| Author |
Message |
Bob Miller
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 8:48 pm Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
Doug McDonald wrote:
| Quote: | 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!
|
The UK is covering the entire country. Germany will cover the entire
country. Most European countries are building country wide SFNs.
Australia and Russia have adopted COFDM with the intention of using is
in very big spaces. The best modulation for such large coverage areas is
obviously COFDM.
| Quote: |
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.
|
I do agree the 8-VSB is a LESS elegant solution. Uopps! Drop the
"solution" part.
| Quote: |
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.)
|
Power does matter and it cost a lot too. Most countries have opted for
the low power cost of COFDM using SFNs. In the US we seem to have a
predilection for BIG powerful expensive and inefficient "solutions" that
don't work that well. We are rapidly falling behind other countries.
Maybe we could just buy back our government from the broadcasters and
other special interest.
Just yesterday we had the spectacal of NAB President and CEO Edward O.
Fritts sitting in the audience as the Senate Commerce Committee voted 13
to 9 to eviscerate Sen McCain's bill that would have set a fixed date of
2009 for the DTV transition. You could almost see the strings being
pulled. It is getting very transparent.
| Quote: |
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.
|
You keep saying "would be" when all the real world evidence around the
world says the opposite. COFDM IS reliable in very low power situations
in many countries while 8-VSB is NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE in the few
countries that are using it at MONUMENTAL BIRD FRYING POWER.
Or don't you notice the inconsistency?
Lets say it another way. All countries using COFDM do so at much lower
power levels than the US uses with 8-VSB. In most of those countries the
ENTIRE country is the coverage area. It would seem they would like 8-VSB
even more than the US if what you say is true. But they don't use 8-VSB.
In fact they all use COFDM and a number of them actually switched TO
COFDM after initially picking 8-VSB after their broadcasters complained
about the poor reception and need for massive power with 8-VSB.
It is easy to look at the countries that have stuck with or chose 8-VSB
in the first place and in most of them there has been a big controversy
in which many, most or all broadcasters did oppose 8-VSB. This happened
in Canada, Mexico, Korea and the US. No such controversy or rethinking
has occurred in ANY country that has picked a COFDM system.
Bob Miller
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Doug McDonald
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
Bob Miller wrote:
| Quote: | blurbs that the Europens do not try to serve a large
area. Stations in the US most certainly do!
The UK is covering the entire country.
|
The UK is the size of ONE US state.
| Quote: | Germany will cover the entire
country.
|
ditto.
| Quote: | Most European countries are building country wide SFNs.
Australia and Russia have adopted COFDM with the intention of using is
in very big spaces. The best modulation for such large coverage areas is
obviously COFDM.
No, it is 8-VSB. Australia and Russia went COFDM because |
of politics. Note that Australia, when they tested,
intentionally did NOT test the far field well, and
kept their selection criteria secret. Russia went
European for obvious political reasons.
Doug
| Quote: | Power does matter and it cost a lot too. Most countries have opted for
the low power cost of COFDM using SFNs.
|
Yes, indeed. This is a viable method if you want
coverage of very dense populations in cities with
deep urban canyons, AND, have the cash to do it,
because of the dense population.
| Quote: | In the US we seem to have a
predilection for BIG powerful expensive and inefficient "solutions" that
don't work that well.
|
Read "inefficient" as "efficient". And it works BETTER for our
purposes than COFDM.
| Quote: |
You keep saying "would be" when all the real world evidence around the
world says the opposite.
|
Folks out there .... Miller is a partisan who says wrong things.
The real world evidence is that the power advantage of
ATSC in the far field is real.
| Quote: | COFDM IS reliable in very low power situations
in many countries while 8-VSB is NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE in the few
countries that are using it at MONUMENTAL BIRD FRYING POWER.
