|
|
HD-RADAR
Local CBS affiliate, WHIO-DT(Dayton,OH), just gave a sneak peek of their new
HD Doppler radar. The stations news only went 16:9 a month or so ago, IIRC. According to them they'll be the first in the nation to use the new radar. The very brief preview looked like Doppler radar meets Google Earth. That's all I know about it so can't answer questions. Looked really good but have no idea how much more useful it will be. Local Station's radars already made cable weather services look pathetic. This isn't tornado alley but we get enough severe weather to make this desirable. Negotiations between them and TW nearly fell through at the beginning of the year. Our NBC affiliate is the best weather source in the area(IMHO) at the moment. They don't allow TW to use their digital output. Access to the best weather would be reason enough to put up an antenna but already have one, so no worries. Reminds me that over 30 years ago WHIO was one of the first stations to track a tornado. Somewhat like Pearl Harbor the new technology was dismissed. They didn't know for sure so was saying possible tornado. People called the station to complain about the interruption of soap operas. Turned out to be a Cat5 and 27 people died in Xenia. No I don't work for them. Just thought it interesting and illustrates new technologies usefulness shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. |
HD-RADAR
"Captain Midnight" wrote in message ... Local CBS affiliate, WHIO-DT(Dayton,OH), just gave a sneak peek of their new HD Doppler radar. The stations news only went 16:9 a month or so ago, IIRC. According to them they'll be the first in the nation to use the new radar. The very brief preview looked like Doppler radar meets Google Earth. That's all I know about it so can't answer questions. Looked really good but have no idea how much more useful it will be. Local Station's radars already made cable weather services look pathetic. This isn't tornado alley but we get enough severe weather to make this desirable. Negotiations between them and TW nearly fell through at the beginning of the year. Our NBC affiliate is the best weather source in the area(IMHO) at the moment. They don't allow TW to use their digital output. Access to the best weather would be reason enough to put up an antenna but already have one, so no worries. Reminds me that over 30 years ago WHIO was one of the first stations to track a tornado. Somewhat like Pearl Harbor the new technology was dismissed. They didn't know for sure so was saying possible tornado. People called the station to complain about the interruption of soap operas. Turned out to be a Cat5 and 27 people died in Xenia. No I don't work for them. Just thought it interesting and illustrates new technologies usefulness shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. What would be really distrubing would be a version of Google Earth running in Realtime that they could call up with their HD Radar and show a twister heading for your house!! That would certainly get people's attention!! james |
HD-RADAR
"james" wrote in message
ink.net... "Captain Midnight" wrote in message ... Local CBS affiliate, WHIO-DT(Dayton,OH), just gave a sneak peek of their new HD Doppler radar. The stations news only went 16:9 a month or so ago, IIRC. According to them they'll be the first in the nation to use the new radar. The very brief preview looked like Doppler radar meets Google Earth. That's all I know about it so can't answer questions. Looked really good but have no idea how much more useful it will be. Local Station's radars already made cable weather services look pathetic. This isn't tornado alley but we get enough severe weather to make this desirable. Negotiations between them and TW nearly fell through at the beginning of the year. Our NBC affiliate is the best weather source in the area(IMHO) at the moment. They don't allow TW to use their digital output. Access to the best weather would be reason enough to put up an antenna but already have one, so no worries. Reminds me that over 30 years ago WHIO was one of the first stations to track a tornado. Somewhat like Pearl Harbor the new technology was dismissed. They didn't know for sure so was saying possible tornado. People called the station to complain about the interruption of soap operas. Turned out to be a Cat5 and 27 people died in Xenia. No I don't work for them. Just thought it interesting and illustrates new technologies usefulness shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. What would be really distrubing would be a version of Google Earth running in Realtime that they could call up with their HD Radar and show a twister heading for your house!! That would certainly get people's attention!! james The picture they showed had reasonably clear pictures of individual buildings. Possibly better than Google Earth(at least what you see for free). They said it can pinpoint much better than the old radar but it was clear today so nothing to get an idea of how much better. |
HD-RADAR
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:09:41 -0400, "Captain Midnight"
