Well, can someone spill the dirt on Australian STB converters (soon to come to NZ when DVB-T is transmitted there)...

Well, can someone spill the dirt on Australian STB converters (soon to come
to NZ when DVB-T is transmitted there) ...
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/abc2/about.htm

===========
There are two ways to receive ABC2:
Free to air: You'll need either a digital set top box (STB) or a television
with an inbuilt digital decoder (also known as an integrated digital
television). The STB is a small box about half the size of a video recorder.
It receives the digital signal and transmits it either through the aerial
socket or through the coloured A/V leads on an existing television.

The cost of standard definition set top boxes start at less than $100. They
can be purchased from most electrical retailers. Once you've connected your
STB, simply go to channel 22. If your receiver doesn't recognise "22" you
may need to re-scan (ie re-tune) to pick up the new service. Some set top
boxes and TV sets allow higher quality picture and sound for which you'll
need special connecting leads. Check with your retailer for details. With
the appropriate hardware components, you can also receive digital television
on your computer. A number of TV tuner cards on the market, ranging in price
and features, can be installed into computers with the appropriate
specifications.
===========

NOTE: NZ & AU UHF (and VHF) frequencies are mostly unique, and only
marginally shared by Fiji, PNG etc..

"Max Power" wrote in message
...
Well, can someone spill the dirt on Australian STB converters (soon to
come
to NZ when DVB-T is transmitted there) ...
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/abc2/about.htm

Australia has sold these SD boxes for years. They are the same as our SD
digital cable boxes in that they can only tune in SD content. To get the HD
programs you need to get an HD box.

This is unlike our ATSC converter boxes which can pick up HD programming and
show it on an SD display. From what I've seen our boxes are cheaper than
theirs.

I don't see why their SD boxes would exclude HD tuning as, in my
experience*, the HD channel downsampled looks much better than the SD
redundant channel. Just IMHO, YMMV.

*In Baltimore WMAR runs an SD version of WMAR-HD on 2-2 while WBFF 45-2
duplicates both 45-1 and 54-1 during the day. Even when the duplicate SD is
from a non-HD source the -1 HD channel is sharper than the -2 SD variant.
Again IMHO. ;-)

Andy

On Jul 13, 5:32*am, "Max Power" wrote:

Well, can someone spill the dirt on Australian STB converters (soon to come
to NZ when DVB-T is transmitted there) ...http://www.abc.net.au/tv/abc2/about.htm

New Zealand's DTT system is different from the one in Australia. All
receivers in NZ will be expected to accept HD, even if the display
can't show HD. And the compression algorithms required are different.

Australia (and the US) require use of the so-called MPEG-2 compression
algorithm, also known as H.262. New Zealand, instead, since it can
start from scratch with the most modern DTT standard, is also
requiring all receivers to support the newer H.264 algorithm. So the
DVB-T boxes used in Australia won't work in NZ.

Bert

On Jul 14, 2:10*pm, "drewdawg" wrote:

I don't see why their SD boxes would exclude HD tuning as, in my
experience*, the HD channel downsampled looks much better than the SD
redundant channel. Just IMHO, YMMV.

*In Baltimore WMAR runs an SD version of WMAR-HD on 2-2 while WBFF 45-2
duplicates both 45-1 and 54-1 during the day. Even when the duplicate SD is
from a non-HD source the -1 HD channel is sharper than the -2 SD variant.
Again IMHO. ;-)

In Europe, for the most part, DTT broadcasting DID NOT include HDTV.
So as a result, the set-top boxes sold in Europe in the past only
decoded SDTV signals. Only recently have one or two European countries
begun transmitting HDTV over their terrestrial networks.

Australia, wanting to benefit from the numerous DVB-T STBs available
in Europe, allowed the importation of receivers that can only decode
SDTV. These were the nice, cheap ones that most people bought.

As a result of this, in Australia, and now also in European countries
where HDTV is getting underway, HDTV programs have to be duplicated in
SDTV channels. Otherwise, most of the viewers would miss that program.

What you describe for WMAR-DT in Baltimore is just a place holder.
There's no need for WMAR to transmit the same show in SD and HD,
because all ATSC receivers are supposed to be capable of decoding the
HDTV signal. Hopefully soon, WMAR, and other stations in the US that
transmit the same program twice, will instead put their available
channel capacity to better use. For example, no-over-the air
broadcaster in the Washington DC market is transmitting an HD and a
separate SD version of the same program, at the same time. No need.

Bert

Is NZ going to DVB-T2 or just DVB-T?

Also, I am amazed that Australia did not demand that all STBs be able to
decode HDTV modes ... there is nothing as useless as a STB DTV decoder that
does not work half the time. These imported STB units will probably last for
25 years, unless most have not been "Tropicalized".

