VOTE:no to digital.

[kevlar69]

I'd like to add something else to this debate, 100hz flicker free ( but lego like ) picture quality from most widescreen tv's. I hate the picture quality on most of these sets. The picture looks very much to me like a poor quality digital broadcast, where the bitrate is too low. I agree with this post, I have ntl digital, and while some channels are fine, quite a few are not, with that hazy, blocky look whenever there is too much detail/ movement onscreen. Anybody who can't see this must be blind!. Just try flicking back and forth between itv ( terestrial ) & itv digital on NTL, if you can't see the blocking then you probably think VCD is as good as DVD!

Kevlar69

[Akai Rounin]

Quality, Quantity and Compromise

I read some, and skimmed the rest. Basically, what I want and would prefer, is indeed QUALITY over QUANTITY. There are only a handful of cable channels I watch regularly (SciFi, TechTV, ESPN, CNN, HISTORY...), a few more that I visit infrequently (AMC, TMC, TNN, HBO...) and a few other so-called "broadcast" stations (UPN, FOX, WB, ABC, CBS...) that I might peak at from time to time. Rather than having 500 channels of PPV crap, Home Shopping crap and Infomercial crap, I'd prefer to have maybe 30 channels of non-commercialized high quality viewing for a singular flat rate per month or year.

The problem is that the current digital standards have been compromised to the brink of hell for the sake of piracy concerns. I have not been impressed by the so-called digital display options for television. I am also not impressed by the so-called digital delivery options for television. Finally I am not impressed with the result seen from DVD either.

'Good Enough', just isn't good enough anymore. The only real advantage that so-called High Definition television sets seem to have over basic NTSC is the ability to do progressive scan displays. OK, so you take away interlacing just to give me the same display quality of a 1984 Commodore 1080 monitor? Wow. Thanks.

Don't get me wrong now, the C-1080 was wonderful for its time. That time is long past. Howzabout someone deliver a display standard that can refresh the screen at 120 Hz or better? Why not make the move from ye olde 1.5 mm dot pitch to around .19 instead? Why can't a $5000 television set have the same display quality as a $200 computer monitor?

Digital is the way of the future. Maybe so, but hopefully not in the way that it has been delivered thus far. The technology exists to deliver a far better experience than what we have. But politicians have caved in to local broadcasters, who claim the better equipment is too expensive. Meanwhile, those LBs rake in cash hand over fist from cable companies, who are compelled by law to both: a) carry the local signals; and b) pay for the priviledge.

If you have an FCC license to broadcast television and only generate 2 full watts of broadcasting power, the local cable station MUST pay you to carry your signal. This is more than profitable for LBs, they don't even need advertising revenue, but take that anyway. No matter how crappy their programming or ratings are, they will still get paid. So they have no incentive whatsoever to spend money to upgrade their broadcasting facilities to the best modern technology.

The FCC only parcels out tiny slices of bandwidth at a time, they already gave the biggest portions to traditional analog broadcasters long ago. So cable companies who are trying to make money divide their own bandwidth into ever smaller slices as well resulting in diminished quality across the board. Plus, the cable companies are now owned by 'content providers' who only want the product delivered in a form that is readily viewable, but cannot be copied effectively. They want to protect their ability to sell off-the-shelf commodities.

People love DVD video because it has so many pixels per frame. Whatsit, 640x480, 704x480 or something like that? Yeah, this is twice the horizontal and vertical resolution of VHS, which was largely viewed on interlaced NTSC television. Sure, DVD looks a lot better than that seen on a progressive display HDTV. Big deal - it's still only 30 fps. Shouldn't there be a 60 fps version of digital home video by now, coupled with a 120 Hz display? Last I looked, even 720x480 hasn't been considered 'high resolution' for several years in the computer market. Why should it be any different for television?

When a display and digital delivery media is able to provide a 160 cm x 90 cm (16:9) display with 40000x22500 pixels at 60 fps, 120 Hz or better, then I'll consider it 'High Definition'. Until then, all of this is mere compromise.

