|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
And lo On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:35:04 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
spake thusly:
> scott wrote:
>>> I hadn't realised that this could very by channel. I assumed there was
>>> just a standard that says "Digital TV = MPEG2 at X Mbit/sec". I'll
>>> have to investigate. Hmm, I wonder what a DVD looks like?
>> No, there is certainly scope for different bit-rates on different
>> channels.
>
> 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 the big five seem to have a decent quality then it slides down the
scale as you change muxes.
> Digital works better than analogue right up to the point where the
> signal gets completely drowned in noise. After that it fails pretty
> spectacularly.
Do you remember when they were first pushing it "You either get a signal
or you don't"; heh. As Scott said though things will get better once they
ditch analogue and turn the power up
> Hmm, I wonder... My gandparents live in an area where the analogue
> reception is little more than coloured snow. You can kind of tell when
> you see a person's head, because there's a large area of pinky snow. But
> it's very hard to watch. And every time a bus goes past on the main
> road, the picture vanishes for a second or two. I wonder if digital
> would work any better? ;-)
Should look at Freesat I know Panasonic have a couple TVs with built-in
Freesat tuners out now and Humax have a Freesat twin-tuner PVR if
you've/they've already got an HDMI input TV.
> I wasn't aware that anybody actually broadcasts in HD at all yet. I was
> under the impression that you need to buy a £2,000 BluRay player to get
> any millage out of an HD TV. (Yet. I'm sure it'll change over time...)
As already mentioned a lot's been filmed just not necessarily broadcast.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |