GF's little place on the web High Definition – or not? Monday, November 2, 2009 at 2:34 pm
As regular readers of the old blog will recall, some time ago I went out and bought a top of the range 46" Samsung Series 7 RGB LED backlight LCD screen / monitor / telly.
Currently it is sat in my mother's house, it was initially connected to the bog standard Virgin TV package, but the picture was so awful (compared to what the 1080p screen is capable of displaying) that I upgraded her to the Virgin HD package.
Only a few of the channels on Virgin HD are broadcast in "HD", the rest are up-sampled to 1920 x 1080 by the HD box, and of the few channels that are in HD, I honestly cannot tell if they are up-sampled 720i or 1080i, the picture quality is so awful.
Now remember, I have run this screen off my own created 1080p material, shot on a 1080p HD video camera, so I *know* what the screen is capable of.
The fact is, saying 480i or 720i or 720p or 1080i or 1080p doesn't actually tell you anything except the resolution the picture is actually displayed in, it does not tell you a damn thing about the actual resolution of the picture itself, nor the amount of information used to refresh that picture for the next frame in the sequence of video.
That metric is actually measured in bandwidth.
Many of you will be familiar with mp3 format music, so let me give you an audio analogy.
The various formats such as 480i, 720p, 1080i, you can think of, in audio terms, as mono, stereo, quadrophonic, 5.1 surround, etc etc.
What Virgin, and everyone else, are doing is this.
"Mono is crap, you need stereo at least, and ideally 5.1 surround, upgrade and buy this product!"
So, people go out and buy a 5.1 surround sound system, it may be crap, or it may be actually capable of exceeding the audio spec.
They plug this new system into Virgin / Sky / Freesat / whatever, and lo and behold, they get different noises out of different speakers, and it does, subjectively, sound better.
But, in audio terms, they have gone from 64 kBit mono to 92 kBit 5.1, (we are talking bandwidth here) so it only sounds better subjectively.
You have gone from 1 channel using 64 kBit, to 5 channels sharing 92 kBit, or about 20 kBit per channel, when you should have had 5 x 64 = 320 kBit to get the SAME SOUND QUALITY on each channel as you had in 64 kBit mono.
The fact is, to get anything even approaching half decent 5.1 surround sound, 92 kBit simply is not enough, you need 256 KBit as a minimum, 320 kBit is starting to get somewhere.
It is the same with "HD" video, you need about 25 MBit/sec to really carry all the information that a 1080p display can use, but in practical terms 15 MBit/sec is enough to fool everyone except the expert that you are in fact getting the full bandwidth, a bit like only real audiophiles can tell the difference between 192 kBit mp3 and a full audio CD sound.
So what do we get when watching Virgin HD?
It varies, thanks to variable compression and the marketing requirement to get 150 channels of time shifted, repeat, crap programming into the bandwidth available for 20 decent HD channels, and annoyingly, and deliberately, the HD channels are stuffed with stuff that does not actually show HD off, because after all, you can't have paying customers going from an HD channel in your package to a normal channel, and noticing a truly crap picture by comparison.
So, in reality, we get between 2 and 4 Mbit/sec when watching the 1920 x 1080 "HD" output of the Virgin HD service, which is like listening to 92 kBit audio in 5.1, and it gets even worse if you have a decent screen, because it is then like listening to 92 kBit 5.1 audio on a state of the art 5.1 audio system, it is little short of torture, there are as many artifacts (artificial bits of data created by the decompression and up-sampling processes) as there are bits of signal.
I have spent the past day researching this, and, at least here in the UK, no broadcaster publishes the bandwidth of any of their channels, and of course no broadcaster publishes a minimum bandwidth for any channel.
In my own experimentation (and I did many practical experiments to determine this) the point at which a 1080p picture became degraded enough to be actually noticeable while watching was around the 12 Mbit/sec mark, so that forms a useful metric.
(Please, please, please, do not point me at all the people on various AV forums who think the picture quality they get is excellent, not one of them has ever seen true 1080p @ 15 MBit/sec +)
Sadly, in consumer-land this means marketing droids either dividing the number of channels available by 7 (no big deal, dump the shopping channels, and all the +1 hour dupe channels, and you just divided by 3 anyway) or the bean counters shelling out for an infrastructure capable of 7 times the bandwidth.
Part of the problem here is that NOBODY in any of the standards bodies decided to bother with anything except picture resolution, and the number of frames per second, NOBODY paid even the slightest bit of attention to bandwidth, with the result that while the full studio recording bandwidth of 1080p can be as high as 3 Gbit/sec (uncompressed) or more normally 60 Mbit/sec, what used to be known as "broadcast quality" e.g. the signal quality actually sent TO the transmitters, when it comes to the consumer actually receiving this "HD" signal in their homes, 2 Mbit/sec still is not too puny to legally qualify as "HD".
Oh, and your gold plated 50 quid HDMI cable rated at 1.5 Gbit/sec really isn't going to make any difference when the decoder box only has 2 to 4 Mbit/sec going in.
When will this state of affairs change?
Obviously not for MANY years, if left to commercial sources alone.
So my advice is sure, buy a 1080p set if you plan on connecting it to a PC, to a games box capable of 1080p, or to a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player, or a 1080p HD video camera.
DO NOT EVER connect any television service, of any kind, to a 1080p set.
Instead, buy a FAR cheaper 720i / 720p set to connect to the television service, and unless your viewing room is 30 feet long, stick to something 32" or smaller.
Virgin is being binned from my mother's, a one off spend of £150 on a FreesatHD install will give higher bandwidth per channel and no until-you-die monthly expenditure.
