http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/khmptv-delivers-live-hdr-4ktv-in-atsc-30-at-ces/277694

A new DTV system being demo'ed at the CES. Looks like this might mean that the current ATSC broadcast standard might go away, rendering our current settop boxes and flat screens useless? Maybe requiring another generation of coupon elegable converter boxes (convert from ATSC 3.0 to old style ATSC and NTSC?). This new system uses OFDM, vs the 8VSB the current ATSC system uses. Which probably means it would be hard to have one 6MHz channel do ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 sharing via time slices.

More at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/07/tv-tuner-stop-working/index.htm

IMHO a broadcast standard should last longer than 25 years... :thumbsdn:

If converter boxes come out, I don't think they'll do it coupon again. It'll just
be some cheap crap from china, and there most likely won't go back to NTSC, just ATSC
the previous, same for the next round. Personally I don't see it happening any time
soon..... Broadcasters don't have an appetite for the expenditures, nor the more
advanced stuff going into 3.0......

I think maybe 4 - 5 years down they might be thinking about making a new mess....
But they pretty much just got this one running.....

.

They can keep it.

IMHO a broadcast standard should last longer than 25 years... :thumbsdn:

I couldn't agree with you more.

Weird to see the Zenith name.

Ahn noted that this week’s Las Vegas broadcast comes on the heels of other broadcast field trials conducted in the United States and South Korea over the past 18 months by LG Electronics, its U.S. R&D Lab Zenith, and broadcast transmission equipment provider, GatesAir.

Development of ATSC 3.0 technologies represents the latest collaboration among LG, Zenith and GatesAir, co-inventors of the technology behind the ATSC A/153 mobile DTV standard, adopted in 2009. Zenith also submitted the core transmission system in the current DTV standard.

Older thread started here.

http://www.videokarma.org/showthread.php?t=264281

Jeez, the OTA broadcasters complained like crazy because they had to switch from analog to digital at their expense, because ±85% of their audiences watch via cable. Now they'll have shell out millions again.

But... as long as any OTA converter box has line level video and audio outputs that will feed my VCR I won't care.

Jeez, the OTA broadcasters complained like crazy because they had to switch from analog to digital at their expense, because ±85% of their audiences watch via cable. Now they'll have shell out millions again.

But... as long as any OTA converter box has line level video and audio outputs that will feed my VCR I won't care.

Odds are next time around it will be HDMI only....Most players no longer have analog connections.

Odds are next time around it will be HDMI only....Most players no longer have analog connections.
That's something I've been meaning to look into. If most people don't use VCRs anymore, how do they record programs and give the recording media to someone else to watch? Here at home, I use my VCR upstairs connected to a roof antenna to record shows on VHS tapes that are watched on the TV downstairs, often more than once (movies, series, etc.).
If it's HDMI, how am I supposed to record shows?

Your not supposed to record shows according to the copyright holders/film industry which are fighting to prevent the sale of any HD capable OTA recorders (They have Blu-ray recorders which are the HD equivalent of a VCR in most other countries). A DVD recorder or HTPC/DVR is the most modern thing that can do that, and cable/sat are trying to make it so that only their DVR capable cable boxes can record.

Most young people just stream the shows off Netflix and Hulu and could not be bothered to save any show on physical media....

Heck many modern TVs are barely supporting analog inputs anymore.

Young people have pretty much been programed to accept $/Streaming and $/Song
$/tv show too.... It's odd to hear of kids not care about making it to the tv at 8PM to
catch some show, but paying out the $1.99 to watch it at some odd time on a 3" or less
hand held screen, often while doing 3 other things as well..... But then, most of the kids
who do that - that I hear of, don't work for that $1.99, don't make the choice between
the tv show and gas in the tank, or something else.... Seems like a disconnect with
money, & value or something I don't get....

Lots of people don't collect physical media anymore, and are being shifted towards
paid subscription for anything entertainment wise. Not just cable, but music, tv,
movies also. You gotta wonder what the cord cutters are watching ? I guess most
have just switched cord types..... (Cable tv --> Netflix ?) The cord is still attached,
to your wallet, where it has always been.....

