I have a local UPN/WB/CW channel that broadcasts widescreen shows (like CSI) as 4:3. So now you not only have bars on the top-and-bottom, but also the left and right. Yes I can zoom into the image, but I'd prefer they broadcast CSI in its true aspect ratio without the bars.
I've also seen 4:3 shows converted to widescreen by chopping off the bottoms and tops of the image. Fortunately that process is becoming rare.
That's messed-up. In the U.S. stations are counted by their call letters (WGAL), and it doesn't matter if the viewer is watching the analog or digital or HD broadcast.
That's because a broadcast analog signal is bandwidth-limited to 440 pixels wide, whereas a digital-to-analog converted signal is 720 pixels wide. Therefore you will see more detail on your old set.
Although..... that's not always the case. My analog version of WGAL8 (only 20 miles away) looks better than the digital version which is often plagued with compression artifacts. Digital is only as good as the signal provided, and if it's been over-compressed, analog with look better.
It's only $10-15 a month for "locals only" service.
You spend more money than that on your cellphone, and it's far less useful. Depending on how this analog shutoff goes, I may buy cable just for convenience, because it runs directly into my VCR or DVR without any need for modification. The new DTV signals don't operate with either my VCR or DVR (I can record one channel, and that's it).
I agree with you. I'm perfectly happy with my "old" analog set(s). When I connect a DVD player or DTV receiver box, I think the 720x480i picture looks fantastic. I see no reason to spend a few hundred dollars upgrading to a new set(s).
In fact in most cases I watch tv on the internet, and that's closer to VHS quality (320x480i), so I've actually downgraded my viewing. I suppose that's similar to how most people have downgraded from CDs to MP3s. Sure they sound worse but the convenience matters more than the quality.
Amplifiers worked great with NTSC because it made the "sync" signal stronger and allowed the TV's tuner to lock into the station. While this process also added noise, the human brain has millions of years of development that allows it to "see through" the noise and extract an image. (For example I was watching CSI - it was a blurry image, but my brain could still see the hot blonde in the white noise.)
Digital receivers don't like noise, so adding the amp often makes things worse. A computer, unlike our brains, can't deal with it. Instead of extracting a hot blonde, it just gives up.
Seriously. Just try it. I found that an amplifier added to my CM4228 made things *worse* not better, because the amplifier added noise and drowned-out the digital data. It probably also added distortion to the data - from clean square waves to rolled-off garbage. In my case (also receiving stations fifty miles away) the 4228 works best without the amp.
I challenge you to sell an antenna without the "HD" appended to it. I've tried and it's nigh-impossible. The average consumer believes they need an "HD antenna" and they won't buy anything that lacks that designation.
In the United States a study was performed that showed metropolitan states (Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, et cetera) paid the most in taxes, and the rural farmland states (Nebraska, Iowa, Wyoming, et cetera) receive more money in government handouts than any other region.
Isn't it possible the same is true in the UK where London, being a financial capital, actually spends MORE money than it receives, and it's the rural "north" that gets the most money in government handouts? I suspect if a study was performed, the answer would be "yes".
If you print twice as many Euros, then the price of milk will double from 2 Euros to 4 Euros. You haven't gained anything. You're still stuck at the same amount of wealth as you had before.
I always thought it was fun to compare my grades to other students. We also compared our "rankings" every quarter to see who was in the Top 10, who was in the Top 20, and so on. If the local news can take 5 minutes a day to report the results of high school sports, surely they can set aside a minute or two to report on the Top scholars.
"The following students were named on the honor roll, with John Smith and Jill Doe holding the number one and two spots. Congratulations! Keep up the good work."
In the United States a study was performed that showed metropolitan city-states (Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, et cetera) paid the most in taxes, and the rural farmland states (Nebraska, Iowa, Wyoming, et cetera) receive more money in government handouts than any other region.
Isn't it possible the same is true in the UK where London, being a financial capital, actually spends MORE money than it receives, and it's the rural "north" that gets the most money in government handouts? I suspect if a study was performed, the answer would be "yes".
