Is all current television equipment becoming worthless?

Page 7 of 7  
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:18:29 GMT, "Rick Brandt"

Most, if not all of the primary sourcing is done by server technology (RAID arrays, hard disks, etc.). Video tape still exists, but mostly because there are years (and years) of archived shows on video tape. HDTV video tape recorder/players also exist.
A DVD is a consumer product, the content being compressed and optimized to fit on that one 4.7 Gbit (or double-size) DVD disk. The quality is certainly good enough for analog broadcast, but it is not necessarily HDTV. Many people set their DVD players to the letterbox format and think that they are watching true HDTV on their old tv set, but this is not so.
A true HDTV signal must be seen and heard to be appreciated. A special monitor is required. There are 1125 total scan lines vs. just 525 for NTSC. There are 1080 active lines (visible on the screen) vs. about 480 for NTSC. HDTV includes 5.1 audio or 5 channels of audio with surround vs. two channels for NTSC (stereo). The aspect ratio for HDTV is 16:9 vs. 4:3 for NTSC. HDTV is not interlaced.
Beachcomber
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Beachcomber wrote: [snip]

Actually 1080i is interlaced while 720p is not.
From www.digitalconnections FAQ page...
Very few sets offer the ability to scan in 720p (progressive), and much of today's high-definition programs are transmitted in the 1080i (interlaced) format. As digital engine based sets such as the DLP and LCD TV's become more common, it is expected to adopt and convert incoming signals to the 720p format. It is inherently simple to do so when using a display technology based on computing monitors, which are natively progressive. Many consumer electronics manufacturers have decided to forego the more expensive circuitry required to scan in 720p. There has been much debate as to if this standard should be adopted in our television sets, and it is indeed the preference of many videophiles in viewing film based pictures in the progressive mode, where the movement flows smoother with the full frame based image.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Beachcomber wrote:

I've looked at HDTV in the stores. Lots of stores, although I tend to see them most at Costco where they're placed at the front door. I am not impressed. Off the top, half have smeary/blurry displays that I wouldn't hook to a 286/12 computer. The rest exhibit all sorts of spurious picture imperfections, like pixellation and aliasing and moire. And not one of them I've seen has half the viewing angle of a cheap CRT set.
As far as still pictures, or things that move very very slowly, and don't have any fine detail to cause moire and aliasing, the pictures are nice. But that's about one frame out of every ten visits to the Costco.
I'm far more impressed by NTSC displayed on a studio-quality monitor or computer monitor. Not a lot of people have had the chance to see that, but the picture quality is double that of the best televisions. (And put that Conrac back in the closet.)
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
clifto wrote:

I would guess that not all people are going to see the difference. Heck look at all the people who could not tell the difference between the results of a Kodak Instamatic vs a high quality image from a good 35mm or larger.
Of course not all results and displays well be equal so many people may not have the opportunity to see the difference, but for me, the difference is very clear. Watching the same show in HD or standard is a very serious difference. Now when it comes to the difference between DTV and ATV (digital and analog) there often is a much smaller difference. Sometimes the analog is better. I don't believe they have all the kinks worked out of digital (including HD) so we can look to improvements.
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 15:00:48 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"

Is this change going to make the SHOWS better? ;-)
I would be willing to pay for higher QUALITY of TV. The same shit at a higher resolution is a waste of money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

It may. It is too soon to tell, but standard definition digital takes up less bandwidth than analog, which means more programs with no more distribution cost, so less cost per station. That could mean more diversity or less expense in distribution that could be put into programming. Only time will tell.
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 21:32:39 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"

Actually I think the net connected DVR will be the death knelll for traditional broadcasting except for things like local news and weather. Broadcast TV will be like AM radio.
ReplayTV already has the hardware but MPAA and the networks killed the internet transfers of shows in any new DVRs. It is really just software tho. The hardware is still there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:33:42 GMT, "Rick Brandt"

Then it'll be time to play some DVDs.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The news(FWIW) does not come on DVDs.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course you could make your own :-)
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Rick Brandt) writes: | Brian Attwood wrote: | > | > Just a nitpick, the govt is mandating a change to digital (DTV) | > broadcast not HDTV broadcast. All HDTV is DTV but not all DTV is | > HDTV. Some broadcasters may choose to broadcast in HDTV, but others | > may choose to broadcast in standard definition and offer multiple | > channels or use the "extra" bandwidth in other ways. | | Which is what they will do the majority of the time. We will end up with mostly | standard quality digital and 50 more channels all showing infomercials.
Or pay services, e.g.,
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.telecom/msg/cde76b53b61e5b17
I'm about 40 miles from Boston and all our local stations are now broadcasting digital. Most of them I can receive most of the time, but WLVI's digital signal is usually unviewable. I've tried several different receivers. (The analog version on 56 was/is always fine.) I had hoped that they were doing some sort of low power test, but this seems to be the production setup. My UHF antenna is 20 feet up on a tower and I'm not sure I can easily raise it. Of course, I'd have a lot more incentive to work on this if I had a converter/receiver that provided good VCR support or a DVR with an ATSC tuner and functionality comparable to the Panasonic DMR that I use. :)
I wonder if there's a market for a multi-channel converter box for people with lots of analog equipment? It could decode 5-10 DTV signals and modulate NTSC versions on a local cable at fixed channels. If converter boxes will really sell for $50 then (a) this should be economically possible and (b) you could even build it with a rack of those $50 boxes and some modulators. Of course, there is still the problem of selecting the aspect ratio conversion. I suppose with two converters per digital station you could make both formats available to all devices...
                Dan Lanciani                 ddl@danlan.*com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(following up to my own post)
| I'm about 40 miles from Boston and all our local stations are now | broadcasting digital. Most of them I can receive most of the time, | but WLVI's digital signal is usually unviewable. I've tried several | different receivers. (The analog version on 56 was/is always fine.) | I had hoped that they were doing some sort of low power test, but this | seems to be the production setup. My UHF antenna is 20 feet up on a | tower and I'm not sure I can easily raise it.
Oops, that's 40 feet up...
                Dan Lanciani                 ddl@danlan.*com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote in (Rick Brandt) writes:

Of course,many sites are not permitted to have towers,or even outside antennas.(small sat-dishes not included,although some sites are not suitable for those at all.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And you'll still need that converter (ATSC tuner).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.