| Author |
Message |
Bob Miller
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:02 am Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
ivan wrote:
| Quote: | "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KTD4d.1229$zG1.1226@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
ivan wrote:
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ciumt3$65m$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Paul Keinanen wrote:
You also have to ask, does it really make sense to greatly increase
the main transmitter power to serve some problematic receiver
locations or is it better install a small transmitter near these sites
e.g. in a cellular phone tower.
The answer to this is CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL: it's better to
use a bigger tower and more powerful transmitter.
This because typically you pick up people by getting rural
and very small town people. The way the US is structured, if
you try increasing audience by translators or lots of
small SFN transmitters, you'd by talking maybe 30 people
per transmitter. You get far more bang for the buck with
a bigger stick and more power. AND ... the absolute cheapest
way to increase converage is to simply use a system that
needs only 1/2 the average power and 1/3 the peak power!
*****************************************************************
Just imagine .... you can get coverage equivalent to
TRIPLING the peak power just by switching from DVB-T
to ATSC!!!!
In the area of the UK were I live, there are many thousands of people
receiving reliable reception from a couple of local transmitters pushing
out
20w of DVB-T.
The highest power in the UK is 20 kW AFAIK and that on only a few
transmitters. Most are using infinitesimal power levels.
Here is a list of all stations in the UK and their power levels.
http://www.wolfbane.com/ukdtt.htm
The UK is also not able to and is not using any SFN these are all
single stick transmitters. Other countries are using or plan on using
country wide SFN's with much lower power levels than the US.
A couple of weeks ago I installed a DTT receiver at around 12 kilometres
distance from one of the aforementioned 20w UHF transmitters (Bristol Kings
Weston Hill) and despite the customer having an ancient out of band antenna,
all of his 30 plus digital channels were spot-on.
Apparently the UK now has over 4.5 million DTT viewers, not bad for two
years since the launch of Freeview, and the numbers keep growing apace,
especially with some receivers now costing as little as £35 if one is
prepared to shop around.
This includes such large countries as Australia and Russia.
Even in the US such entities as Sirius and XMRadio are using COFDM as
will Crown Castle for their mobile 5MHz DTV venture.
NO one even considers 8-VSB except when pressured and bribed by the US.
Thats the reality.
That was 4.5 million at the end of June, it is now over 5 million and |
this quarter will see as many as a million COFDM receivers sold in the UK.
The US will see similar numbers starting with 2005 (times six) now that
5th gen receivers will start showing up.
Why we had to wait 5 years when COFDM could have done the same or even
better in the US over the last 5 years is I supposed CLEAR AND
UNEQUIVOCAL to Doug.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:21 am Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
Doug McDonald wrote:
| Quote: | Bob Miller wrote:
That however is not how most countries in the world thought about it.
The only countries using 8-VSB are doing so for political purposes. No
country has chosen 8-VSB for technical reasons.
According to two people ON THE ATSC COMMITTEE, they discarded
COFDM from consideration for just this technical reason. It was NOT
politics. The politics was within the single carrier systems.
Doug McDonald
|
BS!!
The ATSC was following the back room deal made early in the history of
the DTV transition that gave the modulation to Zenith. No one wanted to
give COFDM any hearing. COFDM had to be ignored at all cost and it was
right from the beginning.
In fact when Professor (Emeritus) of MIT's Advanced TV Lab William
Schreiber held a seminar on COFDM in 1992 this is what happened.
"The group I was then working with at MIT decided that it would be
useful to have a meeting of all those working on the subject as a means
of informing the FCC and the various DTV system proponents of this new
technology, then relatively unknown in the US. We had the assistance of
Ken Davies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp and Gary Tonge of the
Independent Broadcast Authority in the UK in organizing the meeting and
inducing the Europeans to come. All the American system proponents were
invited as well as the FCC. The meeting was held at MIT in October
1992. Every lab in the world working on COFDM was represented, but
almost no system proponents or FCC people came. I still have a number of
the refusal letters; they were all “too busy.”"
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT. IT WASN"T INVENTED HERE!! (actually
it was by AT&T Bell Labs)
Here is the full letter from Scheiber to Senator Markey after the
hearings on COFDM vs. 8-VSB in June 2000.
BTW Professor William F. Schreiber was in the thick of the entire DTV
process from beginning to end.
