Any such thing as EDTV?

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

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> I happened across this from the FCC while grabbing a link for a
technician
> friend who wanted to learn more about DTV. I though it was
interesting
> considering the rather strong positions on the topic that have been
debated
> here. While I have not seen references to EDTV in the ATSC
standards, it
> appears to becoming an accepted label for 480p.
>
>
http://search.fcc.gov/query.html?q [...] &rq=0&si=0
>
> Standard Definition TV (SDTV) - SDTV is the basic level of quality
display
> and resolution for both analog and digital. Transmission of SDTV may
be in
> either the traditional (4:3) or widescreen (16:9) format.
>
>
> Enhanced Definition TV (EDTV) - EDTV is a step up from Analog
Television.
> EDTV comes in 480p widescreen (16:9) or traditional (4:3) format and
> provides better picture quality than SDTV, but not as high as HDTV.
>
>
> High Definition TV (HDTV) - HDTV in widescreen format (16:9) provides
the
> highest resolution and picture quality of all digital broadcast
formats.
> Combined with digitally enhanced sound technology, HDTV sets new
standards
> for sound and picture quality in television. (Note: HDTV and digital
TV are
> not the same thing -- HDTV is one format of digital TV.)
>
> Leonard


It's interesting that the FCC acknowledges EDTV, but I'm not a bit
surprised and I don't think they are wrong in doing so. My perspective
is that while EDTV is not reconized by the ATSC it has been widely
accepted by the manufactuers, so why should the ATSC be the only
authority?.

I think people get too wraped up in what organization has sanctioned
what. EDTV is as real as 480p. 480p is noticable step up from NTSC so
why shouldn't it have it's own name to help set it apart from the other
standards. I think this is one time the marketing hype does some good.

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

I think you're right Leonard.
Technically there is no such thing as EDTV...but the FCC is now working hard
at educating consumers and Edtv (promulgated initially by Fox to cover the
fact that they didn't offer hdtv) has become shorthand for 480p.
It's very much like the arguments that took place in 1999. The new
millenium actually didn't arrive until 2001....but don't confuse people with
the facts...let 'em celebrate a year early...cause the fact that there was
never a year "0" might be too hard to comprehend.


"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:FKrHd.31703$jn.1929@lakeread06...
>I happened across this from the FCC while grabbing a link for a technician
> friend who wanted to learn more about DTV. I though it was interesting
> considering the rather strong positions on the topic that have been
> debated
> here. While I have not seen references to EDTV in the ATSC standards, it
> appears to becoming an accepted label for 480p.
>
> http://search.fcc.gov/query.html?q [...] &rq=0&si=0
>
> Standard Definition TV (SDTV) - SDTV is the basic level of quality display
> and resolution for both analog and digital. Transmission of SDTV may be in
> either the traditional (4:3) or widescreen (16:9) format.
>
>
> Enhanced Definition TV (EDTV) - EDTV is a step up from Analog Television.
> EDTV comes in 480p widescreen (16:9) or traditional (4:3) format and
> provides better picture quality than SDTV, but not as high as HDTV.
>
>
> High Definition TV (HDTV) - HDTV in widescreen format (16:9) provides the
> highest resolution and picture quality of all digital broadcast formats.
> Combined with digitally enhanced sound technology, HDTV sets new standards
> for sound and picture quality in television. (Note: HDTV and digital TV
> are
> not the same thing -- HDTV is one format of digital TV.)
>
> Leonard
>
>

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

The year 0 was, of course, right before year 1. If they knew at the time
that it was year 0 or not doesn't matter. They just had it wrong back then,
and we had it right, finally, by celebrating 2000 instead of 2001. It's a
philosophical thing, no math involved.

"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message
news:tEwHd.16666$SK6.3770@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> I think you're right Leonard.
> Technically there is no such thing as EDTV...but the FCC is now working
hard
> at educating consumers and Edtv (promulgated initially by Fox to cover the
> fact that they didn't offer hdtv) has become shorthand for 480p.
> It's very much like the arguments that took place in 1999. The new
> millenium actually didn't arrive until 2001....but don't confuse people
with
> the facts...let 'em celebrate a year early...cause the fact that there was
> never a year "0" might be too hard to comprehend.
>
>
> "Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote in message
> news:FKrHd.31703$jn.1929@lakeread06...
> >I happened across this from the FCC while grabbing a link for a
technician
> > friend who wanted to learn more about DTV. I though it was interesting
> > considering the rather strong positions on the topic that have been
> > debated
> > here. While I have not seen references to EDTV in the ATSC standards,
it
> > appears to becoming an accepted label for 480p.
> >
> >
http://search.fcc.gov/query.html?q [...] &rq=0&si=0
> >
> > Standard Definition TV (SDTV) - SDTV is the basic level of quality
display
> > and resolution for both analog and digital. Transmission of SDTV may be
in
> > either the traditional (4:3) or widescreen (16:9) format.
> >
> >
> > Enhanced Definition TV (EDTV) - EDTV is a step up from Analog
Television.
> > EDTV comes in 480p widescreen (16:9) or traditional (4:3) format and
> > provides better picture quality than SDTV, but not as high as HDTV.
> >
> >
> > High Definition TV (HDTV) - HDTV in widescreen format (16:9) provides
the
> > highest resolution and picture quality of all digital broadcast formats.
> > Combined with digitally enhanced sound technology, HDTV sets new
standards
> > for sound and picture quality in television. (Note: HDTV and digital TV
> > are
> > not the same thing -- HDTV is one format of digital TV.)
> >
> > Leonard
> >
> >
>
>