Or don't you notice the inconsistency?
|
No, I do not. You are talking apples to my oranges. 8-VSB has
in fact been shown to work very well in the US. In England
it is simply ASSUMNED that you need a rooftop antenna
for DVB-T ... because of the too-low powers. In the US
we see people with antennas in the basement ... because
they get enough power there.
| Quote: |
Lets say it another way. All countries using COFDM do so at much lower
power levels than the US uses with 8-VSB.
|
Correct ... and therefore their stations cannot and do no
cover the same large area that ours do.
| Quote: | In most of those countries the
ENTIRE country is the coverage area.
|
Well, yes .... if the USA were the size of Ohio and the
population density of New Jersey, you would have made
your point, ann IN FACT, the USA would have chosen COFDM!!!!
It's all a matter of population density.
Doug McDonald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:39 pm Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
Doug McDonald wrote:
| Quote: | Bob Miller wrote:
The UK is covering the entire country.
The UK is the size of ONE US state.
|
So do you have a big stick solution that covers more than ONE state?
Only 11 states are larger than the UK while the UK is larger than the 11
smallest states in total. Not quite as simple as "ONE US state".
Do you have a single big stick solution for the combined area of CT, DE,
HI, MY, MA, NH, NJ, RI, VT, WV and SC?
| Quote: |
Germany will cover the entire country.
ditto.
|
And ditto for Germany, add 47,000 more miles or the state or Mississippi
to the above list. That makes 12 states to equal Germany.
| Quote: |
Most European countries are building country wide SFNs. Australia and
Russia have adopted COFDM with the intention of using is in very big
spaces. The best modulation for such large coverage areas is obviously
COFDM.
No, it is 8-VSB. Australia and Russia went COFDM because
of politics. Note that Australia, when they tested,
intentionally did NOT test the far field well, and
kept their selection criteria secret. Russia went
European for obvious political reasons.
|
Australia went with 8-VSB initially BECAUSE OF POLITICS. It reversed its
position after TESTING because of the results of testing. It REVERSED
its position IN THE FACE OF INCREDIBLE POLITICAL PRESSURE FROM THE US.
Australia reversed its position from 8-VSB to COFDM because of the
technology AND IN SPITE of politics.
In this case you could not have gotten it more wrong.
Russia followed the lead of Europe. Russia did not even consider 8-VSB.
There is no reason other than politics to consider it and they was no
pressure from the US. So 8-VSB never was considered.
| Quote: |
Doug
Power does matter and it cost a lot too. Most countries have opted for
the low power cost of COFDM using SFNs.
Yes, indeed. This is a viable method if you want
coverage of very dense populations in cities with
deep urban canyons, AND, have the cash to do it,
because of the dense population.
In the US we seem to have a predilection for BIG powerful expensive
and inefficient "solutions" that don't work that well.
Read "inefficient" as "efficient". And it works BETTER for our
purposes than COFDM.
You keep saying "would be" when all the real world evidence around the
world says the opposite.
Folks out there .... Miller is a partisan who says wrong things.
The real world evidence is that the power advantage of
ATSC in the far field is real.
COFDM IS reliable in very low power situations in many countries while
8-VSB is NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE in the few countries that are using it
at MONUMENTAL BIRD FRYING POWER.
Or don't you notice the inconsistency?
No, I do not. You are talking apples to my oranges. 8-VSB has
in fact been shown to work very well in the US. In England
it is simply ASSUMNED that you need a rooftop antenna
for DVB-T ... because of the too-low powers. In the US
we see people with antennas in the basement ... because
they get enough power there.
Lets say it another way. All countries using COFDM do so at much lower
power levels than the US uses with 8-VSB.
Correct ... and therefore their stations cannot and do no
cover the same large area that ours do.
In most of those countries the ENTIRE country is the coverage area.
Well, yes .... if the USA were the size of Ohio and the
population density of New Jersey, you would have made
your point, ann IN FACT, the USA would have chosen COFDM!!!!
It's all a matter of population density.
Doug McDonald |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:19 pm Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
| Quote: |
In most of those countries the ENTIRE country is the coverage area.
Well, yes .... if the USA were the size of Ohio and the
population density of New Jersey, you would have made
your point, ann IN FACT, the USA would have chosen COFDM!!!!