31 July 2000
Hon. Edward J. Markey
2108 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
The recent hearing re COFDM vs “8-VSB”
Dear Congressman Markey:
You may recall that I appeared before your subcommittee at the start of
the HDTV Inquiry. At that time, I was director of the MIT Advanced
Television Research Program. Of the various things that I said, the one
that got the most attention was “HDTV is not about pretty pictures; it
is about jobs and money.” Although we are much less worried today about
jobs or money, the shift that is underway in terrestrial TV broadcasting
from analog to digital is still very important for the future health of
our economy as the importance of information technologies grows.
The FCC was quite correct in deciding that over-the-air (OTA)
broadcasting must shift from analog to digital. In my opinion, there is
no other way to provide the spectrum that is needed for all the
wealth-creating wireless services that we hear so much about. The
current NTSC system, using 50-year old technology, is simply too
wasteful of spectrum, requiring an allocation of 67 6-MHz channels to
provide no more than 20 programs of mediocre technical quality to each
viewer. By using digital transmission and the best current technology,
it would be possible to provide 20 HDTV programs to each viewer in the
country with an overall allocation of only 20 6-MHz channels.
Alternatively, for lower technical quality, but still higher than that
of NTSC, we could allocate even a smaller amount of spectrum.
Although the FCC deserves a lot of credit for understanding this aspect
of OTA broadcasting, it made a serious blunder (no kinder word suffices
here) in accepting the “8-VSB” modulation method that was proposed by
ACATS. This error was partly technical and partly political. Reed
Hundt placed much too much faith in the “free” market’s ability to
design TV standards that would properly serve the public interest,
convenience, and necessity. The design of the system was left entirely
to the industry, without adequate supervision by the Commission. In
particular, the Commission failed to insist on realistic testing. As a
result, we have a system that is too unreliable to be used. While this
is not the only reason for the failure, so far, of the transition to
digital broadcasting, it is a problem that absolutely must be solved for
the transition to be successful enough so that analog broadcasting can
be turned off without a public outcry.
I was most interested in what transpired at the recent hearing. While
one demonstration surely is not sufficient to conclude anything, there
have now been many demonstrations of the ease of reception of COFDM (the
system demonstrated by Sinclair) under many different kinds of
conditions. There have been many other examples that clearly indicate
the difficulty of receiving the 8-VSB transmissions on simple antennas,
especially in downtown areas. A number of those testifying in favor of
8-VSB gave false and misleading statements on these matters that were,
unfortunately, not challenged by members of the Subcommittee. It should
be borne in mind that the system approved by the FCC was submitted by
ACATS in 1995 -- more than five years ago. One would think that any
problems in receiver design would long since have been found and fixed
if possible. In my opinion, the 8-VSB scheme will never work well
enough, no matter how much time is allowed.
Digital OTA broadcasting using COFDM started in Britain in November
1998, the same time as in the US. Nearly one million subscribers now
use the service and there have been few complaints. That penetration,
taking account of the different populations, is 100 times greater than
in the US.
It is not as if COFDM was unknown to the American system proponents.
The FCC as well as the system proponents in the Grand Alliance were
fully informed about the advantages of COFDM -- about its much better
performance in the presence of multipath (ghosts), its ability to
support single-frequency networks that would completely solve the
problem of finding spectrum for LPTV stations, and its ability to
provide more service in a given spectrum allocation than single-carrier
systems such as 8-VSB. For a variety of reasons, all specious, ACATS
turned down COFDM.
In order not to make this letter too long, I have placed in an appendix
some material relating to the history of COFDM and my own involvement in
it. For the sake of full disclosure, I should say that I have some
patents in the field, assigned to MIT, but I do not expect to make any
money from them, no matter what happens to digital broadcasting in the US.
I would like to get the substance of this letter into the hands of Mr.
Tauzin and whoever on his staff is following this matter, and I solicit
your suggestions as to how to do this.
Sincerely
Appendix: Some OFDM History
I first heard about OFDM on a trip to Europe in the late 80s, and called
it to the attention of the chief engineer of the FCC on my return. OFDM
was invented at Bell Labs in 1965, and the “C” (coded) was added, by
CCETT (a French government lab.) in the middle 80s. By that time, it
had been tested for audio in Europe and Canada with good results.
Virtually all the labs then working on it had come to the conclusion
that it was the right system for DTV broadcasting because of its good
multipath performance. When I first described it to the FCC point man,
he said that such a system could not possibly work. (A famous
mathematician once “proved” that FM was impossible because it has an
infinite spectrum.) Eventually, however, the FCC changed its mind and
directed ACATS to investigate COFDM, which it reluctantly did.
