TV Reception Problems - Attn. Bill & Other Experts - Help!

[caz]

I am currently using the following external antenna set-up:-

Antiference TC18B for Rosemarkie which is approx. 23 km away.

Antiference TC18CD for Mounteagle at a distance of approx. 10km

Both transmitters are on a similar bearing from my location (I would guess
no more than 5 degrees)

Two cable runs of CT100 (approx. 10-15m long) feed into an Antiference 5153
diplexer by the TV, with a short run of CT100 to my first VCR. The signal
loops through this into the second VCR, again looping through to my third
VCR, then loopthrough and into the TV - hardly ideal, but it has been like
this since I installed the antennas approx. 20 months ago. All RF leads are
home-made using CT 100.

While my reception was not perfect, it was quite good until earlier this
year (approx. sometime in February) when, one day, reception from Rosemarkie
'took a dive' (nosier & 'ghostier' - Mounteagle is still fine). All TVs are
affected even though my main antennas feed my main TV only; all portable TVs
use individual set-top antennas. I inspected my main antennas, and apart
from the gaffa tape beginning to peel (this covers the main seal which is of
self-amalgamating tape) everything appears normal.

Reception varies, but even at its best, reception does not seem to have
returned to 'normal', and at its worst, pictures are noisy/grainy and
'ghosty', but still full colour, with stereo sound.

My neighbour also reports reception problems.

There is a line of trees approx. 250m in front of my house, the right hand
edge of which appears to be just, and no more, obscuring the line to the
transmitters - from my location, Rosemarkie is to the left of Mounteagle,
hence more likely to be obscured. As an experiment, I tried a Triax Unix 52W
at the opposite end on my house, the line from which clears the trees and
gives clear line of sight to Mounteagle and, I think, Rosemarkie (using
binoculars I think I can see the top of Rosemarkie 'peeking' out above the
top of the Black Isle). The cable run required was considerably longer (say
30m) but, if anything, Five was even better than it is with my existing
TC18CD; unfortunately, 1-4 from Rosemarkie was marginally worse.

I contacted the BBC on a number of occasions and, eventually, someone took
test measurements in the village (not at my location however - Am I
incorrect in thinking that measurements from anywhere other then the exact
problem location are largely worthless?) and reported field strengths as:-

'just under or nudging 80dBuV/m'

Can I assume that, for whatever reason, signal from Rosemarkie is weaker at
my location than it used to be, and should consider a single stage masthead
amp? Do I have to get some signal strength measurements from my antenna feed
before attempting any solutions (I'm not sure if any of the local installers
are any good, and I don't have a signal strength meter).

I don't know if DTT is any good at my location, but I would prefer to have
analogue for my 'prodigious' timeshifting requirements (not to mention, I'm
led to believe, the proliferation of annoying DOGs, and less than ideal
bitrates etc. on digital). I am in the process of buying a new TV as my main
set 'died' recently, so an IDTV is a possibility.

Any other suggestion re the reception problems, as well as the correct way
to feed three VCRs and one TV (located together) from a single antenna feed,
would be much appreciated.

TIA.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 18/06/04

[caz]

Post by caz
I am currently using the following external antenna set-up:-
Antiference TC18B for Rosemarkie which is approx. 23 km away.
Antiference TC18CD for Mounteagle at a distance of approx. 10km
Both transmitters are on a similar bearing from my location (I would guess
no more than 5 degrees)
Two cable runs of CT100 (approx. 10-15m long) feed into an Antiference 5153
diplexer by the TV

Oops! That should read Antiferene UD5355 diplexer.


SNIP


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 18/06/04

[aa]

Post by caz

Post by caz
I am currently using the following external antenna set-up:-
Antiference TC18B for Rosemarkie which is approx. 23 km away.
Antiference TC18CD for Mounteagle at a distance of approx. 10km
Both transmitters are on a similar bearing from my location (I would
guess no more than 5 degrees)
Two cable runs of CT100 (approx. 10-15m long) feed into an
Antiference 5153 diplexer by the TV

Oops! That should read Antiferene UD5355 diplexer.

Oops! Here.....Catch.... -----> c
;-)

[caz]

Post by caz

Post by caz
I am currently using the following external antenna set-up:-
Antiference TC18B for Rosemarkie which is approx. 23 km away.
Antiference TC18CD for Mounteagle at a distance of approx. 10km
Both transmitters are on a similar bearing from my location (I would guess
no more than 5 degrees)
Two cable runs of CT100 (approx. 10-15m long) feed into an Antiference

5153

Post by caz
diplexer by the TV

Oops! That should read Antiferene UD5355 diplexer.
SNIP

Doh!

Not having much luck am I? Antiference UD5355 diplexer.

Post by caz
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 18/06/04

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 18/06/04

[Paul Sherwin]

If reception suddenly deteriorated overnight the problem is unlikely
to be leaves on trees, and if your neighbours are affected it's not
going to be your aerial. Most likely something's been done to the
transmitter which has affected your location adversely.

With regards to DTT, it's worth trying this if you are in a DTT area.
Usable boxes are well under £50 now, and you can often get good
reception when the analogue signal is quite messy. Most of the people
moaning about DTT bitrates are either professionals who know what to
look for, or people with huge plasma widescreen tellies - DTT *does*
look pretty awful on these. Quality is acceptable on normal domestic
tellies though, and is certainly better than a poor analogue signal -
you get some compression artefacts but you don't get PAL effects.. The
DOGs are not present on the main 5 channels and aren't too intrusive
on BBC3 and BBC4 (though I'd prefer not to have them at all).

Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk

[caz]

Post by Paul Sherwin
If reception suddenly deteriorated overnight the problem is unlikely
to be leaves on trees, and if your neighbours are affected it's not
going to be your aerial. Most likely something's been done to the
transmitter which has affected your location adversely.

