IrHorer, You're responses are as if I personally offended you.
Not at all, although your mis-spelling my name is annoying.
And overall I'm very surprised at the level of anger and hostility. Try to view my questions and comments more casually as if we were having a friendly discussion, not as if I came into the room and insulted your wife, and you feel its necessary to get into my face because I was very rude to her. I rarely post in the forum, so I don't even think we've communicated before; I don't understand your level over hostility over this issue.
There was no anger or hostility, nor would I be upset if you insulted my wife. IMO, that would be a pretty silly thing to be upset about. I have no idea what you mean by "get into my face". You made a patently absurd statement unsupported by fact or experimentation. I countered. That is all. In these fora, inferring an emotional state from the words posted on the page is a perilous thing to do in any case, but in this case there is no emotional context at all.
Analog video has a maximum resolution of 480 lines, interlaced. The maximum effective pixel resolution is about 310K, give or take. The S/N is highly variable depending on the transmission medium, but typically may have been no better than 50dB. When the transmission system was impaired, it was often much worse than that. The picture was subject to artifacts from second and third order distortion, ghosting, and interference.
By comparison, digital signals have resolutions of precisely 1200 x 720 (864K) or 1920 x 1080 (20,736K), depending on the broadcast. The picture may or may not be interlaced. The S/N is precisely the same as whatever it was leaving the broadcaster's equipment, typically 65dB. The picture is not at all subject to artifacts due to noise, distortion, ghosts or interference unless those items (due to defects in the transmission system) exceed maximum tolerance levels, in which case the picture will begin to break up badly. Up until then, it will be "perfect".
There can be significant artifacts produced by excessive rate shaping at the CATV headend, and artifacts produced by digital conversion are inevitable, although generally un-noticeable to most people most of the time.
Under more friendly circumstances, I would go into more detail and explain further of what I meant in my OP
There is little point to this. If your provider is delivering poor service to you, then they need to fix their issues. Shy of that, there is simply no reasonable favorable comparison between analog and digital video, with the exception that analog video fails gracefully with degrading transmission parameters, becoming slowly poorer and poorer in quality, but still watchable, as the system degrades. Digital video, OTOH, will tend to remain absolutely perfect until suddenly it fails altogether.
but that would evoke further responses that are argumentative and tear downs.
This is nonsense. Nothing about my post was in the least argumentative nor did I cast even a single personal aspersion in your direction. This is a technical discussion. There is nothing personal or subjective about it.
If there are individuals who are interested in having a discussion (without a condescending tone\insult and not looking to debate\argue), I am interested. I know there are people in this forum who have communication skills to have interesting\informative discussions as well as maintain a friendly tone as if we are good neighbors\friends talking in the backyard.
