black bands. A line 23
signal is sent to instruct a PAL+ receiver to zoom the image to fill the
screen, and decode the helper signals.

Channel 4 was the only UK broadcaster to transmit a full PAL+ service, and this
it did between Sept 1994 and October 1998. AIUI Granada TV in N West England
had a couple of test broadcasts. The BBC were keen, but test transmissions
overnight on BBC 2 revealed that many of their transmitters could not cope with
the helper signal, which dipped below 'black level'.

Channel 4 still transmit the L23 signal on some of their analogue 16:9
letterbox transmissions, but PAL+ encoding ceased when C4 went digital on D-Sat
and DTT in Oct/Nov 1998.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:28:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3mutpmF192rt9U1@individual.net...
> John Russell wrote:
>
>> Sorry I meant Amorphic PAL! PAL+ is amorphic PAL with switching encoded
>> in the signal. Little point having PAL+ without anamophic?
>
> PAL+ is a 16:9 image letterboxed into a 4:3 picture, with an *analogue*
> helper or enhancement signal encoded into the upper and lower black bands.
> A line 23 signal is sent to instruct a PAL+ receiver to zoom the image to
> fill the screen, and decode the helper signals.
>
> Channel 4 was the only UK broadcaster to transmit a full PAL+ service, and
> this it did between Sept 1994 and October 1998. AIUI Granada TV in N West
> England had a couple of test broadcasts. The BBC were keen, but test
> transmissions overnight on BBC 2 revealed that many of their transmitters
> could not cope with the helper signal, which dipped below 'black level'.
>
> Channel 4 still transmit the L23 signal on some of their analogue 16:9
> letterbox transmissions, but PAL+ encoding ceased when C4 went digital on
> D-Sat and DTT in Oct/Nov 1998.

Crumbs I wish I never mentioned it, when the point of the thread at the
time was to show how much the normal guy in the street was happy with
something second rate.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:28:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

John Russell wrote:
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3mutpmF192rt9U1@individual.net...
>> John Russell wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry I meant Amorphic PAL! PAL+ is amorphic PAL with switching
>>> encoded in the signal. Little point having PAL+ without anamophic?
>>
>> PAL+ is a 16:9 image letterboxed into a 4:3 picture, with an
>> *analogue* helper or enhancement signal encoded into the upper and
>> lower black bands. A line 23 signal is sent to instruct a PAL+
>> receiver to zoom the image to fill the screen, and decode the helper
>> signals. Channel 4 was the only UK broadcaster to transmit a full
>> PAL+
>> service, and this it did between Sept 1994 and October 1998. AIUI
>> Granada TV in N West England had a couple of test broadcasts. The
>> BBC were keen, but test transmissions overnight on BBC 2 revealed
>> that many of their transmitters could not cope with the helper
>> signal, which dipped below 'black level'. Channel 4 still transmit
>> the L23 signal on some of their analogue
>> 16:9 letterbox transmissions, but PAL+ encoding ceased when C4 went
>> digital on D-Sat and DTT in Oct/Nov 1998.
>
> Crumbs I wish I never mentioned it, when the point of the thread at
> the time was to show how much the normal guy in the street was happy
> with something second rate.


Happy or not, your average man in the street will lap up any quality
that he can get. That's why if the BBC do launch HDTV on Freesat then
it'll be very successful.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:42:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
news:WKnOe.229$yh1.38@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> John Russell wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
>> news:Z1nOe.220$yh1.80@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>> Weird Al wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's hogwash...A scam by manufacturers seeing DVD sales high saying
>>>> "Let's scam them with something else that'll cost a fortune"
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you own a digital camera? If so, I take it you'll have heard of
>>> "megapixels"? Then you'll understand that the higher the number of
>>> megapixels the better the picture quality (caveat: pedants can
>>> dispute this on various counts, but it is usually true)?
>>>
>>> Currently the SDTV (standard definition TV) resolution is:
>>>
>>> 720 horizontal pixels x 576 vertical lines x 0.71 lowpass filter for
>>> interlace = 294,451 pixels
>>>
>>> HDTV 720p resolution:
>>>
>>> 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
>>>
>>> HDTV 1080i resolution:
>>>
>>> 1920 x 1080 x 0.71 = 1,472,256 pixels
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> 1,472,256 / 294,451 = 5.0
>>>
>>> i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of
>>> standard definition TV we see today.
>>>
>>> It remains to be seen which format Sky will use out of 1080i or
>>> 720p. 720p is better for sports, but 1080i has far better resolution
>>> and so is better for everything else apart from sports.
>>
>> Didn't we here this all before when digital was first proposed? In
>> the end broadcast bandwidth is what's crucial,
>
>
> If HDTV used the same MPEG-2 video codec as is used on Freeview, satellite
> etc, then HDTV would need around 18 - 20 Mbps compared to the typical 2-5
> Mbps we see on digital TV channels now. Bandwidth for HDTV will probably
> be around 8-10 Mbps because they're using a new MPEG-4 (H.264, or MPEG-4
> Part 10) video codec.

