 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/6/2010 10:45 AM, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> Well, the shops have all this split-screen stuff, with one side in SD
>> and the other side in HD. The only difference I can see is that the HD
>> is very slightly less blurry. But it's a tiny difference - certainly not
>> worth paying £20,000 for.
>
> 20k£? Where do you shop? :O
>
Given what he describes happening with movement.. Some place where the
TV people are being robbed blind by companies selling them bad
compression, and the people delivering it the same. Or.. He has
satellite. lol That is the thing they "don't" tell you with the whole,
"satellites have more bandwidth" BS. First, its basically a lie. I get
the same number of channels + high speed digital internet over my cable,
so.. the idea there isn't bandwidth is just silly. So.. How do they get
that extra "bandwidth" they claim? Simple... they compress the hell out
of the signal, so much so that your HD signals look as bad as my
**better** standard signals look "good". In other words - make up the
space lost by sending you the signal, by sending you 10% less data in
the signal, or what ever it is.
Mind, this is likely no the case with the re-broadcasts, since such
signals still need to be used to transmit to the cable people, but those
are **not** what you get from Direct TV, or the like. You are getting
their version of DSL, while the signal to the cable company is more
like.. T1. The only way to end up with "less" bandwidth is if the cable
company decides to screw you too, with crappy compression, to give
themselves more bandwidth than they need (which I don't doubt happens).
So, yeah.. What your picture looks like is going to vary, even if there
isn't anything wrong with the TV at all. Its all dependent on if the
people sending you the signal figure they can get by with it, or not.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and
> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.
Oh, and yes, recognising the sine tone is far, far easier, if you use analog
components.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and
>> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.
>
> Oh, and yes, recognising the sine tone is far, far easier, if you use
> analog components.
Yep. That's why all digital electronics uses this method internally.
Oh, wait a sec...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> What the heck are you paying £20,000 for?
Nothing. My point is, anything that says "HD" on it - whether it's a TV
or a coffee mat - instantly becomes drastically more expensive than the
"non-HD" version. Which seems silly, given the minimal difference in
quality.
It just puzzles me that if they were going to make everything
incompatible so they could up the resolution, why didn't they up it to
something really high? You know, so you can *see* a difference?
Then again, I suppose you usually sit sort of 12 feet away or something...
>>> I do like bluray better than hddvd. I'm glad they won.
>> ...there's a difference between them?
>
> Stick with analog.
Not an opion, sadly.
>> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression
>> artifacts.
>
> True, but missing the point of what I was sayign.
...OK...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> There's a big difference between recognising a DC signal, and
>>> recognising a sine tone with a specific frequency.
>>
>> Oh, and yes, recognising the sine tone is far, far easier, if you use
>> analog components.
>
> Yep. That's why all digital electronics uses this method internally.
What part of "if you use analog components" did you miss? Have you ever
tuned a guitar?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> In reality, we just swapped analogue distortion for compression
>>> artifacts.
>>
>> True, but missing the point of what I was sayign.
>
> ...OK...
... which was that no, I thought the same as *you* do when *I* only saw them
in stores, but in an actual home environment, the difference is stunning.
And the resolution is already pushing the limits of technology.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I thought the same as *you* do when *I* only saw
> them in stores, but in an actual home environment, the difference is
> stunning.
Oh, right. OK. Well if I can GET to the side of the room where the TV
is, maybe I'll try it. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Sending a raw digital signal over a cable doesn't require modulation.
> > It can be as simple as "no current = 0", "current = 1".
> Except it's impossible to recognise the difference between "current" and
> "shouldn't be current but there's minute noise on the line."
> In other words, you need some minimum amount of current before you say it's
> actually a 1, right?
> And if the current you detect is right on the border between what you
> consider "zero current" and "one current", then it's not digital. And that
> happens every time the current goes between a zero and a one.
> Indeed, the whole *reason* for using digital is to make broader swaths of
> analog come out to the same value. If you actually *could* transmit digital
> signals, you wouldn't *need* to.
I have no idea what that has to do with modulation.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have no idea what that has to do with modulation.
I'm not talking about modulation. I'm pointing out that there's no such
thing as a digital signal, unless you start getting into quantum
cryptography or something. It doesn't matter if it's modulated or not.
There's no such thing as a digital signal. There's only a signal that you
choose to interpret in a digital way. But that's a feature of
interpretation, not a feature of the signal.
For example, digital CDMA cell phones do not operate if the actual
over-the-air signal is digital. They rely on looking at the analog
properties of the radio waves to sort out the digital signals. Beyond just
the tuning bit.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> claim that the $100 Monster cable gives them such a better picture than the
> other (mon-Monster) HDMI cables. Unless I'm missing something, that's like
> saying your Internet looks a lot better since you switched from a cat 5
> ethernet connection to cat 6. In the analog realm, high quality cables
> meant a lot. In the digital realm, anything capable of handling the signal
> should be as good as any other, although I've seen my share of really crappy
> quality ethernet cable, as well. But they either work, or they don't.
Perfect analysis. You know how software makers are able to get a lot of money
from consumers blissfully ignorant at how software works? Audio-video industry
is just about as horrendous.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