As well as contacting the BBC, I also spoke to Crown Castle on a couple of
occasions who said that no problems were reported with the transmitter (he
mentioned something about remote monitoring). However, on one occasion, I
mentioned that some channels appeared to be on low power operation and after
initially saying that no work was currently being carried out (there was
nothing mentioned on Ceefax), after three attempts (checking worksheets,
speaking to other members of staff etc.), he finally decided that they were
working on it!

I don't suppose that they have been doing anything with DTT from Rosemarkie?
And if they have, could this cause problems with analogue?

Post by Paul Sherwin
With regards to DTT, it's worth trying this if you are in a DTT area.

I am, according to the dtg site, but I seem to remember checking other sites
in the past (dedicated Freeview site?), with differing predictions. None of
my neighbours have Freeview.

Post by Paul Sherwin
Usable boxes are well under £50 now, and you can often get good
reception when the analogue signal is quite messy. Most of the people
moaning about DTT bitrates are either professionals who know what to
look for, or people with huge plasma widescreen tellies - DTT *does*
look pretty awful on these. Quality is acceptable on normal domestic
tellies though,

I am planning to get a 32" CRT.

My old TV was a 25" 4:3, and from what I have seen, 32" seems to be the
equivalent i.e. they each provide the same size of 4:3 pictures.



and is certainly better than a poor analogue signal -

Post by Paul Sherwin
you get some compression artefacts but you don't get PAL effects..The
DOGs are not present on the main 5 channels

Good to hear.

I would still require multiple DTT sources for timeshifting, although an
IDTV would be ideal for viewing as you don't need another Scart socket
(which are in short supply on most TVs) and you control both analogue and
digital from the same remote handset. It's annoying that there are still so
few IDTVs available - I would have thought that with the, apparently, great
success of Freeview, and the seemingly inexorable move to analogue switch
off, most TVs should be available with built in digital. I think some of the
newer products (multi tuner with built in hard drive etc) would be required
for timeshifting to keep the number of boxes to a minimum - I already have a
TV, 3 VCRs, CI digital satellite receiver and my old analogue satellite
receiver (used to provide multiple outputs from digital satellite). I have
yet to see any with more than two tuners though, so holding off for a while
may be advantageous.


and aren't too intrusive

Post by Paul Sherwin
on BBC3 and BBC4 (though I'd prefer not to have them at all).

Me too - can't stand them! Not to mention all the 'compressing' of end
credits, speaking over music during end credits etc. to advertise what's
next, or to try and sell you something - In fact, on analogue they now
intrude on the programme itself (on the few programmes that have credits
running during the final scene). I get the impression it is even worse on
DTT - is this the case?

Post by Paul Sherwin
Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/04

[Paul Sherwin]

Post by caz
I don't suppose that they have been doing anything with DTT from Rosemarkie?
And if they have, could this cause problems with analogue?

Who knows?

Post by caz

Post by Paul Sherwin
With regards to DTT, it's worth trying this if you are in a DTT area.

I am, according to the dtg site, but I seem to remember checking other sites
in the past (dedicated Freeview site?), with differing predictions. None of
my neighbours have Freeview.

All the postcode predictors should be using the same database AFAIK,
though the interfaces differ. I use the DTG site:

http://www.dtg.org.uk/cgi-bin/www.dtg.org.uk/frame_it.pl?retailer/_menu.html+retailer/coverage.html+DTT%20Coverage%20by%20Postcode

In general the predictions are on the pessimistic side, but there are
no guarantees. All you can really do is try it.

Post by caz
I am planning to get a 32" CRT.

My opinion is that this is the maximum picture size which will give
reasonable results from DTT. You'll still notice some artefacts. 28"
is subjectively cleaner, but obviously smaller!

You may want to consider satellite for your main screen TV, as the
bitrates are higher. You'll need some sort of digital source anyway,
unless you want to watch in Dixons StretchyVision.

Post by caz
I would still require multiple DTT sources for timeshifting, although an
IDTV would be ideal for viewing as you don't need another Scart socket
(which are in short supply on most TVs) and you control both analogue and
digital from the same remote handset. It's annoying that there are still so
few IDTVs available - I would have thought that with the, apparently, great
success of Freeview, and the seemingly inexorable move to analogue switch
off, most TVs should be available with built in digital. I think some of the
newer products (multi tuner with built in hard drive etc) would be required
for timeshifting to keep the number of boxes to a minimum - I already have a
TV, 3 VCRs, CI digital satellite receiver and my old analogue satellite
receiver (used to provide multiple outputs from digital satellite). I have
yet to see any with more than two tuners though, so holding off for a while
may be advantageous.

You can of course daisychain SCART connectors. It sounds as if one of
the digital HD recorders is what you want for timesharing.

Post by caz
Not to mention all the 'compressing' of end
credits, speaking over music during end credits etc. to advertise what's
next, or to try and sell you something - In fact, on analogue they now
intrude on the programme itself (on the few programmes that have credits
running during the final scene). I get the impression it is even worse on
DTT - is this the case?

It depends on the channel. Remember with Freeview you're only getting
a few extra 'real' channels, padded out with junk like QVC and Bid-Up.
The news channels have very cluttered screens for no obvious reason.

Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk

[caz]

"Paul Sherwin" <***@paulsherwin.co.uk> wrote in message news:***@news.individual.net...
SNIP

Most of the people

Post by Paul Sherwin
moaning about DTT bitrates are either professionals who know what to
look for, or people with huge plasma widescreen tellies - DTT *does*
look pretty awful on these.

What bitrates are (typically?) used on Freeview?

