Is digital TV any better?
Discussion
We have a newish Phillips digital pixel plus 100Hz 32" widescreen TV and films are OK but there are many other programmes on ordinary Sky TV channels that have a kind of digital fragmentation (blurry image in square looking grainy chunks). It's not our dish, as I said ....the majority of films are fine.
I've done a signal test too and that was fine. I don't noticed the poorer quality picture (on the same programme) on our old 28" regular TV that we kept for use in our conservatory.
I've noticed that still pictures are not so bad when there is a poorer quality but if there is movement in the image the qualtiy is really bad sometimes, again this depends on the type of programme.
Is this the same for anyone else?
I've done a signal test too and that was fine. I don't noticed the poorer quality picture (on the same programme) on our old 28" regular TV that we kept for use in our conservatory.
I've noticed that still pictures are not so bad when there is a poorer quality but if there is movement in the image the qualtiy is really bad sometimes, again this depends on the type of programme.
Is this the same for anyone else?
scorp said:
Sky TV uses a lower rate of data per channel than DVD video so you end up with slightly lower quality. I notice the same too, it gets worse when you view sky-active video which is at an even lower data rate.
Is that where you can select your own movie start time for the premieres (not the pay to view)?
If so, I generally find these are OK.
Documentary and low budget shows such as the Discovery Real Time viewing is poor quality.
I prefer to sit in our conservatry room and watch on the old TV, much better
It's a bandwith/data rate thing on the likes of Freeview - BBC seems better than some of the smaller broadcasters, I suppose they pay more? The worst images I have seen on Freeview have been pop concerts with loads of light changes and tons of detail in the crowds etc - I find some of it unwatchable. Some old stuff like Porridge looks better on analogue than digital because of the grain that changes on every frame, there just isn't enough data rate to keep up in the compression and it all goes a bit blocky. Better get used to it as more channels come online data will be a premium where only the big boys will pay for the higher rates.
Digital TV rocks.
The picture is more distinct. The colours and resolution are absolutely fantastic. Digital cable feeds also deliver fantastic surround sound capability.
A good digital TV feed is better than current DVD tech. (1440x1080 instead of 720x480 in NTSC). I can't wait for them to sort HD-DVD/Blu-Ray so that I can start transferring home video to high def.
ErnestM
The picture is more distinct. The colours and resolution are absolutely fantastic. Digital cable feeds also deliver fantastic surround sound capability.
A good digital TV feed is better than current DVD tech. (1440x1080 instead of 720x480 in NTSC). I can't wait for them to sort HD-DVD/Blu-Ray so that I can start transferring home video to high def.
ErnestM
tonyvid said:
Better get used to it as more channels come online data will be a premium where only the big boys will pay for the higher rates.
Aren't the 5 analogue terrestrial tv channels we broadcast going to be freed up in the future ? I believe they can carry hundreds of digital channels.
Bigger screens will always amplify any blockiness. NTHell doesn't seem to be as badly affected by compression as Sky. If you're wired for cable it might be worth a switch. The combined broadband/TV/phone packages are pretty good value. £44 a month for phone, 1MB broadband and my TV package.
scorp said:
Better get used to it as more channels come online data will be a premium where only the big boys will pay for the higher rates.
Aren't the 5 analogue terrestrial tv channels we broadcast going to be freed up in the future ? I believe they can carry hundreds of digital channels.
No idea, don't know if they are in the same frequency bands but must be similar if you can use the same aerial systems - you are right though as you can multiplex a lot of digital info into the space
tycho said:
A lot of it depends on the subject. I tend to notice it all the time if there are things like ripples on water etc which require a lot of the image to be updated.
Exactly, the more chaotic the image is the less use the MPEG compression algorithms are. Worst thing is fire, looks dreadful.
A better TV set may actually make the MPEG 'artifacts' worse as they wont be blurred.
>> Edited by dieseljohn on Wednesday 28th September 16:47
That could be part of the problem then, it wasn't cheap - about £1k bundled with a stand and a DVD recorder, so about £700 odd alone. It's 100Hz pixel plus and I expected it to be great and indeed it is on some films and when used with the DVD player but some of the sky channels are rather sh1te in quality.
The pixel plus is good, gives great depth and looked very ....errr kinda 3D compared to a conventional TV.
The pixel plus is good, gives great depth and looked very ....errr kinda 3D compared to a conventional TV.
Its quite annoying when you know what to look for. Digital TV/Sat also varies depending on the source material. Check out the grass on the next footy match for example. Maybe OK or may be blured. And as mentioned earlier, water and fire. Reeds with birds on the nature programs etc. Doesn't like sudden changes and unpredictability. That's not saying you will see a poor result but that's when MPEG really has to start working.
>> Edited by jmorgan on Thursday 29th September 15:14
>> Edited by jmorgan on Thursday 29th September 15:14
This is one of the reasons I still have an analogue cable box (apart from being a skinflint 
). My mate switched to digital as soon as it came out and the image quality was horrendous - compression artifacts everywhere - so I never bothered making the change. I assume it's better now, but I honestly can't be arsed - yet more channels of utter dross I'll never watch.
). My mate switched to digital as soon as it came out and the image quality was horrendous - compression artifacts everywhere - so I never bothered making the change. I assume it's better now, but I honestly can't be arsed - yet more channels of utter dross I'll never watch.dern said:
Some of the channels are compressed more than other so they take up less of the total bandwidth and therefore cost less. The bigger your tv the more you will notice it.
Mark
Exactly. Headshot programmes for example QVC and other shopping channels are given lower bit rate as they are fairly static images. Faster moving and core channels Sky1,BBC,ITV and news channels are given higher bit rates. They tend to juggle them between transponders placing say 15 cruddy ones onto one or 2 onto another depending on content.
BUT always remember it is a lossy system and high frequencies are always disregarded therefore you will NEVER get exacty the same as an analogue system, close but never exact.
Artifacts can be seen quite a lot again depending on content. Watch a room full of flash photos and see how the system attempts to keep up with it, also sometimes the picture can seem a little flat.
Another problem is the protection scheme can be seen by larger TV's and some people have complained about this (same as DVD stuff).
But if we are all going to be forced to go digital the biggest killer will be rain.
Added: The savour of digital TV and best application will be HDTV.
>> Edited by scared but happy on Thursday 29th September 16:18
[quote=jmorgan]I have found that digital TV quality varies greatly, MPEG I suppose. Personally I haven't seen a broadcasted digital image that beats a good quality analogue. quote]
I agree, I also prefer to listen to vinyl rather than to MP3s. Are we being sold technology on the basis pf convenience rather than sound and visual quality? I think so. Then again I also have a cylinder lawn mower. It's probably just my age.
pp
I agree, I also prefer to listen to vinyl rather than to MP3s. Are we being sold technology on the basis pf convenience rather than sound and visual quality? I think so. Then again I also have a cylinder lawn mower. It's probably just my age.
pp
Pickled Piper said:
[quote=jmorgan]I have found that digital TV quality varies greatly, MPEG I suppose. Personally I haven't seen a broadcasted digital image that beats a good quality analogue. quote]
I agree, I also prefer to listen to vinyl rather than to MP3s. Are we being sold technology on the basis pf convenience rather than sound and visual quality? I think so. Then again I also have a cylinder lawn mower. It's probably just my age.
pp
All down to bandwidth I believe? You get what you pay for.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff