The wave of the future...? Still-picture TV
Pete
Digital TV sometimes drives me slightly round the bend.
Trying to catch every moment of Dollhouse tonight, I was first being
frustrated by KTVU (SF Bay Area) having dropouts in the wet weather,
but my converter driven VCR (first on the splitter) was able to
... umm... weather the situation, so I could at least watch it in
SD.
Then at about 5 minutes past 9, *that* picture froze! I first thought
it was due to even heavier rain, but then I realized that I was getting
the same still picture everywhere, and when I switched to the station's
Spanish subchannel it was playing fine!
This lasted for many minutes, with Boyd's mouth just opened to explain
what Adele hoped to get from Echo, then finally snapped back into action
with Topher asking "What is she?", then cutting to Adele and Ballard.
Did I miss anything significant? (Or did this happen to everyone?)
-- Pete --
--
============================================================================
The address in the header is a Spam Bucket -- don't bother replying to it...
(If you do need to email, replace the account name with my true name.)
============================================================================
Tony Calguire
dn...@lmi.net:
>
> Then at about 5 minutes past 9, *that* picture froze! I first thought
> it was due to even heavier rain, but then I realized that I was getting
> the same still picture everywhere, and when I switched to the station's
> Spanish subchannel it was playing fine!
>
Over the summer, I was watching a rural cable system that had one channel--
the Twin Cities Fox station-- frozen on some informercial guy's face for an
entire weekend!
Pete
Pete <neve...@GOODEVEca.net> wrote:
> [remarking how the Dollhouse transmission froze for several minutes...]
This *does* seem to be becoming a trend! Watching 'At the Movies'
yesterday, the movie clips, of Avatar and everything else, kept freezing
too, fo short periods. Strangely, the studio shots of the hosts never
did.
For interest, I checked the repeat this afternoon, and the glitches
repeated exactly. I'm wondering if everyone was affected, or if it was
somehow the local station's copy. If it was the latter, though, I'd
have thought it would occur throughout the program, not just during
the clips. Very odd.
New & Improved WQ
> In article <tcadnXkd_Lm7pr7WnZ2dnUVZ_v-dn...@lmi.net>,
>
> Pete <neverl...@GOODEVEca.net> wrote:
> > [remarking how the Dollhouse transmission froze for several minutes...]
>
> This *does* seem to be becoming a trend! Watching 'At the Movies'
> yesterday, the movie clips, of Avatar and everything else, kept freezing
> too, fo short periods. Strangely, the studio shots of the hosts never
> did.
>
> For interest, I checked the repeat this afternoon, and the glitches
> repeated exactly. I'm wondering if everyone was affected, or if it was
> somehow the local station's copy. If it was the latter, though, I'd
> have thought it would occur throughout the program, not just during
> the clips. Very odd.
Don't you just love technological progress? Digital TV is the Peter
Principle of television. Just when they perfected analog delivery and
the cathode ray tube, they go ahead a ruin it for everybody by coming
up with digital, so now it's like going back to the growing pains of
the 50s with rabbit ears and rooftop aerials to try to get the ghosts
out of the picture.
John McWilliams
Colorful, but woefully inaccurate.
--
john mcwilliams
New & Improved WQ
> New & ImprovedWQwrote:
Maybe. But the frustration is still the same, and that shouldn't have
to be if there's any kind of real progress with digital.
Pete
It now seems relevant to the added cross-postings as well...]
In article <54qdnTIxaeh-ibLW...@lmi.net>,
Pete <neve...@GOODEVEca.net> wrote:
>
>This *does* seem to be becoming a trend! Watching 'At the Movies'
>yesterday, the movie clips, of Avatar and everything else, kept freezing
>too, fo short periods. Strangely, the studio shots of the hosts never
>did.
>
After a couple more weeks of watching various channels and programs,
I'm now fairly sure of my observations, and they're odd...
Every program I watch on ABC (ch 7) on my HDTV has these momentary freezes.
I haven't seen it on any other channel. (This is not a weak-signal problem
BTW. Ch7 is one of the stronger ones.) I also have never seen it on 7's
local news (HD too).
I assumed this was some glitch in the station's transmission -- until one
day I had my DTV converter/analog TV tuned the same signal. It went happily
on while the HDTV picture was frozen!
So there must be some interaction between the signal and my (Samsung) HDTV.
Anyone seen something similar, or have an explanation? It's annoying
in any case.
TBerk
> New & Improved WQ wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 1:25 am, neverl...@GOODEVEca.net (Pete) wrote:
> > Don't you just love technological progress? Digital TV is the Peter
> > Principle of television. Just when they perfected analog delivery and
> > the cathode ray tube, they go ahead a ruin it for everybody by coming
> > up with digital, so now it's like going back to the growing pains of
> > the 50s with rabbit ears and rooftop aerials to try to get the ghosts
> > out of the picture.
>
> Colorful, but woefully inaccurate.
> --
> john mcwilliams
Not so inaccurate. Granted there aren't 'ghost' like with analog, and
thats part of the problem. Digital has no easy, marginal signal,
middle ground. Once too much signal is lost or corrupted- bam!, no
picture.
For folks still dealing with over the air TV it is a drag.
berk
Kevin McMurtrie
neve...@GOODEVEca.net (Pete) wrote:
> [This is a followup to an article I originally posted in r.a.t.
> It now seems relevant to the added cross-postings as well...]
>
> In article <54qdnTIxaeh-ibLW...@lmi.net>,
> Pete <neve...@GOODEVEca.net> wrote:
> >
> >This *does* seem to be becoming a trend! Watching 'At the Movies'
> >yesterday, the movie clips, of Avatar and everything else, kept freezing
> >too, fo short periods. Strangely, the studio shots of the hosts never
> >did.
