the new "4 colour" TVs = piss off fools

[Nomen Nescio]

the wifey dragged me out shopping into JB Harvey's and
I saw one of these new Kwotron hyped thingos.
What a load of bollocks!
Still not as good as my old CRT idiot box
(mind you it was a top-shelf German model)

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 19/09/2010 1:45 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

the wifey dragged me out shopping into JB Harvey's and
I saw one of these new Kwotron hyped thingos.
What a load of bollocks!
Still not as good as my old CRT idiot box
(mind you it was a top-shelf German model)

My immediate thought was that it was nonsense, since the human eye only
has three types of colour receptor. But the low end of the spectrum is
somewhat problematic:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_vision#Physiology_of_color_perception>

in that two types of receptor have strongly overlapping responses. Since
the actual responses vary between individuals a screen trying to
synthesise the correct response using just red and green light is going
to have difficulty making it look right to everyone. Adding in a yellow
colour could reduce the problem, even though its intensity would have to
be derived from input signals intended for the red and green emitters.

Whether I'd want to pay good money for possibly marginal improvement is
another question. I can't say I'd noticed an issue with skin tones and
yellows and golds. Maybe my own receptor responses are a good match to
those used in the design of colour displays.

Sylvia.

 

[Mark Harriss]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 19/09/2010 1:45 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
the wifey dragged me out shopping into JB Harvey's and
I saw one of these new Kwotron hyped thingos.
What a load of bollocks!
Still not as good as my old CRT idiot box
(mind you it was a top-shelf German model)


My immediate thought was that it was nonsense, since the human eye only
has three types of colour receptor. But the low end of the spectrum is
somewhat problematic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_vision#Physiology_of_color_perception

in that two types of receptor have strongly overlapping responses. Since
the actual responses vary between individuals a screen trying to
synthesise the correct response using just red and green light is going
to have difficulty making it look right to everyone. Adding in a yellow
colour could reduce the problem, even though its intensity would have to
be derived from input signals intended for the red and green emitters.

Whether I'd want to pay good money for possibly marginal improvement is
another question. I can't say I'd noticed an issue with skin tones and
yellows and golds. Maybe my own receptor responses are a good match to
those used in the design of colour displays.

Sylvia.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06256/721190-114.stm

 

[Mr.T]

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:79198a9c-09be-48f5-8b85-d562cc6381c9@s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

One bit that gets me as the further along we go, the worse and worse
the content of programming gets, the sets get better and cheaper.

Yep the biggest problem is not the quality of TV sets, it's the "quality" of
broadcasts with so little REAL HD material, and so much HIGHLY compressed,
LOW bit rate garbage. Hell I had to laugh yesterday when flicking to
"Australia's crappest home video's" on HD. Only the host was in HD, and most
of the video's weren't even in widescreen (only watched for a few minutes
though while doing something else anyway) What a waste of a HiDef channel!
Even the ABC can't be bothered in showing good doco's like "LIFE" in HiDef,
so until my local video library is full of Blu-Ray discs, I can't see any
point in worrying about the quality of the TV.

But some people are even prepared to buy 3D sets with almost NO material
available at all, so each to their own I guess.

MrT.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 19, 2:13 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 19/09/2010 1:45 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

the wifey dragged me out shopping into JB Harvey's and
I saw one of these new Kwotron hyped thingos.
What a load of bollocks!
Still not as good as my old CRT idiot box
(mind you it was a top-shelf German model)

My immediate thought was that it was nonsense, since the human eye only
has three types of colour receptor. But the low end of the spectrum is
somewhat problematic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_vision#Physiology_of_color_percep...

in that two types of receptor have strongly overlapping responses. Since
the actual responses vary between individuals a screen trying to
synthesise the correct response using just red and green light is going
to have difficulty making it look right to everyone. Adding in a yellow
colour could reduce the problem, even though its intensity would have to
be derived from input signals intended for the red and green emitters.

Whether I'd want to pay good money for possibly marginal improvement is
another question. I can't say I'd noticed an issue with skin tones and
yellows and golds. Maybe my own receptor responses are a good match to
those used in the design of colour displays.

Sylvia.

And to the average person, watching everyday program material.
and probably the overwhelming majority in double blind tests there
isn't going to be any real difference.

One bit that gets me as the further along we go, the worse and worse
the content of programming gets,
the sets get better and cheaper.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 19/09/2010 9:39 PM, kreed wrote:

On Sep 19, 3:54 pm, "Mr.T"<MrT@home> wrote:
"kreed"<kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:79198a9c-09be-48f5-8b85-d562cc6381c9@s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

One bit that gets me as the further along we go, the worse and worse
the content of programming gets, the sets get better and cheaper.

