Pauper View

1235710

Comments

  • sparkplugssparkplugs Posts: 510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Is it really freeview, you have to purchase the hardware and have a TV licence?
    Well, at least you aren't paying Sky or Virgin Media anything, just the BBC! :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,768
    Forum Member
    Is it really freeview, you have to purchase the hardware and have a TV licence?
    "Sky view" you pay them (forever) and still have to have a TV licence.

    The "hardware" for freeview is pretty well already just a "standard" TV. Saying you have to pay for Freeview hardware is like saying you used to have to buy a TV and a separate Analogue receiver.

    I would say that 90% of our viewing is on Freeview - and mostly the HD channels - even though we have access to Freesat, Other satellites (eg 19.2E), VOD and iPTV.

    The Grass is greener on the other side of the fence - but only if the gate isn't open !!!
  • sparkplugssparkplugs Posts: 510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    "Sky view" you pay them (forever)
    I'd call it "Murdoch View" instead of "Sky View"! :D
  • Radio-ActiveRadio-Active Posts: 1,161
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    "Sky view" you pay them (forever) and still have to have a TV licence.

    The "hardware" for freeview is pretty well already just a "standard" TV.
    Unless you want to record a programme or upgrade from SD to HD.
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,691
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Unless you want to record a programme or upgrade from SD to HD.

    But if you want to record a programme with analogue you had to buy a video recorder and they was really expensive when they first hit the streets.

    A PVR was never that expensive to be honest, my single tuner humax a few years back was a lot cheaper than the Mitsubishi VHS my brother got my parents in the early 80s


    People can buy a DVD recorder if they only want a single tuner. As for HD, people got a choice, if they want it they can buy it, if they don't then they don't.

    My problem with Freeview is not that you got to pay for the equipment, even converting a old CRT set is cheap enough, but the fact that the quality is naff.
  • Radio-ActiveRadio-Active Posts: 1,161
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »


    .............My problem with Freeview is not that you got to pay for the equipment, even converting a old CRT set is cheap enough, but the fact that the quality is naff.
    Do you mean the programming or the picture quality, or both?
  • neo_walesneo_wales Posts: 13,625
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Freeview is fine, it can't be worse than when we were stuck with four or five channels for crying out loud.
  • sparkplugssparkplugs Posts: 510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    neo_wales wrote: »
    Freeview is fine, it can't be worse than when we were stuck with four or five channels for crying out loud.
    I think that anybody who says that the picture quality of analogue terrestrial television was better is totally out of touch with reality! :rolleyes::D
  • SteveMcKSteveMcK Posts: 5,457
    Forum Member
    sparkplugs wrote: »
    I think that anybody who says that the picture quality of analogue terrestrial television was better is totally out of touch with reality! :rolleyes::D
    I would say that anyone who thinks analogue picture quality wasn't better has never seen a properly set up analogue TV :D
  • kasgkasg Posts: 4,711
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SteveMcK wrote: »
    I would say that anyone who thinks analogue picture quality wasn't better has never seen a properly set up analogue TV :D
    I agree it was better than the 544x576 channels, 720x576 is borderline, depends on the channel, HD is obviously far better than analogue was.
  • MuzerMuzer Posts: 3,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SteveMcK wrote: »
    I would say that anyone who thinks analogue picture quality wasn't better has never seen a properly set up analogue TV :D

    I would say that anyone who thinks analogue picture quality was better has lived a sheltered life right next to transmitters so with a perfect signal ;)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,768
    Forum Member
    Muzer wrote: »
    I would say that anyone who thinks analogue picture quality was better has lived a sheltered life right next to transmitters so with a perfect signal ;)
    In the early days of digital the best pictures were Analogue on a flat screen and digital on an Analogue screen.

    This was because people at last set up their aerial system ready for digital so they got the best Analogue pictures they had ever had and the analogue (CRT) displays smoothed out the digital picture lines when they went digital.

    So a double whammy sold to many who were told they needed a 16:9 screen for digital - going from brilliant analogue on a CRT to (either reasonable 4:3 digital on a CRT or) 16:9 digital on a flat screen that was not as good as the analogue that it replaced - and with the error in the AFD definition - "squashy vision". How many people did you hear say they didn't want digital because of the squashed pictures :eek:

    Until we got digital (using a big aerial and two amplifiers in series so not 'close to the transmitter') on a Sony 29" trinitron (CRT) our analogue was appalling - snowy ghosted etc. We spent many years watching On/ITVdigital then Freeview - but still analogue for the 'main' channels because it was better :)

    It was probably the TopUpTV PVR that made us change.

    We got rid of the Sony approximately 2 years ago when it started to take minutes 'till we got a picture - replaced with a 42" full HD (FreeviewHD / FreesatHD) plasma which is now - I agree - at last better than analogue (pity the Sony didn't last longer as the Panasonic is a slightly 'brain-dead' smart TV and a newer one might have been better in that regard)
  • sparkplugssparkplugs Posts: 510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    kasg wrote: »
    I agree it was better than the 544x576 channels, 720x576 is borderline, depends on the channel, HD is obviously far better than analogue was.
    I always used to find that the TV channels on the PSB multiplexes always offered the best SD TV picture quality.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,768
    Forum Member
    sparkplugs wrote: »
    I always used to find that the TV channels on the PSB multiplexes always offered the best SD TV picture quality.
    Because of the way regional opt-outs occurred BBC1 on was at a fixed 6mb/s video with the rest on MUX1 stat-muxed at around 4mb/s average.
    The best time was between ITVdigital and Freeview when there was very little on the COM MUXes and (as mentioned before) "The Hits" (TV channel) was running at around 10mb/s (fibre distribution was IIRC about 9.2mb/s video so the limiting factor - other than the 15mb/s DVB receiver spec.).
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,691
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Do you mean the programming or the picture quality, or both?

    Picture quality to be honest, content on British TV have been going downhill for the last 15 years.
  • sparkplugssparkplugs Posts: 510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »
    Picture quality to be honest, content on British TV have been going downhill for the last 15 years.
    I can assure you that United States television is 10 times worse! :eek: In both terms of content and in picture quality! For example, whilst all HD channels in the UK now broadcast at full 1920x1080i on all platforms - not just Freeview, the vast majority of United States HD channels still only broadcast at 1440x1080i!
  • MuzerMuzer Posts: 3,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    In the early days of digital the best pictures were Analogue on a flat screen and digital on an Analogue screen.

    This was because people at last set up their aerial system ready for digital so they got the best Analogue pictures they had ever had and the analogue (CRT) displays smoothed out the digital picture lines when they went digital.

    So a double whammy sold to many who were told they needed a 16:9 screen for digital - going from brilliant analogue on a CRT to (either reasonable 4:3 digital on a CRT or) 16:9 digital on a flat screen that was not as good as the analogue that it replaced - and with the error in the AFD definition - "squashy vision". How many people did you hear say they didn't want digital because of the squashed pictures :eek:

    Until we got digital (using a big aerial and two amplifiers in series so not 'close to the transmitter') on a Sony 29" trinitron (CRT) our analogue was appalling - snowy ghosted etc. We spent many years watching On/ITVdigital then Freeview - but still analogue for the 'main' channels because it was better :)

    It was probably the TopUpTV PVR that made us change.

    We got rid of the Sony approximately 2 years ago when it started to take minutes 'till we got a picture - replaced with a 42" full HD (FreeviewHD / FreesatHD) plasma which is now - I agree - at last better than analogue (pity the Sony didn't last longer as the Panasonic is a slightly 'brain-dead' smart TV and a newer one might have been better in that regard)

    With us, we needed more amplification to receive digital well on all TVs in the house due to lots of cabling - although this made analogue better on further away TVs and made digital usable, it also made analogue on TVs closer to the aerial hopelessly overamplified. So, whatever we did, we couldn't get a perfect analogue signal around the house. With digital, however, it's a lot less susceptible to under- or over-amplification, so has a perfect picture everywhere. We have kept the same setup post-DSO and don't have any issues with signal overload now, so it's obviously still not a problem with digital.
  • sparkplugssparkplugs Posts: 510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Muzer wrote: »
    With us, we needed more amplification to receive digital well on all TVs in the house due to lots of cabling - although this made analogue better on further away TVs and made digital usable, it also made analogue on TVs closer to the aerial hopelessly overamplified. So, whatever we did, we couldn't get a perfect analogue signal around the house. With digital, however, it's a lot less susceptible to under- or over-amplification, so has a perfect picture everywhere. We have kept the same setup post-DSO and don't have any issues with signal overload now, so it's obviously still not a problem with digital.
    Do you live in a large mansion or something? :confused::rolleyes:
  • MuzerMuzer Posts: 3,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nah, just crap cable and builders taking cable off the wrong place (even though we've specifically told them from where to take it) when doing extensions.
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,395
    Forum Member
    neo_wales wrote: »
    Freeview is fine, it can't be worse than when we were stuck with four or five channels for crying out loud.

    Indeed, neo_wales, and the availability of choice was much less with BBC1, BBC2, ITV, C4 & C5 than it is with all the channels that are currently available on Freeview without a subscription: http://freeview.co.uk/Channels#
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,691
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sparkplugs wrote: »
    I can assure you that United States television is 10 times worse! :eek: In both terms of content and in picture quality! For example, whilst all HD channels in the UK now broadcast at full 1920x1080i on all platforms - not just Freeview, the vast majority of United States HD channels still only broadcast at 1440x1080i!

    Need I remind you that we don't live in the United states, so why should I care what they got or have not got? just because they got a worse system we don't need to try and follow them.
  • sparkplugssparkplugs Posts: 510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »
    Need I remind you that we don't live in the United states, so why should I care what they got or have not got? just because they got a worse system we don't need to try and follow them.
    I KNOW we don't live in the United States! :rolleyes: I am just trying to point an example of a country having something worse off than what we have got in terms of television, and I hope that we do try to follow them!
  • neo_walesneo_wales Posts: 13,625
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »
    Need I remind you that we don't live in the United states, so why should I care what they got or have not got? just because they got a worse system we don't need to try and follow them.

    There is nothing wrong with digital TV picture quality, no offence but I've far better equipment than you and the image is fine...now, off to specsavers, get your eyes sorted and stop moaning ;)
  • sparkplugssparkplugs Posts: 510
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    neo_wales wrote: »
    There is nothing wrong with digital TV picture quality, no offence but I've far better equipment than you and the image is fine...now, off to specsavers, get your eyes sorted and stop moaning ;)
    Even a 544x576 SD Freeview channel looks great on my 50 inch plasma TV which is properly set up! :rolleyes:
  • David (2)David (2) Posts: 20,632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I had BBC News channel on this morning (freeview) and the highlights of the sports were shocking quality (23in LCD).

    I will be tunining into IRT later on CH5 (freesat) and per normal the quality will be sub standard on that too. Web catch up is better quality (even when shown on same tv screen).
Sign In or Register to comment.