> >
>
> After a couple more weeks of watching various channels and programs,
> I'm now fairly sure of my observations, and they're odd...
>
> Every program I watch on ABC (ch 7) on my HDTV has these momentary freezes.
> I haven't seen it on any other channel. (This is not a weak-signal problem
> BTW. Ch7 is one of the stronger ones.) I also have never seen it on 7's
> local news (HD too).
>
> I assumed this was some glitch in the station's transmission -- until one
> day I had my DTV converter/analog TV tuned the same signal. It went happily
> on while the HDTV picture was frozen!
>
> So there must be some interaction between the signal and my (Samsung) HDTV.
> Anyone seen something similar, or have an explanation? It's annoying
> in any case.
> -- Pete --
There are still problems with DTV. I saw the Dollhouse freeze that was
mentioned in the original posting.
My guess, which may be wrong, is that hardware from just a year ago is
relying on implementations of MPEG2 and Dolby codecs that were never put
through the type of code reviews and detailed tests needed for robust
24/7/365 use.
Despite years of advance warning, the DTV switch happened almost
instantaneously for both broadcasters and consumers. Tuners were on
their first or second generation. Broadcasters were still using analog
internally except for special programming. When I first bought an HDTV
tuner in 2008, Jay Leno and an occasional PBS special were the only
programs that weren't NTSC recompressed as MPEG2.
--
I won't see Google Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
Alan
>After a couple more weeks of watching various channels and programs,
>I'm now fairly sure of my observations, and they're odd...
>
>Every program I watch on ABC (ch 7) on my HDTV has these momentary freezes.
>I haven't seen it on any other channel. (This is not a weak-signal problem
>BTW. Ch7 is one of the stronger ones.) I also have never seen it on 7's
>local news (HD too).
>
>I assumed this was some glitch in the station's transmission -- until one
>day I had my DTV converter/analog TV tuned the same signal. It went happily
>on while the HDTV picture was frozen!
>
>So there must be some interaction between the signal and my (Samsung) HDTV.
>Anyone seen something similar, or have an explanation? It's annoying
>in any case.
> -- Pete --
Have you talked to the station? It could be that they are inserting timing
information that doesn't match the information from the network data stream.
Or, it could be a problem with the Samsung.
What do those two sources say?
(If you want to get into detail, get a computer based receiver and start
writing software to decode and analyze the packets of channel 7's data stream.)
Alan
Alan
>There are still problems with DTV. I saw the Dollhouse freeze that was
>mentioned in the original posting.
>
>My guess, which may be wrong, is that hardware from just a year ago is
>relying on implementations of MPEG2 and Dolby codecs that were never put
>through the type of code reviews and detailed tests needed for robust
>24/7/365 use.
>
>Despite years of advance warning, the DTV switch happened almost
>instantaneously for both broadcasters and consumers. Tuners were on
>their first or second generation. Broadcasters were still using analog
>internally except for special programming. When I first bought an HDTV
>tuner in 2008, Jay Leno and an occasional PBS special were the only
>programs that weren't NTSC recompressed as MPEG2.
When I first bought an HDTV tuner in early 2006, most network programming was
in 16:9 HD. Even Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy went to HD in September of 2006.
>I won't see Google Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
A good idea.
Alan
TJ
> [This is a followup to an article I originally posted in r.a.t.
> It now seems relevant to the added cross-postings as well...]
>
> In article <54qdnTIxaeh-ibLW...@lmi.net>,
> Pete <neve...@GOODEVEca.net> wrote:
>> This *does* seem to be becoming a trend! Watching 'At the Movies'
>> yesterday, the movie clips, of Avatar and everything else, kept freezing
>> too, fo short periods. Strangely, the studio shots of the hosts never
>> did.
>>
>
> After a couple more weeks of watching various channels and programs,
> I'm now fairly sure of my observations, and they're odd...
>
> Every program I watch on ABC (ch 7) on my HDTV has these momentary freezes.
> I haven't seen it on any other channel. (This is not a weak-signal problem
> BTW. Ch7 is one of the stronger ones.) I also have never seen it on 7's
> local news (HD too).
>
> I assumed this was some glitch in the station's transmission -- until one
> day I had my DTV converter/analog TV tuned the same signal. It went happily
> on while the HDTV picture was frozen!
>
> So there must be some interaction between the signal and my (Samsung) HDTV.
> Anyone seen something similar, or have an explanation? It's annoying
> in any case.
> -- Pete --
>
>
thing that caused ghosts on analog. DTV symptoms are different, being as
you describe, and they can be bad enough to make a station unwatchable.
I experience it here from time to time, even on a station whose
broadcast tower is only three miles away.
It is NOT the fault of the broadcaster. What's happening is that your
receiver is getting two or more signals from the same station. One,
probably the strongest, is coming more or less directly from the
transmitter. The others have been reflected from something - a building,
a vehicle, a plane overhead, a nearby hillside - and are reaching your
antenna a few microseconds later than the main signal. The two signals
interfere with each other, as the tuner tries to choose between them. If
the stable stations are in a different direction, most likely the
reflective path is different. Your converter box tuner might not be as
sensitive to these things as your digital TV, or it may just be in a
different location, being fed by a different antenna.
The solution is to re-orient your antenna, or maybe even move it. If the
signals are strong enough, simply rotating it a bit may be enough.
Differing conditions - a windy day, or precipitation - might mean that
you'll need to adjust the antenna again and again. I have to. Every
situation is unique.
If simple re-orientation doesn't work, a more directional antenna with a
rotator is needed. That will reduce the effect of the reflected signals.
TJ
Anim8rFSK
TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
> It is NOT the fault of the broadcaster.
Or it might well be. Our ABC affiliate is really sloppy, and they don't
monitor the transmission after it leaves the station. One night they
froze during Wheel of Fortune and left it frozen all night.