I was sufficiently impressed by the possibilities of COFDM that I
decided to take two more PhD students after my formal retirement from
MIT in 1990. The project was funded partly by Scitex, an Israeli
company for which I had been a consultant, and partly out of patent
royalties due me at MIT, i.e., out of my own pocket. Eventually, the
two students, Mike Polley, now at TI, and Susie Wee, now at HP,
simulated a complete system. It was a multiresolution system with three
levels of quality, using both OFDM and spread spectrum. The base-level
signal -- about NTSC resolution -- had a 6-dB threshold. It worked with
0-dB echoes, and is described in my paper “Advanced Television Systems
for Terrestrial Broadcasting,” Proc. IEEE, 82, 6, June 1995, pp 958-981.
I have a few copies of a complete report, including this paper and the
two theses, for anyone who is seriously interested.
The group I was then working with at MIT decided that it would be useful
to have a meeting of all those working on the subject as a means of
informing the FCC and the various DTV system proponents of this new
technology, then relatively unknown in the US. We had the assistance of
Ken Davies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp and Gary Tonge of the
Independent Broadcast Authority in the UK in organizing the meeting and
inducing the Europeans to come. All the American system proponents were
invited as well as the FCC. The meeting was held at MIT in October
1992. Every lab in the world working on COFDM was represented, but
almost no system proponents or FCC people came. I still have a number of
the refusal letters; they were all “too busy.”
The next year, a committee representing ACATS did go to Europe in
accordance with the FCC directive. My opinion is that they were simply
going through the motions and were fully determined to find nothing that
would change their development plans. One of the stated reasons for the
turn-down was that their own system had already been fully developed,
and COFDM was in its infancy, to the extent that no equipment could be
purchased to be tested under US conditions. Now, seven years later,
some of the VSB proponents are asking us to wait while it is further
developed. VSB was approved by ACATS in 1995, so one would think that
in the ensuing four years, whatever work needed to be done to eliminate
its problems would have been done by now.
William F. Schreiber, 13 July 1999
Here are his patents.
http://www.wfschreiber.org/expert/wfs%20patents.html
and his web site
http://www.wfschreiber.org/pageone.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Albert Manfredi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:09 am Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
Bob Miller wrote:
| Quote: | Albert Manfredi wrote:
|
[ ... ]
| Quote: | There is no such thing as a free lunch. The decision to stick with
8-VSB can only prove to be more and more advantageous, as time goes
by. Unfortunately, it took a long time to get to where it's really a
feasible scheme.
Barely feasible.
I was on the DMT side of the DSL controversy also. We had the first
ADSL pipes in the country using prototype Amati ADSL modems in 1996.
Where pray tell do you think single carrier is ahead in any of the
venues you mention? All I see is COFDM everywhere even UWB which I
might disagree with.
|
UWB is a good example, since the MBOA scheme might suffer from the peak
to average power problem, creating a potential for interference that the
CDMA variant wouldn't create. But that's not the drop-dead obvious
example.
The drop-dead obvious example is, of course, satellite communications.
Not many people in their right minds would suggest use of COFDM from
satellites, because what they need is the maximum possible spectral
efficiency at the lowest possible power. COFDM has its advantages, but
those two are not among them.
As I see it, with DTT, we are between two extremes.
In cellular communications, including wireless LAN hot spots, you are
creating very small cells. You want to maximize frequency reuse. You are
certainly not after long range, because that works against high
frequency reuse.
So in these cases, power is not a problem. You have plenty of power for
the distance you need to cover, and what you really need is to combat
multipath.
With satellite communications, it's the opposite. The receiver antenna
is typically a high gain design, which combats multipath by being aimed
straight to the source. The source must be line of sight.
DTT requires a bit of both. It requires the efficiency of the single
carrier options, and the multipath tolerance of the multicarrier option.
Because to achieve the wide area coverage required for DTT, especially
in large markets, you just can't beat the economics of installing a
small number of relatively large sticks. So you need good range. And you
need a lot of spectral efficiency too, because terrestrial spectrum is
in very high demand.
| Quote: | Certainly not with 5th gen LG receivers where, while they are light
years better than 4th gen, they cannot hold a candle to 1999 COFDM.
|
This is at least partially false.
According to the Canadian Research Council tests done in 2002, COFDM
required 31 dB of C/N to receive signals with a Brazil E profile (a
scenario where 3 equally loud echoes were present), at a spectral
efficiency of 3.3 b/s/Hz. According to the same CRC, the Linx and the LG
receivers both managed this with only 24.8 to 25 dB of C/N. And that's
for solid reception, where the signal could be dropped and reacquired.
