NTSC shut down in 2009 [Archive] - Videokarma.org TV - Video

Jeffhs

11-30-2006, 03:21 AM

Supposedly regular outdoor antennas will work fine; rabbit ears really don't; I'm stuck with rabbit ears due to being in an apartment, and the signals will just cut out at times and it's really annoying. Remember, the NTSC phaseout was supposed to have happened already, but the date keeps getting changed.

Why not get basic cable? I live in an apartment building as well and have the same problem with rabbit ears and standard analog NTSC signals; the UHF OTA reception is good for the most part, but VHF goes all over the map, with channel 3 (Cleveland's NBC affiliate) not reaching here at all. Everyone in the building (and most everyone in the village in which I live), however, has either cable or satellite rather than antennas, so we don't have any problems to speak of with standard NTSC; the transition to digital in 2009 should be seamless as well. I know I'm not concerned about it. My cable company (Time Warner) has assured me that when the time comes to switch entirely to digital, the cable system will be ready to go. I am presently using a digital cable box ahead of my 7-year-old RCA 19" analog TV, and get every Cleveland station even better than I could ever hope for with an antenna.

I am not planning on getting a flat-panel HD television any time soon until or unless two things happen: one, the sets drop in price to a point where the average person can afford them, and two, the sets will have to be one heck of a lot more reliable than they are now. Today's FP HDTVs are built, like everything else these days, to be throwaways after the manufacturer's warranty expires. When the video driver ICs go bad, for example, the entire panel must be replaced, since the chips are molded into the cable that connects the panel to the main chassis. Moreover, the panels themselves are not built to last more than two or three years; in fact, LCDs lose much of their brightness within five years, plasmas have heat-related issues, and DLP sets are prone to mechanical failures.

Even though HDTV has been around in this country awhile, the faults I just mentioned may keep flat-panel sets out of most American living rooms for some time. The pictures produced by FP sets are not that great either, if I am to believe some of the comments I've read here about them. (The consensus seems to be that CRTs still produce better pictures--blacker blacks, richer colors, etc.--than today's FPs.) I know it will be quite a while, if ever, before I replace my RCA CRT set with a FP--the flat-panel technology just has too many bugs in it right now.

You are correct in your observation that NTSC was supposed to have been shut down by now; the first FCC deadline for this was 2006, IIRC. Whether the deadline will be pushed back yet again remains to be seen.

There are, however, rules now in effect which state that all TVs with screens 32 inches and up must have ATSC tuners; next year another rule takes effect which states that all televisions 13 inches and larger must be equipped with ATSC tuners as well.

Whether or not this is a hint that all-digital TV is just around the corner, however, remains to be seen--as I said, the FCC may push back the deadline yet again (and again, and again...). I remember reading something somewhere very recently that said, in effect, digital HDTV is not all it is cracked up to be and may die out in a short time. Look at quadraphonic (four-channel) stereo sound in the '70s; it was dead by the early '80s. AM stereo radio is also pretty much dead as well after only a few years. High-definition (HD) FM? I believe that's headed down a dark road to oblivion as well. How many HD FM stereo systems and/or radios are there in the stores or in consumers' hands at this moment? I haven't seen any HD radio receivers yet. My best guess is HD FM will be as dead as AM stereo and quad sound in a very short time. The only advantage I can see with HD FM is that it gives those FM stations that use it a subchannel to broadcast another format on; I honestly do not believe, however, that it improves the sound all that much. An FM station in Cleveland claims to be broadcasting in HD but I'm darned if I can tell the difference between it and standard stereo FM, listening to the station on my 7-year-old Aiwa bookshelf stereo or any other FM radio I currently own.

High-definition TV is, IMHO, a fad that hasn't really caught on with the public, at least here in the Midwest. I know only one person (my barber) who actually has a HDTV flat-panel set; everyone else I know around here still uses the old reliable CRT TVs. The flat-panel sets are still far too expensive for most people to afford at this point, which is why RCA, and eventually other offshore TV manufacturers, have come out with a line of standard-definition TVs (SDTV). These are sets with a digital ATSC tuner already built in; the sets themselves are designed to receive digital HD signals and display them in the analog 4:3 aspect ratio TV viewers are accustomed to after well over five decades. These SDTVs are supposed to ease people into the transition from analog to digital, but my best guess is that most people will continue to use their analog CRT sets as long as they work. If you have cable, the conversion from digital to analog will be taken care of behind the scenes at the cable headend or in the cable box, if you use one. Satellite signals are digital by nature, so no conversion is needed with them at all; it is all done inside the satellite receiver. Again, my best guess right now is that most folks will run their current analog CRTs until they die, then they may replace them with FP sets. I say "may" because until HD flat panels drop to reasonable prices (well under $1,000 for a 23" or larger set) and until the sets are made to last more than a year or two, these high-tech TVs aren't going to sell well--in fact, I don't think they are exactly flying off store shelves even now.

There are several alternatives to traditional TV, mostly Internet based (except DVDs, of course), so many people who cannot afford HDTV may turn to the Internet for their TV eventually. In fact, I believe that some day the Internet may revolutionize television yet again (if it hasn't already made inroads to that effect), replacing high-definition digital OTA and cable. I have a lifetime membership to TV.org (www.tv.org), a site specializing in downloadable episodes of current and past TV series, and I use it quite a bit after rediscovering it last night. In fact, about the only time I watch regular TV anymore is for news and sports; between TV.org, network netcasts (NBC and ABC world news, et al.) and DVDs (I also have a subscription to Netflix), I find all the TV I like without having to watch the stuff that passes for entertainment on cable. The so-called "500-channel universe" is just a catch phrase from digital cable's early days, as no city (that I am aware of) has anywhere near 500 channels on their cable systems, even if you count digital stations--in fact, the cable operator in my area (Time Warner) only offers 200 channels on their digital service, if you get their best and most expensive package (counting movie channels--TW has three HBOs, three Showtime channels, at least three Cinemax, and on and on), and far less on the two tiers of analog service. Another fine example of media hype gone hog wild.

botrytis

11-30-2006, 06:34 AM

Well, the reason why they are pushing this is they want to use different bands for OTA HD broadcasting and the current bands are slated to be used for Fire and Police Depts. since there bands are absolutely filled, currently.

It is going to happen, it is just which standard and when.

Dave

Duffinator

11-30-2006, 11:18 AM

Why not get basic cable? I live in an apartment building as well and have the same problem with rabbit ears and standard analog NTSC signals; the UHF OTA reception is good for the most part, but VHF goes all over the map, with channel 3 (Cleveland's NBC affiliate) not reaching here at all. Everyone in the building (and most everyone in the village in which I live), however, has either cable or satellite rather than antennas, so we don't have any problems to speak of with standard NTSC; the transition to digital in 2009 should be seamless as well. I know I'm not concerned about it. My cable company (Time Warner) has assured me that when the time comes to switch entirely to digital, the cable system will be ready to go. I am presently using a digital cable box ahead of my 7-year-old RCA 19" analog TV, and get every Cleveland station even better than I could ever hope for with an antenna.

I am not planning on getting a flat-panel HD television any time soon until or unless two things happen: one, the sets drop in price to a point where the average person can afford them, and two, the sets will have to be one heck of a lot more reliable than they are now. Today's FP HDTVs are built, like everything else these days, to be throwaways after the manufacturer's warranty expires. When the video driver ICs go bad, for example, the entire panel must be replaced, since the chips are molded into the cable that connects the panel to the main chassis. Moreover, the panels themselves are not built to last more than two or three years; in fact, LCDs lose much of their brightness within five years, plasmas have heat-related issues, and DLP sets are prone to mechanical failures.

