What Ever Happened with Digital TV?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Only 1 station here, a UHF station, has made the change. Kinda stupid on their part if you think about it. It's people without cable, satillite or the like that watch over the air TV, lower income viewers, and they have cut off the very people that watch them.

Can you say brain dead?
 
A problem you run into on some of the digital HD stations is the broadcast image is smaller than your set's screen.

You wind up with bars not just at the top and bottom but on the side too. That's because that is the size of the HD signal's image.

So suddenly your 32" TV now only has a 24" picture.

Fortunately most digital stations have a non-HD signal with it.

You can get like chanel 25-1 will have the call letters of WEYI HD and 25-2 will have a full size picture just not in HD with call letters of just WEYI.

It's really confusing for my wife.

There is a button on the remote that says "zoom" but when you push it a message comes on the screen that says "The aspect ratio for this channel cannot be changed".

Now one great way for us more technically gifted people to "pay it forward" is to help some of your neighbors figure out digital TV. Like the elderly couple down the block that just don't have a clue.

It's really getting complicated to watch TV now!

Man you're telling me... with a satellite box, DVD recorder, VCR, CRT TV, and stereo all hooked together, the back of my entertainment center is starting to look like the backside of an Apollo instrument console... LOL:)

This stuff moves so fast I can't keep up... OL JR :)
 
The 720 and 1080 represent the number of horizontal scan lines of the tv or signal. Basically this is the resolution of the screen. Thus 720 normally has a screen of 1280 horizontal pixels x 720 vertical pixels (16:9 ratio -- widescreen) or 921,600 pixels total; 1080 is 1920 x 1080 or 2,073,600 pixels total.

The i or p stand for interlaced and progressive. Interlaced is when half of the lines are updated each time the screen refreshes, while progressive updates all the lines.

Most HDTVs will be either 720p or 1080p. TV channels broadcast in 720p and others in 1080i, to my knowledge only blueray movies are in full 1080p. In addition you will not see many 1080p TVs smaller than 40 inches, because the screen needs to be that large before your eye can notice the better resolution of the 1080p signal.

Thanks for the explanation Henry... that's the first time anybody's actually explained to me what it means... the 'saleskids' they have in these stores now don't know anything about it...

Kinda reminds me of an old episode of "Coach" from about a decade ago--

Coach: "Oh, man, my new Z2000SUX Limited Edition 4x4 is coming in next week"

Dauber: "That's great Coach-- what's "limited" in the Limited Edition??"

Coach: "Man, it's got EVERYTHING Dauber-- leather seating, heated steering wheel, full CD stereo, and turbo-turbo..."

Dauber: (looking confused) "What's 'turbo-turbo'?? "

Coach: How should I know-- it's just twice as good as turbo!

That's about the response I've come to expect from questions at electronics stores... Thanks again! OL JR :)
 
Whatever happened to everyone crowding around the radio? Raido? What's that? :D

Stuart

Ever listen to Jerry Clower talking about the old days listening to the radio...

You used to go over to whoever's house what had the strongest batteries for their radio... about two hours before the "Grand Old Opry" came on, we took the batteries out of the radio and set 'em by the wood heater... the hot batteries would put out more power and we'd have enough electricity to listen for the whole show. Then we'd pop 'em in, tune into the Grand Old Opry, turn it up loud enough for us all to hear, and snatch the knobs off so nobody could change the station...

Reminds me of my childhood... remember when TV's HAD knobs?? That's why kids today are too fat-- they aren't the "designated channel changers" anymore... I used to play right in front of the TV, because when the folks wanted the channel changed, it was "Jeff, switch the TV to channel 13..." and man you better be quick about it because if the old man had to get up from the couch you got a whuppin'... LOL:)

Those were the days... OL JR :)
 
Only 1 station here, a UHF station, has made the change. Kinda stupid on their part if you think about it. It's people without cable, satillite or the like that watch over the air TV, lower income viewers, and they have cut off the very people that watch them.

Can you say brain dead?

Are you saying that this station is OTA only and not carried on cable or satellite? That is somewhat unusual.

One thing to remember is that all stations had to be ready for the transition on Feb 17th. That means that they almost certainly have their DTV transmitter on the air. Running two transmitters is quite expensive - and running the analog transmitter is considerably more expensive than the digital one.

One local station reports that the electricity to run their analog transmitter is $35,000.00 per month. Can you really blame a station for making the transition when originally planned when it can save then $35K a month? ..and the majority of their OTA views are DTV ready anyway.
 
A problem you run into on some of the digital HD stations is the broadcast image is smaller than your set's screen.

