On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 15:22:11 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> >> On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> >> ><u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
> >> >> >> quality.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
> >> >
> >> > broadcast tv isn't the only source.
> >> It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
> >> and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
> >> the appalling standard of broadcast television.
> >
> > And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
> > pay for it.
> We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
> of the content you fucking div.

And you're a fine example buying or using a shit product is a choice you made.
If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.

On 2021-10-18, Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 15:22:11 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
>> >> On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
>> >> ><u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
>> >> >> >> quality.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
>> >> >
>> >> > broadcast tv isn't the only source.
>> >> It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
>> >> and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
>> >> the appalling standard of broadcast television.
>> >
>> > And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
>> > pay for it.
>> We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
>> of the content you fucking div.
>
> And you're a fine example buying or using a shit product is a choice you made.
> If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.

We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.

On Monday, 18 October 2021 at 13:46:39 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-10-18, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 15:22:11 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> >> On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> >> >> On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> >> >> ><u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
> >> >> >> >> quality.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > broadcast tv isn't the only source.
> >> >> It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
> >> >> and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
> >> >> the appalling standard of broadcast television.
> >> >
> >> > And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
> >> > pay for it.
> >> We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
> >> of the content you fucking div.
> >
> > And you're a fine example buying or using a shit product is a choice you made.
> > If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.

So you want to go back to 405 lines why.

I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and everything worked.

On 2021-10-19, Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 18 October 2021 at 13:46:39 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2021-10-18, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 15:22:11 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
>> >> On 2021-10-15, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 10:20:06 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
>> >> >> On 2021-10-15, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <slrnsmif5h....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
>> >> >> ><u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> We'd certainly have a much better standard of television, radio and image
>> >> >> >> >> quality.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > top of the line tvs are better than anything humans can resolve.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's a shame the broadcast signal uses such lossy compression.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > broadcast tv isn't the only source.
>> >> >> It's what I was referring to. Certainly, you can get BluRay and now 4K
>> >> >> and soon 8K but having a "top of the line" television doesn't help
>> >> >> the appalling standard of broadcast television.
>> >> >
>> >> > And high speed broadband doesn't stop you posting rubbish, but that isn't why people
>> >> > pay for it.
>> >> We're talking about the standard of digital broadcast, not the quality
>> >> of the content you fucking div.
>> >
>> > And you're a fine example buying or using a shit product is a choice you made.
>> > If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
>> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
>> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
>
>
> So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
>
> I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
> If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and everything worked.

405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.

In article <slrnsmtf7j.p2f.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
> >> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
> >
> >
> > So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
> >
> > I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
> > If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
> > everything worked.
>
> 405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.

nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
resolution.

On 2021-10-19, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsmtf7j.p2f.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
>> >> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
>> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
>> >
>> >
>> > So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
>> >
>> > I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
>> > If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
>> > everything worked.
>>
>> 405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
>> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
>
> nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
> better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
> resolution.

Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.

In article <slrnsmtga3.1qh.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> > If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
> >> >> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
> >> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
> >> >
> >> > I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
> >> > If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
> >> > everything worked.
> >>
> >> 405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
> >> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
> >
> > nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
> > better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
> > resolution.
>
> Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.

did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?

pal/ntsc is significantly inferior. it's not even close.

On 2021-10-19, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsmtga3.1qh.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> > If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
>> >> >> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
>> >> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
>> >> > If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
>> >> > everything worked.
>> >>
>> >> 405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
>> >> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
>> >
>> > nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
>> > better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
>> > resolution.
>>
>> Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
>
> did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?

Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL. BluRay looks
nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.

> pal/ntsc is significantly inferior. it's not even close.

In article <slrnsmtgs6.33h.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >> >> >> > If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
> >> >> >> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
> >> >> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
> >> >> > If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
> >> >> > everything worked.
> >> >>
> >> >> 405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
> >> >> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
> >> >
> >> > nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
> >> > better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
> >> > resolution.
> >>
> >> Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
> >
> > did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?
>
> Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.

you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.

> BluRay looks
> nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
> discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.

broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.

On 2021-10-19, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsmtgs6.33h.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> >> >> > If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
>> >> >> >> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
>> >> >> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
>> >> >> > If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
>> >> >> > everything worked.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
>> >> >> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
>> >> >
>> >> > nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
>> >> > better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
>> >> > resolution.
>> >>
>> >> Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
>> >
>> > did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?
>>
>> Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.
>
> you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.

Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression.

>
>> BluRay looks
>> nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
>> discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.
>
> broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.

I'm not measuring the quality of a display. I'm measuring the quality
of broadcast.

On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 14:41:48 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-10-19, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnsmtgs6....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> ><u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > If you chose to have broadcast TV that is your problem wanker.
> >> >> >> >> We weren't given the choice whether to move over to a substandard
> >> >> >> >> implementation of digital broadcast, cockwomble.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So you want to go back to 405 lines why.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I think you can get digital converters to do it for you.
> >> >> >> > If you want to remember the good old days when you were young and
> >> >> >> > everything worked.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 405 lines? PAL had 576 lines and the digital equivalent of 576p looks
> >> >> >> terrible due to the horrible compression. Even HD doesn't compare.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > nonsense. even 720p is better than ntsc/pal. 1080p is quite a bit
> >> >> > better, with 4k much more so. hdr is *dramatically* better, at any
> >> >> > resolution.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
> >> >
> >> > did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?
> >>
> >> Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.
> >
> > you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.
> Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression.
> >
> >> BluRay looks
> >> nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
> >> discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.
> >
> > broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.
> I'm not measuring the quality of a display. I'm measuring the quality
> of broadcast.

Make up your mind, if you have one.
"Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression."
but what exactly do you mean by "the quality of broadcast"

sre you refering to showing shakespeare and comparing that to 2 1/2 men ?

In article <slrnsmtiou.5j9.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> Did you see much broadcast in PAL? NTSC was quite inferior.
> >> >
> >> > did you see anything at 1080p or 4k? especially at 60 fps and hdr?
> >>
> >> Yes, I have seen 1080p. Broadcast DTV is inferior to PAL.
> >
> > you have that backwards. pal is inferior to digital broadcast tv.
>
> Digital broadcast is riddled with artefacts from lossy compression.

no it isn't.

> >
> >> BluRay looks
> >> nice but it along with 4k and HDR are outside of the scope of this
> >> discussion as I am talking about broadcast TV.
> >
> > broadcast tv is not how to measure the quality of a display.
>
> I'm not measuring the quality of a display. I'm measuring the quality
> of broadcast.

digital broadcast tv is much better than ntsc/pal, which are close
enough to be considered the same, especially when compared to the newer
and higher quality standards.