That is a *substantial* improvement.
Now, dynamic multipath might be a different matter, but we simply don't
know yet. I'll grant you the possibility that, for now, the 1999 COFDM
receiver was better at dynamic multipath.
| Quote: | We have wasted 5 years or better and billions of dollars not to
mention the hassle factor and waste of consumers time and patience in
the US to what purpose
|
Well, I won't argue against that point. I'll only suggest that given
where we are, we can and should now take advantage of the strengths of
this scheme.
Bert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Albert Manfredi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:18 am Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
Bob Miller wrote:
| Quote: | BS!!
The ATSC was following the back room deal made early in the history of
the DTV transition that gave the modulation to Zenith. No one wanted
to give COFDM any hearing. COFDM had to be ignored at all cost and it
was right from the beginning.
|
Hey, perhaps so.
However, this doesn't say that the politics don't play a part in each
camp. You will note that all those who favored COFDM were also
personally and professionally involved in COFDM, in one way or another.
Not to say they were lying. Just to say that there were agendas on both
sides, *and* that we are now 8 years or so down the road.
You will also note that a lot of inflexible pronouncements about how
8-VSB will "never" achieve this or that goal have been proven
resoundingly wrong. Things change.
Time wasted? Yeah, probably. But that's past tense.
Bert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wayne G. Dengel
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:37 am Post subject:
Re: DLP vs LCD Projectors |
|
|
Yes it Did! Thank you!!
Wayne
"Sal M. Onella" <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
news:U8t4d.333345$Oi.273259@fed1read04...
| Quote: |
"Wayne G. Dengel" <wgd.roaming@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:7Om4d.143$A11.80@trnddc09...
Link came up dead. Thank You anyway.
Wayne
wwylie8643@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:exe4d.11420$ER6.7910@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Try this link
http://www.projectorcentral.com/glossary.cfm
Link just worked for me. Try again :-)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:06 am Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
Albert Manfredi wrote:
| Quote: | Bob Miller wrote:
Albert Manfredi wrote:
There is no such thing as a free lunch. The decision to stick with
8-VSB can only prove to be more and more advantageous, as time goes
by. Unfortunately, it took a long time to get to where it's really a
feasible scheme.
Barely feasible.
I was on the DMT side of the DSL controversy also. We had the first
ADSL pipes in the country using prototype Amati ADSL modems in 1996.
Where pray tell do you think single carrier is ahead in any of the
venues you mention? All I see is COFDM everywhere even UWB which I
might disagree with.
UWB is a good example, since the MBOA scheme might suffer from the peak
to average power problem, creating a potential for interference that the
CDMA variant wouldn't create. But that's not the drop-dead obvious example.
|
UWB should be allowed more power and shouldn't be affiliated with COFDM
or CDMA.
| Quote: |
The drop-dead obvious example is, of course, satellite communications.
Not many people in their right minds would suggest use of COFDM from
satellites, because what they need is the maximum possible spectral
efficiency at the lowest possible power. COFDM has its advantages, but
those two are not among them.
|
I forgot about the obvious example of satellite but in a head to head
COFDM terrestrial will kill satellite. In my home we went back to cable
because the direct line of sight needed by satellite and its low power
killed reception in moderate NYC thunderstorms. My wife lost it after
THE DAILY SHOW was interrupted a number of times. Satellite just needs
more power and a NON line of sight modulation. Murdock is already
losing customers to Freeview which already had 5 million customers after
only 2 years and will sell ONE million receivers this quarter IMO. That
will make FREEVIEW a contender at almost 6 million subs to Murdocks 7 +
million. Give Freeview 2 more years and all hell may take place. Germany
same thing ++.
| Quote: |
As I see it, with DTT, we are between two extremes.
In cellular communications, including wireless LAN hot spots, you are
creating very small cells. You want to maximize frequency reuse. You are
certainly not after long range, because that works against high
frequency reuse.
So in these cases, power is not a problem. You have plenty of power for
the distance you need to cover, and what you really need is to combat
multipath.
|
Read Ivan on the REAL world of power requirements with his examples in
the UK. Hey I have been living with COFDM. You can talk all you want
about lab results. The real world puts all that BS to rest.
| Quote: |
With satellite communications, it's the opposite. The receiver antenna
is typically a high gain design, which combats multipath by being aimed
straight to the source. The source must be line of sight.
|
I guess we will still need fancy directional antennas for satellite
reception mobile for some time eh?
