RE: FW: [dvduk] New Sky boxes (DVDUK : OT)

["Phil Harris" <phillip.harris1@xxxxxxx>]

*grin* Just thank God you didn't get me started on SCART connectors
themselves!

Hatefull things...

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Doxey [mailto:ukha@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 12 June 2001 22:01
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] FW: [dvduk] New Sky boxes (DVDUK : OT)
>
>
> Thats what annoys me about the way they are selling Digital to the
Great
> Unwashed.
>
> They say that Digital TV will do for TV what the CD did for Music. It
will
> if they implement it in the same way but they arent. What they
> are offering
> is something like 192K/128K MP3 and reserving the right to drop
> the bitrate
> for "selected" channels.
>
> Just like CD compared to FM radio, there will be no wierd and
wonderful
> wavey lines or crackles as there are on Terrestrial TV, but at least
with
> analogue you can still make something out from the
snow/lines/whatever.
> Digital either works or it doesnt. It has a sort of partway stage when
> everything gets huge great pixels on the screen but IMO that isnt a
good
> picture :-(
>
> Digitised TV straight out of the camera requires about 216Mbit. It can
be
> compressed down to 34Mbit with no ill effects. At 8Mbit you are
> hard pressed
> to spot the difference on most material, but they are taking it as low
as
> 2Mbit :-(
>
> To achieve that level of compression quality suffers and so does error
> correction. When a mistake occurs it takes much longer to rebuild the
> picture.
>
> The more choice promised by Digital doesnt seem to mean more programme
> choice but greater choice of where and when to watch it. Do you want
to
> watch Neighbours, Eastenders, Corrie, Home & Away on Living, UK
Gold,
> UKGold2, BBC1, BBC Choice etc.
>
> I still find times when there is absolutely nothing I want on ;-(
>
> <RANT MODE>
> And like you I object to them putting up the price for more channels
when
> you can only watch one. I probably only ever look at 10 anyway.
>
> I would prefer the option of being able to buy individual channels at
50p
> per month as an alternative to having 100 channels forced on me
> for £30 per
> month just because I want one that is only in the top package. They
could
> also then implement Pay Per View for what IMHO it was intended
> for....Occasional Viewing. Something on a channel I dont normally
receive,
> "no problem Sir", press the button and we will charge you
75p to watch it
> for the day. If I find I like that channel I can add it and they get
an
> extra 50p every month.
> </RANT MODE>
>
> Keith
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Phil Harris [mailto:phillip.harris1@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 12 June 2001 20:28
> > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] FW: [dvduk] New Sky boxes (DVDUK : OT)
> >
> >
> >
> > No Keith ... you must be mistaken.
> >
> > I distinctly heard Chris Smith on the radio on my way into work a
> > couple of
> > months ago and he was saying just what an opportunity digital TV
> > was for the
> > British public and how much better everyones picture quality
> and reception
> > was going to be.
> >
> > Are you telling me what he said wasn't right?
> >
> > Hmmm ... I guess there must be some reason why our new digital
> system was
> > designed from the ground up to *EXCLUDE* all those horrible
> American ideas
> > such as "High Definition" and extendability ... pah ...
who'd
> > want something
> > like that eh? I mean whatever next? They'll be wanting to go from
> > 405 lines
> > to 625 soon and then I bet you those decadent pussies will want
to add
> > colour too! I know ... lets scupper their plans ... let's
> design a system
> > that's pretty much obsolete from the start and then force
> everyone into it
> > by selling the analogue waveband.
> >
> > Oh ... those "free" boxes to watch free to air
broadcasts ...
> yes, they're
> > free as long as you pay a subscription. Yes, I know it's not
> > quite free but
> > it's nearly free isn't it? Oh yes ... you still have to pay your
> > TV licence
> > ... the actual definition of what it's for is getting pretty
> fuzzy now but
> > we still want you to pay it. Oh yes sir ... you can get your free
box
> > without paying a subscription ... that'll be £400 sir.
> >
> > Sir?
> >
> > Sir!...
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Keith Doxey [mailto:ukha@xxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: 12 June 2001 20:16
> > > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] FW: [dvduk] New Sky boxes (DVDUK : OT)
> > >
> > >
> > > Have you noticed the artifacts creaping into some of the SKY
channels
> > > recently as they cram more channels on the same number of
transponders
> > > thereby reducing the bit rate.
> > >
> > > I was watching Discovery the other night and a truck crossed
> a bridge in
> > > about 5 or 6 noticable steps rather than smooth movement.
Have
> > > also seen the
> > > picture refreshing on other channels particularly when there
is a
> > > chop shot
> > > from one camera to another.
> > >
> > > Maybe they hope that Composite especially over UHF will mask
> > some of this.
> > >
> > > Keith
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Phil Harris [mailto:phillip.harris1@xxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: 12 June 2001 20:10
> > > > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] FW: [dvduk] New Sky boxes (DVDUK
: OT)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Well, gee, S-video is a US standard, here we use
SCART. its
> > > > only recently
> > > > > that sets have started to come with NTSC
capability, and S-video.
> > > >
> > > > Is S-Video a "US" standard? I seem to think
it's been around
> > for a long
> > > > time. I have a couple of older TV sets that have
s-video
> > capability but
> > > > don't have a hope of displaying NTSC.
> > > >
> > > > S-Video and SCART are completely different things
though -
> > S-Video, like
> > > > composite and RGB is a standard for the transmission of
video
> > > > signals. SCART
> > > > is a connector, just like mini-DIN and phono.
> > > >
> > > > I think that the ommission of S-Video as an output
format from a
> > > > $ky box is
> > > > almost as stupid as the ommission of an SPDIF output
from the
> > > spec too (I
> > > > believe that Nokia did include an SPDIF output but
that's about
> > > it) for an
> > > > emerging digital format to exclude a commonly available
video
> > > format (and
> > > > the best quality routeable format for most of us) and
any
> > form of multi
> > > > channel audio is frightening.
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ____________________________________
> > > > Automated Home UK
> > > > http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> > > > ____________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________
> > Automated Home UK
> > http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> > ____________________________________
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________
> Automated Home UK
> http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> ____________________________________
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>




____________________________________
Automated Home UK
http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
____________________________________

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





____________________________________
Automated Home UK
http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
____________________________________

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/