Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

When will low definition television (ldtv) be available at..

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 2:50:42 AM

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

When will low definition television 240i be available at stores in the
U.S.A.? I am not talking about sdtv edtv or hdtv. I am talking about
LDTV low definition television. Also, is there a low definition
camcorder that can record 240i

Thanks
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 12:00:10 PM

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

esrabb@cox.net wrote:

> When will low definition television 240i be available at stores in the
> U.S.A.? I am not talking about sdtv edtv or hdtv. I am talking about
> LDTV low definition television.

I've never heard of 240i. It is not part of the ATSC spec. I wouldn't
expect such a step backward in resolution to have much market space.

> Also, is there a low definition
> camcorder that can record 240i

Not that I know of, but many digital still cameras have a video mode.
Some, like mine (Kodak DX7330, good enough for Richard Avedon) are 240i.

Matthew
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 12:17:52 AM

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

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:00:10 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| esrabb@cox.net wrote:
|
|> When will low definition television 240i be available at stores in the
|> U.S.A.? I am not talking about sdtv edtv or hdtv. I am talking about
|> LDTV low definition television.
|
| I've never heard of 240i. It is not part of the ATSC spec. I wouldn't
| expect such a step backward in resolution to have much market space.

I did read about it somewhere and that both DVB and ATSC can handle it,
though it isn't actually in the spec. There is 240i, 240p, 288i, and
288p at each of 23.976, 24, 29.97, and 30 frames per second. Even slower
frames might have some uses.

You're not likely to see your local broadcaster using any of these, but
larger public school systems might for some kinds of education programming
needing little more than talking heads and limited graphics, but needing a
lot of channels in a measly 6 MHz.


|> Also, is there a low definition
|> camcorder that can record 240i
|
| Not that I know of, but many digital still cameras have a video mode.
| Some, like mine (Kodak DX7330, good enough for Richard Avedon) are 240i.

It's best to transmit in the original format and then let the end receiver
convert to the format it displays in directly (e.g. no intermediate convert
steps to add more than expected artifacts).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related resources
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 12:17:53 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:00:10 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> | esrabb@cox.net wrote:
> |
> |> When will low definition television 240i be available at stores in the
> |> U.S.A.? I am not talking about sdtv edtv or hdtv. I am talking about
> |> LDTV low definition television.
> |
> | I've never heard of 240i. It is not part of the ATSC spec. I wouldn't
> | expect such a step backward in resolution to have much market space.
>
> I did read about it somewhere and that both DVB and ATSC can handle it,
> though it isn't actually in the spec.

Could you be so kind as to provide a link for such information?

> There is 240i, 240p, 288i, and
> 288p at each of 23.976, 24, 29.97, and 30 frames per second. Even slower
> frames might have some uses.

Since they aren't part of the spec, receivers aren't required to decode
them.

> You're not likely to see your local broadcaster using any of these, but
> larger public school systems might for some kinds of education programming
> needing little more than talking heads and limited graphics, but needing a
> lot of channels in a measly 6 MHz.

How many school systems run licensed TV stations?

>
> |> Also, is there a low definition
> |> camcorder that can record 240i
> |
> | Not that I know of, but many digital still cameras have a video mode.
> | Some, like mine (Kodak DX7330, good enough for Richard Avedon) are 240i.
>
> It's best to transmit in the original format and then let the end receiver
> convert to the format it displays in directly (e.g. no intermediate convert
> steps to add more than expected artifacts).

I don't know of any camcorders that broadcast anything.

You could try reading posts before you resond to them.

Matthew
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 12:40:49 AM

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

<esrabb@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1122702642.478867.156450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> When will low definition television 240i be available at stores in the
> U.S.A.? I am not talking about sdtv edtv or hdtv. I am talking about
> LDTV low definition television. Also, is there a low definition
> camcorder that can record 240i
>
> Thanks

LDTV has been available for years -- though it was secretly marketed under
the term "VHS"
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 11:02:53 PM

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

In article <dcgn9g224gb@news3.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
wrote:


| I did read about it somewhere and that both DVB and ATSC can handle it,
| though it isn't actually in the spec. There is 240i, 240p, 288i, and
| 288p at each of 23.976, 24, 29.97, and 30 frames per second. Even slower
| frames might have some uses.
|
| You're not likely to see your local broadcaster using any of these, but
| larger public school systems might for some kinds of education programming
| needing little more than talking heads and limited graphics, but needing a
| lot of channels in a measly 6 MHz.

The Austin PBS station KLRU has four DTV channels; in the evening
channel 1 broadcasts in 720p (~14Mbps), channel 2 in 480i (~3Mbps), and
3 and 4 are "off the air", but actually broadcast programs in 240i
(~256Kbps). Most of the time the display is non-changing and very
pixelated, but the audio comes through fine.

-- Tim Olson
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 1:54:36 AM

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

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:24:03 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:00:10 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
|> | esrabb@cox.net wrote:
|> |
|> |> When will low definition television 240i be available at stores in the
|> |> U.S.A.? I am not talking about sdtv edtv or hdtv. I am talking about
|> |> LDTV low definition television.
|> |
|> | I've never heard of 240i. It is not part of the ATSC spec. I wouldn't
|> | expect such a step backward in resolution to have much market space.
|>
|> I did read about it somewhere and that both DVB and ATSC can handle it,
|> though it isn't actually in the spec.
|
| Could you be so kind as to provide a link for such information?

I saw it in some document I had downloaded. But I cannot find it now.
Sorry. It's one of those (many) cases where you see something which is
of no interest at the time, but later when someone mentions it, it jogs
the memory. I know it exists and has been recognized by someone; but it
may not be an official standard by any group that claims to make standards.



|> There is 240i, 240p, 288i, and
|> 288p at each of 23.976, 24, 29.97, and 30 frames per second. Even slower
|> frames might have some uses.
|
| Since they aren't part of the spec, receivers aren't required to decode
| them.

It really would have been better had the whole notion of encapsulating video
(encoded or otherwise) in digital data stream formats been done in a universal
way such that all parameters would be explicitly coded. For example, such a
video stream would have data fields for parameters like:
number of active image lines in frame (for Y, U, V)
number of active pixels per line for this frame
frame aspect ratio (rational value, 4/3, 16/9, or whatever)
number of active image lines in this set (for Y, U, V)
offset of lines in this set (for Y, U, V)
interleave of lines in this set (for Y, U, V)
frame time in seconds (rational value, such as 1001/30000 for NTSC,
1/25 for PAL, 1/24 for film)
etc.
Then you can have any video you want. Smart display devices can figure out
how to at least convert it to some other format, if not actually get the
display itself to scan that way.


|> You're not likely to see your local broadcaster using any of these, but
|> larger public school systems might for some kinds of education programming
|> needing little more than talking heads and limited graphics, but needing a
|> lot of channels in a measly 6 MHz.
|
| How many school systems run licensed TV stations?

There is a separate service up in the 2 or 3 GHz range intended for schools
to transmit video from a central facility to each school location. It was
around decades ago, and I don't know if it still exists today or not. But
I would imagine the need has not gone away. The licenses and channel setup
were mostly 4 video channels per set interleaved between sets. With ATSC,
the band could be used a lot more efficiently. Programming that needs HD,
ED, SD, or LD could all be accomodated (if ATSC adds codes to recognize LD).


|> |> Also, is there a low definition
|> |> camcorder that can record 240i
|> |
|> | Not that I know of, but many digital still cameras have a video mode.
|> | Some, like mine (Kodak DX7330, good enough for Richard Avedon) are 240i.
|>
|> It's best to transmit in the original format and then let the end receiver
|> convert to the format it displays in directly (e.g. no intermediate convert
|> steps to add more than expected artifacts).
|
| I don't know of any camcorders that broadcast anything.

I'm not talking about camcorders. No matter how you transmit, convey, carry,
or store some video or audio, once it is digitized and compressed, you are
now committed to a specific amount of loss, distortion, and artifacts. At
that point you should leave it alone for as long as possible. Only when you
finally know what form you need to use it in should it be converted again.
For example, if you have 480i, leave it as 480i. If you need to display it
on a PAL device, convert it then. If you are recording on PAL analog media
for shipment to a country that uses PAL, convert it then. Don't convert it
and discard the original unless you are certain you will _never_ need it in
the original form (should have converted to the needed form first time).

I know you were talking about camcorders. I was talking about not using too
many conversion steps to get things to how you want it to be.

For example, if a movie is shot on 70mm film at 24 frames per second, there
is not advantage to convert it to 25, 29.97, or 30 frames per second in a
digital world. It should be converted to 24 frames per second video for
both video storage as well as transmission. The end receiver can then
convert it to 25, 29.97, or 30 or any other number of frames per second as
would be best for that receiver/display. If you convert from 24 to 29.97
and then later to 25, you're going to end up making it more messy than it
needs to be (and wasting storage space and/or bandwidth in the process).


| You could try reading posts before you resond to them.

Or try better to understand the response.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 1:54:37 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

More than enough drivel, snipped.

>
> I'm not talking about camcorders.

You are a waste of protoplasm. The original poster asked specifically
about a 240i camcorder. Talk about taking a thread off topic.

Matthew
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 1:57:00 AM

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

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:40:49 -0400 Randy Sweeney <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:

| <esrabb@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:1122702642.478867.156450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|> When will low definition television 240i be available at stores in the
|> U.S.A.? I am not talking about sdtv edtv or hdtv. I am talking about
|> LDTV low definition television. Also, is there a low definition
|> camcorder that can record 240i
|>
|> Thanks
|
| LDTV has been available for years -- though it was secretly marketed under
| the term "VHS"

I would call that NDTV :-)

N can be "no" or "noise", etc.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:58:08 AM

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

"Randy Sweeney" <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s8CdndBKjOuPg3HfRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>
> <esrabb@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1122702642.478867.156450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> When will low definition television 240i be available at stores in the
>> U.S.A.? I am not talking about sdtv edtv or hdtv. I am talking about
>> LDTV low definition television. Also, is there a low definition
>> camcorder that can record 240i
>>
>> Thanks
>
> LDTV has been available for years -- though it was secretly marketed under
> the term "VHS"
>
VHS has always displayed 525 scanning lines (NTSC) or 625 PAL
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 9:39:38 AM

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

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:27:33 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
| More than enough drivel, snipped.
|
|>
|> I'm not talking about camcorders.
|
| You are a waste of protoplasm. The original poster asked specifically
| about a 240i camcorder. Talk about taking a thread off topic.

I responded to a specific question.

Why don't you just put my address in your usenet reader kill file so
you won't be tempted to waste more bandwidth with your hate speech.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 10:53:16 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:27:33 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |
> | More than enough drivel, snipped.
> |
> |>
> |> I'm not talking about camcorders.
> |
> | You are a waste of protoplasm. The original poster asked specifically
> | about a 240i camcorder. Talk about taking a thread off topic.
>
> I responded to a specific question.

The question you responded to was:

"Also, is there a low definition camcorder that can record 240i"

Care to explain how your long winded, wide ranging, off topic, and
generally inappropriate response answered his question?

> Why don't you just put my address in your usenet reader kill file so
> you won't be tempted to waste more bandwidth with your hate speech.
>

Sorry, you are a moron, that's not your fault. I don't discriminate
against the mentally impaired.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 11:09:58 AM

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

Tim Olson wrote:
> In article <dcgn9g224gb@news3.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
> wrote:
>
>
> | I did read about it somewhere and that both DVB and ATSC can handle it,
> | though it isn't actually in the spec. There is 240i, 240p, 288i, and
> | 288p at each of 23.976, 24, 29.97, and 30 frames per second. Even slower
> | frames might have some uses.
> |
> | You're not likely to see your local broadcaster using any of these, but
> | larger public school systems might for some kinds of education programming
> | needing little more than talking heads and limited graphics, but needing a
> | lot of channels in a measly 6 MHz.
>
> The Austin PBS station KLRU has four DTV channels; in the evening
> channel 1 broadcasts in 720p (~14Mbps), channel 2 in 480i (~3Mbps), and
> 3 and 4 are "off the air", but actually broadcast programs in 240i
> (~256Kbps). Most of the time the display is non-changing and very
> pixelated, but the audio comes through fine.
>

Could you tell me how you determined that they were using 240i? Does
your receiver have that data or did you record the bitstream to a
computer and analyze it?

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 11:59:05 AM

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

I wrote:
| > The Austin PBS station KLRU has four DTV channels; in the evening
| > channel 1 broadcasts in 720p (~14Mbps), channel 2 in 480i (~3Mbps), and
| > 3 and 4 are "off the air", but actually broadcast programs in 240i
| > (~256Kbps). Most of the time the display is non-changing and very
| > pixelated, but the audio comes through fine.

In article <11eul46mv03022c@corp.supernews.com>,
"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> replied:

| Could you tell me how you determined that they were using 240i? Does
| your receiver have that data or did you record the bitstream to a
| computer and analyze it?

I have an EyeTV 500 ATSC receiver hooked up to my Powerbook. There is
an option to show the stream info during playback, which includes video
size, bitrate and framerate, and audio sampling and bitrate.

