1080P Standard?
 

Top post intended...

Anyone can do a quick google on the history your postings and easily find
out what a *CRAZY* GOD-DAMNED LIAR YOU ARE.




"Bob Miller" wrote in message
nk.net...
G-squared wrote:
Bob Miller wrote:
The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC
codec.
Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality
program with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD
program all current receivers would be obsolete which would open the
door to switching modulations.

What the definition of compatible is for current receivers is becoming
comical. If a broadcaster wants they can use as little as 2 Mbps for
the
SD required MPEG2 program and use the rest of their bandwidth, 17.34
Mbps, for MPEG4 today.

IMO that would make all current receivers 88.5% incompatible.
Broadcasters could also elect to use A-VSB and if they do they will
have
to use MPEG4 AVC with it to get even an SD program to fit in this
robust
segment. At least from the data I have been given. To deliver a robust
A-VSB SD program will eliminate the POSSIBILITY of also delivering an
HD
program in the same 6 MHz.

The best of both worlds, no HD and a single robust SD program. They
will
probably simulcast the same content so you will have two copies of the
same SD program one in robust A-VSB form and the other in 8-VSB.

Could you possibly think of anything worse? From what I here
broadcasters are all excited by the concept of A-VSB. Can't imagine why
accept it will give them a slim change, at least in their minds, to stay
in business in a world of 8-VSB.

So with A-VSB you will have maybe 30% compatibility for all current
receivers but no HD. With MPEG-4 but no A-VSB you will have 11.5%
compatibility for current receivers and the possibility of HD even
1080/60P on the MPEG4 side but again not receivable by all current
receivers.

I guess the FCC and Congress are "protecting" as much as 11.5% of the
OTA spectrum for 8-VSB and MPEG2, just enough to mess everything up and
kill OTA.

Bob Miller

So YOU Bob, want the billions that have already been spent to be
discarded and then start over.

What billions would have to be discarded? As to broadcasters they would
have to switch out an 8-VSB modulator for a COFDM one. Not that expensive.
Broadcasters would do that in a heartbeat if they could. They would love
to switch to COFDM. The cost to them would be trivial compared to the cost
in bit rate alone that they will suffer when they start using A-VSB. And
that bit cost goes on forever. Every day they lose at least 8 Mbps all the
time. And the cost of buying an A-VSB modulator will be far higher than
that of a COFDM modulator.

With COFDM they would maintain a high bit rate and have a robust signal at
the same time.

As to the cost to early adopters, hard to imagine that buyers of 8-VSB
receivers are still considered early adopters after almost nine years,
they have been buying the latest 8-VSB receivers offered over and over in
the vain attempt to find one that works for years. Some tell of owning 12
and more receivers. And they would line up to buy an LG 5th gen receiver
that matched the prototype tested 2 years ago if LG ever decided to make
it.

They would have to pony up for a new COFDM receiver yes. All of maybe $130
initially for a basic HDTV receiver but one that worked.

You know, I read that shoot-out stuff
from '99 between 8VSB and COFDM and at that time NEITHER worked well.
You will say that it was a faulty COFDM receiver but they KNEW it was a
shoot-out and they used the 'faulty' receiver anyway.

They? They, the ones controlling the "shootout" were the NAB and MSTV,
they were the strongest proponents of 8-VSB. "They" were the enemies of
COFDM. "They" went to a great deal of trouble, in secret, to find a
"receiver" that would not work. "They" then pretended "they" knew nothing
about the problem with this "receiver", namely that is was NOT a receiver.
This was a fraud, a fraudulent test, performed by those who wanted a
certain outcome. "They" did it in secret. I personally called the engineer
who was in charge of finding COFDM receivers and was told that the three I
offered were not needed since they had ALL the receivers they needed.
"They" had ONE "receiver" that was actually a transmitter monitor
specifically set up to accept all interference and meant to be attached,
hard wired, directly to a transmitter not be carted around the far field
as a receiver.

