Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

EDTV

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
May 22, 2004 4:04:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV cable
box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9 ratio and not
have picture streteched out.

AP

More about : edtv

Anonymous
May 22, 2004 4:04:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dong Park wrote:
>
> I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV cable
> box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9 ratio and not
> have picture streteched out.
>
> AP

D Park:

You did not mention which cable box... such as: SA-3250 HD.....

EDTV is 480p wide(16:9)..... just short of real HD......

HDTV is 720p wide 0r 1080i wide where wide is 16:9.....


Yes the two HD options listed here can be down converted to 480p
wide....

The SA-3250-HD cable box has this conversion available thru DVI...

It appears that plasma units below $4500 are EDTV... Above $5000

they are usually HD compatible... And plasma needs that
extended warranty....
Anonymous
May 22, 2004 6:01:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dennis Mayer wrote:
> Dong Park wrote:
>>
>> I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV
>> cable box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9
>> ratio and not have picture streteched out.
>>
>> AP
>
> D Park:
>
> You did not mention which cable box... such as: SA-3250 HD.....
>
> EDTV is 480p wide(16:9)..... just short of real HD......
>
> HDTV is 720p wide 0r 1080i wide where wide is 16:9.....
>
>
> Yes the two HD options listed here can be down converted to 480p
> wide....
>
> The SA-3250-HD cable box has this conversion available thru
> DVI...
>
> It appears that plasma units below $4500 are EDTV... Above $5000
>
> they are usually HD compatible... And plasma needs that
> extended warranty....

While EDTV does give a nice picture and can display downconverted HD
content, the picture is far from real HD resolution.

1920x1080i - HD - about 1M pixels per interlaced field
1280x720p - HD - 921K pixels

about 852x480 for EDTV - or about 408K pixels

So when compared to 720p HD, EDTV is about 50% the resolution. Less for
1080i.

It's still a great compromise, though. Especially for plasma.


--
David G.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
May 22, 2004 10:17:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in message
news:Tq6dncmusdoAcTPdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> Dennis Mayer wrote:
> > Dong Park wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV
> >> cable box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9
> >> ratio and not have picture streteched out.
> >>
> >> AP
> >
> > D Park:
> >
> > You did not mention which cable box... such as: SA-3250 HD.....
> >
> > EDTV is 480p wide(16:9)..... just short of real HD......
> >
> > HDTV is 720p wide 0r 1080i wide where wide is 16:9.....
> >
> >
> > Yes the two HD options listed here can be down converted to 480p
> > wide....
> >
> > The SA-3250-HD cable box has this conversion available thru
> > DVI...
> >
> > It appears that plasma units below $4500 are EDTV... Above $5000
> >
> > they are usually HD compatible... And plasma needs that
> > extended warranty....
>
> While EDTV does give a nice picture and can display downconverted HD
> content, the picture is far from real HD resolution.
>
> 1920x1080i - HD - about 1M pixels per interlaced field
> 1280x720p - HD - 921K pixels
>
> about 852x480 for EDTV - or about 408K pixels
>
> So when compared to 720p HD, EDTV is about 50% the resolution. Less for
> 1080i.
>
> It's still a great compromise, though. Especially for plasma.
>
Can HDTV be gradually improved upon over the years, or are we stuck with the
current standard for the next 50 years or so?

1M pixels sounds great, but we may be able to do 10M in a few years.
Anonymous
May 22, 2004 10:43:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Syntax Error wrote:
>
> "David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Tq6dncmusdoAcTPdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> > Dennis Mayer wrote:
> > > Dong Park wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV
> > >> cable box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9
> > >> ratio and not have picture streteched out.
> > >>
> > >> AP
> > >
> > > D Park:
> > >
> > > You did not mention which cable box... such as: SA-3250 HD.....
> > >
> > > EDTV is 480p wide(16:9)..... just short of real HD......
> > >
> > > HDTV is 720p wide 0r 1080i wide where wide is 16:9.....
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes the two HD options listed here can be down converted to 480p
> > > wide....
> > >
> > > The SA-3250-HD cable box has this conversion available thru
> > > DVI...
> > >
> > > It appears that plasma units below $4500 are EDTV... Above $5000
> > >
> > > they are usually HD compatible... And plasma needs that
> > > extended warranty....
> >
> > While EDTV does give a nice picture and can display downconverted HD
> > content, the picture is far from real HD resolution.
> >
> > 1920x1080i - HD - about 1M pixels per interlaced field
> > 1280x720p - HD - 921K pixels
> >
> > about 852x480 for EDTV - or about 408K pixels
> >
> > So when compared to 720p HD, EDTV is about 50% the resolution. Less for
> > 1080i.
> >
> > It's still a great compromise, though. Especially for plasma.
> >
> Can HDTV be gradually improved upon over the years, or are we stuck with the
> current standard for the next 50 years or so?
>
> 1M pixels sounds great, but we may be able to do 10M in a few years.


Can HDTV be improved over the years....? Yes, there will be
research
projects and some special closed circuit TV systems.....

However, the current cost of implementing the HDTV digital standards
is not

trivial..... Required are new Towers/transmitters, new TV station
studios,

new cameras, new programming, and major TV channel bandwidth
requirements.


HDTV items to be improved yet are both Dolby Digital 5.1/6.1 audio
AND

local TV news, weather, & sports in HD... This costs big $$ at
the

local level..... Advertisers will be asked to pay
eventually.....

And maybe in certain cases the viewers like us pay too ....


Now IF OTA bandwidth was not required by the FCC and TV Towers
disappear....