-- Tim Olson
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 1:10:04 PM

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

Tim Olson wrote:
> I wrote:
> | > The Austin PBS station KLRU has four DTV channels; in the evening
> | > channel 1 broadcasts in 720p (~14Mbps), channel 2 in 480i (~3Mbps), and
> | > 3 and 4 are "off the air", but actually broadcast programs in 240i
> | > (~256Kbps). Most of the time the display is non-changing and very
> | > pixelated, but the audio comes through fine.
>
> In article <11eul46mv03022c@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> replied:
>
> | Could you tell me how you determined that they were using 240i? Does
> | your receiver have that data or did you record the bitstream to a
> | computer and analyze it?
>
> I have an EyeTV 500 ATSC receiver hooked up to my Powerbook. There is
> an option to show the stream info during playback, which includes video
> size, bitrate and framerate, and audio sampling and bitrate.
>

Thanks.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:22:38 PM

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 06:53:16 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:27:33 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
|>
|> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |
|> | More than enough drivel, snipped.
|> |
|> |>
|> |> I'm not talking about camcorders.
|> |
|> | You are a waste of protoplasm. The original poster asked specifically
|> | about a 240i camcorder. Talk about taking a thread off topic.
|>
|> I responded to a specific question.
|
| The question you responded to was:
|
| "Also, is there a low definition camcorder that can record 240i"
|
| Care to explain how your long winded, wide ranging, off topic, and
| generally inappropriate response answered his question?

I did not respond to that question. I suggest you go back and read the
thread, specifically what response was to what question or statement.


|> Why don't you just put my address in your usenet reader kill file so
|> you won't be tempted to waste more bandwidth with your hate speech.
|>
|
| Sorry, you are a moron, that's not your fault. I don't discriminate
| against the mentally impaired.

I do, and I'm discriminating against you (and that other guy). The form
of the discrimination is the knowing that anything and probably everything
you (and he) post is essentially worthless.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:22:39 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 06:53:16 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:27:33 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> |>
> |> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> |
> |> | More than enough drivel, snipped.
> |> |
> |> |>
> |> |> I'm not talking about camcorders.
> |> |
> |> | You are a waste of protoplasm. The original poster asked specifically
> |> | about a 240i camcorder. Talk about taking a thread off topic.
> |>
> |> I responded to a specific question.
> |
> | The question you responded to was:
> |
> | "Also, is there a low definition camcorder that can record 240i"
> |
> | Care to explain how your long winded, wide ranging, off topic, and
> | generally inappropriate response answered his question?
>
> I did not respond to that question. I suggest you go back and read the
> thread, specifically what response was to what question or statement.

How odd! That is _exactly_ what I did. That is the OP's question. You
took it off topic in a big way. Care to explain why?

> |> Why don't you just put my address in your usenet reader kill file so
> |> you won't be tempted to waste more bandwidth with your hate speech.
> |>
> |
> | Sorry, you are a moron, that's not your fault. I don't discriminate
> | against the mentally impaired.
>
> I do, and I'm discriminating against you (and that other guy). The form
> of the discrimination is the knowing that anything and probably everything
> you (and he) post is essentially worthless.
>

I think that's pretty amazing. You obviously haven't done near the
research that Jeff and I have done. You clearly don't know enough about
the topic to write as much as you do about it and you claim what _WE_
write is essntially worthless. How droll.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:11:45 PM

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:09:33 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 06:53:16 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
|> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:27:33 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
|> |>
|> |> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> |
|> |> | More than enough drivel, snipped.
|> |> |
|> |> |>
|> |> |> I'm not talking about camcorders.
|> |> |
|> |> | You are a waste of protoplasm. The original poster asked specifically
|> |> | about a 240i camcorder. Talk about taking a thread off topic.
|> |>
|> |> I responded to a specific question.
|> |
|> | The question you responded to was:
|> |
|> | "Also, is there a low definition camcorder that can record 240i"
|> |
|> | Care to explain how your long winded, wide ranging, off topic, and
|> | generally inappropriate response answered his question?
|>
|> I did not respond to that question. I suggest you go back and read the
|> thread, specifically what response was to what question or statement.
|
| How odd! That is _exactly_ what I did. That is the OP's question. You
| took it off topic in a big way. Care to explain why?

I responded to your response in an advisory way relevant to the issues.
Since you always read things out of context, you'd never understand.
It was _for_ the OP, not you.


|> |> Why don't you just put my address in your usenet reader kill file so
|> |> you won't be tempted to waste more bandwidth with your hate speech.
|> |>
|> |
|> | Sorry, you are a moron, that's not your fault. I don't discriminate
|> | against the mentally impaired.
|>
|> I do, and I'm discriminating against you (and that other guy). The form
|> of the discrimination is the knowing that anything and probably everything
|> you (and he) post is essentially worthless.
|>
|
| I think that's pretty amazing. You obviously haven't done near the
| research that Jeff and I have done. You clearly don't know enough about
| the topic to write as much as you do about it and you claim what _WE_
| write is essntially worthless. How droll.

Your research, and Jeff's, is a joke. You never show anything because
you in fact don't really have anything. You claim to have found more
things online than others, but you can never back up that claim.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:11:46 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:09:33 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 06:53:16 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> |> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> |> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:27:33 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> |> |>
> |> |> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> |> |
> |> |> | More than enough drivel, snipped.
> |> |> |
> |> |> |>
> |> |> |> I'm not talking about camcorders.
> |> |> |
> |> |> | You are a waste of protoplasm. The original poster asked specifically
> |> |> | about a 240i camcorder. Talk about taking a thread off topic.
> |> |>
> |> |> I responded to a specific question.
> |> |
> |> | The question you responded to was:
> |> |
> |> | "Also, is there a low definition camcorder that can record 240i"
> |> |
> |> | Care to explain how your long winded, wide ranging, off topic, and
> |> | generally inappropriate response answered his question?
> |>
> |> I did not respond to that question. I suggest you go back and read the
> |> thread, specifically what response was to what question or statement.
> |
> | How odd! That is _exactly_ what I did. That is the OP's question. You
> | took it off topic in a big way. Care to explain why?
>
> I responded to your response in an advisory way relevant to the issues.

The issues were in regard to the existence of a camcorder that supports
particular mode. My response to the OP's question was:

"Not that I know of, but many digital still cameras have a video mode.
Some, like mine (Kodak DX7330, good enough for Richard Avedon) are 240i"

Which answered the OP's question correctly and offered an alternative
way to achieve his desired goal.

> Since you always read things out of context, you'd never understand.
> It was _for_ the OP, not you.

Let me see, you say that you weren't responding to the OPs question but
to what I wrote. Then in the very next sentence you say it was for the
OP's benefit, not mine? And you claim I "reading out of context"? I
suspect that you just like to type. You certainly type a lot and say
very little.