In the mean time a COFDM system works mobile and fixed. An example would
be Sirius and XMRadio, both are really terrestrial COFDM networks. They
NEED COFDM terrestrial to make a "satellite" system work.
| Quote: |
DTT requires a bit of both. It requires the efficiency of the single
carrier options, and the multipath tolerance of the multicarrier option.
Because to achieve the wide area coverage required for DTT, especially
in large markets, you just can't beat the economics of installing a
small number of relatively large sticks. So you need good range. And you
need a lot of spectral efficiency too, because terrestrial spectrum is
in very high demand.
|
If you can't beat it why is every other country building SFN's with low
power transmitters? Why in fact is that the way we will go? (Viacel).
Why will Crown Castle do the same with their 5 MHz? No buddy is
listening to your advice.
| Quote: |
Certainly not with 5th gen LG receivers where, while they are light
years better than 4th gen, they cannot hold a candle to 1999 COFDM.
This is at least partially false.
According to the Canadian Research Council tests done in 2002, COFDM
required 31 dB of C/N to receive signals with a Brazil E profile (a
scenario where 3 equally loud echoes were present), at a spectral
efficiency of 3.3 b/s/Hz. According to the same CRC, the Linx and the LG
receivers both managed this with only 24.8 to 25 dB of C/N. And that's
for solid reception, where the signal could be dropped and reacquired.
That is a *substantial* improvement.
|
Substantial improvement yes, anything like COFDM 1999 NO!!! We tested
the 5th gen receiver in the same room we were broadcasting COFDM at 100
watts. I could defeat the 5th gen receiver by just standing in a certain
spot while the LG engineers danced around trying to figure out what was
wrong. Walking in front of the antenna also killed reception and that
was from 8-VSB transmitters at ALL kinds of power from the Empire State
Building only blocks away (Canal to 34th st.) with super clear line of
sight. From the AT&T building at Canal, 25th floor you can see the
Empire State Building all the way down to the 30th floor.
Like I said I could kill the 5th gen receiver by standing in one place
or by walking in front of the antenna, that is static and dynamic. But
turning that around I could drive a vehicle all around the Empire state
building, street level in the clutter of midtown with not a glitch using
COFDM. Remember I am broadcasting from the AT&T at 100 watts and can
receive in traffic at street level all around the Empire State Building
using COFDM while the reverse with 5th Gen LG 8-VSB you can kill
reception in a STATIC non moving environment both with static and
dynamic multipath.
I could do the same with COFDM in 1999. WE DID IT!!!!!!
That said the 5th gen receiver is a plug and play receiver that will
solve our DTV transition. You have to work (a little) to kill it but you
don't have to stand on your head to get it to work like all previous
receivers.
| Quote: |
Now, dynamic multipath might be a different matter, but we simply don't
know yet. I'll grant you the possibility that, for now, the 1999 COFDM
receiver was better at dynamic multipath.
|
I know, you don't. We have had other doubters with impeccable RF
credentials who have been converted in the real world in one ride. You
should try it sometime.
| Quote: |
We have wasted 5 years or better and billions of dollars not to
mention the hassle factor and waste of consumers time and patience in
the US to what purpose
Well, I won't argue against that point. I'll only suggest that given
where we are, we can and should now take advantage of the strengths of
this scheme.
|
BTW the CRC has zero credibility with me. I know those who no longer
talk to principals there because they so totally sold out for ribbons
distributed by the NAB and others.
And in a perfect world NO we should NOT take advantage of the strengths
of "this scheme" (8-VSB). In a perfect world we do what is still best
for the American public and switch to COFDM.
Bob Miller
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Albert Manfredi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:41 am Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
Bob Miller wrote:
| Quote: | Read Ivan on the REAL world of power requirements with his examples in
the UK. Hey I have been living with COFDM. You can talk all you want
about lab results. The real world puts all that BS to rest.
|
Sorry, Bob. What is BS is to make a statement that doesn't provide a
comparison.
Like, "my Yugo is a really fast car." Wonderful. Good for you.
| Quote: | I could do the same with COFDM in 1999. WE DID IT!!!!!!
|
Did you have the LG or Linx to compare against?
So enough of the strident hype, please. It doesn't help.
Bert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:31 am Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ciumt3$65m$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| Quote: | Paul Keinanen wrote:
You also have to ask, does it really make sense to greatly increase
the main transmitter power to serve some problematic receiver
locations or is it better install a small transmitter near these sites
e.g. in a cellular phone tower.