I have no idea where the HDTV transition may lead.... Just an
opinion....
Anonymous
May 22, 2004 12:24:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Syntax Error" <no@spam.here.com> wrote in message news:<PfCrc.1218$hM4.74@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> "David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Tq6dncmusdoAcTPdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> > Dennis Mayer wrote:
> > > Dong Park wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV
> > >> cable box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9
> > >> ratio and not have picture streteched out.
> > >>
> > >> AP
> > >
> > > D Park:
> > >
> > > You did not mention which cable box... such as: SA-3250 HD.....
> > >
> > > EDTV is 480p wide(16:9)..... just short of real HD......
> > >
> > > HDTV is 720p wide 0r 1080i wide where wide is 16:9.....
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes the two HD options listed here can be down converted to 480p
> > > wide....
> > >
> > > The SA-3250-HD cable box has this conversion available thru
> > > DVI...
> > >
> > > It appears that plasma units below $4500 are EDTV... Above $5000
> > >
> > > they are usually HD compatible... And plasma needs that
> > > extended warranty....
> >
> > While EDTV does give a nice picture and can display downconverted HD
> > content, the picture is far from real HD resolution.
> >
> > 1920x1080i - HD - about 1M pixels per interlaced field
> > 1280x720p - HD - 921K pixels
> >
> > about 852x480 for EDTV - or about 408K pixels
> >
> > So when compared to 720p HD, EDTV is about 50% the resolution. Less for
> > 1080i.
> >
> > It's still a great compromise, though. Especially for plasma.
> >
> Can HDTV be gradually improved upon over the years, or are we stuck with the
> current standard for the next 50 years or so?
>
> 1M pixels sounds great, but we may be able to do 10M in a few years.

I think it's important to understand how we got where we are today.
The ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) is an international
organization that came up with a collection of standards to define DTV
(Digital Television). In 1996 the United States FFC (Federal
Communication Commision) adopted ATSC's DTV standards. This standard
calls for support of 18 different (digital) display formats ranging
from SDTV 480i to HDTV 1080p. (I have a complete grid of these formats
at my website http://hdtv.0catch.com ).

When you consider the momentum required to get the FCC to approve
something (it took almost ten years for the current ATSC DTV
standards) it's very unlikely that we'll see a change anytime soon.

For current HD resolution (typically 1080i for broadcast) cable and
satellite companies are a bit stumped as of what to do, they have
bandwidth limiations. over-the-air networks are stressed enough about
converting over to the current DTV standards by 2006, the last thing
they want to do is invest in new equipment.

So there's a lot of factors that I use to draw my conclusion that the
current standards will be around a good while and for general use
there wouldn't be an advantage to a higher resolution (if no one is
supporting it).

Ok, so that's what I believe and why. Another line of thought could go
like this: Technology is always improving, a few years from now some
company might discover a way to create a new kind of monitor display
dirt-cheap at some insane resolution, but even if that happended they
would have to find a way to support backwards compatibility with the
existing ATSC DTV standards, because of the FCC regulations.

If you're thinking HDTV (1080p/1080i/720p) is an enhanced version of
EDTV that came later because of technology improvements, well that
isn't really true. EDTV just exist as one of the 18 ATSC formats, it
was standardized at the same time as the HDTV formats. If you can't
have Plasma and HD too, not unless you have $12,000 to drop for a 50"
WXGA display. If people would educate themselfs a bit they would know
that Plasma burns phospher and will wear out similar to CRT-based
televisions and CRT-based rear-projection televisions. A ten year
product lifespan may be acceptable for $2500 investment, but not for
$12,000 investment (it's all relative to your wealth).

But a lot of people (in US anyway) will go to the their local BestBuy,
Sears or Circut City, talk with a commision based
(hear-today-gone-tomorrow) sales person and lay down $5000 or more for
a Plasma display that can only do EDTV (not even a real HDTV), this
won't benefit at all when HD-DVD comes available because current DVD
standards max out what it's capable of, the $5000 Plasma set will also
be highly subject to ireversable burn-in, which isn't covered under
warrenty (a tid-bit many sale staff don't talk about).

So customer buys the television, sets it up on their wall like a
picture frame and wow they're living in a PhilipsMagnavox commerical,
life is good. six months later they have black bars burned into their
set, it's resale value is null. American consumer's just don't educate
themselfs they put too much faith in the principle "if it cost a lot,
it most be good/warrenty will cover it if it isn't", so a lot of
people are getting burned on this technology.

-Jeremy
-------------------------------------------
New to HDTV:
http://hdtv.0catch.com
-------------------------------------------
May 22, 2004 4:25:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Look at your ATSC grid again. You won't see "EDTV". That's a Fox marketing
term. ATSC counts 480p & 480i BOTH as SDTV.