> GF's little place on the web > High Definition – or not? > Monday, November 2, 2009 at 2:34 pm
> As regular readers of the old blog will recall, some time ago I went out > and bought a top of the range 46" Samsung Series 7 RGB LED backlight LCD > screen / monitor / telly.
> GF's little place on the web > High Definition – or not? > Monday, November 2, 2009 at 2:34 pm
> As regular readers of the old blog will recall, some time ago I went out > and bought a top of the range 46" Samsung Series 7 RGB LED backlight LCD > screen / monitor / telly.
> Currently it is sat in my mother's house, it was initially connected to > the bog standard Virgin TV package, but the picture was so awful > (compared to what the 1080p screen is capable of displaying) that I > upgraded her to the Virgin HD package.
> Only a few of the channels on Virgin HD are broadcast in "HD", the rest > are up-sampled to 1920 x 1080 by the HD box, and of the few channels > that are in HD, I honestly cannot tell if they are up-sampled 720i or > 1080i, the picture quality is so awful.
> Now remember, I have run this screen off my own created 1080p material, > shot on a 1080p HD video camera, so I *know* what the screen is capable of.
> The fact is, saying 480i or 720i or 720p or 1080i or 1080p doesn't > actually tell you anything except the resolution the picture is actually > displayed in, it does not tell you a damn thing about the actual > resolution of the picture itself, nor the amount of information used to > refresh that picture for the next frame in the sequence of video.
> That metric is actually measured in bandwidth.
> Many of you will be familiar with mp3 format music, so let me give you > an audio analogy.
> The various formats such as 480i, 720p, 1080i, you can think of, in > audio terms, as mono, stereo, quadrophonic, 5.1 surround, etc etc.
> What Virgin, and everyone else, are doing is this.
> "Mono is crap, you need stereo at least, and ideally 5.1 surround, > upgrade and buy this product!"
> So, people go out and buy a 5.1 surround sound system, it may be crap, > or it may be actually capable of exceeding the audio spec.
> They plug this new system into Virgin / Sky / Freesat / whatever, and lo > and behold, they get different noises out of different speakers, and it > does, subjectively, sound better.
> But, in audio terms, they have gone from 64 kBit mono to 92 kBit 5.1, > (we are talking bandwidth here) so it only sounds better subjectively.
> You have gone from 1 channel using 64 kBit, to 5 channels sharing 92 > kBit, or about 20 kBit per channel, when you should have had 5 x 64 = > 320 kBit to get the SAME SOUND QUALITY on each channel as you had in 64 > kBit mono.
> The fact is, to get anything even approaching half decent 5.1 surround > sound, 92 kBit simply is not enough, you need 256 KBit as a minimum, 320 > kBit is starting to get somewhere.
> It is the same with "HD" video, you need about 25 MBit/sec to really > carry all the information that a 1080p display can use, but in practical > terms 15 MBit/sec is enough to fool everyone except the expert that you > are in fact getting the full bandwidth, a bit like only real audiophiles > can tell the difference between 192 kBit mp3 and a full audio CD sound.
> So what do we get when watching Virgin HD?
> It varies, thanks to variable compression and the marketing requirement > to get 150 channels of time shifted, repeat, crap programming into the > bandwidth available for 20 decent HD channels, and annoyingly, and > deliberately, the HD channels are stuffed with stuff that does not > actually show HD off, because after all, you can't have paying customers > going from an HD channel in your package to a normal channel, and > noticing a truly crap picture by comparison.
> So, in reality, we get between 2 and 4 Mbit/sec when watching the 1920 x > 1080 "HD" output of the Virgin HD service, which is like listening to 92 > kBit audio in 5.1, and it gets even worse if you have a decent screen, > because it is then like listening to 92 kBit 5.1 audio on a state of the > art 5.1 audio system, it is little short of torture, there are as many > artifacts (artificial bits of data created by the decompression and > up-sampling processes) as there are bits of signal.
> I have spent the past day researching this, and, at least here in the > UK, no broadcaster publishes the bandwidth of any of their channels, and > of course no broadcaster publishes a minimum bandwidth for any channel.
> In my own experimentation (and I did many practical experiments to > determine this) the point at which a 1080p picture became degraded > enough to be actually noticeable while watching was around the 12 > Mbit/sec mark, so that forms a useful metric.
> (Please, please, please, do not point me at all the people on various AV > forums who think the picture quality they get is excellent, not one of > them has ever seen true 1080p @ 15 MBit/sec +)
> Sadly, in consumer-land this means marketing droids either dividing the > number of channels available by 7 (no big deal, dump the shopping > channels, and all the +1 hour dupe channels, and you just divided by 3 > anyway) or the bean counters shelling out for an infrastructure capable > of 7 times the bandwidth.
> Part of the problem here is that NOBODY in any of the standards bodies > decided to bother with anything except picture resolution, and the > number of frames per second, NOBODY paid even the slightest bit of > attention to bandwidth, with the result that while the full studio > recording bandwidth of 1080p can be as high as 3 Gbit/sec (uncompressed) > or more normally 60 Mbit/sec, what used to be known as "broadcast > quality" e.g. the signal quality actually sent TO the transmitters, when > it comes to the consumer actually receiving this "HD" signal in their > homes, 2 Mbit/sec still is not too puny to legally qualify as "HD".
> Oh, and your gold plated 50 quid HDMI cable rated at 1.5 Gbit/sec really > isn't going to make any difference when the decoder box only has 2 to 4 > Mbit/sec going in.