Even though HDTV has been around in this country awhile, the faults I just mentioned may keep flat-panel sets out of most American living rooms for some time. The pictures produced by FP sets are not that great either, if I am to believe some of the comments I've read here about them. (The consensus seems to be that CRTs still produce better pictures--blacker blacks, richer colors, etc.--than today's FPs.) I know it will be quite a while, if ever, before I replace my RCA CRT set with a FP--the flat-panel technology just has too many bugs in it right now.

You are correct in your observation that NTSC was supposed to have been shut down by now; the first FCC deadline for this was 2006, IIRC. Whether the deadline will be pushed back yet again remains to be seen.

There are, however, rules now in effect which state that all TVs with screens 32 inches and up must have ATSC tuners; next year another rule takes effect which states that all televisions 13 inches and larger must be equipped with ATSC tuners as well.

Whether or not this is a hint that all-digital TV is just around the corner, however, remains to be seen--as I said, the FCC may push back the deadline yet again (and again, and again...). I remember reading something somewhere very recently that said, in effect, digital HDTV is not all it is cracked up to be and may die out in a short time. Look at quadraphonic (four-channel) stereo sound in the '70s; it was dead by the early '80s. AM stereo radio is also pretty much dead as well after only a few years. High-definition (HD) FM? I believe that's headed down a dark road to oblivion as well. How many HD FM stereo systems and/or radios are there in the stores or in consumers' hands at this moment? I haven't seen any HD radio receivers yet. My best guess is HD FM will be as dead as AM stereo and quad sound in a very short time. The only advantage I can see with HD FM is that it gives those FM stations that use it a subchannel to broadcast another format on; I honestly do not believe, however, that it improves the sound all that much. An FM station in Cleveland claims to be broadcasting in HD but I'm darned if I can tell the difference between it and standard stereo FM, listening to the station on my 7-year-old Aiwa bookshelf stereo or any other FM radio I currently own.

High-definition TV is, IMHO, a fad that hasn't really caught on with the public, at least here in the Midwest. I know only one person (my barber) who actually has a HDTV flat-panel set; everyone else I know around here still uses the old reliable CRT TVs. The flat-panel sets are still far too expensive for most people to afford at this point, which is why RCA, and eventually other offshore TV manufacturers, have come out with a line of standard-definition TVs (SDTV). These are sets with a digital ATSC tuner already built in; the sets themselves are designed to receive digital HD signals and display them in the analog 4:3 aspect ratio TV viewers are accustomed to after well over five decades. These SDTVs are supposed to ease people into the transition from analog to digital, but my best guess is that most people will continue to use their analog CRT sets as long as they work. If you have cable, the conversion from digital to analog will be taken care of behind the scenes at the cable headend or in the cable box, if you use one. Satellite signals are digital by nature, so no conversion is needed with them at all; it is all done inside the satellite receiver. Again, my best guess right now is that most folks will run their current analog CRTs until they die, then they may replace them with FP sets. I say "may" because until HD flat panels drop to reasonable prices (well under $1,000 for a 23" or larger set) and until the sets are made to last more than a year or two, these high-tech TVs aren't going to sell well--in fact, I don't think they are exactly flying off store shelves even now.

There are several alternatives to traditional TV, mostly Internet based (except DVDs, of course), so many people who cannot afford HDTV may turn to the Internet for their TV eventually. In fact, I believe that some day the Internet may revolutionize television yet again (if it hasn't already made inroads to that effect), replacing high-definition digital OTA and cable. I have a lifetime membership to TV.org (www.tv.org), a site specializing in downloadable episodes of current and past TV series, and I use it quite a bit after rediscovering it last night. In fact, about the only time I watch regular TV anymore is for news and sports; between TV.org, network netcasts (NBC and ABC world news, et al.) and DVDs (I also have a subscription to Netflix), I find all the TV I like without having to watch the stuff that passes for entertainment on cable. The so-called "500-channel universe" is just a catch phrase from digital cable's early days, as no city (that I am aware of) has anywhere near 500 channels on their cable systems, even if you count digital stations--in fact, the cable operator in my area (Time Warner) only offers 200 channels on their digital service, if you get their best and most expensive package (counting movie channels--TW has three HBOs, three Showtime channels, at least three Cinemax, and on and on), and far less on the two tiers of analog service. Another fine example of media hype gone hog wild.I've owned an HDTV for six years now and I can't wait until all broadcast are in widescreen HD. I've been disappointed that the NTSC shut down has been postponed as many times as it has. The technology has been available for many years to convert an ATSC signal to display on a NTSC display.

You make it sound like you live in a cave. :D Here in California most of the people I know have had at least one HDTV for a couple of years now and many have two like I do. But that's a generalization just like you made. :D You can hardly find a non HD capable tv in the stores anymore.

As for this NEW flat panel technology, both plasma and LCD displays have been around for three decades or more. Where I work we've had LCD monitors in use for at least seven years with no more issues than their CRT brothers. Now we have had problems with plasma TV's but the LCD's seem to hold up much better. As good as CRT? Probably not but not much worse either. The problem is if you want to watch something larger than a 4x3 35" you need to move away from a CRT. I for one really enjoying watching a DVD movie on my 56" HDTV with full Dolby Digital surround sound. And there's nothing like watching Star Wars on my friends 110" HD projector setup. It's just not quite the same on a 35" non HD set. I also haven't seen a CRT HDTV that's capable of displaying a 1080P picture that's available to the general public. Technology marches on and I've enjoyed marching along with it. Hail Hail ATSC widescreen HD! :yes:

andy

11-30-2006, 12:47 PM

In defense of flat panel TVs, they are actually pretty affordable now. My family paid about $800 for a typical 27" TV in the 80's when I was a kid. Accounting for inflation, that same money will buy a 42" plasma or LCD TV. It's only the fact that CRT TVs are being sold at slave labor rates that make flat panels look expensive. NTSC CRT TVs are so cheap that they aren't even worth repairing.

avguytx

11-30-2006, 01:55 PM

Bill R

11-30-2006, 09:01 PM

It would be fine with me if they just dump the whole digital HD thing altogether. There really isn't any programming on that I would want to watch in HD anyway, and 16:9 ratio is just plain wrong for TV (well ok if you have a wall size screen and projector setup it isn't bad for a movie).

Bill R

Charlie

11-30-2006, 10:13 PM

Doug:

You could use programmabe UHF modulators... set the outputs to whatever channel you want. We use them on the ship for the "cable system" we built. They work pretty good.

Here's some on this page... it looks like some of them can have at least 3 inputs, and also output on 3 channels at once. That's kinda neat.

http://www.futurehomesystems.com/v100.shtml

Randy Bassham

11-30-2006, 10:19 PM

I have a few questions re receiving HD or digital signals. I live in a far fringe rural area where the stations are all over 70 miles away other than a local UHF translator station. With a big enough antenna and an antenna mounted pre-amp I can get a fairly snow free signal on VHF channels but the UHF stations from the same locations are really not watchable. Since it's my understanding that digital signals are carried in the UHF band is this going to be the end of terrestrial broadcasting to fringe areas.

We have had Directv since '95 since cable is never coming out here, not enough houses per mile. I keep my antenna up even though I've got the local channels in the satellite programming, because during severe weather rain fade gets the satellite but I can still get storm reports via OTA.

I use my restored early B&W sets to watch old movies....Nothing better than Casablanca on a 1950's set. Takes me back to when I was a kid watching our 17 inch Emerson in the 50's.

andy

11-30-2006, 10:38 PM

I have a few questions re receiving HD or digital signals. I live in a far fringe rural area where the stations are all over 70 miles away other than a local UHF translator station. With a big enough antenna and an antenna mounted pre-amp I can get a fairly snow free signal on VHF channels but the UHF stations from the same locations are really not watchable. Since it's my understanding that digital signals are carried in the UHF band is this going to be the end of terrestrial broadcasting to fringe areas.