Yah, media producers really hated the VCR ! And they sure don't want anything like
that coming around again..... Especially with digital clarity..... A short while ago I was
thinking of getting a DVR there was a lot of stuff on the internet about saving the
files and moving them off to a separate HD and making it mobile. The unit of choice
was a Dish or Directv box. OS was Linux and there was several websites with files
to add to the system to make archiving easier..... It's still not a VCR and I don't
even know if that stuff is still around....

While it lasts I'm making VCR and DVD's of stuff on broadcast tv that I like, both
because I can, and because most new stuff made sucks more each year....
Movies too... Most of the ones we see now are off redbox, and we see lots that suck
so bad we don't finish some, and have no interest in watching them twice while
we got the disk for the night..... I can't imagine paying full theater price for some
of the disappointing crap they make today.....

Overboard is on tonight, now that's worth taping and worth $2. at redbox too..... Even
though we've seen it 20 times, It's a funny well made movie.... And now that we live
in Pigs-Snout NY it's even funnier !

.

Millennials, the 25 to 30 age bracket don't want to buy televisions or homes and they think it's to formal to email, hence all the texting. They don't want to be tied down to anything. They marry at a later age as well.

My theory is a young person today has come to grip with the fact that there is no job stability anymore. Young people will have to shift from employer to employer during their adult lifetime. This trend caught me toward the tail end of my career, but luckily, only had a few years before retirement back in 2009.

I would be interested in hearing young people's perspective.

Millennials, the 25 to 30 age bracket don't want to buy televisions or homes and they think it's to formal to email, hence all the texting. They don't want to be tied down to anything. They marry at a later age as well.

My theory is a young person today has come to grip with the fact that there is no job stability anymore. Young people will have to shift from employer to employer during their adult lifetime. This trend caught me toward the tail end of my career, but luckily, only had a few years before retirement back in 2009.

I would be interested in hearing young people's perspective.

As a 24 year old it makes me want to own my own business more than than work for any corporation.

My dad has probably gotten at best 8 years of employment out of a company. For the first 11.5 years of my life he was able to keep employed in the Chicago area, but his second to last job there (which had been long/stable and upward mobile) was ended when the company was turned over to it's owner's dopey son who "wanted to do charity work" and sold the place to American Express who in a year had taken all the clients and dumped all the staff including dad (I hate AmEx for this piracy and the owner's son for enabling it)....Several of his previous jobs ended this way His next job lasted a ~year and ended when he refused to do the ILLEGAL cooking of books that they demanded....At that point the industry was in such a recession that we had to move to Florida for him to get work at a place I could write a book based on all the stories dad told (often angrily) from being a manager at. I HATED living in Florida the climate was murderous, the people (including people my age) were mean hateful assholes with no manners (even places where you were paying for hospitality they would treat each other and us like scum)...That mess dumped dad during the housing crisis with a expensive house that I had to finish the extensive remodel (which was practically my doing alone) myself (dad has never been a house or car guy so I'm usually the one drafted for the work HE should be doing) after helping a lot with the last house. After that he had a nice stable job in Wisconsin that ended last month with the company being so ruined by the ACA that a Saudi company bought it to strip it of it's significant land assets, can much of the staff, and spin the shaky business model off into it's own independent entity (that rent's it's facilities from the Saudis) to die slowly.....This nicely coincided with my college graduation spring of '15 (they kept him on extra months)....Completely messing up my plans for after college (planned to stay with the folks for cheap rent until I had paid off my student loans and saved to buy a home outright).....This job and the last one the companies screwed them selves by letting him go. The one in Florida a stupid USELESS secretary that was above him but whom he did not report to decided she was going to act like he reported to her and push him around after much crap and mutual animosity that woman, who literally knew where the owners had bodies buried (There were rumors the owners had killed people they scammed in a previous venture), eventually used her unique sway with the owners to get dad fired, and they screwed them selves so bad they actually sent recruiters out to try and get him back a year or two later (in fact I think they may still be trying to get him back). His most recent job he knows more than his ingrate boss (whom he would of replaced had she retired sooner), and the only person she kept from the department after the downsizing is some idiot underling...Dad says that even if they knew how to do the all work (which they don't) he does not think they can manage the work load of the whole department themselves.