> When will this state of affairs change?
> Obviously not for MANY years, if left to commercial sources alone.
> So my advice is sure, buy a 1080p set if you plan on connecting it to a > PC, to a games box capable of 1080p, or to a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player, > or a 1080p HD video camera.
> DO NOT EVER connect any television service, of any kind, to a 1080p set.
> Instead, buy a FAR cheaper 720i / 720p set to connect to the television > service, and unless your viewing room is 30 feet long, stick to > something 32" or smaller.
> Virgin is being binned from my mother's, a one off spend of £150 on a > FreesatHD install will give higher bandwidth per channel and no > until-you-die monthly expenditure.
> Peace.
bunt knows very little about anything much!................in the months leading up to his case being struck out as an abuse of process, that had come about due entirely to his ignorance of simple legal procedures, he had been shouting from the rooftops he was a legal expert etc etc etc!
There was also some ridiculous nonsense about repairing a cast iron engine block with a silly little £50 chinese welding machine. Was highly amusing when the prick posted this crap on a stationary engine forum, and someone who appeared to be a real expert in this area ripped bunty to shreds over this.................lol
Well you have to realise that GF received a classic, private school education and then a formal apprenticeship in engineering. This makes him qualified to talk on things mechanical or electrical. He also has the brainpower to research any subject and come up with an informed reply like the one you quote. I don't see anything in his reply that would be incorrect.
The best television picture I have seen is a Samsung HD television and a Blue Ray disk showing Kung Fu Panda in our local Walmart store. The picture is so good you can see the individula strands of fur on the panda.
We have cable TV here in Canada and it is inferior to satellite.
Now before all you idiots spout about court cases and legal advice and such, I will say I am not interested. With a little professional advice the outcome would have been a lot different and the spouters of bollocks would be silenced or behind bars..
> GF's little place on the web > High Definition – or not? > Monday, November 2, 2009 at 2:34 pm
> As regular readers of the old blog will recall, some time ago I went out > and bought a top of the range 46" Samsung Series 7 RGB LED backlight LCD > screen / monitor / telly.
> Currently it is sat in my mother's house, it was initially connected to > the bog standard Virgin TV package, but the picture was so awful (compared > to what the 1080p screen is capable of displaying) that I upgraded her to > the Virgin HD package.
> Only a few of the channels on Virgin HD are broadcast in "HD", the rest > are up-sampled to 1920 x 1080 by the HD box, and of the few channels that > are in HD, I honestly cannot tell if they are up-sampled 720i or 1080i, > the picture quality is so awful.
> Now remember, I have run this screen off my own created 1080p material, > shot on a 1080p HD video camera, so I *know* what the screen is capable > of.
> The fact is, saying 480i or 720i or 720p or 1080i or 1080p doesn't > actually tell you anything except the resolution the picture is actually > displayed in, it does not tell you a damn thing about the actual > resolution of the picture itself, nor the amount of information used to > refresh that picture for the next frame in the sequence of video.
> That metric is actually measured in bandwidth.
> Many of you will be familiar with mp3 format music, so let me give you an > audio analogy.
> The various formats such as 480i, 720p, 1080i, you can think of, in audio > terms, as mono, stereo, quadrophonic, 5.1 surround, etc etc.
> What Virgin, and everyone else, are doing is this.
> "Mono is crap, you need stereo at least, and ideally 5.1 surround, upgrade > and buy this product!"
> So, people go out and buy a 5.1 surround sound system, it may be crap, or > it may be actually capable of exceeding the audio spec.
> They plug this new system into Virgin / Sky / Freesat / whatever, and lo > and behold, they get different noises out of different speakers, and it > does, subjectively, sound better.
> But, in audio terms, they have gone from 64 kBit mono to 92 kBit 5.1, (we > are talking bandwidth here) so it only sounds better subjectively.
> You have gone from 1 channel using 64 kBit, to 5 channels sharing 92 kBit, > or about 20 kBit per channel, when you should have had 5 x 64 = 320 kBit > to get the SAME SOUND QUALITY on each channel as you had in 64 kBit mono.
> The fact is, to get anything even approaching half decent 5.1 surround > sound, 92 kBit simply is not enough, you need 256 KBit as a minimum, 320 > kBit is starting to get somewhere.
> It is the same with "HD" video, you need about 25 MBit/sec to really carry > all the information that a 1080p display can use, but in practical terms > 15 MBit/sec is enough to fool everyone except the expert that you are in > fact getting the full bandwidth, a bit like only real audiophiles can tell > the difference between 192 kBit mp3 and a full audio CD sound.
> So what do we get when watching Virgin HD?
> It varies, thanks to variable compression and the marketing requirement to > get 150 channels of time shifted, repeat, crap programming into the > bandwidth available for 20 decent HD channels, and annoyingly, and > deliberately, the HD channels are stuffed with stuff that does not > actually show HD off, because after all, you can't have paying customers > going from an HD channel in your package to a normal channel, and noticing > a truly crap picture by comparison.
> So, in reality, we get between 2 and 4 Mbit/sec when watching the 1920 x > 1080 "HD" output of the Virgin HD service, which is like listening to 92 > kBit audio in 5.1, and it gets even worse if you have a decent screen, > because it is then like listening to 92 kBit 5.1 audio on a state of the > art 5.1 audio system, it is little short of torture, there are as many > artifacts (artificial bits of data created by the decompression and > up-sampling processes) as there are bits of signal.
> I have spent the past day researching this, and, at least here in the UK, > no broadcaster publishes the bandwidth of any of their channels, and of > course no broadcaster publishes a minimum bandwidth for any channel.
