LW's Gadgets

Poundland's £1 Signalex iPad iPhone Stylus

2011-07-23T08:51:00.000-07:00

Not that I frequent Poundland much you understand, but when I noticed a Signalex iPad stylus for £1.00 I thought it was worth a try. But wait, there's more! For £1.00 you get not one but two styli. One is a typical pen-like stylus whilst the other is much smaller and as a consequence difficult to hold. So how do they perform?

Though similar to the Boxwave stylus I reviewed previously, the hollow rubber tip of the larger Signalex seems harder and doesn't move nearly so smoothly across the screen as the Boxwave. I found I had to press more firmly with the Signalex.

The smaller Signalex is a different beast. It has a solid rubber tip that is also sharply angled rather than round like other styli. It requires a really firm press to register and as a consequence is hard to drag around the screen. So much that it doesn't really function for writing or drawing and can only be used for touching objects on the screen - such as the keyboard.
That doesn't mean it is entirely useless as this would be perfect if you just wanted to do basic interaction with the iPhone whilst wearing gloves for example. However you can't use it for much else.
Hard to recommend the Signalex, but then again for just £1.00 can you really complain. Even so it really would only be for occasional or emergency use.

Stylus for iPad - Boxwave and Kit Universal compared

2011-07-10T09:22:00.000-07:00

Whilst using apps on the iPad just with your fingers is great, there are times when holding a pen just feels more natural. This isn't just for those artists amongst us, but for anyone who needs to make a small sketch now and again.

For example, I regularly attend meetings and conferences where as well as taking notes, I need to visualize some idea with a little drawing. Whilst using your finger to do this works, to me it seem hard to get the accuracy you would expect when using a pen or pencil.

Hence I decided to buy a stylus for my iPad, and based on the reviews I found decided to buy a Boxwave and so ordered one from Amazon UK for just £12.31. But it just so happened that the same day I was in our local Tesco grocery store and noticed they had a Kit Universal Tablet stylus on sale for just £2.47 (and who would have imagined that one day your local grocery store would be selling iPads? But that is another story). At that price I couldn't resist and so decided to give it a go.

So, how do they compare?

First up, the Kit Universal Stylus. This is small slim steel design, with a retracting mechanism just like a regular ball pen.

This has a soft brush-like contact surface that can be retracted.

Whilst it works it feels odd trying to draw or write with this. If feels like a brush - not surprisingly as that it what is is. But you wouldn't use a brush to do line drawings, or to write. It just didn't feel natural to draw or write without applying any pressure. And when you did, then the brush would flatten out and you would lose visibility of where you are trying to draw.

In the retracted state, you can still use the brush and it is a little firmer but I became increasingly concerned that the metal surround, that you can see is visible beneath the rubber collar, might come into contact with the iPad's surface.

That said, anyone trying to paint with the brush will find it fine to use. It seems a lot of artists like the Nomad Brush which has a similar brush tip, and the Kit stylus can be used in the same way, albeit styled more like a ball-pen than an artists brush.

So, what about the Boxwave?

The Boxwave has a flexible rubber tip (it feels hollow).

This felt much more natural to write and draw with. As you can see, the tip is still quite large though in comparison to a regular pen. But unlike the Kit brush, it didn't deform when you apply any pressure and so it was easier to keep sight of where you were drawing.

The only negative I did find was that if you use the Boxwave at an angle as if using a regular pen, which most people would do, then the contact with the iPad will be made off-centre.

For some reason, even though neither the Boxwave or the Kit has a pointed end making a fine contact with the surface, the Kit actually seemed to be more accurate in terms of where I thought I was drawing as it seemed to make its contact in the centre regardless of the angle I was holding it at.

Even so, you could easily compensate for this, and in the end I much preferred using the Boxwave to the Kit for drawing or writing. The Kit might be a bit better for painting, but the apps I have been using the styli with are not painting apps and so I haven't really tried that in ernest.

Keynote for iPad and PowerPoint

2011-06-29T15:20:00.000-07:00

When I was recently given an iPad 2, I was keen to see how well it might function as a presentation device. I give a lot of presentations and training courses where all the content is currently based in Microsoft PowerPoint. So I wanted to see whether an iPad could substitute for my laptop.

The first task was to install Keynote. For just $9.99 or £4.99, there is certainly no need to worry about justifying the cost!

Then I needed to try opening a PowerPoint presentation in Keynote. The first step is to get the file onto the iPad. There are a number of ways to do this.

Import

I tried iTunes. With the iPad attached, select the iPad under devices and then the Apps tab. Under 'File Sharing' select Keynote and you can then add files from your computer. Simple enough.

I also tried Dropbox. Again this is straightforward to add presentations to your Dropbox for subsequent download to the iPad.

Dropbox is useful in that it doesn't require a connection to the computing running iTunes and so can be used on the go. An alternative would be to email the presentations to yourself. iCloud of course will be another option.

The next step is then to open these files using Keynote on the iPad. Again this is straightforward. Touch 'Presentations', and then the + to create a new presentation. Touching the 'copy from iTunes' button...

... brings up the list of files just synched.

A presentation is then imported when the file is selected.
You may find a list of 'Presentation Import Warnings' comes up if there is anything it cannot convert. For example the iPad may not have the same fonts that were used to build the presentation

Using Dropbox is again straightforward. Open Dropbox on the iPad and a list of your files should appear. Select a presentation and then it can be opened in Keynote.

The same dialog as with iTunes and any similar warnings then follow.

I did have a couple of graphic glitches such as lines appearing with arrows where there was no arrow in the PowerPoint version.

I also got a warning "build order has been changed" on import, but I didn't actually spot where in my slide builds and animations that happened...

Otherwise, it worked well.

Presenting
When the iPad is connected to an external monitor or projector a number of layout options are provided that allow the iPad to show a different view to the presenter than to the audience. This includes showing the next slide, or the current and next as shown below, or the current and (scrollable) speaker notes. This was introduced in Keynote 1.2. It also shows a clock to the presenter which can be a useful device.

Export
Exporting a presentation back to another computer is the reverse of the above, except you cannot export a file back to Dropbox. So Dropbox is a one-way ticket unfortunately. iTunes works fine if you are connected to a computer, but if not then iWork would be an alternative.

If you send to iTunes, a dialog appears asking for the file format to export - Keynote, PDF, or PowerPoint

If you share via iWork, then a dialog appears asking who you want to send the presentation to. (so simply send it to yourself)

Touching 'sharing options' allows the various download formats to be selected, and to password protect the file is required.

The recipient then follows the link in the resulting email and they can then download the presentation in the format required

And that is it really. Overall a straightforward process.
I look forward to trying it in anger in a customer-facing situation.

BBC Trust Finally Respond to Appeal regarding HD Picture Quality

2010-09-11T03:27:00.000-07:00

The BBC Trust have finally after many months responded to the appeal. (specific link to response to be added once posted on the BBC Trust website).

Well no great surprise that the BBC Trust came down in favour of the BBC!

What I can't understand is how it took so long to respond when the response is so bland and just a reiteration of what the BBC HD management have said all along. The BBC HD management could have written this response within a week of the complaint. (they probably did...)
All I can say is thank god for BSkyB and Sky HD. A broadcaster who understands that High Definition means exactly that - and not just better than Standard Definition, which is what the BBC seem to take it as.
The trust clearly try to dismiss BSkyB's HD services as just "specialist movies and sport", but ignore that across the range of HD Channels available from BSkyB there is just as much a mix of Genres that is provided by the BBC. Drama, light entertainment, documentary, news, etc, all of which are provided in much higher picture quality than the BBC broadcasts. If dealing with a range of genres in HD is "technically challenging" according to the BBC, how come it isn't for BSkyB (or ITV, C4, Five)? And since when was showing "specialist movies and sport" in HD somehow less technically challenging than say drama or nature programmes?

I think the problem is that High Definition is just very low down in the BBC's priorities.

Instead, making BBC programming available across every possible platform - often at much lower PQ than even Standard Definition - is much higher on their agenda, and gets far more funding.

The BBC's mantra seems to be quantity, not quality (as long as PQ goes)

They seem obsessed with putting content onto iPhones, iPads, iAnything, whereas good old fashioned Televisions are just no longer important to them it seems - perhaps they mistakenly perceive there is no interest in just watching the TV any more...
But in fact, TV sales have been very good in recent years, and the shift to large screen, HDTV sets, has resulted in far more viewers seeking a higher PQ, and due to the size of the screens noticing more than ever the imperfections in the picture.

BSkyB seem to recognise this trend far more than the BBC. HD is clearly very high on their agenda, (and now 3D) as they recognise that people are not only seeking better PQ but are willing to pay extra for it.
And there in lies the rub. For BSkyB, HD is an opportunity, a way to increase revenues, and hence embraced by their management. Whereas for the BBC, HD is just a cost, an expense, something they wish perhaps they didn't have to do - not when there are shiny new toys from Apple to play with instead - and hence ignored by their management.
As an indication, see the recent speech by the Chairman of the BBC Trust - - pages and pages of speech about technology. And not one mention of high definition. Says it all really....

The trust's response very much appears to confirm the suspicion that we all had that DSAT PQ has been reduced by artificially constraining the bandwidth so that it is no better than DTT.
That said, it does allow the BBC to introduce a 2nd HD channel on DSAT without requiring any increase in bandwidth - though increased in DSAT bandwidth are a small cost in the overall scheme of things compared to other BBC costs...
Whilst I understand their public service remit requires them to broadcast on all available medium, at the same time the BBC and the trust have never put forward any convincing arguement (nor is there anything in the charter) as to why all mediumns must be set at the lowest common denominator PQ-wise.
There is no valid reason why BBC HD via DSAT couldn't be broadcast in higher PQ than DTT, other than the BBC's self serving interest to promote DTT rather than DSAT - which in fairness many people do equate with 'Sky'.

In other words, it seems to be driven by just petty minded politics and some jealousy of BSkyB, rather than any valid technical or commercial decision.
Unfortunately, the BBC are shooting themselves in the foot in the process. The severe limitations of DTT HD mean that as more and more people invest in HDTV and seek a greater range of programming at higher PQ, then their only option will be subscribe to Sky.

Oh how the mighty have fallen. I grew up admiring the BBC for its technical leadership and broadcast quality. Not anymore, that mantle has been passed on to others.

For me, the only consequence of this episode and the conclusions of the trust is to turn me into someone who now seriously questions the role of the BBC and its right to the licence fee. Why should I have to pay for this when there are now so many better alternatives?

And as more and more people subscribe to BSkyB in order to obtain a decent HD service then more and more people will start to question just why they have to pay a licence fee as well when their BBC viewing plummets.
Thanks BBC and the BBC Trust. In one move you have converted me and many others it seems from avid supporter to someone who wants to see the BBC broken up and the licence fee abolished. Well done.

Roma Solar Garden Lights

2010-06-25T00:46:00.000-07:00

I had been looking for some new garden lights for some time as the low-voltage system we had in place for many years was looking a bit tired. I wanted something eco-friendly and cheap to run, but so far any solar-powered lights I had seen were very poor. Typically they just create a point of light in the bulb itself, but little illumination of the surrounding area. So, OK as markets, but of little other use.

Then I saw this comparison of solar lights in the Daily Telegraph. This suggested that recently "both solar panel technology and LED technology have proceeded at great speed", and singled out the Roma as being the best of the bunch and actually capable of replacing conventional powered lights. So I thought I would give them a try.

I purchased them from Maplins as they had free delivery, and a voucher code at the time that saved me 10%.

Though at £49.99 each they are expensive for solar lights, the units are certainly very well constructed, made of marine grade stainless steel and glass.

As seen in the picture above, they are primarily designed to be screwed down onto a solid surface. Though some long nails are also provided to push into a softer surface for example into a lawn or border, these are pretty ineffectual and don't provide much stability.

The key difference between the Roma and other solar lights is the very large solar cell which is much larger than normal, and consequently gathers a lot more light and generates more electricity. Hence they can use a more powerful LED, and it lasts longer too.

So, what are they like in practice? Well, their performance is definitely well above the norm for solar. They are just as bright as the low-voltage halogen lights they replaced.

As you can see, they really do light up the surrounding area, not just the light itself. The lights do stay on a long time too. In fact I have no idea how long as I have gone to bed long before they have switched off (I think...).

However, it is now June in the northern hemisphere and the lights are getting as much daylight as is possible. How they will perform on short grey winter days is another matter, and I will report back on that. It is evident as you would expect that the less daylight they receive the shorter their operational hours. I already had to reposition a couple so that they were not in shade for parts of the day, which was reducing their hours. So, you can only position these lights were they are going to get full sunlight for all or at least most of the day. (though you can easily remove the head of the light with the solar panel, batteries and bulb, and put it somewhere else in the daytime to charge then move it back to its base that would normally be in shade all day - though that seems a bit extreme, but it is the sort of thing I have seen others recommend for optimising use of solar lights!)

The other downside is there is no control over when the lights come on or off, as this is done by a dusk sensor, and a timer that switches them off. However, neither can be adjusted. There is an on/off switch, but that means walking round all the lights each time - rather than flicking a single switch as you would normally do with conventional garden lights.

