1080p Screams for MPEG4

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

As volume 1080P capable DTV sets come to market the deficiencies of
MPEG2 compression which already bit starves 1080i OTA broadcasting will
deny 1080P. It will become more evident over the near term that the rush
to lock in MPEG2 and 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting was a mistake, something
that was evident to many in 2000.

http/news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/132877.html

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
> As volume 1080P capable DTV sets come to market the deficiencies of MPEG2
> compression which already bit starves 1080i OTA broadcasting will deny 1080P.
> It will become more evident over the near term that the rush to lock in MPEG2
> and 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting was a mistake, something that was evident to
> many in 2000.
> http/news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/132877.html

Of course, as usual with Psycho Bob postings, the article from that URL
doesn't support his contention in anyway. In fact, the question of MPEG2
vs. MPEG4 isn't mentioned at all.

However, that article does have one interesting quote about the "failure"
of HDTV in the US that Psycho Bob keeps bleating about:
... there are currently 4 million HDTV households in the US, up
from 1.6 million in March 2004

So, a 150% increase (2.5 times) in HDTV deployment in one year indicates
failure.

-- Mark --

http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Is 1080p a real ATSC standard?

Thanks,
--Dan

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4U7ae.10338$An2.156@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> As volume 1080P capable DTV sets come to market the deficiencies of MPEG2
> compression which already bit starves 1080i OTA broadcasting will deny
> 1080P. It will become more evident over the near term that the rush to
> lock in MPEG2 and 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting was a mistake, something that
> was evident to many in 2000.
>
> http/news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/132877.html
>
> Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

dg (dan_gus@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Is 1080p a real ATSC standard?

Yes. 1080/24p and 1080/30p are both part of the ATSC standard. Neither
would have any bandwidth problems. As a matter of fact, both should
require *less* bandwidth than 1080/60i.

1080/60p is not part of the ATSC standard, nor will it fit (without
significant artifacts) into a 19Mbps MPEG-2 stream. But, since the only
source that would benefit from 1080/60p would be live sporting events, and
no cameras capable of 1080/60p exist, it's not much of a loss.

In addition, even though Bob talked about using MPEG-4 to deliver 1080/60p,
it would do no good since current non-ATSC MPEG-4 receivers (Voom,
primarily) cannot output 1080/60p, so the consumer would see no benefit.
Until there is significant content available in 1080/60p, there will be
no STBs that can output that resolution, and until there is equipment
capable of receiving and outputting 1080/60p, broadcasters will not go
to the expense of converting their equipment to use that format. It's
a nice Catch-22.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/LostNetworkPassword.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

dg wrote:
> Is 1080p a real ATSC standard?
>
> Thanks,
> --Dan

Yes, to a limited extent. The ATSC broadcast standards do provide for
1080p at 24 and 30 frames per second which could used to broadcast 24
fps movies. 60 fps would require too much bandwidth, so that is why it
was not adopted for Over The Air broadcasting. The industry has settled
on 720p60 or 1080i. There is no one broadcasting 1080p24 or 1080p30
either OTA or via cable and no one is likely to any time soon.

Ignore Bob Miller in all matters regarding HD, ATSC, and broadcast
standards. Which is, as far I can tell, is the only topic of discussion
in his entire life, so he is not someone you want to be stuck next to on
a long plane flight. If you had to choose sitting next to the crying
baby or Bob Miller, my recommendation would be to sit next to the baby.
The baby will eventually stop.

Alan F

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> As volume 1080P capable DTV sets come to market the deficiencies of
>> MPEG2 compression which already bit starves 1080i OTA broadcasting
>> will deny 1080P. It will become more evident over the near term that
>> the rush to lock in MPEG2 and 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting was a
>> mistake, something that was evident to many in 2000.
>> http/news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/132877.html
>
>
> Of course, as usual with Psycho Bob postings, the article from that URL
> doesn't support his contention in anyway. In fact, the question of
> MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 isn't mentioned at all.
>
> However, that article does have one interesting quote about the
> "failure" of HDTV in the US that Psycho Bob keeps bleating about:
> ... there are currently 4 million HDTV households in the US, up
> from 1.6 million in March 2004
>
> So, a 150% increase (2.5 times) in HDTV deployment in one year indicates
> failure.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.

I think it is great that HDTV is doing so well. How many of those 4
million are OTA? There are 109 million homes in the US. How many of
those homes are OTA DTV?