Unta Glebin Gloutin Globin,

Akai Rounin, The Cyber Sage

[shochan]

I would have to say that I am rather lucky when it comes to digital cable. I really dont have any bad channels at all, only the analog ones (shitty analog service). I have noticed a few macroblocks on the channels that dont matter, like hgtv or crap like that.

I am really satisified with my service, and in just a few months im getting a FREE hdtv cable box that also has Video On Demand (VOD). It's an hbo channel and you can choose any movie or show that they have in their weekley updated list and watch it. and like a pvr you can pause and fastforward and rewind. With new additions like this why would you bitch about digital cable. Don't bitch about the technology bitch about the service.

[jeex]

another thing you may notice when the ad's for satellite tv come on.. like they always mention "100% digital quality picture"... well well well.. this sounds good, but i can give you a real media video encoded at 16kpbs, and it is "100% digital quality picture", horrible quality.. you ******* guy! you try to confuse..

[SatStorm]

First of all, sky digital sucks for quality. The resolution of 544 X 576 @ 3000 average bitrate ain't enough for a desent dvb transmission! Don't blame DVB transmissions because Murdock provide you with a crap in quality service... Blame him!
In a way, the sky digitals channels are equal to bad-made SVCDs!

Then, those digiboxes you are using: They are comparable with the cheapest DVD standalones out there. They suck in ANY term. Only Sony with sky plus models and panasonic in generall done some good work with their receivers on the decoding part. All others suck! Pace, Grudig, Amstrad, etc... The cheapest mpeg decoders included!

If you can, try this: There are couple of FTA channels on Astra 2A/2B/2D. One of them is Boomerang, with cartoons. So, you can recieve this channel with ANY DVB reciever (did you know that? Supposed not). Search in your area if someone owns a Nokia 9800s Mediamaster reciever. Foreigners usually do. It is the BEST DVB reciever for Picture quality (it full sucks for anything else, but that is another point). Now compare the picture of Boomerang channel from ANY Digibox and this specific reviever. It is like day and night.
My point: An extra reason the quality of Sky digital sucks, is because the picture quality of Digiboxes sucks. Digiboxes use low end mpeg decoders!

About ITV: They don't have money for nothing... So, their transmissions are 352 X 576 and for some channels 352 X 288 (!!!) Bitrate never goes beyond 1700kb/sec! So, how you expect quality from them?

Finally, there are also those re-transmissions: Granda channels, UK TV channels and some other cable ones, like SciFi for example, are Re-transmissions. A DVB re-transmission is like re-encoding if the channel ain't SCPC.... You loose quality wanted or not...

If you want to see what DVB transmissions are capable for, go a "satellite" visit to the eurozone
Almost ALL european services are amazing in quality. Germany's Premiere World, Italy's Tele+, France's CSN are excellent examples of DVB QUALITY!

If you gonna say "I don't care, I live in UK", it's ok. But don't blame DVB transmissions for the quality. Blame your local market in general.

Just for your information, Sky digital, the two Greek satellite services (Nova and ADS), the italian local channels (not the big ones like Berlusconi's, or RAI) and the asian/arabian channels are the worst quality DVB transmissions ever! They are typical examples of bad digital technology.
From the other hand, the Germans and the scandinavians are amazing in this area! German channels like RTL, VOX, ARD, ZDF, Pro 7 (with AC3 sound!!!!!) are HI END DVB/s transmissions. For many people, the quality of picture at those channels are BETTER a DVD Video. Imagine: 720 X 576 PAL @ min 2500, aver 5000, max 15000 (!) Need to say more?

[Dave B]

I'm in the UK and have got cable digital (via Telewest) and on the whole I am pretty happy with it. Initially my cable box kept crashing but a firmware patch was rolled out (via the network) and it all now seems to be stable.

I agree that many of the channels seem to be bitrate starved and fall apart with most panning/fading scenes. However I can't believe that the picture quality is being compared to the analog signals we all grew up with - who EVER got a good picture with an old analog ariel? The signal was either blocked by a tree or a building or playing host to a nest of bloody sparrows. Dodgy RF plugs and 75ohm coaxial cable runs around the house certainly don't help matters either.