With all the crap I've been dragged through as his kid from this corporate shuffle, and how much I've hated it all (and I've had it better than some kids that get moved cross country every 2-4 years) I honestly (when I someday have kids) can't stand the idea of putting my kids through all that miserable crap.

I think it is a way of destroying the family and friendship bonds of the middle class in the closest way "they" (I'll leave their identity open to your imagination to avoid getting into politics) can find (without causing rioting) to the way the single mother wellfare incentive has destroyed the poor (especially minority) family unit.

I'll probably end up working for a company at first (I've got zero capital, and my only business idea may not be profitable enough to live on), but if I can find a way to be stably self-employed I will do it, and if I start a company I sure sure as hell don't want to treat my employees like dad has been treated or sellout to corporate pirates....I can understand wanting to make money, but intentionally screwing people (especially employees) to do it (or more accurately gain more profit) disgusts me....I wonder how they can sleep at night?

...

It is eye opening to look at the electronics offered in other countries. In the UK, for example, there are many OTA HD recorders to choose from. Many of them record to a hard drive, and can later copy shows to a Blu-Ray disc. I don't think there's a single Blu-Ray video recorder on the market here.

There are lots of little tid-bids that make it to the news kinda un noticed about
how individuals rule the gov. and corps, In some countries they even protest
when something is not right, and they bring the area to a complete standstill...
They even have better pay, working conditions, freedoms, and a gov. that
listens to their people..... It's so strange.....

Some countries even crack the whip on google, they can't track people, etc.

Imagine a media company being satisfied with airing a program, getting it's
ad revenue, and allowing a recording to be made and "Shared" and they
go on and let people live..... People are stupid for not suing all companies
who collect and "Share" personal data.....

Yah, EM guess what...... Life is hard..... Next Gen. Life will be harder....

.

Young people have pretty much been programmed to accept $/Streaming and $/Song $/tv show too.... It's odd to hear of kids not care about making it to the tv at 8PM to catch some show, but paying out the $1.99 to watch it at some odd time on a 3" or less hand held screen, often while doing 3 other things as well..... But then, most of the kids who do that - that I hear of, don't work for that $1.99, don't make the choice between the tv show and gas in the tank, or something else.... Seems like a disconnect with money, & value or something I don't get....
THIS is so perfectly stated, and exactly what I fear is the biggest threat to free, over-the-air TV availability, far more than having to buy new/different boxes (if that is our choice) in a few years.

Lets be clear here that "ATSC 3.0" will be an available option to broadcasters, and NOT a planned "complete replacement" as the switch to digital was, at least as I understand the plans so far. So, when the new signals are approved, stations will only add them or switch to them if and when there is an incentive to do so. New TV sets will tune the signals at no extra cost at some point, just as all TV sets now tune the existing digital signals. And, converter boxes will be available for those who want to see the new signals on their existing sets, if/when there is even a value to doing so.

What does all this have to do with ATSC 3.0? :scratch2: Another case of a thread being hijacked, I guess.

That's something I've been meaning to look into. If most people don't use VCRs anymore, how do they record programs and give the recording media to someone else to watch? Here at home, I use my VCR upstairs connected to a roof antenna to record shows on VHS tapes that are watched on the TV downstairs, often more than once (movies, series, etc.).
If it's HDMI, how am I supposed to record shows?


I record OTA TV with a USB tuner and the included software (Elgato). It records the MPEG2 TS (transport stream) which is the actual data from the station. No (extra) compression unless you opt for an export that requires it. All the metadata is there, etc. I also have a stand-alone tuner/recorder that does the same thing in a "wrapper" for about $80.

