We read last month that “An hour-long edition of the ITV1 soap gave it bragging rights over BBC1′s EastEnders. Emmerdale averaged 7.423 million viewers, a 32.7% share, between 7pm and 8pm, while the BBC1 soap could only manage 6.490 million (26.5%) between 7.30pm and 8pm.” and that ” The Secret Millionaire averaged 1.517 million viewers between 9pm and 10pm, beaten by the second half of BBC2′s Autumnwatch, which averaged 2.13 million (8.3%) between 8.30pm and 9.30pm, and Autumnwatch Unsprung, which had 1.768 million (7.1%) between 9.30pm and 10pm. The two wildlife shows had an extra 58,000 and 63,000 viewers respectively on the BBC HD channel.” It’s also well known that some people will sit all night watching people sleep on Big Brother – is this ‘dumbing down tv’? Quite probably it is, but it’s not what this post is about…
We now have digital tv, we have HD, HD-Ready, DVB, DVB-S, DVB-T2, LED, TFT, Plasma and probably several more since I typed the first letter of this post… But is it getting any better quality-wise?
TV’s are getting thinner, pictures are getting brighter and if things keep up their current rate of progress, there may well be claims for a viewing angle that exceeds the number of degrees in a circle by the end of 2011 and the marketing people will be calling it “Hyper-3D” or something equally meaningless.
Am I against super-slim, bright, natural colour displays that can be viewed from whatever position you find yourself in? I most certainly am not! What I do have a problem with is the fact that in many respects this digital roller-coaster that we’ve all been ‘encouraged’ to board, actually provides a viewing experience that is of a lower quality than it was thirty years ago…
The current HDTV standard (1080i/1080p) has a resolution of 1290 x 1080 and a quoted screen definition of 2,073,600 pixels – advertised as 2.1Mpixel – with, currently, 24-bit colour (8 each for Red, Green & Blue) giving just under 17 million possible colours and 30-bit, 1 billion colours waiting in the wings. It’s impressive, very impressive!!!
Surely it can only be a matter of time before somebody manages to devise a method of producing an almost infinite number of colours from Red, Green & Blue – just as nature does…
If they can find a method of getting away from the limitation of ‘x’ number of points of light (columns) across each horizontal row then things would be really on the up. Imagine the tv display that boasts “Infinite Resolution, Infinite Colours”!
Imagine if they could devise a method whereby a minor bit of interference hits your ears as a barely audible crackle for a fraction of a second and appears on screen as a few tiny scattered white dots that you hardly notice because they’re over too quickly – that, surely, has to be an improvement over the pop followed by so.. ..at d..sn’. .ak. .en.e .or .ever.. .econds and pictures that look like a flicker-book with several pages missing – all followed by a blank screen and a message announcing “NO SIGNAL”.
How much would you pay for a tv like that – £10,000?, £5,000?, £2,000?, £1,000? So how does a price of 285 guineas sound? Very strange if you’re not ‘of a certain age’ and British I should think, so let’s say a bit under £300…
That was the price of a colour tv in 1967 when they first became available to the public…
Now, I fully admit that the old shadowmask cathode ray tube wasn’t capable of displaying an infinite number of points of colour across each of its 625 lines because of needing to shoot beams of electrons through holes in a thin metal plate, but that could have been overcome years ago. I also accept that 625 lines is different to 1080 lines – but I worked with 875 line colour tv monitors way back in 1969 so the limitation was, even then, in the transmission infrastructure, not in the receiving end of the chain, and that too could have been overcome with more modern technology.
There was a headlong rush into ‘digital for digital’s sake’ that has in many areas of life done us no favours, but we were fed the hype and we bought into it and we bought it – and often mortgaged ourselves on our ‘flexible friends’ to do so…
I am not a Luddite, digits have their place – without them this blog wouldn’t be possible – but does it really have to be “chips with everything”? Does a digital toaster that offers you 256 levels of burnt really offer an improvement? Do we need digital doorbells and pay extra for ones that offer “that real bell sound”?
People who appreciate high quality audio are going backwards to ‘the valve sound’ because digital sound – incredible though it can be – just isn’t right somehow to the ‘audiophile’ – our ears, after all are analogue devices and our eyes (in their best years) can distinguish far more subtlety to colour and brightness than any digital system can ever provide.
Just see how many shades of grey you can see in HM’s coiffure as you watch The Queen’s Speech and, if you’re watching digital, think what you may be missing…

- A Philips G6 TV, Christmas 1967 - photo courtesy of Graham Gosling (www.rockcity.adsl24.co.uk/philips/oldnostalgia.html)
P.S.
If the numbers 4.43361875 +/- 1 and 15625 are as ingrained in your brain as they are mine, you know that Peto Scott didn’t conquer the antarctic and you still see a feint image of Test Card G when you close youe eyes, then you’ll understand where I’m coming from – I hope you are older than you look too…
Merry Christmas to all the ‘old farts’
at
