Sky CAM
David Quinton
CAMs using their encryption method?
If so, when? I could do without yet another box in my living-room (not
of which like to be stacked because they run so hot!).
I have found that the picture quality on my FTA digital sat receiver
is *far* better than that from RIP Digital. Would this still be the
case with Sky? Or do they over-compress too?
--
David Quinton - BizOrg - <http://www.BizOrg.co.uk>
<http://www.TheLincolnshireSite.com> - <http://www.ThisBritain.com>
<http://www.TheAntiquesDirectory.co.uk>
David Quinton
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <uauuduc6e1tk7ne82...@4ax.com>,
>David Quinton <dav...@BizOrg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Was there not some talk that Sky was to be forced (EU?) to licence
>> CAMs using their encryption method?
>
>No. There wasn't. Various people got the wrong end of the stick - as per
>usual.
>
>> If so, when?
>
>I am making enquiries in Italy at this very moment.
I know we can rely on you to report back in full, Simon....
Mark Carver
"David Quinton" <dav...@BizOrg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hsdvdusdm94iorrat...@4ax.com...
> >> If so, when?
> >
> >I am making enquiries in Italy at this very moment.
>
> I know we can rely on you to report back in full, Simon....
But if you could get a VG CAM from Italy, how would you match it up to
a Sky or BBC card ?
Surely question number one from the Sky or FTV call centre droid
would be:-
"...can I have the serial number of your *Sky Digibox* please? "
It would require the UK DTI to force Sky to accept non-digibox CAMs ?
Starálfur
> I have found that the picture quality on my FTA digital sat receiver
> is *far* better than that from RIP Digital. Would this still be the
> case with Sky? Or do they over-compress too?
differs from channel to channel. some channels are over-compressed, but on
the major channels (e.g. the BBC and Sky channels) the picture quality is
excellent.
--
úr stað - sjálfur:
Starálfur!
Aztech
news:abodr1$k0c90$1...@ID-75131.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "David Quinton" <dav...@BizOrg.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hsdvdusdm94iorrat...@4ax.com...
>
> > >> If so, when?
> > >
> > >I am making enquiries in Italy at this very moment.
> >
> > I know we can rely on you to report back in full, Simon....
>
> But if you could get a VG CAM from Italy, how would you match it up to
> a Sky or BBC card ?
You can bet the VG deployed on Stream in Italy is different enough not to work
on Sky, just as the NDS systems deployed in the US are different.
Az.
David Mumford
down to find your comments, its not have to do.
Starálfur
news:abpdi0$20v$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> why dont you people delete the other comments so we dont have to scroll
> down to find your comments, its not have to do.
because then people wouldn't have a clue what the hell we were referring to.
David Quinton
Hmm. Noticeably better than BBC1 on ITV Digital, say?
--
David Quinton - BizOrg - <http://www.BizOrg.co.uk>
<http://www.TheLincolnshireSite.com> - <http://www.ThisBritain.com>
Discount Chart music; <http://www.ThisBritain.com/Am100music_1.php>
<http://www.TheAntiquesDirectory.co.uk>
Martin Imber
is
>>>excellent.
>>>Hmm. Noticeably better than BBC1 on ITV Digital, say
I reckon BBC is better on DVB-T but then the Sony IDTVs have a particularly
good tuner
Holden McGroin
The tuner has nothing to do with picture quality. We're talking Digital TV here - when you get a signal, you get the same picture on
a Nova-T, Sony IDTV or OffDigital box. Perhaps you could justify better picture quality by having better DACs or better electronics
in the analogue video section, but the quality of the tuner will only affect what you pick up and how uninterrupted the signal is.
The picture quality on BBC channels is, in my opinion, better on DVB-S than DVB-T but is not especially great on either. The DVB-T
version has many more visible MPEG-2 encoding artifacts than the DVB-S version, both shown on the same TV using the same SCART lead
but the DVB-S still has many visible problems. For reference DVB picture quality, i'd tend to look at Hallmark (shame about the
programming).
All this is beside the point anyway. The point is that there _should_ be a CAM available and usable for Sky Digital simply for those
who prefer to use a motorised dish, those of us who prefer to use multiple LNBs, those of us who want to watch Hotbird and those of
us who own sufficiently expensive display equipment to justify a DVB-s box with better quality picture in the analogue domain.
