On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:29:28 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:17:30 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

FWIW I've yet got to see a picture as good as our 7 year old B&O as long
as its got a good analogue PAL signal that is!..
--
And where do you find a good analogue PAL signal these days? I'm
direct line-of-sight to Crystal Palace and I don't see pictures as
good as those of 20 years ago.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

Well we receive a very good signal from Sandy Heath in Bedfordshire. In
fact its better now that what it has ever been especially in respect of
background noise and artefacts etc. Its now fed via high rate digital
fibre and encoded to PAL on site and hence the picture when the source
material is good, then the results follow suit.

Does seem a bit sad that it happens like this though I've always
believed in digital transmission if, and only if, the bitrates are high
enough!..

Suprised that you can accurately remember piccys from over 20 years ago
Don. Having said that I remember when the Philips K9 chassis using the
colour difference drive came out, and we were blown away with how good
it all was....

I was in the business, Tony. I could grade an image on the CCIR scale
within about 0.2 - can't any more. But what I remember most clearly
was the super-realistic skin tones, and the full PAL-I resolution
which registered every hair on the head of a close-up. It all just
looks blurred now.

I know that the fault is not digital as such, but the implementation -
meanness with bit rates particularly. The problem is that once the
quality is gone, it is gone for good. All digital STBs seem to use the
same trick of ringing edges to simulate a sharp edge, but it really
does look awful.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com