"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0405220724.fed0fe3@posting.google.com...
> "Syntax Error" <no@spam.here.com> wrote in message
news:<PfCrc.1218$hM4.74@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > "David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:Tq6dncmusdoAcTPdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> > > Dennis Mayer wrote:
> > > > Dong Park wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV
> > > >> cable box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9
> > > >> ratio and not have picture streteched out.
> > > >>
> > > >> AP
> > > >
> > > > D Park:
> > > >
> > > > You did not mention which cable box... such as: SA-3250
HD.....
> > > >
> > > > EDTV is 480p wide(16:9)..... just short of real HD......
> > > >
> > > > HDTV is 720p wide 0r 1080i wide where wide is 16:9.....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes the two HD options listed here can be down converted to 480p
> > > > wide....
> > > >
> > > > The SA-3250-HD cable box has this conversion available thru
> > > > DVI...
> > > >
> > > > It appears that plasma units below $4500 are EDTV... Above
$5000
> > > >
> > > > they are usually HD compatible... And plasma needs that
> > > > extended warranty....
> > >
> > > While EDTV does give a nice picture and can display downconverted HD
> > > content, the picture is far from real HD resolution.
> > >
> > > 1920x1080i - HD - about 1M pixels per interlaced field
> > > 1280x720p - HD - 921K pixels
> > >
> > > about 852x480 for EDTV - or about 408K pixels
> > >
> > > So when compared to 720p HD, EDTV is about 50% the resolution. Less
for
> > > 1080i.
> > >
> > > It's still a great compromise, though. Especially for plasma.
> > >
> > Can HDTV be gradually improved upon over the years, or are we stuck with
the
> > current standard for the next 50 years or so?
> >
> > 1M pixels sounds great, but we may be able to do 10M in a few years.
>
> I think it's important to understand how we got where we are today.
> The ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) is an international
> organization that came up with a collection of standards to define DTV
> (Digital Television). In 1996 the United States FFC (Federal
> Communication Commision) adopted ATSC's DTV standards. This standard
> calls for support of 18 different (digital) display formats ranging
> from SDTV 480i to HDTV 1080p. (I have a complete grid of these formats
> at my website http://hdtv.0catch.com ).
>
> When you consider the momentum required to get the FCC to approve
> something (it took almost ten years for the current ATSC DTV
> standards) it's very unlikely that we'll see a change anytime soon.
>
> For current HD resolution (typically 1080i for broadcast) cable and
> satellite companies are a bit stumped as of what to do, they have
> bandwidth limiations. over-the-air networks are stressed enough about
> converting over to the current DTV standards by 2006, the last thing
> they want to do is invest in new equipment.
>
> So there's a lot of factors that I use to draw my conclusion that the
> current standards will be around a good while and for general use
> there wouldn't be an advantage to a higher resolution (if no one is
> supporting it).
>
> Ok, so that's what I believe and why. Another line of thought could go
> like this: Technology is always improving, a few years from now some
> company might discover a way to create a new kind of monitor display
> dirt-cheap at some insane resolution, but even if that happended they
> would have to find a way to support backwards compatibility with the
> existing ATSC DTV standards, because of the FCC regulations.
>
> If you're thinking HDTV (1080p/1080i/720p) is an enhanced version of
> EDTV that came later because of technology improvements, well that
> isn't really true. EDTV just exist as one of the 18 ATSC formats, it
> was standardized at the same time as the HDTV formats. If you can't
> have Plasma and HD too, not unless you have $12,000 to drop for a 50"
> WXGA display. If people would educate themselfs a bit they would know
> that Plasma burns phospher and will wear out similar to CRT-based
> televisions and CRT-based rear-projection televisions. A ten year
> product lifespan may be acceptable for $2500 investment, but not for
> $12,000 investment (it's all relative to your wealth).
>
> But a lot of people (in US anyway) will go to the their local BestBuy,
> Sears or Circut City, talk with a commision based
> (hear-today-gone-tomorrow) sales person and lay down $5000 or more for
> a Plasma display that can only do EDTV (not even a real HDTV), this
> won't benefit at all when HD-DVD comes available because current DVD
> standards max out what it's capable of, the $5000 Plasma set will also
> be highly subject to ireversable burn-in, which isn't covered under
> warrenty (a tid-bit many sale staff don't talk about).
>
> So customer buys the television, sets it up on their wall like a
> picture frame and wow they're living in a PhilipsMagnavox commerical,
> life is good. six months later they have black bars burned into their
> set, it's resale value is null. American consumer's just don't educate
> themselfs they put too much faith in the principle "if it cost a lot,
> it most be good/warrenty will cover it if it isn't", so a lot of
> people are getting burned on this technology.
>
> -Jeremy
> -------------------------------------------
> New to HDTV:
> http://hdtv.0catch.com
> -------------------------------------------
Anonymous
May 22, 2004 7:26:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Syntax Error wrote:
> "David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Tq6dncmusdoAcTPdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>
>>Dennis Mayer wrote:
>>
>>>Dong Park wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV
>>>>cable box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9
>>>>ratio and not have picture streteched out.
>>>>
>>>>AP
>>>
>>> D Park:
>>>
>>> You did not mention which cable box... such as: SA-3250 HD.....
>>>
>>> EDTV is 480p wide(16:9)..... just short of real HD......
>>>
>>> HDTV is 720p wide 0r 1080i wide where wide is 16:9.....
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes the two HD options listed here can be down converted to 480p
>>>wide....
>>>
>>> The SA-3250-HD cable box has this conversion available thru
>>>DVI...
>>>
>>> It appears that plasma units below $4500 are EDTV... Above $5000
>>>
>>> they are usually HD compatible... And plasma needs that
>>>extended warranty....
>>
>>While EDTV does give a nice picture and can display downconverted HD
>>content, the picture is far from real HD resolution.
>>
>>1920x1080i - HD - about 1M pixels per interlaced field
>>1280x720p - HD - 921K pixels
>>
>>about 852x480 for EDTV - or about 408K pixels
>>
>>So when compared to 720p HD, EDTV is about 50% the resolution. Less for
>>1080i.
>>
>>It's still a great compromise, though. Especially for plasma.
>>
>
> Can HDTV be gradually improved upon over the years, or are we stuck with the
> current standard for the next 50 years or so?
>
> 1M pixels sounds great, but we may be able to do 10M in a few years.
>
>
This is the computer age not the TV age. Computers can do any
resolution. This HDTV fixation is the last gasp of the TV industry
trying to keep alive their current business model. Nothing wrong with HD
resolution but you don't have to force feed it to the public in this age
by holding hostage free OTA broadcasting. It will do very well on cable,
satellite and over the Internet. It will not do well OTA with the
current 8-VSB modulation. It may kill free OTA broadcasting in fact.

There is no chance that this present TV broadcast model with an ancient
MPEG2 compression and a dysfunctional 8-VSB modulation can last very
long at all. It only exist in the broadcast OTA mode. Cable and
satellite are more free to change and IP Internet delivery over ever
faster and larger data pipes will erode the current broadcast business
model even more. It is down to somewhere between 10 and 15% as it is.
Questions about why we are protecting this model are being asked more
frequently and by such as our FCC Chairman Powell and key Congressional
personnel.

50 years? More like 5.
Anonymous
May 22, 2004 10:28:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Dong Park" <andy.park@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:jOwrc.38$yc4.24@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV cable
> box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9 ratio and not
> have picture streteched out.

I don't think you will be please with a low-resolution plasma - the image
quality is just not that great.