It's all a matter of population density.
|
Like in Australia and Russia? How about Finland? Finland has 101,500 sq
miles, 5.2 million people. Ohio has 41,000 sq miles and 11.5 million
people. Finland has a COFDM SFN country wide. Ohio has a Bunch of big
sticks with MEGAWATTS of power.
Finland has a population density of 51.23 per sq mile. Ohio has a
density of 280 per sq mile. Ohio is 5.47 times as dense as Finland. Why
did Finland chose COFDM, and very enthusiastically I might add, if it is
all a matter of "population density" as you say?
Of course I could have used Australia as an example but you think there
is a conspiracy against 8-VSB in OZ. Would you mind filling me in on why
Australia has a conspiracy against 8-VSB?
BTW Australia the most sparsely populated continent after Antarctica. It
has a population density of 6.4 per sq mile. Ohio is 43.7 times more
DENSE than OZ. And OZ went WAY out of its way to SWITCH to COFDM FROM 8-VSB.
Your OZ conspiracy theory better be pretty good or your "It's all a
matter of population density" looks pretty weak.
Bob Miller
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Albert Manfredi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:02 am Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
"Bob Miller" wrote:
| Quote: | So do you have a big stick solution that covers more than ONE state?
Only 11 states are larger than the UK while the UK is larger than the
11 smallest states in total. Not quite as simple as "ONE US state".
|
You are getting ever more absurd, Bob.
Countries can be covered with COFDM or with 8-VSB. Statements like:
"Most European countries are building country wide SFNs. Australia and
Russia have adopted COFDM with the intention of using is in very big
spaces. The best modulation for such large coverage areas is obviously
COFDM."
are pretty nonsensical.
Either system can be used, even for nationwide SFNs, if you care to. And
the way this is done, in a practical implementation, is exactly the same
for either system.
The only advantage COFDM would have in terms of implementing an SFN
would be where the SFN is dense enough that adjacent towers are within
the guard interval (i.e. the round trip delay of the signal has to be
within the GI). In this case, COFDM has an advantage, due to its use of
a guard interval (GI) which can provide more echo tolerance range than
any current 8-VSB receiver has. But it seems highly unlikely that a
nationwide SFN would be built that way.
When covering large land areas, you will in practice use low-power
on-channel repeaters for difficult terrain, synchronized transmitters
for true wide area SFNs, or transmitters on the same frequency will be
far apart enough that there's a relatively dead zone between them (where
only directional antennas would be used by receivers, and would thereby
prevent interference).
In such cases, either system can work just fine. Both systems can be set
up for any of these scenarios.
Of course, more coverage for the same amount of ERP always helps, and
this favors 8-VSB. On the COFDM side, those localized dense SFNs within
an urban center might come in handy. COFDM can implement these without
having to synchronize transmitters.
Bert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkameedeez
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:04 am Post subject:
Re: 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought... |
|
|
In article <VA.000007ce.003eeb2d@escapetime.nospam.plus.com>,
rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com says...
| Quote: | 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).
|
24p is the de-facto American production standard, and by extension, 25p
will probably become the standard for European production as well, as
Europeans convert to high definition.
| Quote: | 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.
|
But of course, that equipment will wear out and be retired eventually.
Most of it will NOT be replaced with equivalent low-def gear. NTSC and
PAL low-def may survive for a long time as home movie formats. That's
the only long-term future I can imagine for them.
| Quote: | 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.
|
High definition offers much better picture quality. It's a dramatic
improvement over the poor quality video systems we've been using for a
half century. The 24p/25p high definition production standard offers the
entire world what amounts to a single common image format for the first
time in history. The way to simplify the fiendishly confusing format
mess we're in right now is to decide on a better format that offers
advantages in quality and production capabilities. That new format is
24p/25p. The 24p hi-def standard is already a done deal in the American
production world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roderick Stewart
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought... |
|
|
In article <MPG.1bbe39c7d81ae96698971e@news.gwtc.net>, Arkameedeez wrote:
| Quote: | The enormous amount of equipment
already in existence means that neither standard is likely to disappear,
ever.