You missed my point again! I didn't say HDTV uses mpeg2. My point is whose
going to gurenntee that the bitrates being used to demonstrate HDTV will be
used in practice? If didn't happen with DVB. The bit rates as so low that
most broadcasts fall way short of DVD quality.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:42:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

John Russell wrote:
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
> news:WKnOe.229$yh1.38@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>> John Russell wrote:
>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
>>> news:Z1nOe.220$yh1.80@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>>> Weird Al wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's hogwash...A scam by manufacturers seeing DVD sales high
>>>>> saying "Let's scam them with something else that'll cost a
>>>>> fortune"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you own a digital camera? If so, I take it you'll have heard of
>>>> "megapixels"? Then you'll understand that the higher the number of
>>>> megapixels the better the picture quality (caveat: pedants can
>>>> dispute this on various counts, but it is usually true)?
>>>>
>>>> Currently the SDTV (standard definition TV) resolution is:
>>>>
>>>> 720 horizontal pixels x 576 vertical lines x 0.71 lowpass filter
>>>> for interlace = 294,451 pixels
>>>>
>>>> HDTV 720p resolution:
>>>>
>>>> 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
>>>>
>>>> HDTV 1080i resolution:
>>>>
>>>> 1920 x 1080 x 0.71 = 1,472,256 pixels
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> 1,472,256 / 294,451 = 5.0
>>>>
>>>> i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of
>>>> standard definition TV we see today.
>>>>
>>>> It remains to be seen which format Sky will use out of 1080i or
>>>> 720p. 720p is better for sports, but 1080i has far better
>>>> resolution and so is better for everything else apart from sports.
>>>
>>> Didn't we here this all before when digital was first proposed? In
>>> the end broadcast bandwidth is what's crucial,
>>
>>
>> If HDTV used the same MPEG-2 video codec as is used on Freeview,
>> satellite etc, then HDTV would need around 18 - 20 Mbps compared to
>> the typical 2-5 Mbps we see on digital TV channels now. Bandwidth
>> for HDTV will probably be around 8-10 Mbps because they're using a
>> new MPEG-4 (H.264, or MPEG-4 Part 10) video codec.
>
> You missed my point again! I didn't say HDTV uses mpeg2. My point is
> whose going to gurenntee that the bitrates being used to demonstrate
> HDTV will be used in practice?


Nobody, but low bit rates don't reduce the resolution.


> If didn't happen with DVB. The bit
> rates as so low that most broadcasts fall way short of DVD quality.


There may be artefacts on HDTV, but if you ignore the gross, brief
artefacts, the quality will be better than DVD.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:45:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

> Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>
>>>1,472,256 / 294,451 = 5.0
>>>
>>>i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of
>>>standard definition TV we see today.
>>>
>>>It remains to be seen which format Sky will use out of 1080i or 720p.
>>>720p is better for sports, but 1080i has far better resolution and
>>>so is better for everything else apart from sports.
>>>
>>
>>Everything else apart from sports or anything else that moves. 1080i
>>is real good for showing scenery where everything is real still and
>>you can hear birds chirping. Slow pans of Italian scenery works OK
>>too. Thats about it though.
>
>
>
> So please explain to me why in a viewing test *ALL* scenes apart from
> the Park Run were deemed to have significantly higher picture quality
> for 1080i than for 720p at all but the absolute lowest bit rate tested.
> See pages 41-51:
>
> http://svt.se/content/1/c6/41/21/70/svt_widexga_final.p... (3.5 GB)
>
>
Well what I see on page 48 is that 720P was better from 10 Mbps to
uncompressed or across the board than 1080i for the Park Run video which
is the only relevant test IMO. The other three video clips seem to be of
a slow pan, a virtual still shot of shields and a still shot of a calender.

When you also realize that 720P takes a lot less bandwidth and has fewer
native artifacts it is a no brainer to choose 720P which I think was the
decision made for Europe.