In the winter this means they are going to be coming on a something like 16.00, and probably going off at 18.00 as they will not have had sufficient daylight to power them for much longer. You could of course turn them off - they still charge whilst in the off position - and then turn them on later if you wished, but the operational hours are still going to be short. The only saving grace is I doubt I will want to spend much time in the garden in the evening, or even look at it much in the middle of winter...

I did also have a problem in that one of the lights was coming on a good hour and a half before the others, and subsequently switching off earlier than the rest too. With no way to adjust the sensor, my only recourse was to send it back for replacement - something Maplin handled very well BTW. It is likely that if you buy a set of lights they will all come on at slightly different times. Though a few minuites difference is acceptable, but not a few hours!

Overall though, they certainly live up to any claim to be the most powerful solar garden light, and during the spring, summer and autumn months will probably operate for a reasonable time. But I will be interested to see how well they fair in the winter.

Even so, I can recommend them.

BBC HD Campaign to Improve PQ - Visit to BBC

2010-06-09T12:54:00.000-07:00

As a consequence of the complaints that many viewers made regarding what they saw as a deteriation in the picture quality (PQ) of BBC HD (including my own No 10 petition) , at the end of April I was amongst a group of people led by Paul Geaton who were invited to visit the BBC and discuss this with them.

A lengthy process followed to compile the group's feedback to the BBC, and I am pleased to say that is now finally published.

BBC HD Campaign to Improve PQ - No 10 Petition Comes to Nothing

2010-06-09T12:49:00.000-07:00

Our new PM has temporarily let the BBC off the hook with my No. 10 Petition, as existing e-petitions will not be carried forward. Not surprising, but disappointing :(

From http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/

Existing e-petitions submitted to the previous administration, will not be carried forward to the new administration as part of this process. We will welcome resubmission on issues of concern to the improved e-petitions system when it is launched later in 2010.

I would like to think that the petition at least played a part alongside Paul Geaton's appeal to the BBC Trust in encouraging the BBC to improve PQ and introduce the recent changes such as VBR and the introduction of stat mux'ing.

Clearly if these do not have the desired effect, we can start the whole process off again.

Thanks to the 2385 people who signed it.

Comparing BBC HD Picture Quality. Too Many Variables?

2010-01-10T06:04:00.001-08:00

The differences in HD PQ pre/post August are mainly subtle. Though there are occasional times when errors are more visible and hence the difference is claimed to be significant, on the whole I, and I think many others, are just reporting a more subtle degredation in quality that is relatively subjective - it's just not as good as it used to be in terms of overal sharpness, noise/artifacts etc. BBC HD can still be good, but the wow factor has gone.

One challenge for the BBC and for viewers on this issue is that there still a wide number of variables that make it difficult to truely compare like with like.

There are different receivers capable of receiving BBC HD. Even those badged Freesat will have minor differences in component quality that may affect the final PQ, and viewers will use different contrast settings for example.

Then there are the huge variety of different displays used. Not only are there variations in display type (plasma or LCD), but in resolution (1920x1080 down to 1024x768), and size (37" will looker sharper than 50"). Then there is the questions of how well they are calibrated (most likely just out of the box settings being used), and the variety of different processing applied by the set (such as motion smoothing), and that some sets don't even perform the basics of deinterlacing as well as more expensive sets.

Then mix in the different adjustments to settings that people may have made to contrast, brighness and importantly sharpness, and it isn't difficult to see why one person might report excellent HD quality and the next say it is little better than SD.

However, all that said, the issue here is the apparent sudden and clearly (to many) visible change in HD PQ that occured post the August changes. Even if viewers don't have the best receiver, the best TV, or the ideal settings and calibration, the fact remains that given that they are viewing on the same receiver, the same TV and with the same settings and calibration as before then they still noticed a degredation in the HD PQ compared to pre-August.

That so many (over 1600 on the no 10 petition for example) claim to have noticed this renders many of these variables less significant. Even in these blog comments it is evident that people have a wide variety of equipment and yet all noticed the change.

There is also the fact that many of the viewers will also be watching HD programming on other channels, and are comparing them to BBC HD. Of course it is near impossible to do a like with like comparison between channels (though it will be interesting to compare the Winter Olympics between BBC HD and Eurosport HD), many viewers are noticing that BBC HD doesn't seem to 'measure up' to other HD channels as it once did. Again, because their equipment and settings are the same for all channels, it must be a problem in the BBC HD broadcast that is causing this perception.