> In my own experimentation (and I did many practical experiments to > determine this) the point at which a 1080p picture became degraded enough > to be actually noticeable while watching was around the 12 Mbit/sec mark, > so that forms a useful metric.
> (Please, please, please, do not point me at all the people on various AV > forums who think the picture quality they get is excellent, not one of > them has ever seen true 1080p @ 15 MBit/sec +)
> Sadly, in consumer-land this means marketing droids either dividing the > number of channels available by 7 (no big deal, dump the shopping > channels, and all the +1 hour dupe channels, and you just divided by 3 > anyway) or the bean counters shelling out for an infrastructure capable of > 7 times the bandwidth.
> Part of the problem here is that NOBODY in any of the standards bodies > decided to bother with anything except picture resolution, and the number > of frames per second, NOBODY paid even the slightest bit of attention to > bandwidth, with the result that while the full studio recording bandwidth > of 1080p can be as high as 3 Gbit/sec (uncompressed) or more normally 60 > Mbit/sec, what used to be known as "broadcast quality" e.g. the signal > quality actually sent TO the transmitters, when it comes to the consumer > actually receiving this "HD" signal in their homes, 2 Mbit/sec still is > not too puny to legally qualify as "HD".
> Oh, and your gold plated 50 quid HDMI cable rated at 1.5 Gbit/sec really > isn't going to make any difference when the decoder box only has 2 to 4 > Mbit/sec going in.
> When will this state of affairs change?
> Obviously not for MANY years, if left to commercial sources alone.
> So my advice is sure, buy a 1080p set if you plan on connecting it to a > PC, to a games box capable of 1080p, or to a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player, or > a 1080p HD video camera.
> DO NOT EVER connect any television service, of any kind, to a 1080p set.
> Instead, buy a FAR cheaper 720i / 720p set to connect to the television > service, and unless your viewing room is 30 feet long, stick to something > 32" or smaller.
> Virgin is being binned from my mother's, a one off spend of £150 on a > FreesatHD install will give higher bandwidth per channel and no > until-you-die monthly expenditure.
Sadly bunt doesnt seem to have the "brainpower" to either hold down a steady job, or the ability to "research" simple matters of legal procedure, which is something that resulted in £40K unpaid legal costs!
In regard to the court case, the fact that bunts statements of claim were peppered with ridiculous assertions which strongly suggested he is mentally ill, was not something that was likely to increase his chances of assuring that his chief tormentor wancox, was going to receive a long prison term.................
n Nov 4, 5:46 am, "Andrew Taylor" <mississa...@spamcopSUBVERSIVE.com> wrote:
> Well you have to realise that GF received a classic, private school > education and then a formal apprenticeship in engineering. This makes him > qualified to talk on things mechanical or electrical. He also has the > brainpower to research any subject and come up with an informed reply like > the one you quote. I don't see anything in his reply that would be > incorrect.
> The best television picture I have seen is a Samsung HD television and a > Blue Ray disk showing Kung Fu Panda in our local Walmart store. The picture > is so good you can see the individula strands of fur on the panda.
> We have cable TV here in Canada and it is inferior to satellite.
> Now before all you idiots spout about court cases and legal advice and such, > I will say I am not interested. With a little professional advice the > outcome would have been a lot different and the spouters of bollocks would > be silenced or behind bars..
> > GF's little place on the web > > High Definition – or not? > > Monday, November 2, 2009 at 2:34 pm
> > As regular readers of the old blog will recall, some time ago I went out > > and bought a top of the range 46" Samsung Series 7 RGB LED backlight LCD > > screen / monitor / telly.
> > Currently it is sat in my mother's house, it was initially connected to > > the bog standard Virgin TV package, but the picture was so awful (compared > > to what the 1080p screen is capable of displaying) that I upgraded her to > > the Virgin HD package.
> > Only a few of the channels on Virgin HD are broadcast in "HD", the rest > > are up-sampled to 1920 x 1080 by the HD box, and of the few channels that > > are in HD, I honestly cannot tell if they are up-sampled 720i or 1080i, > > the picture quality is so awful.
> > Now remember, I have run this screen off my own created 1080p material, > > shot on a 1080p HD video camera, so I *know* what the screen is capable > > of.
> > The fact is, saying 480i or 720i or 720p or 1080i or 1080p doesn't > > actually tell you anything except the resolution the picture is actually > > displayed in, it does not tell you a damn thing about the actual > > resolution of the picture itself, nor the amount of information used to > > refresh that picture for the next frame in the sequence of video.
> > That metric is actually measured in bandwidth.
> > Many of you will be familiar with mp3 format music, so let me give you an > > audio analogy.
> > The various formats such as 480i, 720p, 1080i, you can think of, in audio > > terms, as mono, stereo, quadrophonic, 5.1 surround, etc etc.
> > What Virgin, and everyone else, are doing is this.
> > "Mono is crap, you need stereo at least, and ideally 5.1 surround, upgrade > > and buy this product!"
> > So, people go out and buy a 5.1 surround sound system, it may be crap, or > > it may be actually capable of exceeding the audio spec.
> > They plug this new system into Virgin / Sky / Freesat / whatever, and lo > > and behold, they get different noises out of different speakers, and it > > does, subjectively, sound better.
> > But, in audio terms, they have gone from 64 kBit mono to 92 kBit 5.1, (we > > are talking bandwidth here) so it only sounds better subjectively.