wrote: Local CBS affiliate, WHIO-DT(Dayton,OH), just gave a sneak peek of their new HD Doppler radar. The stations news only went 16:9 a month or so ago, IIRC. According to them they'll be the first in the nation to use the new radar. The very brief preview looked like Doppler radar meets Google Earth. That's all I know about it so can't answer questions. Looked really good but have no idea how much more useful it will be. Local Station's radars already made cable weather services look pathetic. This isn't tornado alley but we get enough severe weather to make this desirable. Negotiations between them and TW nearly fell through at the beginning of the year. Our NBC affiliate is the best weather source in the area(IMHO) at the moment. They don't allow TW to use their digital output. Access to the best weather would be reason enough to put up an antenna but already have one, so no worries. Reminds me that over 30 years ago WHIO was one of the first stations to track a tornado. Somewhat like Pearl Harbor the new technology was dismissed. They didn't know for sure so was saying possible tornado. People called the station to complain about the interruption of soap operas. Turned out to be a Cat5 and 27 people died in Xenia. No I don't work for them. Just thought it interesting and illustrates new technologies usefulness shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Our CBS station in Houston does all the news and weather in HD. From my vantage point, I see the doppler in HD, so don't really care whether it comes off the radar box that way. While I normally watch NBC affiliate, I've switched to CBS just because they have HD. |
HD-RADAR
I can't believe any of these television stations are actually erecting
doppler radar sites. Those things cost a fortune to buy, erect, and maintain. And, the government runs a whole bunch of them called NEXRAD and offer the feeds to all of us gratis. |
HD-RADAR
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:09:41 -0400 Captain Midnight wrote:
| Local CBS affiliate, WHIO-DT(Dayton,OH), just gave a sneak peek of their new | HD Doppler radar. The stations news only went 16:9 a month or so ago, IIRC. | According to them they'll be the first in the nation to use the new radar. | The very brief preview looked like Doppler radar meets Google Earth. That's | all I know about it so can't answer questions. Looked really good but have | no idea how much more useful it will be. So they make the radar look "cool" by adding a bunch of "ground clutter"? I'd prefer a solid background and radar system that displays all combinations of attenuation, vector velocity, as well as cloud top heights. All of that combined can be rather intense and using some sort of topology as the background would really just end up being more intrusive. I always turn topo off for radar I get online (I get it where it can be turned off). | Local Station's radars already made cable weather services look pathetic. | This isn't tornado alley but we get enough severe weather to make this | desirable. Negotiations between them and TW nearly fell through at the | beginning of the year. Our NBC affiliate is the best weather source in the | area(IMHO) at the moment. They don't allow TW to use their digital output. So the NBC affiliate will go dark on TW after Feb 17/18, 2009? Hmmm. | Access to the best weather would be reason enough to put up an antenna but | already have one, so no worries. | | Reminds me that over 30 years ago WHIO was one of the first stations to | track a tornado. Somewhat like Pearl Harbor the new technology was | dismissed. They didn't know for sure so was saying possible tornado. People | called the station to complain about the interruption of soap operas. Turned | out to be a Cat5 and 27 people died in Xenia. No I don't work for them. Just | thought it interesting and illustrates new technologies usefulness shouldn't | be dismissed out of hand. What we won't ever know is if they hadn't done that, if more people would have died. Common sense says that could be plausible. Saving one life is worth dumping a soap opera. But then, so are a lot of things. -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
HD-RADAR
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:23:44 -0700 Sam Spade wrote:
| I can't believe any of these television stations are actually erecting | doppler radar sites. Those things cost a fortune to buy, erect, and | maintain. And, the government runs a whole bunch of them called NEXRAD | and offer the feeds to all of us gratis. It's not exactly free. You have to provide the interface equipment and the data link to get it. Then you have to convert it to video form. The raw radar output is not video. The specs for it are online at the NOAA site somewhere, as I have run across them. You can even get raw feeds delayed online (the delay might be less than with images). -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
HD-RADAR
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... I can't believe any of these television stations are actually erecting doppler radar sites. Those things cost a fortune to buy, erect, and maintain. And, the government runs a whole bunch of them called NEXRAD and offer the feeds to all of us gratis. As a meteorologist myself, the thing is that by the time the NEXRAD data can get to everyone, it can be 10-15 minutes old. Most stations buy their own radar because they get faster updates. Dave |
HD-RADAR
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:26:12 -0500 David Moran wrote:
| | "Sam Spade" wrote in message | ... |I can't believe any of these television stations are actually erecting |doppler radar sites. Those things cost a fortune to buy, erect, and |maintain. And, the government runs a whole bunch of them called NEXRAD and |offer the feeds to all of us gratis. | | As a meteorologist myself, the thing is that by the time the NEXRAD data can | get to everyone, it can be 10-15 minutes old. Most stations buy their own | radar because they get faster updates. They can get their own raw feed from the NOAA NEXRAD directly and process it themselves into video. I would think that is cheaper. It's real time since the raw feed is the serialized reflection data in the direction the radar is currently pointing. Where having your own radar helps is when you want to change angles or modes. You're stuck with what NOAA is doing in theirs. But if you want to tilt up to see closer cloud tops on your own, you can (if you have all the right remote controls, etc). -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
