On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 10:55 +0930, Tim wrote: > 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. You have been right too often lately. Well here again you are right. On one channel I get this kind of interference. On another channel I get no signal at all. But in further investigation I found out that the problem is that nearly a year before the big switch not all stations are operating at full power. But since after Feb. 20o9 that is all we will have we will have to live with it or get cable (the expensive alternative). By the way the quality of rabbit ears depends on where you are in relation to the station. In a Big City they have always been adequate for me, > > 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. > -- ======================================================================= A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore. -- Yogi Berra ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
