Maker Pro
Maker Pro

So what's the truth about lead-free solder ?

J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Of COURSE I have digital, foolish person. That is how I am able to comment
on this. I have had analogue satellite since it was first available as DBS,
and I changed over to digital as soon as that became available. I also still
take analogue from the terrestrial transmissions, and carry out repairs to
digital terrestrial STBs as part of my living, so I am able to compare all
standards at all times. I feed signals around my house at UHF, and have
perfectly clean signals at every TV - and there are a lot of them. As far
as HDTV signals go, they just about manage to get back up to the standard of
a *good* analogue transmission. As far as your opinion of my being
inexperienced goes, I have been directly involved with this stuff from the
service angle for 37 years. If that makes me 'inexperienced' in your eyes,
sobeit.

As for beat interference atrifacts from tweed jackets and loud ties, this
has not been much of a problem for years, since people in studios were
dressed properly for the job. Even so, I would still rather see a 'busy' tie
on a newsreader, than motion artifacts - both edge pixelation and motion
blur - any day of the week.

It's all very well saying that compression artifacts are a product of
available bandwidth, but that bandwidth is much limited with terrestrial
digital, if you want to pack in the number of channels that they seem to
want to. This allows for a perfectly satisfactory picture so long as it is
standing still, but does not if the bitrate needs to go up high enough to
prevent motion artifacts. For the most part, however, I would agree with you
that this is not an issue with the satellite transmissions, where the
limiting factor becomes how good a transponder, bit rate-wise, the station
can afford to lease.

Make no mistake, I am not trying here to compare a good digital signal - say
Sky Movies Premiere - with a poor noisy anlogue signal. What I am saying is
that the general public is being 'sold a pup' with the digital terrestrial
channels, where even the best quality transmissions, struggle to produce a
picture subjectively as good as that produced on a *good* analogue TV with a
*good* analogue PAL signal going in.

Arfa

A very interesting posting.
Indeed.
Sure, we must see that the 'aim of the game' is to sell new stuff to the
customers.
In many case 'new' is not 'better', as we see for example with mp3 on
portable players and even being played via HiFi, but then Vinyl was
better then 44100 CD LOL hahahahahaha
Well according to some anyways.
In the same way MPEG2 (or H264) or whatever compression is not a lossless
compression and YES has artefacts, BUT these are (the system is designed
that way) not normally percieved as anying.

The truth for me is that movies I have seen in the past on VHS do not touch
me more then movies I see in HD, or normal digital.

So 37 years, that puts you back to 1970, I started in professional broadcasting
in 1968....
Almost a year after color started here.
I have seen it all, from iconoscope camera upwards...

So, anyways, stuff needs to be sold, the madness started with widescreen,
stretching people so they became really short and fat, and the consumer
bought it...
LOL

And even that still goes on.
In the early color days transmisisons were closely guarded by many specialized capable
engineers with years of experience and training.
Thse days anyone can but a digital camera and produce quality that is better.
Or quality that is worse.

I have my house wired with cat, RJ45 is the connector, no UHF cables here,
except form an antenne in the attick for long range digital terrestial.

I absolutely have to disagree about the quality of HD satellite versus
analog PAL, you must be joking right?

At a resolution of 1980x1080i there is NO WAY analog can compare.
I wanted to show you a screenshot, so I tuned to Astra HD promo,
shows National Geograhics Channel, I have to agree no HD material :)
just flipper in the water etc....

The French had much better high detail demos.....

Of course if you watch 1920x1080 progressive downscaled via UHF on a PAL TV
in the other room it will not be better then than PAL TV's say <6MHz
bandwidth, but I am sure you know that, SAME for settop box on a SCART with
<50MHz bandwidth video amps, you need 200MHz pixel clock at least.

I can only repeat: real HDTV you must see it to believe it, and the conclusion
is that perhaps you only ever watched BBC and astra flipper stuff without
any details.
 
S

Spurious Response

Jan 1, 1970
0
You're an idiot.

Every large passenger jet has a fuel tank *between the wings*. Boeing call it the CWT (centre
wing tank). It was the CWT that exploded on TWA800.