Cheers,
Holden
Starálfur
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 14:30:46 +0100, "Starálfur"
> <ma...@dalenospamrichards.com> wrote:
>
> >"David Quinton" <dav...@BizOrg.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:uauuduc6e1tk7ne82...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> I have found that the picture quality on my FTA digital sat receiver
> >> is *far* better than that from RIP Digital. Would this still be the
> >> case with Sky? Or do they over-compress too?
> >
> >differs from channel to channel. some channels are over-compressed, but
on
> >the major channels (e.g. the BBC and Sky channels) the picture quality is
> >excellent.
>
> Hmm. Noticeably better than BBC1 on ITV Digital, say?
yes. noticeable to even the simplest of fools (i.e. my parents). :)
Martin Imber
or better electronics
>>>in the analogue video section, but the quality of the tuner will only
>>>affect what you pick up and how uninterrupted the signal is.
Well compare a cheap and a decent DVD player - lot of differences with the
same source, the loan boxes were rather cheap and nasty.
>>The picture quality on BBC channels is, in my opinion, better on >>DVB-S
than DVB-T but is not especially great on either. The DVB-T
>>version has many more visible MPEG-2 encoding artifacts than the >>DVB-S
version, both shown on the same TV using the same SCART >>lead
>>but the DVB-S still has many visible problems. For reference DVB >>picture
quality, i'd tend to look at Hallmark (shame about the
>>programming).
ITV1 can be ropey but BBC1 and 2 can look stunning, I have done A-B tests
between my IDTV and the Nokia box - definately does better with the TV.
However despite the dodgy bit rates the picture still looks stunning - and
when playing hunt the artifact PAL wins hands down with multipath
interfearance, limited colour detail and non-anamorphic. Still haven't seen
a Sky box out picture a Sony IDTV
MPEG quality is dependant on the decoder as well as the encoder, the TV is
also more tolerant of interfearance - eg tape 1 and watch 2 BBC 2 will look
fine - no problems, however the tape of one will have a few break ups on it.
>>All this is beside the point anyway. The point is that there _should_ be
>>a CAM available and usable for Sky Digital simply for those
>>who prefer to use a motorised dish, those of us who prefer to use
>>multiple LNBs, those of us who want to watch Hotbird and those of
>>us who own sufficiently expensive display equipment to justify a DVB->>s
box with better quality picture in the analogue domain.
Just like DVB-T and IDTVs (Sony so much better than box) - I would consider
a non Sky Sat box with a Sky CAM but not a Sky box - too proprietry
Holden McGroin
> or better electronics
> >>>in the analogue video section, but the quality of the tuner will only
> >>>affect what you pick up and how uninterrupted the signal is.
>
> Well compare a cheap and a decent DVD player - lot of differences with the
> same source, the loan boxes were rather cheap and nasty.
Again, saying the tuner is causing poor picture quality is the same as saying the DVD-ROM drive in your DVD player is causing poor
picture quality. It's just not right.
> MPEG quality is dependant on the decoder as well as the encoder
Again, that's just wrong. MPEG-2 picture quality has nothing to do with the decoder. The MPEG-2 specifications provide very
stringent requirements for errors during decoding. The MPEG-2 decoder in your ITV Digital box will do exactly the same job as the
MPEG-2 decoder in your IDTV.
I repeat what I said, any picture quality differences you're seeing between your ITV Digital box and Sony TV are introduced from
anywhere after the point the picture enters the analogue domain. Picture quality is not effected by the MPEG-2 decoder or the Tuner.
It could be down to a lot of things, but neither of those.
Cheers,
Holden
Ian Clark
McGroin wrote:
>> Well compare a cheap and a decent DVD player - lot of differences with the
>> same source, the loan boxes were rather cheap and nasty.
>
> Again, saying the tuner is causing poor picture quality is the same as
> saying the DVD-ROM drive in your DVD player is causing poor
> picture quality. It's just not right.
>
>> MPEG quality is dependant on the decoder as well as the encoder
>
> Again, that's just wrong. MPEG-2 picture quality has nothing to do
> with the decoder. The MPEG-2 specifications provide very
> stringent requirements for errors during decoding. The MPEG-2 decoder
> in your ITV Digital box will do exactly the same job as the
> MPEG-2 decoder in your IDTV.