We still use the terrestrial analog signal for BBC1 -> CH4 (to watch a different channel upstairs) and the digital version is FAR superior. And whilst the digital services are still in their infancy, widescreen broadcasts and on-line TV guides are very welcome additions.

[SatStorm]

Well, I own a 1.80 X 1.96 Satellite dish (and another one smaller: 175 X 185...). I have both digital and analogue reception.
Digital channels ain't better analogue ones. And that happens because analogue channels are not compressed as digital ones...
The problem is that today, the few analogue channels left in europe, are re-transmitting the digital feeds. BBC for example, use the digital TPs from Astra 2A for feed the terestial analogue transmissions.
UK, wants to end any analogue transmissions till 2006. They know that there people not intent to follow this, for many reasons. So, they force them, by given them low quality analogue service. It is a marketing trick

The best ever television transmissions, was the D2 Mac system. Amazing analogue pictrure with digital sound (was a hybrid system). They still be used for scandinavians and the quality are WAY better any Dvb transmission. They do have a problem also: Those channels need perfect reception. That is the main reason they don't became mainstream. In UK you gonna need 1 meter dishes to receive them, and the law there said only 90cm and only if you get a licence from somekind of ministry.. You don't need licence for dishes 60cm, that's why everyone use them.
If I remember correct, BskyB ones used D2Mac... 12 years ago..

[baker]

NEWS FLASH! QUAILTY UPDATE!!!

The irish channels have just started broadcasting on sky and guess what?? THE QUAILTY IS ******* FABOULOUS!!!

I have been watching them all night! I would actually watch them insted of another channel due to the great quailty!

So whats happening then????:
Well my best guess is that since I live in Ireland the signal that I am getting is an original one and not being re-encded thus looking brilliant!

Every chanel we get in Ireland is re-encded:
SKY ONE
SCI-FI
PARAMOUNT (A LOT!!)
ETC....

So whats my soloution then??
get the most recent picture possible!!!

How I am going to do this is unknown but idea so far are:

well for sky one i can tune another one in manually anyway

Thats it!

Has anybody got another idea?!?!?!?!?

I also just want to say to the guy who said that the digiboxes are crap:
No offence you obvisouly know alot about ds but why do these original pictures look so good then? I am blaming the encdoers not the decoders.

Also to satstorm:
Why isn't possible just to redirect the original mpeg signal insted of reencoding???

Baker

[SatStorm]

I was the one who said that Digiboxes are crap
I own many digital recievers + a digibox from grudig with a London based subscription for sky digital. Guess what, I never been in UK, I live in Greece. Well, how this is possible ?

Decoding is also a great thing for mpeg. Does all DVD standalone players out there look the same in picture quality?
No...
The same with DVB recievers...
Unfortunatelly, sky digiboxes ain't good on the decoding part. That's why you get them for free , if you angree to connect them to a telefone line...
They made them as cheap as possible, for that reason.

Now, the reason the Ireland channels looks excellent, is because they using 704 X 576 resolution with an average bitrate of 4500 kb/s! This is much more the other typical sky digital channels (544 X 576 @ 3000 average bitrate....). So, more bitrate/better quality.
Also, the uplink to the satellite is direct from Ireland and they don't share their TP with other channels.
Now, it is like DVD standalones: A good DVD - Video gonna look almost the same to all DVD standalones.
A not so good SVCD, gonna look much different from standalone to standalone. Why that happens? Because the deconding part (including PAN and SCAN mode) ain't the same to all standalones.
Just try to see a picture of a nokia 9800 mediamaster and compare it with any Sky digibox outhere... Huge difference...

In an ideal digital world, all DVB transmission would be 720 X 576, VBR, 2200 min, 5000 average, 15 maximum. Noone follows that, it costs a lot...

