Maybe flatscreen TV is ok, after all ...

[Mark Zacharias]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hitadu$104$1@news.eternal-september.org...

No one forced them. Their broke their own rules.

More willful blindness.
Again,you are mistaken.
The banks were threatened by the DemocRATs to make questionable
loans. Pressured into making them.

Again,how would you have the banks deal with the shaky loans they had to
make?

This is not my understanding of the situation -- not as it was told in the
news. Specific evidence, please.

It's well known that the standards for mortgages were lowered so that more
lower-income people (yes, and minorities) could become homeowners.

The Bush administration tried to tighten the rules (from the Clinton era)
and were blocked by the (Democrat controlled) Congress.

This wasn't the only problem - there were many villians in this whole mess -
on both sides of the aisle in Congress and in the private sector.


Mark Z.

 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:17:39 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net>wrote:

No one forced them. Their broke their own rules.

More willful blindness.
Again,you are mistaken.
The banks were threatened by the DemocRATs to make questionable
loans. Pressured into making them.

Again,how would you have the banks deal with the shaky loans they had to
make?

This is not my understanding of the situation -- not as it was told in the
news. Specific evidence, please.

Jeeze this thread has really devolved into quite the piss match.

But seeing the participants (excluding you) I guess I understand why.

 

[Rich Webb]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:17:39 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

No one forced them. Their broke their own rules.

More willful blindness.
Again,you are mistaken.
The banks were threatened by the DemocRATs to make questionable
loans. Pressured into making them.

Again,how would you have the banks deal with the shaky loans they had to
make?

This is not my understanding of the situation -- not as it was told in the
news. Specific evidence, please.

There is none, this is just one of the memes that one must espouse to
belong to a particular club. Kind of like a secret handshake.

http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/governmentprograms/n08-2_park.pdf

But, just like "We inherited a recession from Clinton!" and "There were
no terrorist attacks in America during the Bush administration!" and all
of the rest, some myths never die irrespective of what really happened.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Jim Yanik]

Meat Plow wrote in news:3eq34p.4vc.17.8@news.alt.net:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:17:39 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net>wrote:

No one forced them. Their broke their own rules.

More willful blindness.
Again,you are mistaken.
The banks were threatened by the DemocRATs to make questionable
loans. Pressured into making them.

Again,how would you have the banks deal with the shaky loans they
had to make?

This is not my understanding of the situation -- not as it was told in
the news. Specific evidence, please.


Jeeze this thread has really devolved into quite the piss match.

But seeing the participants (excluding you) I guess I understand why.

yeah,and you had so much to contribute,too....

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[Jim Yanik]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in
news:hitadu$104$1@news.eternal-september.org:

No one forced them. Their broke their own rules.

More willful blindness.
Again,you are mistaken.
The banks were threatened by the DemocRATs to make questionable
loans. Pressured into making them.

Again,how would you have the banks deal with the shaky loans they had
to make?

This is not my understanding of the situation -- not as it was told in
the news. Specific evidence, please.

Oh,as if you can trust the news media these days....
don't you remember Dan Rather and his Bush memo fiasco? Or the GM truck
fire reports,or the misinformation they hand out on gun issues?

The MSM is in the tank for DemocRATs. they omit a lot.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:33:39 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov>wrote:

Meat Plow wrote in news:3eq34p.4vc.17.8@news.alt.net:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:17:39 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net>wrote:

No one forced them. Their broke their own rules.

More willful blindness.
Again,you are mistaken.
The banks were threatened by the DemocRATs to make questionable
loans. Pressured into making them.

Again,how would you have the banks deal with the shaky loans they
had to make?

This is not my understanding of the situation -- not as it was told in
the news. Specific evidence, please.


Jeeze this thread has really devolved into quite the piss match.

But seeing the participants (excluding you) I guess I understand why.


yeah,and you had so much to contribute,too....

As if by magic you prove my point.

Now please fuck off you flatulant fart-flap.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Arfa Daily wrote:

So there we have it. Another old Luddite finally converted, and prepared to
accept that with the right equipment, DTV and a flat panel TV *can* replace
a CRT set being fed with a good quality analogue signal ...

Where would you get a good quality analogue signal from these days?
Analogue broadcasts (possibly except live) are certainly digital
recordings coverted to analogue at the station or transmitter.

Sylvia.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hised0$7fo$1@news.eternal-september.org...