I have a game recorder and a Blackmagic Design Hyperdeck Studio, both with HDMI inputs/pass-thru. At some point, I should test those on my DirecTV output. I'm guessing that they will allow recording, because otherwise my DVR couldn't record it.

Off-topic from ATSC 3.0, though.

Chip

What does all this have to do with ATSC 3.0? :scratch2: Another case of a thread being hijacked, I guess.

Ha Ha Ha ~ funny as hell comment Jeffs !

3.0 has so many aspects that will change, it effects every part of the coming
NTSC Box experience.

From what I read about 3.0 I would like to see it, distributed booster stations
would help out reception where I live. I would not be interested in having 2
or more boxes on my tv to get to see content on my NTSC box, but we all
know "standards" are just short lulls between money grabs nowadays......

I want to go to the public hearings on adoption ! I want a few buttons added to
the next converter box. I want a button to dump a bucket of water on everyone
on the screen anytime I push it ! I want a button to get paid for my time
watching crappy commercials. I want a button to send direct live complaints
back to tv producers, programmers, and writers !

The biggest complaint I got about DTV is when they cut back signal coverage
areas..... Otherwise it ain't that bad as is.....

.

A healthy appetite for 4K content already exists. The continued rollout of new and lower priced 4K sets is increasing as evidenced by this week's CES show in Las Vegas.

So far we have content from Netflick, Amazon, You Tube, very soon, BluRay UHD and a few other content providers.

If the trend for 4K continues, that should provide a good motivator for broadcasters to roll out ATSC 3.0.

I don't think 4K (let alone 8K, 16K or whatever follows) will catch on any time soon, with or without ATSC 3.0. I say this because, to get the full effect of 4K, one would have to sit within inches (!) of the screen, and I don't know of anyone who wants to sit that close to their flat screen.

I am almost 60 years old and well remember the warning about sitting too close to the TV: You'll ruin your eyes! That may have been true in the old NTSC 4:3 aspect ratio era, but I'm not sure about flat screens; in fact, I don't think sitting within inches of them could cause vision problems. After all, to get the full effect of today's HDTV, one must be within a foot or less of the screen; sit any further back and you will lose the HD effect immediately.

Hmmm. Now I'm wondering if eye doctors are or will be getting more patients in if 4K does become the standard; if so, the problem will be eyestrain from sitting too close to the TV. :scratch2:

Everyone, I sincerely apologize for the thread hijack. I was just thinking "aloud" to myself where the thread subject provoked me.

I'm sorry. :(

The debate on whether 4K is of any benefit has been discussed previously on several old threads.

With regard to viewing distance for 4K, the general rule of thumb is to sit back 1.5 times the diagonal measurement of your television screen. If you have a 55 inch screen, that would be 6.875 feet. If you have a 70 inch screen as I have, that would be 8.75 feet. If you only have a 20 inch screen the viewing distance would be 2.5 feet.

These recommendations are from SMPTE and THX.

This article describes a blind viewing test in which 49 participants out of 50 correctly identified a 55 inch 4K set from a 1080P set at 9 feet.
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-201312153517.htm

I am sure folks that think 4K is baloney can produce any number of Internet articles to that effect. One thing for sure, one needs a large screen to enjoy 4K, but it does not have to be threatical in size. 70 inches or better will do nicely. I have an average size viewing room and 70 inches fits in well. My 69 year old eyes can see the significant improvement of 4K over HD if the proper native 4K content is viewed and not up scaled 4K.

Hu.... Me and the wife have a NTSC box, I sit 7 feet away off 45 degrees from center.
She sits about 16 feet away from our 20" flat crt (Sharpest picture I have seen yet)
stereo tv. I'm pretty sure neither of us actually can tell if it's stereo from our seating
positions. Whatever tv's we get in the future will have basically the same distance, so
therefore even if we get a 40" screen, we'll not get 4K as it's signal loss is ~ 20%
per foot at lets say 40" transmitter size....? Most people I know that have a flatty
it's on the wall 4 -5 feet off the ground, and they sit 10 feet away..... Sunlamp style
almost..... So no 4K for the average viewer.....? Why....? Why get it....?