Better to get a higher resolution LCD or DLP RP if you have a few more
inches.
Anonymous
May 22, 2004 10:39:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Syntax Error" <no@spam.here.com> wrote in message
news:p fCrc.1218$hM4.74@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Tq6dncmusdoAcTPdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> > Dennis Mayer wrote:
> > > Dong Park wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV
> > >> cable box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9
> > >> ratio and not have picture streteched out.
> > >>
> > >> AP
> > >
> > > D Park:
> > >
> > > You did not mention which cable box... such as: SA-3250 HD.....
> > >
> > > EDTV is 480p wide(16:9)..... just short of real HD......
> > >
> > > HDTV is 720p wide 0r 1080i wide where wide is 16:9.....
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes the two HD options listed here can be down converted to 480p
> > > wide....
> > >
> > > The SA-3250-HD cable box has this conversion available thru
> > > DVI...
> > >
> > > It appears that plasma units below $4500 are EDTV... Above $5000
> > >
> > > they are usually HD compatible... And plasma needs that
> > > extended warranty....
> >
> > While EDTV does give a nice picture and can display downconverted HD
> > content, the picture is far from real HD resolution.
> >
> > 1920x1080i - HD - about 1M pixels per interlaced field
> > 1280x720p - HD - 921K pixels
> >
> > about 852x480 for EDTV - or about 408K pixels
> >
> > So when compared to 720p HD, EDTV is about 50% the resolution. Less for
> > 1080i.
> >
> > It's still a great compromise, though. Especially for plasma.
> >
> Can HDTV be gradually improved upon over the years, or are we stuck with
the
> current standard for the next 50 years or so?
>
> 1M pixels sounds great, but we may be able to do 10M in a few years.

we have 2 million pixels... 1920x1080

The question is one of image size and that is determined to great extent by
room size.
As long as we can only afford TV's 5-6 feet wide in rooms 15-20 feet or so ,
there is no need for more resolution... you just can't see it.

But eventually, if we have much larger affordable science fiction type
"paint on the wall" screens that are say 15 feet wide, then we will need
more pixels.

....and new houses... and fiber optic to those new houses.

NTSC is terrible, bad color, bad picture, bad sound, no flexibility or
growth potential... and yet it's lasted for 50 years.
ATSC is wonderful, great color, great picture, great sound, expandable
digital packet content and control via DASE for almost unlimited
interactivity.

If should last much longer... but it should also change significantly over
that period since it is not locked in to specific function as analog is.
Anonymous
May 23, 2004 2:29:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:
> "Dong Park" <andy.park@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:jOwrc.38$yc4.24@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>
>>I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV cable
>>box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9 ratio and not
>>have picture streteched out.
>
>
> I don't think you will be please with a low-resolution plasma - the image
> quality is just not that great.
>
> Better to get a higher resolution LCD or DLP RP if you have a few more
> inches.

There are a number of HD capable CRT based rear projectors available
for 1/2 the price of a plasma EDTA (or even less).

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
May 23, 2004 7:59:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:

> "Syntax Error" <no@spam.here.com> wrote in message
> news:p fCrc.1218$hM4.74@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
>>"David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:Tq6dncmusdoAcTPdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Dennis Mayer wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dong Park wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV
>>>>>cable box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9
>>>>>ratio and not have picture streteched out.
>>>>>
>>>>>AP
>>>>
>>>> D Park:
>>>>
>>>> You did not mention which cable box... such as: SA-3250 HD.....
>>>>
>>>> EDTV is 480p wide(16:9)..... just short of real HD......
>>>>
>>>> HDTV is 720p wide 0r 1080i wide where wide is 16:9.....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes the two HD options listed here can be down converted to 480p
>>>>wide....
>>>>
>>>> The SA-3250-HD cable box has this conversion available thru
>>>>DVI...
>>>>
>>>> It appears that plasma units below $4500 are EDTV... Above $5000
>>>>
>>>> they are usually HD compatible... And plasma needs that
>>>>extended warranty....
>>>
>>>While EDTV does give a nice picture and can display downconverted HD
>>>content, the picture is far from real HD resolution.
>>>
>>>1920x1080i - HD - about 1M pixels per interlaced field
>>>1280x720p - HD - 921K pixels
>>>
>>>about 852x480 for EDTV - or about 408K pixels
>>>
>>>So when compared to 720p HD, EDTV is about 50% the resolution. Less for
>>>1080i.
>>>
>>>It's still a great compromise, though. Especially for plasma.
>>>
>>
>>Can HDTV be gradually improved upon over the years, or are we stuck with
>
> the
>
>>current standard for the next 50 years or so?
>>
>>1M pixels sounds great, but we may be able to do 10M in a few years.
>
>
> we have 2 million pixels... 1920x1080
>
> The question is one of image size and that is determined to great extent by
> room size.
> As long as we can only afford TV's 5-6 feet wide in rooms 15-20 feet or so ,
> there is no need for more resolution... you just can't see it.
>
> But eventually, if we have much larger affordable science fiction type
> "paint on the wall" screens that are say 15 feet wide, then we will need
> more pixels.
>
> ...and new houses... and fiber optic to those new houses.
>
> NTSC is terrible, bad color, bad picture, bad sound, no flexibility or
> growth potential... and yet it's lasted for 50 years.
> ATSC is wonderful, great color, great picture, great sound, expandable
> digital packet content and control via DASE for almost unlimited
> interactivity.
>
> If should last much longer... but it should also change significantly over
> that period since it is not locked in to specific function as analog is.
>
>
My picture is ten feet diagonal, and it was resonably affordable.
Clay
Anonymous
May 23, 2004 10:38:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Ok, to be technical about it; no- "EDTV" is not acknowledged by ATSC.
But regardless of where it came from the formats listed in the grid
are from the ATSC. The ones marked "EDTV" were stamped that way by a
popular Plasma manufactuer and I've seen them referenced that way more
than once.

EDTV has grown to become a general industry term now, just because it
didn't come from the ATSC doesn't mean that it shouldn't be
acknowledged. When you're watching displays in "EDTV" format on a
Plasma TV (or anamorphic widescreen progressive scan DVD on your HDTV)
the picture quality is substantially better than that of SDTV so I
think the term is valid.

