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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
firstname.lastname@example.org (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
| standard quality digital and 50 more channels all showing infomercials.
Or pay services, e.g.,
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...
(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...
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.