In article , Bill Taylor
writes
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:06:48 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Bill Taylor
writes
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:43:16 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Take 2:

Look and listen closely - digital stuff all suffers from the loss of
that final sharpness, be it sound or images....

Alas, no matter how many 'takes' you make, your theory disagrees with my
experience. :-)



Word Insertion Technique noted - 'theory'...??

My *experience* disagrees with yours and my opinion is shared here.

Anybody care to claim 'digital radio' or 'digital TV' is sharper than
analogue?

That rather depends on what variety of TV your talking about and where
in the distribution chain your viewing it, but at the point of origin
professional digital 625/50 production equipment is better in all
respects than the analogue version.

Interesting point... where exactly is it digitised?.

Well the CCU output is available as SDI but I don't know enough about
modern cameras to say where in the camera the digitisation takes
place, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was fairly early in the
signal chain and some of the processing was done digitally.

Yes its a rather moot point.. would the signal be more accurate as an
analogue signal directly off the CCD as digitising needs to quantify
that signal so in a way analogue is nearer the mark

And remind us of the bitrates used

About 270Mbps for standard def.

Yep..amazing!, its ticking away at that rate and then just to see what
the viewer sees of it

Although I know you don't like transmitted digital TV (and I wish the
bitrates were higher), it is an impressive feat to achieve a nearly
100:1 compression ratio and still get pretty good pictures most of the
time.

Well suppose it is but you'd think that bandwidth availability on
satellite transmission etc...never mind I must write out 10000 times

"In the 21st century Quantity is more important than Quality"

Bill

--
Tony Sayer