Telly?

[ilona73]

You can also edit out the inane prattle and the constant "after the break we'll be seeing.." and "before the break we showed you..." nonsense that channel surfers/attention deficit disorder/geriatric decay have foisted on the rest of us.

Our favourites are watching "Who wants to be a millionaire" on fast forward going even faster through the ads - 1 hour programme in about 15 minutes, even less on celebrity editions. Mastermind can be cut down to just 15 minutes by trimming out all the chatting and the person who's specialist subject is the contents of their garage .

Exactamondo!!! you can't beat it can you.. i call FF my waffle widget hehe :lol: :lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

i call FF my waffle widget

I'll try to be more succinct in future.

AMc is dead right about the issues around HD. There is a big difference between resolution and magnification. A 50-inch 1080p LCD screen is actually lower resolution than the 19-inch LCD I'm using to write this. The typical 1280x1024 PC screen is higher resolution than any 'HD' television programming. As AMc rightly says, viewing distance makes a big difference.

The other issue I have with digital TV is the constant need to 'scale' the various formats. With an analogue CRT screen this scaling can actually be achieved with less loss of quality than with an LCD/Plasma screen that has a physically fixed resolution. The interpolation required to map a video programme of one resolution onto a screen of a different resolution gives rise to many distortions or 'artifacts'. Add data compression into the mix (required in order to squeeze as many digital video channels into the available broadcast bandwidth for commercial reasons) and it's a moot point whether digital television is the great lelap forward in viewing quality that is claimed.

The cynic might argue that the advent of microchip technology made televisions so reliable that the industry had to invent new reasons for people to upgrade. digital TV (satellite, cable or terrestrial) was only partially successful because set-top-boxes enabled digital reception on existing CRT TVs so flat-screens have been the main driver for change in recent years. These are now fairly commonplace so the industry is pushing HD. Fast forward another five years and the buzz will be 3D, which is already being demonstrated and is available to early-adopters with deep wallets.

Pity we can't have a revolution in actual programming for a change.

(I hope that's not too much waffle :wink: ).

 

[ilona73]

i call FF my waffle widget

I'll try to be more succinct in future.



(I hope that's not too much waffle :wink: ).

hahaha i meant the Fast Forward button not you !!!! :lol:

hahahaaah you made me chuckle hahahaha

 

[JoceAndChris]

And me!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Although I am a bit lost on this thread now, I do appreciate FF's always wise words.

 

[ilona73]

And me!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Although I am a bit lost on this thread now, I do appreciate FF's always wise words.

Snap Joce... i love him dearly too with or without the waffle hahaha :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

Now I really am embarrassed.
You're both too kind, but have put a smile on my face with which to continue the afternoon's plumbing.
Onwards and upwards.

 

[Penners]

AMc is dead right about the issues around HD. There is a big difference between resolution and magnification. A 50-inch 1080p LCD screen is actually lower resolution than the 19-inch LCD I'm using to write this. The typical 1280x1024 PC screen is higher resolution than any 'HD' television programming. As AMc rightly says, viewing distance makes a big difference.

...it's a moot point whether digital television is the great lelap forward in viewing quality that is claimed.

I wouldn't argue with a word that you and AMc have said about the facts of LCD/HD TV technology, but I can only report my own impressions of it.

I thought long and hard about whether to spend the money on a Humax PVR and an HD LCD TV. In fact I did about a year of thinking and product browsing before shelling out something over a grand for the kit. (Yes, I know, a year is ridiculous, but there was a lot of other stuff going on at the same time!).

I can only say that, by comparison with our previous CRT (Sony) set, HD programmes on our new Samsung 37" job look sensational.

Surprisingly, the sales advisor in the retail shop where I bought the TV was actually that - an advisor. He enquired about our viewing distance and steered me away from a number of more expensive TV's in favour of this one. And I can't fault his guidance.

 

[Flyfisher]

I wouldn't argue that digital television can't be better than analogue, but there are a number of compromises that prevent it always performing to it's true capability. Viewing distance is certainly important and it sounds like you've been well-advised and have got the optimum size, which will minimise the visibility of any artifacts. There's no doubt that HD displayed on a correctly-matched flatscreen looks stunning, which is what the more informed stores will have running in their showrooms. But the quality can suffer when viewing SD on the same screen, which they tend not to show. Mind you, a fair proportion of TVs on display seem to be set to 'widescreen' mode for standard programming, giving that horrible 'everyone-is-overweight' look, so perhaps people don't care.