You think that was unusual? Most every Olympic event makes tensions WORSE not better. When Athens held the games, you heard people insulting the Greeks as "poor and backwards farmers". When Atlanta held the games it was about how the "Americans sold out to corporations" which most of us found incredibly insulting; even the president of the IOC did a back-handed insult by refusing to say our games were good.
The Seoul games were marred by the constant threat of Communist North Korea, Barcelona was overshadowed by the tension with Spain, The Los Angeles and Moscow games were boycotted by one-third of the world, the Toronto games were afraid of a repeat of the Munich games where Jewish athletes were killed by Muslim radicals..... and on and on and on.
>>>The olympics encourage people to take up sports and get fit.
Since the Olympics were installed people are MORE fat than ever, not less. The Olympics have done nothing of what you claim.
>>>They promote tourism.
Not really. Most of the cities that sponsored the Olympics are still deep in debt. There are a few exceptions like Atlanta which was mostly paid by corporations, but then there are others like Toronto who, even thirty years later, are still in debt. Tourism does not make-up for the huge expense of throwing this "huge sports party" known as the Olympics.
>>>you can pump as much money as you want into schools and research and it tends to dissapear into a black hole.
The fact that we are both sitting here with college degrees, and now contributing back to society with our respective design expertise, belies that claim. Schools contribute for the simple reason that people walk into kindergarten going "duh" and they come out with the ability to read, write, and do basic math (or go onto college).
That's better than what sponsorship of Olympic-level sport produces (a broken worn-out body in most cases & a way to sell Fruit Loops in national advertising).
Sorry but I'm fairly certain I didn't imagine getting my glasses stolen (hidden in the teachers' desk). Or sand dumped on my head. Or my gymbag thrown into the girls' locker room.
This isn't just a matter of "attitude" but repeated hazing. If American teachers were doing a proper job, they wouldn't turn a blind eye to this stuff, but instead intercede and punish the instigators. But because the instigators are usually "cool" jocks, they don't do a thing.
False. Every site I ever visited released their content on both Bluray and HD-DVD. And the same was true back in the 1970s - it was available on both VHS and Betamax. See? (Holds up Playboy on Betamax.) Neither war was determined by the porn industry.
AND, European games have to be made PAL-compatible.
When a game is released in Japan it's published in NTSC which can be quickly translated into English NTSC release, but Europe has to overcome two obstacles: language translation AND video incompatibilities. That's why the EU is typically the last region to see a new game.
C+C Music Factory was cool. Ditto Snap. Janet Jackson was good before she lost her talent. I liked Alanis Morisette, Jewel, and Sheryl Crow. Depeche Mode put-out some good music. Britney Spears has no talent, but she looked good in a catholic schoolgirl uniform.;-)
What's wrong with Top 40? I enjoyed the 1990s-era top 40 artists like Alanis Morisette and.... um, uh, well that's all I can think of right now.;-) But that point is it's not all crap. There's some real talent hidden between the N'stynks and Britney Spears of the world.
>>>(How many CD's did you buy in the late 90's that was complete crap besides the one song they played on the radio?)
None. I learned my lesson in the 1980s to not buy albums, but instead wait for the "greatest hits" compilation. That way the whole CD is filled with good songs, and you get your money's worth.
At this speed there's no point in using VBR. 320kbit/s is as good as MP3 gets, and using VBR would make the recording sound worse (fewer bits), not better.
I assume you mean "volume compressed". Yeah that's an issue, but it only affects a few releases. Most are fine. Besides, even a poorly mastered CD is preferable to the digital artifacts (buzzing) you'll find in MP3 and AACs. Perhaps you can't hear the mosquito noise but I can, and it's rather annoying.
Even if compressed MP3 sound quality was not an issue, I still prefer to buy my favorite singers' Greatest Hits albums on CDs as it's actually cheaper (~50 cents per song) than a download ($1).
Slashdot Mirror
I have a local UPN/WB/CW channel that broadcasts widescreen shows (like CSI) as 4:3. So now you not only have bars on the top-and-bottom, but also the left and right. Yes I can zoom into the image, but I'd prefer they broadcast CSI in its true aspect ratio without the bars.
I've also seen 4:3 shows converted to widescreen by chopping off the bottoms and tops of the image. Fortunately that process is becoming rare.