Scaling artifacts have nothing to do with technology. I have a 32" 720p
Vizio that displays 1080i beautifully.

I'm talking more the other way round where a 'standard' low res digital
signal is being upscaled by the panel drive electronics, to make it
display
'correctly' on a full HD 1920 x 1080 panel. The display driver seems
better
able to this in an artifact-free way on a plasma, than on an LCD.

I've compared the upscaling in my Sony BDP-S550 player with the upscaling
in
the Pioneer plasma set. There is no comparison! The player does an
outstanding job, to the point where you sometimes wonder whether you're
watching SD or HD, while the plasma is of, at best, mediocre quality.

Based on the reviews I've seen, the consensus is that both LCD and plasma
sets do a poor job of upscaling SD.

Take a look at the Panasonic Viera series then, and see if you think that
the upscaling is poor on those ...

Again, I don't see what motion artifacts have to do with the quality of
upscaling.

Motion artifacts are a different thing altogether. I have seen those on both
LCD and past plasmas, but so far, I have seen none on my Panasonic plas, in
any resolution. The LCD in my kitchen - admittedly not a very expensive
one - is perfectly dreadful in this regard, and when you add in motion blur
from the slow LC cells as well, it is objectionable to watch on some
content.

Downscaling is relatively easy. You just have to pick some H and V
'lines'
to throw away, and then do it.

Actually, the lines are averaged. Or they should be.

Amounts in practice to pretty much the same thing.

I have an expensive HP ws LCD monitor on the end of this computer,
and it is very very good when operating in native res, but at lower
resolutions, it is very poor.

I've seen the same thing. But, again, that's due to poor scaling -- not
that
the display is LCD. (The fact you're watching a static image close up
doesn't help, either.)

As far as I understand the technology, the drive scheme for LCD and plasma
panels is quite different, and it just seems to me, purely by observation,
that the scaling algorithms used to upscale signals for driving a plasma
panel, work better than those for driving an LCD panel. You bought a plasma
recently, as I recall. What was it that made you choose that over a cheaper
LCD ?

I don't like this 'con' in the way that most places are selling
flatscreen
LCDs. Almost everywhere that you go (as far as I have seen, true in the
U.S.
as well as here) these sets are displayed for sale with either an HD
picture
showing, or worse yet, a BluRay picture. Of course, they look excellent -
LCD as well as plas. But when you ask to see them displaying a 'standard'
res DTV signal, the store conveniently doesn't have one ...

Few people buy flatscreen sets just to watch SD material.

Agreed, but the vast majority of off-air TV that is broadcast here, is of
standard low res, and it is this that they will be watching *most* of the
time for their regular nightly entertainment.

There has been quite a lot of bother this side of the pond with people
buying LCDs based on what they saw in the store, and then being very
disappointed when they got them home and stuck them on their own
low-res antenna signals ...

No offense, but what did they expect? In the US, you can get digital SD
and
HD programming over the air. Except for low-powered "local" broadcasts,
analog TV has been discontinued.

In the US, most people have cable service, and a set-top converter that
supplies a fair amount of true HD adds $6 to your monthly bill (for
Comcast). The image quality on SD is perfectly fine, and on HD is superb.

I'm not talking analogue signals. I'm talking the DTTV signals that are
being broadcast to replace the analogue signals, and the 'standard'
satellite signals. Both of these are low res, the same as the analogue
signals were. There is no HD available here on DTTV at the moment. There
should have been by now, but our crooked government have reneged on their
promise to release more band for DTTV as the analogue services close down.
This means that the broadcasters are now going to have to fit HD
transmissions into the space that they already have available, so are going
to have to use a different compression scheme, requiring that a separate HD
receiver will be needed, even for TVs which have a DTTV receiver for the
current channels, built in. This is something else that the great unwashed
don't understand. Most think that their "HD Ready" TV, with built in digital
tuner, is going to be able to receive these HD terrestrial transmissions
when they finally - if ever - start. There is plenty of HD available by
subscription however, from the primary satellite broadcaster here.

So most of the programming that is being watched here, is indeed of standard
low resolution, and is being received via the owners existing or upgraded
UHF rooftop antenna, and the built in DTTV tuner within their shiny new TV.
So, as they are receiving digital transmissions, their expectations are,
quite reasonably, that they will get a very good picture like they saw in
the showroom, when they get it home. What they don't realise, is that in the
store, they saw the set running on either an HD sat signal, an HD video
recording, or BluRay, *not* a standard res off-air digital signal, being
upscaled within the TV, like they are going to be watching *most of the
time*, at home. Does that make it a little clearer what I'm saying ?

