I noticed the price of a television I purchased last year has gone up by
about 70 bucks at walmat. I was told it's because they've added the
digital receiver to 'em. Seems like a waste unless you use a mast
antenna..

I like the (old) CRT types as they react (in spite of all the new
technology) the fastest when watching sports etc..

Charles Pisano wrote:


I noticed the price of a television I purchased last year has gone up by
about 70 bucks at walmat. I was told it's because they've added the
digital receiver to 'em. Seems like a waste unless you use a mast
antenna..

I like the (old) CRT types as they react (in spite of all the new
technology) the fastest when watching sports etc..

Well, it may not be long until you can no longer enjoy your analog TV
(unless you purchase a digital-to-analog converter) as FCC mandated all
analog TV broadcasting to stop on February 17, 2009. Well, that's air
broadcasting. I'm sure your local cable company will be happy to send you
analog signal for as long as you pay them.




##-----------------------------------------------##
Delivered via http://www.thestuccocompany.com/
News and Discussions Community of the Net
Web and RSS access to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.home.repair - 221030 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##

On 26 Jun 2007 02:07:31 GMT,
(thestuccocompany.com) wrote:



Well, it may not be long until you can no longer enjoy your analog TV
(unless you purchase a digital-to-analog converter) as FCC mandated all
analog TV broadcasting to stop on February 17, 2009. Well, that's air
broadcasting. I'm sure your local cable company will be happy to send you
analog signal for as long as you pay them.

Not if the law stops them. Contact your congressional offices.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:34:50 -0400, (Charles
Pisano) wrote:

I noticed the price of a television I purchased last year has gone up by
about 70 bucks at walmat. I was told it's because they've added the
digital receiver to 'em. Seems like a waste unless you use a mast
antenna..

Or cable, unfortunately and probably corruptly.

Only satellite is currently exampt from the new HD rules, despite the
fact that there is afaik no reason not to exampt cable.

What do you use?

I like the (old) CRT types as they react (in spite of all the new
technology) the fastest when watching sports etc..

Or cable, unfortunately and probably corruptly.

Only satellite is currently exampt from the new HD rules, despite the
fact that there is afaik no reason not to exampt cable.

What do you use?


First THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR HD otherwise known as high def!

Congress is forcing the end of analog over the air transmissions but
as long as you have cable or satellite it doesnt matter.

digital doesnt necessarily mean better picture quality

locally nearly no one has a over the air antenna, people rightly or
wrongly think it looks bad. Here in pittsburgh with the hills you need
a really good antenna, with a rotor.

again the change doesnt matter unless you watch tv OTA

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:54:37 -0000, "
wrote:


Or cable, unfortunately and probably corruptly.

Only satellite is currently exampt from the new HD rules, despite the
fact that there is afaik no reason not to exampt cable.

What do you use?


First THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR HD otherwise known as high def!

Digital! That's what I meant. Sorry.

Congress is forcing the end of analog over the air transmissions but
as long as you have cable or satellite it doesnt matter.

Someone on this list or more likely sci.electronics.repair said a feww
months ago that it applied to cable too, and posted a link to
government or at least a serious looking site that gave the text of
the reg or statute that required this. It looked real to me.

I've searched for this thread for the last 20 minutes in my old s.e.r
posts and via groups.google, and I can't find it.

digital doesnt necessarily mean better picture quality

locally nearly no one has a over the air antenna, people rightly or
wrongly think it looks bad. Here in pittsburgh with the hills you need
a really good antenna, with a rotor.

again the change doesnt matter unless you watch tv OTA

again, I read otherwise. It seems stupid which is why I called it
probably corrupt.

I would suggest calling the cable company to find out, but I don't
think that's reliable. Everytime I call my ISP they say an
improvement is due within a few months, even though it takes years or
forever.

On Jun 25, 9:23 pm, mm wrote:
On 26 Jun 2007 02:07:31 GMT,

(thestuccocompany.com) wrote:

Well, it may not be long until you can no longer enjoy your analog TV
(unless you purchase a digital-to-analog converter) as FCC mandated all
analog TV broadcasting to stop on February 17, 2009. Well, that's air
broadcasting. I'm sure your local cable company will be happy to send you
analog signal for as long as you pay them.

Not if the law stops them. Contact your congressional offices.


What law is that? The FCC is shutting down NTSC BROADCAST signals,
which doesn't say anything about cable. Nor do they care, because
the push to go digital is so the FCC can auction off the spectrum now
occupied by digital and rake in billions.

On Jun 25, 9:54 pm, " wrote:
Or cable, unfortunately and probably corruptly.

Only satellite is currently exampt from the new HD rules, despite the
fact that there is afaik no reason not to exampt cable.

What do you use?

First THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR HD otherwise known as high def!

Congress is forcing the end of analog over the air transmissions but
as long as you have cable or satellite it doesnt matter.

digital doesnt necessarily mean better picture quality

locally nearly no one has a over the air antenna, people rightly or
wrongly think it looks bad. Here in pittsburgh with the hills you need
a really good antenna, with a rotor.

again the change doesnt matter unless you watch tv OTA


Yes, that about sums is it up.

This is interesting:
What about my VCR, DVD player and camcorder? Will I be able to use them with an HDTV set?

HDTV sets are “backward compatible,” meaning existing analog equipment (VCRs, DVD players, camcorders, video games, etc.) will work on digital TV sets, but not in high definition. Their video will be displayed in the maximum resolution that is available with each product.

But what about the opposite question. Will current VCRs and DVD
recorder be able to record digital signals off of the cable or
satellite? Do digital tv's have an analog output, or will all the
analog vcrs and dvd recorders be obsolete for those with digital
reception? I think the answer to the first is No, and to the second
is Yes.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:31:38 -0400, mm
wrote:


Someone on this list or more likely sci.electronics.repair said a feww
months ago that it applied to cable too, and posted a link to
government or at least a serious looking site that gave the text of
the reg or statute that required this. It looked real to me.

I've searched for this thread for the last 20 minutes in my old s.e.r
posts and via groups.google, and I can't find it.

Well, I've looked for another 60 minutes and foudn some interesting
stuff, including several who agree that cable will still have analog,
until they stop for lack of profit,

But I've still found no reference to what I know I read, that there is
a reg against this.

I would be happy if cable had analog, because it would give me one
more alternative. I have a tv in every rroom, a color tv finally, and
no way am I replacing all of these, or any, with digital tvs.

On Jun 25, 11:33 pm, wrote:


What law is that? The FCC is shutting down NTSC BROADCAST signals,
which doesn't say anything about cable. Nor do they care, because
the push to go digital is so the FCC can auction off the spectrum now
occupied by digital and rake in billions.

Last line, "...occupied by analog and rake in billions".

Also, wouldn't NTSC just change its standard and use the same name.
Aren't DVDs (digital) and NTSC? (I realize they are not HD)

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:35:44 GMT, Trent Stevens
wrote:

If nothing else, read the paragraph that begins with *****

I would be happy if cable had analog, because it would give me one
more alternative. I have a tv in every rroom, a color tv finally, and
no way am I replacing all of these, or any, with digital tvs.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm glad to see NTSC go away. NTSC was
never designed to handle color data it was added as a "hack" and is a
very inefficient system.

I don't care about stuff like that. I don't care about high
definition. I don't even care much about current good definition. On
some of the tvs on some of the stations, I get perfect pictures, but
on others I get various levels of low quality reception, but if it's
viewable, I don't even care about that. Usually I just need to know
what's going on.

A problem with digital is that when the signal is inadequate, instead
of getting a poor picture, one may get no picture at all.

With the move to HD (really ATSC as it's not
a resolution dependant issue) you get the delivery of a channel in much
less bandwidth.

If you want to keep your old TV's you will be able to buy cheap
converters (just like are used for cable reception) that will convert

That will work for the ones that are connected to my local network of
coax, but it won't work for my 2" TV, or, unless I run more cable
outside, the TV I use outside. In this case, there is no good way to
run cable outside. Maybe I can buy a second box and tape it to the
top of my 12" B&W that I leave outside under a shelf all summer.

BTW, I don't really consider an 80 or 100 dollar box with a 40 dollar
discount coupon to be cheap. That's 80 to 120 dollars for two of
them, out of my pocket. For some with an ongoing moderate to high
income, that's not much, but it is real money to me and others.

the new ATSC signal to NTSC. Getting rid of old technology often
causes a little hardship but everyone is better off in the end.

*********

NO. You must mean ON AVERAGE everyone is better off in the end. When
these changes occur, there are almost always people who are worse off
in the end. And in this case there will be millions who are worse
off.

Example - God knows we should have suffered the "pain" of converting to
metric long ago but we can thank the pandering politicians for our
current backwards standard.

This is an example of what I'm talking about. I would have gotten no
benefit except maybe some slightly cheaper prices on some things by
the use of metric. I might have saved 50 dollars in my lifetime, but
at the cost of great annoyance and great effort on my part. I would
have been worse off, as would have been most people my age or older at
the time they started to do this and then didn't (I was about 30).
--
Trent Stevens http://www.trentstevens.net/

wrote:

On Jun 25, 11:33 pm, wrote:

What law is that? The FCC is shutting down NTSC BROADCAST signals,
which doesn't say anything about cable. Nor do they care, because
the push to go digital is so the FCC can auction off the spectrum now
occupied by digital and rake in billions.

Last line, "...occupied by analog and rake in billions".

Also, wouldn't NTSC just change its standard and use the same name.
Aren't DVDs (digital) and NTSC? (I realize they are not HD)

I believe the new standard is called ATSC or something like that (A for
advanced). DVDs are digital, but the normal DVDs have no relation to the
new broadcast standards.

Trent Stevens wrote:

On 2007-06-26 01:54:33 -0500, mm said:

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:31:38 -0400, mm
wrote:


Someone on this list or more likely sci.electronics.repair said a feww
months ago that it applied to cable too, and posted a link to
government or at least a serious looking site that gave the text of
the reg or statute that required this. It looked real to me.

I've searched for this thread for the last 20 minutes in my old s.e.r
posts and via groups.google, and I can't find it.

Well, I've looked for another 60 minutes and foudn some interesting
stuff, including several who agree that cable will still have analog,
until they stop for lack of profit,

But I've still found no reference to what I know I read, that there is
a reg against this.

I would be happy if cable had analog, because it would give me one
more alternative. I have a tv in every rroom, a color tv finally, and
no way am I replacing all of these, or any, with digital tvs.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm glad to see NTSC go away. NTSC was
never designed to handle color data it was added as a "hack" and is a
very inefficient system.

NTSC (Never The Same Color) is indeed a hack, but a perfectly good hack.
The quality is quite acceptable given a clean transmission.

With the move to HD (really ATSC as it's not
a resolution dependant issue) you get the delivery of a channel in much
less bandwidth.

Bandwidth isn't really an issue either as the voluminous gaps in the
NTSC transmission spectrum can be back filled with lots of narrow band
digital signals as is done on cable.


If you want to keep your old TV's you will be able to buy cheap
converters (just like are used for cable reception) that will convert
the new ATSC signal to NTSC.

Really? Cheap converters? Hardly. I define "cheap" as $25 and I fully
expect all such converters will be upwards of $100 the same as the old
closed caption boxes were until CC decoders were mandated to be
integrated into new TVs (over 14"). Since the bulk of the clueless
public will buy new TVs rather than converters, converters will remain a
fringe item just like CC decoders were and will remain expensive.

Getting rid of old technology often
causes a little hardship but everyone is better off in the end.
Example - God knows we should have suffered the "pain" of converting to
metric long ago but we can thank the pandering politicians for our
current backwards standard.

Problem is in this case there is no good reason to get rid of the old
technology. New technology can be introduced and the old technology can
fade away on it's own if the new technology is accepted. Based on the
apparent adoption rates of the ATSC stuff today, it doesn't seem to be
getting accepted too rapidly. The new "HD" radio junk is pretty lame
too.

Problem is in this case there is no good reason to get rid of the old
technology. New technology can be introduced and the old technology can
fade away on it's own if the new technology is accepted. Based on the
apparent adoption rates of the ATSC stuff today, it doesn't seem to be
getting accepted too rapidly. The new "HD" radio junk is pretty lame
too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



bingo, the turn off analog was always about selling the bandwidth for
big bucks to make the federal budget deficit look better.

frankly i expect a uproar if the feds proceed with this.......

writes:
On Jun 25, 11:33 pm, wrote:
What law is that? The FCC is shutting down NTSC BROADCAST signals,
which doesn't say anything about cable. Nor do they care, because
the push to go digital is so the FCC can auction off the spectrum now
occupied by digital and rake in billions.

Last line, "...occupied by analog and rake in billions".