I will clarify on the site that the EDTV term is not from the ATSC, to
make the purest happy )

-Jeremy


"Curmudgeon" <gary@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<s7Lrc.17663$3W1.5348@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
> Look at your ATSC grid again. You won't see "EDTV". That's a Fox marketing
> term. ATSC counts 480p & 480i BOTH as SDTV.
>
>
> "JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:b0738dc6.0405220724.fed0fe3@posting.google.com...
> > "Syntax Error" <no@spam.here.com> wrote in message
> news:<PfCrc.1218$hM4.74@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > > "David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Tq6dncmusdoAcTPdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> > > > Dennis Mayer wrote:
> > > > > Dong Park wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV
> > > > >> cable box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9
> > > > >> ratio and not have picture streteched out.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> AP
> > > > >
> > > > > D Park:
> > > > >
> > > > > You did not mention which cable box... such as: SA-3250
> HD.....
> > > > >
> > > > > EDTV is 480p wide(16:9)..... just short of real HD......
> > > > >
> > > > > HDTV is 720p wide 0r 1080i wide where wide is 16:9.....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes the two HD options listed here can be down converted to 480p
> > > > > wide....
> > > > >
> > > > > The SA-3250-HD cable box has this conversion available thru
> > > > > DVI...
> > > > >
> > > > > It appears that plasma units below $4500 are EDTV... Above
> $5000
> > > > >
> > > > > they are usually HD compatible... And plasma needs that
> > > > > extended warranty....
> > > >
> > > > While EDTV does give a nice picture and can display downconverted HD
> > > > content, the picture is far from real HD resolution.
> > > >
> > > > 1920x1080i - HD - about 1M pixels per interlaced field
> > > > 1280x720p - HD - 921K pixels
> > > >
> > > > about 852x480 for EDTV - or about 408K pixels
> > > >
> > > > So when compared to 720p HD, EDTV is about 50% the resolution. Less
> for
> > > > 1080i.
> > > >
> > > > It's still a great compromise, though. Especially for plasma.
> > > >
> > > Can HDTV be gradually improved upon over the years, or are we stuck with
> the
> > > current standard for the next 50 years or so?
> > >
> > > 1M pixels sounds great, but we may be able to do 10M in a few years.
> >
> > I think it's important to understand how we got where we are today.
> > The ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) is an international
> > organization that came up with a collection of standards to define DTV
> > (Digital Television). In 1996 the United States FFC (Federal
> > Communication Commision) adopted ATSC's DTV standards. This standard
> > calls for support of 18 different (digital) display formats ranging
> > from SDTV 480i to HDTV 1080p. (I have a complete grid of these formats
> > at my website http://hdtv.0catch.com ).
> >
> > When you consider the momentum required to get the FCC to approve
> > something (it took almost ten years for the current ATSC DTV
> > standards) it's very unlikely that we'll see a change anytime soon.
> >
> > For current HD resolution (typically 1080i for broadcast) cable and
> > satellite companies are a bit stumped as of what to do, they have
> > bandwidth limiations. over-the-air networks are stressed enough about
> > converting over to the current DTV standards by 2006, the last thing
> > they want to do is invest in new equipment.
> >
> > So there's a lot of factors that I use to draw my conclusion that the
> > current standards will be around a good while and for general use
> > there wouldn't be an advantage to a higher resolution (if no one is
> > supporting it).
> >
> > Ok, so that's what I believe and why. Another line of thought could go
> > like this: Technology is always improving, a few years from now some
> > company might discover a way to create a new kind of monitor display
> > dirt-cheap at some insane resolution, but even if that happended they
> > would have to find a way to support backwards compatibility with the
> > existing ATSC DTV standards, because of the FCC regulations.
> >
> > If you're thinking HDTV (1080p/1080i/720p) is an enhanced version of
> > EDTV that came later because of technology improvements, well that
> > isn't really true. EDTV just exist as one of the 18 ATSC formats, it
> > was standardized at the same time as the HDTV formats. If you can't
> > have Plasma and HD too, not unless you have $12,000 to drop for a 50"
> > WXGA display. If people would educate themselfs a bit they would know
> > that Plasma burns phospher and will wear out similar to CRT-based
> > televisions and CRT-based rear-projection televisions. A ten year
> > product lifespan may be acceptable for $2500 investment, but not for
> > $12,000 investment (it's all relative to your wealth).
> >
> > But a lot of people (in US anyway) will go to the their local BestBuy,
> > Sears or Circut City, talk with a commision based
> > (hear-today-gone-tomorrow) sales person and lay down $5000 or more for
> > a Plasma display that can only do EDTV (not even a real HDTV), this
> > won't benefit at all when HD-DVD comes available because current DVD
> > standards max out what it's capable of, the $5000 Plasma set will also
> > be highly subject to ireversable burn-in, which isn't covered under
> > warrenty (a tid-bit many sale staff don't talk about).
> >
> > So customer buys the television, sets it up on their wall like a
> > picture frame and wow they're living in a PhilipsMagnavox commerical,
> > life is good. six months later they have black bars burned into their
> > set, it's resale value is null. American consumer's just don't educate
> > themselfs they put too much faith in the principle "if it cost a lot,
> > it most be good/warrenty will cover it if it isn't", so a lot of
> > people are getting burned on this technology.
> >
> > -Jeremy
> > -------------------------------------------
> > New to HDTV:
> > http://hdtv.0catch.com
> > -------------------------------------------
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 1:24:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:
> "Dong Park" <andy.park@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV cable
>>box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9 ratio and not
>>have picture streteched out.
> I don't think you will be please with a low-resolution plasma - the image
> quality is just not that great.
> Better to get a higher resolution LCD or DLP RP if you have a few more
> inches.

It seems that since I am not going to be getting cable within 5 years (I really do not
watch enough TV for it, and it hasn't pushed me to subscribe $$ for what I do see), I feel
that I will get a larger LCD.
I'm in an apartment, so I was planning on the 36-42" range. Once a larger % of antenna
broadcasts are in digital, or maybe in 4 years, I'll fronthte money for a large plasma.

Any recommendations on LCD that have DVI, Composite, and Firewire inputs?
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
Anonymous
May 24, 2004 8:15:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob,

I have to disagree with some of your comments. Yes, this is the
"computer age", but I'm curious what your vision is for the future of
television. Computer video cards can output multiple resolutions, but
they are fixed (and for the most part standardized) resolutions. I can
provide specific examples of the latest ATI and nVidia based cards
(the market leaders) as reference.

I'm curious what you mean by "force feed it to the public". I think
the manditory transition is mostly in place for broadcasters. There
are way too many politics involved for them to actually enforce the
cut off date for NTSC, I still strongly believe this won't happen. The
only way it will happen is if 8VSB OTA tuners are subsidized in some
way. It has to get to the point with joe consumer living in the middle
of nowhere can go to his local Walmart and buy an 8VSB HD tuner (that
downcoverts to SDTV) for $20-$30. Even that will cause a huge uproar.

What's wrong with MPEG-2 compression for broadcast. HD cable and
satellite may be free to shift to whatever they want, but they happen
to be using MPEG-2 as well. It's a bulky format but the alternatives
require much more processing power to handle -or- the format has a
higher level of loss. What other format would you recommend?