--
Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Decade"
His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
TJ
> In article <hhkvfo$5fg$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>
>> It is NOT the fault of the broadcaster.
>
> Or it might well be. Our ABC affiliate is really sloppy, and they don't
> monitor the transmission after it leaves the station. One night they
> froze during Wheel of Fortune and left it frozen all night.
>
has hit TV right along with everybody else, and some stations have had
to lay off people to survive. When those breakdowns happen, sometimes
nothing can be done until new parts arrive, or a manufacturer's service
guy can show up. That happened with our NBC affiliate when they moved
frequencies after the transition last June. Our CBS affiliate had to
limp along until some obscure part could be installed just a few months ago.
But such things are rare. If there are problems ALL the time for days on
end, or only under certain weather conditions, or if one can receive a
stable signal on another set, it is NOT the fault of the broadcaster.
The receiver's antenna is almost always the place to start looking.
TJ
Pete
>> [This is a followup to an article I originally posted in r.a.t.
>> It now seems relevant to the added cross-postings as well...]
>>
>> In article <54qdnTIxaeh-ibLW...@lmi.net>,
>> Pete <neve...@GOODEVEca.net> wrote:
>> I'm now fairly sure of my observations, and they're odd...
>>
>> Every program I watch on ABC (ch 7) on my HDTV has these momentary freezes.
>> I haven't seen it on any other channel. (This is not a weak-signal problem
>> BTW. Ch7 is one of the stronger ones.) I also have never seen it on 7's
>> local news (HD too).
>>
>> I assumed this was some glitch in the station's transmission -- until one
>> day I had my DTV converter/analog TV tuned the same signal. It went happily
>> on while the HDTV picture was frozen!
(BTW, the HDTV and converter are off the same antenna, through a splitter.)
>Welcome to the wonderful word of multi-path interference. It's the same
>thing that caused ghosts on analog. DTV symptoms are different, being as
>you describe, and they can be bad enough to make a station unwatchable.
>I experience it here from time to time, even on a station whose
>broadcast tower is only three miles away.
Sounds plausible, but I still have reservations...
Point: Ch 7 is one of only two still on VHF in the Bay Area. (The other
is KNTV/NBC "11" -- actually on 12. It doesn't glitch.) So it could well
be that this would suffer multipath while the UHF ones don't.
Counterpoint: In the good old bygone days of analog, 7 was a very crisp
signal (same antenna), with no sign of ghosts, so I'd think the receiver
would have to be very susceptible for digital to show it.
Other observations that leave me uncertain: Last night, I switched over
to ch7 just before 10, to watch Dick Clark [sorry...(:-)] and caught the
end credits of the movie. They seemed to be freezing badly. Once the
"live" (well, three hours delayed live) program started, there was no
more freezing, except -- I think -- in some of the commercial inserts.
Hard to tell with ads because of the quick cuts and intentional still
frames.
I've got the Rose Bowl on at the moment, and though I'm not really
following it [again, sorry -- not a gridiron fan...] I watched long
and closely enough to be convinced it isn't freezing. And as I said, the
local news never freezes. I'll have to see what happens in next prime-time.
Is it possible that there are different encodings from different sources
(all 720p) that might be affected differently by multipath?
TJ
>
> (BTW, the HDTV and converter are off the same antenna, through a splitter.)
>
>
>> Welcome to the wonderful word of multi-path interference. It's the same
>> thing that caused ghosts on analog. DTV symptoms are different, being as
>> you describe, and they can be bad enough to make a station unwatchable.
>> I experience it here from time to time, even on a station whose
>> broadcast tower is only three miles away.
>
> Sounds plausible, but I still have reservations...
>
Let me point out that I am not a broadcast engineer, nor do I play one
on TV. <G> I do have an engineering degree, but it predates all thoughts
of digital TV, and is anything but current. That said...
> Point: Ch 7 is one of only two still on VHF in the Bay Area. (The other
> is KNTV/NBC "11" -- actually on 12. It doesn't glitch.) So it could well
> be that this would suffer multipath while the UHF ones don't.
>
> Counterpoint: In the good old bygone days of analog, 7 was a very crisp
> signal (same antenna), with no sign of ghosts, so I'd think the receiver
> would have to be very susceptible for digital to show it.
>
I'm posting this from alt.video.digital-tv. In recent months we've had
some discussions on how VHF digital TV has underperformed UHF. It was
generally expected that VHF frequencies would be better than UHF, as
they were with analog, but since the transition many have observed the
opposite. Some stations that switched back to VHF after the transition,
particularly those on channel 6 and below, have had so much trouble that
they have applied to the FCC for changes in power levels and/or
frequencies. Did you have less trouble back when KGO was transmitting on
channel 24?
> Other observations that leave me uncertain: Last night, I switched over
> to ch7 just before 10, to watch Dick Clark [sorry...(:-)] and caught the
> end credits of the movie. They seemed to be freezing badly. Once the
> "live" (well, three hours delayed live) program started, there was no
> more freezing, except -- I think -- in some of the commercial inserts.
> Hard to tell with ads because of the quick cuts and intentional still
> frames.
>
> I've got the Rose Bowl on at the moment, and though I'm not really
> following it [again, sorry -- not a gridiron fan...] I watched long
> and closely enough to be convinced it isn't freezing. And as I said, the
> local news never freezes. I'll have to see what happens in next prime-time.
>
> Is it possible that there are different encodings from different sources
> (all 720p) that might be affected differently by multipath?
>
The original network signals for Dick Clark and the Rose Bowl are
probably encoded in 1080p. If KGO is transmitting in 720p, then I would
think that those signals have to be decoded, converted, then re-encoded.