The spectrum can be auctioned off as soon as the analog TV transmitters
are shut down. Cable TV systems already use mostly different
frequencies to carry analog TV, and can continue to do so indefinitely.
There's no technical reason they would need to stop, although eventually
it may be difficult to find TVs with analog cable tuners.

Dave

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:46:43 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Jun 25, 11:33 pm, wrote:

What law is that? The FCC is shutting down NTSC BROADCAST signals,
which doesn't say anything about cable. Nor do they care, because
the push to go digital is so the FCC can auction off the spectrum now
occupied by digital and rake in billions.

Last line, "...occupied by analog and rake in billions".

Also, wouldn't NTSC just change its standard and use the same name.
Aren't DVDs (digital) and NTSC? (I realize they are not HD)

I believe the new standard is called ATSC or something like that (A for
advanced).

Yes, the standard used for digital broadcast through the air. Cable
and satellite use different formats.

DVDs are digital, but the normal DVDs have no relation to the
new broadcast standards.

DVD players do have analog outputs, and probably will for a long time.
This includes NTSC baseband and YPbPr (component). I've never seen one
with ATSC, and don't expect it to be used.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:35:44 GMT, Trent Stevens
wrote:

On 2007-06-26 01:54:33 -0500, mm said:

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:31:38 -0400, mm
wrote:


Someone on this list or more likely sci.electronics.repair said a feww
months ago that it applied to cable too, and posted a link to
government or at least a serious looking site that gave the text of
the reg or statute that required this. It looked real to me.

I've searched for this thread for the last 20 minutes in my old s.e.r
posts and via groups.google, and I can't find it.

Well, I've looked for another 60 minutes and foudn some interesting
stuff, including several who agree that cable will still have analog,
until they stop for lack of profit,

But I've still found no reference to what I know I read, that there is
a reg against this.

I would be happy if cable had analog, because it would give me one
more alternative. I have a tv in every rroom, a color tv finally, and
no way am I replacing all of these, or any, with digital tvs.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm glad to see NTSC go away. NTSC was
never designed to handle color data it was added as a "hack" and is a
very inefficient system.

True. Color quality is one of the disadvantages of NTSC. The picture
is also never as steady as with more modern systems. I find these
problems make more of a difference (between NTSC and something better)
than the increased spatial resolution.

With the move to HD (really ATSC as it's not
a resolution dependant issue) you get the delivery of a channel in much
less bandwidth.


And you also get interference from the business-controlled government
(DRM).

If you want to keep your old TV's you will be able to buy cheap
converters (just like are used for cable reception) that will convert
the new ATSC signal to NTSC.

If you have cable or satellite (which do not ever use ATSC), you're
likely to already have a converter (the cable box or sat receiver). If
you can continue to use that, you won't need to buy anything else to
watch TV. Those converters are mainly for use by people with antennas.

Getting rid of old technology often
causes a little hardship but everyone is better off in the end.

Yes, although one thing that should change is the relative lack of
non-NTSC INPUTS, which allow much of the versatility of current NTSC
equipment. For example, if you want to add a video caller ID device.

Example - God knows we should have suffered the "pain" of converting to
metric long ago but we can thank the pandering politicians for our
current backwards standard.

Yes, we could have converted to metric, and also gotten rid on the
inconvenient QWERTY keyboard layout.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

wrote:
Problem is in this case there is no good reason to get rid of the old
technology. New technology can be introduced and the old technology can
fade away on it's own if the new technology is accepted. Based on the
apparent adoption rates of the ATSC stuff today, it doesn't seem to be
getting accepted too rapidly. The new "HD" radio junk is pretty lame
too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



bingo, the turn off analog was always about selling the bandwidth for
big bucks to make the federal budget deficit look better.

frankly i expect a uproar if the feds proceed with this.......


Yes something I find really annoying when the government announces they
just "made" $10 billion from a spectrum auction. They didn't "make"
anything since whomever bought the spectrum will need to recover the
expense from their subscribers.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:35:44 GMT, Trent Stevens wrote:

On 2007-06-26 01:54:33 -0500, mm said:

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:31:38 -0400, mm
wrote:


Someone on this list or more likely sci.electronics.repair said a feww
months ago that it applied to cable too, and posted a link to
government or at least a serious looking site that gave the text of
the reg or statute that required this. It looked real to me.

I've searched for this thread for the last 20 minutes in my old s.e.r
posts and via groups.google, and I can't find it.

Well, I've looked for another 60 minutes and foudn some interesting
stuff, including several who agree that cable will still have analog,
until they stop for lack of profit,

But I've still found no reference to what I know I read, that there is
a reg against this.

I would be happy if cable had analog, because it would give me one
more alternative. I have a tv in every rroom, a color tv finally, and
no way am I replacing all of these, or any, with digital tvs.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm glad to see NTSC go away. NTSC was
never designed to handle color data it was added as a "hack" and is a
very inefficient system. With the move to HD (really ATSC as it's not
a resolution dependant issue) you get the delivery of a channel in much
less bandwidth.

So you focus on one promised benefit and neglect myriad costs?

If you want to keep your old TV's you will be able to buy cheap
converters (just like are used for cable reception) that will convert
the new ATSC signal to NTSC. Getting rid of old technology often
causes a little hardship but everyone is better off in the end.

Oooooops. You just invited all manner of disagreement.

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Correct me if I'm wrong. You are not 100% in touch with:

What digital eqpt. will be offered and at what price.

Exactly what dig. transmissions will be offered and when.

What the overall cost/benefit relationship will look like.

Etc, etc.

The whole thing is driven by the Fedral Gummint and the dreaded
"Entertainment Industry", both of which are primarily concerned
with extracting more $ from your pocketbook and mine.

I was considering purchase of a new tv and had little idea which way
to jump (HD, etc), so I asked a career cable tv friend. He advised
to do nothing, buy nothing, as the proverbial **** is *bound* to hit
the fan around 2009, and noone can much predict how it will all
shake out.

I expect a hideous, hideous mess and a massive, behemoth boondoggle.

Cheers,
Puddin'

"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens!"
-Friedrich Schiller

On Jun 26, 5:28 pm, Puddin' Man wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:35:44 GMT, Trent Stevens wrote:
On 2007-06-26 01:54:33 -0500, mm said:

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:31:38 -0400, mm
wrote:

Someone on this list or more likely sci.electronics.repair said a feww
months ago that it applied to cable too, and posted a link to
government or at least a serious looking site that gave the text of
the reg or statute that required this. It looked real to me.