Oh, and no one needs to apologize for the direction a thread takes, everyone
sees a topic differently, and with their own concerns...... Be Happy -
discuss freely !

I understand the detail in a 4K image can be so fine that a good amount is
lost in transmission from the screen across the dusty divide to one's recliner,
but for full effect, this new technology will require some un natural viewing
style..... No ....? Yes....?

At any rate, I imagine in 5 years the price divide between 4k and pre 4K will
almost disappear and 4K will have arrived..... But then bleeding edge will be
........ 32K ......? and 96" roll up true wall dimension tv....?

.

Whatever floats your boat is fine with me.

Myself, I'm a self proclaimed movie, sports and news junkie. I'm retired. I don't enjoy going to movies in movie house anymore, listing to rude people talking on their cell phones and people complaining to management and disrupting the entire movie.

Il stay at home with my own movies and home theater, as best as I can afford.

I've never really understood the "NEED" for ANY of this stuff..I remember seeing the current HDTV demonstrated at the 1982 World's Fair in Knoxville, & I remember thinking, " THIS is what all the Fuss is about ?!? Big WHOOP.." Yeah, but you can have unlimited channels, interactive TV, yadda yadda yadda...& I thought, yeah, just that many more channels to cram ADs down our throat, & watch the same Hogan's Heroes shows that we were SICK of by 1973 or so..Whoopty-effin-Do...

I agree with you guys, Me & the Wife have not gone to a movie house in more than 12
years, the new ones we rent are pretty disappointing, as is the experience. The last
going out movie experience we actually liked was in Atlanta, they had a little movie
restaurant, not so great a screen, average food, good seats, people talked, you expected
it, and the movies were re-runs..... Popular spot for a year, then they closed..... too bad.....
17 years ago.......

Today we do redbox, the dvd movies are sharper than tapes, content not so much,
Big highlight to the evening now is re-runs of Carson, All in the family, not 4K.....

Yup, I've seen real HD on a flatty, "Big Whoop" It would be kinda nice to have a in home
theater setup for the once a year great movie almost worth going out for...... but
it just seems like big screen HD players were just made for blowing things up !
and after that, the plot falls flat......

It is pretty funny though, that when the "Unlimited Channels" part of the HD
came out, they are pretty much filled with 50 year old tv shows.....

.

I doubt that there will be widespread use of 4K in OTA DTV when 3.0 rolls out. Broadcasters would likely prefer three streams of 1080 to a single stream of 4K, just as many have chosen one stream of 720 and three streams over a single 1080 low-compression stream with ATSC 1.0.

HDTV on a 50" screen looks better than NTSC at 50", but on a 19" screen, you'd need a special display and reading glasses to tell the difference. 4K looks better than 1080 on a 100" screen - but not everyone sees (no pun intended) the need for that. Yes, 4K looks better than 1080 on a now common 50" set, if one is standing close to it - but how often do people watch TV standing up?

My suspicion is that there will be a flash-cut transition day when everything switches from 1.0 to 3.0., and it could work beautifully, if it were to be done correctly. They would have to market converters that automatically decoded 1.0 or 3.0, whichever was being received. The customer could install the new converter as soon as he brought it home. The user would not notice transition day at all (unless he noticed fewer dropouts, less pixellation, and new subchannels).

They would have to equip newly manufactured sets with the capability for receive 1.0 or 3.0 almost as soon as the new standard is chosen (not nine years after broadcasts started, as was the case with ATSC 1.0)

They owe it to the environment to see that converters with NTSC outputs (not just HDMI dongles) are available. There are still millions of sets (including some HDTV sets) that either lack any HDMI input or have only one HDMI input that is likely to be claimed by another HDMI device. If only HDMI dongles were to be distributed, there will be another large flood of E-waste.