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

In article <crgtu0pban34agmrhvt42tmrtthnr75hpa@4ax.com>,
jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net says...
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:02:52 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <tEwHd.16666$SK6.3770@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> >curmudgeon@buzzoff.net says...
> >> I think you're right Leonard.
> >> Technically there is no such thing as EDTV...but the FCC is now working hard
> >> at educating consumers and Edtv (promulgated initially by Fox to cover the
> >> fact that they didn't offer hdtv) has become shorthand for 480p.
> >> It's very much like the arguments that took place in 1999. The new
> >> millenium actually didn't arrive until 2001....but don't confuse people with
> >> the facts...let 'em celebrate a year early...cause the fact that there was
> >> never a year "0" might be too hard to comprehend.
> >
> >The 'astronomical date numbering system' which corresponds with the AD
> >(or CE) system (ie +2005 is 2005AD or 2005CE ) does have an explicit
> >zero before +1, and in that system 0 is 1BC (or 1BCE).
> >
> >The millenium celebration was the turn of the number 19xx to 20xx. This
> >is probably the most legitmate, simplest, and undisputable thing to
> >celebrate.
> >
> Nonsense. It was not the start of a new millennium.
> Thumper

Nonsense. *Every* year is the start of a new millenium.

A millenium is merely a 1000 year span, or a thousand year anniversary.
Look it up for yourself if you don't beleive me.

So, the only question is what makes a particular millenium anniversary
worth celebrating. With that in mind, what is 2001 the 1000th
anniversary of? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

At least 2000 had the number roll over; the first time in 1000 years
since we the last time we got to change the first digit.

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

In article <jvktu01og15go82t7ha240ssuv64k7ff1i@4ax.com>,
jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net says...
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:49:05 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <crgtu0pban34agmrhvt42tmrtthnr75hpa@4ax.com>,
> >jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net says...
> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:02:52 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <tEwHd.16666$SK6.3770@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> >> >curmudgeon@buzzoff.net says...
> >> >> I think you're right Leonard.
> >> >> Technically there is no such thing as EDTV...but the FCC is now working hard
> >> >> at educating consumers and Edtv (promulgated initially by Fox to cover the
> >> >> fact that they didn't offer hdtv) has become shorthand for 480p.
> >> >> It's very much like the arguments that took place in 1999. The new
> >> >> millenium actually didn't arrive until 2001....but don't confuse people with
> >> >> the facts...let 'em celebrate a year early...cause the fact that there was
> >> >> never a year "0" might be too hard to comprehend.
> >> >
> >> >The 'astronomical date numbering system' which corresponds with the AD
> >> >(or CE) system (ie +2005 is 2005AD or 2005CE ) does have an explicit
> >> >zero before +1, and in that system 0 is 1BC (or 1BCE).
> >> >
> >> >The millenium celebration was the turn of the number 19xx to 20xx. This
> >> >is probably the most legitmate, simplest, and undisputable thing to
> >> >celebrate.
> >> >
> >> Nonsense. It was not the start of a new millennium.
> >> Thumper
> >
> >Nonsense. *Every* year is the start of a new millenium.
> >
> >A millenium is merely a 1000 year span, or a thousand year anniversary.
> >Look it up for yourself if you don't beleive me.
> >
>
> Blah, blah, blah
> Bye

And I thought your previous post on the subject was devoid of substance.
That however takes the cake.

Likewise:
Bye.

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

In article <cdRId.14758$5R.7875@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
paross@pacbell.net says...

0 AD would be 1 BC
0 BC would be 1 AD

so logically

5 AD would be -4BC
5 BC would be -4AD

and thus if you feel like really annoying your bank you can date your
cheques -2004BC as

-2004BC is 2005AD

At any rate its not rocket science.


> Was that 0 BC or 0 AD?
>
> "hasenpfeffer" <Meickemeier@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:9%yHd.39152$fE4.4948126@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > The year 0 was, of course, right before year 1. If they knew at the time
> > that it was year 0 or not doesn't matter. They just had it wrong back
> > then,
> > and we had it right, finally, by celebrating 2000 instead of 2001. It's a
> > philosophical thing, no math involved.