As part of the Trans-Tazman 'free trade' framework, you would thank that
some common TV broadcasting regulation would exist -- at least in the PAL to
DVB transition area. Commonly shared regulation makes the transition
cheaper, as it makes the transition predictable over the entire Austrasian
marketplace. However, each nation should (as a sovereign entity) transition
in its own way -- as a matter of social policy.

The AU and NZ UHF allocation tables are not aligned with each other at
all...
Only 5(?) common VHF high band channels exist in common between NZ and AU.
I assume that Fiji and PNG have adopted the AU UHF allocation table, but I
don't have any proof.

I am also amazed that so many people are against H.264 aka MPEG2.
Transitioning to an MPEG4 video transmission structure is not a cure for
MPEG2 transmission problems. However, I don't blame Brazil for going the
MPEG4 route for strategic [social policy] reasons.

===================
Well, can someone spill the dirt on Australian STB converters (soon to
come
to NZ when DVB-T is transmitted there)
...http://www.abc.net.au/tv/abc2/about.htm
---------------------------
New Zealand's DTT system is different from the one in Australia. All
receivers in NZ will be expected to accept HD, even if the display
can't show HD. And the compression algorithms required are different.

Australia (and the US) require use of the so-called MPEG-2 compression
algorithm, also known as H.262. New Zealand, instead, since it can
start from scratch with the most modern DTT standard, is also
requiring all receivers to support the newer H.264 algorithm. So the
DVB-T boxes used in Australia won't work in NZ.
---------------------------

"Albert Manfredi" wrote in message
...
On Jul 14, 2:10 pm, "drewdawg" wrote:

I don't see why their SD boxes would exclude HD tuning as, in my
experience*, the HD channel downsampled looks much better than the SD
redundant channel. Just IMHO, YMMV.

*In Baltimore WMAR runs an SD version of WMAR-HD on 2-2 while WBFF 45-2
duplicates both 45-1 and 54-1 during the day. Even when the duplicate SD
is
from a non-HD source the -1 HD channel is sharper than the -2 SD variant.
Again IMHO. ;-)

In Europe, for the most part, DTT broadcasting DID NOT include HDTV.
So as a result, the set-top boxes sold in Europe in the past only
decoded SDTV signals. Only recently have one or two European countries
begun transmitting HDTV over their terrestrial networks.

Australia, wanting to benefit from the numerous DVB-T STBs available
in Europe, allowed the importation of receivers that can only decode
SDTV. These were the nice, cheap ones that most people bought.

As a result of this, in Australia, and now also in European countries
where HDTV is getting underway, HDTV programs have to be duplicated in
SDTV channels. Otherwise, most of the viewers would miss that program.

What you describe for WMAR-DT in Baltimore is just a place holder.
There's no need for WMAR to transmit the same show in SD and HD,
because all ATSC receivers are supposed to be capable of decoding the
HDTV signal. Hopefully soon, WMAR, and other stations in the US that
transmit the same program twice, will instead put their available
channel capacity to better use. For example, no-over-the air
broadcaster in the Washington DC market is transmitting an HD and a
separate SD version of the same program, at the same time. No need.

Bert

Actually what the channels are doing in Oz is sending different program
content on their SD and HD muxes (at selected times) so Network TEN for
instance on a Thursday night has Sci-Fi programming on their HD channel and
law and order type stuff on their SD - so the free to air channels are
operating a bit like mini cable. The ABC has 3 SD + HD and will later be
running separate programming. ABC1 is the national carrier (like BBC1), ABC2
is basically reruns and ABC3 will be a dedicated children's channel.

You can pickup a HD/SD set top box for around au$124 and PVR's with built in
HD/SD tuners with 320GB drive in the au$800 area. Nothing is encoded so you
can transfer stuff on to your computer via USB or Ethernet..

New Zealand has launched with DVB-T. DVB-T2 is not recommended for a
couple of years yet, for countries launching a switch that will start in
2-3 years that is. No equipment yet or at too high a price.

Bob Miller

Max Power wrote:
Is NZ going to DVB-T2 or just DVB-T?

Also, I am amazed that Australia did not demand that all STBs be able to
decode HDTV modes ... there is nothing as useless as a STB DTV decoder
that does not work half the time. These imported STB units will probably
last for 25 years, unless most have not been "Tropicalized".

As part of the Trans-Tazman 'free trade' framework, you would thank that
some common TV broadcasting regulation would exist -- at least in the
PAL to DVB transition area. Commonly shared regulation makes the
transition cheaper, as it makes the transition predictable over the
entire Austrasian marketplace. However, each nation should (as a
sovereign entity) transition in its own way -- as a matter of social
policy.

