On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 15:15 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote: > I am not sure why it showed up under this subject but there appeared an > attack on digital vs analog TV. That would be my post. > I just bought an digital to analog converter for my TVs and there is > no comparison to the picture I get using only rabbit ears. If you're talking rabbit ears, I'm not surprised you see a difference. They're a rotten antenna system. But I'd be very surprised if you don't see some other nasty problems with your digital reception (freezes, blocky picture breakups, etc.). A bit of snow, even ghosting, is still bearable on analogue TV, but digital TV that breaks up and loses sound and picture once every 20 seconds (i.e. repeatedly) due to poor reception issues is unbearable. In my case, I have a proper external antenna aimed directly at the TV towers about 15 km away (belting out a few hundred KiloWatts), with no obstructions, and it's correctly wired. I used to have near perfect reception, almost like I'd plugged the studio camera directly into my TV set. I can't say the same for digital. Standard definition is poorer than analogue, even HD is pushing its luck (if you take into account that when you digitise something you need to sample at least three to four times the frequency that you're sampling). CCD video cameras are often worst than tube cameras, for that same reason (resolution issues down to the low number of pixels involved compared to a 700 line resolution camera). -- (This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