Although there is considerable variation, most of the main broadcasters in
mainland Europe seem to use (in kbps):-

1250 or 1875 for video
192 or 256 for audio

according to my sat. receiver, at least.



SNIP

Post by Paul Sherwin
Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/04

[Paul Sherwin]

Post by caz
What bitrates are (typically?) used on Freeview?
Although there is considerable variation, most of the main broadcasters in
mainland Europe seem to use (in kbps):-
1250 or 1875 for video
192 or 256 for audio
according to my sat. receiver, at least.

I can't remember the video bitrates, and a lot of them are statmuxed
so vary quite a lot anyway. The BBC music radio stations are 192k
stereo. I think R4 is 128k stereo but I may be wrong. Most of the
commercail music stations are 128k stereo and sound pretty grim, but
they're still better than DAB.

Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk

[Bill]

Is it really necessary to loop the Rf through the VCRs? Could you take the VCR
outputs from scart? If so you could feed all the VCRs and the TV via a small
multi-output amplifier, thus eliminating all the problems of daisy-chaining the
RF.
If you wish to use the VCR RF outputs I suggest you use channelpass filters for
these and for all your off-air signals.
I don't think I can help you re the deteriorating off-air signals without
actually being there! There are so many possible causes and combinations
thereof. Mind you, I expect it's the trees. It nearly always is. Don't expect
logic or common sense to help where tree screeing is concerned.
Take a look at
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/Resources/Trees%20&%20UHF%20reception.pdf

Bill

[charles]

Post by Bill
Take a look at
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/Resources/Trees%20&%20UHF%20reception.pdf

I did take a look and agree with most things you wrote. What you missed was
the problems that can arise when a tree-covered hill suddenly becomes bare,
either because of storm damage or harvesting. All of a sudden, the signal
no longer diffracts over the hill as much as they used to and 20+dB losses
can occur. Very noticable in the SE after the 1987 storm - but I had come
across the problem before that.

I was however surprised by your bit about "planning new transmitters with a
Range Rover and a log periodic aerial in a afternoon". That was not
actually true. As one of those who operated such a survey vehicle, we
didn't carry out tests for a new transmitter. What we did was to see if
there were enough houses without a signal to justify the planners getting
involved. That could often be done in an afternoon.* How they dealt with the
problem was up to them. Sometimes a site test was done, on other occasions
a computer model was used, but this never really worked when the area was
densely wooded or had larger than average buildings. That at least, was my
impression, based on measurements in the field.

Low power relays suffered from enormous cost constraints, so the site had to
be one where electricity was very close by as well as needing a minimal
length access track. As a result they did tend to miss the odd house,
although I remember one in the Scottish Borders which completely missed the
target service area because of a hill between it and the transmitter! Not
one, I hasten to add, which was planned by the BBC. Another problem often
faced was the local planners who didn't want masts on hilltops. As a matter
of interest, where was your castle?

* following a limited number of complaints, I checked for a possible Band II
"hole" in Somerset - it took two days and I thought I identified some 5000
people without a satisfactory signal. Difficult to do, since multipath was
the main problem and it is a personal assessment. However, I passed my
findings on to the transmitter planners. Months went by and then I got a
phone call. "You remember you said there were 5000 people without a
satisfactory signal in xxx?" "Yes." I replied. " You were wrong!" "I can't
be." I thought. " Wrong , he said, it is 8,000.". ... and a transmitter did
get built.

[Bill]

Post by Bill
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/Resources/Trees%20&%20UHF%20reception.pdf
I did take a look and agree with most things you wrote. What you missed was
the problems that can arise when a tree-covered hill suddenly becomes bare,
either because of storm damage or harvesting. All of a sudden, the signal
no longer diffracts over the hill as much as they used to and 20+dB losses
can occur. Very noticable in the SE after the 1987 storm - but I had come
across the problem before that.

I've never encountered that problem. We didn't really get much of a blow in
'87, and there aren't any harvestable trees here. Your comment is very
interesting. I've encountered diffraction through trees plenty of times,
incidentally, but always where the diffracted signal has caused cancellation
and echo effects rather than it forming part of the desired signal path.

Post by Bill
I was however surprised by your bit about "planning new transmitters with a
Range Rover and a log periodic aerial in a afternoon".

Yes, written in a fit of pique after the long awaited Conisboro' relay (answers
your question about the castle) turned out to be a big disappointment. I'm
still convinced that a better site with better coverage could have been found,
without adding to the risk of causing interference to other transmissions.The
relay helps only a minority of the people with poor reception in Conisboro'. It
seems to border on the arrogant that the broadcasters collect information about
local reception conditions without asking the local aerial riggers where the
real trouble spots are.

But of course this is all history now, or it soon will be. Today's concerns are
of huge swaithes of missing DTT coverage due to CCI problems, and similar
digital issues.

Bill

Bill

[charles]

I'm still convinced that a better site with better coverage could have
been found, without adding to the risk of causing interference to other
transmissions.The relay helps only a minority of the people with poor
reception in Conisboro'.

Memory is that that was an IBA planning area and I have unrepeatable
thoughts about their planning abilities. It's not somewhere I went,.

It seems to border on the arrogant that the broadcasters collect
information about local reception conditions without asking the local
aerial riggers where the real trouble spots are.

Because most local aerial riggers use contract aerials and have no idea
about reception. To slightly misquote a former colleague: they wouldn't
know the difference between a kilohertz and a hard-boiled egg. Yes, there
are some good riggers about, but they are few and far between.

[Bill]

Post by charles

It seems to border on the arrogant that the broadcasters collect
information about local reception conditions without asking the local
aerial riggers where the real trouble spots are.

Because most local aerial riggers use contract aerials and have no idea
about reception.