The answer to this is CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL: it's better to
use a bigger tower and more powerful transmitter.
This because typically you pick up people by getting rural
and very small town people. The way the US is structured, if
you try increasing audience by translators or lots of
small SFN transmitters, you'd by talking maybe 30 people
per transmitter. You get far more bang for the buck with
a bigger stick and more power. AND ... the absolute cheapest
way to increase converage is to simply use a system that
needs only 1/2 the average power and 1/3 the peak power!
*****************************************************************
Just imagine .... you can get coverage equivalent to
TRIPLING the peak power just by switching from DVB-T
to ATSC!!!!
In the area of the UK were I live, there are many thousands of people |
receiving reliable reception from a couple of local transmitters pushing out
20w of DVB-T.
| Quote: | That's the bottom line ... you have to think about that for
a while: no significant change in the transmitter or tower
or antenna ... just switch to a more efficient system.
That's how you have to think about it.
Doug McDonald |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Tomaras
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:47 am Post subject:
Re: 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought... |
|
|
"yea right" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.09.23.01.18.02.426812@spam.spam...
| Quote: | On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:48:49 -0600, Arkameedeez wrote:
In article <pan.2004.09.13.05.02.02.826122@spam.spam>, spam@spam.spam
says...
ARG!!!
Why do they produce programming in 24P when it looks so bad when
broadcast? Some networks will not even except 24P productions.
Nonsense. Every one of the new dramatic shows being produced for
network televion this season are being shot in either 24p HD or in 24fps
film.
The networks, in fact, PREFER all new HD material to be presented in
24P. It's the industry standard. Has been for 80 years.
Old practices die hard!
HDNet and Discovery will not pay for 24P productions. Though they will
purchase already produced canned programming if it does not look too bad.
Neither network will allow "film look" rendered video either.
|
Just curious what your source of information is about HDNet and Discovery
HD's acquisition practices?
Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkameedeez
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:47 am Post subject:
Re: 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought... |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.09.23.02.51.29.41481@spam.spam>, spam@spam.spam
says...
| Quote: | Not sure where that came from but the tech pubs I got a few weeks ago
from Disco did not look anything like that...
Anyway, if I were producing a program for them, I'd definitely ask
beforehand.
|
Here's what's being used on this fall's new live-action TV series: 35mm
3 perforation film is shot at 24 fps. So is 16mm. 24p has become the
television production standard because it's easily convertible to
European formats, and easily convertible to American 60hz broadcast
transmission formats as well.
Hour dramas
Blind Justice (ABC) 35mm 3-perf
Boston Legal (ABC) 35mm 3-perf
Clubhouse (CBS) 35mm 3-perf
CSI: NY (CBS) 35mm 3-perf
Desperate Housewives (ABC) 35mm 3-perf
Dr. Vegas (CBS) 35mm 3-perf
Eyes (ABC) 35mm 3-perf
Hawaii (NBC) 35mm 3-perf
House (Fox) 35mm 3-perf
The Inside (Fox) 35mm 3-perf
Jack & Bobby (WB) 35mm 3-perf
Jonny Zero (Fox) 16mm
Kevin Hill (UPN) 24p HD
Law & Order (NBC) 35mm 3-perf
LAX (NBC) 35mm 3-perf
Life As We Know It (ABC) 35mm 3-perf
Lost (ABC) 35mm 3-perf
Medical Investigators (NBC) 35mm 3-perf
Medium (NBC) 35mm 3-perf
The Mountain (WB) 35mm 3-perf
North Shore (Fox) 16mm
Revelations (NBC) 35mm 3-perf
Veronica Mars (UPN) 16mm
Half-hour comedies
Center of the Universe (CBS) 24p HD
Commando Nanny (WB) 24p HD
Complete Savages (ABC) 24p HD
Crazy For You (NBC) 24p HD
Joey (NBC) 35mm 3-perf
Listen Up (CBS) 24p HD
The Men's Room (NBC) 24p HD
The Office (NBC) 24p HD
Quintuplets (Fox) 24p HD
Related By Family (Fox) 24p HD
Rodney (ABC) 24p HD
Second Time Around (UPN) 24p HD
Shacking Up (WB) 24p HD
Hour reality
The Road to Stardom (UPN) SD video
Published Aug. 24, 2004 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:37 am Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KTD4d.1229$zG1.1226@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | ivan wrote:
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ciumt3$65m$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Paul Keinanen wrote:
You also have to ask, does it really make sense to greatly increase
the main transmitter power to serve some problematic receiver
locations or is it better install a small transmitter near these sites
e.g. in a cellular phone tower.