> > You have gone from 1 channel using 64 kBit, to 5 channels sharing 92 kBit, > > or about 20 kBit per channel, when you should have had 5 x 64 = 320 kBit > > to get the SAME SOUND QUALITY on each channel as you had in 64 kBit mono.
> > The fact is, to get anything even approaching half decent 5.1 surround > > sound, 92 kBit simply is not enough, you need 256 KBit as a minimum, 320 > > kBit is starting to get somewhere.
> > It is the same with "HD" video, you need about 25 MBit/sec to really carry > > all the information that a 1080p display can use, but in practical terms > > 15 MBit/sec is enough to fool everyone except the expert that you are in > > fact getting the full bandwidth, a bit like only real audiophiles can tell > > the difference between 192 kBit mp3 and a full audio CD sound.
> > So what do we get when watching Virgin HD?
> > It varies, thanks to variable compression and the marketing requirement to > > get 150 channels of time shifted, repeat, crap programming into the > > bandwidth available for 20 decent HD channels, and annoyingly, and > > deliberately, the HD channels are stuffed with stuff that does not > > actually show HD off, because after all, you can't have paying customers > > going from an HD channel in your package to a normal channel, and noticing > > a truly crap picture by comparison.
> > So, in reality, we get between 2 and 4 Mbit/sec when watching the 1920 x > > 1080 "HD" output of the Virgin HD service, which is like listening to 92 > > kBit audio in 5.1, and it gets even worse if you have a decent screen, > > because it is then like listening to 92 kBit 5.1 audio on a state of the > > art 5.1 audio system, it is little short of torture, there are as many > > artifacts (artificial bits of data created by the decompression and > > up-sampling processes) as there are bits of signal.
> > I have spent the past day researching this, and, at least here in the UK, > > no broadcaster publishes the bandwidth of any of their channels, and of > > course no broadcaster publishes a minimum bandwidth for any channel.
> > In my own experimentation (and I did many practical experiments to > > determine this) the point at which a 1080p picture became degraded enough > > to be actually noticeable while watching was around the 12 Mbit/sec mark, > > so that forms a useful metric.
> > (Please, please, please, do not point me at all the people on various AV > > forums who think the picture quality they get is excellent, not one of > > them has ever seen true 1080p @ 15 MBit/sec +)
> > Sadly, in consumer-land this means marketing droids either dividing the > > number of channels available by 7 (no big deal, dump the shopping > > channels, and all the +1 hour dupe channels, and you just divided by 3 > > anyway) or the bean counters shelling out for an infrastructure capable of > > 7 times the bandwidth.
> > Part of the problem here is that NOBODY in any of the standards bodies > > decided to bother with anything except picture resolution, and the number > > of frames per second, NOBODY paid even the slightest bit of attention to > > bandwidth, with the result that while the full studio recording bandwidth > > of 1080p can be as high as 3 Gbit/sec (uncompressed) or more normally 60 > > Mbit/sec, what used to be known as "broadcast quality" e.g. the signal > > quality actually sent TO the transmitters, when it comes to the consumer > > actually receiving this "HD" signal in their homes, 2 Mbit/sec still is > > not too puny to legally qualify as "HD".
> > Oh, and your gold plated 50 quid HDMI cable rated at 1.5 Gbit/sec really > > isn't going to make any difference when the decoder box only has 2 to 4 > > Mbit/sec going in.
> > When will this state of affairs change?
> > Obviously not for MANY years, if left to commercial sources alone.
> > So my advice is sure, buy a 1080p set if you plan on connecting it to a > > PC, to a games box capable of 1080p, or to a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player, or > > a 1080p HD video camera.
> > DO NOT EVER connect any television service, of any kind, to a 1080p set.
> > Instead, buy a FAR cheaper 720i / 720p set to connect to the television > > service, and unless your viewing room is 30 feet long, stick to something > > 32" or smaller.
> > Virgin is being binned from my mother's, a one off spend of £150 on a > > FreesatHD install will give higher bandwidth per channel and no > > until-you-die monthly expenditure.
>GF's little place on the web >High Definition – or not? >Monday, November 2, 2009 at 2:34 pm
>As regular readers of the old blog will recall, some time ago I went out >and bought a top of the range 46" Samsung Series 7 RGB LED backlight LCD >screen / monitor / telly.
I cannot comment on any of the other allegations being made about the person in question, but the quote in your post seems to be completely accurate to me, so I am mystified as to why you believe that it proves anything detrimental about the knowlege of the person that you obviously have a running feud with.
The fact that you appear to believe that it *does* indicate a lack of knowlege on his part is an indication that it is yourself who is ignorant on the subject.
>> GF's little place on the web >> High Definition – or not? >> Monday, November 2, 2009 at 2:34 pm
>> As regular readers of the old blog will recall, some time ago I went out >> and bought a top of the range 46" Samsung Series 7 RGB LED backlight LCD >> screen / monitor / telly.
> I cannot comment on any of the other allegations being made about the > person in question, but the quote in your post seems to be completely > accurate to me, so I am mystified as to why you believe that it proves > anything detrimental about the knowlege of the person that you > obviously have a running feud with.
> The fact that you appear to believe that it *does* indicate a lack of > knowlege on his part is an indication that it is yourself who is > ignorant on the subject.
Why did he buy/steal it in the first place if it's such a heap of shit?
His knowledge of electrical items is like his knowledge of welding and law non-existent.
> >GF's little place on the web > >High Definition – or not? > >Monday, November 2, 2009 at 2:34 pm
> >As regular readers of the old blog will recall, some time ago I went out > >and bought a top of the range 46" Samsung Series 7 RGB LED backlight LCD > >screen / monitor / telly.