A similar issue arises with production styles. Though the BBC might claim that different styles mean that programmes "may not always the bright, crisp look which for some is synonymous with HD", the fact is that the same is equally true of other channels which feature a wide range of programming. Sky Movies being a prime example where movies will vary greatly in style. And yet you rarely see complaints that the HD version of a movie looked no better than the SD version.

Samsung SPF-87H Digital Photo Frame Review

2010-01-03T13:38:00.000-08:00

Like many people I suspect, I rarely print our digital photographs despite having Hi-Ti 630PS Dye Sub and HP C5180 printers. There seems little point printing them and putting them in an album when it is just as easy for people to look at them on the computer screen. Also we are not into the clutter of adorning our walls and furniture with photo frames nor any other ornements, preferring a more minimal look.

However, I have been thinking about getting a digital photo frame for some time as they seem a good solution - One frame can display almost countless pictures - so I don't have to make decisions about which ones to print and which to display - and there is none of the time, trouble, and not to mention cost, of printing them.

Even so, I never seemed to get round to it, but then our son and his girlfriend bought us a Samsung SPF-87H for Christmas. So how does it perform?
Image Quality

The 800x480 display is very bright and sharp. It is easily visible in all lighting conditions, and from any angle.
The widescreen format doesn't lend itself well to portrait photos though. Consequently, I found myself only selecting landscape photos - which contradicts my earlier thought that having a digital photo frame would save me from the decision process.

That said, nothing stops you standing it vertically, but then the same issue would arise with landscape photos. Then just buy two I guess and have one each way.

Or buy a 4:3 aspect ratio frame instead. This highlights another slight issue with a widescreen format display like the Samsung SPF-87H in that it doesn't match the aspect ratio most commonly used by digital cameras. As a consequence you find that photos don't fill the screen if you use the 'auto fit' setting, or are cropped if you use the 'fit to width' setting. As you have no control over the cropping, I found myself cropping the photos manually before exporting them to the frame. There I go, contradicting myself again over the time and trouble saved by using a digital photo frame...

Storage
The Samsung SPF-87H has 1gb of built-in memory, plus the option to use SD cards. One of the benefits of cropping and exporting the photos first before putting them on the frame is that as a consequence the file size is going to be greatly reduced compared to simply copying the original source photos across which will have no doubt been shot at several megapixel resolution. For example, a typical 800x480 picture with not too much compression is going to come out at around 50-75kb, whereas the source might be 2-3mb. As a result, you can easily fit something like 10,000 photos in the internal memory, plus whatever you put on the card. Of course, you might argue that with storage cards now being so cheap, why bother? Why not just copy the source files. However you would still be stuck with the aspect ration issue.
That said, I imagine that most users will simply copy the source photos across and not give issues of aspect ratio or storage a second though - until they run out of space.

USB
The frame connects as either a

mass storage device, so you can simply drag and drop photos into the folder
a photo frame, to display pictures from the host computer
or as a mini-monitor, acting as a display for the host computer

Mini Monitor - Frame Manager
To use the frame as a mini-monitor you must first download and install Frame Manager on your computer.
Then you can configure the frame as a 2nd monitor. Here it is shown connected to my laptop. Note that the instructions say it cannot be configured as the main monitor, though I didn't try that.

Functions
There isn't too much to discuss in terms of functionality. There are

obligatory slide show transitions and timing options
the ability to show the time and/or calendar
the auto on/off function is useful though, to switch the display on and off at pre-set times

It is very easy to use with simple buttons on the rear of the frame to navigate easily through the options.

Time + Calendar Display

Calendar + Photo Display

Multi Picture Display
Pictures are displayed one at time till the screen is full, and then the screen is cleared and the process repeated.

There is another variation on this too.

Conclusions
Despite the questions about the widescreen format I raised, I am still very pleased with the display. Though it was a gift, I know it isn't an expensive photo frame, but even so the display quality is very good. It is simple to use and the 1gb of built-in memory makes it useful right out of the box. I may well get a 2nd one for portrait format usage.

Photo Gallery
See my Flickr photo gallery or click on any of the images above for higher resolution photos.

BBC HD Viewing Equipment

2010-01-03T08:08:00.000-08:00

Given the posts regarding BBC HD picture quality that I have made, I though it might be a good idea to identify the kit I am watching it on.

Main TV is a Panasonic TH-50PZ81B. This is a Full HD plasma display with built-in Freesat HD.
Connected to this is a Thomson Sky HD box (upgraded PSU and 1gb HDD)
The Sky HD box is switched through a Denon AVR-1910 receiver, along with a Panasonic DMP-BD60 Blu-ray player, and other source equipment.