Yep the biggest problem is not the quality of TV sets, it's the "quality" of
broadcasts with so little REAL HD material, and so much HIGHLY compressed,
LOW bit rate garbage. Hell I had to laugh yesterday when flicking to
"Australia's crappest home video's" on HD. Only the host was in HD, and most
of the video's weren't even in widescreen (only watched for a few minutes
though while doing something else anyway)

My wife watched that too, I overheard a bit of it from the other room
where I too was doing something more interesting.
Even the sounds of the program (low IQ crap) put me off.


What a waste of a HiDef channel!
Even the ABC can't be bothered in showing good doco's like "LIFE" in HiDef,
so until my local video library is full of Blu-Ray discs, I can't see any
point in worrying about the quality of the TV.

But some people are even prepared to buy 3D sets with almost NO material
available at all, so each to their own I guess.

MrT.


That tower climbing video would look great in HD, (or Imax ! )

And in 3D!

Sylvia.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 19, 3:54 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"kreed" <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:79198a9c-09be-48f5-8b85-d562cc6381c9@s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

One bit that gets me as the further along we go, the worse and worse
the content of programming gets, the sets get better and cheaper.

Yep the biggest problem is not the quality of TV sets, it's the "quality" of
broadcasts with so little REAL HD material, and so much HIGHLY compressed,
LOW bit rate garbage. Hell I had to laugh yesterday when flicking to
"Australia's crappest home video's" on HD. Only the host was in HD, and most
of the video's weren't even in widescreen (only watched for a few minutes
though while doing something else anyway)

My wife watched that too, I overheard a bit of it from the other room
where I too was doing something more interesting.
Even the sounds of the program (low IQ crap) put me off.


What a waste of a HiDef channel!

Even the ABC can't be bothered in showing good doco's like "LIFE" in HiDef,
so until my local video library is full of Blu-Ray discs, I can't see any
point in worrying about the quality of the TV.

But some people are even prepared to buy 3D sets with almost NO material
available at all, so each to their own I guess.

MrT.

That tower climbing video would look great in HD, (or Imax ! )

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:54:40 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

Yep the biggest problem is not the quality of TV sets, it's the
"quality" of broadcasts with so little REAL HD material, and so much
HIGHLY compressed, LOW bit rate garbage.

You would just love all these "newsproviders" who encourage people to
take pictures and videos with their phonecam and send it in. That will be
real HD.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 20, 12:43 pm, terryc <newsninespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:54:40 +1000, Mr.T wrote:
Yep the biggest problem is not the quality of TV sets, it's the
"quality" of broadcasts with so little REAL HD material, and so much
HIGHLY compressed, LOW bit rate garbage.

You would just love all these "newsproviders" who encourage people to
take pictures and videos with their phonecam and send it in. That will be
real HD.

Yes, broadcast quality to the max

 

[Mr.T]

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7bfa7f0d-3258-4454-a3dc-9cb8f97eb3bd@v6g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Yep the biggest problem is not the quality of TV sets, it's the
"quality" of broadcasts with so little REAL HD material, and so much
HIGHLY compressed, LOW bit rate garbage.

You would just love all these "newsproviders" who encourage people to
take pictures and videos with their phonecam and send it in. That will be
real HD.

}Yes, broadcast quality to the max


Yeah, unfortunately the TV stations only care about making the most money
for the least expenditure.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd7a0201-3194-4978-9850-e34c4a6c7a85@q16g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

That comment made by a TV critic some years back about watching TV
being "like going down a sewer in a glass bottom boat" certainly wasn't an
overstatement

Hadn't heard that one, but I doubt it will ever be outdated unfortunately.

MrT.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 21, 11:00 am, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

"kreed" <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7bfa7f0d-3258-4454-a3dc-9cb8f97eb3bd@v6g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Yep the biggest problem is not the quality of TV sets, it's the
"quality" of broadcasts with so little REAL HD material, and so much
HIGHLY compressed, LOW bit rate garbage.

You would just love all these "newsproviders" who encourage people to
take pictures and videos with their phonecam and send it in. That will be
real HD.
}Yes, broadcast quality to the max

Yeah, unfortunately the TV stations only care about making the most money
for the least expenditure.

MrT.

That is 100% evident in the quality of the programming.

That comment made by a TV critic some years back about watching TV
being
"like going down a sewer in a glass bottom boat" certainly wasn't an
overstatement

 

[Noodnik]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4c980360$0$3033$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7bfa7f0d-3258-4454-a3dc-9cb8f97eb3bd@v6g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Yep the biggest problem is not the quality of TV sets, it's the
"quality" of broadcasts with so little REAL HD material, and so much
HIGHLY compressed, LOW bit rate garbage.

You would just love all these "newsproviders" who encourage people to
take pictures and videos with their phonecam and send it in. That will be
real HD.

}Yes, broadcast quality to the max


Yeah, unfortunately the TV stations only care about making the most money
for the least expenditure.