HD-RADAR
wrote in message ... On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:26:12 -0500 David Moran wrote: | | "Sam Spade" wrote in message | ... |I can't believe any of these television stations are actually erecting |doppler radar sites. Those things cost a fortune to buy, erect, and |maintain. And, the government runs a whole bunch of them called NEXRAD and |offer the feeds to all of us gratis. | | As a meteorologist myself, the thing is that by the time the NEXRAD data can | get to everyone, it can be 10-15 minutes old. Most stations buy their own | radar because they get faster updates. They can get their own raw feed from the NOAA NEXRAD directly and process it themselves into video. I would think that is cheaper. It's real time since the raw feed is the serialized reflection data in the direction the radar is currently pointing. While I am not a television meteorologist, I'm only telling you what my television counterparts tell me. They've mainly complained that by the time they get NEXRAD data, it's 10-15 minutes old. Dave |
HD-RADAR
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:07:33 -0500 David Moran wrote:
| | wrote in message | ... | On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:26:12 -0500 David Moran | wrote: | | | | "Sam Spade" wrote in message | | ... | |I can't believe any of these television stations are actually erecting | |doppler radar sites. Those things cost a fortune to buy, erect, and | |maintain. And, the government runs a whole bunch of them called NEXRAD | and | |offer the feeds to all of us gratis. | | | | As a meteorologist myself, the thing is that by the time the NEXRAD data | can | | get to everyone, it can be 10-15 minutes old. Most stations buy their | own | | radar because they get faster updates. | | They can get their own raw feed from the NOAA NEXRAD directly and process | it themselves into video. I would think that is cheaper. It's real time | since the raw feed is the serialized reflection data in the direction the | radar is currently pointing. | | While I am not a television meteorologist, I'm only telling you what my | television counterparts tell me. They've mainly complained that by the time | they get NEXRAD data, it's 10-15 minutes old. They must be getting it from a second source supplier which calls it NEXRAD data (because it probably is NEXRAD data). -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
HD-RADAR
wrote in message ... On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:07:33 -0500 David Moran wrote: | | wrote in message | ... | On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:26:12 -0500 David Moran | wrote: | | | | "Sam Spade" wrote in message | | ... | |I can't believe any of these television stations are actually erecting | |doppler radar sites. Those things cost a fortune to buy, erect, and | |maintain. And, the government runs a whole bunch of them called NEXRAD | and | |offer the feeds to all of us gratis. | | | | As a meteorologist myself, the thing is that by the time the NEXRAD data | can | | get to everyone, it can be 10-15 minutes old. Most stations buy their | own | | radar because they get faster updates. | | They can get their own raw feed from the NOAA NEXRAD directly and process | it themselves into video. I would think that is cheaper. It's real time | since the raw feed is the serialized reflection data in the direction the | radar is currently pointing. | | While I am not a television meteorologist, I'm only telling you what my | television counterparts tell me. They've mainly complained that by the time | they get NEXRAD data, it's 10-15 minutes old. They must be getting it from a second source supplier which calls it NEXRAD data (because it probably is NEXRAD data). -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| It is. I don't know the specifics, but I'd assume they're getting it from a second source. Dave |
HD-RADAR
David Moran wrote:
While I am not a television meteorologist, I'm only telling you what my television counterparts tell me. They've mainly complained that by the time they get NEXRAD data, it's 10-15 minutes old. Dave The NEXRAD radar I pull off www.nws.noaa.gov vary from 5 to 15 minutes, depending upon the site. I wonder why a television station would be concerned about that delay? |
HD-RADAR
wrote in message
... On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:09:41 -0400 Captain Midnight wrote: | Local CBS affiliate, WHIO-DT(Dayton,OH), just gave a sneak peek of their new | HD Doppler radar. The stations news only went 16:9 a month or so ago, IIRC. | According to them they'll be the first in the nation to use the new radar. | The very brief preview looked like Doppler radar meets Google Earth. That's | all I know about it so can't answer questions. Looked really good but have | no idea how much more useful it will be. So they make the radar look "cool" by adding a bunch of "ground clutter"? I'd prefer a solid background and radar system that displays all combinations of attenuation, vector velocity, as well as cloud top heights. All of that combined can be rather intense and using some sort of topology as the background would really just end up being more intrusive. I always turn topo off for radar I get online (I get it where it can be turned off). You have an opinion about something you've never seen? I turn off topo on NWS radar too. At that resolution just knowing where the cities and counties are is good enough, especially considering it's usually 12 minutes old data. AFAIK the info on TV RADAR is as old as the sweep. Haven't had any percipitaion since they turned it on. Won't really know what it's like until it has some to show. Were actually in a drought. Not supposed to rain until Wednsday. Up until now on the old RADARs