I dount you'll even know there's a singal there with digital. If you're curious, you could buy a set to box to test it with (assuming your local stations are doing digital yet). If it doesn't work, you can take the box back. If it works, you might like what you see and want to keep the box. There are some digital channels on VHF.

wa2ise

11-30-2006, 11:17 PM

I live in a far fringe rural area where the stations are all over 70 miles away other than a local UHF translator station. With a big enough antenna and an antenna mounted pre-amp I can get a fairly snow free signal on VHF channels but the UHF stations from the same locations are really not watchable. Since it's my understanding that digital signals are carried in the UHF band is this going to be the end of terrestrial broadcasting to fringe areas.

I wonder if there will be translators that will accept a digital TV channel input and decode it and transmit it as NTSC on another channel. I've heard of some independent UHF stations going digital only, and supplying the various CATV systems digital decoder boxes so the 80% of the viewers (who are cable subscribers) see this TV channel as an NTSC channel, as if nothing hapened to the old analog transmitter. The station saves on the transmitter electric bill, which is substantial on UHF.

NowhereMan 1966

12-01-2006, 11:06 AM

I've owned an HDTV for six years now and I can't wait until all broadcast are in widescreen HD. I've been disappointed that the NTSC shut down has been postponed as many times as it has. The technology has been available for many years to convert an ATSC signal to display on a NTSC display.

You make it sound like you live in a cave. :D Here in California most of the people I know have had at least one HDTV for a couple of years now and many have two like I do. But that's a generalization just like you made. :D You can hardly find a non HD capable tv in the stores anymore.

As for this NEW flat panel technology, both plasma and LCD displays have been around for three decades or more. Where I work we've had LCD monitors in use for at least seven years with no more issues than their CRT brothers. Now we have had problems with plasma TV's but the LCD's seem to hold up much better. As good as CRT? Probably not but not much worse either. The problem is if you want to watch something larger than a 4x3 35" you need to move away from a CRT. I for one really enjoying watching a DVD movie on my 56" HDTV with full Dolby Digital surround sound. And there's nothing like watching Star Wars on my friends 110" HD projector setup. It's just not quite the same on a 35" non HD set. I also haven't seen a CRT HDTV that's capable of displaying a 1080P picture that's available to the general public. Technology marches on and I've enjoyed marching along with it. Hail Hail ATSC widescreen HD! :yes:

I think California is a lot different that Pittsburgh, PA. Except for medical technology, the joke here is that "Pittsburgh is still stuck in the 1950's and if the world was coming to an end, come here, you'll get an extra 50 years to live." :) I only know, if lucky, one or two people with HDTV, the rest still have analogue sets. Myself, I still use a 1982 (it turns 24 this month) Zenith System 3 that I've been watching since high school (we bought it in 1983) and there are times, it has a picture on it to rival some HDTV's. So far, we plan to use it past 2009. I'm not like my grandmother (*), although I know many people here in Pittsburgh who are, where she watched her 1962 RCA B&W (with no UHF tuner) and still used a rotary phone until she passed on in 1997. She'd still be doing that if she was alive now. If she lasted until 2009 and the date was not pushed back, she would be screaming bloody murder. I'd guess I'd better find her a convertor box PDQ before she advocates the overthrow of the FCC, the US Government or something. :D

That's not quite true, sometimes the 1982 Zenith, there are a few times the "old girl" acts up, I'm looking for parts, but it is somewhat rare and shutting her down for a half a week to a week for a little rest, she goes on for months after that, we have a 1998 19 inch color Zenith as a backup. Use to be in my room, but now I called back my 1966 Sony B&W 9 inch TV where my Playstation is hooked to it. ;)

Chuck

DE KA3WRW

bgadow

12-01-2006, 12:32 PM

Our local Fox station is digital only; it's on all the cable channels, in analog of course. When they first went on the air (as a UPN affiliate) they had a big contest giving away set-top boxes.

I guess I would need 3 such boxes when the deal goes down. One for the living room set, one for the bedroom, and then one to float amongst the sets in the TV room. Sounds expensive! I know all about digital reception problems thanks to the fact that 2 of the 3 local stations have problems with their microwave (I guess?) feeds now. The PBS station is terrible; on a stormy night they can be unwatchable for hours. Sounds like someone is falling down on the job in engineering. There have been some times where the weather was really bad & both WCPB & WMDT were unwatchable due to the digital problem while WBOC was crystal clear. That's all thanks to something between station & transmitter or in the sattelite run I guess, since I am just watching them on a plain old analog tv set with an attic antenna.

Carmine

12-01-2006, 02:43 PM

Being an electronics rep, I am in agreement that I'm ready for them to shut off the analog signal. It's been talked about for WAAAAYYYYY too long. I mean, until OTA HD signal, there hadn't been any "real" major difference in video reproduction since TV was invented. When color came out, is was basically B&W with color laced into it. There's only so many lines of resolution that those old sets can reproduce. Why would anyone want to watch TV in any other way than what new video can reproduce?.... .... I don't mean to start anything with anyone but I guess after having been in this business for 30 years, TV's are something that never appealed to me for collectibility and it amazes me that someone would want to watch the old funky rounded tubes and have no remote, etc. (I was the remote control when I was a kid!...lol) Now audio on the other hand, that's another story. It's fun to look at, friends think it's cool, sound quality can vary with each piece, etc. But like I always say...to each their own. Oh well. I'm just ready for all the BS about NTSC to be over with. Just my $.02. No more, no less....only opinion of one person. :)

As I said in another thread:

I read this debate on antiqueradio.com, and it seemed to always come down to one side accusing the other of living in the past. However, the arguement can be made that the new system is backwards-compatable, so long as you have a digital/analog conversion box.

I am willing to accept that, grudgingly, so that the mouth-breathing masses can see the stitching on a football, or the latest layer of Micheal Jackson's plastic surgery.

My first complaint is with the government becoming involved with what should be a private sector decision. Right now, broadcasters are running digital and analog transmissions. As long as they can make $$ doing both, they will. When the cost of electricity for running the analog tower outweighs the loss of ad revenue generated by people watching on analog sets is reached, they can decide for themselves when to shut down the old tower, not by an artificial mandate of 2009.

My second complaint is with the all/nothing nature of a digital signal, and what a PIA this is going to be anytime you don't want to watch TV (or eventually listen to the radio) from a hardwired (usually pay) connection.

Just yesterday, I was helping a friend clean her basement and we dug-up an old 19" Zenith Chromacolor set fom under the stairs (I hate to even say that for fear of yet another chromacolor testimonial!) I plugged it in, pulled up the rabbit-ears and damned if I wasn't watching the Simpsons while we cleaned the basement, albiet with a little snow. In the all digital senario, no cable, no usable signal in a basement.

...And yes, the friend has cable. Not everybody sits down to watch TV in their "media room" like it's some kinda big event. Could you imagine how successful radio WOULDN'T have been if you had to connect it to a cable to work?

If we can so easily dismiss the .03% of the population that gets signals OTA, why the hell do we need the FCC? Some guy running a pirate TV station on channel 69 isn't going to affect my digital cable reception of Anna Nicole Smith's latest scandal.

IF the HDTV/digital system is so great, people will demand it in time. If you involve the government, you eliminate competition, so there will be no motivation for someone to build a $200 HDTV. It's only electronics companies who have lobbied for an incompatable digital system. Last I heard, this was "supposed" to be a capitalist nation.

There is no reason the two can't co-exist (as they do now). Spare me the post-911 paranoia about "needed" frequencies, cops won't even go to a uniform "10" system with their radio calls, which results in loads of confusion in a disaster.

Your car has air-conditioning because more & more people paid extra for it in the 50s, 60s & 70s. It's not like it went away because people in the Alaska don't have a need for it.