MrT.

The high quality is not intended for the program material, it's for the

*ads*. I remember an insider from the broadcasting industry telling me that
about FM when it first arrived.

 

[keithr]

On 20/09/2010 12:43 PM, terryc wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:54:40 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

Yep the biggest problem is not the quality of TV sets, it's the
"quality" of broadcasts with so little REAL HD material, and so much
HIGHLY compressed, LOW bit rate garbage.

You would just love all these "newsproviders" who encourage people to
take pictures and videos with their phonecam and send it in. That will be
real HD.

North coast Prime advertise "If you see news happening grab your phone
and send it to us". Now why would I want to send them my phone?

 

[kreed]

On Sep 21, 7:51 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:

On 20/09/2010 12:43 PM, terryc wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:54:40 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

Yep the biggest problem is not the quality of TV sets, it's the
"quality" of broadcasts with so little REAL HD material, and so much
HIGHLY compressed, LOW bit rate garbage.

You would just love all these "newsproviders" who encourage people to
take pictures and videos with their phonecam and send it in. That will be
real HD.

North coast Prime advertise "If you see news happening grab your phone
and send it to us". Now why would I want to send them my phone?

I would reach for my phone and send the content to You Tube/
Facebook.
More people might watch it if its good.

 

[Mr.T]

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a4797b4-6fa4-4971-a9b9-cab4465564f8@u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 7:51 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:

North coast Prime advertise "If you see news happening grab your phone
and send it to us". Now why would I want to send them my phone?

I would reach for my phone and send the content to You Tube/
Facebook.More people might watch it if its good.

IF it's good, you're might get paid by a TV station though. They'll just rip
it off YouTube in any case.

MrT.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/09/2010 1:52 PM, Mr.T wrote:

"kreed"<kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a4797b4-6fa4-4971-a9b9-cab4465564f8@u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 7:51 pm, keithr<ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
North coast Prime advertise "If you see news happening grab your phone
and send it to us". Now why would I want to send them my phone?

I would reach for my phone and send the content to You Tube/
Facebook.More people might watch it if its good.

IF it's good, you're might get paid by a TV station though. They'll just rip
it off YouTube in any case.

Then you sue them for breach of copyright.

Sylvia.

 

[Mr.T]

"Noodnik" <Noodnik@NotHere.com> wrote in message
news:QY-dnbeXbrPu5AXRnZ2dnUVZ8iSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

The high quality is not intended for the program material, it's for the
*ads*.

A total waste of time then since so many people have PVR's and skip the ads
anyway. I know I sure do, I couldn't bear to watch commercial TV otherwise.
Most of my friends do the same. Can't be too many still watching them
surely? I did smile that ad companies are sending ads to the Gruen Transfer,
to get aired on the ABC for nothing, and knowing people will actually be
watching.
Also we are seeing a big increase in product placement during TV shows
instead. Whole programs like Masterchef are completely based on product
placement, and that's ignoring the Morning shows that are *nothing but* ads
from start to finish. Amazed that ANYBODY still watches those. I wonder if
anyone really does?

MrT.

 

[Noodnik]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4c9982b1$0$25362$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Noodnik" <Noodnik@NotHere.com> wrote in message
news:QY-dnbeXbrPu5AXRnZ2dnUVZ8iSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
The high quality is not intended for the program material, it's for the
*ads*.

A total waste of time then since so many people have PVR's and skip the
ads
anyway. I know I sure do, I couldn't bear to watch commercial TV
otherwise.
Most of my friends do the same. Can't be too many still watching them
surely? I did smile that ad companies are sending ads to the Gruen
Transfer,
to get aired on the ABC for nothing, and knowing people will actually be
watching.
Also we are seeing a big increase in product placement during TV shows
instead. Whole programs like Masterchef are completely based on product
placement, and that's ignoring the Morning shows that are *nothing but*
ads
from start to finish. Amazed that ANYBODY still watches those. I wonder if
anyone really does?

MrT.

Good point. I expect that you'd find that the programs with placements, or

based on ads *do* take advantage of the hi-def.

 

[Mr.T]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:8ftdvtFeghU2@mid.individual.net...

North coast Prime advertise "If you see news happening grab your phone
and send it to us". Now why would I want to send them my phone?

I would reach for my phone and send the content to You Tube/
Facebook.More people might watch it if its good.

IF it's good, you're might get paid by a TV station though. They'll just
rip
it off YouTube in any case.

Then you sue them for breach of copyright.

Assuming you have more money for lawyers than they do of course. *Highly*
unlikely, that's why they show so many YouTube clips almost every day. I'll
bet money they don't get broadcast permission from either the uploader, or
YouTube.
I sure wish I had money for lawyers to pursue all the companies who assume
(correctly) that I don't, and act in an unscrupulous manner. Jetstar would
be first on that list!

MrT.