I've twice tried quite hard to buy a flatscreen. The first time was a fair while ago (6-7 years?), after our 20+ year old TV died, and I ended up with a 36-inch CRT because of the image quality (plus LCDs were much more expensive back then, HD programming was just a glint on the horizon and widescreen-vs-normal aspect ratios were probably more of an issue). Then I was tempted again about a year ago but was still not sufficiently impressed with SD quality because of interpolation issues - not enough to upgrade anyway. If I didn't already have a TV then it would be a different matter and I'm sure I'd get an LCD screen. In fact, I don't remember seeing any CRTs on display the last time I looked.

 

[AMc]

I wouldn't argue that digital television can't be better than analogue, but there are a number of compromises that prevent it always performing to it's true capability.

If I didn't already have a TV then it would be a different matter and I'm sure I'd get an LCD screen. In fact, I don't remember seeing any CRTs on display the last time I looked.

Digital transmission is certainly better. I get a (subjectively) perfect picture from Freeview (no drop outs or break up, but who knows about error correction) but our analogue signal is a worthless snowy mess thanks to serving most of East Anglia from a single mast the wrong side of a tiny hill. Digital satellite is also great and I have the good fortune to have a hidden valley on the roof perfectly aligned so only pigeons and the RAF know the dish is there!

CRT TVs have disappeared in the UK. The front room TV is a venerable 32" Sony CRT bought with my first redundancy cheque for £850 in 2000. The new 42" one in the vinery is a Panasonic Plasma not LCD - which I find makes viewing standard definition TV much more pleasant than the LCDs we looked at. I was dead lucky to find someone selling an 11 month old TV from John Lewis (so 4 years transferable warranty) for less than half the £999 they'd paid - he'd bought the new model for over a grand ! When the Sony gives up the ghost or I get a proper job with a pay check to upgrade everything to HD capable versions then I'll be looking at another plasma for the front room. Small plasmas are disappearing so it may end up being an LED lit LCD TV by then.

The next technology I'm interested in is OLED which is self illuminating so the screen can be super thin - making it easier for you to hide should you so decide - pity they're currenty £1000s for tiny screens!

 

[wobs]

All very interesting, but as we are still on CRT, I can't comment on which is best.

However, which system would use the least energy for a 32"(ish") screen?

-Should we need to replace the one we got from the inlaws last year. Prior to that we had a 21" CRT that was a more traditional aspect ratio, but was over 20 years old.

 

[skier-hughes]

LED LCD is the "cheapest" lowest energy tv

 

[Flyfisher]

Digital transmission is certainly better. I get a (subjectively) perfect picture from Freeview (no drop outs or break up, but who knows about error correction) but our analogue signal is a worthless snowy mess thanks to serving most of East Anglia from a single mast the wrong side of a tiny hill.

Digital transmission will usually be perfect or hopeless with little in between. This is often referred to as the 'waterfall effect'; the received picture quality remains perfect even as the transmitted signal quality drops off until it gets to a point where everything gives up and the picture disappears (falls over the waterfall). There can be a critical point where the picture will break up and become 'blocky', but the decline is very rapid.

With analogue transmission, the picture will become gradually more 'snowy' as the transmitted signal drops off but will remain viewable rather than drop out completely.

We actually have the reverse problem to the one you describe (and we may even share the same transmitter at Tacolneston). Our aerial points through some very tall trees and there are times when we cannot receive digital programmes but the analogue transmissions are perfectly watchable, if slightly snowy.

I'm hoping this problem will resolve itself when the full digital switch-over occurs because I believe the digital tranmission power is currently held low to avoid interference, but when the analogue transmissions are switched off the digital power will be boosted. Or so I've read.

 

[MdB]

However, which system would use the least energy for a 32"(ish") screen?

What day of the week is it? Technology is moving on rapidly so the best tech for low energy changes frequently.

Currently OLED is best but you can't get nor afford these yet.

LCD used to be better than plasma but plasma has improved such that it is similar to LCD. Of the the LCDs, LED lit LCDs are better than florescent lit LCD but it all varies for model to model so check the manufacturers specs. In particular look at the standby power requirements as this can be dramatically different and makes a big difference to overall power usage.

I'm hoping this problem will resolve itself when the full digital switch-over occurs because I believe the digital tranmission power is currently held low to avoid interference, but when the analogue transmissions are switched off the digital power will be boosted. Or so I've read.

It will. Our transmitter was increase in power by a factor of 22 after the change over. If you look on transmitter website for your local one, it will tell you what the power increase will be.


For me, the important criteria for a new TV (which we might get this year or next) is the refresh rate. The various HD TVs I have seen demoed look terrible with moving pictures with the picture appearing to jitter as there isn't the smearing you get with CRT TVs. Some new HD TVs have 100Hz or 200Hz refresh rates with a chip inside of them calculating additional frames between the standard 50Hz ones. This should improve this problem a lot though I have yet to see it demonstrated.