That's messed-up. In the U.S. stations are counted by their call letters (WGAL), and it doesn't matter if the viewer is watching the analog or digital or HD broadcast.
That's because a broadcast analog signal is bandwidth-limited to 440 pixels wide, whereas a digital-to-analog converted signal is 720 pixels wide. Therefore you will see more detail on your old set.
Although..... that's not always the case. My analog version of WGAL8 (only 20 miles away) looks better than the digital version which is often plagued with compression artifacts. Digital is only as good as the signal provided, and if it's been over-compressed, analog with look better.
It's only $10-15 a month for "locals only" service.
You spend more money than that on your cellphone, and it's far less useful. Depending on how this analog shutoff goes, I may buy cable just for convenience, because it runs directly into my VCR or DVR without any need for modification. The new DTV signals don't operate with either my VCR or DVR (I can record one channel, and that's it).
I agree with you. I'm perfectly happy with my "old" analog set(s). When I connect a DVD player or DTV receiver box, I think the 720x480i picture looks fantastic. I see no reason to spend a few hundred dollars upgrading to a new set(s).
In fact in most cases I watch tv on the internet, and that's closer to VHS quality (320x480i), so I've actually downgraded my viewing. I suppose that's similar to how most people have downgraded from CDs to MP3s. Sure they sound worse but the convenience matters more than the quality.
Amplifiers worked great with NTSC because it made the "sync" signal stronger and allowed the TV's tuner to lock into the station. While this process also added noise, the human brain has millions of years of development that allows it to "see through" the noise and extract an image. (For example I was watching CSI - it was a blurry image, but my brain could still see the hot blonde in the white noise.)
Digital receivers don't like noise, so adding the amp often makes things worse. A computer, unlike our brains, can't deal with it. Instead of extracting a hot blonde, it just gives up.
Try removing the amplifier.
Seriously. Just try it. I found that an amplifier added to my CM4228 made things *worse* not better, because the amplifier added noise and drowned-out the digital data. It probably also added distortion to the data - from clean square waves to rolled-off garbage. In my case (also receiving stations fifty miles away) the 4228 works best without the amp.
The best antenna I've ever used is the CM4228. It doesn't have an amplifier, but instead just uses a huge surface area to capture the weak signals.
It definitely outperforms the settop amplified antennas. We're talking the difference between 4 stations and 16 stations.
I challenge you to sell an antenna without the "HD" appended to it. I've tried and it's nigh-impossible. The average consumer believes they need an "HD antenna" and they won't buy anything that lacks that designation.
In the United States a study was performed that showed metropolitan states (Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, et cetera) paid the most in taxes, and the rural farmland states (Nebraska, Iowa, Wyoming, et cetera) receive more money in government handouts than any other region.
Isn't it possible the same is true in the UK where London, being a financial capital, actually spends MORE money than it receives, and it's the rural "north" that gets the most money in government handouts? I suspect if a study was performed, the answer would be "yes".
Money can be created, but wealth can not.
If you print twice as many Euros, then the price of milk will double from 2 Euros to 4 Euros. You haven't gained anything. You're still stuck at the same amount of wealth as you had before.
I always thought it was fun to compare my grades to other students. We also compared our "rankings" every quarter to see who was in the Top 10, who was in the Top 20, and so on. If the local news can take 5 minutes a day to report the results of high school sports, surely they can set aside a minute or two to report on the Top scholars.
"The following students were named on the honor roll, with John Smith and Jill Doe holding the number one and two spots. Congratulations! Keep up the good work."
In the United States a study was performed that showed metropolitan city-states (Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, et cetera) paid the most in taxes, and the rural farmland states (Nebraska, Iowa, Wyoming, et cetera) receive more money in government handouts than any other region.
Isn't it possible the same is true in the UK where London, being a financial capital, actually spends MORE money than it receives, and it's the rural "north" that gets the most money in government handouts? I suspect if a study was performed, the answer would be "yes".
You think that was unusual? Most every Olympic event makes tensions WORSE not better. When Athens held the games, you heard people insulting the Greeks as "poor and backwards farmers". When Atlanta held the games it was about how the "Americans sold out to corporations" which most of us found incredibly insulting; even the president of the IOC did a back-handed insult by refusing to say our games were good.