I bet most of them know more about 'reception' than a lot of university trained
BBC tyros.

To slightly misquote a former colleague: they wouldn't

Post by charles
know the difference between a kilohertz and a hard-boiled egg. Yes, there
are some good riggers about, but they are few and far between.

As I said, the broadcasters are arrogant. Your local rigger doesn't need to
have an IQ like Einstein's to tell you where he's had problems with reception.
Just give all the local riggers a simple map of the area and a red crayon. Even
the broadcasters should be able to see that Mr Thicko Local Aerial Rigger
should be able to make marks on the map corresponding to the areas where he's
not been able to get good reception with his contract 10 element aerial.
As for the rest of us -- those in the aerial trade who are not thick as pig
shit -- well, you might find this hard to believe but we do exist. Yes, there
are people out there installing aerials with an IQ above 62. Strange but true.
Maybe we had the intelligence to realise early in our lives the folly of
working for a huge monolithic corporation . . .

Bill

[Paul Martin]

Post by charles

I'm still convinced that a better site with better coverage could have
been found, without adding to the risk of causing interference to other
transmissions.The relay helps only a minority of the people with poor
reception in Conisboro'.

Memory is that that was an IBA planning area and I have unrepeatable
thoughts about their planning abilities. It's not somewhere I went,.

That explains the mess that is the Middleton relay (still underpowered,
and too low to cover the whole area having the reception problems). The
signal reaching us has a large Norman church in the way. Yes, it's an
IBA/NTL site.

[charles]

Post by Paul Martin

Post by charles

I'm still convinced that a better site with better coverage could have
been found, without adding to the risk of causing interference to other
transmissions.The relay helps only a minority of the people with poor
reception in Conisboro'.

Memory is that that was an IBA planning area and I have unrepeatable
thoughts about their planning abilities. It's not somewhere I went,.

That explains the mess that is the Middleton relay (still underpowered,
and too low to cover the whole area having the reception problems). The
signal reaching us has a large Norman church in the way. Yes, it's an
IBA/NTL site.

However, in defence of the planners, they were (at that time) trying to get
70 sites on the air each year.

[Paul Martin]

Post by charles

Post by Paul Martin

Post by charles
Memory is that that was an IBA planning area and I have unrepeatable
thoughts about their planning abilities. It's not somewhere I went,.

That explains the mess that is the Middleton relay (still underpowered,
and too low to cover the whole area having the reception problems). The
signal reaching us has a large Norman church in the way. Yes, it's an
IBA/NTL site.

However, in defence of the planners, they were (at that time) trying to get
70 sites on the air each year.

Understood. Just over 5 years before that, I could pick up ATV and YTV
clearly on a portable's loop. Nowadays I wouldn't have a chance. There
are far too many relays to do that any more.

[Brian D]

On 26 Jun,

Post by charles
Low power relays suffered from enormous cost constraints, so the site had
to be one where electricity was very close by as well as needing a minimal
length access track. As a result they did tend to miss the odd house,
although I remember one in the Scottish Borders which completely missed the
target service area because of a hill between it and the transmitter! Not
one, I hasten to add, which was planned by the BBC.

There's one in the Scottish borders (landlord that other firm) that I visited
to investigate poor signals. It had been installed to put the receiving
aerial above the trees in the forest it was within, but they hadn't allwowwed
for the trees growing. There wasn't much we could do about it apart from
complain to the landlord.

[caz]

Post by Bill
Is it really necessary to loop the Rf through the VCRs? Could you take the VCR
outputs from scart? If so you could feed all the VCRs and the TV via a small
multi-output amplifier, thus eliminating all the problems of

daisy-chaining the

Post by Bill
RF.

Any particular recommendations for good quality amps?

Post by Bill
If you wish to use the VCR RF outputs I suggest you use channelpass filters for
these and for all your off-air signals.
I don't think I can help you re the deteriorating off-air signals without
actually being there!

I think you have been working too hard - time for another holiday... How
about the Scottish Highlands again! :)


There are so many possible causes and combinations

Post by Bill
thereof. Mind you, I expect it's the trees. It nearly always is. Don't expect
logic or common sense to help where tree screeing is concerned.
Take a look at
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/Resources/Trees%20&%20UHF%20reception.pdf
Bill

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/04

[Bill]

Post by caz
Any particular recommendations for good quality amps?

You want something with low gain and low noise. I use a lot of Taylor TS2008.
These have 8 outputs and 2db gain. If you want one cheap, have a look at
tvaerialguy on ebay. He's buggered off to Portugal for the footie but I believe
he's back soon. There are usually a few secondhand TS2008s. They are either
gray or black, and very unimpressive looking. If you want one but there isn't
one for sale email him via ebay. I know he's got a few of them because I know
when and where he got them!

Bill

[charles]

There are two possibilities that I can see. One is the trees you mention
have grown a bit more and are attenuating the signal more than they did in
the past. The other is a problem at the transmitter. When tests are made
on transmitter performance it is normal to make them in clear line of sight
of the transmitter otherwise other factors may come into play. However,
making a measurement of field strength on its own is meaningless unless the
picture quality is assessed at the same time. The field strength quoted is
ample. If you have near neighbours, ask them whether they have noticed any
deterioration in picture quality.

To feed three VCRs, an aerial distribution amplfier feeding each machine
with a neat aerial signal would seem tidier. You could then use a SCART
selector switch to choose which one you wanted to watch.

[caz]

Post by charles
There are two possibilities that I can see. One is the trees you mention
have grown a bit more and are attenuating the signal more than they did in
the past. The other is a problem at the transmitter. When tests are made
on transmitter performance it is normal to make them in clear line of sight
of the transmitter otherwise other factors may come into play. However,
making a measurement of field strength on its own is meaningless unless the
picture quality is assessed at the same time. The field strength quoted is
ample. If you have near neighbours, ask them whether they have noticed any
deterioration in picture quality.