Now, why isn't possible just to redirect the original mpeg signal insted of reencoding???
It is a technical thing and it is not exactly re-encoding.
You see, a pro digital transmission is CBR with lot of padding. Those channels called SCPC (single channel per carier). Commercial satellites like Astra's or Hotbirds, don't use SCPC channels, but MCPC channels (multi channels per carier). The use of MCPC transmission is neccessary for commercial receivers, 'cause all the technologies are based on those standards (technologies encloding EPG, Open TV (in UK/ireland you call them "interactive services", digital teletext, DVB subtitling, etc). Also, with the MCPC transmissions, a provider is capable to transmit many channels at the same time.
There plenty of ways to get a pro SCPC transmission to a MCPC comercial one. They usully using a technic calling : "statistic multiplexxing". All the channels of a carier can use a maximum value, and when they don't need that maximum value, they have to inform the multiplextor, so to give the bitrate to other channels of the same carier.
This proccess has 2 ways:
1. All SCPC channels are decoded to analogue and re-encoded multiplexxed. This is very common to cabels and sky digital...
2. All the padding of the SCPC channels removed and the rest transmission is added to a satellite/cabel MCPC carier. This is the best method, used by french/German providers but:
a. They need about 10% of any Carier not to be used (and that means one less channel, commercial not acceptable for many companies)
b. A co-operation is needed between the broadcaster (the channel) and the provider (cabel of satellite network)

In uk, it is almost impossible to do "2", cause there are cabel/sat/terestial/local channels. Plus, they prefer transmitting more channels per carier. So, they choose "1", which give them total control, with the only minus the quality loss.

It is very difficult to explain it further, and don't forget that my english sucks!

[baker]

Well just to let you know I have a panasonic digibox (u said it was a good make) and can't stop lookin at RTE on it the quailkty is absoloutly amazing!!! I can't say much more as I havent read your full post yet but I am going to print it out and read it so will post more here later.


Baker

[ChrisX]

I voted no for digital TV, not because I don't like it. It is great for the PC, much better on the computer compared to analog TV broadcast. It is just because of Government restrictions. Digital TV sales are very slow and unsuccessful in Australia due to the restrictions. Digital TV is very expensive, this another reason for the poor show.

I am in Australia, the Government here has put a lot of restrictions on digital TV and is very narrow and limited to current free to air TV channels with a lot of commericals. The Government wouldn't allow datacasting, the Internet and multi-channels on the digital spectrum. Very little choice available, so what is point of buying digital TV?

The Government is terribly obsessed on protecting current TV channels from competition and depriving the public of new TV channels and variety. The Government is stifling growth of the digital technology and now they are reviewing the digital TV laws. I hope the Government will have some sense to relax and zoom ahead with the new technology.

[baker]

well my vision of digital televison has just changed. With the new local channels now on sattellite i can see how good digital shuold be.

I wish these companies would get their act together and make all the channels look as good as the local channels.

Baker

[Craig Tucker]

I have NTL digital and a 36" widescreen TV and although for general viewing the picture is acceptable, I have to agree with an earlier post that for football, (or soccer if your in the US) the picture can be pretty shite. This is'nt my main gripe though. The picture or sound or both regularly screws up and around 50% of the time the on screen channel browsing does'nt work properly. Along with the fact that it's supposed to be a 7 day guide but you can only see whats on up untill midnight.

Craig

[baker]

is ntl cable or aerial based?

Baker

[Craig Tucker]

Cable

[SatStorm]

Italians, Spanish, Polish, Turkish and German Satellite viewers are lucky for that matter...
Just try watching football from germany's premiere world or Italy's Tele+.... Perfect!

It seems like UK sucks for DVB quality. I belived that was only sky digital's problem, but looks like it is generall there...

Tip: Sky one ireland feed is better sky one UK.

[VideoMann]

In the U.S. with one of the major cable companies TimeWarner, the quality of service of analog was much better than digital cable.

The Digital Cable is very bad In Los Angeles. It is not unusual to have 5-10 channels drop their signal. I had more than 10 technicians and 2 supervisors look at my reception and most can't figure it out. The latest is that it is some component or repeater on the street that carries the signal. It's been 6-10 months and the problems persist.

What about when the signal comes clear? Well in high motion sports like Soccer/Football the grass on the field looks pixelated, the players have a pixelated aura around them when they move. Any fast motion and you see artifacts by the dozen.