> |> |> Why don't you just put my address in your usenet reader kill file so
> |> |> you won't be tempted to waste more bandwidth with your hate speech.
> |> |>
> |> |
> |> | Sorry, you are a moron, that's not your fault. I don't discriminate
> |> | against the mentally impaired.
> |>
> |> I do, and I'm discriminating against you (and that other guy). The form
> |> of the discrimination is the knowing that anything and probably everything
> |> you (and he) post is essentially worthless.
> |>
> |
> | I think that's pretty amazing. You obviously haven't done near the
> | research that Jeff and I have done. You clearly don't know enough about
> | the topic to write as much as you do about it and you claim what _WE_
> | write is essntially worthless. How droll.
>
> Your research, and Jeff's, is a joke. You never show anything because
> you in fact don't really have anything. You claim to have found more
> things online than others, but you can never back up that claim.
>

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Sorry, but if you could just do the tiniest bit of googling you could
find plenty of information that would lead a reasonable person to
understand that Jeff knows a lot more about this subject than you do.
Oh, and that I do, too.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:16:26 PM

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:10:04 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| Tim Olson wrote:
|> I wrote:
|> | > The Austin PBS station KLRU has four DTV channels; in the evening
|> | > channel 1 broadcasts in 720p (~14Mbps), channel 2 in 480i (~3Mbps), and
|> | > 3 and 4 are "off the air", but actually broadcast programs in 240i
|> | > (~256Kbps). Most of the time the display is non-changing and very
|> | > pixelated, but the audio comes through fine.
|>
|> In article <11eul46mv03022c@corp.supernews.com>,
|> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> replied:
|>
|> | Could you tell me how you determined that they were using 240i? Does
|> | your receiver have that data or did you record the bitstream to a
|> | computer and analyze it?
|>
|> I have an EyeTV 500 ATSC receiver hooked up to my Powerbook. There is
|> an option to show the stream info during playback, which includes video
|> size, bitrate and framerate, and audio sampling and bitrate.
|>
|
| Thanks.

See, you're learning something online.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:16:27 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

> |
> | Thanks.
>
> See, you're learning something online.
>

It is also possible for you to do the same. You should try it some time.
There are many people who post here who know a lot more about
broadcasting, modulation schemes and DTV than you do. You should listen
to some of them instead of arguing.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 9:53:32 PM

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

"Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote in
news:AyzHe.1585$ns.663@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> "Randy Sweeney" <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:s8CdndBKjOuPg3HfRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>>
>> <esrabb@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:1122702642.478867.156450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> When will low definition television 240i be available at stores in
>>> the U.S.A.? I am not talking about sdtv edtv or hdtv. I am talking
>>> about LDTV low definition television. Also, is there a low
>>> definition camcorder that can record 240i
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> LDTV has been available for years -- though it was secretly marketed
>> under the term "VHS"
>>
> VHS has always displayed 525 scanning lines (NTSC) or 625 PAL
>
>
>

VHS is 240 lines of resolution
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 4:00:22 AM

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:46:22 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

| Let me see, you say that you weren't responding to the OPs question but
| to what I wrote. Then in the very next sentence you say it was for the
| OP's benefit, not mine? And you claim I "reading out of context"? I
| suspect that you just like to type. You certainly type a lot and say
| very little.

Yes. I was providing supplemental information to be sure the OP does
not end up doing something wrong. I'll probably have to do that for
a lot of your responses.


| Sorry, but if you could just do the tiniest bit of googling you could
| find plenty of information that would lead a reasonable person to
| understand that Jeff knows a lot more about this subject than you do.
| Oh, and that I do, too.

As long as you continue to show you have no clue about real life, I have
no reason to trust anything you say.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 3, 2005 5:05:23 AM

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

In article <Xns96A6832D5526Fgfg@207.217.125.201> David Reed <dreed@earthlink.net> writes:
>"Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote in
>news:AyzHe.1585$ns.663@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>> VHS has always displayed 525 scanning lines (NTSC) or 625 PAL
>
>VHS is 240 lines of resolution

Not the same thing.

VHS is 240 (or slightly better) lines of horizontal resolution per
picture height.

Pretty much entirely unrelated to scanning lines.

When one says that NTSC is 525 lines, or PAL is 625 lines, that is
specifying the ratio of the line frequency to the frame frequency.
For NTSC this is (approximately) 15734.2657 : 29.97003.

Not all of the lines are displayed on the screen, however. For
NTSC, approximately 480 to 483 lines are "picture", and some of those
may be used by other signals nowdays. With digital TV, folks chose
to make that size 480 horizontal lines of picture.

VHS records, and shows, those 480 lines. (Some seem to mangle the
last few with head switching, unfortunately.)

The 240 - 260 lines of resolution that people refer to is the rate
that the beam can change brightness as it sweeps horizontally across
the picture while drawing ONE line. The measurement is taken over
a length that is equal to the height of the screen (3/4 of the width),
and measures how many times the level as output by the recorder can
change from a light value to a dark value.

Again, this is not related to the number of lines that are actually
being drawn on the screen. It is related to how fast the signal is
sent (i.e. how many microseconds it takes to send that line), and how
fast the tape machine can change output levels.


Thus, the first poster was incorrect, because NTSC does not display
525 scanning lines. It displays about 480. A well done digital NTSC
system can remove the "about". PAL does 575 or 576 in the displayed
image, as I recall -- most definitely not 625.

The second poster was also incorrect, because the "resolution" of
VHS is not a measure of scanning lines. It is more correctly a measure
of luminance channel bandwidth.


Alan
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 5:32:37 AM

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

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:12:48 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

| The problem is that modern scalers require presets (called "taps") to allow
| fast scaling to output resolutions. Allowing abitrary input resolutions
| would make STBs much more expensive, as they would require much more
| general-purpose hardware to do the scaling.

Through a combination of multiscan rate displays (such as very common with
computers) and integer ratio scalers (a lot simpler than non-integer ratio
scalers) you can cover a very wide range of frame rates and geometry with
no gaps in the possibilities. For example a CRT display with a scan rate
36 to 72 frames per second can handle much lower transmitted frame rates:

Transmitted rate
9 Hz - 18 Hz 4x
12 Hz - 24 Hz 3x
18 Hz - 36 Hz 2x
36 Hz - 72 Hz 1x

Similar things can be done with number of lines by running the CRT scanning
over a smaller range of number of lines and converting to that in integer
multiples to effect a larger range.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 5:32:38 AM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> For example a CRT display with a scan rate
> 36 to 72 frames per second can handle much lower transmitted frame rates:
>
> Transmitted rate
> 9 Hz - 18 Hz 4x
> 12 Hz - 24 Hz 3x
> 18 Hz - 36 Hz 2x
> 36 Hz - 72 Hz 1x

All CRT displays end up as analog, which is what allows these sorts of
tricks. Unfortunately, an STB doesn't have that sort of luxury.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/SalesToFriends.gif
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 5:47:35 AM

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:53:26 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> |
|> | Thanks.
|>
|> See, you're learning something online.
|>
|
| It is also possible for you to do the same. You should try it some time.
| There are many people who post here who know a lot more about
| broadcasting, modulation schemes and DTV than you do. You should listen
| to some of them instead of arguing.

I don't remember whether it was you or Jeff that first said I should
do a search that I already did, but you are obviously ignoring things
and just carrying this stupid squabble on and on with making any
effort to understand what is going on.