they've only been able to draw highways and some roads on top of the RADARs output. It seems with this it's very easy to tell what your looking at. In the view they showed last night of the I70&I75 interchange, tractor trailer rigs really showed up but with 4 wheelers you couldn't tell if it was a car or pick-up. Not that the image is real time just trying to show the clarity. | Local Station's radars already made cable weather services look pathetic .. | This isn't tornado alley but we get enough severe weather to make this | desirable. Negotiations between them and TW nearly fell through at the | beginning of the year. Our NBC affiliate is the best weather source in the | area(IMHO) at the moment. They don't allow TW to use their digital output. So the NBC affiliate will go dark on TW after Feb 17/18, 2009? Hmmm. AFAIK they've never allowed them to use it. Or At least not in the last 2 years I've monitored the local thread on AVSFORUM. | Access to the best weather would be reason enough to put up an antenna but | already have one, so no worries. | | Reminds me that over 30 years ago WHIO was one of the first stations to | track a tornado. Somewhat like Pearl Harbor the new technology was | dismissed. They didn't know for sure so was saying possible tornado. People | called the station to complain about the interruption of soap operas. Turned | out to be a Cat5 and 27 people died in Xenia. No I don't work for them. Just | thought it interesting and illustrates new technologies usefulness shouldn't | be dismissed out of hand. What we won't ever know is if they hadn't done that, if more people would have died. Common sense says that could be plausible. Saving one life is worth dumping a soap opera. But then, so are a lot of things. -- Yes it did but people were ignorant of the technology as we are about HD-RADAR now. No one would complain about tornado warnings now. The callers may have thought Doppler RADAR was a cool gimmick then too. |
HD-RADAR
"jiml" wrote in message
... On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:09:41 -0400, "Captain Midnight" wrote: Our CBS station in Houston does all the news and weather in HD. From my vantage point, I see the doppler in HD, so don't really care whether it comes off the radar box that way. I know the news in HD isn't all that new. I'm talking about the RADAR. Does the RADAR you see look like Google Earth? http://www.whiotv.com/weather/13580217/detail.html Unfortunately no pics or video of the output. |
HD-RADAR
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... David Moran wrote: While I am not a television meteorologist, I'm only telling you what my television counterparts tell me. They've mainly complained that by the time they get NEXRAD data, it's 10-15 minutes old. Dave The NEXRAD radar I pull off www.nws.noaa.gov vary from 5 to 15 minutes, depending upon the site. I wonder why a television station would be concerned about that delay? If I understand correctly, the main complaint is that during severe weather, they can't get current information fast enough so they usually invest in their own radar. Dave |
HD-RADAR
David Moran wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... David Moran wrote: While I am not a television meteorologist, I'm only telling you what my television counterparts tell me. They've mainly complained that by the time they get NEXRAD data, it's 10-15 minutes old. Dave The NEXRAD radar I pull off www.nws.noaa.gov vary from 5 to 15 minutes, depending upon the site. I wonder why a television station would be concerned about that delay? If I understand correctly, the main complaint is that during severe weather, they can't get current information fast enough so they usually invest in their own radar. Dave But don't the television stations receive tornado warnings from the NWS's Storm Perdiction Center as soon as they are issued? Those warnings are issued by experts with all the information at hand. I can't imagine a local television outlet that thinks it can do better, not to mention the liability issues. A related aside: XM radio has become the vendor of choice to provide NEXRAD radar images into many light aircraft that do not have airborne weather radar. This includes anything from a portable Garmin navigator unit to Garmin's integrated G-1000 in the new Cessna Mustang light jet aircraft. The promotional literature claims NEXRAD radar is received in "a near real time basis." |
HD-RADAR
David Moran wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... David Moran wrote: While I am not a television meteorologist, I'm only telling you what my television counterparts tell me. They've mainly complained that by the time they get NEXRAD data, it's 10-15 minutes old. Dave The NEXRAD radar I pull off www.nws.noaa.gov vary from 5 to 15 minutes, depending upon the site. I wonder why a television station would be concerned about that delay? If I understand correctly, the main complaint is that during severe weather, they can't get current information fast enough so they usually invest in their own radar. Dave I found a site called weathertap.com that claims to convert NEXRAD into "hi def." They seem to be 5 minutes, or less, old. |
HD-RADAR
Sam Spade wrote:
But don't the television stations receive tornado warnings from the NWS's Storm Perdiction Center as soon as they are issued? Those warnings are issued by experts with all the information at hand. I can't imagine a local television outlet that thinks it can do better, not to mention the liability issues. After a devastating tornado in (IIRC) 1989, the TV stations in Huntsville, Alabama, where I lived at the time, decided that if they operated their own weather radar, they could issue warnings critical minutes before the NWS. Might save a few lives, and good for ratings too. http://www.raycommedia.com/stations/waff.htm -- Bill Anderson I am the Mighty Favog |