In another room, we also have a Panasonic TH-42PX60. This is a HD-Ready plasma display.
Connected to this is also a Thomson Sky HD box (upgraded PSU)

We subscribe to the full Sky HD package, so have a wide choice of HD channels besides BBC HD, C4 HD and ITV HD. Hence with a Blu-ray player as well, we get to compare BBC HD with a lot of other HD material.

Casio PRW-2000 PAW-2000 watch Review

2010-01-02T05:29:00.000-08:00

My wife bought me a Casio PRW-2000-1ER Pro Trek watch (PAW-2000 Pathfinder in some regions) for Christmas. Well I chose it, so it was no surprise, but she wrapped it and put it under the tree...

The PRW-2000 is a so called 'ABC' watch. That is, it has Altimeter, Barometer (and Temperature) and Compass functions. To that, Casio add solar-power plus synchronization with Atomic clocks world-wide via radio signal. Sunrise-sunset times, world-time, stopwatch, timer and alarms, and automatic Electo Luminescent (EL) illumination complete an impressive feature list packed into a tough (but not g-shock standard) 100m water resitant package.

So why did I choose it, and what are my impressions so far?

Though clearly designed for those engaged in outdoor pursuits, the PRW-2000 is slimmer than previous models, and whilst still a large watch, it doesn't look out of place as an everyday watch (especially given large watches are quite fashionable at the moment).

And that is what I chose it for - an everyday watch. I have an expensive 'dress' watch, but that isn't something I want to wear all the time. Instead I had been wearing an early Casio Waveceptor watch, but the strap recently broke, and the cheap glass (plastic?) and case were showing their age.

The ABC functions were not high on my list of priorities. But having got used to having the perfect timekeeping of the waveceptor I did want Atomic clock synchronization, and I could see the benefit of solar power. However, now that I need reading glasses, I also wanted a watch that was very easy to read - without having to put my reading glasses on. Whilst traditional clock hands would have been fine for telling the basic time, there was no way I could read the small dials or even some of the small digital displays that feature on some of the other Casio waveceptor watches, or Citizen AT models. Though they would have met most of my requirements, the displays on the Casio GW-2500-1AER or Citizen Skyhawk AT were just a bit too small. I did consider the Tissot T-Touch range, which have very readable displays, but they don't have the Atomic clock or solar functions.

I find the PRW-2000 ideal though - it has much larger digits that most watches and so I find I can use all the functions without needing my reading glasses. The small writing around the display is too small however, but once you are used to the watch, you have no real need to read them.

Compared to some earlier ABC watches, the PRW-2000 has a fairly clean design without too many protuberances. Though I went for the resin strap version, you can also buy a titanium case and band version - the PRW-2000t-7ER - or a more dressier version - the PRX-2000T - with sapphire crystal glass. Though you might have a hard time tracking one of those down outside of the far east.

So. What about that long list of functions? How do they perform?

Atomic Clock Synchronization.
My original waveceptor only synchronized with the UK and German atomic clocks. The PRW-2000 now adds the clocks in the US, Japan and China.

Here in the UK I have no problems with it successfully synchronizing every night. Though the date and time of the last sychronization is shown, it doesn't however show whether it is from the UK or Germany, both of which I can receive. However, it doesn't really mater I guess.

As I do travel I am looking forward to seeing how it performs elsewhere, particularly in the US.

World-Time
You set your 'home city' from a list of 48 cities in 33 time zones, and then can display your home time along with the local time in another city in the world-time mode.
This is simple enough to use, but the list of 48 cities seems a bit small.
The city codes are based on IATA airport/City codes. Some are fairly obvious like NYC = New York City, but where is YEA? I had to google that one (Edmondton). Some like NYC and LON are city codes rather than specific airport codes - typically where a city has more than one airport.
The display also shows the home time and local time using pointers to a 24 hour dial around the edge of the display.

It would have been nice if you could have a dual time setting on the main display, but as it is, you can only toggle that between displaying in the top left corner the year, day, or a recording of the barometer.
Sunrise/Sunset Times
The sunrise and sunset times can be displayed for any date, not just today. As well as the digital times, the pointers also indicate them on the 24 hour scale.
The times are meant to be displayed for the current home city, or any other city can be selected. However, even though my home city is set for London, the latitude/longtitude settings were for Berlin, and hence the times were wrong. Fortunately, you can set the latitude/longtitude manually, and this is necessary anyway unless you are in one of the 48 preset cities - not that this seemed to help in my case.