There's actually a bandwidth problem right now because more people are
jumping on board. Cable companies don't really know what to do. The
whole reason organizations adopt standards is so that the world
doesn't remain in choas. We can bitch and wine about how this standard
isn't up to snuff with what's available, etc, etc.. but without
standards eveything would get tide up. A lot of people don't like 8VSB
for whatever reason. I've seen some of the public test results
comparing 8SVB to COFDM, it's a bullshit debate. Maybe COFDM is a tad
better in some aspects, maybe some people are holding on to 8SVB for
political reasons. I don't see how this is holding everything up. I
live in a major city I'm 25-35 miles from all station towers and I can
pickup all the networks over 8SVB just fine with a $20 powered in-door
antenna. Sometimes I have to adjust the atenna to improve reception,
but it's much much much better than UHF/VHF feeds I'm picking up. So
maybe I only have my own experience as a reference, but I think that's
quite a bit better than people who read all these debates and take a
stance with no hands on experience. I just see it as a largely
political debate as it always is when billions of dollars stand to be
made based on adoption of standards.

I agree that eventually the current model will go away and become more
of computer driven hub that exist in each home to deliver all forms of
data and communication. I see the realization of that dream a good
15-20 years away.

It's taken ten years to get a computer in every home and I think that
vision (set by Microsoft circa 1994) has for the most part been
realized, but not everyone is on-line yet with broadband and as that
milestone is archieved bandwidth becomes a major problem (it already
is a major problem because of the rising number of users and again I
can pull references of various IT articles if you'd like), so there
are plans to expand the pipes and as this infrastructure is being
layed down there has to become the next bug push to get people to buy
a sit top computer that controls everything. That system doesn't exist
today, so let's say it does exist in 5 years. Even then it's just off
the ground and you have to convince everyone to move towards it. If
it's strong enough and affordable that would take at least another ten
years.

Now combine this with the trends for HDTV. HDTV (and HDTV ready) sales
are growing, the ATSC HD standards are being supported in these sets.
If any new service is to spourt up and want to claim HD compatibility
they would have to support the existing televisions.

There's too much involved to think in 5 years the current system will
be dead. I'd love to hear a detailed explination of how you envison
that could happen. I would almost go as far as to say it's impossible.

-Jeremy




Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<YiKrc.5143 > This is the computer age not the TV age. Computers can do any
> resolution. This HDTV fixation is the last gasp of the TV industry
> trying to keep alive their current business model. Nothing wrong with HD
> resolution but you don't have to force feed it to the public in this age
> by holding hostage free OTA broadcasting. It will do very well on cable,
> satellite and over the Internet. It will not do well OTA with the
> current 8-VSB modulation. It may kill free OTA broadcasting in fact.
>
> There is no chance that this present TV broadcast model with an ancient
> MPEG2 compression and a dysfunctional 8-VSB modulation can last very
> long at all. It only exist in the broadcast OTA mode.
Anonymous
May 25, 2004 8:05:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

JDeats wrote:

> Bob,
>
> I have to disagree with some of your comments. Yes, this is the
> "computer age", but I'm curious what your vision is for the future of
> television. Computer video cards can output multiple resolutions, but
> they are fixed (and for the most part standardized) resolutions. I can
> provide specific examples of the latest ATI and nVidia based cards
> (the market leaders) as reference.
>
> I'm curious what you mean by "force feed it to the public". I think
> the manditory transition is mostly in place for broadcasters. There
> are way too many politics involved for them to actually enforce the
> cut off date for NTSC, I still strongly believe this won't happen. The
> only way it will happen is if 8VSB OTA tuners are subsidized in some
> way. It has to get to the point with joe consumer living in the middle
> of nowhere can go to his local Walmart and buy an 8VSB HD tuner (that
> downcoverts to SDTV) for $20-$30. Even that will cause a huge uproar.

IT didn't in Berlin. Nine month transition to total analog turnoff, 12%
penetration at nine months. The country is 95% cable or satellite. The
GAO is over there now checking it out. As the digital transitions in
other countries continue to become ever more successful, Japan and
Australia both lead us in HDTV sales OTA, it will become increasingly
hard to pass off the dismal failure that OTA digital transition is in
the US.
>
> What's wrong with MPEG-2 compression for broadcast. HD cable and
> satellite may be free to shift to whatever they want, but they happen
> to be using MPEG-2 as well. It's a bulky format but the alternatives
> require much more processing power to handle -or- the format has a
> higher level of loss. What other format would you recommend?

Nothing is wrong with MPEG2 but you can do 2 and now I think 3 plus
times the programming with better compression and its correct use. If
you had decent reception that would raise the value of the 6 MHz
spectrum a lot. VOOM is going to better compression, USDTV is all will.
Broadcasters will deliver one SD program with MPEG2 and use advanced
compression for the rest. Until we finally give up on this mess that is.
>
> There's actually a bandwidth problem right now because more people are
> jumping on board. Cable companies don't really know what to do. The
> whole reason organizations adopt standards is so that the world
> doesn't remain in choas. We can bitch and wine about how this standard
> isn't up to snuff with what's available, etc, etc.. but without
> standards eveything would get tide up. A lot of people don't like 8VSB
> for whatever reason. I've seen some of the public test results
> comparing 8SVB to COFDM, it's a bullshit debate. Maybe COFDM is a tad
> better in some aspects, maybe some people are holding on to 8SVB for
> political reasons. I don't see how this is holding everything up. I
> live in a major city I'm 25-35 miles from all station towers and I can
> pickup all the networks over 8SVB just fine with a $20 powered in-door
> antenna. Sometimes I have to adjust the atenna to improve reception,
> but it's much much much better than UHF/VHF feeds I'm picking up. So
> maybe I only have my own experience as a reference, but I think that's
> quite a bit better than people who read all these debates and take a
> stance with no hands on experience. I just see it as a largely
> political debate as it always is when billions of dollars stand to be
> made based on adoption of standards.

COFDM is not a tad better, it is far better. I work with it every day.
It is amazing. Most new RF uses COFDM such as 802.11a and g.
>
> I agree that eventually the current model will go away and become more
> of computer driven hub that exist in each home to deliver all forms of
> data and communication. I see the realization of that dream a good
> 15-20 years away.