Errors can creep in during that process. The local news would be
produced in the station's native resolution, possibly resulting in fewer
errors because of less conversion. If that's the case, then multipath
might not be the problem, after all. Well, not the only problem. But
none of that explains why the freeze-ups don't happen on your converter.
While the converter changes all signals to SD, freeze-ups at the station
level would still show. Station-level problems like that show up on all
receivers.
When one set has problems and another doesn't you have to look for
differences between the two sets. Since you're running them from the
same antenna, the antenna is probably not the problem, either. Check
your cables, and make sure the connections are tight. You don't mention
how old your HDTV set is. If it's one of the older ones, it may have an
earlier-generation tuner than your converter has, and those
earlier-generation tuners didn't handle multipath so well. It's also
possible that the HDTV tuner is a bit TOO sensitive. In strong-signal
areas, the more sensitive tuners are sometimes more sensitive to
multipath interference, as well.
TJ
Pete
Pete <neve...@GOODEVEca.net> wrote:
> [....]
>I've got the Rose Bowl on at the moment, and though I'm not really
>following it [again, sorry -- not a gridiron fan...] I watched long
>and closely enough to be convinced it isn't freezing. And as I said, the
>local news never freezes. I'll have to see what happens in next prime-time.
Yep... Switched on Better Off Ted, and it was freezing as usual.
What's really interesting is that I don't think the freeze causes a
gap in the sequence at all! As I noted originally, the sound always
goes on smoothly, and when motion resumes lip-sync is perfect.
I *think*, but I'll have to watch a lot more to be sure, that there's
a visual "gabble" leading into the freeze, as if the picture gets ahead,
and has to wait to catch up. As a certain first-officer was wont to
say, "Fascinating"...
Pete
TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>
>Let me point out that I am not a broadcast engineer, nor do I play one
>on TV. <G> I do have an engineering degree, but it predates all thoughts
>of digital TV, and is anything but current. That said...
my time with software, I've forgotten a lot of the things I once knew
about electrons...
>
>> Counterpoint: In the good old bygone days of analog, 7 was a very crisp
>> signal (same antenna), with no sign of ghosts, so I'd think the receiver
>> would have to be very susceptible for digital to show it.
>>
>I'm posting this from alt.video.digital-tv. In recent months we've had
>some discussions on how VHF digital TV has underperformed UHF. It was
>generally expected that VHF frequencies would be better than UHF, as
>they were with analog, but since the transition many have observed the
>opposite. Some stations that switched back to VHF after the transition,
>particularly those on channel 6 and below, have had so much trouble that
>they have applied to the FCC for changes in power levels and/or
>frequencies. Did you have less trouble back when KGO was transmitting on
>channel 24?
noticed it first a couple of weeks ago. I certainly never saw it on
the old interim frequency.
>>
>> Is it possible that there are different encodings from different sources
>> (all 720p) that might be affected differently by multipath?
>>
>The original network signals for Dick Clark and the Rose Bowl are
>probably encoded in 1080p. If KGO is transmitting in 720p, then I would
>think that those signals have to be decoded, converted, then re-encoded.
>Errors can creep in during that process. The local news would be
>produced in the station's native resolution, possibly resulting in fewer
>errors because of less conversion.
That's an intriguing possibility...
> If that's the case, then multipath
>might not be the problem, after all. Well, not the only problem. But
>none of that explains why the freeze-ups don't happen on your converter.
>While the converter changes all signals to SD, freeze-ups at the station
>level would still show. Station-level problems like that show up on all
>receivers.
Yeah, I think everything points to some kind of interaction between the
signal and the TV's chipset.
>
>When one set has problems and another doesn't you have to look for
>differences between the two sets. Since you're running them from the
>same antenna, the antenna is probably not the problem, either. Check
>your cables, and make sure the connections are tight. You don't mention
>how old your HDTV set is.
It's not particularly old -- bought at Best Buy mid-'08.
> If it's one of the older ones, it may have an
>earlier-generation tuner than your converter has, and those
>earlier-generation tuners didn't handle multipath so well. It's also
>possible that the HDTV tuner is a bit TOO sensitive. In strong-signal
>areas, the more sensitive tuners are sometimes more sensitive to
>multipath interference, as well.
This is something I should test... see if I can receive it with rabbit-ears.
(The antenna is roof-mounted, and as a renter I have no easy access!
(It's not shared, though.))
Thanks much for your input. I'll see what experimenting I can do.
n0sp...@yahoo.com
> Yep... Switched on Better Off Ted, and it was freezing as usual.
> What's really interesting is that I don't think the freeze causes a
> gap in the sequence at all! As I noted originally, the sound always
> goes on smoothly, and when motion resumes lip-sync is perfect.
> I *think*, but I'll have to watch a lot more to be sure, that there's
> a visual "gabble" leading into the freeze, as if the picture gets ahead,
> and has to wait to catch up. As a certain first-officer was wont to
> say, "Fascinating"...
A few things come to mind:
1. Sounds like the MPEG decoder is either not decoding the frames
quickly enough, or is encountering periodic decode errors where it
needs to wait until the next I-frame (complete video frame, similar
to a JPG file) in order to resync. However, from your description,
the audio/video timestamps in the multiplexed stream are good
enough for audio/video synchronization to not be lost when this
happens.
2. Perhaps this problem manifests itself only while displaying
high-bitrate content? If this is the case, then maybe your video
decoder is overrunning its buffers (leading to a decode error) or
otherwise unable to keep up with the decoding. News tends to
have a lower bitrate because of the static talking heads, while
movie previews can have a lot of scene changes and motion.
Another related possibility is that high-bitrate transmissions
are more prone to data loss due to RF noise/multipath than
the lower-bitrate transmissions.