The Seoul games were marred by the constant threat of Communist North Korea, Barcelona was overshadowed by the tension with Spain, The Los Angeles and Moscow games were boycotted by one-third of the world, the Toronto games were afraid of a repeat of the Munich games where Jewish athletes were killed by Muslim radicals..... and on and on and on.
The games bring MORE tension, not less.
>>>The olympics encourage people to take up sports and get fit.
Since the Olympics were installed people are MORE fat than ever, not less. The Olympics have done nothing of what you claim.
>>>They promote tourism.
Not really. Most of the cities that sponsored the Olympics are still deep in debt. There are a few exceptions like Atlanta which was mostly paid by corporations, but then there are others like Toronto who, even thirty years later, are still in debt. Tourism does not make-up for the huge expense of throwing this "huge sports party" known as the Olympics.
>>>you can pump as much money as you want into schools and research and it tends to dissapear into a black hole.
The fact that we are both sitting here with college degrees, and now contributing back to society with our respective design expertise, belies that claim. Schools contribute for the simple reason that people walk into kindergarten going "duh" and they come out with the ability to read, write, and do basic math (or go onto college).
That's better than what sponsorship of Olympic-level sport produces (a broken worn-out body in most cases & a way to sell Fruit Loops in national advertising).
Sorry but I'm fairly certain I didn't imagine getting my glasses stolen (hidden in the teachers' desk). Or sand dumped on my head. Or my gymbag thrown into the girls' locker room.
This isn't just a matter of "attitude" but repeated hazing. If American teachers were doing a proper job, they wouldn't turn a blind eye to this stuff, but instead intercede and punish the instigators. But because the instigators are usually "cool" jocks, they don't do a thing.
>>>nerds will have picked up zero in the socialisation department and not know what to do to pick up the chicks
"Hi. My name is ______. I couldn't help noticing your beautiful smile. :-) What's your name?"
I thought Sweden was where all the cute blondes come from.
Watch a college game sometime (Penn State!).
They move along quite rapidly.
>>>Porn used bluray rather than HD
False. Every site I ever visited released their content on both Bluray and HD-DVD. And the same was true back in the 1970s - it was available on both VHS and Betamax. See? (Holds up Playboy on Betamax.) Neither war was determined by the porn industry.
Not that I'm some kind of expert.
(puts on trenchcoat and slinks off)
AND, European games have to be made PAL-compatible.
When a game is released in Japan it's published in NTSC which can be quickly translated into English NTSC release, but Europe has to overcome two obstacles: language translation AND video incompatibilities. That's why the EU is typically the last region to see a new game.
C+C Music Factory was cool. ;-)
Ditto Snap.
Janet Jackson was good before she lost her talent.
I liked Alanis Morisette, Jewel, and Sheryl Crow.
Depeche Mode put-out some good music.
Britney Spears has no talent, but she looked good in a catholic schoolgirl uniform.
What's wrong with Top 40? I enjoyed the 1990s-era top 40 artists like Alanis Morisette and.... um, uh, well that's all I can think of right now. ;-) But that point is it's not all crap. There's some real talent hidden between the N'stynks and Britney Spears of the world.
>>>(How many CD's did you buy in the late 90's that was complete crap besides the one song they played on the radio?)
None. I learned my lesson in the 1980s to not buy albums, but instead wait for the "greatest hits" compilation. That way the whole CD is filled with good songs, and you get your money's worth.
>>>mp3 format (320 kbps - no vbr though)
At this speed there's no point in using VBR. 320kbit/s is as good as MP3 gets, and using VBR would make the recording sound worse (fewer bits), not better.
I assume you mean "volume compressed". Yeah that's an issue, but it only affects a few releases. Most are fine. Besides, even a poorly mastered CD is preferable to the digital artifacts (buzzing) you'll find in MP3 and AACs. Perhaps you can't hear the mosquito noise but I can, and it's rather annoying.
Even if compressed MP3 sound quality was not an issue, I still prefer to buy my favorite singers' Greatest Hits albums on CDs as it's actually cheaper (~50 cents per song) than a download ($1).