The AU and NZ UHF allocation tables are not aligned with each other at
all...
Only 5(?) common VHF high band channels exist in common between NZ and AU.
I assume that Fiji and PNG have adopted the AU UHF allocation table, but
I don't have any proof.

I am also amazed that so many people are against H.264 aka MPEG2.
Transitioning to an MPEG4 video transmission structure is not a cure for
MPEG2 transmission problems. However, I don't blame Brazil for going the
MPEG4 route for strategic [social policy] reasons.

===================
Well, can someone spill the dirt on Australian STB converters (soon to
come
to NZ when DVB-T is transmitted there)
...http://www.abc.net.au/tv/abc2/about.htm
---------------------------
New Zealand's DTT system is different from the one in Australia. All
receivers in NZ will be expected to accept HD, even if the display
can't show HD. And the compression algorithms required are different.

Australia (and the US) require use of the so-called MPEG-2 compression
algorithm, also known as H.262. New Zealand, instead, since it can
start from scratch with the most modern DTT standard, is also
requiring all receivers to support the newer H.264 algorithm. So the
DVB-T boxes used in Australia won't work in NZ.
---------------------------

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:26:45 -0700, Albert Manfredi wrote:

On Jul 14, 2:10*pm, "drewdawg" wrote:
I don't see why their SD boxes would exclude HD tuning as, in my
experience*, the HD channel downsampled looks much better than the SD
redundant channel. Just IMHO, YMMV.

*In Baltimore WMAR runs an SD version of WMAR-HD on 2-2 while WBFF 45-2
duplicates both 45-1 and 54-1 during the day. Even when the duplicate SD is
from a non-HD source the -1 HD channel is sharper than the -2 SD variant.
Again IMHO. ;-)
...
What you describe for WMAR-DT in Baltimore is just a place holder.
There's no need for WMAR to transmit the same show in SD and HD,
because all ATSC receivers are supposed to be capable of decoding the
HDTV signal. Hopefully soon, WMAR, and other stations in the US that
transmit the same program twice, will instead put their available
channel capacity to better use. For example, no-over-the air
broadcaster in the Washington DC market is transmitting an HD and a
separate SD version of the same program, at the same time. No need.

I would suggest the reason for some stations to simulcast their HD
material in SD on a second subchannel is to maintain control over the
aspect ratio conversion on those cable systems that carry the digital
OTA signal.

My guess is WMAR and WBFF are "starving" their -2 channels for bandwidth,
dedicating as much as possible to the -1 HD channel.

"Albert Manfredi" wrote in message
...
On Jul 14, 2:10 pm, "drewdawg" wrote:

I don't see why their SD boxes would exclude HD tuning as, in my
experience*, the HD channel downsampled looks much better than the SD
redundant channel. Just IMHO, YMMV.

*In Baltimore WMAR runs an SD version of WMAR-HD on 2-2 while WBFF 45-2
duplicates both 45-1 and 54-1 during the day. Even when the duplicate SD
is
from a non-HD source the -1 HD channel is sharper than the -2 SD variant.
Again IMHO. ;-)

In Europe, for the most part, DTT broadcasting DID NOT include HDTV.
So as a result, the set-top boxes sold in Europe in the past only
decoded SDTV signals. Only recently have one or two European countries
begun transmitting HDTV over their terrestrial networks.


Here in the UK terrestrial DTV is unlikely to be carrying very much in the
way of HDTV until after 2012.

However the national terrestrial Freeview digital television service has
recently been complimented by a new satellite service 'Freesat' which does
now carry a fledgling HDTV service, the content of which is allegedly
predicted to substantially increase over the next couple of years.

http://www.freesat.co.uk/index.php?page=features.Main

http://www.freeview.co.uk/channels/

On Jul 14, 9:25*pm, "Max Power" wrote:

I am also amazed that so many people are against H.264 aka MPEG2.
Transitioning to an MPEG4 video transmission structure is not a cure for
MPEG2 transmission problems. However, I don't blame Brazil for going the
MPEG4 route for strategic [social policy] reasons.

I think you meant H.264 aka MPEG-4. Which isn't right, but H.264 is
often referred to that way.

Not sure that anyone is "against" H.264. More like, if the
transmission standard doesn't have a convenient reason to make the
transition, it's not a trivial matter. Of course, any new deployment
would be wise to adopt the very latest.

Brazil and New Zealand are just starting out with DTT. It makes sense
for them. Europe is just starting out with HDTV. France already has
one HDTV multiplex in three markets, and Italy is still in the
planning stage. Makes sense to mandate use of H.264 for this new HDTV
service, and retain MPEG-2 for the existing SDTV multiplexes.

The US and Australia have had HDTV for many years, so manufacturing
this new transition for no overarching reason is sort of uncalled for.
In the US, H.264 will probably happen for the new hand-held TV
broadcast service, where legacy receivers are not an issue.

Bert