1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Who said Digital TV was great????

Discussion in 'Satellite TV, Sky TV & FreeSat' started by compusolve, Jun 14, 2001.

  1. compusolve

    compusolve
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    After recently finding the picture on my 41" rear projection Sony TV looking out of focus and dull, I cleaned the lens of dust, and hey presto the pics looked better, but still pastey and out of focus, so I asked a local engineer to have a look. Its been in the shop for 7 weeks now.

    I thought I would buy the new Sony KP61-PS1 which I did having seen it in a Sony centre in that large shopping Mall near Bristol.

    It arrived and I unpacked and set it up only to find that the pics looked the same, the Sony has a comparison window where you can compare analogue and digital signals, teresteral channels look as they should near perfect, on the digital signals I get what is called ringingand this dull out of focus pastey images with no real definition.

    Seeing that this has happened just recently, I had an aerial engineer out to check what is going on, he confirmed it was not the signal as I have had no break up.

    After contacting Pace they confirmed that it is the ammount of information forming the picture. The trouble with digital is you can compress information, yes you loose some of the detail, but most people would not notice.

    So as Ondigital and Sky add more channles the bandwith is decreased and the quality goes out the window.

    So much for digital pictures, I have now reverted to analogue terestrial feeds for 1,2,3,4 and Ondigital for the rest, feeding the output of the TV into the Denon tuner input. I would now suggest if you had a good terestrial signal before hand try a comparison, Digital is not all its cracked up to be once commercial businees governs the quality of the digital information and can compress it down to the that'll be allright picture.

    Any thoughts?

    [ 14-06-2001: Message edited by: Digiman ]
     
  2. jimcarney

    jimcarney
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    641
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    DOWNPATRICK CO DOWN
    Ratings:
    +3
    I agree with what you have said ,I live in N
    Ireland , outside Downpatrick on the Belfast
    side ,about 80 miles above sea level my analouge ariel is tuned to Monaghan in the South and the pictures & sound on pro logic
    are far better than SKY digital ie RTE& TV3 ,TNAG ,etc , but I have to use digital to veiw local stations BBC etc.
    Jim
     
  3. MartinImber

    MartinImber
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,851
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Worcester
    Ratings:
    +21
    Digital TV, well it is aimed at distinct groups.

    The lots of channels people eg old Sky customers

    And with FTA, widescreen TV owners

    I have done comparasons between PAL and DVB-T on my 32" 50Hz Wega, and I find that generally DVB-T is better, but not as good as it could be.

    I am discussing 1,2,3,4. and not 6,7,11

    Firstly my DVB-T tuner is integrated, this helps on quality, it is also reckoned that the Sony DVB-T tuner is better than any box, this does give an edge over a Nokia dodgy box.

    On a 16x9 screen PAL 14x9 pictures need to be zoomed - this looses detail, also you either 14x9 zoom, and get side bars, full zoom and loose picture info or run Smart which fills the screen. Vertical bars are very difficult to get straight compared to horizontal bars.

    DVB-T is broadcast anamorphic with BBC and most ITV & C4, this is instantly more detailed than a zoomed PAL (things like hair and facial bits), however the bugbears are as follows, BBC only use about 5.8 MB/S whereas DVDs can hit 10, this means that fast action can cause blocking, also you can get some form of haloing around figures, but this seems to have got better recently.

    ITV is usually the best encoder.

    DVB-T FTA is the best digital source I have seen after a really good DVD - PROVIDED A SONY IDTV IS USED.

    My wife likes some soaps Horronation Street is done as 4x3 (STILL???) and the digital picture is softer than say Deadenders which is anamorphic.

    My PAL picture is not that brilliant, part is squash and stretch, part is SVM, part is living quite away from the transmitter, I get some reflections which don't affect the digital signal.

    I think that for FTA BBC should have two multiplexes with a limit of 3 channels this would allow 7.3 MB/sec per channel, this would loose the hale effect and also blocking.

    DVB-T would wipe the floor with PAL if higher bit rates were used.

    Now to 7 & 11, these run lower bit rates than 1 & 2, this means that the news can have quite a poor picture, as grainy pictures are harder to code than good ones (good DVD example is R2 Blade Runner). Choice can look DVD good with Tweenies and Teletubbies but with Playbus or whatever again it is difficult to compress.

    And now the really guilty parties - OnDigital, they compress too much, soft picture, some banding, more blocking, and also more prone to breakups. Since getting fully CAM upgraded I have seen the true quality of OnDigital pay channels and they are way behind FTA, the detail was being lost with a box which the TV allows you to see - blocks etc.

    The Nokia tuner is also more prone to impulse interferance as well.

    Basically for FTA W/S TV Digital Terrestial is better. for 4x3 PAL is better except when it's PAL Pan & Scan and DVB-T widescreen.

    Most DVB-T problems are related to band width!
    :) :) :)
     
  4. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    I'm in London and I get a 99% perfect analogue reception. I also have an ondigital box which actually gives a damn near perfect picture with no aerial plugged into it! (although it is normally hooked up)

    I'd have to say the digital picture is better compared to the analogue counterparts.

    Reasons are: RGB picture avoids decoder red-push , chroma crosstalk artifacts , more detailed picture , bypasses any SVM artifacting in the set. In comparrison to analogue the picture is smoother more detailed with cleaner less clippy colour. Audio also sounds a touch more dynamic and of course you have the benefit of 16x9 transmission.

    Some of the less interesting channels exhibit MPEG2 blocking and breakup but the ones I actually watch with the exception of SKY1 (which does look better on satellite strangely enough) and occasionally Onrequest are great. The beeb channels and filmfour especially. (which is all I really want anyway)

    I did get some RF interference when very old cars and mopeds drove past but better shielded cabling on the box itself ( not the downlink strangely) rectified this. ( I would prefer to be able to turn off the RF output from the box but you can't have everything.

    My first thought would be are you watching in RGB?
     
  5. compusolve

    compusolve
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks for the replys so far, I agree that Onrequest channels look better, Mux A is one of the least conjested groups, also Onrequest dont always broadcast on all the channels, but of late these have been suffering.

    God knows which Mux ITV sports will go in August.I know they are messing around with the transmitters to enable this channel. Turn down the analogue signal, turn up the Digital, but to what extent in this interim period will we be suffering on both the analouge and the digital signal.

    Garry
     

Share This Page

Loading...