3. Most MPEG decoders are based on the same reference
implementation which has very little error resiliency. The better
MPEG decoders add a lot more error resiliency. So it may be
possible that Channel 7 is sending a bad bitstream, and that
your decoder box is doing a better job of handling the errors
than your TV. Conversely, your decoder box might be ignoring
theerrors and the error is not that visible, while your TV is
detecting each errors and freezing until the next I-frame is
transmitted.
In summary:
a. It may be a bad bitstream from Channel 7, or just a high-bitrate
one
that either your decoder can't handle or is more prone to RF noise
b. Some devices handle bad bitstreams or RF noise much
better than others.
Whether "a" is is fixed (if it's a bad bitstream) may depend on
whether
TV stations using that decoder get a sufficient number of complaints
from viewers. The effort involved to troubleshoot this is labor
intensive
and may be too much to expect them to fix. Especially if there are
sufficient devices in "b" that are not affected.
Also, let's just say that that makers of video encoders/decoders have
widely varying QA processes, from non-existent to obsessive.
David Kaye
>Welcome to the wonderful word of multi-path interference. It's the same
>thing that caused ghosts on analog. DTV symptoms are different, being as
>you describe, and they can be bad enough to make a station unwatchable.
There's a cafe where I occasionally go. They have Dish or whatever the main
satellite TV system is. Anyhow, I couldn't help but marvel at how they
managed to take analog 525 line TV and turn it into digital pastel wash. It
seems that any motion faster than a casual walk down a quiet street is way too
much for the digital compression to handle and everything seems to come out
looking like a comic book flip-book with washed colors. Not the kind of thing
I'd subscribe to.
Okay, let's see...if it's not the content and it's not the technology, then
exactly what are TV viewers paying for these days -- dancing images to keep
them from being lonely?
TJ
for TV if they have a viable free alternative. Personally, I wouldn't
pay for TV if you *paid* me. Or something like that. I'm sure you know
what I mean...
TJ
SFTV_troy
>
> My guess, which may be wrong, is that hardware from just a year ago is
> relying on implementations of MPEG2 and Dolby codecs that were never put
> Despite years of advance warning, the DTV switch happened almost
> instantaneously for both broadcasters and consumers. Tuners were on
> their first or second generation.
Not true. First-off DTV tuners were released in 1999, and by 2008
were already on the 3rd or 4th generation. Second, the coupon-
eligible boxes were tested by the FCC prior to receiving
certification. Most failed these tests, so that forced manufacturers
to develop a 5th generation design.
SFTV_troy
>
> Okay, let's see...if it's not the content and it's not the technology, then
> exactly what are TV viewers paying for these days -- dancing images to keep
> them from being lonely?
They want cable channels that are not available from antenna
television (like FOX news and Outdoor Channel). As for the poor
image-quality on Dish, I've seen the same flaw on digital cable.
That's what happens when they try to squeeze 10 standard-def channels
into the space of one channel (6 megahertz) - there's simply not
enough bits even when using an advanced codec like MPEG4
BTW I've got one over-the-air channel, TBN, that squeezes 5 channels
into 1 channel (48-1,-2,-3,-4,-5). As you can imagine, it looks like
crap.
TJ
boxes long before the coupons came out. I knew I was going to need more
than two boxes, and I wanted time enough to experiment with new
antennas. You see, my analog reception on some UHF channels was very
bad, especially under windy conditions. It was ghost-ridden to the point
of unwatchable instability sometimes. I had heard that digital could be
more difficult to receive than analog, and I was afraid I would need to
go through several antennas before I found something that worked.
But search as I might, there were no converters to be found. Apparently,
converters wouldn't show up until the coupons came out, but they
wouldn't issue coupons until the converters would be in the stores.
Classic Catch-22. I began to think things were purposely being delayed
so that more of the expensive new HDTVs would be sold, to boost a
sagging industry.
But eventually converters started hitting the stores, and I bought one.
I should have waited a bit longer, as of all the ones I have I like that
one the least. But it did tell me one thing... Much to my surprise, my
digital reception, using the same indoor antennas I used for analog, was
*better* than with analog. *Much* better, in fact. Good enough that I
didn't need to purchase any new antennas. All I had to do was find the
new "sweet spots" for digital reception, which were different than those
for analog.
So I lucked out.
TJ
John Higdon
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> Okay, let's see...if it's not the content and it's not the technology, then
> exactly what are TV viewers paying for these days -- dancing images to keep
> them from being lonely?
That's pretty much what TV is today. I quit watching it years ago. The
maturity and intelligence level is down in the noise. I don't thing
there is a single moment where something isn't being pushed on the
viewer, via a crawl, with a bug in the corner of the screen, or just a
flat out commercial. The audio is terrible; the pictures have severe
motion artifacts.
I can't even imagine what there is to talk about when it comes to TV
anymore.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
N9WOS
> As for the poor
> image-quality on Dish, I've seen the same flaw on digital cable.
> That's what happens when they try to squeeze 10 standard-def channels
> into the space of one channel (6 megahertz) - there's simply not
> enough bits even when using an advanced codec like MPEG4
Umm... The standard transponder on dish is 20 million symbols per second.
That equates to a raw data rate of 40 Mbps.
With a FEC of 3/4. That is about 30Mbps.
So you are talking about 3 Mbps per channel..
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
robinlos
Actually, what annoys me is paying for the honor of watching
commercials, promos, and hype. The industry cannot generate enough
revenue for 100, much less, 200, channels of anything. So, why do the
number of channels keep increasing?
Larry
report on how cleanly the signal is received so one could reorient the
antenna intelligently!
TJ
> It would be nice if the tuners not only gave you signal strength but a
> report on how cleanly the signal is received so one could reorient the
> antenna intelligently!
I have no experience with the signal meters in digital TVs, but I do
have four different brands of converter boxes. One shows two meters, one
for signal strength, the other for signal quality. The others all have a
single meter. Going by what the dual meters show, the meters in the
other converters show signal quality, despite what they may be labeled.