HD-RADAR
"Bill Anderson" wrote in message
... Sam Spade wrote: But don't the television stations receive tornado warnings from the NWS's Storm Perdiction Center as soon as they are issued? Those warnings are issued by experts with all the information at hand. I can't imagine a local television outlet that thinks it can do better, not to mention the liability issues. After a devastating tornado in (IIRC) 1989, the TV stations in Huntsville, Alabama, where I lived at the time, decided that if they operated their own weather radar, they could issue warnings critical minutes before the NWS. Might save a few lives, and good for ratings too. I've seen local stations say they expected NWS to issue a warning numerous times. Usually NWS does, as acknowledged by weather scanner. Sometimes can hear my scanner go off at the same time as the warning at the studio. Don't know if it's a difference in equipment, staffing or judgment. We're in between NWS Wilmington, OH and Indianapolis, IN. Seem to be in an overlap area that doesn't seem to get covered as well because of it, IMHO. Also NWS covers a large area including Cincinnati and Columbus. Indianapolis must know about the weather coming this way but Wilmington calls the shots. Don't know if it's significant but the TV RADAR is 30 miles NW of Wilmington. I live 60 miles NW of Wilmington. Couple of years ago when WDTN put in their then more powerful RADAR WHIO started advertising links to TV RADAR from Louisville, KY, Indianapolis and Ft Wayne. Seemed like a good idea but AFAIK was/is almost never used. Maybe the news/weather is just more competitive someplaces than others. |
HD-RADAR
Sam Spade wrote (in part):
The NEXRAD radar I pull off www.nws.noaa.gov vary from 5 to 15 minutes, depending upon the site. I wonder why a television station would be concerned about that delay? As others noted, sometimes a few minutes delay can make a life-or-death difference. But I think stations want their own radar for much the same reason they want their own meteorologists reporting the weather. I remember when a station's weatherman was just a guy who read the NOAA forecast, often dressed in a uniform advertising Texaco or whatever company sponsored that segment. Then one station hired a meteorologist (who emphasized, "MY forecast is . . .") and suddenly they alll had to have one. One station in my area ran ads promoting their Doppler radar showing people carrying models of the radar tower around with them at work, on picnics, etc. The tag line was something like, "We bought Doppler radar so you don't have to." Another station put a continuous feed of their radar on a digital subchannel; local cable also carries it. But due to unexpected consequences of ill-conceived FCC regs, they've decided to keep the OTA viewers from seeing it. It's still broadcast so that cable can get it (cable gets a direct feed of the same signal sent to the transmitter) but it's marked "hidden" in the digital bitstream. My computer-based tuners can still get it because they already knew how. If I do a rescan I'll lose it. That radar is quite handy and seems to be real-time. I check it before going for a walk, and I work with satellite equipment that's affected by rain, so it's good to know when we'll get hit and when it will let up. Del Mibbler |
HD-RADAR
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... David Moran wrote: "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... David Moran wrote: While I am not a television meteorologist, I'm only telling you what my television counterparts tell me. They've mainly complained that by the time they get NEXRAD data, it's 10-15 minutes old. Dave The NEXRAD radar I pull off www.nws.noaa.gov vary from 5 to 15 minutes, depending upon the site. I wonder why a television station would be concerned about that delay? If I understand correctly, the main complaint is that during severe weather, they can't get current information fast enough so they usually invest in their own radar. Dave But don't the television stations receive tornado warnings from the NWS's Storm Perdiction Center as soon as they are issued? Those warnings are issued by experts with all the information at hand. I can't imagine a local television outlet that thinks it can do better, not to mention the liability issues. The Storm Prediction Center only issues watches. The local NWS office issues warnings. I see your point, however, I suspect it's a marketing ploy. The ABC station where I live is always bragging how much better their radar is than the other stations. Dave Dave |
HD-RADAR
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 03:40:31 -0400, "Captain Midnight"
wrote: "jiml" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:09:41 -0400, "Captain Midnight" wrote: Our CBS station in Houston does all the news and weather in HD. From my vantage point, I see the doppler in HD, so don't really care whether it comes off the radar box that way. I know the news in HD isn't all that new. I'm talking about the RADAR. Does the RADAR you see look like Google Earth? http://www.whiotv.com/weather/13580217/detail.html Unfortunately no pics or video of the output. All Radar, by definition, is extremely low def. Seeing it in HD adds little, if any. Instead, they should focus on improving the studio cameras that better portray the cute little ass on the weather girl. |
HD-RADAR
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:26:12 -0500, "David Moran"