You are like about 0.01% of Usenet participants that never try to
understand, even though in theory you have the mental capacity to
do so. Instead, you jump to conclusions based on not reading what
someone else says, then you stick with those false conclusions.
if you didn't have that attitude problem, maybe some intellect
would show through. Maybe your life experiences would benefit
some others. Maybe what you know you could tell others. Instead,
your approach is more of one of badgering and belittling people.
Many newsgroups have 1 or 2 such people. Some I tolerate. Some
I ignore. A small few I have to blacklist in my killfile.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 11:11:23 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:46:22 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
> | Let me see, you say that you weren't responding to the OPs question but
> | to what I wrote. Then in the very next sentence you say it was for the
> | OP's benefit, not mine? And you claim I "reading out of context"? I
> | suspect that you just like to type. You certainly type a lot and say
> | very little.
>
> Yes. I was providing supplemental information to be sure the OP does
> not end up doing something wrong.

Have you read his question yet? It certainly doesn't seem as if you
have. I'll quote it again:

"Also, is there a low definition camcorder that can record 240i"

Once again, try to explain how your longwinded, off-topic, un-informed
ramble answered that question in any way. For extra points, you can
explain what defects were in my response to the OP's question:

"Not that I know of, but many digital still cameras have a video mode.
Some, like mine (Kodak DX7330, good enough for Richard Avedon) are 240i".

For final bonus points, you can explain how your response illuminated
the OP on the availability of 240i camcorders.

> | Sorry, but if you could just do the tiniest bit of googling you could
> | find plenty of information that would lead a reasonable person to
> | understand that Jeff knows a lot more about this subject than you do.
> | Oh, and that I do, too.
>
> As long as you continue to show you have no clue about real life, I have
> no reason to trust anything you say.
>

Since you have demonstrated that you know nothing about the real world
of DTV, the broadcast business or the politics behind the transistion to
DTV, compounded by your childish refusal to do simple searches on freely
available search engines it is clear that you aren't going to be able to
add anything of value to any discussion on any of those topics.

HAND

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 11:12:31 AM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>> For example a CRT display with a scan rate
>>36 to 72 frames per second can handle much lower transmitted frame rates:
>>
>>Transmitted rate
>> 9 Hz - 18 Hz 4x
>>12 Hz - 24 Hz 3x
>>18 Hz - 36 Hz 2x
>>36 Hz - 72 Hz 1x
>
>
> All CRT displays end up as analog, which is what allows these sorts of
> tricks. Unfortunately, an STB doesn't have that sort of luxury.
>

It is very hard to believe that phil-news-nospam expects to be taken
seriously. He doesn't seem to grasp the simplest concepts and appears to
be immune to learning.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 11:14:54 AM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:53:26 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |
> |> |
> |> | Thanks.
> |>
> |> See, you're learning something online.
> |>
> |
> | It is also possible for you to do the same. You should try it some time.
> | There are many people who post here who know a lot more about
> | broadcasting, modulation schemes and DTV than you do. You should listen
> | to some of them instead of arguing.
>
> I don't remember whether it was you or Jeff that first said I should
> do a search that I already did, but you are obviously ignoring things
> and just carrying this stupid squabble on and on with making any
> effort to understand what is going on.

You have no idea just how wrong you are.

> You are like about 0.01% of Usenet participants that never try to
> understand, even though in theory you have the mental capacity to
> do so. Instead, you jump to conclusions based on not reading what
> someone else says, then you stick with those false conclusions.

You have no idea just how wrong you are.

> if you didn't have that attitude problem, maybe some intellect
> would show through. Maybe your life experiences would benefit
> some others. Maybe what you know you could tell others. Instead,
> your approach is more of one of badgering and belittling people.

You have no idea just how wrong you are.

> Many newsgroups have 1 or 2 such people. Some I tolerate. Some
> I ignore. A small few I have to blacklist in my killfile.
>

OOOOHHH!! A threat! I don't think I can continue posting to any
newsgroup that has a participant who threatens me with a killfile.

You are a moron.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:11:37 PM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:11:23 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

| Since you have demonstrated that you know nothing about the real world
| of DTV, the broadcast business or the politics behind the transistion to
| DTV, compounded by your childish refusal to do simple searches on freely
| available search engines it is clear that you aren't going to be able to
| add anything of value to any discussion on any of those topics.

Then put my address in your kill/block file. Or just don't bother to
respond to my postings anymore. If you can't figure out contexts and
concepts, you're adding no value but hot air.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:11:38 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:11:23 -0400 Matthew L. Martin
> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
> | Since you have demonstrated that you know nothing about the real
> world | of DTV, the broadcast business or the politics behind the
> transistion to | DTV, compounded by your childish refusal to do
> simple searches on freely | available search engines it is clear that
> you aren't going to be able to | add anything of value to any
> discussion on any of those topics.
>
> Then put my address in your kill/block file. Or just don't bother to
> respond to my postings anymore. If you can't figure out contexts
> and concepts, you're adding no value but hot air.
>

Au Contraire. I will keep my eye on you to help out those that your
misinformation will mislead or confuse.

By the way, you keep snipping this without responding to it:

>
> Have you read his question yet? It certainly doesn't seem as if you
> have. I'll quote it again:
>
> "Also, is there a low definition camcorder that can record 240i"
>
> Once again, try to explain how your longwinded, off-topic,
> un-informed ramble answered that question in any way. For extra
> points, you can explain what defects were in my response to the OP's
> question:
>
> "Not that I know of, but many digital still cameras have a video
> mode. Some, like mine (Kodak DX7330, good enough for Richard Avedon)
> are 240i".
>
> For final bonus points, you can explain how your response illuminated
> the OP on the availability of 240i camcorders.

Could that be because you don't have answers? You seem to have answers
(mostly the wrong ones) for everything else.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:14:02 PM

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

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 00:31:38 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> For example a CRT display with a scan rate
|> 36 to 72 frames per second can handle much lower transmitted frame rates:
|>
|> Transmitted rate
|> 9 Hz - 18 Hz 4x
|> 12 Hz - 24 Hz 3x
|> 18 Hz - 36 Hz 2x
|> 36 Hz - 72 Hz 1x
|
| All CRT displays end up as analog, which is what allows these sorts of
| tricks. Unfortunately, an STB doesn't have that sort of luxury.

Then don't use your dumb STB. Your inability to make things work is no
reason for limiting capabilities for others.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:14:03 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 00:31:38 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> | (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> |> For example a CRT display with a scan rate
> |> 36 to 72 frames per second can handle much lower transmitted frame rates:
> |>
> |> Transmitted rate
> |> 9 Hz - 18 Hz 4x
> |> 12 Hz - 24 Hz 3x
> |> 18 Hz - 36 Hz 2x
> |> 36 Hz - 72 Hz 1x
> |
> | All CRT displays end up as analog, which is what allows these sorts of
> | tricks. Unfortunately, an STB doesn't have that sort of luxury.
>
> Then don't use your dumb STB. Your inability to make things work is no
> reason for limiting capabilities for others.
>

As usual, you completely ignored the context of the discussion. One can
only guess that you are being deliberately obtuse or actively trying to
confuse people. Which is it?

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:14:03 PM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Then don't use your dumb STB.

That would make it hard to watch digital TV, wouldn't it?