You wind up with bars not just at the top and bottom but on the side too. That's because that is the size of the HD signal's image.

So suddenly your 32" TV now only has a 24" picture.

Fortunately most digital stations have a non-HD signal with it.

You can get like chanel 25-1 will have the call letters of WEYI HD and 25-2 will have a full size picture just not in HD with call letters of just WEYI.

It's really confusing for my wife.

There is a button on the remote that says "zoom" but when you push it a message comes on the screen that says "The aspect ratio for this channel cannot be changed".

Now one great way for us more technically gifted people to "pay it forward" is to help some of your neighbors figure out digital TV. Like the elderly couple down the block that just don't have a clue.

It's really getting complicated to watch TV now!
Everything looks exactly the same as before on my set. The picture fills the screen on every channel, and in every show. All of the broadcast channels, and all of the cable channels, look exactly the same. No bars, no letterboxing, no shrunken picture. I have no idea what you are talking about. :confused:

MarkII
 
Well, we entered the digital age and all channels are up and going. I still haven't figured out how to change the channels on the tv with the converter box. :rolleyes:

Now we can't record anything. We don't have cable and on the rare occasions we wanted to record we used a little tv with a built in VHS recorder. The new tV works fine but if we run it through a VHS there's no reception.

Right now it doesn't matter because yesterday all the males in my house made the discovery that google earth now has a flight simulator. (They made an emergency run for a joystick at 9pm last night.). I'm thinking we will need to get fixed up for recording again soon though.
 
Yup. Download google earth and in the tool menu it has an option to enter flight simulator.

I can't imagine your wives will be thanking me for this...unless they're wanting to get rid of you all for a few hours. ;)
 
Question Bob, and sounds like you're the man to know...

Whats the difference between 720p, 720i, 1080p, and 1080i??

I don't get it... (course I'm still using CRT's... :) OL JR :) PS. which is better (ok pros/cons) of LCD's vs. plasmas... :) TIA!

A problem you run into on some of the digital HD stations is the broadcast image is smaller than your set's screen.

You wind up with bars not just at the top and bottom but on the side too. That's because that is the size of the HD signal's image.

So suddenly your 32" TV now only has a 24" picture.

Fortunately most digital stations have a non-HD signal with it.

You can get like chanel 25-1 will have the call letters of WEYI HD and 25-2 will have a full size picture just not in HD with call letters of just WEYI.

It's really confusing for my wife.

There is a button on the remote that says "zoom" but when you push it a message comes on the screen that says "The aspect ratio for this channel cannot be changed".

Now one great way for us more technically gifted people to "pay it forward" is to help some of your neighbors figure out digital TV. Like the elderly couple down the block that just don't have a clue.

It's really getting complicated to watch TV now!
There's pros and cons with both formats, but unless you live in a fringe area, the pros of DTV far exceed the conns.

The only real pro about analog tv is that you can always see or hear something if it's there. The picture may be snowy and barely visible, but at least you might be able to get some useful info.

A DTV picture is either there or not. Inside a DTV there's a microprocessor that decodes the digital data stream and generates the picture. In order to determine what's really there, a typical DTV needs about 2 seconds worth of data before it generates a picture, so if the signal is weak or fading in and out, you get the "blue" (or black or whatever color you background happens to be) screen of death: nothing. If there's heavy rain or snow, the data stream can be interupted an you can either get a broken up picture, a freeze frame or the "blue" screen of death.

The old analog 4:3 TV signal maps into a VGA screen (640x480) very well and corresponds to the standard 4:3 DTV 480 p fromat. The real benefit to the viewer is that the old NTSC analog format really has a resolution of only ~320 horizontal dots vs the 640 of the standard DTV format, so that your basic DTV signal has twice the resolution as analog and visually appears much sharper. HDTV is a higher resolution in a widescreen 16:9 format broadcast in either 720p or 1080i formats. (Already described previously in earlier posts.)

The biggest advantage of (H)DTV for the broadcaster is that more information can be transmitted in the same bandwidth. You can transmit 4 DTV channels in the same bandwidth as 1 analog channel. For example, in the Boston area, public TV WGBX channel 44.0 analog has 4 DTV channels 44.1 (WGBX in DTV), 44.2 (World), 44.3 (Create)and 44.4 (Kids). ION has done the same by replacing the analog channel with 4 DTV channels. Many other stations broadcast HDTV on their XX.1 channel in either 720p or 1080i and use the xx.2 channel for 480p DTV broadcast.