The answer to this is CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL: it's better to
use a bigger tower and more powerful transmitter.
This because typically you pick up people by getting rural
and very small town people. The way the US is structured, if
you try increasing audience by translators or lots of
small SFN transmitters, you'd by talking maybe 30 people
per transmitter. You get far more bang for the buck with
a bigger stick and more power. AND ... the absolute cheapest
way to increase converage is to simply use a system that
needs only 1/2 the average power and 1/3 the peak power!
*****************************************************************
Just imagine .... you can get coverage equivalent to
TRIPLING the peak power just by switching from DVB-T
to ATSC!!!!
In the area of the UK were I live, there are many thousands of people
receiving reliable reception from a couple of local transmitters pushing
out
20w of DVB-T.
The highest power in the UK is 20 kW AFAIK and that on only a few
transmitters. Most are using infinitesimal power levels.
Here is a list of all stations in the UK and their power levels.
http://www.wolfbane.com/ukdtt.htm
The UK is also not able to and is not using any SFN these are all
single stick transmitters. Other countries are using or plan on using
country wide SFN's with much lower power levels than the US.
A couple of weeks ago I installed a DTT receiver at around 12 kilometres |
distance from one of the aforementioned 20w UHF transmitters (Bristol Kings
Weston Hill) and despite the customer having an ancient out of band antenna,
all of his 30 plus digital channels were spot-on.
Apparently the UK now has over 4.5 million DTT viewers, not bad for two
years since the launch of Freeview, and the numbers keep growing apace,
especially with some receivers now costing as little as £35 if one is
prepared to shop around.
| Quote: | This includes such large countries as Australia and Russia.
Even in the US such entities as Sirius and XMRadio are using COFDM as
will Crown Castle for their mobile 5MHz DTV venture.
NO one even considers 8-VSB except when pressured and bribed by the US.
Thats the reality. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 8:40 am Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
Albert Manfredi wrote:
| Quote: | Bob Miller wrote:
Read Ivan on the REAL world of power requirements with his examples in
the UK. Hey I have been living with COFDM. You can talk all you want
about lab results. The real world puts all that BS to rest.
Sorry, Bob. What is BS is to make a statement that doesn't provide a
comparison.
|
No you are the one who constantly hypes BS without real world facts to
back them up. Show me a real world example of 8-VSB ever outperforming
COFDM. I have seen COFDM outperform 8-VSB in every single real world
experience including a real world test of 5th gen receivers.
The REAL world has single stick low power transmitters in the UK
outperforming 8-VSB in New York at much higher power levels. That can be
demonstrated. You can come to New York and witness it. You can go to the
UK and witness it. 8-VSB can be defeated by static and dynamic multipath
using 5th gen receivers with trivial body movements. COFDM can be
received at truly insignificant power levels at 20 km in the UK. COFDM
can deliver HDTV to a mobile receiver at 40 km in Australia traveling at
120 kph from a single stick broadcast antenna using 30 kWs. IN ALL CASES
COFDM WILL PUT 8-VSB to shame. It has in all countries that considered
the two rationally.
| Quote: |
Like, "my Yugo is a really fast car." Wonderful. Good for you.
|
Your Yugo, 8-VSB, is a POS.
| Quote: |
I could do the same with COFDM in 1999. WE DID IT!!!!!!
Did you have the LG or Linx to compare against?
|
Now that is truly ridiculous. LG and Linx did not exist in 1999. It is
easy to compare them if you want. I still have 1999 COFDM receivers. Do
you know where I can find a Linx? I have personally tested COFDM and
8-VSB together in Toronto and New York together. I have asked Linx to
send or bring a Linx to New York. We invited anyone to bring ANY 8-VSB
receiver to Toronto where we had a dual Tanberg COFDM/8-VSB receiver. No
one showed for three months. What they did do was call (CEA MEMBERS)
Ryerson Polytech and threaten to pull support if the program (test of
COFDM and 8-VSB side by side) wasn't terminated. It was and the brave
soul who championed it lost his job over it. I have contempt for those
folks who threaten and intimidate but are no shows for real world test.
I invited anyone to come to NYC to see and compare, take a ride or bring
their own 8-VSB receiver and modulator.
