artifact city

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:13:35 -0500, "Nick Danger"
wrote:

Anything you watch, regardless of the source, regardless of the receiver,
has probably been through multiple transcodings. No matter how good the
technology is, those repeated encodings and decodings will result in codec
fatigue.

Bit rot!

I'm surprised that there seems to be no one
who has access to the technology to sniff the bit stream and get the bit
rate, and is willing to post the info here. I wouldn't be surprised to find
that there is a secret code you can enter into a converter box or a TV to
get it to display that information.

If there's so much as a signal strength feature on my set, they've
hidden it. But at some point, maybe I'll see what's hidden in the
diagnostics. I am getting curious about it all.

The human optic system is good at taking very distorted images and applying
correction algorithms so that it can perceive them as normal. The typical
NTSC picture comes nowhere near looking like reality. The RGB system used in
all displays supposedly can display less than 50 percent of the colors that
the eye is capable of recognizing. Yet we have trained ourselves to believe
that what we see on TV is an accurate representation of reality. In time, we
will learn to correct for digital artifacts and we just won't see them
unless we make an effort to do so.

Yep, I'm getting used to it pretty quick.

I still need a stronger signal, have to work on my antennas, with that
source of error eliminated, I'll be even more curious at the source of
what's left.

Here's an interesting thought. Eventually, someone will produce software
that can "add detail" to SDTV content and give it the look and feel of HDTV.
I'm not talking about just sharpening, but actual code to make hair and skin
look like real hair and skin, and where there is a pattern on clothing, for
example, to show detail in that pattern.

John Brunner, in "Stand on Zanzibar" (1968?) proposed you'd be able to
put your face on the lead character, etc. Or hey, buy a Humphrey
Bogart avatar and recast the show. Or maybe watch everyone naked. I
can hardly wait.

It's already happening
with Star Trek. And some fans are saying they don't like it because it's not
the Star Trek that was originally produced back in The Day.

Yeah I watched one of those ("Space Seed" no less) last weekend. The
picture quality was scary, never looked that good when it was shot.
Though somehow, maybe it would look better yet on a ten-inch round
black and white rendering, with a bad vertical hold. That would make
an amusing setting for some future digital tvs, render the show in
sepia, or posterize it, etc. I suppose you can do some of that with
the current color controls, gamma, etc.

J.

Tantalust wrote:
"Bob Miller" wrote

One way is to just change.

You can learn to practice with one of these:

http://www.stupid.com/stat/OBSS.html

LOL! Good one. I'm saving that link. Thanks.

Alan F

On Dec 1, 10:35 am, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote:
ninphan wrote:
On Dec 1, 1:11 am, JXStern wrote:
I've been watching the HD about a week now. I like it, can't imagine
going back, should have switched earlier, and all that.

Snippage has occurred



The NTSC signal may always be fuzzier, with so many fewer pixels, but
it still had a smoothness that the repeatedly compressed and
decompressed digital signal, does not currently equal. Well, check in
again in about five years, maybe the lossy codecs will get better in
practice, or someone will offer less compressed material, or even
lossless content. The technology is still pretty young.

J.

Wait until you hook a Blu-ray Disc player up to that bad boy, then
you'll be happier than a pig in mud.

The fanboi strikes again.

Either an HD-DVD or a Blu-ray player is capable (with properly mastered
media) of providing much better than OTA quality.