This is just as well, since my experience with that converter with the
two meters shows that quality is much more important than strength.
(Isn't that true of most things?)
The problem with those meters is that they aren't instantaneous. By
necessity, they are reporting rolling averages over a certain amount of
time. I've seen it by having the meter on display as I switch channels.
When going from a poorer-quality channel to a better one, you can watch
the meter rise for two or three seconds after the switch. That means
that if you are watching the meter while turning the antenna, you could
go right through the "sweet spot" and never see it. You have to move it
a little, and watch. Move it a little more, and watch. Move it a little
more, and...
Annoying, time-consuming, and unfortunately, apparently necessary.
TJ
Alan
>On Jan 1, 10:39=A0pm, neverl...@GOODEVEca.net (Pete) wrote:
>
>> Yep... Switched on Better Off Ted, and it was freezing as usual.
>> What's really interesting is that I don't think the freeze causes a
>> goes on smoothly, and when motion resumes lip-sync is perfect.
>> I *think*, but I'll have to watch a lot more to be sure, that there's
>> a visual "gabble" leading into the freeze, as if the picture gets ahead,
>> say, "Fascinating"...
>
>A few things come to mind:
>2. Perhaps this problem manifests itself only while displaying
>high-bitrate content? If this is the case, then maybe your video
>decoder is overrunning its buffers (leading to a decode error) or
>otherwise unable to keep up with the decoding.
He said it is KGO-7. Since they are squeezing in a low rate weather
program, and a somewhat dismal second HD program, I doubt that they
have the bandwidth left to have their main channel be high-bitrate.
Alan
Extravagan
> I can't even imagine what there is to talk about when it comes to TV
> anymore.
Then why post to this newsgroup?
Pete
I was *going* to note that this shows you are as ignorant about usenet
as you seem to be about TV schedules... *Until* I noticed your oh-so-cute
readjustment of the newsgroups [which I have restored to the original set]
that proves exactly how intentionally trollish you are.
Go away.
Extravagan
> In article <hhp47j$ohl$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Extravagan <extra...@frogsoup.xelon.com> wrote:
>> John Higdon wrote:
>>> I can't even imagine what there is to talk about when it comes to TV
>>> anymore.
>> Then why post to this newsgroup?
>
> I was *going* to note that this shows you are as ignorant about usenet
I am not.
> I noticed your oh-so-cute readjustment of the newsgroups
> [which I have restored to the original set]
> that proves exactly how intentionally trollish you are.
My "readjustment" of the newsgroups is because aioe is anal about
crossposting and about posting to groups it doesn't carry, so for
safety's sake I trim dubious group names and add a followup header.
Nothing nefarious was intended.
Furthermore, the newsgroups in question all appear to be about tv, so my
question makes perfect sense and isn't in the least trollish.
> Go away.
No, *you* go away.
*PLONK*
Pete
Pete <neve...@GOODEVEca.net> wrote:
>In article <hhmd40$3di$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>earlier-generation tuners didn't handle multipath so well. It's also
>>possible that the HDTV tuner is a bit TOO sensitive. In strong-signal
>>areas, the more sensitive tuners are sometimes more sensitive to
>>multipath interference, as well.
>This is something I should test... see if I can receive it with rabbit-ears.
Ah, the weird and wonderful Aether... (:-/) The "rabbit-ears" I happened
to have is actually an ancient *UHF* bow-tie/reflector. So when I plug
it in to my TV, which stations come in best? Right... VHF Channels 7 and 12!
(I can get a few of the UHF ones that way too, but not always well.)
Anyway, I was able to see if there was any difference in freezing (watching
"Castle") between the strong signal from the outside antenna, and the
presumably marginal one from the bow-tie. The answer is no. Freezes came
every few seconds under both regimes.
Another data point: I tried checking an hour earlier (external antenna)
when "Desperate Housewives" was on, and couldn't see (definite) freezing.
(There might have been very brief ones.) "Castle" on the other hand was
infested with them, and I think that program was one of the first ones
in which I noticed it. So it must be program-source-related, I think.
Kevin McMurtrie
neve...@GOODEVEca.net (Pete) wrote:
Maybe your decoder is broken. Samsung, was it? I had a Samsung
DTB-H260F that was crap. Multipath interference caused it to crash and
the digital audio output had clicks and pops on on Channel 11-1 that
sounded like mis-synchronized buffering.
--
SFTV_troy
>
> But search as I might, there were no converters to be found. Apparently,
> converters wouldn't show up until the coupons came out, but they
> wouldn't issue coupons until the converters would be in the stores.
> Classic Catch-22. I began to think things were purposely being delayed
> so that more of the expensive new HDTVs would be sold, to boost a
> sagging industry.
No not really. The transition was supposed to happen in 2006 but when
that year arrived Congress pushed it back, mainly because people were
not ready. Congress also set-up the coupon program, but it was not
meant to start until one year prior to the transition, i.e. January
2008.
So they weren't "waiting" on anything. Those were just the arbitrary
dates picked by Congress. Also I got a DTV tuner, but being an older
model it received very few stations. The coupon-eligible boxes
tested by the FCC have the best sensitivity.
> *better* than with analog. *Much* better, in fact. Good enough that I
> didn't need to purchase any new antennas. All I had to do was find the
> new "sweet spots" for digital reception, which were different than those
> for analog.
Not me. I lost ABC completely (channels 6 and 27), and no longer
receive Baltimore stations that I used to watch. Fortunately I get
Philadelphia which is the 4th largest market and therefore offers all
the same stuff Baltimore has, plus many many more.
Still I get fewer stations via digital, since with analog you could
watch marginal black-and-white channels. Can't do that with digital.
