Home cinema - Affordable NTSC to ATSC Converter/Modulator?

HomeCinemaBanter (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/index.php)

- High definition TV (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Affordable NTSC to ATSC Converter/Modulator? (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/showthread.php?t=43388)

Affordable NTSC to ATSC Converter/Modulator?

Looking for affordable means of converting NTSC composite baseband
signal to ATSC (8VSB) modulated RF for home entertainment or
amateur television use. Or am I too far ahead of the market?
Suggestions?

Affordable NTSC to ATSC Converter/Modulator?

Ol' Duffer ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Looking for affordable means of converting NTSC composite baseband
signal to ATSC (8VSB) modulated RF for home entertainment or
amateur television use. Or am I too far ahead of the market?
Suggestions?

A quick Google search would have answered your question quite easily.

--
Jeff Rife | /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
| \ / against HTML e-mail
| X and USENET posts
| / \

Affordable NTSC to ATSC Converter/Modulator?

Been there, done that, then came here...

In article ,
says...
A quick Google search would have answered your question quite easily.

Affordable NTSC to ATSC Converter/Modulator?

On Tue, 09 May 2006 10:34:46 -0400, Ol' Duffer wrote:

Looking for affordable means of converting NTSC composite baseband
signal to ATSC (8VSB) modulated RF for home entertainment or
amateur television use. Or am I too far ahead of the market?
Suggestions?

You want some kind of ATSC tuner or STB of some sort. Other than that I'm
not quiet sure what you're looking for. They will convert ATSC digital
down to 480i you can use with standard analog TV's as long as you have
a/v, svideo, or composet inputs to the tv.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

Affordable NTSC to ATSC Converter/Modulator?

On 2006-05-09, Wes Newell wrote:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 10:34:46 -0400, Ol' Duffer wrote:

Looking for affordable means of converting NTSC composite baseband
signal to ATSC (8VSB) modulated RF for home entertainment or
amateur television use. Or am I too far ahead of the market?
Suggestions?

You want some kind of ATSC tuner or STB of some sort.

No, he wants the exact opposite: he wants an 8VSB encoder and
RF modulator.

Other than that I'm not quiet sure what you're looking for.

He stated exactly what he's looking for: NTSC composit video
in, ATSC out.

They will convert ATSC digital down to 480i you can use with
standard analog TV's as long as you have a/v, svideo, or
composet inputs to the tv.

Which is the exact opposite of what he asked for.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I just had a NOSE
at JOB!!
visi.com

Affordable NTSC to ATSC Converter/Modulator?

Scooby ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
The top-posting argument has been beat to death in usenet. Get over it.

It doesn't bother me unless the context gets lost. In this case, it was
horribly mangled between the top-posting and snipping too much.

Personally, I prefer top posting, but usually bottom post because of all the
whiny self-rightous bottom posting people out here. Many people top post -
it is a matter of preference. But, you don't see the top posters crying
about people bottom posting. This is lke arguing about whether the toilet
paper should go over or under the roll - really, who cares?

Then, it becomes preference how
people like to read things. Again, I prefer seeing top-posted responses

If you "prefer" to read books from the last page forward then, by all
means, keep top posting as it will encourage authors to start writing
books that fit your reading style. Me, I like to read from start to
finish.

Again, I prefer seeing top-posted responses
when I follow a thread.

If "following a thread" was all that was important on USENET, I might
agree, but when searching for old info, it's nice to be able to read the
one post that matches your search in the way that humans normally do.

Note that there was no controversy about "top posting" until Outlook
Express came along. It's still the *only* newsreader that encourages
top posting by it's default location of the insertion point when
following up. Of all the crap that Microsoft has unleashed on the world,
this is probably the most loathesome.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverThe...hatnerHair.gif

Affordable NTSC to ATSC Converter/Modulator?

"Jeff Rife" wrote in message
...
Scooby ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
The top-posting argument has been beat to death in usenet. Get over it.

It doesn't bother me unless the context gets lost. In this case, it was
horribly mangled between the top-posting and snipping too much.

Personally, I prefer top posting, but usually bottom post because of all
the
whiny self-rightous bottom posting people out here. Many people top
post -
it is a matter of preference. But, you don't see the top posters crying
about people bottom posting. This is lke arguing about whether the
toilet
paper should go over or under the roll - really, who cares?

Then, it becomes preference how
people like to read things. Again, I prefer seeing top-posted responses

If you "prefer" to read books from the last page forward then, by all
means, keep top posting as it will encourage authors to start writing
books that fit your reading style. Me, I like to read from start to
finish.

And, I think that is a terrible analogy. If you are going to read a book,
one page a day, then it makes more sense to me to "top post". Would you
prefer to have the page you are going to read inserted at the beginning of
the book, or the end? I'd prefer the beginning in that analogy.

As I stated, I usually don't top post. I'll tend to take the path of the
where the thread has already gone, as this really makes the most sense. If
a response is top-posted, then I'll top post, if the response is bottom
posted, then I'll bottom post. And, if the reponse is in-line, so is mine.
If there has been no reply's yet, I will bottom post because of all the
complainers.

Again, I prefer seeing top-posted responses
when I follow a thread.

If "following a thread" was all that was important on USENET, I might
agree, but when searching for old info, it's nice to be able to read the
one post that matches your search in the way that humans normally do.

Note that there was no controversy about "top posting" until Outlook
Express came along. It's still the *only* newsreader that encourages
top posting by it's default location of the insertion point when
following up. Of all the crap that Microsoft has unleashed on the world,
this is probably the most loathesome.

Once again, that is your opinion and your preference. I respect that. But,
I disagree with the idea that this is "The correct way" simply because those
that tend to complain are bottom posters, or just because this is a
Microsoft thing.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverThe...hatnerHair.gif

Affordable NTSC to ATSC Converter/Modulator?

Not trying to get in a fight with anyone about top or bottom posting.

But, I don't see what the complaint is about those who top post, me
for one.

If you've read the original post, you already know the subject of the
thread.

The problem I have with bottom posting, is that in many cases, as the
thread adds more posters, many bottom posters show page after page of
previous posts when they post a reply to one particular poster. So
the reader has to page down numerous times, in many cases, to read a
one sentence reply.

Now if those posting a reply, would delete all the previous garbage,
headers, replies to replies, bickering by those who love to hijack
threads and go off on a tangent, then I think bottom posting is fine.
I also think top posting is fine.

I don't know why this is such a point of contention between posters.

If unhappy posters really want something to worry about, think about
what's going on in Iran. It appears that they are about to get a big
boomer, and if/when they do, it's "Katie, bar the door."

On Wed, 10 May 2006 01:03:30 GMT, "Scooby"
wrote:

"Jeff Rife" wrote in message
.. .
Scooby ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
The top-posting argument has been beat to death in usenet. Get over it.

It doesn't bother me unless the context gets lost. In this case, it was
horribly mangled between the top-posting and snipping too much.

Personally, I prefer top posting, but usually bottom post because of all
the
whiny self-rightous bottom posting people out here. Many people top
post -
it is a matter of preference. But, you don't see the top posters crying
about people bottom posting. This is lke arguing about whether the
toilet
paper should go over or under the roll - really, who cares?

Then, it becomes preference how
people like to read things. Again, I prefer seeing top-posted responses

If you "prefer" to read books from the last page forward then, by all
means, keep top posting as it will encourage authors to start writing
books that fit your reading style. Me, I like to read from start to
finish.

And, I think that is a terrible analogy. If you are going to read a book,
one page a day, then it makes more sense to me to "top post". Would you
prefer to have the page you are going to read inserted at the beginning of
the book, or the end? I'd prefer the beginning in that analogy.

As I stated, I usually don't top post. I'll tend to take the path of the
where the thread has already gone, as this really makes the most sense. If
a response is top-posted, then I'll top post, if the response is bottom
posted, then I'll bottom post. And, if the reponse is in-line, so is mine.
If there has been no reply's yet, I will bottom post because of all the
complainers.

Again, I prefer seeing top-posted responses
when I follow a thread.

If "following a thread" was all that was important on USENET, I might
agree, but when searching for old info, it's nice to be able to read the
one post that matches your search in the way that humans normally do.

Note that there was no controversy about "top posting" until Outlook
Express came along. It's still the *only* newsreader that encourages
top posting by it's default location of the insertion point when
following up. Of all the crap that Microsoft has unleashed on the world,
this is probably the most loathesome.

Once again, that is your opinion and your preference. I respect that. But,
I disagree with the idea that this is "The correct way" simply because those
that tend to complain are bottom posters, or just because this is a
Microsoft thing.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverThe...hatnerHair.gif

Affordable NTSC to ATSC Converter/Modulator?

Scooby ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
If you "prefer" to read books from the last page forward then, by all
means, keep top posting as it will encourage authors to start writing
books that fit your reading style. Me, I like to read from start to
finish.

And, I think that is a terrible analogy. If you are going to read a book,
one page a day, then it makes more sense to me to "top post". Would you
prefer to have the page you are going to read inserted at the beginning of
the book, or the end?

The end, of course. That way, when I miss a day, I can refresh memory
very easily with the immediately preceeding content.

This makes even more sense with USENET, where it's not uncommon to miss
a post (server got weird, etc.) or to not read news every day. It's
even worse if you have a couple of posters killfiled and end up with
the horrendous mess in the only "new" post that is caused by a long
series of top posts.

Note that there was no controversy about "top posting" until Outlook
Express came along. It's still the *only* newsreader that encourages
top posting by it's default location of the insertion point when
following up. Of all the crap that Microsoft has unleashed on the world,
this is probably the most loathesome.

Once again, that is your opinion and your preference.

Actually, it's not my opinion. There was *no* top posting before Outlook
Express came along, because every previous news reader included the
quoted text and put the cursor at the bottom. Microsoft felt that
"correct" style was:

New text.

-------------------------
Previous text (unquoted)
Previous text (unquoted)

==
Previous signature

==
new signature (dashes changed to keep newsreaders from seeing them as
a real sig line)

Thank goodness we don't see *that* anymore, although it's *still* the
default for OE.

I disagree with the idea that this is "The correct way" simply because those
that tend to complain are bottom posters, or just because this is a
Microsoft thing.

But, it *is* a "Microsoft thing". Do the research about the history.
Outlook Express also posts HMTL to newsgroups by default because MS
feels that e-mail and news aren't just text...they must have cool
formatting...try turning *that* back on and see how many people keep
reading your posts. It's the same (to a lesser extent) with other OE
defaults...if you don't change them, people will ignore you to some
degree.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverThe...hatnerHair.gif

Likewise, correctly configured newsreaders snip signatures when replying.
Outlook Express does not.

--
Jeff Rife | Radio Shack...you've got questions,
| we've got puzzled looks.