But of course, that equipment will wear out and be retired eventually.
Most of it will NOT be replaced with equivalent low-def gear.
As we're talking about broadcasting standards, the equipment I'm referring to |
includes many millions of TV sets in people's homes. Unless there's some sort
of organised plan, those will mostly be replaced with more of the same,
whatever's available in the local store, or whatever's cheapest.
Changing the broadcasting standards of an entire nation is something that
requires a vast plan that takes at least a generation to complete. We have
some experience of this in the UK, where the 405 line system was replaced by
625 lines. the London Television Centre was planned during the 1950s to
include provision for a second TV service which would use 625 lines, this
service started in the mid 1960s, and from about then all new TV sets in the
shops had to include the capability of receiving the new standard. The
existing 405 services were duplicated on 625 from about 1970, and the last
405 transmitter wasn't switched off until 1985. Coincidentally, colour
transmission started during the 1960s, so the impetus of an improvement that
was immediately obvious to everyone could be used to encourage the purcahse
of new TV sets, but now we haven't even got that, as the "improvement"
offered by a change of frame rate isn't even agreed among the experts, and
certainly no reason for millions of home viewers to spend more on something
they done't understand. It isn't just a matter of "switch off the old, switch
on the new", and expect everyone to buy new gear. In the real world it won't
happen without legal intervention, or some improvement to the service that is
perceived by everyone as so wonderful that they must all have it. Programme
makers can use whatever standards they like among themselves, but 50Hz and
60Hz broadcasting will still be there when our grandchildren have children of
their own.
Rod. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doug McDonald
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:58 am Post subject:
Re: 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought... |
|
|
Roderick Stewart wrote:
| Quote: | In article <MPG.1bbe39c7d81ae96698971e@news.gwtc.net>, Arkameedeez wrote:
The enormous amount of equipment
already in existence means that neither standard is likely to disappear,
ever.
But of course, that equipment will wear out and be retired eventually.
Most of it will NOT be replaced with equivalent low-def gear.
As we're talking about broadcasting standards, the equipment I'm referring to
includes many millions of TV sets in people's homes. Unless there's some sort
of organised plan, those will mostly be replaced with more of the same,
whatever's available in the local store, or whatever's cheapest.
Changing the broadcasting standards of an entire nation is something that
requires a vast plan that takes at least a generation to complete.
|
The broadcasting standards of the USA already include 24 Hz. It's
a done deal. Every OTA digital TV set in the US will receive
24 Hz broadcasts properly. They will also do 30Hz progressive,
and 60Hz progressive at 720 lines, 60 interlaced at 1080 lines.
Many stations transmit the programs made at 24HZ at either
720p or 1080i. TV sets, or the receivers, can be made to
reconstruct the original 24 Hz signals either exactly (transmitteed
at 720p) or exceedingly closely (transmitted at 1080i).
For many things, preoducing at 24p is a fine idea. But its
not a fine idea for sports.
Doug McDonald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:00 am Post subject:
Re: Assuming that you have the same MPEG material being tran |
|
|
Albert Manfredi wrote:
| Quote: | "Bob Miller" wrote:
So do you have a big stick solution that covers more than ONE state?
Only 11 states are larger than the UK while the UK is larger than the
11 smallest states in total. Not quite as simple as "ONE US state".
You are getting ever more absurd, Bob.
Countries can be covered with COFDM or with 8-VSB. Statements like:
"Most European countries are building country wide SFNs. Australia and
Russia have adopted COFDM with the intention of using is in very big
spaces. The best modulation for such large coverage areas is obviously
COFDM."
are pretty nonsensical.
Either system can be used, even for nationwide SFNs, if you care to. And
the way this is done, in a practical implementation, is exactly the same
for either system.