Arfa

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Downscaling is relatively easy. You just have to pick
some H and V 'lines' to throw away, and then do it.

Actually, the lines are averaged. Or they should be.

Amounts in practice to pretty much the same thing.

No, it doesn't. Not at all.

The averaging reduces artifacts, especailly "stairstepping", which is the
visual equivalent of aliasing in audio signals. Simply discarding lines
would make the effect worse.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:01998980$0$10159$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:

So there we have it. Another old Luddite finally converted, and prepared
to accept that with the right equipment, DTV and a flat panel TV *can*
replace a CRT set being fed with a good quality analogue signal ...

Where would you get a good quality analogue signal from these days?
Analogue broadcasts (possibly except live) are certainly digital
recordings coverted to analogue at the station or transmitter.

Sylvia.

You are confusing analogue transmission with digital sourcing. I am talking
about a signal that leaves the studio in analogue form, no matter how it was
created and processed prior to that, and arrives at the transmitter to
modulate the carrier in a 'conventional' analogue AM way, as opposed to a
signal that is compressed and then used to modulate a large swathe of
individual carriers, mixed in with compressed data streams from other
sources, and which then needs a different receiver, either internal to the
TV or as an external set top box, to receive and decode and process those
signals back into something that can be displayed by a (formerly 'standard')
analogue TV.

Arfa

 

[Sylvia Else]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:01998980$0$10159$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Arfa Daily wrote:
So there we have it. Another old Luddite finally converted, and prepared
to accept that with the right equipment, DTV and a flat panel TV *can*
replace a CRT set being fed with a good quality analogue signal ...
Where would you get a good quality analogue signal from these days?
Analogue broadcasts (possibly except live) are certainly digital
recordings coverted to analogue at the station or transmitter.

Sylvia.

You are confusing analogue transmission with digital sourcing. I am talking
about a signal that leaves the studio in analogue form, no matter how it was
created and processed prior to that, and arrives at the transmitter to
modulate the carrier in a 'conventional' analogue AM way, as opposed to a
signal that is compressed and then used to modulate a large swathe of
individual carriers, mixed in with compressed data streams from other
sources, and which then needs a different receiver, either internal to the
TV or as an external set top box, to receive and decode and process those
signals back into something that can be displayed by a (formerly 'standard')
analogue TV.

Arfa

It seems more than likely that these days what arrives at the
transmitter is a digital signal, which is then converted to analogue for
transmission. Further, it's unlikely that the digital signal is
uncompressed, because such a signal has an excessive bandwidth
requirement. It's probably scaled before transmission as well, which
never improves things.

Sylvia.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

It seems more than likely that these days what arrives at the
transmitter is a digital signal, which is then converted to analogue for
transmission. Further, it's unlikely that the digital signal is
uncompressed, because such a signal has an excessive bandwidth
requirement. It's probably scaled before transmission as well, which
never improves things.

I don't think you understand how digital TV is implemented.

 

[Sylvia Else]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

It seems more than likely that these days what arrives at the
transmitter is a digital signal, which is then converted to analogue for
transmission. Further, it's unlikely that the digital signal is
uncompressed, because such a signal has an excessive bandwidth
requirement. It's probably scaled before transmission as well, which
never improves things.

I don't think you understand how digital TV is implemented.

How does what you think have any bearing?

Sylvia.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

It seems more than likely that these days what arrives at the
transmitter is a digital signal, which is then converted to
analog for transmission. Further, it's unlikely that the digital
signal is uncompressed, because such a signal has an
excessive bandwidth requirement. It's probably scaled before
transmission as well, which never improves things.

I don't think you understand how digital TV is implemented.

How does what you think have any bearing?

I'm trying to politely state that you don't seem to know what you're talking
about.

 

[Sylvia Else]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

It seems more than likely that these days what arrives at the
transmitter is a digital signal, which is then converted to
analog for transmission. Further, it's unlikely that the digital
signal is uncompressed, because such a signal has an
excessive bandwidth requirement. It's probably scaled before
transmission as well, which never improves things.

I don't think you understand how digital TV is implemented.

How does what you think have any bearing?

I'm trying to politely state that you don't seem to know what you're talking
about.

I kind of guessed that, thanks. But the question stands.

Sylvia.