Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skiddins As with NTSC v's PAL, the US (and presumably due to it's proximity with the USA, Canada as well) has adopted a new standard, perhaps without comparisons with other HDTV broadcasting systems.
The Australians performed laboratory and 'real world' tests on the the proposed systems (ATSC in the USA, DVB in the UK and I believe the rest of Europe) and chose to go with DVB instead.
DVB is used at the moment in the UK for Digital terrestrial broadcasting, which I have, and most of which is broadcast in 16:9 (interestingly with the exception of most US programmes we get that are from their major broadcastors, the exception, from things I have watched being anything from HBO).
DVB is also 'futureproof', meaning when the HDTV system is finally developed, it can still be broadcast using DVB.
My main comment about picture quality is due to the differences in the systems and the quality produced.
This is what happend with NTSC originally, whence the USA and Canada having Colour before anywhere else, but the quality was and still is, crap (525 line) compared with PAL at 625 Line.
Skiddins |
To be honest, having lived in Germany for a few years there really is not so great of a difference between a good NTSC picture and a good PAL picture. Sorry, that's my experience. I'd consider the source more than the differenc e in NTSC and PAL.
Now HD is a different matter completely. The difference is more than dramatic.
Since the standard resolution for HD is likely to be the same for the rest of the world, as it looks like it will be in Europe, as it has been in America, why would the quality be less than there in Europe?