The only advantage COFDM would have in terms of implementing an SFN
would be where the SFN is dense enough that adjacent towers are within
the guard interval (i.e. the round trip delay of the signal has to be
within the GI). In this case, COFDM has an advantage, due to its use of
a guard interval (GI) which can provide more echo tolerance range than
any current 8-VSB receiver has. But it seems highly unlikely that a
nationwide SFN would be built that way.
When covering large land areas, you will in practice use low-power
on-channel repeaters for difficult terrain, synchronized transmitters
for true wide area SFNs, or transmitters on the same frequency will be
far apart enough that there's a relatively dead zone between them (where
only directional antennas would be used by receivers, and would thereby
prevent interference).
In such cases, either system can work just fine. Both systems can be set
up for any of these scenarios.
Of course, more coverage for the same amount of ERP always helps, and
this favors 8-VSB. On the COFDM side, those localized dense SFNs within
an urban center might come in handy. COFDM can implement these without
having to synchronize transmitters.
Bert
You live in a strange world of make believe. Unreal! |
Nobody is doing any of this with 8-VSB. Only four countries are even
theoretically committed to it.
No SFNs, no on channel repeaters and very little 8-VSB except where
MANDATED like in the US. Canada sits on its hands doing nothing. Mexico
pays lip service and S. Korea finally gets its broadcasters to start
using 8-VSB only because of the 5th gen receivers and the promise they
can use COFDM for mobile.
You can theoretically use 8-VSB but no country in its right mind is
doing so. (that leaves us the US)
You can use a shoe for a hammer, you can use a dead cat for a pillow I
can go on. As you say you can use 8-VSB for broadcasting.
8-VSB will be used by those who are forced, bribed or otherwise
manipulated to do so, no one else.
Its life span so far has been one of stagnation. Its future looks
limited. I give it a few more years before direct comparison to COFDM
will kill it outright.
That is as soon as broadcasters have to compete with multiple mobile
COFDM deliver services they will petition the FCC for a change and it
will happen without regard to the fact that even millions of 8-VSB
receivers are deployed.
All you have to do is witness our NAB CEO setting at the Senate Commerce
Committee hearings with his thumbs down on the McCain bill. Dutifully
the committee did the NABs bidding as they will as soon as COFDM becomes
competitive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkameedeez
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:35 am Post subject:
Re: 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought... |
|
|
In article <VA.000007d5.00cb62c5@escapetime.nospam.plus.com>,
rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com says...
| Quote: | As we're talking about broadcasting standards, the equipment I'm referring to
includes many millions of TV sets in people's homes. Unless there's some sort
of organised plan, those will mostly be replaced with more of the same,
whatever's available in the local store, or whatever's cheapest.
|
There's no question but that the present standards situation is a messy
and confusing one indeed. There has been very little foresight on the
part of broadcasters or equipment manufacturers in the choice of new
formats.
Broadcasters have allowed one company, Sony, to dictate a format
choice. And that choice is singularly poor one. It involves an obsolete
technology, interlace, that is totally unsuited for twentyfirst century
production needs. But Sony has become a bloated, backward looking
bureaucracy that seems incapable of accepting new technology. It is also
now a film distribution empire that is very reluctant to offer consumers
a high quality progressive scan high definition end product. So it keeps
insisting that consumers be satisfied with 1080i interlace, and is
absolutely opposed to progressive scan broadcasting or progressive scan
tape or HD DVD sales. It's simply too good for consumers. It's too easy
to make high quality masters for pirating, according to the thinking.
But the American production industry has decided to make an independant
choice on a high definition format. It's moving to 24p, no matter what
Sony says. Sony has made a limited concession to 24p after George Lucas
brought them kicking and screaming into the production of the F900. But
that's as far as Sony is going to take it. All cable and satellite
networks will stay at 1080 interlace for broadcast transmission if Sony
can help it.
| Quote: | Changing the broadcasting standards of an entire nation is something that
requires a vast plan that takes at least a generation to complete.
|
It will probably take at least that long for the complete conversion to
high definition.
