Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

[Poxy]

Chasing Kate wrote:

Yes there's a parliamentary inquiry on at the moment
looking into why more people are not purchasing digital
set top boxes....

In other words a great piss up for the people involved LOL and
nothing constructive will come out of it IMHO......

But the one question I'd like answered is why?

Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?

With DTV, you get more efficient use of the existing spectrum - ie. more
channels in the same space. This opens the opportunity for more content, but
government legislation severly restricts what extra material can be
broadcast on free-to-air.

That said, from a consumer point of view, there is little benefit. Analogue
TV looks great on a properly-tuned TV, DTV doesn't necessarily look any
better, and the artefats that occur due to poor signal or poor encoding are
more noticeable

HDTV might be a great idea theoretically, but I'd argue that consumers would
have a hard time picking it from standard def pictures.

 

[Terry Collins]

Richard Wilkins wrote:

I would be far better spending the money for watching TV over the web.
The money you would otherwise spend installing 20 towers?

Naah, the money I would spend on getting the set top box and new
widescreen TV could be invested and interest spent on better adsl
service..

 

[valiumboy]

I cant see the point of having it yet when all there is to offer is SBS2 and
ABC2.
Once other channels come online and set top box prices drop, people might
consider it.
To get the full benefit people would have to buy a new widescreen tv with a
digital decoder built in.
These are still too expensive for most people.
Also its a hit and miss for peole in remote or hilly country.They might have
ok analoue reception but might have no digital or it might dissapear when
cloudy or raining or depending on atmospheric conditions.

"dewatf" <dewatf@anti-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4243c8f1.31750046@news.syd.ihug.com.au...

That is all rubbish.

The reason colour was sucessful was because adding colour was a
significant improvement in the veiwing experience.

The reason digital has been a failure is that it offers only
incremental improvement in sound and picture at great expense.
Anything that could have appealed to viewers like extra content was
banned to please Packer and Ten.

Digital TV has sort of worked where it is suitable: Pay TV. People
will pay the extra for digital pay TV, which by the way has picture
and sound of far less quality than the FTA HD standard that was
manadated.

The idea that people will pay more to watch the same FTA stuff full of
ads in digital was the problem.

dewatf.

 

[Terry Collins]

Phil Allison wrote:

** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

But apart from penile sublimation of bragging rights, why would I spend
it to get the same crap I get now.

In 1976, a colour TV cost $700 to $ 800 = about $4000 to $ 5000 today.

That one died along time ago and when it comes to $4,000 dollars, well
that is about enough DVD's to run on the old one or on my computer
screen.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Terry Collins"

Phil Allison wrote:

** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

But apart from penile sublimation of bragging rights, why would I spend
it to get the same crap I get now.

** I see you like to take folks words out of context and then post bovine
remarks under them.

In 1976, a colour TV cost $700 to $ 800 = about $4000 to $ 5000
today.

That one died along time ago ...

** Moooooooooo.




............ Phil

 

[bruce varley]

Chasing Kate <sittinginthepool@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4243A0C9.56991ABE@internode.on.net...

Yes there's a parliamentary inquiry on at the moment
looking into why more people are not purchasing digital
set top boxes....

In other words a great piss up for the people involved LOL and
nothing constructive will come out of it IMHO......

But the one question I'd like answered is why?

Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?

Until the content improves, I'm perfectly happy with soso quality. That
means I'm likely to be happy with it for ever.

 

[Denz]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ai0coF6aqgo1U1@individual.net...

"dewatf"


The reason colour was sucessful was because adding colour was a
significant improvement in the veiwing experience.

The reason digital has been a failure is that it offers only
incremental improvement in sound and picture at great expense.


** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

Good Standard Definition STBs cost arount $200... and High Definition STBs
cost around ... $500?
If you have a 'normal size tv' and a good tv reception, there isnt really
anything to be gained by digital tv. If you want to watch wide screen, High
definition will get you there. Digital will eliminate effects of minor
ghosting, noise, and interference. But if your reception isnt good, rather
than having a poor quality picture, youll have none. And unfortunately with
digital, with fast moving scenes you can notice pixelation (under some
conditions atleast).

 

[Phil Allison]

"Denz"
"Phil Allison"

The reason digital has been a failure is that it offers only
incremental improvement in sound and picture at great expense.


** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

Good Standard Definition STBs cost around $200..

** You are out of touch - prices have fallen.

If you have a 'normal size tv' and a good tv reception, there isnt really
anything to be gained by digital tv.

** Utter bullshit.

SD digital supplies a DVD quality, noise and ghost free pic that very few
folk have with analogue. Plus a semi wide screen option ( letterbox mode )
that gives more of the picture than analogue 4:3 can.

Digital will eliminate effects of minor
ghosting, noise, and interference.

** It can *remove* quite major ghosting and serious amounts of noise plus
most RF interference.

Pics can go from **totally unmatchable** to perfect - particularly
true with channel 2 since the digital version is on VHF ch 12.

But if your reception isnt good, rather
than having a poor quality picture, youll have none.

** Utter bullshit again - see above.

And unfortunately with
digital, with fast moving scenes you can notice pixelation (under some
conditions atleast).

** Not true of the SD digital system.




............ Phil

 

[Mr.T]

"Terry Collins" <terryc@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4243CCFB.BA4E175C@woa.com.au...

You are correct there. By talking about phasing out the analoge phone
system, the political parties encouraged a lot of political donations.

I think that's back to front. The political donations get the pollies to do
whatever they are asked.
The donations must come first.

MrT.

 

[Terry Collins]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Terry Collins" <terryc@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4243CCFB.BA4E175C@woa.com.au...
You are correct there. By talking about phasing out the analoge phone
system, the political parties encouraged a lot of political donations.

I think that's back to front. The political donations get the pollies to do
whatever they are asked.
The donations must come first.

Sometimes they need to suggest possible reasons to donate to do, or not
do something,

 

[TheMan]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ahs3vF6aoj4sU1@individual.net...

"TheMan" = TheFuckwit

Better stop listening to the propaganda and pop down to your local
Harvey Norman
and check it out yourself.


** Got a nice STB at home thanks.

Awww you gonna have a cry because you blew 8 grand on a fizzer technology. Want a
tissue mate?

-TheMan-

 

[TheMan]

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:tyQ0e.11246$C7.1091@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"TheMan" <noreply@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:4243b62c$0$24557$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message

Digital TV simply offers too many technical benefits to ignore at a cost
to
the consumer that is tiny.

Better stop listening to the propaganda and pop down to your local Harvey
Norman
and check it out yourself.

Digital TV really doesn't look any better then PAL from what I've seen...
it does
manage to get rid of "ghosting" that you get in standard TV reception, but
then
you have the downside of having to see shitty pixelization of the image
from the
digital compression.


As the previous poster said, Digital TV simply offers too many *technical*
benefits. How it looks is just one benefit.

Well thats meant to be the MAIN benefit.

I would have been expecting similar quality to watching a DVD on a computer
monitor, but instead it looks like TV PAL without ghosting and with digital
pixelization(though this can be reduced if the TV stations sent a stronger digital
signal). Very very disappointed indeed, the technology is a joke for something
that is meant to be the next revolution in television. PAL Phased out by 2010??
Yeah fucking right!

-TheMan-

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ai0coF6aqgo1U1@individual.net...

"dewatf"


The reason colour was sucessful was because adding colour was a
significant improvement in the veiwing experience.

The reason digital has been a failure is that it offers only
incremental improvement in sound and picture at great expense.


** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

***************************** Crap

Cheap STBs cost that much. GOOD ones cost more.

 

[Denz]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ai773F6a0n2jU1@individual.net...

"Denz"
"Phil Allison"


The reason digital has been a failure is that it offers only
incremental improvement in sound and picture at great expense.


** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

Good Standard Definition STBs cost around $200..


** You are out of touch - prices have fallen.

Dick Smith has a generic DSE for $138, Teac for $168, DGTec for $298,
Panasonic for $298. High Definition ranges from $398 to $748. Dick Smith
prices are usually fairly average
www.dse.com.au

If you have a 'normal size tv' and a good tv reception, there isnt
really
anything to be gained by digital tv.


** Utter bullshit.

SD digital supplies a DVD quality, noise and ghost free pic that very few
folk have with analogue. Plus a semi wide screen option ( letterbox
mode )
that gives more of the picture than analogue 4:3 can.