LG finally did and I reported on it fairly as I said I would. No one
including LG would show up before for a good reason. They couldn't
compete in the real world. When anyone showed at Mark Schubin's it was
under non disclosure for good reason. My first question to LG was are
you expecting anything to be signed. When they said no I knew the
receiver worked before I tested it.
| Quote: |
So enough of the strident hype, please. It doesn't help.
|
I am not talking about any hype. I am perfectly willing and able to back
up anything I say in the real world. Are you? If so you will be the
first after LG.
Bob Miller
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roderick Stewart
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:22 pm Post subject:
Re: 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought... |
|
|
In article <MPG.1bbd2aadbbe5151898971c@news.gwtc.net>, Arkameedeez wrote:
| Quote: | Here's what's being used on this fall's new live-action TV series: 35mm
3 perforation film is shot at 24 fps. So is 16mm. 24p has become the
television production standard because it's easily convertible to
European formats, and easily convertible to American 60hz broadcast
transmission formats as well.
|
By "the television production standard" I presume you mean "the American
television production standard"? (If it even is a "standard", rather than
just something that some production companies use).
Over the course of the last 60 years or more, the various television
standards of the world have been whittled down to just two, and it has
been possible to convert between them with very little quality loss for
about 30 years, and in recent years dual-standard operation has become
commonplace in domestic equipment. The enormous amount of equipment
already in existence means that neither standard is likely to disappear,
ever. This situation is not ideal, but manageable.
I do not understand the logic of introducing yet another new standard with
a view to improving a situation in which there are already too many, and
cannot help wondering if the people who have been persuaded to buy all
this new gear (from others who, not surprisingly, have a vested interest
in selling it) have forgotten the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
Rod. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Herman Wong
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:57 pm Post subject:
Re: Digital TV recording playback questions |
|
|
I have since adjusted the recording setup, maximizing the quality setting,
and the video bitrate to 10,000, then the recordingly and playback quality
became a lot better, but still only about 90% of the original picture on the
TV direct from the set top box.
I just wonder, when people use those DVD recorders, are the playback exactly
the same as the original on TV, assuming best picture quality is set.
"Sal M. Onella" <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
news:Dbt4d.333347$Oi.318692@fed1read04...
| Quote: |
"Herman Wong" <herman@prestigefc.com.au> wrote in message
news:H5e4d.364$TD5.6159@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
I use a V-Gear capture card to record TV from a standard definition set
top
box using composite cable (I find it gives better picture than S-Video
cable), then I play back to the TV with an ATI 5200 graphic card and
S-Video
cable, setting everything to highest quality. While the playback looks
the
same as the original on the PC screen, it looks not as good as the
original
on the TV screen. My TV is a Hitachi rear projection 130cm. The
original
picture is great direct from the set top box, and I expected the
recording
to be exactly the same as the original as I record it as in DVD-PAL
format
(which seems to be the best the capture card can produce). The playback
on
the PC screen is not that crisp when blown up to the full LCD screen,
but
the computer guy said it is the best it can get.
Can somebody tell me when it is possible to get crisp DVD pictures on an
LCD
screen, and, can the recording playback on the TV screen the same as the
original (or is my graphic card still not good enough).
Guess: Selection of codec is not ideal. Some codecs don't compress as
well
as others. I think they all compress.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doug McDonald
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:32 pm Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
Bob Miller wrote:
Blather. Power still matters. Once can see from their
blurbs that the Europens do not try to serve a large
area. Stations in the US most certainly do!
Bob Miller is just one of these people who gets
a "bee in the bonnet" over some sort of "elegant" thing
and can't see why a less elegant solution is better in
a certain case.
Let me state again: power matters. In the final analysis
of coverage area, power (and tower height) and the laws
of physics are all that matter. The laws of physics tell
us how many bit/second/Hz can be received. If, as
DVB-T does, you THROW AWAY BITS, you need more power,
period, end of discussion (except for a better coding
scheme that gets closer to theory, of course, which would
be eaually applicable to COFDM and a single carrier system.)
Let me say again: in the real world of the United States
of America, power matters. With COFDM either my Fox station
would have to double their power or I would have to
build a big tower in order to install an antenna with
higher gain ... my current antenna is indoors and
getting all the signal that comes through the window,
and I am using a 0.6 dB preamp. Without more power,
COFDM would be highly UNreliable. ATSC is reliable.
That's the bottom line, and it is true all over our
town, except the far eastern edge, where you now need
a tall tower to get the station. With twice the power,
you would not need the tall tower. They would get
perhaps 30,000 more potential viewers. True, in this
case they will be installing a second satellite
station, at GREAT COST (a moderately full power station that covers
another city too).
Doug McDonald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in