Matthew

--
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people". Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936):

Actually it just means that you're an idiot. I don't own an HD DVD
player, so why would I comment on it.
The technology is also not going to last, which is always the case
when only one manufacturer is trying to introduce a new media without
anyone else's backing.
I also have a reply from Rochard Casey of R&B Films for you which I'll
post in the relevant thread that completely refutes everything you
think you know about 1080i.
=D
Love ya,
~ninphan

ninphan wrote:
On Dec 1, 10:35 am, "Matthew L. Martin" wrote:
ninphan wrote:
On Dec 1, 1:11 am, JXStern wrote:
I've been watching the HD about a week now. I like it, can't imagine
going back, should have switched earlier, and all that.
Snippage has occurred



The NTSC signal may always be fuzzier, with so many fewer pixels, but
it still had a smoothness that the repeatedly compressed and
decompressed digital signal, does not currently equal. Well, check in
again in about five years, maybe the lossy codecs will get better in
practice, or someone will offer less compressed material, or even
lossless content. The technology is still pretty young.
J.
Wait until you hook a Blu-ray Disc player up to that bad boy, then
you'll be happier than a pig in mud.
The fanboi strikes again.

Either an HD-DVD or a Blu-ray player is capable (with properly mastered
media) of providing much better than OTA quality.

Matthew

--
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people". Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936):

Actually it just means that you're an idiot. I don't own an HD DVD
player, so why would I comment on it.

That's really interesting. You slavishly believe any specification that
points to a theoretical benefit of the object of your fanboi lust, but
when virtually the same specifications are available from another
product, you suddenly don't know anything about it anymore.

The technology is also not going to last, which is always the case
when only one manufacturer is trying to introduce a new media without
anyone else's backing.

What technology would that be? Blu-ray? After all, it isn't a standard
accepted by the DVD Consortium.

I also have a reply from Rochard Casey of R&B Films for you which I'll
post in the relevant thread that completely refutes everything you
think you know about 1080i.

Read and refuted. Get over yourself. Physics doesn't change just because
you want it to.

Matthew

--
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people". Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936):

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:00:18 -0500 Bob Miller wrote:

| We thought that this was true many years ago and thought that the
| broadcast spectrum should do what it could do best in the world of the
| Internet and cable and satellite and that was to deliver IPTV to devices
| that could be mobile or portable or fixed.

The broadcast spectrum also does something else well. It delivers content
to homes without the issues imposed by various cable, satellite, and telco
companies. The real death of OTA would be for Congress to intervene and
pass laws requiring all land and satellite based services to operate on a
very competitive basis and at the utmost level of quality, without the
business tactics of tricking people to get more than they need. This would
include things like ala-cart channel and program selections.

If we go the other way and shut off OTA delivery, the cable and satellite
companies will just make things worse.


| In a couple of months a lot of the TV spectrum will be auctioned of to
| be used for two way wireless mobile Internet and mobile TV.

That's a whole other area where competition is needed.


| The rest of the TV spectrum, channels 2-51, is not and cannot compete
| with fixed services like cable, satellite and FIOS if they don't have
| mobile and portable capabilities. We see this today as OTA DTV is dieing.
|
| It is just a matter of time before channels 2-51 follow 52-69 into
| either auctions or a change in modulation and codec so that they can
| compete in this new world.

Just the codec change is needed.

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

wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:00:18 -0500 Bob Miller wrote:

| We thought that this was true many years ago and thought that the
| broadcast spectrum should do what it could do best in the world of the
| Internet and cable and satellite and that was to deliver IPTV to devices
| that could be mobile or portable or fixed.

The broadcast spectrum also does something else well. It delivers content
to homes without the issues imposed by various cable, satellite, and telco
companies. The real death of OTA would be for Congress to intervene and
pass laws requiring all land and satellite based services to operate on a
very competitive basis and at the utmost level of quality, without the
business tactics of tricking people to get more than they need. This would
include things like ala-cart channel and program selections.

If we go the other way and shut off OTA delivery, the cable and satellite
companies will just make things worse.


| In a couple of months a lot of the TV spectrum will be auctioned of to
| be used for two way wireless mobile Internet and mobile TV.

That's a whole other area where competition is needed.


| The rest of the TV spectrum, channels 2-51, is not and cannot compete
| with fixed services like cable, satellite and FIOS if they don't have
| mobile and portable capabilities. We see this today as OTA DTV is dieing.
|
| It is just a matter of time before channels 2-51 follow 52-69 into
| either auctions or a change in modulation and codec so that they can
| compete in this new world.