They will also need to rethink the power limits on the three different television broadcast bands (scientifically, channels 2 to 6 and channels 7-13 are really two different bands). The current power levels were chosen in an attempt to give stations, be they on low-VHF, high-VHF, or UHF, a "level playing field". Since VHF signals of a given power travel farther than a UHF signal of the same power (and low-VHF travels farther than high-VHF), stations on UHF actual channels were allowed much more power than those on high-VHF, and the few going to low-VHF were allowed even less power. The problem was that the power levels were based on natural noise, not taking into account the fact that modern consumer electronics was already producing RFI often far more severe than natural noise. Power limits for VHF stations (especially low-VHF) need to be raised to combat real-world RFI.

The FCC really should evaluate the possibility of using the second transition to "rationalize" the use of the DTV spectrum by broadcasters. Channels could be "de-intermixed" as had been proposed in the 1950s (and had actually done in a few markets) so that any area would have either low-VHF, high-VHF, or UHF, not a mixture of them, so they could get good reception with only one antenna. In markets where TV transmitters are scattered, they could be realigned to one "union tower" so viewers could have reliable reception without a rotator (which almost nobody has nowadays). In markets with rugged terrain, the primary transmitters could be low-VHF, while populated valleys would have low-power UHF translators (by being in the valley, they would not be interfering with the stations in nearby UHF markets, or their own translators on the same channel in other valley cities). European TV divorced itself from the "one TV station has one transmitter" model fifty years ago.

[QUOTE=Robert Grant;3153669]I doubt that there will be widespread use of 4K in OTA DTV when 3.0 rolls out. Broadcasters would likely prefer three streams of 1080 to a single stream of 4K, just as many have chosen one stream of 720 and three streams over a single 1080 low-compression stream with ATSC 1.0.

HDTV on a 50" screen looks better than NTSC at 50", but on a 19" screen, you'd need a special display and reading glasses to tell the difference. 4K looks better than 1080 on a 100" screen - but not everyone sees (no pun intended) the need for that. Yes, 4K looks better than 1080 on a now common 50" set, if one is standing close to it - but how often do people watch TV standing up?"

I agree, not everyone wants or cares about 4K. However, there is a healthy market for it in the same way that people purchase high end audio equipment. Many folks set up their own home theaters with outboard surround sound speakers. 4K is not for the casual television observer who isn't going to bother setting up the viewing room for proper furniture placement and lighting. I don't agree with your assessment that you have to be standing up to see 4K properly.

I suspect, now that hi def is now the "only game in town" (the FCC forcing analog NTSC to go away), people have come to like it. And the cost of HD sets are now reasonably reasonable. And few people would want to go back to analog NTSC (ignoring reception issues). But I doubt people will want to upgrade to 4K, like nobody went for 3D.

Well, virtually ALL of us here KNOW that you can take a Roundie color set, or even a later version "Rectangular" set, & get, as Jeremy Clarkson would say "Near as makes no difference" HDTV, w/a little TLC, & judicious "Tweaking", & have pretty dern CLOSE to what HDTV purports to be...

Well, I know a lot of you would argue that my made in china 20" Magnavox Flat CRT
NTSC box does not produce a HD image, or close, especially using the rf signal input,
but I have noticed a great improvement in picture quality since Digital came out
while watching PBS's Nature show. I know they film it using some really good quality
cameras, and since our analog days PBS was a crappy signal here. But since they stayed
on VHF it makes it up here very well now... I wouldn't mind seeing that in real HD, and
possibly one day in 4K, but I'm Not going to sit within 6 feet of the screen..... Well
probably not all the time....

.

That's something I've been meaning to look into. If most people don't use VCRs anymore, how do they record programs and give the recording media to someone else to watch? Here at home, I use my VCR upstairs connected to a roof antenna to record shows on VHS tapes that are watched on the TV downstairs, often more than once (movies, series, etc.).
If it's HDMI, how am I supposed to record shows?

They dont want people to record shows anymore.

Pretty soon they turn on the digital copyright protection on like the DVDs and macrovision on the old VHS tapes.