In 2 to 3 years all German cars will come with DTV receivers. Laptops,
cell phones and all computers will automatically come with DTV
receivers. Only in the US will this happen slower but it will happen.
160 million cell phones are predicted to be able to receive DTV in 2007.
Vastly under my expectations. In 15-20 years it will be a very different
RF environment altogether. At the Olympics in China in 2008 all
participants will be able to watch DTV on all manner of devices
including cell phones. I would not be surprised if that year 300 million
DTV mobile devices will be sold.
>
> It's taken ten years to get a computer in every home and I think that
> vision (set by Microsoft circa 1994) has for the most part been
> realized, but not everyone is on-line yet with broadband and as that
> milestone is archieved bandwidth becomes a major problem (it already
> is a major problem because of the rising number of users and again I
> can pull references of various IT articles if you'd like), so there
> are plans to expand the pipes and as this infrastructure is being
> layed down there has to become the next bug push to get people to buy
> a sit top computer that controls everything. That system doesn't exist
> today, so let's say it does exist in 5 years. Even then it's just off
> the ground and you have to convince everyone to move towards it. If
> it's strong enough and affordable that would take at least another ten
> years.
>
From where I sit the bandwidth pipes are about to explode especially
wireless. Wireless 12.5 Gbps wireless pipes will become ubiquitous in
major cities in mesh networks. It will be common to have 100 Mbps and
even Gbps wireless connections to metronetworks in a few years.

> Now combine this with the trends for HDTV. HDTV (and HDTV ready) sales
> are growing, the ATSC HD standards are being supported in these sets.
> If any new service is to spourt up and want to claim HD compatibility
> they would have to support the existing televisions.

Not compatible to the 8-VSB receiver just to the display. Cable and
satellite or Internet delivery to such sets will not have to deal with
the 8-VSB receiver which will be there but in most cases unused. I
expect that successful retailers will aggressively sell HD monitors by
end of summer. If I were a retailer I know I would.
>
> There's too much involved to think in 5 years the current system will
> be dead. I'd love to hear a detailed explination of how you envison
> that could happen. I would almost go as far as to say it's impossible.

The current OTA DTV system is already dead so it can't be impossible.
How else can you describe it? Few sales, no advertising, all waiting on
the mandate to save them. The mandate will be a NON-EVENT unless you
count the increased sale of monitors.

Hint of things to come.

Lastest news. http://makeashorterlink.com/?E21616268
Announced today. Chip with 8-VSB, ISDB-T and DVB-T all in one. With this
your covered. I think this is a recognition of what is about to happen
in S. Korea the home of 8-VSB. S. Korea is about to switch to or allow
COFDM DVB-T.

Can't wait for that GAO report on Berlin. Either they will tell the
truth WOW what a concept! Or they will dodge reality. The reality is
that Berlin was able to transition in nine months because they had a
plan and a modulation that allowed simple inexpensive receivers that
worked plug and play. The EXACT same thing would/will happen here the
instant it is allowed only it would happen even quicker if you can
imagine that.
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
>
>
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<YiKrc.5143 > This is the computer age not the TV age. Computers can do any
>
>>resolution. This HDTV fixation is the last gasp of the TV industry
>>trying to keep alive their current business model. Nothing wrong with HD
>>resolution but you don't have to force feed it to the public in this age
>>by holding hostage free OTA broadcasting. It will do very well on cable,
>>satellite and over the Internet. It will not do well OTA with the
>>current 8-VSB modulation. It may kill free OTA broadcasting in fact.
>>
>>There is no chance that this present TV broadcast model with an ancient
>>MPEG2 compression and a dysfunctional 8-VSB modulation can last very
>>long at all. It only exist in the broadcast OTA mode.
Anonymous
May 25, 2004 9:47:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"~consul" <consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in message
news:c8t7k5$djf$1@gist.usc.edu...
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
> > "Dong Park" <andy.park@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>I'm considering purchasing a EDTV Plasma. Will this work with HDTV
cable
> >>box? I want to be able to view HDTV programs in true 16:9 ratio and not
> >>have picture streteched out.
> > I don't think you will be please with a low-resolution plasma - the
image
> > quality is just not that great.
> > Better to get a higher resolution LCD or DLP RP if you have a few more
> > inches.
>
> It seems that since I am not going to be getting cable within 5 years (I
really do not
> watch enough TV for it, and it hasn't pushed me to subscribe $$ for what I
do see), I feel
> that I will get a larger LCD.
> I'm in an apartment, so I was planning on the 36-42" range. Once a larger
% of antenna
> broadcasts are in digital, or maybe in 4 years, I'll fronthte money for a
large plasma.
>
> Any recommendations on LCD that have DVI, Composite, and Firewire inputs?

When I said LCD, I was thinking RP.

Most prime time shows are now broadcast everywhere in HD (except of course
for FOX).
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 12:30:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<aCzsc.9347$be.9238@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> JDeats wrote:
>
> > Bob,
> >
> > I have to disagree with some of your comments. Yes, this is the
> > "computer age", but I'm curious what your vision is for the future of
> > television. Computer video cards can output multiple resolutions, but
> > they are fixed (and for the most part standardized) resolutions. I can
> > provide specific examples of the latest ATI and nVidia based cards
> > (the market leaders) as reference.
> >
> > I'm curious what you mean by "force feed it to the public". I think
> > the manditory transition is mostly in place for broadcasters. There
> > are way too many politics involved for them to actually enforce the
> > cut off date for NTSC, I still strongly believe this won't happen. The
> > only way it will happen is if 8VSB OTA tuners are subsidized in some
> > way. It has to get to the point with joe consumer living in the middle
> > of nowhere can go to his local Walmart and buy an 8VSB HD tuner (that
> > downcoverts to SDTV) for $20-$30. Even that will cause a huge uproar.
>
> IT didn't in Berlin. Nine month transition to total analog turnoff, 12%
> penetration at nine months. The country is 95% cable or satellite. The
> GAO is over there now checking it out. As the digital transitions in
> other countries continue to become ever more successful, Japan and
> Australia both lead us in HDTV sales OTA, it will become increasingly
> hard to pass off the dismal failure that OTA digital transition is in
> the US.