They have.

The reply I received from the BBC did say that measurements were taken from
a favourable location!

Post by charles
To feed three VCRs, an aerial distribution amplfier feeding each machine
with a neat aerial signal would seem tidier.

Any recommendations?


You could then use a SCART

Post by charles
selector switch to choose which one you wanted to watch.

As clarified in another reply, I (just) have sufficient sockets to avoid
using switch boxes.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/04

[caz]

Post by caz
I am currently using the following external antenna set-up:-
SNIP
Two cable runs of CT100 (approx. 10-15m long) feed into an Antiference 5153
diplexer by the TV, with a short run of CT100 to my first VCR. The signal
loops through this into the second VCR, again looping through to my third
VCR, then loopthrough and into the TV - hardly ideal, but it has been like
this since I installed the antennas approx. 20 months ago. All RF leads are
home-made using CT 100.

SNIP


Thanks for all the replies so far.

To clarify, the 'daisy-chained' RF through the VCRs on route to the TV is to
receive the antenna signal for recording purposes - Viewing from two of the
VCRs is by Scart (AV1 & AV2), and the third by S-video (AV3); none of them
are viewed on RF.

BTW, does anyone know if gain is applied when looping an RF signal through a
VCR, and if so, how much? Don't know if this helps, but the VCRs in question
are:

Mitsubishi HS-M59
Mitsubishi HS-M68
Mitsubishi HS-M1000

Yep, I like Mitsubishi VCRs - of a certain vintage :)

TIA.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 18/06/04

[Bill]

Post by caz
To clarify, the 'daisy-chained' RF through the VCRs on route to the TV is to
receive the antenna signal for recording purposes - Viewing from two of the
VCRs is by Scart (AV1 & AV2), and the third by S-video (AV3); none of them
are viewed on RF.

Well there you go then. Get rid of the daisy chain.

Post by caz
BTW, does anyone know if gain is applied when looping an RF signal through a
VCR,

Usually there's a bit of gain, but more important the noise floor is lifted
successively by the noise of the RF amp in each VCR and the out-of-channel
noise from each VCR's modulator. If you saw the effect on a speccy analyser
you'd understand.

Incidentally I was a bit confused by your account of the distances and bearings
to Mounteagle and Rosemarkie. I thought they were closer together than that.

I wish I lived in a nice part of Scotland. Incidentally MB21 has been kind
enough to use my Mounteagle pictures in his gallery of transmitters. See
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/

Bill

[tony sayer]

Post by Bill
Incidentally I was a bit confused by your account of the distances and bearings
to Mounteagle and Rosemarkie. I thought they were closer together than that.
I wish I lived in a nice part of Scotland. Incidentally MB21 has been kind
enough to use my Mounteagle pictures in his gallery of transmitters. See
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/
Bill

Would the esteemed photographer tell us mortals what piccy taking
apparatus he used on his epic trip..please?...

[Bill]

Post by tony sayer
Would the esteemed photographer tell us mortals what piccy taking
apparatus he used on his epic trip..please?...
--
Tony Sayer

Tony,

I'll try to ignore your horrid sarcasm! The camera is an old Fuji 6900z. I was
initially very sceptical of digital photography, but I'm now a convert. The
camera is very good, but of course it seems pretty clunky now compared to its
successors.I must say I find digital photography absolutely liberating after 30
years of film photography.

Bill

[Paul Martin]

Post by Bill
I'll try to ignore your horrid sarcasm! The camera is an old Fuji
6900z. I was initially very sceptical of digital photography, but I'm
now a convert. The camera is very good, but of course it seems pretty
clunky now compared to its successors.I must say I find digital
photography absolutely liberating after 30 years of film photography.

I agree. My digicam's a snap camera (Fuji A204, 1600x1200, JPEG only),
but it gives me the ability to experiment, taking a dozen shots to get
one good one, without the financial penalty of film.

When digicam CCDs hit 50Mpixel, with 12 bit per colour, I'd say that
35mm still film is dead and buried.

For holiday snaps it's now in its death throes. The bulk processors are
now using digital film scanners, and printing at not much better than
3Mpx. I was most disappointed in the lack of detail on the last film I
sent for processing, yet the detail was visible in the negative.

[nsj]

Post by Paul Martin
When digicam CCDs hit 50Mpixel, with 12 bit per colour, I'd say that
35mm still film is dead and buried.

I can't remember the last time I saw a photohack using a film camera.
Digital backed SLRs seem to be the order of the day; compatable with their
AF SLR lenses, and the shots can be instantly sent back to base at minimal cost.

Family members seem to be snapping up (sorry, I couldn't help it) the
incredibly good value sub-£100 point-and-shoot digitals that are all over
the Internet at the moment. (e.g.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001XIZSK/)

It seems it's only saddos like me who persist in paying 20p a shot and
carrying a manual 35mm body and array of lenses. And a few rolls of
different types of stock. And a spare set of batteries for the flashgun.

http://stash.fotopic.net/c214005.html - those shots were taken on quite
expensive stock, and I'm still a touch disappointed with the amount of
grain, and they're only scanned at 1.5MP by Kodak. Does anyone know of some
stock that isn't grainy, and a developer who is capable of providing picture
CDs at something better than 1536*1024?

[Ivor Jones]

Post by nsj

Post by Paul Martin
When digicam CCDs hit 50Mpixel, with 12 bit per colour, I'd say that
35mm still film is dead and buried.

I can't remember the last time I saw a photohack using a film camera.
Digital backed SLRs seem to be the order of the day; compatable with their
AF SLR lenses, and the shots can be instantly sent back to base at minimal cost.