Oh yeah... the 16:9 ratio is retarded too! 90% of framed shots are of 2-3 people, not the Chinese army running down a mountain! Now the camera man has to pull way back to frame the shot, and you get LESS detail of the action! Widescreen was a gimmick designed to COMBAT television, not be adopted by it!

avguytx

12-01-2006, 04:09 PM

They've been filming movies in widescreen for quite a few years in oddball aspect ratios that are wider that 16:9 (1.85:1 ratio). I think the first one (well known) was "Ben Hur" which is filmed in 2:35:1. I still have black bars on my widescreen TV but that's fine. I'd rather see the whole movie and not some ugly PAN SCAN conversion. Movie studios and theaters have been filming in multiple aspect ratios for years and can vary screen width based on how the movie was shot. At least with HD, there's a guideline as to the width they film in and not varying aspect ratios of TV's. I only have HD in one room in the house but all the other rooms are old school TV (4:3 ratio) which is fine for typical satellite or cable programming.

I think one thing a lot of people are misled on or don't understand is the fact that the transition will only affect the people that are watching TV via an antenna ONLY. For people with pay TV service (cable or satellite, etc), it doesn't matter. You have a box anyway and it takes car of it. IF you are watching TV with only an OTA antenna, then yes, you'll be the one that can't watch TV when they "flip" the proverbial switch. There will be adapter boxes...they pretty much have to do that. TV's won't be obsolete overnite. Whatever the reason the government needs the signal for is their deal.

I'm just happy to have the ability to watch BETTER TV pictures than the same old 4:3 crap that's been out since the dawn of time. It's time to have something better. Times change.

Carmine

12-01-2006, 05:08 PM

So for the sake of the of a few movies we get a whole new format? That sounds kinda crazy.

I think one thing a lot of people are misled on or don't understand is the fact that the transition will only affect the people that are watching TV via an antenna ONLY.

I live in an urban area, and can pick-up a good signal on pretty much every channel, sometimes even without an antenna. Maybe I don't want to run cable to every place I might ever want to plop a TV! This is for the sake of a few people who care about seeing every last line of resolution on a crappy tv show?

BTW my leases on my rentals say: "Tenants with rent that remains unpaid shall not be permitted to attach any manner of television reception equipment to the landlord's property." It's better than turning the electricity turned off, and its legal! But I digeress...

Whatever the reason the government needs the signal for is their deal.

...and thus the "real" problem I have with it (the first is just PIA). I don't remember anyone marching on Washington to demand better quality TV signals. But I do know lobbyists went there to create a "deadline". Those aren't the "government" airwaves, they are for "the people". (lol)

There is no compelling need for wholesale conversion to digital TV. You (figurative) can watch super-sharp digital video of the rain forest all day for all I care, even on an OTA digital signal. My question is, why has the government said, after 2009, if you broadcast an analog TV signal, you're going to jail?

While there is no actual need to shutdown analog, However I see safety at risk when these digital signals drop in a natural/unnatural disaster. Right now, if somebody blows all the Detroit transmitters in Southfield, I can still get news/information from Toledo... Or Canada.. Or even Cleveland with my old Chromacolor II.

The reason is, nobody (figurative) cares about HDTV! Given free-market conditions, it would (has) bomb(ed). If both systems were to broadcast (as they do now) broadcasters would decide when it's no longer worth it to broadcast analog or digital. AM & FM co-exist, and AM has evolved into a "talk" format, or a low-cost way to broadcast music, because a FM signal sounds far better than AM. Why not let the same happen between analog and digital TV?

But our government, which loves to drone on about free-trade, global markets, and lassie-fair capitalism only follows those principles when the rich can skim a buck from it.

Again, don't take it personal... I'm just expressing a side that I don't often see voiced.

Duffinator

12-01-2006, 05:14 PM

Oh yeah... the 16:9 ratio is retarded too! 90% of framed shots are of 2-3 people, not the Chinese army running down a mountain! Now the camera man has to pull way back to frame the shot, and you get LESS detail of the action! Widescreen was a gimmick designed to COMBAT television, not be adopted by it! :boring: Better get used to it. So what do you do when you go to see a movie at a theater? Put your hands up so you only see a 4x3 screen? :D

Carmine

12-01-2006, 05:18 PM

Must not be that boring... You've been reading it. :scratch2:

In fact, this must be even better than whatever thrilling performance you aren't watching in HD. :D

Adam

12-01-2006, 05:51 PM

peverett

12-01-2006, 10:00 PM

I have heard that one of the reasons for the conversion to digital TV is so some of the cell phone/telecom people can take over the frequencies used by analog TV now. From what I have heard, the push to turn off analog TV is from them (to make $$$), not from the general public.

As far as digital TV, it will be nice for movies, sports shows(if you are sports fan) and Nature shows. As far as other things I watch, I do not see a need for it. I watch the Jay Leno show on a 1962 B&W, his background does not change and digital TV will be a waste.

I will get a digital TV eventually, once I figure out where to put it and which is the most reliable technology, but would also like a converter(or continuing analog broadcasting/cable) to watch my older/antique TVs.

What I recently learned from reading the monthly IEEE journal is do not buy a plasma. According to the article, this is the worst technology in lifetime and reliablilty. LCD looks the best at present, although still not anywhere as good as the old CRT. All of the new technologies are far more complex than CRTS and I do not believe that they will ever be as reliable. However, I have also read that it is very dificult to build a very large CRT for the new aspect ratio. If CRTs do remain, the only large sets will be projection.

Charlie

12-01-2006, 11:33 PM

I never really understood the widescreen ratio thing. Yes, I see it's just like being at the movies... but unless you have a television screen the same size as the movie screen, the ratio thing really doesn't improve anything. Being that you're sitting anywhere from 8 feet to 20 feet from your set, it seems that the 4:3 ratio is just fine for the living room or family room.

Yes, I've seen that the HD sets are getting better. A couple of years ago, I looked at them and it seemed the edges were always jagged looking... especially in fast action scenes. That little flaw is better now days. That was usually my biggest complaint. I can see that it won't be long before I buy a new set... the prices have come down quite a bit in the past couple of years.

Currently, my two options for watching tv are OTA and SAT here in the woods. Being that I really don't watch THAT much TV, free OTA is just fine for me. Since I'm about 45 miles from the stations AND I have huge pines surrounding my property, my outdoor antenna has to be at least 20 feet up for a good picture. I'm thinking that the new signals won't reach me this far out... even if I erect a new UHF antenna 20 feet up... and because of that, I'll be forced to PAY for satellite sevice. That will really leave behind a bad taste.

I'll likely buy a HD tuner/converter box first... I can try it on my old sets AND find out if I can get the new signals out here without first buying an entire television.

Duffinator

12-01-2006, 11:44 PM

I watch the Jay Leno show on a 1962 B&W, his background does not change and digital TV will be a waste.Have you ever watched the show in color before? :D Leno is probably the best looking show in HD. It looks like he's sitting there in your living room with you.

Carmine

12-02-2006, 07:25 AM

Charlie just brought up something I haven't considered... Right now, my friends have a joint-owned primative hunting cabin up in the woods... Way out in BFE. The place is pretty much furnished with second hand furniture and hand-me-downs, including an old 25" console RCA. (We're not going to put a $2000 tv in a place that sits empty most of the year). As it stands, you can pull a few stations pretty decent with an antenna, but with all/nothing digital that isn't going to happen.

So the choice will be: Subscribe to SAT for a TV used a few days per year, OR play more cards and drink more beer when it rains. :drunk:

Thanks FCC:thmbsp:

peverett

12-02-2006, 11:09 AM

I have watched Jay Leno in color many times, both in antique and modern color TVs (mine and in hotels). I have not yet seen it in HDTV though.