Compass Display
The PRW-2000 has a two layer display. The compass overlays the direction pointers on one display, and the digital readout below them. (this is the same on the pointers discussed above).
It also records bearings, so in this example it is showing the last bearing as 243 degrees, and the current as 153. The pointers show north with the thick 3-bar pointer, and the memory with the single pointer.
You can calibrate the compass with appropriate magnetic declination settings for your current location.
Accuracy seemed fine, though I could only compare it with other electronic compasses I have (iPhone 3GS and a GPS unit)

Barometer Display
The barometer displays the current air pressure and temperature, as well as a graph of the air pressue readings in the top left. The pointer shows the difference to the last reading.
This seemed to match my local weather forecast perfectly, so I guess it is OK. It is calibrated at the factory.
The temperature requires you to take the watch off for 20-30 minutes to get an accurate reading, so as many have commented with such watches there doesn't seem much value in this function. But I guess if you are off exploring, it does give you a method of recording the temperature during your rest breaks if you want to log it for some reason. But I would worry about forgetting my watch each time I stopped!

Altitude Display
As the altitude display is based on the barometer readings and air pressure can vary it really needs a reference altitude to be input first in order to get an accurate reading.
When I first got the watch the pressure was low and it was showing my altitude as 175m even though I live at 75m. Now the pressure is higher, it is showing my altitude at 50m.
Hence the altitude is most useful when you go out hicking for the day and can set a reference altitude off a map taking into account the current air pressure at the beginning of your climb.
There are various settings to record altitude at different intervals so that you can record your climb.

Stopwatch/Timer/Alarm functions
There's not much point showing pictures for these here as the functions are fairly obvious I would hope and there's nothing particularly unique about them on the PRW-2000. You can find the pictures in my flickr gallery along with many others at a higher resolution than used here. There are five alarms, but I didn't think it was very loud. You wouldn't hear it in a noisy environment.

Electro Luminescent (EL) Illumination
The PRW-2000 has an EL panel that can be configured to light up automatically when you tilt you wrist more than 40 degrees in low light conditions.
I found this very useful, though in the default setting it doesn't stay illuminated for long, but this can be changed - though presumably using a lot more power if you use it a lot.

On the Wrist
As I said earlier it is a big watch. Here you can see it on my 6.5" wrist. I find it very comfortable. There is plenty of adjustment in the resin strap. A couple of resin 'cushions' for want of a better term on the back of the watch seem to mold the watch to your wrist and help with the comfort.

The solar power function does warn that the watch obviously won't be charging if it is under shirt or coat sleeves. I did wonder if this was going to be an issue as unless I am wearing short sleeves in the summer, then much of the time it will be covered up. (who would wear jackets or shirts where the sleeves finish 3" above your wrist?). However, it hasn't been an issue so far. It comes fully charged out of the box, and it has indicated as on medium charge each day since even though it hasn't got a huge amount of sunlight.

Conclusions
Overall I am very pleased with the watch. It has more functions than I will probably ever user, at least regularly. The main functions I actually wanted it for - big clear display, atomic watch synchronization,and solar power, seem to all work as well as I could have hoped for.

Photo Gallery
There are a lot more photos and at higher resolution in my flickr gallery

Retailer
For anyone who is interested, mine was purchased from the British Watch Company, who have it at the lowest price I can find in the UK (£186 at time of writing), and gave excellent express delivery with tracking. Recommended.

BBC HD Campaign to Improve PQ - Some Background Information

2010-01-01T12:26:00.000-08:00

I thought it would be useful to add some background information - primarily by way of links to further reading - to help explain why I started the campaign

The BBC Internet HDTV Blog is the best place to read the BBC's own position on this issue, and to gauge the response it has bought from viewers.
Specifically, read the blogs by Danielle Nagler, Head of BBC HD

Also, the Hitchhikers Guide to Encoding, a series of more technical blogs by Andy Quested, Principal HD Technologist at BBC

As you can see, these blogs have drawn a big response from viewers.
You probably haven't got time to read them all, so I would like to single out Paul Geaton's comments as worth reading. Following some Freedom of Information (FOI) requests that Paul made, he has also escalated his own complaints about the BBC HD PQ up to the BBC Trust, and has created his own website to support this

For an interesting perspective from William Cooper, an ex-BBC executive, see BBC HD quality definition draws criticism from viewers

Meanwhile, the independent consumer body Which? claim to that it "proves no loss of quality in BBC HD signal" . Though no real detail in their testing methodology is given.