Well you have to look at the reasons the Berlin conversion was a
success. For example, what did they have in place before the upgrade?
What kind of conversion devices were made available to the public and
at what cost? In the US we have more networks and we're talking about
a city in Germany with a population of 3.5 million vs. the United
States with a population of 200 million plus. The distribution of our
population is also entirely different, and varies. This vastly
complicates things.

Regarding OTA sales of Japan and Australlia, again I think there is
strong reason for that and it all comes back to our economy and
culture. Let me explain, in the US we have varing degrees of social
classes from poverty to lower-income, middle class, upper-middle,
upper-class, elite. Most of those who would have enough money to buy a
HDTV here also subscribe to some form of subscription service
(satellite or cable) and are electing to move to High Definition
though that route. This really isn't that hard to believe when you
consider that almost all of our big chain retailers for HDTV (Best
Buy. Circut City, Sears, Tweeter, Conns, etc...) also happen to be
resalers of some form of satellite HD service (DirectTV, VOOM, Dish
Network). This may also explain why there is a serious lack of
availablity of HD sets with integrated tuners. Maybe the retailers get
a bigger profit margin off resaling the subscription services. Cable
and Satellite TV are huge in the US and we've had these services
before anyone else (correct me if I'm wrong). I think all these
factors can explain the reason for poor OTA HD tuner sales.




> >
> > What's wrong with MPEG-2 compression for broadcast. HD cable and
> > satellite may be free to shift to whatever they want, but they happen
> > to be using MPEG-2 as well. It's a bulky format but the alternatives
> > require much more processing power to handle -or- the format has a
> > higher level of loss. What other format would you recommend?
>
> Nothing is wrong with MPEG2 but you can do 2 and now I think 3 plus
> times the programming with better compression and its correct use. If
> you had decent reception that would raise the value of the 6 MHz
> spectrum a lot. VOOM is going to better compression, USDTV is all will.
> Broadcasters will deliver one SD program with MPEG2 and use advanced
> compression for the rest. Until we finally give up on this mess that is.
> >

"Better" would be a subjective term. The tradeoff with WM9 is the
processing power required to decode. This can be offloaded to a
dedicated processor (chip) so it's not really a problem. WM9 is an
example of one of the next genration standards I think it's great that
they are encorporating that (small dish-sat based services need all
the help it can get), but I'm curious about the side effects of
transcoding MPEG-2 content over to WM9, that may not be an issue. The
interesting thing about WM9 is that it relies largely on advancements
in processing power to archieve it's advantages over MPEG-2.
Processing power is still doubling every three to five years, new
standards will roll out in the not too distant future, so if you think
the madness is going to stop then you're wrong.

The only thing that will stop the madness is adopting standards and
MPEG-2 is currently the leading standard, so old as it may be I hope
we don't "jump the gun" on moving to the next greatest thing, instead
maybe we should show some respect. This of course would only concern
OTA because as you've pointed out cable and sat providers own the
boxes they can make transitions and not effect the customers pockets
(just their own).






> > There's actually a bandwidth problem right now because more people are
> > jumping on board. Cable companies don't really know what to do. The
> > whole reason organizations adopt standards is so that the world
> > doesn't remain in choas. We can bitch and wine about how this standard
> > isn't up to snuff with what's available, etc, etc.. but without
> > standards eveything would get tide up. A lot of people don't like 8VSB
> > for whatever reason. I've seen some of the public test results
> > comparing 8SVB to COFDM, it's a bullshit debate. Maybe COFDM is a tad
> > better in some aspects, maybe some people are holding on to 8SVB for
> > political reasons. I don't see how this is holding everything up. I
> > live in a major city I'm 25-35 miles from all station towers and I can
> > pickup all the networks over 8SVB just fine with a $20 powered in-door
> > antenna. Sometimes I have to adjust the atenna to improve reception,
> > but it's much much much better than UHF/VHF feeds I'm picking up. So
> > maybe I only have my own experience as a reference, but I think that's
> > quite a bit better than people who read all these debates and take a
> > stance with no hands on experience. I just see it as a largely
> > political debate as it always is when billions of dollars stand to be
> > made based on adoption of standards.
>
> COFDM is not a tad better, it is far better. I work with it every day.
> It is amazing. Most new RF uses COFDM such as 802.11a and g.
> >

With all due respect, studies have shown otherwise. COFDM may be
better for some parts of the world, but in the US I think valid
arguments have been raised at best it's a tad better with you balance
the pros and conns. Not enough to toss out ATSC 8VSB and render those
who have these tuners useless.

I'm not saying that won't happen, but I beleve if it did it would be a
first in US history that a format was adopted by the FCC,
manufactuer's got the green light, infrastructure was layed, consumer
dollars spent and then everything switched over.

Possible, but not likely to happen. It's easy to look at the technical
aspects of something and ignore the political and enconmic
ramifications. Sometimes the fact that the competing "techology is
superior" debate, just don't hold much water in the big picture.



> > I agree that eventually the current model will go away and become more
> > of computer driven hub that exist in each home to deliver all forms of
> > data and communication. I see the realization of that dream a good
> > 15-20 years away.
>
> In 2 to 3 years all German cars will come with DTV receivers. Laptops,
> cell phones and all computers will automatically come with DTV
> receivers. Only in the US will this happen slower but it will happen.
> 160 million cell phones are predicted to be able to receive DTV in 2007.
> Vastly under my expectations. In 15-20 years it will be a very different
> RF environment altogether. At the Olympics in China in 2008 all
> participants will be able to watch DTV on all manner of devices
> including cell phones. I would not be surprised if that year 300 million
> DTV mobile devices will be sold.
> >

You have to look at the economy in the culture. Take China for
example, what's going on there is amazing. An entire new middle-class
culture has emerged in just the last ten years. We're talking about
technology infrastructure's being built from the ground up in that
small time frame. That opens for the door for China to do things that
we can't do here. We could, but it will cost way too much for such
little benefit on the grand scale. When you say "DTV" recievers you
should clarify, you not going to get HD on a cell phone anytime soon.
So sure they are adopting DTV standards in other parts of the world,
but they are using SDTV broadcast.

-Jeremy
!