For point & shoot use, I'd agree up to a point, but however good the image
it still has to be transferred to paper at some point, unless all you're
ever going to want to do with it is view it on screen. I've yet to see a
print from digital that matches the quality from a really professionally
printed (not your average high street shop machine output) 35mm
photograph.

A true photographic enthusiast isn't going to give up 35mm just yet. I
don't class myself as one but I've no plans to part with my Pentax LX and
MX just yet.

Ivor

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by nsj

Post by nsj

Post by Paul Martin
When digicam CCDs hit 50Mpixel, with 12 bit per colour, I'd say that
35mm still film is dead and buried.

I can't remember the last time I saw a photohack using a film camera.
Digital backed SLRs seem to be the order of the day; compatable with

their

Post by nsj
AF SLR lenses, and the shots can be instantly sent back to base at

minimal cost.
For point & shoot use, I'd agree up to a point, but however good the image
it still has to be transferred to paper at some point, unless all you're
ever going to want to do with it is view it on screen. I've yet to see a
print from digital that matches the quality from a really professionally
printed (not your average high street shop machine output) 35mm
photograph.

Possibly true, but totally irrelevant. It isn't quality that will determine
the matter, but speed, cost, flexibility, adaptability and efficiency. It
wasn't quality that enabled VHS to wipe the floor with 8mm cine film for
home movie use, it wasn't quality that enabled U-matic, Beta SP, then
Digi-beta etc to take over from 16mm film for broadcast documentaries, and
the fact that ever larger chunks of every other feature film nowadays have
been generated or maniupulated electronically is nothing to do with quality,
it's because electronics enables the job to be done in a realistic time at
tolerable cost. Quality may catch up later, but either way, the tide has
turned. If you still have a lot of money tied up in film equipment, you
should sell it while there are still fools who will buy it.

rod.

[Ivor Jones]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by nsj

Post by nsj

Post by Paul Martin
When digicam CCDs hit 50Mpixel, with 12 bit per colour, I'd say that
35mm still film is dead and buried.

I can't remember the last time I saw a photohack using a film camera.
Digital backed SLRs seem to be the order of the day; compatable with

their

Post by nsj
AF SLR lenses, and the shots can be instantly sent back to base at

minimal cost.
For point & shoot use, I'd agree up to a point, but however good the image
it still has to be transferred to paper at some point, unless all you're
ever going to want to do with it is view it on screen. I've yet to see a
print from digital that matches the quality from a really

professionally

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by nsj
printed (not your average high street shop machine output) 35mm
photograph.

Possibly true, but totally irrelevant. It isn't quality that will determine
the matter, but speed, cost, flexibility, adaptability and efficiency. It
wasn't quality that enabled VHS to wipe the floor with 8mm cine film for
home movie use, it wasn't quality that enabled U-matic, Beta SP, then
Digi-beta etc to take over from 16mm film for broadcast documentaries, and
the fact that ever larger chunks of every other feature film nowadays have
been generated or maniupulated electronically is nothing to do with quality,
it's because electronics enables the job to be done in a realistic time at
tolerable cost. Quality may catch up later, but either way, the tide has
turned. If you still have a lot of money tied up in film equipment, you
should sell it while there are still fools who will buy it.

Not irrelevant at all. As an amateur photographer, I take photographs for
my own use and pleasure, and what pleases me is quality, not speed.

Ivor

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Roderick Stewart
Possibly true, but totally irrelevant. It isn't quality that will

determine

Post by Roderick Stewart
the matter, but speed, cost, flexibility, adaptability and efficiency.

[...]

Post by Roderick Stewart
Not irrelevant at all. As an amateur photographer, I take photographs for
my own use and pleasure, and what pleases me is quality, not speed.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are one among many. You may prefer
to work with film, but if the majority of amateur photographers don't, you
may find that within a shorter period of time than you might expect, it
becomes first very expensive, and then almost impossible to find. How many
high street shops still sell 8mm movie film, compared with the ones that
sell the various types of videocassette, or even recordable DVDs?

Rod.

[David Robinson]

Post by nsj
It seems it's only saddos like me who persist in paying 20p a shot and
carrying a manual 35mm body and array of lenses. And a few rolls of
different types of stock. And a spare set of batteries for the flashgun.

You're not a saddo - it's your hobby.

It's just that photography with film is going to become as irrelevant
to most people as one of my hobbies: listening to music off 78rpm
shellac discs.

Normal people listen to CDs, a few LPs, and very few 78s! Likewise,
normal people will use digital cameras, but a few will persist with
film. Predictions of it becoming prohibitively expensive are probably
wrong - it'll be about as expensive as it was historically, which will
_look_ expensive compared to digital.

Post by nsj
http://stash.fotopic.net/c214005.html - those shots were taken on quite
expensive stock, and I'm still a touch disappointed with the amount of
grain, and they're only scanned at 1.5MP by Kodak. Does anyone know of some
stock that isn't grainy, and a developer who is capable of providing picture
CDs at something better than 1536*1024?

Can't help you - maybe take slides (that's a different issue and
creates a different set of problems though), and in any case get a
negative scanner for your own use? The cost puts me off.

Your photos do have a nice "film" look, though I'm not sure the
subject matter justifies it :-) (sorry! it's just the image is quite
"arty" but the subject matter consists of drunk students! In my mind
cheap and nasty digital pics suit this subject matter better! YMMV). I
wonder if a filter applied to a digital image couldn't achieve the
same "film" effect. (Which, if it's your hobby, is about as relevant
as saying a filter applied to a CD could make it sound like a 78 -
that's not the point!!!)