Just the codec change is needed.

But you would agree that if all current receivers are to be made
obsolete by a change in codec it would make sense to check out the
latest modulation to see what the best one would be.

There is no cost to consumers and little cost to broadcasters who would
be more than happy to upgrade to a better modulation.

It could be that the latest version of 8-VSB is the best.

Are you saying that you would not take the opportunity to upgrade even
to a better 8-VSB???

I have NO problem upgrading to a better 8-VSB if it is the best
modulation after testing.

In fact if the heads up the *** gang would only upgrade if it is to a
better 8-VSB even if it is clearly not the best modulation then I could
live with that.

But staying with what we have is clearly the death of free OTA and
possibly the plan.

Bob Miller

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:06:24 -0500, Bob Miller wrote:

I have NO problem upgrading to a better 8-VSB if it is the best
modulation after testing.

Maybe diversity is simply the best answer. My PC must have a dozen
download codecs right now, different media add-ins, and probably
downloads another dozen dynamically on an average day, those stupid
little video ads that now appear on all sorts of pages. I hope and
expect that kind of diversity (if not the annoying ads!) is the future
for TV. I want a lossless compression option or six, I know it eats
bandwidth but even so.

J.

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:06:24 -0500 Bob Miller wrote:
| wrote:
| On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:00:18 -0500 Bob Miller wrote:
|
| | We thought that this was true many years ago and thought that the
| | broadcast spectrum should do what it could do best in the world of the
| | Internet and cable and satellite and that was to deliver IPTV to devices
| | that could be mobile or portable or fixed.
|
| The broadcast spectrum also does something else well. It delivers content
| to homes without the issues imposed by various cable, satellite, and telco
| companies. The real death of OTA would be for Congress to intervene and
| pass laws requiring all land and satellite based services to operate on a
| very competitive basis and at the utmost level of quality, without the
| business tactics of tricking people to get more than they need. This would
| include things like ala-cart channel and program selections.
|
| If we go the other way and shut off OTA delivery, the cable and satellite
| companies will just make things worse.
|
|
| | In a couple of months a lot of the TV spectrum will be auctioned of to
| | be used for two way wireless mobile Internet and mobile TV.
|
| That's a whole other area where competition is needed.
|
|
| | The rest of the TV spectrum, channels 2-51, is not and cannot compete
| | with fixed services like cable, satellite and FIOS if they don't have
| | mobile and portable capabilities. We see this today as OTA DTV is dieing.
| |
| | It is just a matter of time before channels 2-51 follow 52-69 into
| | either auctions or a change in modulation and codec so that they can
| | compete in this new world.
|
| Just the codec change is needed.
|
| But you would agree that if all current receivers are to be made
| obsolete by a change in codec it would make sense to check out the
| latest modulation to see what the best one would be.

Changing the modulation, even if there was a better one, is a whole lot
different than changing the codec. A new codec can be supported through
transition. Many devices are likely upgradeable via firmware. Then the
broadcasters can decide when enough receiver transition has taken place
to decide, perhaps even on a program-by-program basis, to change over to
the new codec (MPEG4 if this were done today).


| There is no cost to consumers and little cost to broadcasters who would
| be more than happy to upgrade to a better modulation.

A whole new transmitter RF system is "little cost" to broadcasters?
The transition from VSB to COFDM would mean doubling the peak power
capability of the transmitter. That means a somewhat more expensive
transmitter and more power waste as heat. But the big cost is that
this would require a complete non-trivial changeout of the RF components
of the system.

The only broadcasters that would want that would be those intending to
change their target from home OTA TV viewers to mobile devices. And that
would have to involve a complete restructuring of how allocations of the
spectrum/geography is done. COFDM is more effective for mobile device
purposes only if there are lots of smaller range transmitters with fewer
shadows in coverage (mobile devices do not have the ability to install a
higher antenna, for example).


| It could be that the latest version of 8-VSB is the best.
|
| Are you saying that you would not take the opportunity to upgrade even
| to a better 8-VSB???