>
> I repeat what I said, any picture quality differences you're seeing
> between your ITV Digital box and Sony TV are introduced from
> anywhere after the point the picture enters the analogue domain.
> Picture quality is not effected by the MPEG-2 decoder or the Tuner.
> It could be down to a lot of things, but neither of those.
Not entirely wrong. Not all decoder implementations are equal, and many
devices apply post processing, which can remove compression artifacts.
--
-Yarn (__) . o O <http://www.yarn.org.uk>
~///oo
!!!! m0O0O0oO0o()O0O00Ooo0()OoOO0o()OOO()()()
Aztech
news:3beE8.872$iu1.1...@news8-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > >>>Perhaps you could justify better picture quality by having better >>>DACs
> > or better electronics
> > >>>in the analogue video section, but the quality of the tuner will only
> > >>>affect what you pick up and how uninterrupted the signal is.
> >
> > Well compare a cheap and a decent DVD player - lot of differences with the
> > same source, the loan boxes were rather cheap and nasty.
>
> Again, saying the tuner is causing poor picture quality is the same as saying
the DVD-ROM drive in your DVD player is causing poor
> picture quality. It's just not right.
Indeed, but the gain and sensitivity do vary, and that can obviously affect the
resultant transport stream if reception is marginal, however under good
conditions all front-end tuners will act the same.
> > MPEG quality is dependant on the decoder as well as the encoder
>
> Again, that's just wrong. MPEG-2 picture quality has nothing to do with the
decoder. The MPEG-2 specifications provide very
> stringent requirements for errors during decoding. The MPEG-2 decoder in your
ITV Digital box will do exactly the same job as the
> MPEG-2 decoder in your IDTV.
Not always the case... the bitstream requirements for both encoders and decoders
are strict, however the algorithms and the models used both in the encoders and
decoders are flexible and often proprietary, chipsets are certainly not created
equal.
Obviously improvements in prediction on the encoding side can make the most
difference, however the decoder isn't inconsequential. You see a vast difference
in DVD players for instance, the quality is clearly down to poor MPEG chipsets,
you see artefacts and discrepancies that would be impossible to create in the
analogue domain.
Az.
Stephen Neal
Holden McGroin wrote in message
<3beE8.872$iu1.1...@news8-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>> >>>Perhaps you could justify better picture quality by having better
>>>DACs
>> or better electronics
>> >>>in the analogue video section, but the quality of the tuner will only
>> >>>affect what you pick up and how uninterrupted the signal is.
>>
>> Well compare a cheap and a decent DVD player - lot of differences with
the
>> same source, the loan boxes were rather cheap and nasty.
>
>Again, saying the tuner is causing poor picture quality is the same as
saying the DVD-ROM drive in your DVD player is causing poor
>picture quality. It's just not right.
Partially - a good tuner will possibly improve picture quality in areas
where the receiver is close to falling over the brick wall of digital
nothingness... A good tuner may also allow error correction to cope rather
than error concealment/failure to take over in a marginal area.
>
>> MPEG quality is dependant on the decoder as well as the encoder
>
>Again, that's just wrong. MPEG-2 picture quality has nothing to do with the
decoder. The MPEG-2 specifications provide very
>stringent requirements for errors during decoding. The MPEG-2 decoder in
your ITV Digital box will do exactly the same job as the
>MPEG-2 decoder in your IDTV.
>
Not true - you are slightly confusing decoding of the data stream - for
which error correction is standard, and reconstruction of the video stream,
which whilst standard in terms of processing can be done in different ways,
with differing degrees of accuracy of maths involved... There are also
ways of post processing, which whilst not part of the MPEG 2 spec, can aid
in concealing artefacts and subjectively improve picture quality.
>I repeat what I said, any picture quality differences you're seeing between
your ITV Digital box and Sony TV are introduced from
>anywhere after the point the picture enters the analogue domain. Picture
quality is not effected by the MPEG-2 decoder or the Tuner.
>It could be down to a lot of things, but neither of those.
I agree that the more marked effects are likely to be post MPEG 2 decoding -
D/As, YCrCb->RGB matrices etc.