wrote: "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... I can't believe any of these television stations are actually erecting doppler radar sites. Those things cost a fortune to buy, erect, and maintain. And, the government runs a whole bunch of them called NEXRAD and offer the feeds to all of us gratis. As a meteorologist myself, the thing is that by the time the NEXRAD data can get to everyone, it can be 10-15 minutes old. Most stations buy their own radar because they get faster updates. You are still looking at a typical 5 minute processing time to get the actual image so the best the end user can hope for with the current generation of NEXRAD is 5 minutes. There is one (that I know of) developmental system that promises much faster processing times. I've seen no indication/prediction as to when it'll be fully operational and put into general use beyond that. Typically with subscription download for aviation "in the plane" we see 5 to 10 minutes. My subscription weather on the Internet (Weather Tap) is normally 5 to 6 minutes and that is down to the county roads on the map. They have or did have (for a bit extra) right down to the street address with the NEXRAD as an overlay. Dave |
HD-RADAR
|
HD-RADAR
|
HD-RADAR
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:33:58 -0700, Sam Spade
wrote: David Moran wrote: "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... David Moran wrote: While I am not a television meteorologist, I'm only telling you what my television counterparts tell me. They've mainly complained that by the time they get NEXRAD data, it's 10-15 minutes old. Dave The NEXRAD radar I pull off www.nws.noaa.gov vary from 5 to 15 minutes, depending upon the site. I wonder why a television station would be concerned about that delay? If I understand correctly, the main complaint is that during severe weather, they can't get current information fast enough so they usually invest in their own radar. Dave But don't the television stations receive tornado warnings from the NWS's Storm Perdiction Center as soon as they are issued? Those warnings are issued by experts with all the information at hand. I can't imagine a local television outlet that thinks it can do better, not to mention the liability issues. It's not quite so simple. Typically it takes time for warnings to be issued. The front line is still the spotters out there in the rain. Here in Michigan where the average life of a tornado is less than 10 minutes, it is not unusual for the thing to be gone before the warnings are issued. We get warnings from RADAR, trained spotters, and civilians. Most times the untrained end up calling rain shafts funnel clouds and funnel clouds tornados but we have to verify those. A related aside: XM radio has become the vendor of choice to provide NEXRAD radar images into many light aircraft that do not have airborne weather radar. This includes anything from a portable Garmin navigator unit to Garmin's integrated G-1000 in the new Cessna Mustang light jet aircraft. The promotional literature claims NEXRAD radar is received in "a near real time basis." There is that "real time" and NEXRAD in the same sentence again. Now there are two things to define. Real time as pertaining to NEXRAD and what they mean by "near real time". As an IFR rated pilot I will answer the last one first. The typical display *update* on the G-1000 is on the order of _10_minutes_ and they do tell the user that right up front and it should have been in the literature. That means AT BEST you have a 10 minute old display! The pilot really needs to know his or her *stuff* when it comes to interpreting those images and predicting what will be happening in the next 15 minutes. So they need a lot more information than just those images and they need to know a lot about weather/meteorology. You do not use those images to fly *close* to anything threatening. Nor do you use it to thread your way through a line of closely spaced thunderstorms unless you have a death wish. You can find hail to 3 inches at altitude out in bright sunshine 10 miles ahead of some storms while it may be "pea sized" at ground level. Lightning is also a potential threat up to 10 miles or a bit more from the storm. A couple years back I was headed north from here at 5000. There was one lone, large thunderstorm about 12 to 15 miles off to our left. My passenger asked me how close we dared get. Just then a lightning bolt shot out horizontally and straight at us at our altitude. Then it curved down and struck the ground about 2 miles from us. That pretty much answered the question. BUT possibly/hopefully XM will be able to update in a bit more timely manner in the future and even at 10 minutes it is a VERY useful feature. As to "Real Time" when it pertains to NEXRAD the typical *processed* image contains data from sweeps that are near current to around 5 minutes old. The "next generation" NEXRAD should cut that time substantially. |
HD-RADAR
"ValveJob" wrote in message
... On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 03:40:31 -0400, "Captain Midnight" wrote: "jiml" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:09:41 -0400, "Captain Midnight" wrote: Our CBS station in Houston does all the news and weather in HD. From my vantage point, I see the doppler in HD, so don't really care whether it comes off the radar box that way. I know the news in HD isn't all that new. I'm talking about the RADAR. Does the RADAR you see look like Google Earth? http://www.whiotv.com/weather/13580217/detail.html Unfortunately no pics or video of the output. All Radar, by definition, is extremely low def. Seeing it in HD adds little, if any. Instead, they should focus on improving the studio cameras that better portray the cute little ass on the weather girl. Could be but haven't seen any weather on it so can't comment. The map on the other hand is better. If you've used mapping software you no that higher resolution and bigger screen means you can show a bigger area with more detail. If nothing else they can show more detail at a farther distance. It has a 200 mile range. Kind of impressive just watching it sweep across a little bit of Lake Michigan and a good bit more of Lake Erie. Showing where the weathers at Should also be more accurate. Now that you mention it. They have hired a couple of young female reporters since going HD with the news.;) |