"They" knew exactly what they were doing and that was to participate in a
fraudulent charade to discredit COFDM.


What I think
happened was there is a perception that COFDM requires a larger power
output for a given coverage area and that it is less tolerant of
co-channel issues. Now I KNOW that it isn't a big deal with 8VSB since
channels 59,60,& 61 are DTV in LA and channels 58 and 62 analogs are
running as well. I have no problems with any of them.

Not a big deal with COFDM either. Co-channel interference is not an issue.
Sharp filter technology has long ago made that a non issue. It was a non
issue when it was used as a canard to sabotage COFDM in 2001 and the
parties knew that.

All test of COFDM that have been done in the real world have found that
the power differential is a non issue. They can't find it in the real
world. Australia was in the 8-VSB camp for years before they did a
comprehensive test, in the open, and switched to COFDM. And Australia has
lots of big open spaces where coverage is what it is all about. Same with
Russia and China, all in the COFDM camp.

Well China has a foot in both camps but the market will decide and that
means COFDM exclusively.
Larger transmitters cost more and use more power. I think the congress
was presented with a pair of mediocrities and they chose the less
expensive - logical at the time.


8-VSB is far far more expensive. First it has cost nine years of
stagnation.

Expecting everybody to buy all new stuff is just DUMB so live with it.

"Everybody" has not bought 8-VSB. In fact few have. And it is not all new
stuff just a receiver. COFDM receivers are very inexpensive. $19 on Ebay,
as little as $35 new. An HD COFDM receiver would cost under $100 within
six months of it being OKed in the US.

Bob Miller
GG

1080P Standard?
 

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:33:11 -0400 AlanF wrote:

| Yes, there will be no broadcast 1080/60p any time soon. The bandwidth
| is just not there. The ATSC format does provide for 1080/24p and
| 1080/30p broadcasting, but no one has adopted this and I doubt if they
| ever will as a broadcast format.

And this is too bad, too. There is a lot of source material in 24 fps,
and I suppose also some in 30 fps. It would not be hard to overscan 24
at viewer's choice of 48, 72, or even 96 fps. Likewise 30 fps can be
overscanned at 60 or 90. And some technology doesn't even need it. if
you have the bandwidth for 720p60 you have more than enough for 1080p24.
While the former would be good for sports, the latter would be great for
movies shot at that frame rate.


| 1080/60i and 720/60p will remain the OTA broadcast and cable & sat
| network formats of choice for many years to come. Since most HDTVs are
| inherently progressive displays (plasma except for ALiS, LCD, DLP,
| SXRD), all 1080p when applied to display resolution means is that it
| will display 1920x1080i at full resolution. And will look very good for
| Blu-Ray (when they fix it) and HD-DVD movies.

Why would 1080p become 1080i at the display?


| However, anyone with a TV of 50" or less will be hard pressed to see
| the difference between a 1366x768 and 1920x1080 screen at normal living
| room sitting distances. Try it with the new Pioneer Pro-FHD1 1080p
| plasma with other Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas in the stores.

Get the display size appropriate for your room size and typical viewing
distance. Not everyone has the same thing.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

1080P Standard?
 

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:55:28 GMT Bob Miller wrote:

| The bandwidth is there for 1080/60P we just have to use MPEG4 AVC codec.
| Broadcasters could use this legally after delivering an SD quality
| program with MPEG2. Of course if we were to allow MPEG4 for that SD
| program all current receivers would be obsolete which would open the
| door to switching modulations.

I don't think the stations would be interested in yet another shuffling
and juggling of channels and transmitters to go with a modulation that
is better suited for smaller localized low power transmitters in large
numbers. OTOH, if you really want to change modulation, how about QAM?

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

1080P Standard?
 