> I cannot comment on any of the other allegations being made about the > person in question, but the quote in your post seems to be completely > accurate to me, so I am mystified as to why you believe that it proves > anything detrimental about the knowlege of the person that you > obviously have a running feud with.
> The fact that you appear to believe that it *does* indicate a lack of > knowlege on his part is an indication that it is yourself who is > ignorant on the subject.
> -- > Cynic
bunt is in actual fact someone who spends many hours on the net, and the content of his post about HD television (something that would be rather difficult to afford for someone on state benefits!), will be a cut and paste job, that I imagine has come about due to him wanting people that read it to think he is a person of some means!
When he himself holds forth, the views expressed obviously are coming from a person who has little or no first hand experience of the subject themselves, and are merely his own skewed interpretations of things he has seen posted on the net.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:57:44 +0000, Harold <whiteman...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>> As regular readers of the old blog will recall, some time ago I went out >>> and bought a top of the range 46" Samsung Series 7 RGB LED backlight LCD >>> screen / monitor / telly. >> I cannot comment on any of the other allegations being made about the >> person in question, but the quote in your post seems to be completely >> accurate to me, so I am mystified as to why you believe that it proves >> anything detrimental about the knowlege of the person that you >> obviously have a running feud with. >> The fact that you appear to believe that it *does* indicate a lack of >> knowlege on his part is an indication that it is yourself who is >> ignorant on the subject. >Why did he buy/steal it in the first place if it's such a heap of shit?
If you read what he wrote, you'll see that what he bought was perfectly OK. It simply served to show up the deficiencies in another system. Like getting a new pair of glasses and suddenly realising how ugly your wife is :-)
>His knowledge of electrical items is like his knowledge of welding and >law non-existent.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 05:59:59 -0800 (PST), Richard <ke...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>bunt is in actual fact someone who spends many hours on the net, and >the content of his post about HD television (something that would be >rather difficult to afford for someone on state benefits!), will be a >cut and paste job, that I imagine has come about due to him wanting >people that read it to think he is a person of some means!
It is usually trivial to expose a cut-and-paste job. Simply put a few phrases into a search engine and find the article it was taken from.
So no doubt you will be able to post a link that supports your allegation?
Cynic wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 05:59:59 -0800 (PST), Richard <ke...@live.co.uk> > wrote:
>> bunt is in actual fact someone who spends many hours on the net, and >> the content of his post about HD television (something that would be >> rather difficult to afford for someone on state benefits!), will be a >> cut and paste job, that I imagine has come about due to him wanting >> people that read it to think he is a person of some means!
> It is usually trivial to expose a cut-and-paste job. Simply put a few > phrases into a search engine and find the article it was taken from.
> So no doubt you will be able to post a link that supports your > allegation?
Bunt knows so much about HDTV that he is unemployed and scrapping old cars for £10 a time.
> The various formats such as 480i, 720p, 1080i, you can think of, in audio > terms, as mono, stereo, quadrophonic, 5.1 surround, etc etc.
> What Virgin, and everyone else, are doing is this.
Wrong!!!
Cable picture quality is in my opinion crap compared to Sky and in HD the difference is even greater.
> "Mono is crap, you need stereo at least, and ideally 5.1 surround, upgrade > and buy this product!"
> So, people go out and buy a 5.1 surround sound system, it may be crap, or > it may be actually capable of exceeding the audio spec.
> They plug this new system into Virgin / Sky / Freesat / whatever, and lo > and behold, they get different noises out of different speakers, and it > does, subjectively, sound better.
> But, in audio terms, they have gone from 64 kBit mono to 92 kBit 5.1, (we > are talking bandwidth here) so it only sounds better subjectively.
Bullshit and rubbish Sky broadcasts many of its channels using AC3 which is 384Kbps
> You have gone from 1 channel using 64 kBit, to 5 channels sharing 92 kBit, > or about 20 kBit per channel, when you should have had 5 x 64 = 320 kBit > to get the SAME SOUND QUALITY on each channel as you had in 64 kBit mono.
> The fact is, to get anything even approaching half decent 5.1 surround > sound, 92 kBit simply is not enough, you need 256 KBit as a minimum, 320 > kBit is starting to get somewhere.
Where he gets this 92Kbits from i dont know maybe thats what Virgin uses Sky do not, but he does claim they all use 92 bits which is wrong.
> So my advice is sure, buy a 1080p set if you plan on connecting it to a > PC, to a games box capable of 1080p, or to a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player, or > a 1080p HD video camera.
> DO NOT EVER connect any television service, of any kind, to a 1080p set.
> Instead, buy a FAR cheaper 720i / 720p set to connect to the television > service, and unless your viewing room is 30 feet long, stick to something > 32" or smaller.
Sky HD is 1080i I have a Samsumg 40" 1080P and a Samsung 40" 720 guess which one produces the better picture? well it aint the 720 so just don't listen to Bunt on this its bollocks.
And the comment about size of room to screen size is bollocks aswell with sky hd 1080i on the 1080p screen you can actually sit closer to the screen than you can on a lower res feed/screen. The pixels are some much finer/higher res the closer you get the more detail you can see, unlike a lower res screen or plasma where the closer you get all you can see are pixel/cells.
> I have spent the past day researching this, and, at least here in the UK, > no broadcaster publishes the bandwidth of any of their channels, and of > course no broadcaster publishes a minimum bandwidth for any channel.