Also most of the large screens they used were only capable of 720P so
what were they comparing? Seems the 1080i would have been converted down
to 720P in those cases and the smaller screens, the CRTs they used were
not big enough to really show a difference between 1080i and 720P.

I think that 480P converted from either the 720P or the 1080i would have
fared very well in these test especially on the smaller displays. And on
an EDTV PDP the 480i might have beaten out both at the right viewing
distance.

1080i should win on larger sets when the scene is still or changes
slowly like three of the test clips. But TV is about motion and the best
TV is often about a lot of action. 1080i is a gimmick from another age,
not the age of digital. I will take 720P until 1080P is available.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:47:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
news:mxrOe.15$vX1.10@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> John Russell wrote:
>> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:3mutpmF192rt9U1@individual.net...
>>> John Russell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry I meant Amorphic PAL! PAL+ is amorphic PAL with switching
>>>> encoded in the signal. Little point having PAL+ without anamophic?
>>>
>>> PAL+ is a 16:9 image letterboxed into a 4:3 picture, with an
>>> *analogue* helper or enhancement signal encoded into the upper and
>>> lower black bands. A line 23 signal is sent to instruct a PAL+
>>> receiver to zoom the image to fill the screen, and decode the helper
>>> signals. Channel 4 was the only UK broadcaster to transmit a full PAL+
>>> service, and this it did between Sept 1994 and October 1998. AIUI
>>> Granada TV in N West England had a couple of test broadcasts. The
>>> BBC were keen, but test transmissions overnight on BBC 2 revealed
>>> that many of their transmitters could not cope with the helper
>>> signal, which dipped below 'black level'. Channel 4 still transmit the
>>> L23 signal on some of their analogue
>>> 16:9 letterbox transmissions, but PAL+ encoding ceased when C4 went
>>> digital on D-Sat and DTT in Oct/Nov 1998.
>>
>> Crumbs I wish I never mentioned it, when the point of the thread at
>> the time was to show how much the normal guy in the street was happy
>> with something second rate.
>
>
> Happy or not, your average man in the street will lap up any quality that
> he can get. That's why if the BBC do launch HDTV on Freesat then it'll be
> very successful.

Wrong again. The normal guy in the street is not a 20-30 year old
technogeek. Just look at all the debates over getting people to pay £50 quid
for a freeview box. Now you think these people are going to pay thousands
for a HDTV set up.

TV is the opuim of the masses. It's for all those people with an old 20 inch
4:3 TV in the corner who watch Corry.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:47:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

John Russell wrote:
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
> news:mxrOe.15$vX1.10@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> John Russell wrote:
>>> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:3mutpmF192rt9U1@individual.net...
>>>> John Russell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry I meant Amorphic PAL! PAL+ is amorphic PAL with switching
>>>>> encoded in the signal. Little point having PAL+ without anamophic?
>>>>
>>>> PAL+ is a 16:9 image letterboxed into a 4:3 picture, with an
>>>> *analogue* helper or enhancement signal encoded into the upper and
>>>> lower black bands. A line 23 signal is sent to instruct a PAL+
>>>> receiver to zoom the image to fill the screen, and decode the
>>>> helper signals. Channel 4 was the only UK broadcaster to transmit
>>>> a full PAL+ service, and this it did between Sept 1994 and October
>>>> 1998. AIUI Granada TV in N West England had a couple of test
>>>> broadcasts. The BBC were keen, but test transmissions overnight on
>>>> BBC 2 revealed
>>>> that many of their transmitters could not cope with the helper
>>>> signal, which dipped below 'black level'. Channel 4 still transmit
>>>> the L23 signal on some of their analogue
>>>> 16:9 letterbox transmissions, but PAL+ encoding ceased when C4 went
>>>> digital on D-Sat and DTT in Oct/Nov 1998.
>>>
>>> Crumbs I wish I never mentioned it, when the point of the thread at
>>> the time was to show how much the normal guy in the street was happy
>>> with something second rate.
>>
>>
>> Happy or not, your average man in the street will lap up any quality
>> that he can get. That's why if the BBC do launch HDTV on Freesat
>> then it'll be very successful.
>
> Wrong again. The normal guy in the street is not a 20-30 year old
> technogeek. Just look at all the debates over getting people to pay
> £50 quid for a freeview box. Now you think these people are going to
> pay thousands for a HDTV set up.
>
> TV is the opuim of the masses. It's for all those people with an old
> 20 inch 4:3 TV in the corner who watch Corry.