On 8 Aug 2006 21:20:27 -0700 G-squared wrote:

| So YOU Bob, want the billions that have already been spent to be
| discarded and then start over. You know, I read that shoot-out stuff
| from '99 between 8VSB and COFDM and at that time NEITHER worked well.
| You will say that it was a faulty COFDM receiver but they KNEW it was a
| shoot-out and they used the 'faulty' receiver anyway. What I think
| happened was there is a perception that COFDM requires a larger power
| output for a given coverage area and that it is less tolerant of
| co-channel issues. Now I KNOW that it isn't a big deal with 8VSB since
| channels 59,60,& 61 are DTV in LA and channels 58 and 62 analogs are
| running as well. I have no problems with any of them.

When I was doing TV DX-ing from the late 60's to the mid 80's, I found
that there was no trouble receiving distant weak stations in adjacent
channels to strong local stations, even on UHF. I would frequently get
channel 32 from Chicago when weak signal conditions were good despite
channel 33 breathing down my neck.

Of course certain problems could exist with stations 5 or 7 channels
apart when both were very strong. Hopefully that problem will be gone
with digital. But adjacent channel wasn't a problem in terms of strong
stations blotting out weak stations in the technology from the late 60's.


| Larger transmitters cost more and use more power. I think the congress
| was presented with a pair of mediocrities and they chose the less
| expensive - logical at the time.
|
| Expecting everybody to buy all new stuff is just DUMB so live with it.

However, I think the switchover to MPEG-4 would not be nearly as hard
to do. The FCC could make the rule that allows it on a specific date
in the future, giving receiver manufacturers time to integrate it, or
at least make receivers with plugins or firmware that can be updated.
Then instead of mandating it, merely allow stations to choose to use it
for a gradually increasing percentage of air time over the course of a
few years. STBs can be used to cover for older sets.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

1080P Standard?
 

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:20:27 GMT Bob Miller wrote:

| What billions would have to be discarded? As to broadcasters they would
| have to switch out an 8-VSB modulator for a COFDM one. Not that
| expensive. Broadcasters would do that in a heartbeat if they could. They
| would love to switch to COFDM. The cost to them would be trivial
| compared to the cost in bit rate alone that they will suffer when they
| start using A-VSB. And that bit cost goes on forever. Every day they
| lose at least 8 Mbps all the time. And the cost of buying an A-VSB
| modulator will be far higher than that of a COFDM modulator.

You forgot (assuming you ever knew in the first place) that they will
also need to switch out the PA stage to one with a higher peak power
capability, or else diminish their coverage area (if the FCC were to
allow it) on a lower average power. If they want to keep the same
average power, the PA is also going to be wasting more power trying to
be linear over a wider dynamic range. In some cases that can means
swapping out the backup generator or even utility transformers.


| With COFDM they would maintain a high bit rate and have a robust signal
| at the same time.

But not reach as far, which would mean they have to start installing
a bunch of repeaters. More cost.


| "Everybody" has not bought 8-VSB. In fact few have. And it is not all
| new stuff just a receiver. COFDM receivers are very inexpensive. $19 on
| Ebay, as little as $35 new. An HD COFDM receiver would cost under $100
| within six months of it being OKed in the US.

The problem is really caused by arrogant manufacturers just refusing to
make the products. More people would buy 8-VSB/ATSC equipped receivers
today if they were made and available in stores. I know I would.

The only reason an HD COFDM receiver would cost under $100 if such a
change were to happen is because people would suddenly be afraid to buy
anything with all these changes happening. What is needed right now is
stability, and the force of law to force manufacturers to make the
products or leave the US market entirely.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

1080P Standard?
 

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Bob Miller wrote:
They would have to pony up for a new COFDM receiver yes. All of maybe $130
initially for a basic HDTV receiver but one that worked.

Another Psycho Bob masturbatory wet dream.

They? They, the ones controlling the "shootout" were the NAB and MSTV, they
were the strongest proponents of 8-VSB.

Psycho Bob thinks that the NAB has nothing to do with broadcasters.

Not a big deal with COFDM either. Co-channel interference is not an issue.

That does not agree with the reports pouring in from the UK and Australia
of problems with COFDM reception. And no HD.

Australia has lots of big open
spaces where coverage is what it is all about.