I've searched for this thread for the last 20 minutes in my old s.e.r
posts and via groups.google, and I can't find it.

Well, I've looked for another 60 minutes and foudn some interesting
stuff, including several who agree that cable will still have analog,
until they stop for lack of profit,

But I've still found no reference to what I know I read, that there is
a reg against this.

I would be happy if cable had analog, because it would give me one
more alternative. I have a tv in every rroom, a color tv finally, and
no way am I replacing all of these, or any, with digital tvs.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm glad to see NTSC go away. NTSC was
never designed to handle color data it was added as a "hack" and is a
very inefficient system. With the move to HD (really ATSC as it's not
a resolution dependant issue) you get the delivery of a channel in much
less bandwidth.

So you focus on one promised benefit and neglect myriad costs?

If you want to keep your old TV's you will be able to buy cheap
converters (just like are used for cable reception) that will convert
the new ATSC signal to NTSC. Getting rid of old technology often
causes a little hardship but everyone is better off in the end.

Oooooops. You just invited all manner of disagreement.

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now, or simply can't afford a new TV. They will have to
buy a converter. The cost is estimated at a whopping $50 to $100.
And the fed govt has already announced a program to give any household
that requests it, 2 rebate coupons for $40 each. That means you
could still use your 2 existing TV's for a cost of ~$70.






Correct me if I'm wrong. You are not 100% in touch with:

What digital eqpt. will be offered and at what price.

The digital eqpt is already being offered in just about all new
tv's. There was an ATSC phase in schedule started couple years ago,
first for big screen tv's, then working down in size. Today the
overwhelming number of tv's actually being bought have atsc.




Exactly what dig. transmissions will be offered and when.

It's offered right now in most of the US.



What the overall cost/benefit relationship will look like.

Etc, etc.

The overall cost/benefit of the whole deal right now is
overwhelming. Are you saying most people would rather continue to
watch a crappy picture, invented in the 50's/60's, instead of HD?
Good grief, take a look in the stores at what's flying off the
shelves. Now, you could argue about the cost benefit of doing it
differently, like not turning off NTSC and resellling the spectrum.
But for a program as a whole deal, the cost/benefit is fantastic.



The whole thing is driven by the Fedral Gummint and the dreaded
"Entertainment Industry", both of which are primarily concerned
with extracting more $ from your pocketbook and mine.

Yes, but the vast majority, who value a superb picture, are now able
to get it and enjoy it.



I was considering purchase of a new tv and had little idea which way
to jump (HD, etc), so I asked a career cable tv friend. He advised
to do nothing, buy nothing, as the proverbial **** is *bound* to hit
the fan around 2009, and noone can much predict how it will all
shake out.

I expect a hideous, hideous mess and a massive, behemoth boondoggle.


With all due respect,.your friend is an idiot. In most areas, you
have a wide variety of HD programming available via Cable, Sat, or
OTA. And it's increasing all the time. Millions of HD sets have
been sold, they are flying off the shelves. The transmitters for ATSC
are built and running. Places like Costco have no focus on regular
TVs anymore, because fewer and fewer are buying them. Do you really
think it's all going to be undone? Sure, they may push out the NTSC
turn off, or increase the rebate. But what does that have to do with
buying a new TV today?

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...


Also, wouldn't NTSC just change its standard and use the same name.
Aren't DVDs (digital) and NTSC? (I realize they are not HD)

I believe the new standard is called ATSC or something like that (A for
advanced).

Yes, the standard used for digital broadcast through the air. Cable
and satellite use different formats.

DVDs are digital, but the normal DVDs have no relation to the
new broadcast standards.

Wrong on both counts. NTSC is NTSC regardless of delivery method (air,
cable, DVD). You can't put a NTSC DVD into a DVD player for PAL tv's and
expect it to work - it won't. The two standards are incompatible.

Bob M. wrote:

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...


Also, wouldn't NTSC just change its standard and use the same name.
Aren't DVDs (digital) and NTSC? (I realize they are not HD)


I believe the new standard is called ATSC or something like that (A for
advanced).


Yes, the standard used for digital broadcast through the air. Cable
and satellite use different formats.

DVDs are digital, but the normal DVDs have no relation to the
new broadcast standards.


Wrong on both counts. NTSC is NTSC regardless of delivery method (air,
cable, DVD). You can't put a NTSC DVD into a DVD player for PAL tv's
and expect it to work - it won't. The two standards are incompatible.
Hi,
What is NTSC DVD? I thought DVD player can have either PAL or NTSC
output. There is such thing as region code on DVD playing.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:21:29 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote:

Bob M. wrote:

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...


Also, wouldn't NTSC just change its standard and use the same name.
Aren't DVDs (digital) and NTSC? (I realize they are not HD)


I believe the new standard is called ATSC or something like that (A for
advanced).


Yes, the standard used for digital broadcast through the air. Cable
and satellite use different formats.

DVDs are digital, but the normal DVDs have no relation to the
new broadcast standards.


Wrong on both counts. NTSC is NTSC regardless of delivery method (air,
cable, DVD). You can't put a NTSC DVD into a DVD player for PAL tv's
and expect it to work - it won't. The two standards are incompatible.
Hi,
What is NTSC DVD? I thought DVD player can have either PAL or NTSC
output. There is such thing as region code on DVD playing.

DVDs store audio/video digitally. NTSC and PAL (and SECAM) are analog
standards, and DVDs data is NEVER stored that way (it's always
digital). However, the data on the DVD is stored is a particular way
(bit rate, number of lines, etc...) that can easily be converted to
that analog video standard. Data is stored interlaced.

BTW, I'm in the US and find that most DVD players can play PAL-format
disks (those without region-code blocking). The video output appears
to be PAL and won't display correctly on most TVs. I do have a video
projector that will work with either.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Of course, these people will still need a converter for 480-line ATSC
broadcasts.

or simply can't afford a new TV. They will have to
buy a converter. The cost is estimated at a whopping $50 to $100.
And the fed govt has already announced a program to give any household
that requests it, 2 rebate coupons for $40 each. That means you
could still use your 2 existing TV's for a cost of ~$70.

[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:28:22 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Of course, these people will still need a converter for 480-line ATSC
broadcasts.