He does have a nice set, but I did not notice anything that special. The set is not why I watch his show.

Mark W.

12-02-2006, 08:44 PM

I called the local cable company and after finally finding someone who had a clue what I was talking about they told me since we are on cable there will be no change in our signal or in what TV we hook up to the cable box.

I'm happy.

bgadow

12-04-2006, 01:00 PM

1-Tucked away in the corner of my office, under a table and usually forgotten, is a 40 year old 12" bw Philco. It comes out when something big happens (9/11, big storm, etc) and has not been turned on since spring. Works fine on rabbit ears.

2-Most of this area, away from the main roads, will never have cable. So, they have sattelite, no big deal...where do they get there local channels? Still, antenna. This spells trouble for local stations who will lose a load of viewers unwilling to upgrade for local channels.

3-I can tote a lousy old Portacolor all over the place-to my attic, laundry room, basement, toolshed, wherever an extension cord will reach, and I can watch TV, real, live, local color TV. The folks who are into HDTV would, upon seeing the picture produced by that GE, probably throw up! I think Carmine's am/fm comparison makes since. AM might not be all that great, many would be embarrassed to be caught listening to it! But stations are still making money and some of us are still listening so it is still there, decades after its death was predicted. I am not anti-HDTV. I just don't want to lose my NTSC!

RVonse

12-04-2006, 10:36 PM

I'm also guessing the HDTV standard currently in use will eventually be withdrawn. It transmittsa like crap, has no DRM, and isn't really that great anyway.
We don't need no stinking DRM!!:no:

RVonse

12-04-2006, 11:07 PM

There are really 2 things at stake when television transfers out of NTSC. The first is the quality of the video presentation and on that count HDTV is clearly superior. But the other issue at stake is the loss of VHF spectrum and on that count Carmine hits the nail right on the head. Losing the VHF spectrum means reception will be either terrible or not at all. And the really disturbing feature about digital reception is that terrible reception really means no picture at all.

It would be very nice is to get ATSC AND VHF but instead we will get the bait and switch. So the general public is going to lose big time over this one.

And as for the posters who are worried about set top boxes, you can buy old RCA DTC-100 on ebay for about $40 or less now and they are one the best for reception.

fujifrontier

12-04-2006, 11:57 PM

What's wrong with living in the past? I've been trying to do so for some time now, I drive a '72 Buick, watch a '61 Zenith, and I still got one of those rotary phones. As far as the digital TVs, I have no plans of ever buying a new TV, they're just not for me. Most of my daily watching sets are from the 60s, most of the time I watch b/w, but I have a few old color sets that get a very good picture when I want to watch in color.
I watch TV over the air, and basically all I ever watch is one channel, KDOC 56. I just couldn't see paying for cable to get hundreds of channels I would never watch. I would rather just buy copies of the shows I like on DVD.
Now if I could get one of those converter boxes cheap, I would want to try it mainly just to see what digital tv reception is like, to see from how far away I can pick up a signal. Also I like that idea with the uhf modulator, then I could still use my uhf converters.:banana:

I'm not like my grandmother (*), although I know many people here in Pittsburgh who are, where she watched her 1962 RCA B&W (with no UHF tuner) and still used a rotary phone until she passed on in 1997. She'd still be doing that if she was alive now. If she lasted until 2009 and the date was not pushed back, she would be screaming bloody murder.

these posts made my heart warm. i'm like that. if something lasts and is dependable then there is no reason to replace it. i see myself being like her.

i also wholeheartedly agree with the "mouth breathing masses seeing an extra stich on a football" post

dr.ido

12-05-2006, 12:09 AM

With the to be shut down PAL system in my current location I can get a couple of UHF channels on my more sensitive sets without any antenna connected, not even a piece of wire in the socket. Most sets get a perfect picture with rabbit ears. Even the crappiest sets get a perfect picture with a modest rooftop antenna.

I've had a couple of set top boxes (repair jobs, I wouldn't buy one yet). I could barely get them to even ackownledge any channels existed on rabbit ears. On the roof top antenna I got reception, but it regularly dropped out and broke up. A friend in the same area got a new antenna professionaly installed "for digital". Their reception is better, but it drops out intermittantly and regulary flickers, or stutters.

So when the analog system is eventually shut down I won't have a signal that's worth watching. Even with a better antenna I'd have to put up with glitches that I find far more distracting than any ghosts or snow. So much for a better system. Either that or sign up for basic cable at $40 a month with a 24 month contract, which comes with it's own problems (the last time I had cable here I actually had to take screenshots to prove to their tech the kind of interference I was getting).

Captain Video

12-05-2006, 09:11 AM

What's wrong with living in the past? I've been trying to do so for some time now, I drive a '72 Buick, watch a '61 Zenith, and I still got one of those rotary phones.
As far as the digital TVs, I have no plans of ever buying a new TV, they're just not for me. Most of my daily watching sets are from the 60s, most of the time I watch b/w, but I have a few old color sets that get a very good picture when I want to watch in color.

I second your thoughts. I have a 1976 VW Beetle, I have two rotary phones ( a bakelite one from the 50's and a plastic one from the 70's, which I use for nostalgic reasons, since is exactly like the one we had when I was a little boy ), and the only reason I don't use any of my tube TV's is due to lack of funds to do a proper restoration - but I do however still use a 1986 set that is mine since I was 9. 20 years of ininterrupted use! I think that there's really nothing wrong with living in the past. It's a matter of personal choice, and we are also preserving things for future generations.

If a lot of people are satisfied with NTSC I don't think it should be extinguished. If equally a lot of people want to go digital, I don't know why the two systems couldn't co-exist. Here in Brazil we will start the transition to digital open the air TV next year. We will use the Japanese standard, because ( our government has told us ) that it is the only standard that allows for "mobility" - to watch TV in a car or a train. Is there any truth in this claim? Aren't the American or European digital standards also capable of receiving good images while the viewer is moving?

We will also completely shut down analog TV after some time. That is something that makes me feel uncomfortable, because I know that with digital either you will have good quality of image, or no image at all. I had a Directv subscription a few years ago, and I remenber that during storms we had complete loss of signal. Sometimes, even a very cloudy sky was enough to cripple the signal.

vintagecollect

12-05-2006, 06:22 PM

...

colorfixer

12-06-2006, 02:39 AM

Just go to any box store website and search for an ATSC/QAM set top box.. I was unable to locate even one. Sams' Club was the only one, and alas they are out of stock. Best Buys, Berzerkit City, Sprawlmart, nada, nicht, nothing.

Went into a retailer locally who promptly told me I had to buy satellite or a new TV "'cos dey ain't got no mo' tv transmitters'". Hmmmn.

I find it entertaining that there are so many "HD ready" sets still available in Canada without digital tuners, and with no set top boxes in the box stores, even in Washington, these things will be as useless as tits on a bull?

I just won't buy one of these things unless I actually get to see it in person and see it work.

fujifrontier

12-06-2006, 11:18 PM

me too

andy

12-07-2006, 01:34 PM

I read something a year or two ago about how major manufacturers are reluctant to sell HDTV tuners because it directly competes with the sale of new sets. There are some off brand tuners at Fry's, but they were still around $250 last time I looked.

Carmine

12-07-2006, 01:46 PM

We will use the Japanese standard, because ( our government has told us ) that it is the only standard that allows for "mobility" - to watch TV in a car or a train. Is there any truth in this claim? Aren't the American or European digital standards also capable of receiving good images while the viewer is moving?

I believe the Japanese HD system is analog, which would explain why it works.

(I was going to say "moblie", but then I realized I had said enough, lol) :yes:

colorfixer

12-08-2006, 03:52 AM

The idea of boxes killing TV sales off, now that makes sense! But, for the past few years, the HD displays they've sold the poor suck -er customers won't really work as HD tvs without a HD source.