HD-RADAR
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 07:44:00 -0700, Sam Spade
wrote: David Moran wrote: "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... David Moran wrote: While I am not a television meteorologist, I'm only telling you what my television counterparts tell me. They've mainly complained that by the time they get NEXRAD data, it's 10-15 minutes old. Dave The NEXRAD radar I pull off www.nws.noaa.gov vary from 5 to 15 minutes, depending upon the site. I wonder why a television station would be concerned about that delay? If I understand correctly, the main complaint is that during severe weather, they can't get current information fast enough so they usually invest in their own radar. Dave I found a site called weathertap.com that claims to convert NEXRAD into "hi def." They seem to be 5 minutes, or less, old. The subscription service is updated around every 5 minutes. The hi def image is part of the subscription service. I consider it worth the money although I use the RADARLAB function most often. It even has storm track prediction with 15 minute ticks on the tracks. |
HD-RADAR
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:21:40 -0400, Del Mibbler [email protected] wrote:
Sam Spade wrote (in part): The NEXRAD radar I pull off www.nws.noaa.gov vary from 5 to 15 minutes, depending upon the site. I wonder why a television station would be concerned about that delay? As others noted, sometimes a few minutes delay can make a life-or-death difference. But I think stations want their own radar for much the same reason they want their own meteorologists reporting the weather. I remember when a station's weatherman was just a guy who read the NOAA forecast, often dressed in a uniform advertising Texaco or whatever company sponsored that segment. Then one station hired a meteorologist (who emphasized, "MY forecast is . . .") and suddenly they alll had to have one. One station in my area ran ads promoting their Doppler radar showing people carrying models of the radar tower around with them at work, on picnics, etc. The tag line was something like, "We bought Doppler radar so you don't have to." Another station put a continuous feed of their radar on a digital subchannel; local cable also carries it. But due to unexpected consequences of ill-conceived FCC regs, they've decided to keep the OTA viewers from seeing it. It's still broadcast so that cable can get it (cable gets a direct feed of the same signal sent to the transmitter) but it's marked "hidden" in the digital bitstream. My computer-based tuners can still get it because they already knew how. If I do a rescan I'll lose it. Our local (WJRT 12-2) still has it on digital SD with 24 hour forecasting included. (Bay City, Saginaw, flint MI) Normally they run the RADAR interspersed with forecasting. That radar is quite handy and seems to be real-time. I check it before going for a walk, and I work with satellite equipment that's affected by rain, so it's good to know when we'll get hit and when it will let up. Del Mibbler |
HD-RADAR
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 03:13:46 -0400, "Captain Midnight"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:09:41 -0400 Captain Midnight wrote: | Local CBS affiliate, WHIO-DT(Dayton,OH), just gave a sneak peek of their new | HD Doppler radar. The stations news only went 16:9 a month or so ago, IIRC. | According to them they'll be the first in the nation to use the new radar. | The very brief preview looked like Doppler radar meets Google Earth. That's | all I know about it so can't answer questions. Looked really good but have | no idea how much more useful it will be. So they make the radar look "cool" by adding a bunch of "ground clutter"? I'd prefer a solid background and radar system that displays all combinations of attenuation, vector velocity, as well as cloud top heights. All of that combined can be rather intense and using some sort of topology as the background would really just end up being more intrusive. I always turn topo off for radar I get online (I get it where it can be turned off). You have an opinion about something you've never seen? I turn off topo on I run the terraine and find it useful Then again I'm usually talking to a number of people out there trying to stay out of trouble. |
HD-RADAR
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 21:45:15 -0500, "David Moran"
wrote: "Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message .. . On 1 Jul 2007 02:36:40 GMT, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:07:33 -0500 David Moran wrote: | | wrote in message | ... | On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:26:12 -0500 David Moran | wrote: | | | | "Sam Spade" wrote in message | | ... | |I can't believe any of these television stations are actually erecting | |doppler radar sites. Those things cost a fortune to buy, erect, and | |maintain. And, the government runs a whole bunch of them called NEXRAD | and | |offer the feeds to all of us gratis. | | | | As a meteorologist myself, the thing is that by the time the NEXRAD data | can | | get to everyone, it can be 10-15 minutes old. Most stations buy their | own | | radar because they get faster updates. | | They can get their own raw feed from the NOAA NEXRAD directly and process | it themselves into video. I would think that is cheaper. It's real time | since the raw feed is the serialized reflection data in the direction the | radar is currently pointing. | | While I am not a television meteorologist, I'm only telling you what my | television counterparts tell me. They've mainly complained that by the time | they get NEXRAD data, it's 10-15 minutes old. They must be getting it from a second source supplier which calls it NEXRAD data (because it probably is NEXRAD data). The best you can hope for in true NEXRAD is about 5 minutes. I can't remember if this has been mentioned, but NEXRAD is the name of the network of radars, not the individual radars themselves. Although it is a network of individual stations that can present a mosaic of the national scope the NEXt generation RADar (NEXRAD) is also capable of each site generating a fully independent image for the area it covers ( OTOH it might be more correct to say an image can be generated for each individual site.) so the acronym is used interchangeably to describe the RADAR site (WSR-88D) as well as the system. Dave |