This was an important part of my point. There are many (myself
included) who are 100% happy with good current-generation analog
reception, and view the "Great Upheaval" (the "digital" changeover)
mandated by the gov't as just another terminal insanity dictated
by the Vested Interests and not likely to be in the interest of the
public at large.

or simply can't afford a new TV. They will have to
buy a converter. The cost is estimated at a whopping $50 to $100.
And the fed govt has already announced a program to give any household
that requests it, 2 rebate coupons for $40 each. That means you
could still use your 2 existing TV's for a cost of ~$70.

I dunno why I bother to respond to stuff like this. You, kind sir,
have bought into what they've told you (as did Mr. Trent). But, you,
kind sir, are -not- in a position to be aware of all the problems
that might well materialize when "the deed is done". If you continue
to believe all that they tell you, then I know of a piece of real
estate that you're truly gonna love: located right on the scenic,
scenic 38th Parallel.

P

"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens!"
-Friedrich Schiller

On Jun 26, 10:52 pm, Puddin' Man wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:28:22 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Of course, these people will still need a converter for 480-line ATSC
broadcasts.

This was an important part of my point. There are many (myself
included) who are 100% happy with good current-generation analog
reception, and view the "Great Upheaval" (the "digital" changeover)
mandated by the gov't as just another terminal insanity dictated
by the Vested Interests and not likely to be in the interest of the
public at large.


Have you two guys even seen an HDTV with a HD source? Have you looked
at a sporting event, for example? It is very strange for someone to
think that a decent size screen HDTV doesn't look significantly better
than a plain old TV. In a side by side comparison, the difference is
huge. Many people describe HD as if they were looking at the real
event through a window.. If most people saw no difference, why are
they flying off the store shelves, when they cost more?

As for the argument that there are many who are 100% happy with what
they have today and don't want a "digital upheaval", well that
argument could be applied to any advancement. I'm sure some were
upset when they stopped making LPs, and 8 tracks too. Now granted,
most other changes like this are driven by market forces, not a govt
deadline. But this case is a bit different. Here you would have a
small minority of people ie, those who view via OTA instead of cable
or sat and who don't want to move up to HD, buy a new set, continuing
to use a valuable public resource (the NTSC bandwidth), that could be
put to better use. And for an outlay of $25 to $50 for an ATSC
tuner, those people will still be able to continue use their existing
NTSC TVs indefinitely. And I would not be surprised to see the
shutdown date for NTSC pushed out again, or for the govt rebate of $80
per household to be increased. Doesn't sound so bad to me.




or simply can't afford a new TV. They will have to
buy a converter. The cost is estimated at a whopping $50 to $100.
And the fed govt has already announced a program to give any household
that requests it, 2 rebate coupons for $40 each. That means you
could still use your 2 existing TV's for a cost of ~$70.

I dunno why I bother to respond to stuff like this. You, kind sir,
have bought into what they've told you (as did Mr. Trent). But, you,
kind sir, are -not- in a position to be aware of all the problems
that might well materialize when "the deed is done". If you continue
to believe all that they tell you, then I know of a piece of real
estate that you're truly gonna love: located right on the scenic,
scenic 38th Parallel.

P

I'd say I'm more aware of what's going on than you are. Faced with a
decision of buying a TV, I prefer to find out the facts, which are
readily available and actually look at an HDTV compared to a regular
one. The facts are, ATSC broadcasting is up and running. The 85%+
who have cable or sat have HD available. Network prime time is in
HD. NYC even has HD livecam from news helicopters. The first HD DVDs
and players are appearing. All new TVs sold in the US now have a
built-in ATSC tuner. The prices for HDTVs have dropped dramatically.
And 16 million HDTVs will be sold this year.

You instead ask your buddy, the cable guy, who predicts that something
very bad is going to happen and the changeover to ASTC is gonna turn
to chaos, so you shouldn't do anything about your TV that needs
replacement He's proably one of those cable guys we heard about who
show up to install cable and can't figure out how to correctly hook
the new digital box component video outputs up to the HDTV.

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Because everyone seems to confuse what is happening. The only
requirement is that analog OTA must be turned off and then all OTA can
only be *digital*. There is no requirement that OTA digital must be HD.


Of course, these people will still need a converter for 480-line ATSC
broadcasts.

or simply can't afford a new TV. They will have to
buy a converter. The cost is estimated at a whopping $50 to $100.
And the fed govt has already announced a program to give any household
that requests it, 2 rebate coupons for $40 each. That means you
could still use your 2 existing TV's for a cost of ~$70.

[snip]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:38:34 -0000, wrote:

On Jun 26, 10:52 pm, Puddin' Man wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:28:22 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Of course, these people will still need a converter for 480-line ATSC
broadcasts.

This was an important part of my point. There are many (myself
included) who are 100% happy with good current-generation analog
reception, and view the "Great Upheaval" (the "digital" changeover)
mandated by the gov't as just another terminal insanity dictated
by the Vested Interests and not likely to be in the interest of the
public at large.


Have you two guys even seen an HDTV with a HD source? Have you looked
at a sporting event, for example? It is very strange for someone to
think that a decent size screen HDTV doesn't look significantly better
than a plain old TV. In a side by side comparison, the difference is
huge. Many people describe HD as if they were looking at the real
event through a window.. If most people saw no difference, why are
they flying off the store shelves, when they cost more?


You may not have read all of what I wrote. I did see a huge
difference. It was just that the majority of it was with something
other than spatial resolution.

BTW, I have seen real HD. Actually saw the Super Bowl in HD once (on a
65-inch screen).

As for the argument that there are many who are 100% happy with what
they have today and don't want a "digital upheaval", well that
argument could be applied to any advancement. I'm sure some were
upset when they stopped making LPs, and 8 tracks too. Now granted,
most other changes like this are driven by market forces, not a govt
deadline. But this case is a bit different. Here you would have a
small minority of people ie, those who view via OTA instead of cable
or sat and who don't want to move up to HD, buy a new set, continuing
to use a valuable public resource (the NTSC bandwidth), that could be
put to better use. And for an outlay of $25 to $50 for an ATSC
tuner, those people will still be able to continue use their existing
NTSC TVs indefinitely. And I would not be surprised to see the
shutdown date for NTSC pushed out again,

Yes, that is to be expected. Things like this are seldom done at the
time promised.

or for the govt rebate of $80
per household to be increased. Doesn't sound so bad to me.




or simply can't afford a new TV. They will have to
buy a converter. The cost is estimated at a whopping $50 to $100.
And the fed govt has already announced a program to give any household
that requests it, 2 rebate coupons for $40 each. That means you
could still use your 2 existing TV's for a cost of ~$70.