Out of interest - does anyone know if the Sony 100Hz DTVs do anything clever
to link the DTT received stream to the 100Hz processing in the digital
domain, or does it go via RGB analogue ?
Steve
Aztech
<snip>
> Out of interest - does anyone know if the Sony 100Hz DTVs do anything clever
> to link the DTT received stream to the 100Hz processing in the digital
> domain, or does it go via RGB analogue ?
Dunno... but the BBC have that fancy DTT tuner with SDI outputs for Plasmas',
everything is kept in the digital domain.
Az.
Simon Farnsworth
wrote:
>> MPEG quality is dependant on the decoder as well as the encoder
>
> Again, that's just wrong. MPEG-2 picture quality has nothing to do
> with the decoder. The MPEG-2 specifications provide very stringent
> requirements for errors during decoding. The MPEG-2 decoder in your
> ITV Digital box will do exactly the same job as the MPEG-2 decoder
> in your IDTV.
No. MPEG-2 (ISO 13818-2 for those who want to look up the spec)
defines what picture sequence corresponds to a given bitstream; there
is plenty of room for a decoder to post process this image to give a
subjectively better picture, either just by filtering statically to
remove likely MPEG artifacts, or dynamically, using information in
the MPEG bitstream to remove artifacting.
--
Simon Farnsworth
E-mail: simon.fa...@durham.ac.uk
Alternate: fa...@catlover.com
"Where did I put that top secret laptop? - MI5 agent"
David Quinton
<hol...@mcgroin.com> wrote:
>All this is beside the point anyway. The point is that there _should_ be a CAM available and usable for Sky Digital simply for those
>who prefer to use a motorised dish,
Like me!
I'll now have to dig out the manual for my Echostar 3000 and see if I
can feed an output from it to a Sky box.
Then I just need to find a friendly local installer?
David Quinton
<ma...@dalenospamrichards.com> wrote:
>> Hmm. Noticeably better than BBC1 on ITV Digital, say?
>
>yes. noticeable to even the simplest of fools (i.e. my parents). :)
Good!
I wantched one of the 16:9 French digital satellite channels on my
Echostar and the picture seemed close to DVD quality (at a distance).
I wonder if they use more bandwidth?
Stephen Neal
David Quinton wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 14 May 2002 14:30:55 +0100, "Starálfur"
><ma...@dalenospamrichards.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hmm. Noticeably better than BBC1 on ITV Digital, say?
>>
>>yes. noticeable to even the simplest of fools (i.e. my parents). :)
>
>Good!
>
>I wantched one of the 16:9 French digital satellite channels on my
>Echostar and the picture seemed close to DVD quality (at a distance).
>
>I wonder if they use more bandwidth?
Believe that a number of European channels use (or used) a higher data rate
than UK broadcasters. ISTR that some were broadcasting at 6-8Mbs according
to the data rate indicator on a MediaMaster. Only C5 and Hallmark come close
to that on satellite in the UK as far as I know...
Steve
Martin Imber
>>in DVD players for instance, the quality is clearly down to poor >>MPEG
chipsets,
>>you see artefacts and discrepancies that would be impossible to create
>>in the analogue domain.
Yes
Martin Imber
the decoder. The MPEG-2 specifications provide very
>>stringent requirements for errors during decoding. The MPEG-2 >>decoder in
your ITV Digital box will do exactly the same job as the
>>MPEG-2 decoder in your IDTV.
What about oversampling, type of DAC, there are lots of variables in MPEG
decoding
Ask in uk.media.dvd!
Starálfur
news:slrnae5qno...@merp.demon.co.uk...
> On Tue, 14 May 2002 00:51:32 +0100, Starálfur
(ma...@dalenospamrichards.com) said:
> >
> >because then people wouldn't have a clue what the hell we were referring
to.
>
thread
> is using a thread-based newsreader, which means messages & replies are
> logically attached to eachother.
everyone reading this group is using NNTP. as a result, messages get expired
or get lost completely and as such it is not always possible to read an
entire thread. also, when referring to a part of somebody's post, it is
courteous (some would say essential) to indicate exactly which part of the
message they are referring to. also, someone who has previously read a
thread would not want to read the entire thread again to make sense of any
new posts.
this is just basic newsgroup etiquette.