K, now get this: the box stores up here all sell digital cable terminals from the cable company (and motorola/gi), and the Canadian version of Dishnetwork, Expressvu's HD receiver.

Why these and no "free to air" ATSC boxes at the big box stores? The sales staff/store receives commissions on every subscriber terminal/receiver sold, and residuals (a small % of your bill goes to the retailer who suckered you into the terminal). There is no *incentive* to sell you one, as there would be with a subscriber terminal, and or the lesser prize -a new tv. What will screw them in the end is that the ATSC tuners are now standard equipment in the current year's tv.

Until someone at Fry's (tried that one eagerly as I read the prior post, plus I like wandering their seas of cheese for NTE components), BB, CC, or ? figure out that people like me would rather watch a crt, and have already "early adopted" an HD capable display (my 40" wega in the living room), or own a "legacy" display (new vernacular for analog tv), I guess, I'll be the new minority.

In Canada, Walmart, and the other big discount small business killers have shelves of chinese tvs all without ATSC tuners. Only Walmart has HD tvs with digital tuners, which they have no doubt imported sets originally destined for the U.S. Not a single SD or "legacy" (I hate that term) TV I have seen there have an ATSC tuner.

Here's the reason:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf08702e.html
and
http://testunix.mediaforce1.com/CDTV/en/index.htm

How Long will Conventional Analogue TV Signals Be Available?

Since the transition to digital TV will take a long time to complete, you'll be able to watch analogue broadcasting for years. As a point of reference, it took 13 years for sales of color televisions to surpass black-and-white sales. In comparison, digital television represents a change of even greater complexity. The earliest that Canadian analogue stations may be allowed to shut down has yet to be determined but it is likely to be much beyond the year 2009, when analogue television broadcasting is expected to terminate in the US. Because analogue broadcasting will be with us for some time, current models of HDTV receivers also receive and display analogue TV signals.

Bobby Brady

12-08-2006, 10:44 AM

[QUOTE=Captain Video]I second your thoughts. I have a 1976 VW Beetle, I have two rotary phones ( a bakelite one from the 50's and a plastic one from the 70's, which I use for nostalgic reasons, since is exactly like the one we had when I was a little boy ), and the only reason I don't use any of my tube TV's is due to lack of funds to do a proper restoration - but I do however still use a 1986 set that is mine since I was 9. 20 years of ininterrupted use! I think that there's really nothing wrong with living in the past. It's a matter of personal choice, and we are also preserving things for future generations.
QUOTE]

I have been accused of "living in the past" for driving two different '74 Toronados, both having 8-track tape decks, that are original looking down to the exact style of Firestone tire used in '74. I have a neat '72 RCA home entertainment center that I use to play records like Gary Pucket's greatest hits; Aretha Franklin; Roy Orbisson; The Beatles; The Carpenters; Ozzy Osbourne's Crazy Train; Robert Goulet; Connie Francis; Vicki Carr; Porter Wagner and Dolly Parton; Jerry Butler; Andy Williams; The original soundtrack to Hair; The O'jays; Cat Stevens; Marvin Gaye; Dion; The Stylistics; The Fleetwoods; Bob Dylan; Elvis; Wayne Newton; Charlie Rich; Fleetwood Mac; Glenn Cambpell; Bill Haley and the Comets; Joe Cocker; Tammy Wynette; Frank Sinatra; Patsy Cline; Billy Swan's I can help; plus more others than I can remember now. I check out new music but every good new song is a rehashed old one that is never quite as good. I will not use a cell phone except when absolutely needed as I believe the fact that it warms the head is enough for me not to trust the "independant studies". I always try to talk about the past to learn how best to live now and to enjoy how much better more people were towards eachother. I even almost bought some vintage, lovely, colored toilet paper for when guests come over! However, I watch a 27" Sony for general use. I have an 8-track tape adapter to connect my Sirius radio in my car. I use the Sirius on my '72 RCA to hear Howard Stern.
I keep all the good from the past for my own comfort and pleasure but also to demonstrate to people the fact that all the stuff we needed was made by the early 70's and since then people have been "re-inventing the wheel" over and over and over again.
I try to get people to consider that maybe, just maybe, it would be worthwhille to stop following fashionable trends for long enough to do more for our fellow man.
Now, I hope that is not considered political as I have been warned that we are not to discuss religion or politics or anything that would not be wellcome in your average church.
In case I get banned for saying too much I just want most people here to know I appreciate thier intentions and I wish them well in this wild world we all are responsible for.

Captain Video

12-08-2006, 01:55 PM

[QUOTE=Bobby Brady
I I will not use a cell phone except when absolutely needed as I believe the fact that it warms the head is enough for me not to trust the "independant studies". [/QUOTE]

I never had any wish or desire to have a cell phone...I simply have no need for one. I only have a cell phone because my wife has given me one, because she really thinks I must have one.

For me, the only really great modern thing, that I think is really a great invention, is the DVD player.

andy

12-08-2006, 02:31 PM

Don't get me started about cell phones. I'm the only person under 30 I know who doesn't carry one. I have a pre-paid one that was a gift from my brother, but I hardly ever use it. With a little planning, it is possible to get through life without constantly talking on the cell phone.

I have an original Motorola brick phone that I would activate if I could, but no one will activate analog phones any more. I'd love to see people's reactions to it.

Jeffhs

12-08-2006, 02:32 PM

I never had any wish or desire to have a cell phone...I simply have no need for one. I only have a cell phone because my wife has given me one, because she really thinks I must have one.

For me, the only really great modern thing, that I think is really a great invention, is the DVD player.

I don't need a cell phone either, but I got one some three years ago for emergencies--say, if my landline goes down or if I am away from home and need to call for help. I have Cingular wireless with thousands of rollover minutes I have never used, and probably will not use before they expire at the end of the year.

I think DVD players are great. I have one, an inexpensive CyberHome unit, that I got as a Christmas present almost two years ago. The only thing I don't like about it is the fact that it will not work with my All For One universal remote. :no: Shortly after getting the player, I joined Netflix.com and signed up for the 3-a-month plan (their second cheapest). My plans for when the analog TV stations go dark in just over two years are to get basic cable for the TV (for news and sports) and use the DVD for movies. I don't subscribe to those high-priced cable movie channels, either; never have, since I've had cable (well, I did have HBO for one month back in the '80s, but discontinued it when I found the programming was not to my liking). No need to have HBO or any of cable's pay movie channels now anyway, with my DVD player and Netflix.

BTW, that brings up an interesting question. With DVDs being so popular these days, I wonder if they might eventually put the pay-cable movie channels out of business. :dunno:

Pete Deksnis

12-26-2006, 12:31 PM

...my friends have a joint-owned primitive hunting cabin up in the woods... including an old 25" console RCA. As it stands, you can pull a few stations pretty decent with an antenna, but with all/nothing digital that isn't going to happen. Not just in the boonies. The big city has the same problem. They're a zillion ATSC transmitters in and around NYC. The biggest names can give ATSC a bad name. Here's a page on my site; the result of frustrated ATSC viewing over the years.

http://home.att.net/~pldexnis/potpourri2/ATSCvsNTSC.html

Pete

Chad Hauris

12-26-2006, 01:31 PM

I don't see anything wrong with cell phones: mine has helped out a lot especially while traveling.
Personally I enjoy being able to use old TV's, cars, etc. but I would not like to live in the past! I can remember times when I could only pick up one TV channel, had no internet access, cell phone, air conditioning, satellite TV, DVD player, microwave oven and probably other things and I would not want to give up their convenience now that I have them.