You seem to be living in teh 1970s.

Look, this has become exceedingly tiresome. I have one piece of advice
for you: if you don't want HDTV, then don't buy it.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:57:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
news:RKrOe.141$I33.44@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> John Russell wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
>> news:WKnOe.229$yh1.38@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>> John Russell wrote:
>>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
>>>> news:Z1nOe.220$yh1.80@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>> Weird Al wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's hogwash...A scam by manufacturers seeing DVD sales high
>>>>>> saying "Let's scam them with something else that'll cost a
>>>>>> fortune"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you own a digital camera? If so, I take it you'll have heard of
>>>>> "megapixels"? Then you'll understand that the higher the number of
>>>>> megapixels the better the picture quality (caveat: pedants can
>>>>> dispute this on various counts, but it is usually true)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently the SDTV (standard definition TV) resolution is:
>>>>>
>>>>> 720 horizontal pixels x 576 vertical lines x 0.71 lowpass filter
>>>>> for interlace = 294,451 pixels
>>>>>
>>>>> HDTV 720p resolution:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
>>>>>
>>>>> HDTV 1080i resolution:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1920 x 1080 x 0.71 = 1,472,256 pixels
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> 1,472,256 / 294,451 = 5.0
>>>>>
>>>>> i.e. the resolution of HDTV 1080i is 5 times the resolution of
>>>>> standard definition TV we see today.
>>>>>
>>>>> It remains to be seen which format Sky will use out of 1080i or
>>>>> 720p. 720p is better for sports, but 1080i has far better
>>>>> resolution and so is better for everything else apart from sports.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't we here this all before when digital was first proposed? In
>>>> the end broadcast bandwidth is what's crucial,
>>>
>>>
>>> If HDTV used the same MPEG-2 video codec as is used on Freeview,
>>> satellite etc, then HDTV would need around 18 - 20 Mbps compared to
>>> the typical 2-5 Mbps we see on digital TV channels now. Bandwidth
>>> for HDTV will probably be around 8-10 Mbps because they're using a
>>> new MPEG-4 (H.264, or MPEG-4 Part 10) video codec.
>>
>> You missed my point again! I didn't say HDTV uses mpeg2. My point is
>> whose going to gurenntee that the bitrates being used to demonstrate
>> HDTV will be used in practice?
>
>
> Nobody, but low bit rates don't reduce the resolution.
>
>
>> If didn't happen with DVB. The bit
>> rates as so low that most broadcasts fall way short of DVD quality.
>
>
> There may be artefacts on HDTV, but if you ignore the gross, brief
> artefacts, the quality will be better than DVD.

Missed my point again!

It's about whether the broadcasts match the quality of the corresponding
disk technology. So odds on, when we get HDTV films on HD-DVD, broadcast
HDTV won't be as good.

You seem to be saying "let them screw up HDTV, it will still be better than
what we have now".
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:05:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"loz" <lawrencenospam@nospamwilkesworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D edi1k$nr$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "John Russell" <john_e_russell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:430a3a1f$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> HDTV will be a premium product, the Rolls Royce of TV presentation, It
>> will not be mainstream untill you can get a HDTV, a HDTV Recorder and a
>> subcription service that are cheap as chips.
>
> Well HDTVs, and HD Recorders are not going to be that expensive.
> HD Ready plasma TVs are already not that much more expensive than SD
> plasmas.
> Some HD plasmas are in fact already selling cheaper than some SD plasmas
> are still selling at.
> And HD ready LCDs are pretty reasonably priced to.
>
> Even if the Sky HD box comes in at the top end of people's estimates at
> £400, thats still not a bad price for a Hard Disk recorder, especially one
> capable of HD.
>
>> The next think you'll be claiming is that Plasma TV are mainstream, that
>> large screen TV's of any kind are mainstream. Not many live in the
>> penthouse flats shown on TV with such items.
>
> Most TV retailers seem to think that plasma, lcd and other large screens
> are already mainstream. Go to any showroom and it is CRT displays that are
> the niche tucked away in the corner.
>
> Loz
>

"new sales" don't define mainstream. It's the vast bulk of TV's already in
people homes which define it. We have an aging population, most of which
will have a bog standard 20 inch 4:3 TV in the corner.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:05:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

