I'm really tired of blind people...
In other forum, about old films, I said these iamges bellow was a proof the digital compression system was a failure for TV Broadcast and for Streaming :
https://www.startrek.com.ar/wp-conte...9/out140-1.png
http://hotactors.info/images/Jayne-B...ne-Brook-2.jpg
https://i1.wp.com/discovery.trekcore...-cornwell1.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-con...vertical&ssl=1
But the member told the image was fine, and told me the blurred faces was a artistic choice. Oh come on... The heavy digital artefacts everywhere, the blured wrinkles, the blured hair, the poor gradients (banding).
These same people, before told me such despicable iamge was fine, in other times used to tell me that it was the system in my country that was poor and that on USA the broadcast and streaming was very good. That's bull... isnce the image captures show cleary how terrible these images looks, loosing most HD details, replacing image with digital artefacts.
So I created a term to describe thse fake digital, since digital give a idea of perfection, but miost times we got a lot of detail loss even worse than the īpercentual loss of some analogiuc systems. As I said there :
"For video the term Digital should be replaced by the term
Dignalogic (digital+analogic) since digital give a fake ideal of perfection, of no loss (since it's just zeros and ones). But compression technology elevated digital to a analogic levels,level of loss, since it's replacing the original information with a analogue (processed by compression algoritims), and most times a bad analogue, despite still be in the binary realm of 0 and 1."
Yes,not digital, but a bad analogue, despite it use zeros and ones. It only would have no loss if we compare a compressed file to another file copied with the same zeros and ones, but both would hyave the loss if compared to the uncompressed fuile. And even the copy of digital compressed in general don't get the same, since the files are everytime compressed again for different system orsystems similar but with different compression rate, so what happens is that some chaels are compressed and recompressed aghain and again, from where it was captured and to another system. So it's loss over loass over loss, all the somatory of quality loss.
This is no digital, in the terms of digital purity of avoid loss, as we were used in CD times. These files can use binary but are presentying a analogue from a analogue from a original file, and not the original file itself.
In other words, it's all a big hoax.
I chalenge anyone in this planet to show a decent sytem. Come on.. I'm waiting...