If I were to upgrade the modulation, it would probably be to QAM. Leave
COFDM to the mobile devices on the 700 MHz segment.


| I have NO problem upgrading to a better 8-VSB if it is the best
| modulation after testing.

Changing the modulation would be a huge problem. Changing the codec
would involve a lot smoother transition.


| In fact if the heads up the *** gang would only upgrade if it is to a
| better 8-VSB even if it is clearly not the best modulation then I could
| live with that.
|
| But staying with what we have is clearly the death of free OTA and
| possibly the plan.

I'm in favor of the change to MPEG4. If cable systems start using it, then
digital-cable-ready TVs will have MPEG4 already (and QAM, too). So why not
make the design of TVs such that either VSB or QAM can be used to demodulate
to the bit stream, and MPEG2 or MPEG4 can be used to decode the video from
the selected transport component?

Do you know of a cable system that would be willing to change over to the
COFDM modulation? Even though dynamic range linearity is critical even for
a cable distribution system, what they already have is effectively FDM in
the form of 100 or so 6 MHz carriers. So COFDM's peak-to-average power
issues would not be of much significance to cable. So it should be easy
enough for a cable system to change over. Right?

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

JXStern wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:06:24 -0500, Bob Miller wrote:

I have NO problem upgrading to a better 8-VSB if it is the best
modulation after testing.

Maybe diversity is simply the best answer. My PC must have a dozen
download codecs right now, different media add-ins, and probably
downloads another dozen dynamically on an average day, those stupid
little video ads that now appear on all sorts of pages. I hope and
expect that kind of diversity (if not the annoying ads!) is the future
for TV. I want a lossless compression option or six, I know it eats
bandwidth but even so.

J.


The way the top down heavy handed political corrupt solution works is
all about locking in IP royalty payments, cash, locking in a cash flow
for outdated solutions.

Diversity and all such things are hallmarks of the Internet.

The last thing the corrupt political process wants is diversity or the
chance to change to a better codec or modulation. Our 8-VSB and MPEG2
were bought and paid for by lobbyist who want to get what they paid for,
the cash flow, for 50 years. Damn the public interest and damn any
thought of what is best for the American public.

We suggested in 1999 that an upgrade path for the MPEG2 codec should be
required. If that had been done your current 8-VSB receiver would work
out of the box with MPEG4.

We also wanted a dual modulation system. We didn't want to erase 8-VSB,
we wanted the option for broadcasters to use another COFDM based modulation.

Again such diversity was anathema to the corrupt political process that
has captured our government.

Bob Miller

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:14:01 -0500, Bob Miller wrote:

The way the top down heavy handed political corrupt solution works is
all about locking in IP royalty payments, cash, locking in a cash flow
for outdated solutions.

Diversity and all such things are hallmarks of the Internet.

So the Internet will lead the way.

If the people lead, the leaders will follow, and like that.


The last thing the corrupt political process wants is diversity or the
chance to change to a better codec or modulation. Our 8-VSB and MPEG2
were bought and paid for by lobbyist who want to get what they paid for,
the cash flow, for 50 years. Damn the public interest and damn any
thought of what is best for the American public.

Write Mr. Google a letter, maybe they'd like to lead on this. Could
be beaucoup bux in it for someone.

I mean, look how Hollywood has screwed up the music system. Got
themselves royalties on blank videotapes. Resisted VCRs because it
would kill the movies. Hah. But eventually, moaning and groaning and
fighting their own best interests, things eventually stumble along in
a positive direction. Keep bitchin', they deserve it - need it!


Again such diversity was anathema to the corrupt political process that
has captured our government.

Easy now, let's just say they screwed up, that's pretty much endemic
to our government and pretty much all governments, bureacracies, and
establishments in all times and places.

J.