I dunno why I bother to respond to stuff like this. You, kind sir,
have bought into what they've told you (as did Mr. Trent). But, you,
kind sir, are -not- in a position to be aware of all the problems
that might well materialize when "the deed is done". If you continue
to believe all that they tell you, then I know of a piece of real
estate that you're truly gonna love: located right on the scenic,
scenic 38th Parallel.

P

I'd say I'm more aware of what's going on than you are. Faced with a
decision of buying a TV, I prefer to find out the facts, which are
readily available and actually look at an HDTV compared to a regular
one. The facts are, ATSC broadcasting is up and running. The 85%+
who have cable or sat have HD available. Network prime time is in
HD. NYC even has HD livecam from news helicopters. The first HD DVDs
and players are appearing. All new TVs sold in the US now have a
built-in ATSC tuner. The prices for HDTVs have dropped dramatically.
And 16 million HDTVs will be sold this year.

You instead ask your buddy, the cable guy, who predicts that something
very bad is going to happen and the changeover to ASTC is gonna turn
to chaos, so you shouldn't do anything about your TV that needs
replacement He's proably one of those cable guys we heard about who
show up to install cable and can't figure out how to correctly hook
the new digital box component video outputs up to the HDTV.




--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:38:34 -0000, wrote:

On Jun 26, 10:52 pm, Puddin' Man wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:28:22 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Of course, these people will still need a converter for 480-line ATSC
broadcasts.

This was an important part of my point. There are many (myself
included) who are 100% happy with good current-generation analog
reception, and view the "Great Upheaval" (the "digital" changeover)
mandated by the gov't as just another terminal insanity dictated
by the Vested Interests and not likely to be in the interest of the
public at large.


Have you two guys even seen an HDTV with a HD source? Have you looked
at a sporting event, for example? It is very strange for someone to
think that a decent size screen HDTV doesn't look significantly better
than a plain old TV. In a side by side comparison, the difference is
huge. Many people describe HD as if they were looking at the real
event through a window.. If most people saw no difference, why are
they flying off the store shelves, when they cost more?

As for the argument that there are many who are 100% happy with what
they have today and don't want a "digital upheaval", well that
argument could be applied to any advancement. I'm sure some were
upset when they stopped making LPs, and 8 tracks too. Now granted,
most other changes like this are driven by market forces, not a govt
deadline. But this case is a bit different. Here you would have a
small minority of people ie, those who view via OTA instead of cable
or sat and who don't want to move up to HD, buy a new set, continuing
to use a valuable public resource (the NTSC bandwidth), that could be
put to better use. And for an outlay of $25 to $50 for an ATSC
tuner, those people will still be able to continue use their existing
NTSC TVs indefinitely. And I would not be surprised to see the
shutdown date for NTSC pushed out again, or for the govt rebate of $80
per household to be increased. Doesn't sound so bad to me.




or simply can't afford a new TV. They will have to
buy a converter. The cost is estimated at a whopping $50 to $100.
And the fed govt has already announced a program to give any household
that requests it, 2 rebate coupons for $40 each. That means you
could still use your 2 existing TV's for a cost of ~$70.

I dunno why I bother to respond to stuff like this. You, kind sir,
have bought into what they've told you (as did Mr. Trent). But, you,
kind sir, are -not- in a position to be aware of all the problems
that might well materialize when "the deed is done". If you continue
to believe all that they tell you, then I know of a piece of real
estate that you're truly gonna love: located right on the scenic,
scenic 38th Parallel.

P

I'd say I'm more aware of what's going on than you are. Faced with a
decision of buying a TV, I prefer to find out the facts, which are
readily available

Industry hype.

and actually look at an HDTV compared to a regular
one. The facts are, ATSC broadcasting is up and running. The 85%+
who have cable or sat have HD available. Network prime time is in
HD. NYC even has HD livecam from news helicopters. The first HD DVDs
and players are appearing. All new TVs sold in the US now have a
built-in ATSC tuner. The prices for HDTVs have dropped dramatically.
And 16 million HDTVs will be sold this year.

I've seen 'em. In the store (a somewhat artificial environment),
they look better. But not -that- much better.

'Tis the cost/benefit curve, as applied to the public at large,
that you fail to comprehend. Possibly because you're just
not interested in what effects others.

You instead ask your buddy, the cable guy, who predicts that something
very bad is going to happen and the changeover to ASTC is gonna turn
to chaos, so you shouldn't do anything about your TV that needs
replacement He's proably one of those cable guys we heard about who
show up to install cable and can't figure out how to correctly hook
the new digital box component video outputs up to the HDTV.

Hey, it's OK to get abusive. It's obvious that you lack info about
both my circumstances and my friend (who, 'tho retired, knows
vastly more about the industry than either of us).

They pump up the hype in preparation for shoving the unproven
technology down the consumers throats. You seem to accept it all at
face value. You are their "Perfect Consumer". Or perhaps an
industry employee. Eh?

I'll have the real estate agent from Seoul give you a call ... :-)

P

"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens!"
-Friedrich Schiller

On Jun 27, 7:50 am, George wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Because everyone seems to confuse what is happening. The only
requirement is that analog OTA must be turned off and then all OTA can
only be *digital*. There is no requirement that OTA digital must be HD.


Yes, it's true that with ATSC there is no mandatory reqt that it be
HD. But there is plenty of HD programming available today. Much of
network prime time is HD. Sports are in HD. There is plenty of HD
available on cable channels too. And the main point of moving to ATSC
was to get HD. So, when someone says the difference between HD and
regular TV is significant, one assumes they are talking about viewing
material on an HDTV that is HD. And how anyone can look at that and
call it an insignificant improvement, is beyond me.








Of course, these people will still need a converter for 480-line ATSC
broadcasts.

or simply can't afford a new TV. They will have to
buy a converter. The cost is estimated at a whopping $50 to $100.
And the fed govt has already announced a program to give any household
that requests it, 2 rebate coupons for $40 each. That means you
could still use your 2 existing TV's for a cost of ~$70.

[snip]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 27, 8:00 am, Mark Lloyd wrote:


You may not have read all of what I wrote. I did see a huge
difference. It was just that the majority of it was with something
other than spatial resolution.

