View Single Post
Old 23-10-2006, 16:54   #13
Womble
Inactive
 
Womble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In A Politically Correct Hell!! Viva La Revolution
Age: 58
Services: 20meg BB SACM : All the Channels and phone
Posts: 864
Womble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of QuadsWomble has a fine set of Quads
Re: Question about SKY HD quality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart C View Post
No, you can't compare them directly. However, reducing bandwidth does directly affect the quality of a digital signal. If you compared an uncompressed digital signal with an Analogue signal, most people would say that the digital signal is better. As soon as you compress it, the quality may be better or worse depending on the encoding and bandwidth used.
My point exactly!! And you know as well as I do they will compress it to death

---------- Post added at 16:54 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Creative View Post
It was only 8MHz on Cable, satellite uses 28MHz or so channels.
I'd also say 7 channels per mux is on the low side.
HD has the capacity to show far greater detail than analogue ever could, if its given enough bitrate. The second generation of encoders are coming out now as well, so pictures will improve.
So, How many uncompressed digital channels could you put in a mux?? (just out of interest)
Womble is offline   Reply With Quote