| Quote: | Coincidentally, colour
transmission started during the 1960s, so the impetus of an improvement that
was immediately obvious to everyone could be used to encourage the purcahse
of new TV sets, but now we haven't even got that, as the "improvement"
offered by a change of frame rate isn't even agreed among the experts,
|
I'm not advocating a change of frame rate for Europe. That would be
entirely impractical.
| Quote: | It isn't just a matter of "switch off the old, switch
on the new", and expect everyone to buy new gear. In the real world it won't
happen without legal intervention, or some improvement to the service that is
perceived by everyone as so wonderful that they must all have it. Programme
makers can use whatever standards they like among themselves, but 50Hz and
60Hz broadcasting will still be there when our grandchildren have children of
their own.
|
You are probably right. What we will probably see in the years ahead
is a two tiered approach. We will no longer see programs produced in the
format in which they will be broadcast. They will be produced in
1080/24p/25p and then converted to the broadcast formats in use in the
target market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 25, 2004 2:35 am Post subject:
Re: What/who detaches the primary msg and leaves Re: replies |
|
|
[posted and mailed]
SaltiDawg <saltidawgNOSPAM@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Is it possible that when someone posts a new
subject that somehow I wouldn't receive it because of the specific
newserver the OP uses?
|
Either that or a problem with *your* news server. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkameedeez
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 25, 2004 3:15 am Post subject:
Re: 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought... |
|
|
In article <cj259q$e5a$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu says...
| Quote: | For many things, preoducing at 24p is a fine idea. But its
not a fine idea for sports.
|
You know, it's interesting: we've done some tests to determine if
viewers could actually see the difference between 60i originated material
and 24p originated material. We shot one sports sequence at 24p and five
sequences at 60i. We converted the 24p sequence to 60i and let the
viewers look at all of them. None of the people we've tested so far
could identify the 24p clip.
What 60hz DOES offer for sports broadcasting is superior slow motion.
The higher frame rate makes the instant replays smooth and silky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K. B.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 25, 2004 9:53 am Post subject:
Re: What/who detaches the primary msg and leaves Re: replies |
|
|
Try the alt.video.digital-tv Home Page,
I have links to Google Groups and Talk About Network
(both offer web based Usenet access).
Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Keinanen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:43 pm Post subject:
Re: 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought... |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:35:25 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <MPG.1bbe39c7d81ae96698971e@news.gwtc.net>, Arkameedeez wrote:
The enormous amount of equipment
already in existence means that neither standard is likely to disappear,
ever.
But of course, that equipment will wear out and be retired eventually.
Most of it will NOT be replaced with equivalent low-def gear.
As we're talking about broadcasting standards, the equipment I'm referring to
includes many millions of TV sets in people's homes. Unless there's some sort
of organised plan, those will mostly be replaced with more of the same,
whatever's available in the local store, or whatever's cheapest.
|
On the audio side there is a development towards very high quality
audio systems (sometimes multichannel) but on the other hand most
people are satisfied with low bit rate MP3 audio.
Is the development going to be the same on the video side, i.e. large
stationary high definition screens and on the other hand small
portable low definition systems suitable for watching news and soap
operas ?
Is there really going to be any market for the 525/625 line systems in
the future, after the useful life of current consumer devices ?
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no one
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 25, 2004 6:56 pm Post subject:
Re: 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought... |
|
|
"Arkameedeez" <ametz@cranet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbe588cd16767de989720@news.gwtc.net...
| Quote: | In article <cj259q$e5a$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu says...
For many things, preoducing at 24p is a fine idea. But its
not a fine idea for sports.
You know, it's interesting: we've done some tests to determine if
viewers could actually see the difference between 60i originated material
and 24p originated material. We shot one sports sequence at 24p and five
sequences at 60i. We converted the 24p sequence to 60i and let the
viewers look at all of them. None of the people we've tested so far
could identify the 24p clip.
|
Who did this test (where, when) ? Were any comparisons done with 720p-60,
and 720p-24?
| Quote: | What 60hz DOES offer for sports broadcasting is superior slow motion.
The higher frame rate makes the instant replays smooth and silky. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in