THIS is so perfectly stated, and exactly what I fear is the biggest threat to free, over-the-air TV availability, far more than having to buy new/different boxes (if that is our choice) in a few years.

I agree.With the new DTV realignment coming up .The OTA channels will be less there is now.The vacated channels probably will be auctioned of to the wireless idiots.Alot of pocketed money going around.

but I have noticed a great improvement in picture quality since Digital came out
while watching PBS's Nature show.

.

Reminds me of one such show where a scientist was explaining his theory of why zebras are striped. He was watching film of a herd of zebras, and saw the stage coach wagon wheel effect (wheels spinning in the wrong direction) as the zebras were running. And he thought this would be what a lion would see in live action in the field (zebras seemingly running in the opposite direction). I in person later looked at cars driving past, to see if maybe my eye would see this wagon wheel effect (I assume lion eyes and mine are enough similar), and as I expected, I didn't see the effect. As my (and lion eyes) don't use shutters running at 24 frames a second, and thus I and lions won't get this alias product. :D Unless they watch movies of running zebras. :D

Reminds me of one such show where a scientist was explaining his theory of why zebras are striped. He was watching film of a herd of zebras, and saw the stage coach wagon wheel effect (wheels spinning in the wrong direction) as the zebras were running. And he thought this would be what a lion would see in live action in the field (zebras seemingly running in the opposite direction). I in person later looked at cars driving past, to see if maybe my eye would see this wagon wheel effect (I assume lion eyes and mine are enough similar), and as I expected, I didn't see the effect. As my (and lion eyes) don't use shutters running at 24 frames a second, and thus I and lions won't get this alias product. :D Unless they watch movies of running zebras. :D

I've seen the wagon wheel effect on cars on the highway in person....

I've seen the wagon wheel effect on cars on the highway in person....

I'm guessing that there must have been some *strobing* effect going on with the light source such as 60 Hz blinking of street lamps or sunlight streaming through a forest, or perhaps strobing related to viewing conditions, such as observation of the vehicle through a picket fence.

jr

I'm guessing that there must have been some *strobing* effect going on with the light source such as 60 Hz blinking of street lamps or sunlight streaming through a forest, or perhaps strobing related to viewing conditions, such as observation of the vehicle through a picket fence.

jr
I've observed it in direct view with normal sunlight and no strobing.

I can't say that I have observed car wheels appearing to go backwards, but I have seen some sort of strobing that I think was due to the shadows of the spokes falling on the spokes themselves. Strobing in the eye/visual system might be possible under certain conditions due to short-duration after images, and it might depend critically on the level of illumination, that is, require bright sunlight or even brighter reflections of the sun off of chrome wheels. It also might depend on being in peripheral vision rather than central attention. A former boss of mine, a video expert, once told me that he had seen strobing on car wheels, but did not say if they appeared to turn backwards.

Edit - if it's the shadow-caused effect, it might only be visible if you were NOT tracking the motion of the car. If you were following the wheel, the rotation might blur everything, but if not, the strobing flashes would be distributed across your retina. I think the cases I have seen were when I was not tracking the car motion.

See Benham's top:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benham%27s_top

This produces colors from black and white for most people, but does not show rotation reversal.

I suggest you actually print one and spin it rather than viewing the video. The video does show colors, but also flickers badly, and even comes with a warning about seizure inducement in people who are sensitive to such flickering images.

See Benham's top:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benham%27s_top

This produces colors from black and white for most people, but does not show rotation reversal.

I suggest you actually print one and spin it rather than viewing the video. The video does show colors, but also flickers badly, and even comes with a warning about seizure inducement in people who are sensitive to such flickering images.

Anybody remember hearing of an early network tv experiment using flicker to simulate color on monochrome tvs?

jr

Yes. A long, long time ago.

ATSC approves "Bootstrap" as full standard:

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/playout/2016/03/atsc-approves-atsc-3-0-bootstrap-as-full-standard/

:scratch2:
jr