That part landed in the water, idiot. I am talking about the show, so
don't go getting confused, cockroach. I know how easy it is for you to
forget how to grasp what you read.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled > 40000 km.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Aha ! So you are comparing wide bandwidth high bit rate satellite
transmissions, displayed on your high res PC screen, with an analogue PAL
signal. That is not quite the same as a low bit rate highly compressed
digital terrestrial transmission, displayed on an ordinary household TV set.


That makes no sense, terrestial digital, here where I am, uses the SAME bandwith
as satellite.
An HOW can you compare the 2 things if you watch both on the same set?
Of course it will be worse, now you have the problems of BOTH, minus
the advantages of digital.
As I stated before: Buy a good digital setup.
 
S

Spurious Response

Jan 1, 1970
0
Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled > 40000 km.


The best purchase you can make for examining such things:

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Video...-7431936?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1185003634&sr=1-12

http://www.videoessentials.com/

I cannot do a capture from the HD DVD output, but I'd bet that even my
Std DVD (it's a combo disc) side would look quite good coming though the
computer, and I could post it in a.b.s.e.

This oughtta be good... ;-]
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Thank you, that's helpful.

I still think it might not be for grandmothers, e.g. explaining why you
can't just unplug it when you're finished watching, etc. It would take me
a day of driving to go and replace a failed HDD, and whilst the local TV
shop can happily repair the analogue TV set, they might not be so hot on
reinstalling perl scripts. At least the start-up time would not be
unfamiliar, it would a reminder of waiting for the valves to warm up in the
set before the present one (which was still working when it was scrapped,
but it was 405 lines and B/W).

Chris

Well, OK, may I suggest Seagate HDs, I have one up 24/7 now for 6 years.
Other shorter, but no failures so far, other makes have long ago failed.
Yes PC boot up is slow, but having the PC allows one to also easily
check the program schedules, read background info on programs, use
VOIP, watch YouTube, post to Usenet etc.. something your granny would
love to do I am sure.
I would not trust anything to a repair shop....
LOL
I know repair shops.
;-)
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled > 40000 km.


The best purchase you can make for examining such things:

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Video...104-9196872-7431936?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1185003
634&sr=1-12

http://www.videoessentials.com/

I cannot do a capture from the HD DVD output, but I'd bet that even my
Std DVD (it's a combo disc) side would look quite good coming though the
computer, and I could post it in a.b.s.e.

This oughtta be good... ;-]

If you want to test the monitor, Nokia monitor test is really nice:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Video/Other-VIDEO-Tools/Nokia-Monitor-Test.shtml
Good for CRT monitors, but also reveals a lot about LCD.
 
S

Spurious Response

Jan 1, 1970
0
On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:41:12 +0100) it happened Chris Jones
<blind_mouse>wrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled > 40000 km.


The best purchase you can make for examining such things:

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Video...104-9196872-7431936?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1185003
634&sr=1-12

http://www.videoessentials.com/

I cannot do a capture from the HD DVD output, but I'd bet that even my
Std DVD (it's a combo disc) side would look quite good coming though the
computer, and I could post it in a.b.s.e.

This oughtta be good... ;-]

If you want to test the monitor, Nokia monitor test is really nice:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Video/Other-VIDEO-Tools/Nokia-Monitor-Test.shtml
Good for CRT monitors, but also reveals a lot about LCD.


Very NICE!

Flawless even. Thanks!
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled > 40000 km.

Actually there is something wrong in that testcard due to 16:10 aspect
translation, here is the one from a normal 4:3 screen:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard.png

This one is 1:1 pixel for pixel as it is received, the previous one
was rescaled to 767x576, this one is as it comes in here in 720x576 PAL.
Now that is a lot better!
 
L

Lamey The Cable guy

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nice try, Lamey.