HD-RADAR
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 22:56:07 -0400, "Captain Midnight"
wrote: "ValveJob" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 03:40:31 -0400, "Captain Midnight" wrote: "jiml" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:09:41 -0400, "Captain Midnight" wrote: Our CBS station in Houston does all the news and weather in HD. From my vantage point, I see the doppler in HD, so don't really care whether it comes off the radar box that way. I know the news in HD isn't all that new. I'm talking about the RADAR. Does the RADAR you see look like Google Earth? http://www.whiotv.com/weather/13580217/detail.html Unfortunately no pics or video of the output. All Radar, by definition, is extremely low def. Seeing it in HD adds little, if any. Instead, they should focus on improving the studio cameras that better portray the cute little ass on the weather girl. Could be but haven't seen any weather on it so can't comment. The map on the other hand is better. If you've used mapping software you no that higher resolution and bigger screen means you can show a bigger area with more detail. If nothing else they can show more detail at a farther distance. It has a 200 mile range. Kind of impressive just watching it sweep across a little bit of Lake Michigan and a good bit more of Lake Erie. Showing where the weathers at Should also be more accurate. Well, I'm a sucker for anything HD. I'll swith local news coverage again in a heartbeat if the doppler hd is as good as you say. |
HD-RADAR
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:54:26 -0400 "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
| As to "Real Time" when it pertains to NEXRAD the typical *processed* | image contains data from sweeps that are near current to around 5 | minutes old. The "next generation" NEXRAD should cut that time | substantially. All these delays are inherint in the processing to produce an image AND the distribution of that image. It can still be made much faster simply by applying good design practices with that goal (images no more than 20 seconds old, for example). If you connect to the _raw_ feed and do your own processing, you can get images a lot faster. -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
HD-RADAR
|
HD-RADAR
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:36:27 -0400 "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
| On 4 Jul 2007 05:22:14 GMT, wrote: | |On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:54:26 -0400 "Roger (K8RI)" wrote: | || As to "Real Time" when it pertains to NEXRAD the typical *processed* || image contains data from sweeps that are near current to around 5 || minutes old. The "next generation" NEXRAD should cut that time || substantially. | |All these delays are inherint in the processing to produce an image AND | | No, all of the delays are not inherent in the processing. It takes | many sweeps combined to get that NEXRAD image. If you don't combine | all the sweeps and the information therein you can process it much | faster as could the NWS. You really need to combine the Doppler | information as well with a lot of other information and that is what | takes the time. Those sweeps can be done a lot faster than five minutes. And if all you want is reflection (attenuation) then one sweeps gives it to you. Still, they can always be releasing updated info with each sweep based on it and all the previous. It would be a group of sliding windows to program it. It seems they don't do this. |the distribution of that image. It can still be made much faster simply |by applying good design practices with that goal (images no more than 20 |seconds old, for example). If you connect to the _raw_ feed and do your |own processing, you can get images a lot faster. | | Yes, but don't confuse that with a NEXRAD image. You get the results | of a single scan converted into an image like we do with airborne | RADAR that shows reflection intensity based on the "base reflectivity" | which shows only the intensity of the reflection and distance. IOW it | only shows rainfall intensity. I've flown through deep red | reflections in a Beech Debonair/Bonanza and just washed the bugs off | the plane. It was a nice smooth ride. The reflections looked just like | the ones associated with severe thunder storms if taken out of | context. I've also watched the RADAR as we threaded our way through a | line of severe thunderstorms in a Kingair and that was not a smooth | ride. The reflections looked much the same in both cases and required | a pretty good background to interpret. There are several frequencies that can be used to get water and vapor reflections. Do the bugs (and other flying things) always reflect at all the same frequencies? Why not use multiple frequencies to verify it is water? -- |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below | | first name lower case at ipal.net / | |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com