I've found that I take many many more photos (and many more _good_ ish
photos) now that I have a digital camera. I'm _not_interested_ in
printing them out, unless it's to give to other people (who don't have
email) or hang on the wall. All the others can stay as jpgs and be
viewed on screen (and maybe projected one day).

Look at this one (if you want!):
Loading Image...
(It's about 600kB, down-res'd to match yours - it's a 4M camera)

I could never have taken that with a "normal" camera - I just don't
have the skill or experience! With a digital camera, I could fiddle
with all the functions and controls, take the picture, look at the
result, and repeat until I got the effect that I wanted. I could then
take several, and pick the best when I got home and saw them on a
larger screen. The cost, beyond the initial investment, is nil.


This is OT for this group, but it explains something about how
technologies become successful. Some might point out that digital
cameras aren't as high quality as film, showing that digital
broadcasting can succeed even though it's not as high quality as the
best that analogue can deliver.

However, I'd argue that digital cameras didn't _really_ take off until
they began to approach the performance of film cameras at a similar
price-point. I'd also point to the millions of people who absolutely
_love_ their digital cameras, and to the _huge_ convenience factor.

I don't see digital radio (and, to a lesser extent, TV) competing as
strongly with analogue on quality, price, or convenience, and I don't
see people as many people as enthusiastic about digital broadcasting
after they've bought into it.

Cheers,
David.

[Bill]

Post by David Robinson
I've found that I take many many more photos (and many more _good_ ish
photos) now that I have a digital camera.

Isn't is good to be able to take umpteen shots without worrying about film
costs? The instant feedback makes for better photography as well. How much
better it is to adjust flash exposures and lighting having seen a test shot.

I'm _not_interested_ in

Post by David Robinson
printing them out, unless it's to give to other people (who don't have
email) or hang on the wall. All the others can stay as jpgs and be
viewed on screen (and maybe projected one day).

We keep up the family album by sending a batch off to Jessops by email every so
often. The difference is, when the pics come back all 36 are winners, so we
aren't paying for expensive prints just to bin threequarters of them.

Post by David Robinson
have the skill or experience! With a digital camera, I could fiddle
with all the functions and controls, take the picture, look at the
result, and repeat until I got the effect that I wanted. I could then
take several, and pick the best when I got home and saw them on a
larger screen. The cost, beyond the initial investment, is nil.

My own photography has improved immensely since I went digital.

Post by David Robinson
This is OT for this group, but it explains something about how
technologies become successful. Some might point out that digital
cameras aren't as high quality as film, showing that digital
broadcasting can succeed even though it's not as high quality as the
best that analogue can deliver.

Good point.

Bill

[Bill]

Post by Paul Martin
I agree. My digicam's a snap camera (Fuji A204, 1600x1200, JPEG only),
but it gives me the ability to experiment, taking a dozen shots to get
one good one, without the financial penalty of film.

When i bought my digital camera I firmly intended (never drempt otherwise) that
I would continue to use my Contax for 'proper photography'. Well I haven't
taken a shot on the Contax from that day.

Bill

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Bill
When i bought my digital camera I firmly intended (never drempt otherwise) that
I would continue to use my Contax for 'proper photography'. Well I haven't
taken a shot on the Contax from that day.

It's probably the same story everywhere. I was lent a digital camera several
years ago, was so impressed that I bought one for myself, used up the last couple
of rolls of film I already had, and have never bought any more since.

There are plenty of film fetishists in the photography newsgroups who can easily
be provoked into defending what they think of as the "superior" qualities of
old-fashioned chemical photography, mostly apparently to do with the ability to
enlarge a picture to the size of a barn door and count the blades of grass in a
landscape, something which hardly anyone ever needs to do. Everything else about
digital photography is about speed, convenience, and the ability to experiment at
zero cost, and it's probably only a matter of time before pixel resolution
catches up, for the benefit of those who think it's really important.

Rod.

[Mark Carver]

Post by Bill
I'll try to ignore your horrid sarcasm! The camera is an old Fuji 6900z. I was
initially very sceptical of digital photography, but I'm now a convert. The
camera is very good, but of course it seems pretty clunky now compared to its
successors.I must say I find digital photography absolutely liberating after 30
years of film photography.

As others have said film photography is virtually dead and buried for 'happy snaps'.
We come back from holidays with 150-200 images, no problem of course, simply
dump all the duff shots at no cost [1]. Even the price of getting them printed off is
falling.
The local Safeway (now Morrisons) is doing 6x4 prints at 10p each with a
20 min turnaround, perfectly acceptable quality. Hopefully if I can find a internet
café running USB and XP equipped machines, I should be able to send
electronic postcards without causing too much fuss for this year's holiday.
(previous attempts with W98 machines have ended in failure)

[1] Unless you're an accountant :-)

[caz]

Post by Bill

Post by caz
To clarify, the 'daisy-chained' RF through the VCRs on route to the TV is to
receive the antenna signal for recording purposes - Viewing from two of the
VCRs is by Scart (AV1 & AV2), and the third by S-video (AV3); none of them
are viewed on RF.

Well there you go then. Get rid of the daisy chain.

Post by caz
BTW, does anyone know if gain is applied when looping an RF signal through a
VCR,

Usually there's a bit of gain, but more important the noise floor is lifted
successively by the noise of the RF amp in each VCR and the out-of-channel
noise from each VCR's modulator. If you saw the effect on a speccy analyser
you'd understand.

So, using an in-line attenuator of equal value (to the gain) after each loop
through wouldn't help (not planning to do this - just curios)?

Post by Bill
Incidentally I was a bit confused by your account of the distances and bearings
to Mounteagle and Rosemarkie. I thought they were closer together than that.

