What's the difference between Digital and Analog TV?

analog = squiggly lines
digital = 1s and 0s

now delte this thread

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_television

>>57483890
I just want to know if TV has turned into a botnet. "Smart" TV's seem too similar to computers now for my liking.

>>57483904

if you use an apple TV or something similar then it's basically the same as using a computer

File: Picture%20Compare[1].jpg (35KB, 484x363px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 484x363px

>>57483884
"The Digital Disaster"
http://tuomov.bitcheese.net/b/archives/2008/03/01/T19_57_18

>>57483904
TVs now are computers. Install Gentoo to reclaim your freedoms!

>>57483884

Analog = Wavelengths that form approximations of data
Digital = Precise data as represented in binary code

Analog isn't a 1:1 copy of whatever you're transmitting. It's prone to all kinds of signal decay and distortion, so by the time it arrives at its destination, you may get a fuzzy or blurry image that barely resembles the source.

Digital data is a 1:1 copy. Any kind of signal decay or interference will simply result in the image cutting out entirely, which frankly sucks.

The reason we switched from analog to digital is because there was supposedly wasn't enough analog bandwidth to go around. It was also becoming increasingly difficult to fit HD broadcasts and other information to analog broadcast signals.

Analog is "superior" if you want a signal that can stand up to a lot of interference, since even a degraded signal will still produce something legible to a receiver. Digital signals can tolerate little if any interference, because too much corruption makes the data impossible to decode.

>>57484075
>Digital data is a 1:1 copy. Any kind of signal decay or interference will simply result in the image cutting out entirely
As digital radio is growing, I've always wondered how much of a problem this is.
I assumed it would be really bothersome.

>>57484107
Well it also comes with the 'lower limit' being much lower than with analogue.
It takes a lot more to noise up a digital signal than an analogue one.

>>57484139

Yet in practice, I can't get any digital reception at all. I was able to get analog channels here in the middle of nowhere, and as soon as the major networks switched over to digital, that was it. No more TV for me.

>>57484107
>>57484139
You also only lose one audio packet/video fram at a time, so you need a lot of consistent failures to have a real problem. And digital has the added bonus of error checking and error correction algorithms.

>>57484172
Digital doesn't always have as long of a transmission range unfortunately if you're talking about radio. If you're talking about tv then the infrastructure must be bad/damaged in your area

File: wave-form[1].jpg (16KB, 532x192px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 532x192px

>>57483884

>>57484139
When it comes to DAB, this is bullshit in practise. An extremely weak FM signal will be human readable well below the level that's considered "out of range" of a transmitter, whereas a DAB broadcast will be cutting out and throwing a hissy fit, rendering the end result useless and incoherent.

>>57484172
That's not so much a problem with digital itself, but of the radio signals required to transmit it, they just have less range.

Which is a tradeoff, perfect signals for reduced range- which is unlike analogue which is improved signals for reduced range. Not perfect ones.

>>57483904
As long as you don't connect them to wifi or Ethernet, the "smart" functionality wouldn't ever get touched; you'd be using it only as a display.

>>57484075
>It was also becoming increasingly difficult to fit HD broadcasts and other information to analog broadcast signals.

That's because analog tv broadcasts all channels simultaneously, just on a different wavelength.

Digital tv only broadcasts the single channel you are currently watching. Less bandwidth.

the difference put simply is in the way the signal is processed, analog is done entirely using passive components and digital needs to be processed with something like a cpu/gpu. Both are transmitted in an analog format, because it is not possible to send a "1 or 0" to your tv without it going through an analog medium first. in order to send digital through the air, you need to encode it, this means you take all the ones and 0's and turn them into a analog signal, which can be converted at the receiving end back into 1's and 0's. because of digital's processing nature, compression can be used to stuff more shit into a tinier bandwidth(the amount of RF space the encoded signal takes up on the spectrum) analog for instance, is uncompressed, and takes up ~6mhz of rf bandwidth, digital tv also uses the same rf bandwidth at about ~6mhz, but due to compression, you can get a 1080p signal out of the same bandwidth, while with analog you get a much worse image.

>>57484289
That's completely wrong.

Both analog and digital broadcast all channels all the time. It's not user-specific. That's why it's called broadcast. Streaming services like Netflix are not the same as digital TV broadcast.

The reason digital is more bandwidth-efficient is because digital video can be encoded in a compressed format that requires far less bandwidth for equivalent image quality compared to analog.

>>57484289
>Digital tv only broadcasts the single channel you are currently watching. Less bandwidth.

Digital tv is not IP tv :^)

>>57484434
but IP TV is digital.

>>57484289
lol way off friend.

Digital is better in every way. Analog is archaic, which is why it's being phased out.

>>57484279
Not OP but I genuinely worry that these modern "Smart TVs" would still connect themselves to unsecured wifi networks or have some sort of built-in cellular network so they could still send out all the audio picked up from the microphone even if you don't connect them to the internet yourself.

>>57485910
This. Same reason we're getting rid of centuries old trash like the headphone jack.

>>57484068
I would unironically install Gentoo on my TV if I could.

I just want to get rid of the garbage apps and dogshit slow UI. Even if I had to develop the alternative myself.

>>57485930
This.. Headphone jacks have a long history of ruining my life

>>57484075
>Any kind of signal decay or interference will simply result in the image cutting out entirely,
Nope.

>>57486230
why not just connect a pc to your tv?

>>57483884
You don't see color bars, test images, or station idle graphics because they'd rather broadcast reruns or ads throughout the night.

>>57485926
*tips tinfoil*