Sam E
<mcmu...@pixelmemory.us> wrote:
>I won't see Google Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
There's also a source of spam called "usenetmonster". I filter that as
well as "googlegroups" (NOT Gmail).
dmaster
....
>
> Still I get fewer stations via digital, since with analog you could
> watch marginal black-and-white channels. Can't do that with digital.
Quite true. Still, some of us might consider that stretching the
definition of "getting" a channel. }:)
Dan (Woj...)
TJ
I didn't used to, but I sure do now. In the bad old days of analog OTA
TV, there was a time when I thought that I was "getting" a station when,
if I was in the right room, and the antenna was just right, and the
weather cooperated, I could barely see somebody through the blizzard. I
couldn't tell from the video if it was Ronald Reagan or Soupy Sales, but
the hissy audio helped with the identification.
I used to tune in one of those stations when the local network affiliate
broke down and there was a program I wanted to watch, or when the
station in the next market ran a movie not shown locally. I used to tape
programs from those stations, because somehow the VCR reduced the video
noise at least a little. I remember watching the first episode of Star
Trek Voyager that way, because there wasn't yet a UPN affiliate here.
And I considered myself lucky, because I could get such great reception
- even though the local UHF stations were often unwatchable in some
rooms due to ghosting and instability.
I would find that wholly unacceptable now. I can still find those
distant stations if conditions are just right, but even then they are
too unstable to watch. Perhaps if I were to install a rooftop antenna I
could bring them in with more stability. Perhaps not. I don't care. The
ghosting and instability I experienced with the old analog stations is
gone, mostly because I was forced to experiment with my antennas. Oh, I
might get some brief (a few seconds) glitches a couple of times a week
or so on any given station, and under certain conditions some rooms are
worse than others, but that's easy to get used to, or to compensate for.
From reading the news reports, you'd think nobody has good OTA
reception any more, because the ones with problems are the only ones
they report about. Perhaps I AM just lucky to have such great digital
reception.
Then again, perhaps not. Perhaps I'm just not newsworthy because I have
no reason to complain.
TJ
dmaster
...
>
> From reading the news reports, you'd think nobody has good OTA
> reception any more, because the ones with problems are the only ones
> they report about. Perhaps I AM just lucky to have such great digital
> reception.
>
> Then again, perhaps not. Perhaps I'm just not newsworthy because I have
> no reason to complain.
>
> TJ
I think your hammer has squarely found the head of the nail. }:)
Dan (Woj...)
SFTV_troy
I've always felt that being able to watch an Orioles or Ravens
Ballgame, even if it's degraded to nothing but black-and-white, is
better than getting nothing. Under the old analog regime I could
watch Baltimore sports, but under digital I can not.
QED fuzzy/noisy picture >>> no picture in my book.
SFTV_troy
> I used to tape programs from those stations,
> because somehow the VCR reduced the video noise
> at least a little. I remember watching the first episode of Star Trek
> Voyager that way, because there wasn't yet a UPN affiliate here.
Well see? If digital television had existed in 1995, you would not
have been able to watch Voyager at all (the distant station would be
too weak to produce a picture). But with analog, you at least saw a
fuzzy image of Voyager's premiere. (BTW I watched voyager the same
way - a fuzzy image from a distant station I can no longer get with
DTV.)
As for the VCR, it is band-limited to 3 megahertz, so it removes the
high-frequency static (white static), and produces a better image on
the tape.
> . I can still find those
> distant stations if conditions are just right, but even then they are
> too unstable to watch. Perhaps if I were to install a rooftop antenna
If you installed a rooftop antenna, you'd likely double or even triple
your number of channels. With settop rabbit ears/UHF loop on my
bedroom tv, I get a mere 10 channels (nonduplicated). With a rooftop
antenna on the main set, I get over 40 non-duplicated channels.
You don't even need to put the antenna on your roof. A channel master
CM4228 will sit comfortably behind your main television, and receive
all kinds of stuff. (It has 8 UHF antennas for maximum gain.) I used
to use mine in my apartment and it worked great.
TJ
> On Jan 15, 9:15 am, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>
>> I used to tape programs from those stations,
>> because somehow the VCR reduced the video noise
>> at least a little. I remember watching the first episode of Star Trek
>> Voyager that way, because there wasn't yet a UPN affiliate here.
>
> Well see? If digital television had existed in 1995, you would not
> have been able to watch Voyager at all (the distant station would be
> too weak to produce a picture). But with analog, you at least saw a
> fuzzy image of Voyager's premiere. (BTW I watched voyager the same
> way - a fuzzy image from a distant station I can no longer get with
> DTV.)
>
> As for the VCR, it is band-limited to 3 megahertz, so it removes the
> high-frequency static (white static), and produces a better image on
> the tape.
>
>
weeks when I couldn't pull that station in. And just as I did when the
UPN station that finally got up to full power status changed to WB
before the end of the last season of Voyager, and before Enterprise
premiered. Instead, a low-power station that I couldn't begin to pick up
became the UPN affiliate, and I had to wait until syndicated reruns to
see those last few episodes. And Enterprise? Didn't see those until the
DVDs came out, but I did without them.
And then when UPN and WB dissolved, the low-power station became CW, and
that's where Smallville went. But once I finally was able to get a
converter box I was most gratified to see that the low-power CW station
was being broadcast as a sub-channel of its sister NBC station. Once
again I could watch Smallville, and digital TV did that for me. Too bad
I couldn't have done it sooner.
>
>> . I can still find those
>> distant stations if conditions are just right, but even then they are
>> too unstable to watch. Perhaps if I were to install a rooftop antenna
>
> If you installed a rooftop antenna, you'd likely double or even triple
> your number of channels. With settop rabbit ears/UHF loop on my
> bedroom tv, I get a mere 10 channels (nonduplicated). With a rooftop
> antenna on the main set, I get over 40 non-duplicated channels.