Before you go off about HDTVs with integrated tuners, you need to do some
research and see how they are implemented. Most use the guts of an STB
inside the set and connect it to the rest of the TV electronics in the
same way that a external STB would be connected.

Even in ones that don't, your analog trick won't work for LCDs, plasmas,
DLPs, LCoS, or any other fixed pixel display where everything stays in
the digital domain forever.

--
Jeff Rife | "What are you looking at? You're laborers; you
| should be laboring. That's what you get for
| not having an education."
| -- Professor Hathaway, "Real Genius"
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:15:17 PM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:12:31 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| Jeff Rife wrote:
|> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|>
|>> For example a CRT display with a scan rate
|>>36 to 72 frames per second can handle much lower transmitted frame rates:
|>>
|>>Transmitted rate
|>> 9 Hz - 18 Hz 4x
|>>12 Hz - 24 Hz 3x
|>>18 Hz - 36 Hz 2x
|>>36 Hz - 72 Hz 1x
|>
|>
|> All CRT displays end up as analog, which is what allows these sorts of
|> tricks. Unfortunately, an STB doesn't have that sort of luxury.
|>
|
| It is very hard to believe that phil-news-nospam expects to be taken
| seriously. He doesn't seem to grasp the simplest concepts and appears to
| be immune to learning.

It's only you and Jeff that are the issue. Both of you have trouble with
things like contexts and concepts and just plain figuring things out.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:15:18 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:12:31 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> | Jeff Rife wrote:
> |> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> |>
> |>> For example a CRT display with a scan rate
> |>>36 to 72 frames per second can handle much lower transmitted frame rates:
> |>>
> |>>Transmitted rate
> |>> 9 Hz - 18 Hz 4x
> |>>12 Hz - 24 Hz 3x
> |>>18 Hz - 36 Hz 2x
> |>>36 Hz - 72 Hz 1x
> |>
> |>
> |> All CRT displays end up as analog, which is what allows these sorts of
> |> tricks. Unfortunately, an STB doesn't have that sort of luxury.
> |>
> |
> | It is very hard to believe that phil-news-nospam expects to be taken
> | seriously. He doesn't seem to grasp the simplest concepts and appears to
> | be immune to learning.
>
> It's only you and Jeff that are the issue. Both of you have trouble with
> things like contexts and concepts and just plain figuring things out.
>

So, you got caught out again. You are the one who ignored context.
Jeff's response is dead on. Do you really get that much enjoyment of
proving that you are a moron on usenet?


--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:15:18 PM

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

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:D cqjhl21bu4@news4.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:12:31 -0400 Matthew L. Martin
> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> | Jeff Rife wrote:
> | It is very hard to believe that phil-news-nospam expects to be taken
> | seriously. He doesn't seem to grasp the simplest concepts and appears to
> | be immune to learning.
>
> It's only you and Jeff that are the issue. Both of you have trouble with
> things like contexts and concepts and just plain figuring things out.

Phil,

I have been reading this group for some time and can assure you that Jeff
and Matthew are two of the most knowlegeable and useful posters on this
group. Following what you have been posting has led me to want to jump in
to correct you several times but they got to it first. I have dissagreed
with both of them many times but to say that they have problems with context
and concepts is just plain wrong. This better describes a lot of what I
have seen you post. You might want to step back and rethink things a bit.

The main thing that makes me wonder about their intelligence is their
inability to resist banging their heads against the wall trying to make
sense of guys like you.

Leonard
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:15:19 PM

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

Leonard Caillouet wrote:

> The main thing that makes me wonder about their intelligence is their
> inability to resist banging their heads against the wall trying to make
> sense of guys like you.
>

It't really for the same reason that most of us rush to correct bob
miller whenever he is on one of his rants. Misinformation and FUD are
not the friends of those who are truly interested in HDTV.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:15:19 PM

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

Leonard Caillouet (no@noway.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The main thing that makes me wonder about their intelligence is their
> inability to resist banging their heads against the wall trying to make
> sense of guys like you.

I'm stubborn. ;->

In this case, I started out trying to help with what seemed like reasonable
questions, but as the "misunderstandings" grew, I admit that some of my later
postings were out of frustration and spite, instead of actual helpfulness.

--
Jeff Rife | "I'm reading a great John Grisham novel...it's
| about a young Southern lawyer who fights an
| evil corporate giant."
| -- Dick Solomon, "3rd Rock from the Sun"
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:19:39 PM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:14:54 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:53:26 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
|>
|> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |
|> |> |
|> |> | Thanks.
|> |>
|> |> See, you're learning something online.
|> |>
|> |
|> | It is also possible for you to do the same. You should try it some time.
|> | There are many people who post here who know a lot more about
|> | broadcasting, modulation schemes and DTV than you do. You should listen
|> | to some of them instead of arguing.
|>
|> I don't remember whether it was you or Jeff that first said I should
|> do a search that I already did, but you are obviously ignoring things
|> and just carrying this stupid squabble on and on with making any
|> effort to understand what is going on.
|
| You have no idea just how wrong you are.

You have absolutely no basis for your false statements. You have
never been here to see just how much searching I have done, so you
have no position to state one way or the other.


|> You are like about 0.01% of Usenet participants that never try to
|> understand, even though in theory you have the mental capacity to
|> do so. Instead, you jump to conclusions based on not reading what
|> someone else says, then you stick with those false conclusions.
|
| You have no idea just how wrong you are.

I do know that you do not contribute anything but hot air.


|> if you didn't have that attitude problem, maybe some intellect
|> would show through. Maybe your life experiences would benefit
|> some others. Maybe what you know you could tell others. Instead,
|> your approach is more of one of badgering and belittling people.
|
| You have no idea just how wrong you are.

You've made your attitude very clear. Everything you post is about
attitude, not information.


|> Many newsgroups have 1 or 2 such people. Some I tolerate. Some
|> I ignore. A small few I have to blacklist in my killfile.
|>
|
| OOOOHHH!! A threat! I don't think I can continue posting to any
| newsgroup that has a participant who threatens me with a killfile.
|
| You are a moron.

*plonk*

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 6:19:40 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

>
> *plonk*

I am ever so impressed by those who feel they have to publically
announce when they are plonking someone. Does it give you a feeling of
power?

--
Matthew (who really is expecting a response, plonked or not)

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:32:36 PM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:54:48 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:11:23 -0400 Matthew L. Martin
|> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
|>
|> | Since you have demonstrated that you know nothing about the real
|> world | of DTV, the broadcast business or the politics behind the
|> transistion to | DTV, compounded by your childish refusal to do
|> simple searches on freely | available search engines it is clear that
|> you aren't going to be able to | add anything of value to any
|> discussion on any of those topics.
|>
|> Then put my address in your kill/block file. Or just don't bother to
|> respond to my postings anymore. If you can't figure out contexts
|> and concepts, you're adding no value but hot air.
|>
|
| Au Contraire. I will keep my eye on you to help out those that your
| misinformation will mislead or confuse.