BBC HD - Campaign to Improve Picture Quality

2009-12-30T09:39:00.000-08:00

Given the problems the world and UK has at the moment, petitioning the UK Prime Minister to request the BBC improves the picture quality (PQ) of its High Definition channel - BBC HD - ought to rank as a fairly low priority.

But that's what I found myself doing this week, creating an e-petition on the Official Site of the Prime Minister's Office. You can sign this at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BBCHDPQ/

Though it ought to be unimportant in the vast scheme of things, it is however interesting to note that over 500 people had taken the trouble to sign the petition in the first day - making it already the 3rd most signed petition in its category of "Information and Communications", moving it into the top 200 of all petitions, and the most signed of recent new petitions.

Clearly then I am not alone in noticing the degredation in the BBC HD PQ.

It wasn't always the case - the Beijing Olympics, Planet Earth, Jools Holland, were exemplars of HD PQ when HDTV first launch in the UK. However, in August 2009 the BBC made changes to its encoders that compress the picture.

Almost immediately, many people noticed degredation in the BBC HD PQ and started to raise the issue on various forums - such as various threads at avforums and digital spy - and on the BBC's own HDTV blog. You can also vote in the BBC HD Picture Quality Campaign on avforums

Unfortunately (for the BBC), the responses made by BBC executives in their HDTV blog have only served to infuriate viewers further by seeming to suggest it is all in their imagination and that the technical changes made by the BBC to the transmissions have had no impact on the PQ.

However, many viewers like myself had no idea any technical changes had been made to the encoders - all I knew was that the PQ no longer seemed up to the standard set in the early days of BBC HD. The evidence was purely what I saw with my eyes. It wasn't until I started looking on the internet to see if anyone else was noticing this that I found out about the changes they had made. So I certainly wasn't imagining it, and I doubt others were either. Nor was I assuming that because the bit rate was a lower number, then lower must equal worse - because I had no idea that the bit rates had changed. All I could see was a poorer picture, and only found out what seemed to be the source of the problems later.

As early adoptors and advocates of HDTV, you would think this is the last audience you would want to alienate if you were the BBC. Rather than enthusiactically recommending BBC HD to all their friends as advocates would be prone to do, they will be suggesting they consider alternatives instead - "wait for the Blu-ray box set", "subscribe to Sky HD if you want the best HD", are some of the things I have found myself saying of late.

Though my petition asks for the BBC to restore the bitrates to the levels before the August changes, ultimately, I don't care what the bitrate or compression is, but

I do want the HD PQ improved - if that requires an increase in bitrate, so be it
I don't want the HD PQ reduced to a lowest common denominator, set by the most limited platform (e.g. freeview), so that all HD platforms are 'equal' for some unexplainable reason
and most importantly, I would just like the BBC to engage in a proper debate about the subject rather than basically telling anyone who complains that they are imagining it.

I get the impression that point 2 is the driver for these changes, which the BBC have so far via their blog responses done nothing to change. As Freeview HD which launches soon has a lower available bandwidth than Freesat HD, the BBC is artificially constraining the bandwidth of Freesat HD so that Freeview HD does not suffer in comparison.

If so, I find that perplexing. Did, or does the BBC constrain FM and DAB audio quality so that AM transmissions don't suffer in comparison? Did the BBC constrain BBC colour transmissions so that B&W programmes didn't suffer in comparison? I think not. There will always be differences between the different mediums available. So why not use them to their maximum capability, rather than reducing them to their lowest common denominator?

I would certainly like the BBC to respond to this point by always using the maximum bandwith available for each medium as my petition requests.

There was a time when BBC meant broadcast quality par excellance. They consistently bought many innovations to UK broadcasting over the years that have led to improved picture and audio quality. BBC HD seemed the next logic step in that, even though by the time of its introduction, the BBC were lagging in global terms. And for a time, as expressed earlier, it was. But today it seems the BBC are more concerned with quantity rather than quality. They would rather squeeze more and more low-PQ channels into the available bandwidth in a flawed attempt to compete with the hundreds of channels available today, rather than focus on a few high-PQ channels that have that "must see" factor.

My main complaint though is that I cannot vote with my feet. Even though I am unhappy about the BBC HD PQ, thanks to the licence fee I still have to pay for it whether I watch it or not. And the BBC's attitude comes across like they know that very well...

If Sky reduced it's HD quality, I could simply stop subscribing. What is my recourse with the BBC, other than to complain as loudly and directly as possible?