>
> You don't even need to put the antenna on your roof. A channel master
> CM4228 will sit comfortably behind your main television, and receive
> all kinds of stuff. (It has 8 UHF antennas for maximum gain.) I used
> to use mine in my apartment and it worked great.
>
>
>
I use simple bowties, and I can pick up NBC, CW, CBS, ABC, PBS,
Mynetwork, ION, and FOX, not to mention 3 additional PBS subchannels
(How can they fill all that programming now when before they had to beg
for money every few months just to keep going on ONE channel?), 3
additional sub-channels from the ION station, one from the ABC station,
and a 24-hour weather broadcast from the NBC station.
Why would I want anything more?
TJ
TJ
stomp my feet over what I can't, even if I appear to lose ground.
Histrionics rarely accomplish anything, and aren't good for the
digestion, or the blood pressure.
TJ
SFTV_troy
> SFTV_troy wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well see? If digital television had existed in 1995, you would not
> > have been able to watch Voyager at all (the distant station would be
> > too weak to produce a picture). But with analog, you at least saw a
> > fuzzy image of Voyager's premiere.
>
> weeks when I couldn't pull that station in.
Not me. I was a huge fan of Star Trek at the time (TOS, TNG, and DS9)
and very anxious to see the new Voyager. Not being able to pick-up
the distant DTV Baltimore station would have been disappointing.
Fortunately analog TV let me see a fuzzy picture.
I also enjoyed seeing the Orioles and Ravens games in analog, which is
now impossible since DTV took over.
> > If you installed a rooftop antenna, you'd likely double or even triple
> > your number of channels. With settop rabbit ears/UHF loop on my
> > bedroom tv, I get a mere 10 channels (nonduplicated). With a rooftop
> > antenna on the main set, I get over 40 non-duplicated channels.
>
> > You don't even need to put the antenna on your roof. A channel master
> > CM4228 will sit comfortably behind your main television, and receive
> > all kinds of stuff. (It has 8 UHF antennas for maximum gain.) I used
> > to use mine in my apartment and it worked great.
>
> I use simple bowties, and I can pick up NBC, CW, CBS, ABC, PBS,
> Mynetwork, ION, and FOX, not to mention 3 additional PBS subchannels
> (How can they fill all that programming now when before they had to beg
> for money every few months just to keep going on ONE channel?), 3
> additional sub-channels from the ION station, one from the ABC station,
> and a 24-hour weather broadcast from the NBC station.
>
> Why would I want anything more?
More is better. For example I didn't see you mention the Global
channel or Link channels (international programming). Or This movie
channel or NBC Sports channel or RetroTV. These are all excellent
channels and worth getting if they are available from a distant
station.
SFTV_troy
> SFTV_troy wrote:
>
> > I've always felt that being able to watch an Orioles or Ravens
> > Ballgame, even if it's degraded to nothing but black-and-white, is
> > better than getting nothing. Under the old analog regime I could
> > watch Baltimore sports, but under digital I can not.
>
> > QED fuzzy/noisy picture >>> no picture in my book.
>
>
>
> Personally, I do what I can, and try very hard not to gnash my teeth and
> stomp my feet over what I can't, even if I appear to lose ground.
> Histrionics rarely accomplish anything, and aren't good for the
> digestion, or the blood pressure.
>
> TJ
Which is interesting but has nothing to do with what I was talking
about.
TJ
game. No, I'll take that back. I'd rather go fishing and leave the TV
set at home, turned off.
TJ
TJ
> On Jan 15, 3:25 pm, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>> Why would I want anything more?
>
>
> More is better.
Not necessarily. A lot of the stuff I can see now that I couldn't before
is just junk as far as I'm concerned. What's the old joke about cable
TV? "A hundred channels and there's STILL nothing on?"
TJ
SFTV_troy
> SFTV_troy wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 4:04 pm, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
> >> SFTV_troy wrote:
>
> >>> I've always felt that being able to watch an Orioles or Ravens
> >>> Ballgame, even if it's degraded to nothing but black-and-white, is
> >>> better than getting nothing. Under the old analog regime I could
> >>> watch Baltimore sports, but under digital I can not.
> >>> QED fuzzy/noisy picture >>> no picture in my book.
>
> OK, I'll try again. Personally, I'd rather watch static than a baseball
> game. No, I'll take that back. I'd rather go fishing and leave the TV
> set at home, turned off.
>
> TJ
Yeah see, fishing holds no interest for me. I'd rather watch TV, and
not being able to watch Baltimore sports is one less thing for me to
do.
Pete
About a month ago,
in article <xqidnayb1Ps08qDW...@lmi.net>, I wrote:
>>
>>This *does* seem to be becoming a trend! Watching 'At the Movies'
>>yesterday, the movie clips, of Avatar and everything else, kept freezing
>>too, fo short periods. Strangely, the studio shots of the hosts never
>>did.
>>
>After a couple more weeks of watching various channels and programs,
>I'm now fairly sure of my observations, and they're odd...
>
>Every program I watch on ABC (ch 7) on my HDTV has these momentary freezes.
>I haven't seen it on any other channel. (This is not a weak-signal problem
>BTW. Ch7 is one of the stronger ones.) I also have never seen it on 7's
>local news (HD too).
>
[and to recap some other postings, this was not loss-of-signal, the
picture would actually speed up momentarily, then freeze until the
-- unaffected -- sound caught up. And I only saw it on my HDTV, not
via my converter boxes.]
Anyhow, I realized on the weekend that I had just watched "At the Movies"
without seeing a single glitch. So last night I watched "Castle" -- which
has been a prime offender in the past weeks -- very carefully, and it
was definitely completely glitch-free.
So, Yay! I guess it *was* some strange encoder problem that they
eventually discovered and were able to fix.