All you need is a quality antenna, and no bad conditions to get a good
picture (most of melb area can achieve this). Then theres no point in going
digital. Quite unlike going from B&W to Colour. Sure, I appreciate letterbox
when watching DVD's, but im not too fussed watching 4:3 on analog even if it
is pan & scan or cropped.

Digital will eliminate effects of minor
ghosting, noise, and interference.

** It can *remove* quite major ghosting and serious amounts of noise plus
most RF interference.

Ive youve seen digital work where analog had serious amounts of noise, thats
encouraging. Ive heard this isnt always the case.

Pics can go from **totally unmatchable** to perfect - particularly
true with channel 2 since the digital version is on VHF ch 12.

I wish channel 2 analog had been on VHF ch 12
Its frequency seems to be a bit low for optimum tv reception (maybe why 0
moved to 10 ?)

And unfortunately with
digital, with fast moving scenes you can notice pixelation (under some
conditions atleast).


** Not true of the SD digital system.

 

[Phil Allison]

"TheMan" = "TheFuckwit"

I would have been expecting similar quality to watching a DVD on a
computer
monitor,

** That is just how mine looks.




.............. Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Who_tat_me"
"Phil Allison"

The reason colour was sucessful was because adding colour was a
significant improvement in the veiwing experience.

The reason digital has been a failure is that it offers only
incremental improvement in sound and picture at great expense.


** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.


*************************** Crap


Cheap STBs cost that much. GOOD ones cost more.

** So you got ripped off - eh ??




.............. Phil

 

[Ian Galbraith]

"Chasing Kate"

But the one question I'd like answered is why?

Why do we have to go to full digital TV?

This is a forced death for the existing system which seems
to work dam fine in other parts of the world so why change
it?

Go back to your cave Leister I'm sure you'd enjoy the lifestyle better
and we would be spared.

[snip]

 

[Phil Allison]

"Denz"

"Phil Allison"


** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

Good Standard Definition STBs cost around $200..


** You are out of touch - prices have fallen.

Dick Smith has a generic DSE for $138,

** That is a very good one.

If you have a 'normal size tv' and a good tv reception, there isnt
really anything to be gained by digital tv.


** Utter bullshit.

SD digital supplies a DVD quality, noise and ghost free pic that very
few
folk have with analogue. Plus a semi wide screen option ( letterbox
mode ) that gives more of the picture than analogue 4:3 can.


All you need is a quality antenna, and no bad conditions to get a good
picture (most of melb area can achieve this).

** But NOT most of Sydney or other capitols.

Melbourne is very flat and all the transmitters are right up on that
mountain top !!

Digital will eliminate effects of minor
ghosting, noise, and interference.

** It can *remove* quite major ghosting and serious amounts of noise
plus
most RF interference.

Ive youve seen digital work where analog had serious amounts of noise,
thats
encouraging. Ive heard this isnt always the case.

** Depends just how bad the noise is and if the issue is with ch 2 or not.

Folk with poor antennas ( even indoor ones ) and ghosty/noisy installed
systems in block of units find STBs work like magic.




.............. Phil

 

[Ian Galbraith]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:49:19 +1000, "TheMan" <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:

"Who_tat_me" <email@com.au> wrote in message
news:tyQ0e.11246$C7.1091@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

[snip]

I would have been expecting similar quality to watching a DVD on a computer
monitor, but instead it looks like TV PAL without ghosting and with digital

You'd better get yours looked at then because mine looks better than
DVD (except with the AFL).

[snip]

 

[Alan Rutlidge]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ai9jfF6a0r90U1@individual.net...

"Who_tat_me"
"Phil Allison"

The reason colour was sucessful was because adding colour was a
significant improvement in the veiwing experience.

The reason digital has been a failure is that it offers only
incremental improvement in sound and picture at great expense.


** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.


*************************** Crap


Cheap STBs cost that much. GOOD ones cost more.


** So you got ripped off - eh ??




............. Phil

Phil Allison can't afford to spend anything more than $100 on a STB.

He has to budget that low to go with the 21 y.o. Sony CDP-101 CD player, the
ageing AWIA 9500 LW/MW/FM tuner (same model recently passed in on Ebay with
no bids at $19.95) the 12" AWA Deep Image portable tele (circa 1978) and kit
speakers driven by a clapped out amplifier.

ROTLF

Cheers,
Alan