No but you can find all the bit rate stats here for Satellites!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Ken" <classictr...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ac46fb93-4e45-4893-868a-d3278af2c645@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... Interesting points of view Andrew.................having met bunt twice I wasnt sure that he had had any sort of education at all, as he simply didnt seem to understand quite what was going on! The thing that does strike you about bunt though, is that for those that are gullible or dim he is quite able to put across a good line in bullshit!
So you have met him 18 times (or therabouts) less than I have? Neat! You didn't see him on this forum run rings around someone who thought they knew classic Latin!
As to him ever having trained as an engineer, some of the suggestions he made on a stationary engine forum, which is frequented by real engineers, seemed to be saying bunt is little more than a fool with a big mouth and a net connection!
Did the repair on that stationary engine hold? Simple question, yes or no?
Finally even if bunt had been able to come to grips with simple matters of legal procedure, the fact that he had lied through his back teeth in his submitted statements of claim, the only people likely to have been convicted of anything, were him himself and his associate wancox (for attempting to pervert the course of justice).
Post proof of the lies. I watched the whole of the UKLSW debacle and saw none of it.
On Nov 4, 5:46 am, "Andrew Taylor" <mississa...@spamcopSUBVERSIVE.com> wrote:
> Well you have to realise that GF received a classic, private school > education and then a formal apprenticeship in engineering. This makes him > qualified to talk on things mechanical or electrical. He also has the > brainpower to research any subject and come up with an informed reply like > the one you quote. I don't see anything in his reply that would be > incorrect.
> The best television picture I have seen is a Samsung HD television and a > Blue Ray disk showing Kung Fu Panda in our local Walmart store. The > picture > is so good you can see the individula strands of fur on the panda.
> We have cable TV here in Canada and it is inferior to satellite.
> Now before all you idiots spout about court cases and legal advice and > such, > I will say I am not interested. With a little professional advice the > outcome would have been a lot different and the spouters of bollocks would > be silenced or behind bars.. > old blog will recall, some time ago I went out
In regard to bunty being a bit of a fibber I dont really need to post proof of this............he has provided this himself! The suggestion made in one of his submitted statements of claim, that being taunted on here had resulted in his having become impotent, at the very same time he made a rather dim and unfortunate teenage girl pregnant, seems to me to provide pretty conclusive proof!
Concerning bunts attempts to repair cast iron, If you mend the leaking roof of your house, with car body filler the bodged repair may well last a while, but is certainly not the type of thing anyone who claims to be a professional roofer would be likely to suggest in public! bunts knowledge of engineering seems to be extremely limited, and what he does know appears to be coming from someone who has had little or no experience of actually doing any of this type of work.........................
Finally why anyone in their right mind would want to spring to the defence of someone who has been accused of abusing a mental defective, as well as being an aficionado and fan of "extreme" porn, is something that I find very very strange, unless of course the person doing the defending has the same type of interests as the abuser possibly!
> > The various formats such as 480i, 720p, 1080i, you can think of, in audio > > terms, as mono, stereo, quadrophonic, 5.1 surround, etc etc.
> > What Virgin, and everyone else, are doing is this.
> Wrong!!!
> Cable picture quality is in my opinion crap compared to Sky and in HD the > difference is even greater.
> > "Mono is crap, you need stereo at least, and ideally 5.1 surround, upgrade > > and buy this product!"
> > So, people go out and buy a 5.1 surround sound system, it may be crap, or > > it may be actually capable of exceeding the audio spec.
> > They plug this new system into Virgin / Sky / Freesat / whatever, and lo > > and behold, they get different noises out of different speakers, and it > > does, subjectively, sound better.
> > But, in audio terms, they have gone from 64 kBit mono to 92 kBit 5.1, (we > > are talking bandwidth here) so it only sounds better subjectively.
> Bullshit and rubbish Sky broadcasts many of its channels using AC3 which is > 384Kbps
> > You have gone from 1 channel using 64 kBit, to 5 channels sharing 92 kBit, > > or about 20 kBit per channel, when you should have had 5 x 64 = 320 kBit > > to get the SAME SOUND QUALITY on each channel as you had in 64 kBit mono.
> > The fact is, to get anything even approaching half decent 5.1 surround > > sound, 92 kBit simply is not enough, you need 256 KBit as a minimum, 320 > > kBit is starting to get somewhere.
> Where he gets this 92Kbits from i dont know maybe thats what Virgin uses Sky > do not, but he does claim they all use 92 bits which is wrong.
> > So my advice is sure, buy a 1080p set if you plan on connecting it to a > > PC, to a games box capable of 1080p, or to a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player, or > > a 1080p HD video camera.
> > DO NOT EVER connect any television service, of any kind, to a 1080p set.
> > Instead, buy a FAR cheaper 720i / 720p set to connect to the television > > service, and unless your viewing room is 30 feet long, stick to something > > 32" or smaller.
> Sky HD is 1080i I have a Samsumg 40" 1080P and a Samsung 40" 720 guess which > one produces the better picture? well it aint the 720 so just don't listen > to Bunt on this its bollocks.
> And the comment about size of room to screen size is bollocks aswell with > sky hd 1080i on the 1080p screen you can actually sit closer to the screen > than you can on a lower res feed/screen. The pixels are some much > finer/higher res the closer you get the more detail you can see, unlike a > lower res screen or plasma where the closer you get all you can see are > pixel/cells.
We all know bunt talks out of his arse, so why bother to post proof of the fact! Lets hope there is still a chance of him doing time for abusing the mental defective teen......................
<grahamsutherland...@tiscali.net> wrote: >Bunt knows so much about HDTV that he is unemployed and scrapping old >cars for £10 a time.