That's what my plan is.


| By the way, you keep snipping this without responding to it:
|
|>
|> Have you read his question yet? It certainly doesn't seem as if you
|> have. I'll quote it again:
|>
|> "Also, is there a low definition camcorder that can record 240i"
|>
|> Once again, try to explain how your longwinded, off-topic,
|> un-informed ramble answered that question in any way. For extra
|> points, you can explain what defects were in my response to the OP's
|> question:
|>
|> "Not that I know of, but many digital still cameras have a video
|> mode. Some, like mine (Kodak DX7330, good enough for Richard Avedon)
|> are 240i".
|>
|> For final bonus points, you can explain how your response illuminated
|> the OP on the availability of 240i camcorders.
|
| Could that be because you don't have answers? You seem to have answers
| (mostly the wrong ones) for everything else.

My response wasn't about the availability of 240i camcorders; it was
about the use of mixed standard/formats, which would be relevant to
someone using 240i.

Of course, you'd have known that if you had read everything in the proper
context. Well, now I have my doubts if you could have even figured that
out.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:32:37 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:54:48 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:11:23 -0400 Matthew L. Martin
> |> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> |>
> |> | Since you have demonstrated that you know nothing about the real
> |> world | of DTV, the broadcast business or the politics behind the
> |> transistion to | DTV, compounded by your childish refusal to do
> |> simple searches on freely | available search engines it is clear that
> |> you aren't going to be able to | add anything of value to any
> |> discussion on any of those topics.
> |>
> |> Then put my address in your kill/block file. Or just don't bother to
> |> respond to my postings anymore. If you can't figure out contexts
> |> and concepts, you're adding no value but hot air.
> |>
> |
> | Au Contraire. I will keep my eye on you to help out those that your
> | misinformation will mislead or confuse.
>
> That's what my plan is.

Yes, I expect that it is your plan to continue to attempt to confuse and
mislead. That's why I'll be watching you.

> | By the way, you keep snipping this without responding to it:
> |
> |>
> |> Have you read his question yet? It certainly doesn't seem as if you
> |> have. I'll quote it again:
> |>
> |> "Also, is there a low definition camcorder that can record 240i"
> |>
> |> Once again, try to explain how your longwinded, off-topic,
> |> un-informed ramble answered that question in any way. For extra
> |> points, you can explain what defects were in my response to the OP's
> |> question:
> |>
> |> "Not that I know of, but many digital still cameras have a video
> |> mode. Some, like mine (Kodak DX7330, good enough for Richard Avedon)
> |> are 240i".
> |>
> |> For final bonus points, you can explain how your response illuminated
> |> the OP on the availability of 240i camcorders.
> |
> | Could that be because you don't have answers? You seem to have answers
> | (mostly the wrong ones) for everything else.
>
> My response wasn't about the availability of 240i camcorders;

Which is to say it was not responsive to the OP's question.

> it was
> about the use of mixed standard/formats,

So, you finally admitted that you took the thread off topic. Why was
that so hard?

> which would be relevant to someone using 240i.

Not if they are using a 240i camcorder. There is no mixed format present
in a 240i camcorder as envisioned by the OP. He specifically asked for
information about a single format device.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:38:40 PM

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

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:55:33 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com> wrote:
|
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:D cqjhl21bu4@news4.newsguy.com...
|> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:12:31 -0400 Matthew L. Martin
|> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
|> | Jeff Rife wrote:
|> | It is very hard to believe that phil-news-nospam expects to be taken
|> | seriously. He doesn't seem to grasp the simplest concepts and appears to
|> | be immune to learning.
|>
|> It's only you and Jeff that are the issue. Both of you have trouble with
|> things like contexts and concepts and just plain figuring things out.
|
| Phil,
|
| I have been reading this group for some time and can assure you that Jeff
| and Matthew are two of the most knowlegeable and useful posters on this
| group. Following what you have been posting has led me to want to jump in
| to correct you several times but they got to it first. I have dissagreed
| with both of them many times but to say that they have problems with context
| and concepts is just plain wrong. This better describes a lot of what I
| have seen you post. You might want to step back and rethink things a bit.

Then explain how it is they have continued to completely misunderstand
AND instead of asking for help in understanding, they cop an attitude.
For example, both have claimed I did no searching when in fact I did.


| The main thing that makes me wonder about their intelligence is their
| inability to resist banging their heads against the wall trying to make
| sense of guys like you.

They are persistent, for sure. For what goal eludes me (for now). But
it sure seems they are not trying to understand what I tried to say.

Sometimes I am too terse in my statements, assuming that people have
more background than they actually do. But usually in such cases, the
response will be to ask things like "what are you talking about" instead
trying to make untrue assertions about me and copping an attitude. Maybe
they are knowledgeable, but they have never applied it since I have come
here, in the threads I have read (which is not all of them).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:38:41 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:55:33 -0400 Leonard Caillouet <no@noway.com> wrote:
> |
> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
> | news:D cqjhl21bu4@news4.newsguy.com...
> |> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:12:31 -0400 Matthew L. Martin
> |> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
> |> | Jeff Rife wrote:
> |> | It is very hard to believe that phil-news-nospam expects to be taken
> |> | seriously. He doesn't seem to grasp the simplest concepts and appears to
> |> | be immune to learning.
> |>
> |> It's only you and Jeff that are the issue. Both of you have trouble with
> |> things like contexts and concepts and just plain figuring things out.
> |
> | Phil,
> |
> | I have been reading this group for some time and can assure you that Jeff
> | and Matthew are two of the most knowlegeable and useful posters on this
> | group. Following what you have been posting has led me to want to jump in
> | to correct you several times but they got to it first. I have dissagreed
> | with both of them many times but to say that they have problems with context
> | and concepts is just plain wrong. This better describes a lot of what I
> | have seen you post. You might want to step back and rethink things a bit.
>
> Then explain how it is they have continued to completely misunderstand
> AND instead of asking for help in understanding, they cop an attitude.

Take Leonard's advice:

"You might want to step back and rethink things a bit".

But then, you don't take advice well, do you?

> For example, both have claimed I did no searching when in fact I did.

That can't be proven by the nonsense you post. Most people check their
facts very carefully before they post nonsense to usenet.

> | The main thing that makes me wonder about their intelligence is their
> | inability to resist banging their heads against the wall trying to make
> | sense of guys like you.
>
> They are persistent, for sure. For what goal eludes me (for now). But
> it sure seems they are not trying to understand what I tried to say.
>
> Sometimes I am too terse in my statements, assuming that people have
> more background than they actually do.

Not at all, your posts are generally over-long, vague and unfocused. You
should learn the subject matter so that you can explain things concisely.

> But usually in such cases, the
> response will be to ask things like "what are you talking about" instead
> trying to make untrue assertions about me and copping an attitude.

Copping an attitude is exactly what you are doing. Both Jeff and I tried
being polite, which certainly didn't work. I've moved on to being more
confrontational, since I beleive that you would do more harm to HDTV if
you weren't confronted.

