Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

720p 1080i question... (not which one is better)

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 4:34:12 PM

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

I have my Comcast cable box set to 720p. What happens if the channel is
broadcasting in 1080i, does the box automatically switch or something???

Thanks!!!

More about : 720p 1080i question

Anonymous
March 3, 2005 5:04:38 PM

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

Zapp Brannigan wrote:
> I have my Comcast cable box set to 720p. What happens if the channel is
> broadcasting in 1080i, does the box automatically switch or something???

Yes.

> Thanks!!!
>


You are welcome.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 5:18:48 PM

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

Zapp Brannigan wrote:
> I have my Comcast cable box set to 720p. What happens if the channel is
> broadcasting in 1080i, does the box automatically switch or something???
>
> Thanks!!!

The box converts the 1080i signal to 720p. So the picture quality
depends in large part on the quality of the scaler in the set top box
(STB), which may not be as good as the one in your TV. If your HD TV is
a true 1280x720p set (as are DLP RPTVs until the 1080p set come out),
then you may get the best picture leaving your STB to 720p. If it is not
true 720p (say 1024x768, 1366x768, whatever) and since most channels are
1080i, then I would suggest you experiment to see if the picture quality
is better set to 1080i at the STB.

In general, my advice to anyone getting a cable STB is to ask for the
latest models. I started off with a SA 3100HD (dated early 2003) which
had a mediocre SD picture, switched to a SA 8000HD DVR (dated June?,
2004) which has a better SD picture. The new SA 8300HD DVR which is
widely reported as much better than the 8000HD is not yet available in
my Comcast system. The successor in the Scientific Atlanta line to the
non-DVR 3100HD is the 3250HD which is also supposedly much improved.

Alan F
Related resources
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 10:31:27 PM

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

I have a TimeWarner (SA 83000 HD) and before this box I had an HD
Motorolla, same story... the box will always output 720p or 1080i
(selectable) on HD channels, but it forces all HD channels to one -or-
the other. When I e-mailed Time Warner support about this I was told
that they actually convert and broadcast everything "HD" in 1080i (yep,
even ESPN and FOX) and the box can optionally convert 1080i to 720p
(selectable in the menu) if a customer has only 720p input.

Most HD televisions will accept both 720p and 1080i signal and then
convert it to whatever the sets native format is, the only way to know
what looks best is to experiment.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:46:25 AM

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

Jan B wrote:

> Yes, and this is because all these conversions (in both ends,
> or in 3-4 steps in worst case) reduce the quality.
>
> I wonder why there is no massive user group demand to settle on
> ONE HDTV standard. You can argue about which is better
> (720p/1080i/50Hz/60Hz) but having this mess is IMHO worse than
> deciding on the "worst" of these variants.

That's what I've been saying.

> In best case the market will decide rather quick, but I guess that it
> will take a long time.

I bet the market will decide SLOWLY. Many current sets, or current
signals available for viewing, are soft enough so that people don't
notice that much difference between an ideal signal and a
converted-around one.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:55:17 AM

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

Jan B wrote:

> I would like to see the transmissions and HDDVD to
> converge into ONE standard,

One big obstacle to this is that there are two main HDTV
constituencies, which can be briefly described as sports people and
movie people. Sports people want fast progressive frame rates
regardless of resolution, and movie people (the category I'm in) want
high resolution regardless of interlace or frame rate, because film is
shot with slow frame rates anyway. So it won't be a matter of finding
the one solution that's better for 75% of users, it will be picking one
that's right for 55% but all wrong for 45%, meaning that if either one
is selected over the other a large part of the public will be unhappy
with it. Which is just the sort of conflict that got this bad
compromise passed into the standard in the first place.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 9:19:49 AM

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

On 3 Mar 2005 19:31:27 -0800, Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:

>I have a TimeWarner (SA 83000 HD) and before this box I had an HD
>Motorolla, same story... the box will always output 720p or 1080i
>(selectable) on HD channels, but it forces all HD channels to one -or-
>the other. When I e-mailed Time Warner support about this I was told
>that they actually convert and broadcast everything "HD" in 1080i (yep,
>even ESPN and FOX) and the box can optionally convert 1080i to 720p
>(selectable in the menu) if a customer has only 720p input.
>
>Most HD televisions will accept both 720p and 1080i signal and then
>convert it to whatever the sets native format is, the only way to know
>what looks best is to experiment.

Yes, and this is because all these conversions (in both ends, or in 3-
4 steps in worst case) reduce the quality.

I wonder why there is no massive user group demand to settle on ONE
HDTV standard. You can argue about which is better
(720p/1080i/50Hz/60Hz) but having this mess is IMHO worse than
deciding on the "worst" of these variants.
In best case the market will decide rather quick, but I guess that it
will take a long time.

I realise that the receivers and TV:s must be _capable_ of doing the
conversion, but I would like to see the transmissions and HDDVD to
converge into ONE standard, so the user can choose the optimum display
type and model.
/Jan
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:05:24 PM

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

1080p displays should solve this problem and make everything look their best
(assuming top notch deinterlacers for native 1080i material).

"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:1109922917.284965.14370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Jan B wrote:
>
>> I would like to see the transmissions and HDDVD to
>> converge into ONE standard,
>
> One big obstacle to this is that there are two main HDTV
> constituencies, which can be briefly described as sports people and
> movie people. Sports people want fast progressive frame rates
> regardless of resolution, and movie people (the category I'm in) want
> high resolution regardless of interlace or frame rate, because film is
> shot with slow frame rates anyway. So it won't be a matter of finding
> the one solution that's better for 75% of users, it will be picking one
> that's right for 55% but all wrong for 45%, meaning that if either one
> is selected over the other a large part of the public will be unhappy
> with it. Which is just the sort of conflict that got this bad
> compromise passed into the standard in the first place.
>
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:38:50 PM

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

Anything progressive is the best. Even assuming 1080i (assuming top
notch deinterlacers for native 1080i material) is not the answer. Rather
have 720P.

If you are going to have HD it should be the best and 720P 0r 1080P
should be it. MPEG-4 with the extra bits COFDM allows can handle 1080P.
We should switch to both while we still can at reasonable cost.

At a demo of Sony SXRD projector the operator switched from satellite
1080i HD to true 1080P off a Blu-Ray disk and the difference could knock
you off you chair. And this unit had "top notch deinterlacers for native
1080i material".

Bob Miller

Sixtysixzero wrote:
> 1080p displays should solve this problem and make everything look their best
> (assuming top notch deinterlacers for native 1080i material).
>
> "Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
> news:1109922917.284965.14370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Jan B wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would like to see the transmissions and HDDVD to
>>>converge into ONE standard,
>>
>>One big obstacle to this is that there are two main HDTV
>>constituencies, which can be briefly described as sports people and
>>movie people. Sports people want fast progressive frame rates
>>regardless of resolution, and movie people (the category I'm in) want
>>high resolution regardless of interlace or frame rate, because film is
>>shot with slow frame rates anyway. So it won't be a matter of finding
>>the one solution that's better for 75% of users, it will be picking one
>>that's right for 55% but all wrong for 45%, meaning that if either one
>>is selected over the other a large part of the public will be unhappy
>>with it. Which is just the sort of conflict that got this bad
>>compromise passed into the standard in the first place.
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:38:51 PM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ua0Wd.1068$cN6.570@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Anything progressive is the best. Even assuming 1080i (assuming top notch
> deinterlacers for native 1080i material) is not the answer. Rather have
> 720P.
>
> If you are going to have HD it should be the best and 720P 0r 1080P should
> be it. MPEG-4 with the extra bits COFDM allows can handle 1080P. We should
> switch to both while we still can at reasonable cost.
>
> At a demo of Sony SXRD projector the operator switched from satellite
> 1080i HD to true 1080P off a Blu-Ray disk and the difference could knock
> you off you chair.


I doubt you can even see a difference.