Why should the one thing have anything to do with the other? I know people with good university degrees who stack shelves at supermarkets. having knowlege does not secure a good job.
The person you refer to may or may not be as bad as you say - but the arguments you have been using to date have done *nothing* toward backing up any of your claims about him.
> <grahamsutherland...@tiscali.net> wrote: > >Bunt knows so much about HDTV that he is unemployed and scrapping old > >cars for £10 a time.
> Why should the one thing have anything to do with the other? I know > people with good university degrees who stack shelves at supermarkets. > having knowlege does not secure a good job.
> The person you refer to may or may not be as bad as you say - but the > arguments you have been using to date have done *nothing* toward > backing up any of your claims about him.
> -- > Cynic
The fact that he has abused and sexually assaulting a simple minded teenage girl, is something that many people might possibly find distasteful? Or does the fact that this girl is older than the age of consent, mean that bunty having his wicked way with her, mean that this is perfectly ok? A complaint of the assault is on file with Exeter plod, but it would seem as this was made some while after the assault, there is little chance of securing a conviction.
At the time in 2005 when this same unfortunate girl fell pregnant by bunt, according to a statement of claim lodged with the RCJ, he was in fact impotent................a condition that supposedly came about after he was taunted on here! Hardly the sort of thing that suggests bunt is someone to be trusted!
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:07:32 -0800 (PST), Richard <ke...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Bunt knows so much about HDTV that he is unemployed and scrapping old >> >cars for £10 a time. >> Why should the one thing have anything to do with the other? I know >> people with good university degrees who stack shelves at supermarkets. >> having knowlege does not secure a good job. >> The person you refer to may or may not be as bad as you say - but the >> arguments you have been using to date have done *nothing* toward >> backing up any of your claims about him. >The fact that he has abused and sexually assaulting a simple minded >teenage girl, is something that many people might possibly find >distasteful?
If someone on Usenet were to claim that *you* had sexually assaulted a simple minded teenage girl, you will be pleased to know that quoting a blog from you about HDTV will be unlikely to convice me that the allegation is true.
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:07:32 -0800 (PST), Richard <ke...@live.co.uk> > wrote:
> >> >Bunt knows so much about HDTV that he is unemployed and scrapping old > >> >cars for £10 a time. > >> Why should the one thing have anything to do with the other? I know > >> people with good university degrees who stack shelves at supermarkets. > >> having knowlege does not secure a good job. > >> The person you refer to may or may not be as bad as you say - but the > >> arguments you have been using to date have done *nothing* toward > >> backing up any of your claims about him. > >The fact that he has abused and sexually assaulting a simple minded > >teenage girl, is something that many people might possibly find > >distasteful?
> If someone on Usenet were to claim that *you* had sexually assaulted a > simple minded teenage girl, you will be pleased to know that quoting a > blog from you about HDTV will be unlikely to convice me that the > allegation is true.
> -- > Cynic
The girl herself has accused bunty, not "someone" on usenet! And the fact bunt is most certainly a liar, is backed up by the fact that at the time he was suggesting that he was impotent as a result of being taunted on here, that the very same simple minded teen was made pregnant by him..............possibly in the view of bunt fans this was an immaculate conception of some sort?
> On Nov 5, 5:17 pm, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:07:32 -0800 (PST), Richard <ke...@live.co.uk> > > wrote:
> > >> >Bunt knows so much about HDTV that he is unemployed and scrapping old > > >> >cars for £10 a time. > > >> Why should the one thing have anything to do with the other? I know > > >> people with good university degrees who stack shelves at supermarkets. > > >> having knowlege does not secure a good job. > > >> The person you refer to may or may not be as bad as you say - but the > > >> arguments you have been using to date have done *nothing* toward > > >> backing up any of your claims about him. > > >The fact that he has abused and sexually assaulting a simple minded > > >teenage girl, is something that many people might possibly find > > >distasteful?
> > If someone on Usenet were to claim that *you* had sexually assaulted a > > simple minded teenage girl, you will be pleased to know that quoting a > > blog from you about HDTV will be unlikely to convice me that the > > allegation is true.
> > -- > > Cynic
> The girl herself has accused bunty, not "someone" on usenet! And the > fact bunt is most certainly a liar, is backed up by the fact that at > the time he was suggesting that he was impotent as a result of being > taunted on here, that the very same simple minded teen was made > pregnant by him..............possibly in the view of bunt fans this > was an immaculate conception of some sort?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I cant believe so many fall for the bullshit of the worst pair of cunts on usenet. One , a cannabis brain-addled idle benefit scrounger and the other one , an insane little fat bastard who somehow keeps escaping from the loony bin
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:20:23 -0800 (PST), Richard <ke...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> If someone on Usenet were to claim that *you* had sexually assaulted a >> simple minded teenage girl, you will be pleased to know that quoting a >> blog from you about HDTV will be unlikely to convice me that the >> allegation is true. >The girl herself has accused bunty, not "someone" on usenet! And the >fact bunt is most certainly a liar, is backed up by the fact that at >the time he was suggesting that he was impotent as a result of being >taunted on here, that the very same simple minded teen was made >pregnant by him..............possibly in the view of bunt fans this >was an immaculate conception of some sort?
I am not so naive as to believe allegations made by anonymous people on Usenet without some pretty good supporting evidence.
Post a URL to a media report on his trial and conviction for serious sexual assault (which would most definitely have happened if your allegation was anything like the truth), and I might begin taking you seriously. Until then, it is just another set of outrageous personal attacks on someone I don't know by someone else I don't know, and you have zero credibility. Goodbye.
|
