|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
scott wrote:
>> Eeeps! So it's completely possible for the fancy new "digital
>> channels" to have far lower quality than the old analogue ones? o_O
>
> Yup, if you work for budgetcrappyshoppingtvchannels.tv and you've just
> bought a chunk of bandwidth, do you broadcast 5 top quality channels, or
> 10 pixellated ones? :-)
Also... Has anybody noticed how digital TV gives you, like, 500
channels, but 98% of them are just showing repeated of Fawlty Towers?
> Imagine if 500 kW of DIGITAL signal
> was transmitted - you wouldn't need an aerial!
>
> In fact, here in Germany in my previous apartment, I could just stick a
> small bit of wire in the aerial input and I would receive all digital TV
> channels perfectly :-)
That's nothing. My old mobile phone had this stubby little arial that
was nearly broken off, but my new one diesn't even need an arial at all
and it still works. ;-)
(OTOH, the transmitter isn't that far away...)
> There are two free HD channels via satellite (BBC HD and ITV HD, with
> more surely to come), if you have Sky there are loads of HD channels for
> films, sports etc but of course you need a subscription.
Mmm, OK. I didn't think anybody had filmed much in HD yet.
> You can get a bluray player for 150 pounds
Ah, but would you want to?
> or just get a play station 3
> and you get an uber amount of computing power too.
And the ability to not run any programs that might take advantage of
that power. :-}
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |