Digital TV: Why do we have to have it?

[Phil Allison]

"Terry Collins"

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.

That one died along time ago ...

** Moooooooooo.




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

 

[bruce varley]

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]

"dewatf"



** 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"

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]

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]

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]

"TheMan" = TheFuckwit



** 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]

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]

"dewatf"



** Crap - good STBs cost around $100.

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

Cheap STBs cost that much. GOOD ones cost more.

 

[Denz]

"Denz"
"Phil Allison"



** 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

** 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.

** 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 ?)

 

[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"

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

Cheap STBs cost that much. GOOD ones cost more.

** So you got ripped off - eh ??




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

 

[Ian Galbraith]

"Chasing Kate"

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"

Dick Smith has a generic DSE for $138,

** That is a very good one.

really anything to be gained by digital tv.
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 !!

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]

[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]

 

[Phil Allison]

"Michael A. Terrell" = a Yank

All TV transmitters are analog.

** In fairness - KLR never suggested otherwise.

Existing TV transmitters
are being retrofitted for digital TV in some places.

** Some Aussie sites are using 5 kW transmitters for the DTV signal or even
a standby transmitter.

he situation here is still in a state of change.

The reason most
stations are buying a new transmitter is twofold: One, they don't want
to drop their analog service right away, and they can write off the cost
the new transmitter on their taxes during the forced upgrades.

** In Aussie - networks are forced by law to have both at present but only
DTV will continue in 2008.

IIRC, they are now allowed to use up to a 50 kW transmitter for the
combined SD and HD signals.


( snip interesting plumbing info ..... )



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

 

[Who_tat_me]

Well thats meant to be the MAIN benefit.

No it isn't. There is no single 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??

PAL isn't being phased out. Analogue is being phased out and it isn't by
2010. It's at least 2014 in some areas.

 

[Who_tat_me]

"Who_tat_me"
"Phil Allison"




** So you got ripped off - eh ??

************************************************ No, haven't got one. I
don't see any point in getting one because I get excellent FTA reception but
I prefer to watch Foxtel.

Cheap STBs are $80-$150
Good STBs cost at least $200

Prove otherwise

 

[Phil Allison]

"Who_tat_me"
"Phil Allison"

I, haven't got one. I don't see any point in getting one because I get
excellent FTA reception but I prefer to watch Foxtel.

Cheap STBs are $80-$150
Good STBs cost at least $200

Prove otherwise

** The cheaper ones are still good ones - you seem to have simply assumed
they are not.

A big mistake when the Chinese are now killing prices on all such
electronics.




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

 

[Dean Collins]

IPTV is already being delivered in a number of worldwide trials.

Telstra (not foxtel) will be rolling out their own version of this later
this year (VOD for movies - not true iptv).

Cheers,
Dean