All posts by Psohlavec
Below are all of Psohlavec's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Why didn't Freeview make more of an effort to announce the shift to 700Mhz frequencies in London? Whilst a routine retune is no problem, it is not very customer-friendly for people to discover, on the day, that they need to change their Group A aerial to a wideband aerial if they want to retain certain channels like BBC News 24 HD on Channel 107. Surely leaflets could have been mailed to houses. Also, whilst Freeview will in some cases have a new aerial fitted free of charge, many people do not want someone clip-clopping around their property and would rather do the job themselves!
| link to this comment |
Gordon Hayes: If your aerial is a band A aerial it will not provide a signal for the new frequencies in the 700Mhz band and the channels 55 & 56, which Crystal Palace now uses for some of the channels, including BBC News 24 HD. An amplifier will only turn a small poor quality signal into a large poor quality signal. Get a wideband aerial, but preferable a band T aerial, so that it is less likely to pick up interference from mobile phone networks. If the aerial is on the roof it is difficult to get to as a DIY job. Luckily I was able to change my group A aerial as it was on a 6 foot off-set pole mounted just below the guttering. If you have a weak (good quality) signal the amplifier will help.
| link to this comment |
Gordon Hayes: It also helps to have a 'solid copper and braid' screened 'co-ax' aerial cable rather than the more usual 'braid' screening only, to prevent signal losses and to prevent interference getting into the cable.
| link to this comment |
Comment from ex-TV Engineer (1968 to 1975) and career in (old chemical) photography: When in photography, I found people generally did not recognise bad quality photographs. This applied equally to young and old. I would throw away a sub-standard print and people would ask why I was throwing away perfectly good photo. I had to point out the photo was (say) too magenta. But few people could see the problem - even when it was explained to them. The same with definition - few people could recognise the difference between a photo taken with a Contax and one taken with a hobby camera. People tend to look at what is in the picture - not the quality. I look at the quality first before everything else. I am retired now, but remain very fussy about image quality.
| link to this comment |
Friday 23 March 2018 9:27AM
My view is those people who do not watch the high-definition version of a transmission do so simply because they do not recognise a good image. I worked in photography and then as a Television Engineer when I was young. I am over 70 now. Any defect in an image is a source of irritation to me, yet even before HDTV I found most people look at the subject in an image, (say a photograph) before considering the quality. I always look at the quality of an image and secondly what is in the image. I found most people could not even tell an image is poor quality, until it was pointed out to them.