> Maybe
> they are knowledgeable, but they have never applied it since I have come
> here, in the threads I have read (which is not all of them).
>

You show even more of your ignorance. Do some research. Learn something.
It might just be good for you.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:38:41 PM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> For example, both have claimed I did no searching when in fact I did.

Since *our* searches (some of which we have even told you what text to
enter into Google) yield the right answers as the *first* hit, I find it
hard to believe that your searches gave you *nothing*.

Then, when we do tell you *exactly* where to find information (by URL), you
dismiss it without reading it and say it isn't what you were looking for.
Spend a couple of weeks reading AVS Forum and you'll find out a lot of what
you are looking for. The biggest thing you missed by skimming is finding
out who the most knowledgable posters are on the subject at hand (HDTV [mostly
in the US]). Once you know that, you can just read threads they have posted
in.

--
Jeff Rife | Radio Shack...you've got questions,
| we've got puzzled looks.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:57:21 PM

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

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:12:52 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> Then don't use your dumb STB.
|
| That would make it hard to watch digital TV, wouldn't it?

Why would it? You can either use a smarter STB that can convert better,
or just use an integrated tuner/display (commonly called a "TV set") with
DTV capability.


| Before you go off about HDTVs with integrated tuners, you need to do some
| research and see how they are implemented. Most use the guts of an STB
| inside the set and connect it to the rest of the TV electronics in the
| same way that a external STB would be connected.

Doing it that way would be a case of "left hand not knowing the right hand".
More specifically, if you make a display that can ONLY handle ONE scan rate,
then of course anything else must be converted, and the simplistic hookup
is about all you can do. But displays really can be made to handle a wide
range of scan rates both vertical and horizontal.

Putting conversion capability in an STB is principly for legacy displays
which are mostly going to be SD analog (some early entry exceptions will
exist). Separating the RF tuning capability from the display begs the
question of where the format conversion process should belong. For modern
devices, it should be in the display, rather than the tuner. The tuner
should do nothing more than deliver the received, demodulated, and selected
content. Only the display equipment really knows its true capability. To
get conversion of scan rates and formats done best, it needs to be in the
display device.

STBs for special purposes like cable or satellite should work the same way.
Just deliver the content AS-IS. No need to have an OTA STB, cable STB, and
satellite STB all doing their own form of conversion that doesn't have the
benefit of knowing what the display is really capable of. That's why the
conversion is best when done in the display device.

I'm looking in the _forward_ direction to what is needed for a display that
can be made to handle all the formats, not in the backward direction to the
displays that were made to handle only one.


| Even in ones that don't, your analog trick won't work for LCDs, plasmas,
| DLPs, LCoS, or any other fixed pixel display where everything stays in
| the digital domain forever.

LCDs can handle different scan rates. I don't know about the others. But
regardless of what display technology you have, whether it is limited to
just one scan rate, or is agile over the entire LD->SD->ED->HD->UD range, an
STB should not make any assumptions about the display and should certainly
not do any conversion that might end up having to be undone (which would
just make things worse).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:57:22 PM

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

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:12:52 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> | (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> |> Then don't use your dumb STB.
> |
> | That would make it hard to watch digital TV, wouldn't it?
>
> Why would it? You can either use a smarter STB that can convert better,
> or just use an integrated tuner/display (commonly called a "TV set") with
> DTV capability.

So, once again you miss the mark. A DTV capable "TV set" is a "TV set"
with an inbuilt STB. There is no difference.

> | Before you go off about HDTVs with integrated tuners, you need to do some
> | research and see how they are implemented. Most use the guts of an STB
> | inside the set and connect it to the rest of the TV electronics in the
> | same way that a external STB would be connected.
>
> Doing it that way would be a case of "left hand not knowing the right hand".
> More specifically, if you make a display that can ONLY handle ONE scan rate,
> then of course anything else must be converted, and the simplistic hookup
> is about all you can do. But displays really can be made to handle a wide
> range of scan rates both vertical and horizontal.

Really? Ask the manufacturers of fixed pixel devices just how easy that
is. I'm sure that 3840x2160 fixed pixel displays are just around the
corner. Oh, and once they are here, scalars will still be needed to
properly display all of the ATSC geometries on them for obvious reasons.

>
> STBs for special purposes like cable or satellite should work the same way.
> Just deliver the content AS-IS. No need to have an OTA STB, cable STB, and
> satellite STB all doing their own form of conversion that doesn't have the
> benefit of knowing what the display is really capable of. That's why the
> conversion is best when done in the display device.

So all HDVs should have ATSC, QAM-256 and all of the proprietary
satellite demodulators built into them? That's really likely to be
economical.

> I'm looking in the _forward_ direction to what is needed for a display that
> can be made to handle all the formats, not in the backward direction to the
> displays that were made to handle only one.

They will still require scalars.

> | Even in ones that don't, your analog trick won't work for LCDs, plasmas,
> | DLPs, LCoS, or any other fixed pixel display where everything stays in
> | the digital domain forever.
>
> LCDs can handle different scan rates.

The scan rate isn't a problem (really) with any display. It's the
geometry, stupid.

> I don't know about the others. But
> regardless of what display technology you have, whether it is limited to
> just one scan rate, or is agile over the entire LD->SD->ED->HD->UD range, an
> STB should not make any assumptions about the display and should certainly
> not do any conversion that might end up having to be undone (which would
> just make things worse).
>

It's very strange that the real world has gotten this all wrong. It's a
good thing you are around to tell everyone the right way to do things.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 7:57:22 PM

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

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> just use an integrated tuner/display (commonly called a "TV set") with
> DTV capability.

Flunked reading comprehension, huh? My next paragraph addresses this.

> | Before you go off about HDTVs with integrated tuners, you need to do some
> | research and see how they are implemented. Most use the guts of an STB
> | inside the set and connect it to the rest of the TV electronics in the
> | same way that a external STB would be connected.
>
> Doing it that way would be a case of "left hand not knowing the right hand".

I don't care what *you* call it...I call it "the actual way HDTVs with
integrated tuners are designed today".

> But displays really can be made to handle a wide
> range of scan rates both vertical and horizontal.

For the majority of displays, no, they can't.

> Putting conversion capability in an STB is principly for legacy displays
> which are mostly going to be SD analog (some early entry exceptions will
> exist).

You really don't understand anything about consumer electronics, do you?

> LCDs can handle different scan rates. I don't know about the others.

*All* "HD-ready" sets can handle at least two different input scan rates.
Many can handle 4 or 5. Do some research.

But, that makes no difference, since handling it as an input isn't very
important when it needs to be converted internally. Putting that
conversion in an external STB and feeding the display its "native" mode
has advantages for the consumer. Maybe if you think before you post (or
do some research), you will see what those advantages are.

--
Jeff Rife | "Why the hell did you stuff yourself like that?"
| "Hey, Lowell threw down the gauntlet...I just
| poured gravy on it and ate it."
| -- Joe and Brian Hackett, "Wings"
!