Captain Video

12-26-2006, 01:43 PM

Not just in the boonies. The big city has the same problem. They're a zillion ATSC transmitters in and around NYC. The biggest names can give ATSC a bad name. Here's a page on my site; the result of frustrated ATSC viewing over the years.

http://home.att.net/~pldexnis/potpourri2/ATSCvsNTSC.html

Pete

The signal quality of that ATSC broadcast gave me the creeps! I was reminded of the time when I was a Directv subscriber and that sort of thing happened in a cloudy or rainy day...makes me thing what is in store for us down here when digital TV starts next year...

Jeffhs

12-26-2006, 02:29 PM

Not just in the boonies. The big city has the same problem. They're a zillion ATSC transmitters in and around NYC. The biggest names can give ATSC a bad name. Pete

Pete, I live in a small town 35 miles from downtown Cleveland. The TV transmitters serving the area are about ten or 15 miles further west of town. However, I have Time-Warner digital cable hooked up to a 19" RCA CTC185 TV, and get excellent pictures on all stations. I wonder about one station, however (WKYC channel 3, the NBC affiliate for Cleveland and northeast Ohio), that claims to broadcast its news in high-definition (the station makes a big deal of it every now and then, and always all but screams it out just prior to the start of every newscast, 6, 7 and 11 p.m., not to mention its so-called "midday" newscast which airs at 11:30 a.m. five days a week). The picture on my set looks just like the standard 4:3 TV we've all been watching for over fifty years, not in letterbox format, so yes, I do wonder what on earth they mean when they say the broadcast is presented in HD. The station even puts a transparent logo in the lower right corner of all TV screens in its area; the logo plainly shows the number 3, a small peacock logo next to the number, and the letters HD to the right of the peacock. If this is their idea of broadcasting their news "in HD" I have to wonder just how they are doing it.

I do not intend to get a high-definition TV any time soon, for the reasons you mentioned and because flat-panel sets are not all that reliable, not to mention that my present set is working extremely well, despite the fact that it is seven years old. (I also have a Zenith Sentry 2 19" TV that has 11.5 years on it and also makes an excellent picture, with its original CRT.)

I have read in various articles on TV technical websites and even in discussion forums such as AudioKarma.org that LCD sets lose about 50 percent of their brightness within five years, plasma sets are prone to heat-related problems, and DLP FPs develop mechanical problems after a given length of time, not to mention the fact that, since the video driver ICs are molded into the cable that connects an LCD/plasma panel to the main chassis, if even one of those chips goes bad, or even if the cable develops a short or a bad connection, etc., the entire panel must be replaced.

High-definition television, IMHO, has a long way to go before it is, as the expression goes, really "ready for prime time", if it ever will be. It certainly isn't yet. Most people still don't have it and may not for some time; I personally know only one person in my area (my barber) who has HDTV in his house. He says he likes it, but as bad as some HD signals are, even with cable (he has Time-Warner cable, as does everyone in northeast Ohio these days) I doubt if he gets really good HD reception on more than one or two over-air stations.

I agree with you that there is no excuse for a network flagship station such as New York's WNBC to broadcast such terribly substandard HD signals to its affiliates as it apparently does. (I wonder if the other network flagship stations' HD feeds are as bad.) Is the picture of The Today Show on your website from an over-the-air HD broadcast or from a cable signal? If the station's own network feed is poor, I guess that doesn't really matter, but I'm curious. However, since WNBC is the flagship station for the entire NBC television network, it has a duty and a responsibility to supply the network with the best HD signal it is capable of producing. Without getting controversial about it, I think NBC has gone so far downhill in all areas, not just signal quality, since GE bought it from RCA two decades ago that it is not funny. The only program I really follow on NBC anymore as a rule, other than NBC Nightly News, is Law and Order; even at that I watch the cable reruns of the show on Bravo, TNT, etc. more than I watch the current season's episodes.

Pete Deksnis

12-27-2006, 11:32 AM

...I do wonder what on earth they mean when they say the broadcast is presented in HD. The station even puts a transparent logo in the lower right corner of all TV screens in its area; the logo plainly shows the number 3, a small peacock logo next to the number, and the letters HD to the right of the peacock. If this is their idea of broadcasting their news "in HD".Your questions reflect my concerns about the marketing of high definition television. It's too complicated with too many variables, not all of which are technical.

Here, in the NYC area, viewers are on the receiving end of an emerging tug-of-war between broadcast outlets.

It all began about a year ago with one news helicopter being outfitted with an HDTV camera. Then another. Then another still.

What did it mean?

Occasionally during the standard 4:3 newscast, the aspect ratio ballooned out to 16:9 to give you a birds-eye view of a broken water main (or whatever).

The guy with a 4:3 NTSC set didn't see anything different.

The guy with a 16:9 ATSC set saw the wide screen picture.

The guy with the 4:3 NTSC set is confused because all the station hype about their news copter now in HD didn't translate into a damn thing he could see.

The guy with a 16:9 ATSC set sometimes didn't even see the HD water-main break because somebody at the station forgot to configure the HD feed from the copter for 16:9, and so the guy with the expensive HD set saw virtually the same thing the 4:3 NTSC guy did!

That was only the beginning.

Recently the battle for the minds of contented 4:3 NTSC viewers ramped up...

"We are the only station to broadcast local news in high definition."

Then another station jumps on the local HD news bandwagon, so the first station now touts, "We were the FIRST to broadcast local news in high definition."

Bottom line: (1) It's a marketing war for ratings. (2) An OTA broadcast signal as reliable as its NTSC analog counterpart is often lacking, as witnessed by my screen shot.

One correction: the network is not distributing a substandard signal to its affiliates; it was broadcasting perfectly good HD program content OTA to me but with a substandard signal. Naming names, the CBS high definition signal here in the NYC is always solid. The PBS and the NBC high definition signals here in the NYC area are not. FOX HD, UPN HD, ABC HD, and more transmit solid signals.

There can be all sorts of excuses. But here in the number one broadcast market, some of the biggies don't deliver.

As I said before, all the analog signals are solid 5by9. Why not all the digital signals?

Sure, as a techie I want to know why. But as a viewer, I don't care why, nor should I care why. Hey NBC/WNBC and PBS/WNET. Take a tip from your competition. Just transmit an OTA signal for me to watch that doesn't pixelate. Check the calendar; 2009 is moving ever closer :-)

Pete

3Guncolor

12-27-2006, 02:12 PM

The way I look at it when the analog transmitters get shut down it will be the end of broadcast TV. Sure the stations will transmit digital but very few people will be watching using it. Most people don't know how to pick it up let alone what the difference really is. When the cut off comes it really will be either cable or satelite. In fact I'm willing to bet when the date comes around the date gets pushed back again. Just watch what happens when when people get their TV cut off.

I can see stations turning off their digital too some day all they really will need is to be on the cable/satelite systems it will get to the point when they don't care if they are really on the air so why spend the $ on it. The key is viewers not how they receive the signal. With DVR's, VOD, DVD's 100's of channels they are in big trouble with only getting $'s by running advertising.

Jeffhs

12-28-2006, 01:10 AM

In fact I'm willing to bet when the date comes around the date gets pushed back again. Just watch what happens when when people get their TV cut off.

I can see stations turning off their digital too some day all they really will need is to be on the cable/satelite systems it will get to the point when they don't care if they are really on the air so why spend the $ on it. The key is viewers not how they receive the signal. With DVR's, VOD, DVD's 100's of channels they are in big trouble with only getting $'s by running advertising.