I read it and here it is. I stated that an HD picture puts to shame
regular NTSC:

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,


And you responded with:

"Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480
lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD. "

Which perhaps you could explain? Certainly if you look at an HD
image, the image detail is far superior. If you look at a flower, on
std TV there is no detail, on HD, you can see the pollen and small
hair like plant material. . And that is directly attributable to
the fact that it is either 720P or 1080i, both of which have more
lines of resolution. That was why they went to higher resolution in
the first place. No different than looking at a picture on a VGA
computer screen vs XGA, where you also saw a big improvement in
detail.

At least it appears we agree on one thing, and that is that HD is a
big improvement over std TV.

On Jun 27, 9:49 am, Puddin' Man wrote:

I'd say I'm more aware of what's going on than you are. Faced with a
decision of buying a TV, I prefer to find out the facts, which are
readily available

Industry hype.


Look, there is plenty of info available today about HDTV from a
variety of resources, many of which are not connected to some evil
industry conspiracy. You obviously won't even look at it, yet you
go around telling people calamity is ahead. You can stick you head
in the sand, while the rest of us move ahead.




and actually look at an HDTV compared to a regular
one. The facts are, ATSC broadcasting is up and running. The 85%+
who have cable or sat have HD available. Network prime time is in
HD. NYC even has HD livecam from news helicopters. The first HD DVDs
and players are appearing. All new TVs sold in the US now have a
built-in ATSC tuner. The prices for HDTVs have dropped dramatically.
And 16 million HDTVs will be sold this year.

I've seen 'em. In the store (a somewhat artificial environment),
they look better. But not -that- much better.

And do you know what you were looking at? Just because it's an HDTV
doesn't mean the program that happened to be on at the moment was HD.
In stores, I've seen all kinds of material being shown and at times,
it wasn't HD at all. It's gotten better in the last couple years,
but before that in many stores that I've seen it was pretty bad. But
if you have an HDTV with and HD source, and a regular TV next to it,
the difference is huge.




'Tis the cost/benefit curve, as applied to the public at large,
that you fail to comprehend. Possibly because you're just
not interested in what effects others.

You make these sweeping statements with out elaboration. The cost to
the public at large? If you have 2 tv's and buy 2 ATSC tuners, you'd
be out about $50. Is that so bad? When the local or state govt
decides to buy open land or make a new park and your tax bill goes up
that much for something you personally never will use, do you get all
upset too? And further, for the public at large, the fed govt is
gonna get billions when they sell the bandwith previously used by
NTSC. That sounds like a lot of money they can **** away instead of
instead of taking it from taxes. So, where exactly is this big cost/
benefit problem that I fail to comprehend.




You instead ask your buddy, the cable guy, who predicts that something
very bad is going to happen and the changeover to ASTC is gonna turn
to chaos, so you shouldn't do anything about your TV that needs
replacement He's proably one of those cable guys we heard about who
show up to install cable and can't figure out how to correctly hook
the new digital box component video outputs up to the HDTV.

Hey, it's OK to get abusive. It's obvious that you lack info about
both my circumstances and my friend (who, 'tho retired, knows
vastly more about the industry than either of us).

Yeah, I tend to get that way when someone who dismisses readily
available info from a wide variety of sources and obviously knows less
than zero about HD, tries to tell me I'm some kind of mindless dummy
that's bought into a bunch of hype.



They pump up the hype in preparation for shoving the unproven
technology down the consumers throats. You seem to accept it all at
face value. You are their "Perfect Consumer". Or perhaps an
industry employee. Eh?


What exactly is "unproven"? About a third of US homes now has an
HDTV. ATSC broadcasting has been up for years. Every TV set sold
now has an ATSC tuner. Geez, I notice for all the facts and
statistics I cite in an attempt to have a reasonable discussion, you
counter with what? No facts. Just personal feelings, and the
opinion of your buddy the cable guy, that HD/ATSC is unproven stuff,
heading for calamity. Now thats what I call hype.

BTW, I'm not an industry empoyee, though I am an electrical engineer,
so perhaps I know a little more about technology than you or your
cable guy.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:14:46 -0000, wrote:

On Jun 27, 8:00 am, Mark Lloyd wrote:


You may not have read all of what I wrote. I did see a huge
difference. It was just that the majority of it was with something
other than spatial resolution.

I read it and here it is. I stated that an HD picture puts to shame
regular NTSC:


Yes, That I said that most of the difference is in getting away from
NTSC rather than HD itself. I did NOT contradict you.

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,


And you responded with:

"Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480
lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD. "

Which perhaps you could explain? Certainly if you look at an HD
image, the image detail is far superior.

The problem with that is that you omitted the reference. Comparison is
between TWO different things.

If you look at a flower, on
std TV there is no detail, on HD, you can see the pollen and small
hair like plant material. . And that is directly attributable to
the fact that it is either 720P or 1080i, both of which have more
lines of resolution.

I did not say there was no difference. I said the difference was small
compared to something else (the way a cow is a lot larger than an ant
but is a SMALL animal compared to a whale).

BTW, do you know how many lines a NTSC picture actually has? It's LESS
than 480.

That was why they went to higher resolution in
the first place. No different than looking at a picture on a VGA
computer screen vs XGA, where you also saw a big improvement in
detail.

At least it appears we agree on one thing, and that is that HD is a
big improvement over std TV.

Yes. The problem seems to be in the omitted middle. To help explain, I
will mention three things he

1. NTSC. Ordinary analog video as we've had since World War II.

2. 480-line video, as with a DVD player connected with a YUV or HDMI
output. Still not HD.

3. HD: 720p / 1080i or greater.

You said that #3 was much better than #1.

I DID NOT DISAGREE.

I said that most of this difference was between #2 and #1, rather than
between #3 and #2.

You may continue to disagree with me, but please try to understand
what it is you're claiming to disagree with. Since this point of
disagreement involves #2 above, it should not be ignored.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:50:55 -0400, George
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Because everyone seems to confuse what is happening.

That's happening a lot. There's a lot of (wrong) claims that NTSC
won't exist after 2009. I expect an eventual lack of NTSC, but it will
take a lot longer than that.

The only
requirement is that analog OTA must be turned off and then all OTA can
only be *digital*. There is no requirement that OTA digital must be HD.


People seem to want to ignore that. A lot of these digital (ATSC)
stations will be broadcasting 480 lines (not HD but still a lot better
than NTSC). You probably won't see ANY difference (between 480 and 720
lines) unless you have a big screen.