Australia has a handful of densely-concentrated population centers and
huge unpopulated deserts. That is not the same situation as rural
coverage in the US and Canada.

Same with Russia and China, all in the COFDM camp.

China has many extremely dense-concentrated population centers, and
unpopulated deserts.

Instead of deserts, Russia has mosquito infested unpopulated tundra
swamps.

"Everybody" has not bought 8-VSB. In fact few have.

The word "few" for Psycho Bob apparently has a very different meaning than
for most people. 8-VSB receivers have become ubiquitous in the past two
years.

And it is not all new
stuff just a receiver. COFDM receivers are very inexpensive. $19 on Ebay, as
little as $35 new.

Yeah, people in the UK are all dumping their Freeview receivers on EBay
because they discovered that the receivers don't work worth a damn.

An HD COFDM receiver would cost under $100 within six
months of it being OKed in the US.

If it isn't, do I get to whack Psycho Bob on the head with a crowbar?

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

1080P Standard?
 

1080P Standard?
 

1080P Standard?
 

Bob Miller wrote:
Any switch of codecs with whatever parameters makes all current
receivers obsolete.

Since it does so we might as well consider switching modulations,
updating if you will, and we should consider ALL of the latest
versions
of all modulations including 8-VSB.

If we were to accept the idea that any COFDM modulation was less
power
efficient or couldn't handle adjacent channels as well as or was
more
susceptible to impulse noise than 8-VSB, all of which have been
rejected
by every country that has tested the two over the last ten years, it

would still make sense to switch to the latest version of 8-VSB.

At least that would be better than nothing. It would be stupid but
not
nearly as stupid as not taking advantage of the chance to upgrade.

But since all current receivers would be obsolete it would make more

sense to test all modulations to see which would be the best.

Bob Miller

While we're at it, how about change all the cars to right-hand drive?
How about 50 Hz power? Wouldn't the generators last longer because they
turn slower? We _could_ change to a 50 Hz frame rate then too. Then all
we'd have to put up with is screwed up audio when the 24 fps film is
run at 25 frame like the Europeans see. No more of that pesky 3:2
business. How about the metric system? Wait that _is_ a good idea !

I'll say one thing Bob. You're tenacious (obstinate) but you _are_
lightening up a bit.

GG

1080P Standard?
 

On 13 Aug 2006 21:07:28 -0700 G-squared wrote:
| Bob Miller wrote:
| Any switch of codecs with whatever parameters makes all current
| receivers obsolete.
|
| Since it does so we might as well consider switching modulations,
| updating if you will, and we should consider ALL of the latest
| versions
| of all modulations including 8-VSB.
|
| If we were to accept the idea that any COFDM modulation was less
| power
| efficient or couldn't handle adjacent channels as well as or was
| more
| susceptible to impulse noise than 8-VSB, all of which have been
| rejected
| by every country that has tested the two over the last ten years, it
|
| would still make sense to switch to the latest version of 8-VSB.
|
| At least that would be better than nothing. It would be stupid but
| not
| nearly as stupid as not taking advantage of the chance to upgrade.
|
| But since all current receivers would be obsolete it would make more
|
| sense to test all modulations to see which would be the best.
|
| Bob Miller
|
| While we're at it, how about change all the cars to right-hand drive?
| How about 50 Hz power? Wouldn't the generators last longer because they
| turn slower? We _could_ change to a 50 Hz frame rate then too. Then all
| we'd have to put up with is screwed up audio when the 24 fps film is
| run at 25 frame like the Europeans see. No more of that pesky 3:2
| business. How about the metric system? Wait that _is_ a good idea !

Generators can be made to run very slow and generate higher frequency.
You don't have to run them at 3000 RPM for 50 Hz or 3600 RPM for 60 Hz.
I've seen then as slow as 600 RPM. It would just have multiple coils
around the armature.

But I do think they should have made ATSC recognize the 25 and 50 Hz frame
rates, and 576 line image sizes.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|