"E27002" wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 1:37 am, wrote:
Even the main BBC channels can't cope with highly
mobile scenes such as running water or sea surf without noticable blocks
appearing in the picture. Compared to a decent PAL transmission it looks
utter ****.

I've often wondered why the BBC bother with those moderately-lavish dance shows
et al, given that any fast movement looks completely rubbish after compression.
People are essentially tuning in just to watch an obsolete and unfit-for-purpose
computer screw itself up.


Thanks for sharing. I had no idea. Here in Reno I receive digital TV
thru the Cable system. The quality is outstanding. I don't have a
need to go for Hi Def. I figuered that, if anything, digital quality
in the UK would be better. The old analogue signal was certainly
better in the UK.

It was until 1999, when they added ARCs and (at least in most regions) MPEG2
stages in the 'analogue' transmission chains.

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

Two skyscrapers which will tower 106 metres above Finsbury Park
station in north London have been approved by the borough council.

The complex will also have 335 flats, a restaurant, a cafe, shops and
offices and will take five years to complete. Cycle spaces and
flexible floor space for leisure activities are also included in the
plan for the towers.

The site of the two 21-storey buildings will be the largest in
Islington since Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium was built.
....

How will they compare in height with the existing tower blocks in the
area, near the old traction depot site?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:49:07 +0100
"Tim Fenton" wrote:
wrote in message
...
And while you're at it learn English grammar.

Missing comma after "it". g

*guffaw*

Mind you , having had a look at your blog

Not up to doing your own, clearly.

Playing wannabe journalist isn't something that ever appealled to me.

B2003

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
E27002 wrote:
So we are talking Hip-hop. Each to their own I suppose. But, how

Hip hop, grime, R&B etc.

many outlets does a city need for a "music" form where every "song"
sounds the same?

When the both the DJs and listeners are as thick as pig**** who knows?

B2003

E27002 wrote:


It came as a surprise to me to find out that DAB only duplicates what
is available on FM. This appears to be a missed opportunity.

If you look at www.wohnort.org/DAB you will see that there are quite a
number of Digital-only services. Many of them though just offer more of
the same, an illusion of choice.

Richard Hunt

wrote in message

No we haven't, vested interests came along and ruined it. Freeview has
been buggered up by putting on so many channels that half of them
look like a live report from Legoland as soon as anyone moves because
of the mpeg blocking artifacts. Even the main BBC channels can't cope
with highly mobile scenes such as running water or sea surf without
noticable blocks appearing in the picture. Compared to a decent PAL
transmission it looks utter ****.

Could this depend on the quality of reception you get? I'm very pleased
with the Freeview quality I get -- much better than analogue, which I
now never watch.

It's also very noticeable how much larger (in MB) BBC PVR recordings are
than most commercial channels. Typically, BBC programmes seem to occupy
at least 1.6GB per hour, whereas the mainstream commercial programmes
may be around 1.2GB, and the obscure channels (eg, Quest) are less than
1GB/hour.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:39:04 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Could this depend on the quality of reception you get? I'm very pleased
with the Freeview quality I get -- much better than analogue, which I
now never watch.

I guess it depends on what you find annoying. A bit of snow in analogue TV
never bothers me. mpeg motion artifacts on the other hand drive me up the
bloody wall.

B2003

wrote in message

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:39:04 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Could this depend on the quality of reception you get? I'm very
pleased with the Freeview quality I get -- much better than
analogue, which I now never watch.

I guess it depends on what you find annoying. A bit of snow in
analogue TV never bothers me. mpeg motion artifacts on the other hand
drive me up the bloody wall.

I simply don't see any on the BBC channels. I think you may have a
reception problem. Or could it be that you're watching on a flat screen
telly that isn't resizing the image properly? [I'm still using
excellent CRT TV sets.]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:41:15 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
I simply don't see any on the BBC channels. I think you may have a
reception problem. Or could it be that you're watching on a flat screen

Nope , my recption is fine and even if it wasn't it wouldn't cause these
sorts of artifacts. Watch any any fast motion or any motion all over the
screen such as the surface of water and you'll see it. It even occurs on DVDs
occasionally though not to the same extent.

telly that isn't resizing the image properly? [I'm still using
excellent CRT TV sets.]

Perhaps your CRT is smearing the image slightly so you don't see it.

B2003

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:36:28 +0100
"Tim Fenton" wrote:
wrote in message
...

Mind you , having had a look at your blog

Not up to doing your own, clearly.

Playing wannabe journalist isn't something that ever appealled to me.

Not having a life, you'd have nothing to blog about. Apart from yet more
"appealling" spelling. g

Stick to your blogging bull**** boy and leave the real arguments to the adults.

B2003