How your picture looks depends on how you have your DTV setup. For most folks the "normal" picture format option is the best unless you always want a full screen image and can put up with seeing a lot of short, fat people.

Different camera types decode into the "normal" screen mode to sometimes provide less than a full screen image. Most folks purchase 720p HDTVs so that's what I'll concentrat on. (You won't notice a difference between 720P and 1080P unless a screen is > 40" anyway and as there are no broadcast in 1080P anyway, there's no reason to spend the extra buck for 1080p on smaller TVs.)

When viewing 4:3 480p DTV on a 16:9 720p HDTV there will be sidebars on the left and right sides of the screen in the "normal" mode of viewing. If you zoom in to fill the screen, you can either get short, fat people, or clip or the top and bottom of the picture reducing the vertical resolution by 25 % to 360 horizontal scans.

It costs a lot of money to convert a station from NTSC analog to HDTV formats, so they are still using older cameras for some in studio programming, remotes, and have fast libraries in the analog format. These inages have to be converted to the new DTV and HDTV formats for broadcast and it's not always done in the best manner, so you can get less than full screen images when viewing a poorly converted analog 4:3 and widescreen 16:9 formats in the "normal" mode. The 4:3 640 x 480 converted images are centered in the 1280 x 720 screen, and the 16:9 widescreen format could be as small as 854 x 360. As time goes on, the stations will get better in their format conversions and I think most of this will disappear.

Hope this helps.

Bob
 
The biggest advantage of (H)DTV for the broadcaster is that more information can be transmitted in the same bandwidth. You can transmit 4 DTV channels in the same bandwidth as 1 analog channel.
A local PBS station had 8 video streams in one channel. 36.1 - 36.8.
 
A local PBS station had 8 video streams in one channel. 36.1 - 36.8.

We have all sorts of subchannels in Los Angeles. One or more of the non-English stations have 6 or 8 sub channels.

And today we lose Tom Leykis when KLSX-FM switches format. I will switch off the Sirius radio and tune him in from 3 to 5 pm for one last goodbye. I will have my High Beams on and my sign in the window and I will take the long way home today to get in a full 2 hours of listening.

Maybe he will end up on Sirius channel 101? He has the correct agent for that move. https://www.buchwald.com/v2/home.asp

If only BRAWNDO was looking for a pitchman:
https://www.buchwald.com/media/commercial_vo/commercial_men/LEYKIS_TOM.mp3

Oh well, back to the television discussion. Why not just get DirecTV?
 
Certain items defy logic, but in DTV a pixel is not alway a square pixel.

Digital pixels may be square or non-square (who'da thunk that!).

Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_Standards for the broadcast standards and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio for pixel dimensions.

There are three basic display sizes for ATSC. Basic and enhanced NTSC and PAL image sizes are at the bottom level at 480 or 576 lines. Medium-sized images have 720 scanlines and are 1280 pixels wide. The top tier has 1080 lines 1920 pixels wide. 1080-line video is actually encoded with 1920×1088 pixel frames, but the last eight lines are discarded prior to display. This is due to a restriction of the MPEG-2 video format, which requires the number of coded luma samples (i.e., pixels) to be divisible by 16.

"EDTV" displays can reproduce progressive scan content and frequently have a 16:9 wide screen format. Such resolutions are 720×480 in NTSC or 720×576 in PAL, allowing 60 progressive frames per second in NTSC or 50 in PAL

The gory details are here in a top down summary.

https://www.atsc.org/standards/is_095.pdf

Bob
 
So what does any of this mean for the vast majority of us in America who watch TV on a CRT-type set, and who get their signal through a cable provider?

My cable provider (formerly Adelphia, now TWC) switched to digital cable almost 10 years ago, and provided me with a cable box (even though my set has the circuitry to allow the cable to be plugged directly into the set) and a remote for it. Since the conversion on the 17th, everything looks exactly the same. I had excellent picture quality and reception through my cable before that date, and I still have the same now. There is no variation in the screen geometry; everything is in the standard screen format that it has always been in, and there is no way for me to change it. I also don't know where these "extra channels" are -- I have no idea if any of my local stations even have them. The channel lineup is exactly the same as before, as dictated by the package of cable services that I subscribe to.

Nobody I know has an HDTV, because they are so horrendously expensive. I'm not so sure that it would matter anyway, since the signal I receive is controlled and formatted by the cable company. And everyone here has either cable or satellite, because there are no broadcasters in my area who are within range of an antenna. As things now stand, I don't see what all the fuss (such as issues with picture size, banding, etc.) is all about. And I don't see any difference at all in what is displayed on my TV. Since the cable company acquires, formats and sends out the signal, are these issues that you are all discussing anything that would affect the vast majority of Americans who get their TV via cable? And, because of that, would switching to using an HDTV set make any difference at all to a cable subscriber?