And this unit had "top notch deinterlacers for native
> 1080i material".
>
> Bob Miller
>
> Sixtysixzero wrote:
>> 1080p displays should solve this problem and make everything look their
>> best (assuming top notch deinterlacers for native 1080i material).
>>
>> "Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
>> news:1109922917.284965.14370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Jan B wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I would like to see the transmissions and HDDVD to
>>>>converge into ONE standard,
>>>
>>>One big obstacle to this is that there are two main HDTV
>>>constituencies, which can be briefly described as sports people and
>>>movie people. Sports people want fast progressive frame rates
>>>regardless of resolution, and movie people (the category I'm in) want
>>>high resolution regardless of interlace or frame rate, because film is
>>>shot with slow frame rates anyway. So it won't be a matter of finding
>>>the one solution that's better for 75% of users, it will be picking one
>>>that's right for 55% but all wrong for 45%, meaning that if either one
>>>is selected over the other a large part of the public will be unhappy
>>>with it. Which is just the sort of conflict that got this bad
>>>compromise passed into the standard in the first place.
>>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:11:01 PM

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

It's hard to notice a difference, but to my eyes 1080i looks better on
movies and 720p is better for more motion intense footage (includes
almost all "live" events).

This observation may have nothing to do with 1080i or 720p, but may be
all about my CRT rear projection vs LCD and Plasma displays since the
majority (if not all) of the 1080i content I've viewed is on CRT
rear-projection sets. For 720p it's either been projector (front
projection), LCD or Plasma.

1080p is the ultimate answer, but I'm surprised that you would admit
1080p "knocking you out of your chair". Sony was wise to use a
projector (anyone lay down $30,000 for a SXRD recently?) on the large
screens you most certainly can tell a difference between 480i, 480p,
720p, etc..

So having seen this do you still advocate sticking to only broadcasting
480p? Why not push for the higher standards, something we can grow
into. There were a number of breakthroughs in display technology in
2004, a lot of those won't make it into mainstream products untill 2008
or so, but why settle for the lowest common denominator? Why not push
out a standard now that we can all grow into and who knows by 2010 the
home theater room may become a standard fixture.

-Jeremy
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 10:38:22 AM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Why not push
>> out a standard now that we can all grow into and who knows by 2010 the
>> home theater room may become a standard fixture.
>> -Jeremy
>>
> We have to examine what we have now and what we could have. Talking OTA
>
> Now we have a modulation for which a recent FCC study estimated that
> 188,000 or so OTA receivers had been sold over the last 7 years.

Why do you keep saying that. No matter how many times you say it, it
will not be true.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:32:23 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Anything progressive is the best. Even assuming 1080i (assuming top
> notch deinterlacers for native 1080i material) is not the answer.
Rather
> have 720P.

In YOUR opinion (and keep in mind folks, this is from the guy who says
that 540p is the same as 1080i!!). I will say that 720p can be
excellent, witness the ABC Oscars telecast. However, most people that
see both (even when compared to 720p shown on a native 720p display),
find 1080i sharper. You see BOOBY you still live in the NTSC world
where interlaced artifacts were a real problem. If you were in
possession of a HDTV, you would see that just because there's an "i" in
1080i, it does NOT mean that we have the same interlaced artifact
issues that we had with NTSC. We don't, not by a long shot. You are so
obviously unqualified to address this issue, it borders on the
hysterical. But hey, continue on with your disinformation campaign,
we'll be here to thwart you.

You still haven't answered my question about what you expect to gain
from fooling a couple of people on an obscure HD ng.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:38:39 PM

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

Bob Miller wrote:
> Now we have a modulation for which a recent FCC study estimated that
> 188,000 or so OTA receivers had been sold over the last 7 years. The
CEA
> is to embarrassed to give a number. Then you have satellite HD
receivers
> that come with OTA receivers in them.

Could our constant correction of the BOOBSTER's lies finally be paying
off? He actually mentioned that HD sat receivers have OTA receivers in
them!!!! HOOORRRAYYYY!!!! HOOOORRRRAYYYY!!!!! It's only taken us about
3 years!

>How many are there, how many
> owners evnen know they could hook these up to an antenna and how many

> actually do. I say this because there have been numerous reports that

> many of the owners of these sat receivers have reported that they
didn't
> know and personally I have run across two of them myself.

I would say a TON more than the 188,000 number you quoted above BOB. In
fact BOB, of my many friends that have satellite HD, I don't know of
ANY that aren't using their HD OTA reception capability. But of course
since you've run across 2 that don't, I suppose nobody does. Is one of
those two Mark Shubin?
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 8:27:26 PM

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

(vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> In YOUR opinion (and keep in mind folks, this is from the guy who says
> that 540p is the same as 1080i!!). I will say that 720p can be
> excellent, witness the ABC Oscars telecast. However, most people that
> see both (even when compared to 720p shown on a native 720p display),
> find 1080i sharper.

There's no question that if you aren't running into the weakness of
interlaced video (fast *vertical* motion), then you end up with an
effective resolution very close to the full line count. Dramas, sitcoms,
nature documentaries, etc., all end up better at 1080i.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/99/Apr/columbine.html
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 8:27:27 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c93fc55282ad6c6989c09@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> There's no question that if you aren't running into the weakness of
> interlaced video (fast *vertical* motion), then you end up with an
> effective resolution very close to the full line count. Dramas,
> sitcoms, nature documentaries, etc., all end up better at 1080i.

How much better compared to 720P? My DLP TV converts all input to 720P
for display, so I have my DirecTiVo set to output everything at 720P.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 8:31:56 PM

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

(vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I would say a TON more than the 188,000 number you quoted above BOB. In
> fact BOB, of my many friends that have satellite HD, I don't know of
> ANY that aren't using their HD OTA reception capability.

There have been nearly 50,000 HR10-250 HD DirecTiVos sold, and those are
really at the high end of ATSC receiver. A while back, DirecTV said that
200K of their customers had HD receivers. Since some have multiple (like
me), that makes far more than 200,000 ATSC receivers right there.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/TractorBeam.jpg
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 10:14:01 PM

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

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <MPG.1c93fc55282ad6c6989c09@news.nabs.net>,
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
>
>>There's no question that if you aren't running into the weakness of
>>interlaced video (fast *vertical* motion), then you end up with an
>>effective resolution very close to the full line count. Dramas,
>>sitcoms, nature documentaries, etc., all end up better at 1080i.
>
>
> How much better compared to 720P? My DLP TV converts all input to 720P
> for display, so I have my DirecTiVo set to output everything at 720P.
>

In fast moving vertical motion 1080i and 720p have about the same
apparent vertical resolution. Most programming material has little to no
fast vertical motion.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 10:14:02 PM

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

In article <112kiq72j8r132@corp.supernews.com>,
"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

> In fast moving vertical motion 1080i and 720p have about the same
> apparent vertical resolution. Most programming material has little to
> no fast vertical motion.

You obviously don't watch the bunji-jump channel.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 12:56:38 AM

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

Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > There's no question that if you aren't running into the weakness of
> > interlaced video (fast *vertical* motion), then you end up with an
> > effective resolution very close to the full line count. Dramas,
> > sitcoms, nature documentaries, etc., all end up better at 1080i.
>
> How much better compared to 720P? My DLP TV converts all input to 720P
> for display, so I have my DirecTiVo set to output everything at 720P.

Well, then, you won't see any difference. :) 

I can easily resolve 900 lines of vertical resolution on my 1080i CRT
(based on the HDNet test pattern). That extra is 25% more lines. The 33%
extra resolution from "enhanced for 16x9 TVs" DVDs is well worth it on
16x9 sets, so it's not hard to see that 25% extra is nothing to sneeze at.

1280x720 is still a *lot* better than the best DVD at 720x480, so the
difference between that and 1440x1080 (which is about what really gets
broadcast, and a little less than my set can resolve) is less to some
perceptions.

Although there are cameras or tranmissions that limit horizontal resolution
on 1080i signals, to my knowledge, nobody is doing the same thing to
vertical resolution.

--
Jeff Rife | "Hey, dogs guard.
| Cats watch...and judge."
|
| -- Salem the Cat
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 11:33:25 AM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c93fd64d85b16e7989c0a@news.nabs.net...
> (vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > I would say a TON more than the 188,000 number you quoted above BOB. In
> > fact BOB, of my many friends that have satellite HD, I don't know of
> > ANY that aren't using their HD OTA reception capability.
>
> There have been nearly 50,000 HR10-250 HD DirecTiVos sold, and those are
> really at the high end of ATSC receiver. A while back, DirecTV said that
> 200K of their customers had HD receivers. Since some have multiple (like
> me), that makes far more than 200,000 ATSC receivers right there.

But how many of these are actually using the OTA feature, or even realize
that it has it? We have sold many DirectTV HD receivers and sets with HD
tuners and relatively few of our clients have expressed any interest in
using the OTA feature. Sure some do, but most are not interested in dealing
with antennas. Both sides in this debate about the sales of OTA receivers
in the US are missing the point that the market is not homogeneous. Unlike
other markets, there is room for multiple niches of delivery in the US. To
some degree, Bob is right. Unfortunately for him, and the uneducated
readers of his posts, he is on a tangent that is irrelevant, that no one
really cares about, and has little to do with HDTV.

Leonard
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:22:38 AM

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

Leonard Caillouet (no@no.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> But how many of these are actually using the OTA feature, or even realize
> that it has it?

It's not really important. It's just like the "7th TV" in some households
which uses OTA 5 times a year. It still has to be counted in the
"transition from analog". If we were to dump 8-VSB, all HD satellite
receivers would count in the transition.

> Both sides in this debate about the sales of OTA receivers
> in the US are missing the point that the market is not homogeneous. Unlike
> other markets, there is room for multiple niches of delivery in the US. To
> some degree, Bob is right.

I think the investors in USDTV would disagree with you there. Basically,
if (as you say), people don't want to put up antennas, then why would they
put up antennas to get a channel or two of a pay service?

--
Jeff Rife | "I have a question that could affect our entire
| relationship...did you kill Coach Mattay?"
| "No!"
| "But, you did dress him up like a woman...?"
| "Yeah."
| "Just checking."
| -- Alex Lambert and Brian Hackett, "Wings"
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:25:13 AM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c95d955cf246109989684@news.health.org...
> Leonard Caillouet (no@no.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > But how many of these are actually using the OTA feature, or even
realize
> > that it has it?
>
> It's not really important. It's just like the "7th TV" in some households
> which uses OTA 5 times a year. It still has to be counted in the
> "transition from analog". If we were to dump 8-VSB, all HD satellite
> receivers would count in the transition.
>
> > Both sides in this debate about the sales of OTA
receivers
> > in the US are missing the point that the market is not homogeneous.
Unlike
> > other markets, there is room for multiple niches of delivery in the US.
To
> > some degree, Bob is right.
>
> I think the investors in USDTV would disagree with you there. Basically,
> if (as you say), people don't want to put up antennas, then why would they
> put up antennas to get a channel or two of a pay service?

I am not arguing for dumping 8-VSB, just for some intellectual honesty. You
guys get so wrapped up in Bob Miller bashing that you can't see how far out
your arguments get. To say it is not really important is to say that the
debate is irrelevant. If the debate is relevant at all, then the use and
intent in purchasing those tuners is relevant. We won't be changing from
8-VSB anyway, and all you are doing in continuing to engage Bob is making
his arguments live on.

The investors in USDTV had better understand what I said. If they think
that a majority want to put up antennas, they are mistaken. They had better
be offering free installation like sat services if they want market
penetration. Even so, given the choice, most people would rather not bother
with an antenna if they don't have a good reason to. Did I say that no one
will? Did I say that an insufficient number will to assure a market for
USDTV services? No. In fact, I said that there are room for multiple
niches of distribution in the USA.

Leonard
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:37:57 PM

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

Leonard Caillouet (no@no.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I am not arguing for dumping 8-VSB, just for some intellectual honesty.

Which I provided. Bob was counting the "very few ATSC receivers" in
order to falsely minimize the cost of replacing them, and I was merely
showing that his number is ludicrously low.

As for the HR10-250, I don't know *anybody* not using the OTA inputs, since
it is one of the very few commercial boxes that records OTA digital. Add
in the TiVo features, and you get the best system for recording OTA
available. Then, too, when you can spend $99 for SD DirecTV recording,
spending an extra $750 to add only HD DirecTV recording is pretty silly.

--
Jeff Rife | copy protection: n. A class of methods for
| preventing incompetent pirates from stealing
| software and legitimate customers from using it.
| Considered silly.
| -- Jargon File version 4.4.6
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:37:58 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c965b8235a431d7989c15@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> As for the HR10-250, I don't know *anybody* not using the OTA inputs,
> since it is one of the very few commercial boxes that records OTA
> digital.

One of the first things I did after getting that receiver was to get an
OTA antenna. I tried an indoor amplified antenna first, but it couldn't
pick up anything; we wound up getting a bow-tie installed in the attic.
Fortunately all the stations have their broadcast antennas at the same
location (on top of South Mountain), so I did not need a rotator or
omnidirectional antenna.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:27:38 PM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c965b8235a431d7989c15@news.nabs.net...
> Leonard Caillouet (no@no.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > I am not arguing for dumping 8-VSB, just for some intellectual honesty.
>
> Which I provided. Bob was counting the "very few ATSC receivers" in
> order to falsely minimize the cost of replacing them, and I was merely
> showing that his number is ludicrously low.

My points are simply that counting all OTA receivers sold does not represent
the actual use nor intent to buy either and that you test the limits of
intellectual honesty by trying to argue every point so vigorously with Bob
just to prove him wrong. Quantifying market penetration of 8VSB receivers
is more complex than your posts would suggest and much less relevant than
Bob would like us to believe.

Areas that have lots of OTA available likely have much higher percentages of
OTA tuners in use, while area like here in Gainesville, FL have very few in
use. People are more likely to buy an integrated set with cablecard to get
their HD off Cox or buy sat STBs to get HD from Dish Network or DirecTV and
never use the ATSC tuner in our market. If there were more available, of
course they would purposely buy the OTA tuner. It is incidental, however,
in may markets. It would be so with any modulation scheme, which is the
part of the picture that Bob will not bother to include in his arguments.

Like I said before, we should agree on a standard response to his posts and
someone should post it as a disclaimer every time he posts something, then
ignore him. I agree that the vast majority of what he posts is irrelevant
or misleading, and nearly all of it is clearly biased by his agenda. But,
if you guys feel the need to continue to give him the satisfaction of
greatly affecting the discourse on this group, go right ahead. You become
less credible as you get more intense in defending the world against him and
lose your perspective.

Leonard
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:24:19 AM

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

Leonard Caillouet (no@no.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> My points are simply that counting all OTA receivers sold does not represent
> the actual use nor intent to buy either and that you test the limits of
> intellectual honesty by trying to argue every point so vigorously with Bob
> just to prove him wrong.

So, what you're saying is that lots of people buy ATSC receivers because
they need doorstops? Other than to receive ATSC broadcasts, what logical
reason would a rational person buy an ATSC receiver?

> Areas that have lots of OTA available likely have much higher percentages of
> OTA tuners in use, while area like here in Gainesville, FL have very few in
> use. People are more likely to buy an integrated set with cablecard to get
> their HD off Cox or buy sat STBs to get HD from Dish Network or DirecTV and
> never use the ATSC tuner in our market. If there were more available, of
> course they would purposely buy the OTA tuner.

There seems to be a *lot* available with Gainesville, Jacksonville,
Daytona Beach and possibly Orlando all available with an outdoor antenna,
since Florida is so flat.

Just because people don't bother to try to receive them doesn't make the
signals not available.

I can understand using cable instead of OTA...but then they likely wouldn't
have purchased a standalone ATSC tuner. But, people with satellite
generally can't get OTA networks in HD via satellite (at least not in your
area), so that argument just doesn't fly. ATSC receivers get used, unless
there is somebody local telling everyone that it isn't possible, instead
of helping them put up the antenna and getting it done.

--
Jeff Rife | "I feel the need...the need for
| expeditious velocity"
|
| -- Brain
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:45:56 AM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c96d6d9f53eade989c16@news.nabs.net...
> Leonard Caillouet (no@no.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > My points are simply that counting all OTA receivers sold does not
represent
> > the actual use nor intent to buy either and that you test the limits of
> > intellectual honesty by trying to argue every point so vigorously with
Bob
> > just to prove him wrong.
>
> So, what you're saying is that lots of people buy ATSC receivers because
> they need doorstops? Other than to receive ATSC broadcasts, what logical
> reason would a rational person buy an ATSC receiver?

No, I am saying that many of the OTA recievers sold are not sold because
they are ATSC recievers, but to get something else. Sat set top boxes,
HDTVs that have better features and happen to have an ATSC tuner, etc. Your
arguement was that these should be counted along with standalone receivers.
My point is that for many people that own them they are irrelevant. Does
that make Bob right? Of course not, but your willingness to twist what I am
saying is evidence of your intelectual dishonesty in the matter.

> > Areas that have lots of OTA available likely have much higher
percentages of
> > OTA tuners in use, while area like here in Gainesville, FL have very few
in
> > use. People are more likely to buy an integrated set with cablecard to
get
> > their HD off Cox or buy sat STBs to get HD from Dish Network or DirecTV
and
> > never use the ATSC tuner in our market. If there were more available,
of
> > course they would purposely buy the OTA tuner.
>
> There seems to be a *lot* available with Gainesville, Jacksonville,
> Daytona Beach and possibly Orlando all available with an outdoor antenna,
> since Florida is so flat.

Very few people in this area get anything from the coasts unless they have
very tall masts, then not reliably with either NTSC or ATSC broadcasts.

> Just because people don't bother to try to receive them doesn't make the
> signals not available.

There simply isn't enough to make it worth the trouble, here. PBS, CBS
recently, and FOX from Ocala which is not HD.

> I can understand using cable instead of OTA...but then they likely
wouldn't
> have purchased a standalone ATSC tuner. But, people with satellite
> generally can't get OTA networks in HD via satellite (at least not in your
> area), so that argument just doesn't fly. ATSC receivers get used, unless
> there is somebody local telling everyone that it isn't possible, instead
> of helping them put up the antenna and getting it done.

I was not talking about stand alone tuners, but damned few of them have been
sold here. Most of the ATSC tuners in this market are not being used and
would hardly be missed, I can assure you. That is certainly not the case in
larger markets, but in a good part of the US it certainly would be the case.
Regardless, the point was that insisting that all ATSC receivers be counted
in considering how prevalent their use might be does not tell the whole
story. I don't care to argue the matter any more because I mostly agree
with you on points that relate to Bob's positions. Just try to keep in mind
that by trying so hard to debunk his BS you are making yourself look silly
sometimes by losing perspective.

Leonard
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 5:21:00 AM

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

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c965b8235a431d7989c15@news.nabs.net...
>
>>Leonard Caillouet (no@no.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>
>>>I am not arguing for dumping 8-VSB, just for some intellectual honesty.
>>
>>Which I provided. Bob was counting the "very few ATSC receivers" in
>>order to falsely minimize the cost of replacing them, and I was merely
>>showing that his number is ludicrously low.
>
>
> My points are simply that counting all OTA receivers sold does not represent
> the actual use nor intent to buy either and that you test the limits of
> intellectual honesty by trying to argue every point so vigorously with Bob
> just to prove him wrong. Quantifying market penetration of 8VSB receivers
> is more complex than your posts would suggest and much less relevant than
> Bob would like us to believe.

The intellectual dishonesty is being purveyed by the CEA which has never
seen fit to tell how many receivers have been sold because it is far to
embarrassing. They have a list of lame excuses why they cannot release
the figures while there seems to be no problem releasing such figures in
other countries where the same companies are doing business.

Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of the US DTV transition.
>
> Areas that have lots of OTA available likely have much higher percentages of
> OTA tuners in use, while area like here in Gainesville, FL have very few in
> use. People are more likely to buy an integrated set with cablecard to get
> their HD off Cox or buy sat STBs to get HD from Dish Network or DirecTV and
> never use the ATSC tuner in our market. If there were more available, of
> course they would purposely buy the OTA tuner. It is incidental, however,
> in may markets. It would be so with any modulation scheme, which is the
> part of the picture that Bob will not bother to include in his arguments.

I never ignore it in fact I point out the fact that in other countries
with even higher cable and satellite penetration OTA is doing very well,
extremely well in Berlin and now other areas of Germany. In Japan where
we constantly hear how much content they have via satellite they have
sold TWO MILLION COFDM OTA integrated HDTV sets in just the last year.
>
> Like I said before, we should agree on a standard response to his posts and
> someone should post it as a disclaimer every time he posts something, then
> ignore him. I agree that the vast majority of what he posts is irrelevant
> or misleading, and nearly all of it is clearly biased by his agenda. But,
> if you guys feel the need to continue to give him the satisfaction of
> greatly affecting the discourse on this group, go right ahead. You become
> less credible as you get more intense in defending the world against him and
> lose your perspective.

Don't do that I like these guys. They help me make my point.
>
> Leonard
>
>
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 5:21:01 AM

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

This standard statement is the only thing that I will post in response to
Bob Miller. If anyone wants to add to it or modify it so that we can all
adopt a single response, feel free.

The poster Bob Miller has repeatedly argued that the modulation system used
in the US for DTV is inferior and should be discarded. Regardless of the
merit of this view, the reality is that this is unlikely to happen and his
scare tactics regarding the problems with our system are misleading and in
many cases not representative of much real world experience. The most fair
appraisal of the relative value of COFDM and 8VSB is that both systems have
advantages and disadvantages, and both work pretty well. This is all
irrelevant, as the US has committed to 8VSB and there is no expectation that
this will change anytime in the foreseeable future. Other countries have
chosen otherwise and this is unlikely to change as well.

Bob has been asked to leave other forums, has been repeatedly admonished to
cease his unfair and potentially confusing posts here, and it is the view of
the vast majority of posters here that his views are not worthy of
consideration and are largely irrelevant to the discussion and consideration
of HDTV.

If you are interested in this discussion please search archives of this
newsgroup and you will find that the discussion has been quite effectively
worn out.

Leonard


"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:g_7Xd.3590$oO4.572@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> > "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1c965b8235a431d7989c15@news.nabs.net...
> >
> >>Leonard Caillouet (no@no.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >>
> >>>I am not arguing for dumping 8-VSB, just for some intellectual honesty.
> >>
> >>Which I provided. Bob was counting the "very few ATSC receivers" in
> >>order to falsely minimize the cost of replacing them, and I was merely
> >>showing that his number is ludicrously low.
> >
> >
> > My points are simply that counting all OTA receivers sold does not
represent
> > the actual use nor intent to buy either and that you test the limits of
> > intellectual honesty by trying to argue every point so vigorously with
Bob
> > just to prove him wrong. Quantifying market penetration of 8VSB
receivers
> > is more complex than your posts would suggest and much less relevant
than
> > Bob would like us to believe.
>
> The intellectual dishonesty is being purveyed by the CEA which has never
> seen fit to tell how many receivers have been sold because it is far to
> embarrassing. They have a list of lame excuses why they cannot release
> the figures while there seems to be no problem releasing such figures in
> other countries where the same companies are doing business.
>
> Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of the US DTV transition.
> >
> > Areas that have lots of OTA available likely have much higher
percentages of
> > OTA tuners in use, while area like here in Gainesville, FL have very few
in
> > use. People are more likely to buy an integrated set with cablecard to
get
> > their HD off Cox or buy sat STBs to get HD from Dish Network or DirecTV
and
> > never use the ATSC tuner in our market. If there were more available,
of
> > course they would purposely buy the OTA tuner. It is incidental,
however,
> > in may markets. It would be so with any modulation scheme, which is the
> > part of the picture that Bob will not bother to include in his
arguments.
>
> I never ignore it in fact I point out the fact that in other countries
> with even higher cable and satellite penetration OTA is doing very well,
> extremely well in Berlin and now other areas of Germany. In Japan where
> we constantly hear how much content they have via satellite they have
> sold TWO MILLION COFDM OTA integrated HDTV sets in just the last year.
> >
> > Like I said before, we should agree on a standard response to his posts
and
> > someone should post it as a disclaimer every time he posts something,
then
> > ignore him. I agree that the vast majority of what he posts is
irrelevant
> > or misleading, and nearly all of it is clearly biased by his agenda.
But,
> > if you guys feel the need to continue to give him the satisfaction of
> > greatly affecting the discourse on this group, go right ahead. You
become
> > less credible as you get more intense in defending the world against him
and
> > lose your perspective.
>
> Don't do that I like these guys. They help me make my point.
> >
> > Leonard
> >
> >
March 8, 2005 9:28:40 AM

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

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote >
>
> Intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of the US DTV transition.

>In Japan where we constantly hear how much content they have via satellite
>they have sold TWO MILLION COFDM OTA
>snip

Sponsored by Bellevue Hospital- must be right around the corner from you?

http://www.med.nyu.edu/psych/screens/personality.html
!