John Russell wrote:
> "loz" <lawrencenospam@nospamwilkesworld.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:D edi1k$nr$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>> "John Russell" <john_e_russell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:430a3a1f$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>> HDTV will be a premium product, the Rolls Royce of TV presentation,
>>> It will not be mainstream untill you can get a HDTV, a HDTV
>>> Recorder and a subcription service that are cheap as chips.
>>
>> Well HDTVs, and HD Recorders are not going to be that expensive.
>> HD Ready plasma TVs are already not that much more expensive than SD
>> plasmas.
>> Some HD plasmas are in fact already selling cheaper than some SD
>> plasmas are still selling at.
>> And HD ready LCDs are pretty reasonably priced to.
>>
>> Even if the Sky HD box comes in at the top end of people's estimates
>> at £400, thats still not a bad price for a Hard Disk recorder,
>> especially one capable of HD.
>>
>>> The next think you'll be claiming is that Plasma TV are
>>> mainstream, that large screen TV's of any kind are mainstream. Not
>>> many live in the penthouse flats shown on TV with such items.
>>
>> Most TV retailers seem to think that plasma, lcd and other large
>> screens are already mainstream. Go to any showroom and it is CRT
>> displays that are the niche tucked away in the corner.
>>
>> Loz
>>
>
> "new sales" don't define mainstream. It's the vast bulk of TV's
> already in people homes which define it. We have an aging population,
> most of which will have a bog standard 20 inch 4:3 TV in the corner.


You seem to be living in the 1970s.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
August 23, 2005 3:05:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"John Russell" <john_e_russell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:430a4c39$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> "new sales" don't define mainstream. It's the vast bulk of TV's already in
> people homes which define it. We have an aging population, most of which
> will have a bog standard 20 inch 4:3 TV in the corner.

so what?
All tvs were 405 line onCe. All Tvs were B&W once.
Didn't stop 625 and colour taking over.
HD will replace SD in just the same way, probably at a similar rate.
Today's HD set is no more expensive than a colour set was when launched in
real terms.

And today there are probably far more of the "aging population" who have the
disposable income and the understanding to buy into HD than there were to
buy colour when it was launched.

Even my 76 year old mom who bought herself and quickly mastered a freeview
box, is now looking for an LCD TV to replace her "bog standard 20 inch 4:3
TV in the corner" so she can watch widescreen properly. The likelihood is it
will be an HD-ready set because that's what many of them already are.

loz
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:09:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

"loz" <lawrencenospam@nospamwilkesworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D edi4e$r3a$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> "Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.00t0w@burditt.org> wrote in message
> news:11gkint65i8u802@corp.supernews.com...
>> Also, HDTV resolutions are not available (as far as I know, at *ANY*
>> price) in a monitor I can transport in my car and manage to put
>> into position in my house. It was difficult even with a 20" TV
>> disassembling the box in the store parking lot to get it into my
>> car.
>
> Unless you are only referring to CRT, there are lots of HDTV resolution
> LCD monitors/tvs that will fit easily in your car
>
> Loz
>

If HDTV is all about quality, why ruin it with an LCD or plasma? The best
images in terms of contrast levels etc are still CRT. Line resolution isn't
the "be all and end all" of quality.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:09:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

John Russell wrote:
> "loz" <lawrencenospam@nospamwilkesworld.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:D edi4e$r3a$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> "Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.00t0w@burditt.org> wrote in message
>> news:11gkint65i8u802@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Also, HDTV resolutions are not available (as far as I know, at *ANY*
>>> price) in a monitor I can transport in my car and manage to put
>>> into position in my house. It was difficult even with a 20" TV
>>> disassembling the box in the store parking lot to get it into my
>>> car.
>>
>> Unless you are only referring to CRT, there are lots of HDTV
>> resolution LCD monitors/tvs that will fit easily in your car
>>
>> Loz
>>
>
> If HDTV is all about quality, why ruin it with an LCD or plasma? The
> best images in terms of contrast levels etc are still CRT. Line
> resolution isn't the "be all and end all" of quality.


God almighty, there's no pleasing you, is there?


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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.ht...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.h...
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_cap...
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:09:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv,uk.media.tv.sky,uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.tv.sky (More info?)

>>If HDTV is all about quality, why ruin it with an LCD or plasma? The
>>best images in terms of contrast levels etc are still CRT.


The best projection LCD and especially DLP sets simply blow away any'
form of CRT, direct or projection, in picture quality. That was not
unequivocally true three years ago, but now it is ... unless you can
see DLP rainbows. And then there exist three-chip LCOS sets .....

Doug McDonald
!