What a mess! Who would have thought in a million years that digital/HD television would generate so much controversy as it has? The whole thing started in 2005 or so, when the FCC announced it would end analog TV transmissions in favor of digital. Then the news media promptly went off the deep end, telling people that they would absolutely have to get new flat-panel TVs if they were to continue watching television, as their analog sets would go dark and would not work any longer after the stations all went digital. I have to admit to being taken in by this nightmare scenario myself, as I got digital cable shortly after the first announcements that analog television would be shut down by 2006. Well, here it is almost 2007 and the analog channels are still on the air, but not for much longer. Now the FCC says they will go off the air completely by 2009. I'll be ready for that when it happens, even if I still have at least one of my two analog TVs, as I fully expect I will, when everything goes 100-percent digital in just over two years. I already have an ATSC digital cable box from the cable company in my area (Time Warner) and the digital service itself, so I'm not one bit concerned about the day the analog stations are shut down for good.

The statement "....everyone's TV (will be) getting cut off...." once the analog stations go off the air isn't really true. As long as there are analog televisions in use in this country (there are millions of such sets in use even as I write this), there will be a market for ATSC over-the-air tuners, outdoor TV antennas, and the cable companies' ATSC digital cable boxes, so today's existing analog sets will be usable for years (albeit showing the HD stations' pictures in letterbox format rather than in HD) after the cutoff date, whenever that may be.

As to the statement that most people don't know or care much about HDTV itself or what the difference really is between today's NTSC and ATSC: Try to tell many or even most people about any of the technical stuff behind digital and/or HD television and they will either say "Well, whatever" or else they will ignore you completely and promptly change the subject. Most people don't know and don't care how NTSC television works. It is not realistic to expect that many or most folks outside the television industry will know or care anything about ATSC television either. Most people don't even know that today's color TV standard is NTSC or that the aspect ratio is 4:3, let alone how a TV set works. Most folks outside the TV industry are bamboozled as anything by HD digital TV, which is understandable; again, if they don't understand, know or care how their current NTSC set works (and they have gotten along for years not knowing that), why should they know anything about HD, digital, ATSC or anything else having to do with today's television standards? Most folks are content just to sit down in front of their TVs, turn the sets on, find the channel they want to watch, and enjoy the show; when the program ends, they turn off the set and do something else. The workings of standard NTSC television are (and have been for well over 50 years) black magic to most people who do not understand how radio is supposed to work; digital ATSC TV will be the same, just as many people today don't know anything much about their cars except where the gas goes. If the truth be told, they don't need to know anything about what goes on under the hood--that's what mechanics (or whatever they are called these days) are paid to know. We live in a world where the technology that operates our automobiles, entertainment devices, home appliances, etc. is so complicated that only technicians really understand any of it, and these people earn very good livings because they do understand high tech better than most of us.

Keefla

12-28-2006, 01:54 AM

that's what mechanics (or whatever they are called these days) are paid to know.

We are called automotive technitions, sounds better than 'grease monkey'. :thmbsp:

3Guncolor

12-28-2006, 01:58 AM

My point is everybody who does use over the air (analog) will lose their TV. I am fully aware that if a person has cable etc..they will see no change infact at the cutoff most cable systems may very well still have analog. Where I work we have both 100% digital and the same old analog cable with 70 some channels for customers that go cable direct. I do think in most cases digital service does provide a better signal. I do think it's funny to hear sories about people who think they are watching HDTV because they have a new set and they are just using the NTSC tuner cable direct.

Mast cable systems do not use 8VSB for digital they use either 64 or 256 QAM. I just don't see people who don't understand how it works putting up with the added trouble to make over the air digital work on their new set or dealing with a converter for their old NTSC set. Again if they currently don't use an antenna now they should see no change when the cut off happens.
That is why I feel this will be the start of the end of free over the air TV (broadcasting).

It's a whole different story about what we teach today in school I wish more people knew more about what is going on with let's say their cars then just where to put the gas. At the very least they would not be ripped off when they has service work done.

Dave A

12-29-2006, 10:54 PM

Pete, down here in Phila. I discovered that the "HD" news stations are just flipping their NTSC street reporting cameras over to 16x9 and showing that wide-screen (either shot in SDI or upconverted to SDI for digital switchers) in their HD news shows.

Most modern studio switchers can be programmed for HD or SDI on a button by button basis for whatever input format is needed for seamless switching on air. Only a trained eye can tell the difference on a HD set at home.

SDI is Serial Data Interface, a term for a digital version of a NTSC signal or a down-converted HD signal, but not true HD. It does give the best version of NTSC and most street cameras are quite good but it is still not HD.

Dave A

Pete Deksnis

12-30-2006, 08:45 AM

Pete, down here in Phila. I discovered that the "HD" news stations are just flipping their NTSC street reporting cameras over to 16x9 and showing that wide-screen (either shot in SDI or upconverted to SDI for digital switchers) in their HD news shows.

Serial Data Interface...does give the best version of NTSC and most street cameras are quite good but it is still not HD.

Dave AThanks for the confirmation Dave. When I'm using the CT-100 as a daily watcher for local news, occasionally the picture appears HD-like crystal clear. I suspected the use of an HD cam with the video throttled back somewhere and morphed into 480i. Pete

Jeffhs

12-30-2006, 01:34 PM

When I'm using the CT-100 as a daily watcher for local news, occasionally the picture appears HD-like crystal clear. I suspected the use of an HD cam with the video throttled back somewhere and morphed into 480i. Pete

The NBC television station in Cleveland does that too with all its newscasts (11:30 a.m., 6, 7, 11 p.m.). The station moved into a new studio building a few years ago and retooled its entire production system, with robotic cameras (HD of course) and all-HD digital video recording and storage, not to mention digital switchers and everything else from the studio to the transmitter. The station is northeastern Ohio's first high-definition TV outlet and is an NBC affiliate. Their news and live sports have easily the clearest pictures I have ever seen, even though I still have an analog 4:3 NTSC TV. Even NBC's programs look much sharper and clearer than they used to, but that's understandable since NBC's network feed from New York is HD.

However, if Cleveland's seven other network TV affiliates (5, 8, 19, 25, 43, 55, 61) are broadcasting news or network programming in HD (meaning if they are equipped for HD transmission), I don't know about it yet as they do not announce it locally, even though CBS, ABC and PBS (but not MyTV or The CW) do show a small window in the lower left corner of the screen when the shows are being presented in HD--not unlike the manner in which NBC announced when it was broadcasting shows with stereo sound, "where available", when it began stereo audio transmission 20 years ago. The announcement was in the form of an overlay on the picture at the beginning of each stereo production.

NBC's first shows broadcast over Cleveland's WKYC-TV with stereo sound had problems. I have VHS tapes of one show from NBC's early days of stereo transmission that have an overlay on the picture which states "Audio difficulties. Please stand by." It is difficult or impossible to tell, however, at which end of the circuit the problem existed; it may not have been with the network feed itself after all, but rather with the then-new stereo audio transmission equipment at the Cleveland NBC affiliate.

Stereo television sound is a joke anyway, IMHO, with most sets advertised as having "stereo" audio, even large consoles, having two tiny speakers at either side of the CRT. I have a feeling that the "stereo" feature was and still is just a sales point for table models, especially 25" sets. I once saw a 1980s vintage Zenith System 3 table TV, with a 19" CRT, which had "stereo" sound capability, but the speakers, mounted at the base of the set and positioned to be at either front edge of the CRT, could not have been larger than three inches. Even my RCA CTC185 is in a cabinet that has room for two speakers, although one enclosure space is empty (one can see straight through to the back of the set, looking into the empty grille). My best guess is that this cabinet was used for at least one model of RCA/Thomson's "stereo" televisions as well as the CTC185 mono version.

The only way to get truly good sound from these so-called "stereo" sets is to feed the audio directly into a stereo sound system; most newer so-called stereo TVs have fixed and/or variable audio outputs for just this purpose. The only real advantage to having a TV with stereo audio if you don't want to feed it into your stereo, IMO, is the SAP decoder which is part of all stereo televisions. Many TV programs (some ABC prime-time shows and ABC news in particular) are broadcast in English and Spanish, the latter being on a SAP subchannel.