MarkII
 
So what does any of this mean for the vast majority of us in America who watch TV on a CRT-type set, and who get their signal through a cable provider?

My TV is a CRT-type high definition, five years old. It can resolve to 1080i, though the horizontal resolution is kinda skewed due to the phosphor screen being stretched at either end. HD programs are noticeably sharper than analog and very nice, though displaying the same picture through my computer monitor (at a 1/4 of the size) is amazing.

My cable provider (formerly Adelphia, now TWC) switched to digital cable almost 10 years ago, and provided me with a cable box (even though my set has the circuitry to allow the cable to be plugged directly into the set) and a remote for it. Since the conversion on the 17th, everything looks exactly the same. I had excellent picture quality and reception through my cable before that date, and I still have the same now. There is no variation in the screen geometry; everything is in the standard screen format that it has always been in, and there is no way for me to change it. I also don't know where these "extra channels" are -- I have no idea if any of my local stations even have them. The channel lineup is exactly the same as before, as dictated by the package of cable services that I subscribe to.

That's because for you, nothing HAS changed. All the changes occured at the cable company's antenna farm, where they pick up the signals from the locals for redistribution. You might notice that one or two stations have gone from full 4:3 screen to letterboxed 16:9, but that's about it. And if those stations still provide a 4:3 DTV signal, the only thing you may see is that the picture is a little brighter or maybe not.

Since the cable company acquires, formats and sends out the signal, are these issues that you are all discussing anything that would affect the vast majority of Americans who get their TV via cable? And, because of that, would switching to using an HDTV set make any difference at all to a cable subscriber?

MarkII

No. Only if the cable provider offers a HDTV package, or if you were able to pick up an off-the-air channel (see antennaweb.org for that likelihood) would having an HDTV set make much sense.

In my case, I've had a High Def DirecTiVo for four years, that gets about 10 channels in HD from the satellite, and many of the locals in HD through a set-top antenna. My computer has a little telescoping antenna on my desk and has a USB digital receiver that picks up most of the locals. DirecTV wants me to switch to their new dish and DVR that gets >100 HD channels, but I'm too comfortable with the TiVo to give it up yet.

-----------------------

Small aside. It is not just technical upgrades that the networks and local stations have to do to support HD. They also have to upgrade both sets and makeup! Did you know that Dateline on NBC had to shut down for over three weeks to refurbish their studio because there were fake books in the bookshelves, patches with painted duct tape, and many other flaws that showed up immediately when they upgraded the cameras and control room?

I was at the Letterman show a week before they shut down for the final conversion of the Ed Sullivan theater. They had already done most of the set changes throughout that summer and they had completely ripped out and replaced the control room (when I was there, they were running the analog signal from a control room in a truck outside by the Hello Deli). But inside the auditorium the monitors were all still 4:3 CRTs and the many of the theater lights had to be replaced.

Imagine your local stations all doing much the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the expense of replacing the transmitter and their big antenna (which many did).
 
So he "went Elvis" on it, then? :D

I have often thought about doing the same, but for different reasons... :rolleyes:

MarkII

Tell me about it. I still haven't figured out how to change the channels on the downstairs TV. (I watch very little.) My kid told me when he goes off to college he'll have to write me out instructions. :rolleyes:

I'm not totally hopeless, though, as I have conquered operating the upstairs TV. :p
 
Not all converter boxes are the same. It's worth paying a little extra to get features such as closed caption, universal remote and analog passthrough. I bought the Zenith DTT901 box at Radio Shack. It was on sale for $55, which was only $15 after substracting the coupon.

There is a good comparison of converter boxes at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CECB_units .

Dave
 
Here's an article about problems with digital reception. For the most part our transition has gone smoothly but the other night during bad weather it was cutting out completely: no fuzz like it used to, just a blank screen.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29456228/
 
Oh well, back to the television discussion. Why not just get DirecTV?
Simple: cost. DirecTV or Dish Network runs $30/mo and up. I already have an antenna capable of receiving UHF signals, so adding a good converter is only a month or two of satellite TV cost and I can get the local stations. "But you get a lot more channels with satellite!", you might say. True, but I don't want them. They are of virtually no value to me, so why should I spend hundreds of dollars a year for something I don't want?
 
