[mythtvnz] Feedback requested on an article on Digital TV

[Steve Hodge]

On 10/7/06, Steven Ellis <steven@openmedia.co.nz> wrote:
> Steve Hodge wrote:
> > Good article, but surely what it boils down to is that non-HDTV
> > FreeViews channel (i.e. almost certainly all of them so a significant
> > time) will look approximately the same as Sky Digital does. I think
> > it'd be worth mentioning that because for a lot of people that's the
> > simplest way to give them a good idea of what it will be like.
>
> Actually for the most part unless SkyTV improve their setup FreeView
> should look a hell of a lot better than the existing Sky Channels. Most
> people I know with Sky actually have a worse picture on TV One / TV 2
> than I get on my normal aerial.

This is certainly never been the case for me. Though One and 2 look
better via DVB-S through MythTV (connected to a plasma via VGA cable)
than via Sky (connected via SVideo). But the technology is the same.
There's no guarentee that FreeView will look any better. You're
assuming that the FreeView partners will do a better job or at least
allocate more bandwidth than Sky do now.

> Unless Sky starts producing set-top boxes with DVI/HDMI connections the
> new FreeView platform is going to look one hell of a lot better on large
> HDTV screens. I know this for a fact as I've tried it on a number of
> Plasma and LCD units.

Have you tried Sky with component out? That should be pretty similar
in quality to DVI. The limiting factor becomes the signal pretty
quickly, rather than the connector.

> One of the biggest complaints I have is from customers who have Sky
> Digital and are shocked at how bad the picture looks on a "HDTV Capable"
> screen.

Well, that's because they've been over sold. "HDTV Capable" doesn't
mean a set is going to magically make an SD signal look like an HD
signal.  An SD signal is never going to compare well with the HD and
DVD demos you see in the store for HDTV sets. And FreeView is still an
SD signal. It's DVD quality at best.

Steve