Bearing was just a guess on my part. Distances were obtained from Megalithia
Terrain Calculator.

Post by Bill
I wish I lived in a nice part of Scotland.

Don't we all? Oh, I do! :)

Next best thing - another holdiay - just a suggestion :)


Incidentally MB21 has been kind

Post by Bill
enough to use my Mounteagle pictures in his gallery of transmitters. See
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/
Bill

Definitely worth checking out - Maybe I'm in a particularly good mood this
morning (weather is very pleasant - which makes a change this year!) but I
found the commentary most entertaining - nice pictures too, if you are into
that sort of thing - whatever turns you on Bill! :)

Looked like a nice day at Mountegale - when were you in this part of the
world?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/04

[caz]

SNIP

Post by caz
Looked like a nice day at Mountegale - when were you in this part of the
world?

BTW, you found your way around, and back out of, 'Deepest, Darkest Black
Isle' then? Some of the smaller, tree lined roads seem to be a problem for
many tourists! :)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/04

[Bill]

Post by caz
BTW, you found your way around, and back out of, 'Deepest, Darkest Black
Isle' then? Some of the smaller, tree lined roads seem to be a problem for
many tourists! :)

The small roads were a bit of a squeeze for my old bus!

Bill

[Bill]

Post by caz
So, using an in-line attenuator of equal value (to the gain) after each loop
through wouldn't help (not planning to do this - just curios)?

No, because it the ratio between the signal and the shite (the s/s ratio) that
matters, not the absolute level. Imagine that you were in a broken down lift
that had somehow half filled with sewage. You are concerned to keep your head
above the shite. You are standing on tiptoe on a chair already and the small is
making you feel faint. You shout to your potential resuers "You'll have to
lower the level of the shite!" After a brief brainstorming session they shout
back "We've got a cunning plan. We'll hand-crank the lift down a bit. That will
lower the level of the shite."
"Doh!" you cry. "That's as daft as the bloke in Scotland who wanted to use
attenuators to improve the signal/noise ratio!"

[Bill]

Post by caz
Definitely worth checking out - Maybe I'm in a particularly good mood this
morning (weather is very pleasant - which makes a change this year!) but I
found the commentary most entertaining - nice pictures too, if you are into
that sort of thing - whatever turns you on Bill! :)
Looked like a nice day at Mountegale - when were you in this part of the
world?

We were there in the middle of May. I enjoyed looking round Inverness. I was
last there as a child.

Bill

[Doctor D.]

Post by caz
I am currently using the following external antenna set-up:-
Antiference TC18B for Rosemarkie which is approx. 23 km away.
Antiference TC18CD for Mounteagle at a distance of approx. 10km
Both transmitters are on a similar bearing from my location (I would guess
no more than 5 degrees)

A thought on your current installation.
Ideally your two TC18's should be mounted more than 1 metre apart and
without the mast passing through the element train of the lower one, by
using a stand-off arm.

Running the mast up through the element train of a horizontally polarized
aerial can lead to problems such as ghosting.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.709 / Virus Database: 465 - Release Date: 22/06/2004

[caz]

Post by Doctor D.

Post by caz
I am currently using the following external antenna set-up:-
Antiference TC18B for Rosemarkie which is approx. 23 km away.
Antiference TC18CD for Mounteagle at a distance of approx. 10km
Both transmitters are on a similar bearing from my location (I would guess
no more than 5 degrees)

A thought on your current installation.
Ideally your two TC18's should be mounted more than 1 metre apart and
without the mast passing through the element train of the lower one, by
using a stand-off arm.
Running the mast up through the element train of a horizontally polarized
aerial can lead to problems such as ghosting.

Each TC18 has its own mast - The TC18B is approx. 0.75m above the TC18CD.
Both are mounted at the top of their masts using the support arms. Not quite
ideal, but it has been this way since they were installed.

[David Robinson]

Post by caz
I am currently using the following external antenna set-up:-
Antiference TC18B for Rosemarkie which is approx. 23 km away.
Antiference TC18CD for Mounteagle at a distance of approx. 10km
Both transmitters are on a similar bearing from my location (I would guess
no more than 5 degrees)
Two cable runs of CT100 (approx. 10-15m long) feed into an Antiference 5153
diplexer by the TV, with a short run of CT100 to my first VCR. The signal
loops through this into the second VCR, again looping through to my third
VCR, then loopthrough and into the TV - hardly ideal, but it has been like
this since I installed the antennas approx. 20 months ago. All RF leads are
home-made using CT 100.
While my reception was not perfect, it was quite good until earlier this
year (approx. sometime in February) when, one day, reception from Rosemarkie
'took a dive' (nosier & 'ghostier' - Mounteagle is still fine). All TVs are
affected even though my main antennas feed my main TV only; all portable TVs
use individual set-top antennas. I inspected my main antennas, and apart
from the gaffa tape beginning to peel (this covers the main seal which is of
self-amalgamating tape) everything appears normal.
Reception varies, but even at its best, reception does not seem to have
returned to 'normal', and at its worst, pictures are noisy/grainy and
'ghosty', but still full colour, with stereo sound.

This is just an idea, and quite unlikely, but...

Is there another tx beyond Rosemarkie, maybe many miles beyond, which
carries DTT? It's just possible that the DTT power has been increased,
and that the DTT muxes are co-channel with the analogue signals from
Rosemarkie.

The ghosting you report makes this unlikely. If it was just noisier
pictures, then this would be a real possibility.


As other posters have said, if you're getting a widescreen TV, then
you really need to get DTT or DSat if you want full and correct shaped
pictures. With your time-shifting, DTT is probably the better bet, so
you have a choice of non-subscription PVRs, though I'd guess you'll be
using some of your VCRs for some time!

Cheers,
David.