**** off.


< snicker >

--
Join irc.exilenet.org
#southpark_radio

Usenet lits score:

GIT-R-DONE!
alt.usenet.legends.lamey
http://blu05.port5.com
AUK Offishal Tinfoil Sombrero award 05/07
#20 Usenet asshole
#6 Lits Slut
#9 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
<approved by Lionel>
#11 Most posting trolls/hunters/flonkers 2007
#1 Disenfranchised AUK Kookologist.
#1 AUK Galactic Killfile Award
< we all know how well that works...LOL >
#33 on Teh Buzzard lits o lub.
#4 miguel's pest list, rev 1.1:
Co-inventer of the "Prongtard Yap-Dog Award"

<working on one of them specheel AUK awards>
http://www.dino-soft.org/microsoft/security/updates/doitBST.html
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
A very interesting posting.
Indeed.
Sure, we must see that the 'aim of the game' is to sell new stuff to the
customers.
In many case 'new' is not 'better', as we see for example with mp3 on
portable players and even being played via HiFi, but then Vinyl was
better then 44100 CD LOL hahahahahaha
Well according to some anyways.
In the same way MPEG2 (or H264) or whatever compression is not a lossless
compression and YES has artefacts, BUT these are (the system is designed
that way) not normally percieved as anying.

The truth for me is that movies I have seen in the past on VHS do not
touch
me more then movies I see in HD, or normal digital.

So 37 years, that puts you back to 1970, I started in professional
broadcasting
in 1968....
Almost a year after color started here.
I have seen it all, from iconoscope camera upwards...

So, anyways, stuff needs to be sold, the madness started with widescreen,
stretching people so they became really short and fat, and the consumer
bought it...
LOL

And even that still goes on.
In the early color days transmisisons were closely guarded by many
specialized capable
engineers with years of experience and training.
Thse days anyone can but a digital camera and produce quality that is
better.
Or quality that is worse.

I have my house wired with cat, RJ45 is the connector, no UHF cables here,
except form an antenne in the attick for long range digital terrestial.

I absolutely have to disagree about the quality of HD satellite versus
analog PAL, you must be joking right?

At a resolution of 1980x1080i there is NO WAY analog can compare.
I wanted to show you a screenshot, so I tuned to Astra HD promo,
shows National Geograhics Channel, I have to agree no HD material :)
just flipper in the water etc....

The French had much better high detail demos.....

Of course if you watch 1920x1080 progressive downscaled via UHF on a PAL
TV
in the other room it will not be better then than PAL TV's say <6MHz
bandwidth, but I am sure you know that, SAME for settop box on a SCART
with
<50MHz bandwidth video amps, you need 200MHz pixel clock at least.

I can only repeat: real HDTV you must see it to believe it, and the
conclusion
is that perhaps you only ever watched BBC and astra flipper stuff without
any details.
Well, I have a friend who runs a large Sky installation company, and he has
the latest dog's bollocks HD Sky box, and the latest dog's bollocks Sony all
singing and dancing LCD widescreen TV and home cinema system, all hooked
together HDMI, and when he showed me it on a Sky HD demo (and presumably Sky
have hand picked this content to be the best available, unless the Frogs
know something that they don't) I have to say that I was a little
disappointed. Yes, when you get right up to the screen, you can see the
hairs on the bee's legs - very impressive - but when you sit far enough back
for the viewing of that size of TV to be 'comfortable', the resolution of
your eyes is not good enough to pick out that level of detail anyway.

I would have to be stupid to maintain that on paper at least, the digital
satellite broadcasts in HD are not better than analogue PAL transmissions,
but subjectively, as I have been maintaining from the start, on a good
analogue TV with a good analogue signal going in, there is not a lot to
choose, and unless you are talking top-notch digital as in satellite HD, in
many cases, I still maintain that subjectively (there's that word again...)
the PAL analogue solution wins out over the average digital one. There are
also, of course, undeniable advantages to digital TV, but I really don't
think at this stage, that picture quality is one of them.

Of course, the artifacts placed on the picture by the digital display device
only serve to exacerbate the situation, but that's another story ...

Arfa
 
A

Arfa Daily

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
That makes no sense, terrestial digital, here where I am, uses the SAME
bandwith
as satellite.
An HOW can you compare the 2 things if you watch both on the same set?
Of course it will be worse, now you have the problems of BOTH, minus
the advantages of digital.
As I stated before: Buy a good digital setup.

See my response ref my friend's 'good digital setup'

Arfa
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well, I have a friend who runs a large Sky installation company, and he has
the latest dog's bollocks HD Sky box, and the latest dog's bollocks Sony all
singing and dancing LCD widescreen TV and home cinema system, all hooked
together HDMI, and when he showed me it on a Sky HD demo (and presumably Sky
have hand picked this content to be the best available, unless the Frogs
know something that they don't) I have to say that I was a little
disappointed. Yes, when you get right up to the screen, you can see the
hairs on the bee's legs - very impressive - but when you sit far enough back
for the viewing of that size of TV to be 'comfortable', the resolution of
your eyes is not good enough to pick out that level of detail anyway.

