 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Wow, looks like some strange modification of a VGA connector.
>>
>> Except it's about 4x the size of a VGA connector, and the pinout is
>> utterly unrelated.
>
> So, the cable ends are about the size of your average parallel
> connector? Yeesh.
Slightly bigger than that even. And if you buy a quality lead, it's
quite thick cable. (It's 32-core or something, and you need to prevent
cross-talk.)
>> That's because in the old days, a TV would have an RF input, and
>> that's it. But then people figured out that, actually, RF-modulated
>> signals look *rubbish*, so various other connections were invented.
>> SCART is the most popular, since one big connector delivers picture
>> and stereo sound (though obviously only one video channel, and no
>> telitext).
>
> Hmm, oddly the U.S. went with the "maze of wires" approach. 3 connectors
> out, 3 connectors in. (or 2 if SVideo) or 5 if YPrPb. Though CC is done
> in the blanking area, so it doesn't matter how its connected.
Yeah, some people in the UK did that too. Most TVs and almost all VCRs
will have component video or composite and seperate audio ins/outs...
SCART is simpler though.
>> I have no idea what HDMI delivers. Seems to work nicely though...
>
> HDMI is all digital. Delivers audio and video, As well as signals for
> encryption, and the ability for the device to communicate its
> capabilities, etc.
Yeah. Apparently it's encrypted DVI. (But I don't know how DVI works
either...)
I still remember how shocked I was when I found out that normal VGA
actually allows communication in the reverse direction. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
> By the way... Watching the snooker, I could actually see the pattern of
> the felt on the table (and the depth of field of the camera)!
Unfortunately I just got too tired to stay up last night and watch the final
few frames.
Just waiting until more stuff goes on free HD (mainly sports like snooker
and F1) and then I'll get an HD box, should be able to see more felt pattern
then :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I like the idea that OLED has such an incredible viewing angle, superior
> contrast ...
Most fairly new LCD TVs will offer up to 176 degrees or something ridiculous
of viewing angle, there really isn't much difference anymore between LCD and
OLED on viewing angle.
Contrast I'll agree there is still a gap in performance, but LCD is rapidly
closing the gap.
> what I don't like is that like plasma, it will likely suffer burn-in.
There's plenty of clever ways around that, but of course they add cost.
The deciding question will be, can LCD close the contrast gap enough before
OLED can compete on price? It's certainly going to be interesting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
By the way, I remember when Sky first starting doing digital TV. Some
people went on Watchdog complaining about the picture "pixellating"
while they're trying to watch it. Having played with various codecs, now
I understand what's happening. Every now and when I do see weird stuff
happen to my picture... Annoying, but not too bad.
Digital works better than analogue right up to the point where the
signal gets completely drowned in noise. After that it fails pretty
spectacularly.
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? ;-)
>> By the way... Watching the snooker, I could actually see the pattern
>> of the felt on the table (and the depth of field of the camera)!
>
> Unfortunately I just got too tired to stay up last night and watch the
> final few frames.
Yeah, I still don't know who won.
> Just waiting until more stuff goes on free HD (mainly sports like
> snooker and F1) and then I'll get an HD box, should be able to see more
> felt pattern then :-)
I wasn't aware that anybody actually broadcasts in HD at all yet. I was
any millage out of an HD TV. (Yet. I'm sure it'll change over time...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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? :-)
> By the way, I remember when Sky first starting doing digital TV. Some
> people went on Watchdog complaining about the picture "pixellating" while
> they're trying to watch it. Having played with various codecs, now I
> understand what's happening. Every now and when I do see weird stuff
> happen to my picture... Annoying, but not too bad.
Usually happens to me when it gets windy, the dish wobbles a bit and the
picture "chops up", mind you I'm receiving the signal quite far away from
where it's aimed at ;-)
> 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? ;-)
The problem in the UK is that they can't wack up the power of the digital
transmitters until analogue is turned off. For example my mum's local
transmitter, Rowridge, gives out 500 kW of analogue signal, but only 2.5 kW
of digital signal. Yet she still receives perfect digital pictures through
the same aerial. 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 :-)
> I wasn't aware that anybody actually broadcasts in HD at all yet. I was
> any millage out of an HD TV. (Yet. I'm sure it'll change over time...)
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.
You can get a bluray player for 150 pounds, or just get a play station 3 and
you get an uber amount of computing power too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Mmm, OK. I didn't think anybody had filmed much in HD yet.
>
HD has been around for years. Lots have been filmed in HD, but not
necessarily broadcast in HD.
>> You can get a bluray player for 150 pounds
>
> Ah, but would you want to?
>
I have a blu-ray player... Quite nice :)
>> 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. :-}
well, with a little modification ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> But now I'm watching TV on a big LCD TV, suddenly there seems to be MPEG
> artifacts all over the place! o_O
That's what put me off of buying a DTV for several years. But then you
compare it to an analog channel and the difference is so dramatic you decide
to put up with occasional artifacts. Kind of like programming on an LCD,
then plugging the computer into a regular TV.
I think some providers recompress the signal to fit more
shows/movies/whatever over the same cable, so you get different levels of
artifacts.
Plus, Blu-Ray seems to be more grainy than blocky - I think they spread the
error out with diffusion, which isn't really a problem when you're six feet
away.
Video games, for some reason, seem much more blocky.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> That's what put me off of buying a DTV for several years. But then you
> compare it to an analog channel and the difference is so dramatic you
> decide to put up with occasional artifacts. Kind of like programming on
> an LCD, then plugging the computer into a regular TV.
>
> I think some providers recompress the signal to fit more
> shows/movies/whatever over the same cable, so you get different levels
> of artifacts.
In Finland most of the "normal" channels are provided with too low
bitrate, while there's easily noticeable MPEG artefacts all the time.
Add the fact that most TV's scaler is unqualified to do it's job and
you'll see MPEG artefacts and sawlines.
I can watch DVD on 93" image from 4 meters - or NES with the same-sized
image from 3 meters*, but 32" LCD-TV (mostly with stupid 1336x768
-panels) and the broadcast here from 3m is out of tolerance for me.
*) I guess the expectation makes some part of this - seeing huge NES
pixels is somewhat nostalgic. Seeing hyped, supposed-to-be-best-ever
technology failing is... mostly pathetic.
> Video games, for some reason, seem much more blocky.
MPEG -style? On what console?
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