 

[Flyfisher]

Thanks for the transmitter tip - I've found info suggesting that Tacolneston transmitter power will increase after digital switchover (next year for East Anglia) to provide the same coverage as analogue, so we should be OK. No actual numbers though.

Regarding motion jitter and refresh rates, I'm not entirely sure they are related. My understanding is that the motion jitter (which I agree can be quite bad) is a result of progressive rather than interlaced scanning, or an inappropriate mixture of the two. 100Hz refresh (which our CRT has) certainly helps to eliminate flicker, but I don't see how it can help with motion jitter, unless the the receiver is also doing interpolation between each refresh. Even then, can the eye really distinguish movements faster than 25 or 30 frames/second? The entire history of cinema and television development would suggest not.

 

[philpjuk100]

A slight change of subject "radio" I moved house a couple of years ago only about 25 miles,I used to listen to radio leicester whilst at work and got used to it and its presenters (good old waddo and julie) when I moved I used a really old AM/FM "getto blaster" for the workshop, it worked ok although sometimes the odd aircraft transmision used to break through.For Christmas I got an all singing all dancing "Pure" digital radio this will not even try to get radio leics,Ive tried bits of wire tied to the ariel but it still will not pick it up so its back in its box in the attic and the old one is back in use.I can get radio leics on my laptop but the workshop is not the place for that so newer is not always better!phil.

 

[Flyfisher]

Another example of the waterfall effect by the sound of it - same principle for digital radio as for television.

We've got a couple of DAB radios and I seem to notice more distortion these days than when I first bought them but I'm not sure if that's a transmission thing or bad positioning at our end. Sometimes, according to the reception meter, I can only just get a good enough signal wherever I place them, suggesting bad reception, but other times it's OK, suggesting bad placement. I've also discovered that adding various lengths of wire to the aerial makes no real difference at all, unlike with FM.

But I do like the totally noise-free audio from DAB. Perhaps the powers that be will increase DAB transmitter power when FM is switched off (and sold off!), but that doesn't seem to be talked about as much as with digital TV. I suspect the take-up of DAB is significantly less than digital TV.

 

[MdB]

Tacolneston transmitter

Switchover overview: Wednesday 1st June 2011: Existing Freeview transmitter. Thursday 30th June 2011: BBC One C62 closes. BBC Two C55 closes. ITV-1 C59 closes. Channel 4 C65 closes. FIVE C52 closes. Mux 1 C63 closes. Mux 2 C60 closes. Mux A C53 closes. Mux B C58 closes. Mux C C61 closes. Mux D C64 closes. Freeview power increase from 6,667 W to 100,000 W, 14 times stronger. PSB1 starts on C55. COM4 starts on C42. PSB3 starts on C62. COM5 starts on C45. COM6 starts on C50. PSB2 starts on C59. NEW8 starts on C49. NEW7 starts on C57.

Regarding motion jitter and refresh rates, I'm not entirely sure they are related. My understanding is that the motion jitter (which I agree can be quite bad) is a result of progressive rather than interlaced scanning, or an inappropriate mixture of the two. 100Hz refresh (which our CRT has) certainly helps to eliminate flicker, but I don't see how it can help with motion jitter, unless the the receiver is also doing interpolation between each refresh. Even then, can the eye really distinguish movements faster than 25 or 30 frames/second? The entire history of cinema and television development would suggest not.

Yes, the receivers interpolate between frames (actually they do motion estimation which is a more clever way of doing it). I'm not sure why I have a problem with HDTVs with motion jitter but it was very obvious to me where as it has never been an issue at the cinema.

 

[MdB]

Lots of people find DAB quality levels to be worse and reception coverage isn't as good. The DAB standard is also out of date with DAB+ being a lot better. Of course this requires new receivers...

The perfect length for a DAB monopole aerial (a telescopic aerial) is 370mm (for pickup at 200MHz). Attaching a long wire to it isn't going to help.

 

[ilona73]

Lots of people find DAB quality levels to be worse and reception coverage isn't as good. The DAB standard is also out of date with DAB+ being a lot better. Of course this requires new receivers...

The perfect length for a DAB monopole aerial (a telescopic aerial) is 370mm (for pickup at 200MHz). Attaching a long wire to it isn't going to help.

oh wow!! i noticed you live in cornwall.... i used to live down there for a few years and used to love Pirate FM... Is it still going?? This was about ten year ago now i guess?

 

[MdB]

oh wow!! i noticed you live in cornwall.... i used to live down there for a few years and used to love Pirate FM... Is it still going?? This was about ten year ago now i guess?

http://www.piratefm.co.uk/resources/stream.php

- local radio at its finest - well apart from the music - and the DJs