I would have to be stupid to maintain that on paper at least, the digital
satellite broadcasts in HD are not better than analogue PAL transmissions,
but subjectively, as I have been maintaining from the start, on a good
analogue TV with a good analogue signal going in, there is not a lot to
choose, and unless you are talking top-notch digital as in satellite HD, in
many cases, I still maintain that subjectively (there's that word again...)
the PAL analogue solution wins out over the average digital one. There are
also, of course, undeniable advantages to digital TV, but I really don't
think at this stage, that picture quality is one of them.

Of course, the artifacts placed on the picture by the digital display device
only serve to exacerbate the situation, but that's another story ...

Arfa

OK, that is a good argument, how far away you are from the screen.
I am getting old and near-sighted, I need glasses to see small detail
close up, so that does require me to sit close in front of a big monitor with
glasses, or get a projection screen of huge size..... without glasses.
I am close to the monitor, close to the TV.
I can still see pixels on the 1680x1050 screen, so I am not too worried.
Finally managed to grap some sort of HD content from SkyPromo:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/00000300.ppm

1920x1088 Now how about PAL composite ;-)

This is how I grabbed it in Linux:
xdipo -c 1 -g '10.5 E' -f 12610.5 -p v -s 22000 -a 133 134 -o > q1.ts

The 10.5 replace it where you see the satellite,
the recording is transport stream q1.ts
I wrote xdipo.


Then I let it run for a few seconds, and converted all frames to pnm
pictures with the magic command:
mplayer -vo pnm q1.ts
This generated
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6266897 2007-07-27 16:50 00000001.ppm
.....
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6266897 2007-07-27 16:50 00000300.ppm
.......

300 had at least some detail.

Now you need a 1980x10808 monitor.....

More then 6MB for a screenshot.... :)
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Arfa said:
the whole trick is just to suspend your belief in science and reality

Exactly.... it's dumbing down.

No surprise were're breeding a generation of idiots.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Arfa said:
I seem to think that Patrick McGoohan was executive producer or some such,
and the concept was born out of his earlier black and white show "Danger Man
". I remember seeing an interview with him ( which was rare as he didn't do
interviews about the show normally ) on a programme that examined the whole
series, and he was asked about the final two parter "Fallout" I think it's
called. He said that by that time, the whole story thread had gone out of
the window, and they literally had no clue as to how to end it, or even
really what exactly it had been about in the first place. It had basically
just got swept along with the hype and its popularity, until it became a
living thing just existing to keep the fans happy. It was a brave decision
to end it in the way that they did, and it probably let a lot of fans down.
I love Lost to bits - except when it's going through one of its frustrating
patches - but I think that there may be rather more parallels with The
Prisoner than are at first apparent, and that Lost might be heading down the
same road ...

Can you remind me how The Prisoner ended ?

If you haven't been to Portmeirion you should btw. It's a lovely place. It's the
ultimate 'folly'.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
none said:
Eeyore wrote

It's that moron DarkMatter.

Massive Prong and many more....

He's nymshifted again to avoid bozo bins.

Yes, I was aware of that but he had almost been behaving himself until this recent outburst.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan said:
I absolutely have to disagree about the quality of HD satellite versus
analog PAL, you must be joking right?

Most posters seemed to be comparing the 'normal' signal that's readily available to us via
terrestrial broadcast, cable or satellite. Certainly not any HD ones.


Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Spurious said:
That part landed in the water, idiot. I am talking about the show, so
don't go getting confused, cockroach. I know how easy it is for you to
forget how to grasp what you read.

Obfuscation noted.

So you accept that not all the fuel is stored in the wings or not ?

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan said:
Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled > 40000 km.

Have you considered a brain transplant ?

A stationary picture is no way to evaluate the quality of a compressed signal.
It eliminites the most offensive aspect of compression, motion artifacts.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan said:
Well, OK, may I suggest Seagate HDs, I have one up 24/7 now for 6 years.

And I had two of their top flight Barracuda series ( SCSI server types ) die in
under a month each.

Graham
 
Top