Simple: cost. DirecTV or Dish Network runs $30/mo and up. I already have an antenna capable of receiving UHF signals, so adding a good converter is only a month or two of satellite TV cost and I can get the local stations. "But you get a lot more channels with satellite!", you might say. True, but I don't want them. They are of virtually no value to me, so why should I spend hundreds of dollars a year for something I don't want?

EXACTLY!!!:mad:

I paid for my tower years ago, I don't want to pay any more to watch TV.

I discovered that on really humid days (temps in the 50's and all the snow it melting) absolutely no or very poor reception on digital.
 
Well, I can certainly see your point, to each his own, but from my POV, there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on network 'broadcast' television I care to see. I watch about ten minutes of the news and weather every morning before I leave for the bus barn. Otherwise, I watch NO network television whatsoever.

All I watch is basically The History Channel, History International, NASA channel, the Science Channel (s) and RFD, and occassionally Sci-Fi and some of the other regular movie channels (Apollo 13 is on right now). If it weren't for those, I probably wouldn't watch TV at all... before we got DirecTV about three years ago, I usually just popped something in the VCR or DVD player when I wanted to "watch TV" and had done that for YEARS.

AFAIC, there has been ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on network TV worth wasting time watching in probably close to the last ten years... Certainly worth the money (especially the NASA channel!)

JMHO! OL JR :)
 
Here's an article about problems with digital reception. For the most part our transition has gone smoothly but the other night during bad weather it was cutting out completely: no fuzz like it used to, just a blank screen.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29456228/

From the above article...

A study published last year by market research firm Centris estimated that more than half of all households will have problems with digital reception. The study was criticized by several groups as exaggerating the problem. The FCC itself said 5 percent of households were likely to have problems.

Centris probably got it right, but that would be totally unacceptable for the consumers. Unfortunately for the consumer, the FCC was run by a bunch of political hacks who saw the transition to DTV as a way to raise money by selling off portions of the analog TV spectrum to telecom companies. To make it palatable it would appear that they mitigated the problem by moving the decimal point one decade from 50% to 5%!

EXACTLY!!!:mad:

I paid for my tower years ago, I don't want to pay any more to watch TV.

I discovered that on really humid days (temps in the 50's and all the snow it melting) absolutely no or very poor reception on digital.

There are many possible encoding methods for DTV. IIRC the European method is much more robust and is much less effected by weather, but it's NIH (not invented here), so we have what we have.

Bob
 
8VSB modulation is very sensitive to multipath, and makes receiver design difficult. COFDM is much more forgiving and therefore less dependant on a highly directional antenna and requires a less complex tuner. Guess which protocol the FCC chose?

https://www.8vsb.com/dtvreprt.pdf
 
Well, I can certainly see your point, to each his own, but from my POV, there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on network 'broadcast' television I care to see. I watch about ten minutes of the news and weather every morning before I leave for the bus barn. Otherwise, I watch NO network television whatsoever.

All I watch is basically The History Channel, History International, NASA channel, the Science Channel (s) and RFD, and occassionally Sci-Fi and some of the other regular movie channels (Apollo 13 is on right now). If it weren't for those, I probably wouldn't watch TV at all... before we got DirecTV about three years ago, I usually just popped something in the VCR or DVD player when I wanted to "watch TV" and had done that for YEARS.

AFAIC, there has been ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on network TV worth wasting time watching in probably close to the last ten years... Certainly worth the money (especially the NASA channel!)

JMHO! OL JR :)

A big ditto from me. Network TV is trash!
 
My experience with cable (with some notable exceptions) is that its the same quality as network TV, just more of it. If three channels aren't worth watching, cable has 50 that aren't worth watching. My problem is that I watch too much with the few channels I get. Paying too much to watch even more is just bad math/economics.

I might be interested if they ever offered ala carte formats and let me pay for only the channels I really wanted. Then I might consider stuff like History channel, etc.
 
My experience with cable (with some notable exceptions) is that its the same quality as network TV, just more of it. If three channels aren't worth watching, cable has 50 that aren't worth watching. My problem is that I watch too much with the few channels I get. Paying too much to watch even more is just bad math/economics.

I might be interested if they ever offered ala carte formats and let me pay for only the channels I really wanted. Then I might consider stuff like History channel, etc.


Like most local papers my local paper has the cable schedule.

At least once a day I'll be check to see what's on and I say to myself, "I'm glad I'm not paying for cable, There's nothing on."

I bought my 50' tower about 25 years ago and so far I've spent $25 to have the reair man come out and fix the brocken wire on the top (the flexible one that lets the tower rotate) and $40 for a new rotor controller.
 
Back
Top