When you have close-ups or little motion the digital picture is much better than analog but with small objects (shots from far away, or rapid motion, digital quality is terrible).

The problem here is probably not the technology of digital but the low quality standards that Cable Companies give to the consumers. They are not pumping digital signal at a rate to give the viewer a great quality picture but rather a slightly better picture with no quality control. TimeWarner is perhaps one of the worst companies in trying to bring quality service or products to the customers.

I had the same cable distributor for 10 years before it was bought by TimeWarner and the signal quality was superior and so was the support.
I moved to another city with a smaller cable company wich had also very good quality signal, the moment TimeWarner bought it the quality dropped and the service to customers was very bad. It seems that it is a trend with this company.

Digital is superior to analog when companies start delivering quality digital signal, unfortunately this is not the case with many Cable Companies and it therefore remains a GREAT RIP-OFF to consumers.

The interest of Cable Companies in digital is not for a better picture quality but to have better control of the services and to create new services, picture quality is way down on the list.

[d4n13l]

Heh, I was watching Henman losing his SF match at Wimbledon earlier on BBC1 today (but on SKY Digital) and the picture looked like it was being put togther with Duplo bricks (the bigger version of Lego). Yet other days, I have a great picture. There appears to be no set pattern in which channels look awful either... The film channels are generally the best, I have never noticed them to suffer as of yet. But as for the rest of the channels... well, the quality looks like it is being dished out by an hourly lucky dip.

[zzyzzx]

Around here (Prince Georges County, MD) the digital cable is just as grainy as regular cable.

[SatStorm]

An update just to show you how much the digibox sucks!
This week, the capacitors of the electicity part in my Grundig digibox broke and I had to replace them all! Now, how is possible to capacitors to broke? Imagine how cheap are the parts!!!

I heard that the cable in US suck, but that your Satellite DTH services are amazing! Why you don't install a dish and recieve them?

[KingJohn]

Well the BBC in the UK now have the OnDigital (ITV digital ) licenses. By the year 2005 all analogue channels will be switched off. Meanwhile there will be more and more Free channels added at no cost. With a promise of around 24 free channels available via the terrestrial Arial (Antenna)

Channels that are only available in certain parts of the country will also be available (SC4) to everyone.

I can see a lot of problems with the cheap and nasty digital boxes, Sky, NTL cable they all seam to be the same. I wanted the free to air channels only, did not want to "rent" anything, so bought a TV with Digital built in.

The digital channels I receive are from a distant transmitter, the local repeater does not have them yet. However I have them 100% crisp and clear, I have never seen anything better coming from any system.

The BBC has promised to upgrade all of the UK transmitters and provide a much stronger signal, this will help with the £100 boxes they are going to make available.

Digital TV via an Arial is the future, like it or not its here to stay

[djvyrus]

baker,

i agree with you.
right here a lot of programs are broadcasted digitally on cable.
you should see what happens when some lightning is in the neighbourhood of the broadcasting company!!!
total crashes of movies or other programs....
if they can find a way to avoid this annoyance, then i would vote for yes, but now i really have to press the no button.

DJ

[Martyn1980]

I know this is an ancient post but its linked off a newer one so i thought i'd comment

I have to agree on the occasionl bad quality of Digital TV, i am also on NTL Digital and certain channels look terrible at times, the big channels like the Movie channels are mostly ok, and some other channels can be watchable, but the BBC channels look terrible, and i ask anyone also on NTL Digital to take a look at BBC Parliament, we're talking blocky, low res stuff here, similar to VCD. VH1 Classic is a blocky mess at times too.

I dont think saying no to Digital is the way, afterall it uses the same format as DVD and we're all mostly happy with that, so i think an improvement is more what we want, as the picture can look great at times, but just not as often as i'd like.

[Craig Tucker]

One of the worst ones in my opinion on NTL digital is E4. Sometimes it is really bad and the blocks are very noticable.

Craig

[Martyn1980]

Ive noticed E4 looks bad as well, strange though since Channel 4 looks pretty good most of the time.