Of course, these people will still need a converter for 480-line ATSC
broadcasts.

or simply can't afford a new TV. They will have to
buy a converter. The cost is estimated at a whopping $50 to $100.
And the fed govt has already announced a program to give any household
that requests it, 2 rebate coupons for $40 each. That means you
could still use your 2 existing TV's for a cost of ~$70.

[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:00:34 -0000, wrote:

On Jun 27, 7:50 am, George wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Because everyone seems to confuse what is happening. The only
requirement is that analog OTA must be turned off and then all OTA can
only be *digital*. There is no requirement that OTA digital must be HD.


Yes, it's true that with ATSC there is no mandatory reqt that it be
HD. But there is plenty of HD programming available today. Much of
network prime time is HD. Sports are in HD. There is plenty of HD
available on cable channels too. And the main point of moving to ATSC
was to get HD. So, when someone says the difference between HD and
regular TV is significant,

I was accused of saying that but did not . Someone didn't read what I
wrote (I just put more information in another post).

one assumes they are talking about viewing
material on an HDTV that is HD. And how anyone can look at that and
call it an insignificant improvement, is beyond me.








Of course, these people will still need a converter for 480-line ATSC
broadcasts.

or simply can't afford a new TV. They will have to
buy a converter. The cost is estimated at a whopping $50 to $100.
And the fed govt has already announced a program to give any household
that requests it, 2 rebate coupons for $40 each. That means you
could still use your 2 existing TV's for a cost of ~$70.

[snip]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

I did not say there was no difference. I said the difference was small
compared to something else (the way a cow is a lot larger than an ant
but is a SMALL animal compared to a whale).

BTW, do you know how many lines a NTSC picture actually has? It's LESS
than 480.

That was why they went to higher resolution in
the first place. No different than looking at a picture on a VGA
computer screen vs XGA, where you also saw a big improvement in
detail.

At least it appears we agree on one thing, and that is that HD is a
big improvement over std TV.

Yes. The problem seems to be in the omitted middle. To help explain, I
will mention three things he

1. NTSC. Ordinary analog video as we've had since World War II.

2. 480-line video, as with a DVD player connected with a YUV or HDMI
output. Still not HD.

3. HD: 720p / 1080i or greater.

You said that #3 was much better than #1.

I DID NOT DISAGREE.

I said that most of this difference was between #2 and #1, rather than
between #3 and #2.

You may continue to disagree with me, but please try to understand
what it is you're claiming to disagree with. Since this point of
disagreement involves #2 above, it should not be ignored.
--
Mark Lloydhttp://notstupid.laughingsquid.com


OK, I see what you;'re point is now. I'm not sure I agree that the
diff btwn ntsc and 480 is much greater than between 480 and HD. But
I agree that it is arguable. Sorry for the confusion.

sure I agree that the
diff btwn ntsc and 480 is much greater than between 480 and HD. But
I agree that it is arguable. Sorry for the confusion.- Hide quoted text -



pn smaller sets certinally anything under 13 inch the difference
between them cant be seen, and 19 inch is a wash, now 30+ inch screens
its noticeable.

bt high def and digital have over 30 standards, of picture quality.

local broadcasters can either provide a wonderful picture or send 5
programs at the same time, or information of some kind.

they will do whats economicaly best for profits, no more no less

Mark Lloyd writes:

BTW, do you know how many lines a NTSC picture actually has? It's LESS
than 480.

What do you think the number is?

All NTSC signals have at least 480 scan lines no matter what the source.
The useful *vertical* resolution is about 70% of that due to something
called the Kell factor, again pretty much without regard to the source.

On the other hand, different NTSC sources have different *horizontal*
resolution figures, which are quoted in terms of "lines per picture
height" that can be resolved. Here, resolution is proportional to
analog bandwidth, and can be as low as 250 lpph for VHS, up to about 550
lpph for professional gear. But the horizontal resolution has no direct
connection to the "480 lines" of the format which is a vertical
measure.

Yes. The problem seems to be in the omitted middle. To help explain, I
will mention three things he

1. NTSC. Ordinary analog video as we've had since World War II.

There is a huge range in quality depending on the source (VHS, over the
air, laserdisc, DVD). These are all 480-line format, but horizontal
resolution varies. There's also a large difference in the colour
resolution between composite and component connections.

2. 480-line video, as with a DVD player connected with a YUV or HDMI
output. Still not HD.

This is a specialized subset of #1, with the image stored digitally at
704x480 pixels, and fed to the monitor either digitally or in analog
component form. It's still 480-line format, but horizontal resolution
is about 500 lines per picture height (for 4:3, less for widescreen).

3. HD: 720p / 1080i or greater.

Now you're getting greater horizontal *and* vertical resolution, and
possibly better temporal resolution too (in the case of progressive
scan).

You said that #3 was much better than #1.

I said that most of this difference was between #2 and #1, rather than
between #3 and #2.

This is sort of meaningless since #1 is a bucket that contains such a
huge range of quality. If your #1 source is a VHS tape running at SLP
speed, any DVD will be much better. If your #1 source is a laserdisc,
it's going to be pretty close to the DVD in quality despite being
composite analog.

To make a comparison that everyone might be able to agree with, you'll
need to be more specific about what kind of analog video you're
comparing against as #1.

Dave

On Jun 27, 2:10 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:50:55 -0400, George
wrote:





Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Because everyone seems to confuse what is happening.

That's happening a lot. There's a lot of (wrong) claims that NTSC
won't exist after 2009. I expect an eventual lack of NTSC, but it will
take a lot longer than that.

Well the "claims" are based directly on the federal govt which has set
2009 as the turnoff date for NTSC. Now, its possible, indeed I would
say probably likely that the date could be pushed out again, but I
think the claims as of now are in fact correct.





The only
requirement is that analog OTA must be turned off and then all OTA can
only be *digital*. There is no requirement that OTA digital must be HD.

People seem to want to ignore that. A lot of these digital (ATSC)
stations will be broadcasting 480 lines (not HD but still a lot better
than NTSC). You probably won't see ANY difference (between 480 and 720
lines) unless you have a big screen.



Of course, these people will still need a converter for 480-line ATSC
broadcasts.

or simply can't afford a new TV. They will have to
buy a converter. The cost is estimated at a whopping $50 to $100.
And the fed govt has already announced a program to give any household
that requests it, 2 rebate coupons for $40 each. That means you
could still use your 2 existing TV's for a cost of ~$70.

[snip]

--
Mark Lloydhttp://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -