Display Technology

I for one have a lot of reading I'd like to catch up on.

I'm in an area of rather poor reception, and my (very cheap) set-top box for the old television in the kitchen works just as well for digital as the new (and ridiculously expensive) multistandard television. However, in both cases the start-up time is excessive (longer than the warm-up time of the old valve televisions - for those old enough to remember), and the time to switch channels is unprecedented (that may be a good thing depending on your perspective). As for making good use of the incoming data that tells you what programmes are available, the manufacturers could take lessons from the arrangements that were used for teletext (which were not themselves brilliant).

The other limitation seems to be that digital broadcasters often don't do too well with lip-synch - but I suppose we should already be used to that, as equally poor systems have sometimes been used pre-transmission.

It is reported that the new president is pushing to have the switchover date pushed out once again: because too many TV owners are not prepared, and because broadcasters are also not sufficently prepared. Such a delay would also be beneficial if it results in better thought out converson boxes; the ones available now leave much to be desired.

IVE BEEN USING AN LG DIGITAL BOX FOR TWO YEARS NOW AND SOMETIMES ITS BETTER BUT ALOT OF TIMES IT JUST WONT GET a particular chanal i havent seen a show on ABC for two years it was nice having extra channels till THEY KILLED THE "TUBE" ( It was a music channel like mtv in its early days ie; they played vidi's) the technology was suposed to be better but the suns mini cycle of solar flares lasted/is lasting twenty years more that was antisipated so its fuzzy time for every one on the blue ball.

We are having a going-away party for analog tv on the conversion date complete with flaming funeral raft every one should join in the celebration/mourning.

I couldn't be more impressed with the digital conversion. Channels come in from city's nearly 100 miles away crystal clear. Prior we could only get local stations ~30-50 miles away. This not only has tripled the number of stations, but the ones we got before are always clear. I also have satellite, if I start watching broadcasts more, I might drop the subscription.

BTW: We're running a huge rooftop antenna on a 10ft mast. Not some tiny indoor rabbit ear setup.

I can think of ~ 8000 things to do before watching....nothing.

Ahh yes, the great conundrum between digital and analog signals. I love it when earlier posts already make my point.

The disadvantage of digital over analog is that people can willingly watch a noisy, ghosted analog TV signal and still comprehend the information being sent. Grey matter processors are so much more adaptive than silicon. With a digital transmission, silicon decides what is a sound one and a sound zero. A possible one or zero becomes no signal at all. When it works digital is a clearer cleaner picture than analog. But a dirty analog signal still looks like something while a digital signal looks like nothing.

Hi, here in Denmark the analog terrestrial signal is taken out 1. october 2009. I dont like the digital signals, because of the non-eye-friendly pixelation, large drop-outs, and limited colours. A little less sharp edged picture is much more acceptable along with a continous flow of pictures, you can rely on. I get a little stressed, whenever there is a drop-out, or the picture freeze for a second or two, and that makes me stop looking and do something useful instead. I have seen HD pictures on flatscreens in the stores, and when the camera is still, it looks like a very nice painting, sharp with good colours etc. But when the camera has to follow something, there is a little noise or fluff where the edges in the picture are, and that is tiring to look at. Also fast crawltext is impossible to see. I still have my old cathoderaytube, where none of these problems are, but it uses a little to much power, and its too big behind. I cant understand, why we have to settle with this poor picture quality? I used to adjust tube-projectors for rental(Barco, Sony), which had very nice colours, but of course there were no light in them, and they were heavy, expensive, powerconsuming and had to be adjusted all the time, so they had no future. I can see the digital picture has a future, but I think the compression-standards has to be better, so we all can enjoy bright, sharp MOVING pictures without the downsides mentioned earlier.

moe

former AV-technician

The pixelation and drops-out are a real turn-off - but that probably just means that you need to do something about your antenna.

However, as regards the problems with moving pictures, I too found this unacceptable with early receivers. But this can largely be overcome with improved post-procesing in your set. Try comparing the pictures on different sets in your local retailer - your local manufacturer (B&O?) should have caught up by now

Let's all be honest and accurate here. Digital did not kill the analog TV signal. The FCC mandate to switch to digital has killed the analog TV signal. The analog video transmission technique has had decades of evolution to improve signal quality to the point it is today as the plug is pulled.

IMHO the only advantage I see of digital transmission is that less bandwidth is required with DTV for the same amount of information. Thus permitting more sub-par programing delivered to less waning masses, if the same carrier frequencies were used. Unfortunately for DTV, the carrier frequencies ideal for clean terrestrial transmission (Analog TV channels) will not be the frequencies made available for DTV. DTV will still be slated to the marginal frequencies that they are transmitting now. When the analog frequency signals fade next month, the bands will be auctioned off to some company for future wireless application, oh and supposedly to permit better emergency services communication.

As far as the claim for higher quality images of still pictures, TV is supposed to be a moving picture medium. Who cares about static images. This is like building a dune buggy to travel across the Amazon. Besides, I and I suspect most people don't get fascinated by the image quality of a television show. I watch a show for the writting.

Of course not! Here's why. When radio broadcasts went digital, the stations touted "CD Quality". Nonsense! It would be fitting for them to call it what it really is "MP3 Quality". OK now, So, what is the bit rate? It depends on how many HD channels the broadcast contains. I have a HD receiver that will play MP3's but, I still play the original CD's because the bandwidth is much greater and the dynamic range far superior. OK, what does this have to do with digital broadcast TV? I am not up to speed on this technology but I expect that there will be a disparity between "Digital TV" and the actual signal information content here as well. Don't get me wrong - HD radio is far superior to analog but a disappointment as well. More content, more revenue: So, what else is new?