The resolution HD is great. You will be able to get more and more of it
over cable, satellite and the Internet. How about OTA? Will it even be
around the way it is now going? Unlikely.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Boobstr.... I thought we were finally rid of you, MPEG 2 vs MPEG 4 while
interesting would only let trolls like you multicast all the more, get lost
you looser! Your funny! NOT!

Fear can hold you prisoner
Hope can set you free

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xndae.10531$An2.8957@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>> As volume 1080P capable DTV sets come to market the deficiencies of
>>> MPEG2 compression which already bit starves 1080i OTA broadcasting will
>>> deny 1080P. It will become more evident over the near term that the rush
>>> to lock in MPEG2 and 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting was a mistake, something
>>> that was evident to many in 2000.
>>> http/news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/132877.html
>>
>>
>> Of course, as usual with Psycho Bob postings, the article from that URL
>> doesn't support his contention in anyway. In fact, the question of MPEG2
>> vs. MPEG4 isn't mentioned at all.
>>
>> However, that article does have one interesting quote about the "failure"
>> of HDTV in the US that Psycho Bob keeps bleating about:
>> ... there are currently 4 million HDTV households in the US, up
>> from 1.6 million in March 2004
>>
>> So, a 150% increase (2.5 times) in HDTV deployment in one year indicates
>> failure.
>>
>> -- Mark --
>>
>> http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
>> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
>
> I think it is great that HDTV is doing so well. How many of those 4
> million are OTA? There are 109 million homes in the US. How many of those
> homes are OTA DTV?
>
> The resolution HD is great. You will be able to get more and more of it
> over cable, satellite and the Internet. How about OTA? Will it even be
> around the way it is now going? Unlikely.
>
> Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> As volume 1080P capable DTV sets come to market the deficiencies of
>> MPEG2 compression which already bit starves 1080i OTA broadcasting
>> will deny 1080P. It will become more evident over the near term that
>> the rush to lock in MPEG2 and 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting was a
>> mistake, something that was evident to many in 2000.
>> http/news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/132877.html
>
>
> Of course, as usual with Psycho Bob postings, the article from that URL
> doesn't support his contention in anyway. In fact, the question of
> MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 isn't mentioned at all.
>
> However, that article does have one interesting quote about the
> "failure" of HDTV in the US that Psycho Bob keeps bleating about:
> ... there are currently 4 million HDTV households in the US, up
> from 1.6 million in March 2004
>
> So, a 150% increase (2.5 times) in HDTV deployment in one year indicates
> failure.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.


The point of the article that I posted that I was trying to make is that
while 1080P is going to become very popular we will not be able to
receive it OTA because of the asinine limitations placed on OTA to
cripple it such as MPEG2 and 8-VSB.

With an advanced codec like MPEG4 1080P would be possible OTA in our six
MHz channels. In fact so would 1080i something that MPEG2 can't handle
very well.

If you want the best HD you want 1080P. If you want 1080P OTA we should
be changing our codec ASAP before we go any further down this dead end.

Mark makes a good point, our transition is extremely anemic with only 4
million at best HD homes. Now is the time to make changes before it is
too late now while virtually no one has HD yet. The pain would be small
while the benefits would be great.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in
newsine.LNX.4.63.0504220844480.17694@shiva2.cac.washington.edu:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>> As volume 1080P capable DTV sets come to market the deficiencies of
>> MPEG2 compression which already bit starves 1080i OTA broadcasting
>> will deny 1080P. It will become more evident over the near term that
>> the rush to lock in MPEG2 and 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting was a
>> mistake, something that was evident to many in 2000.
>> http/news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/132877.html
>
> Of course, as usual with Psycho Bob postings, the article from that
> URL doesn't support his contention in anyway. In fact, the question
> of MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 isn't mentioned at all.
>
> However, that article does have one interesting quote about the
> "failure" of HDTV in the US that Psycho Bob keeps bleating about:
> ... there are currently 4 million HDTV households in the US, up
> from 1.6 million in March 2004
>
> So, a 150% increase (2.5 times) in HDTV deployment in one year
> indicates failure.

Gee, if it keeps failing at this rate, it will take until Christmas 2008 to
get 100 million viewer market for the thing. What a dismal prospect! Not!


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> dg (dan_gus@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>Is 1080p a real ATSC standard?
>
>
> Yes. 1080/24p and 1080/30p are both part of the ATSC standard. Neither would have any bandwidth problems. As a matter of fact, both should
> require *less* bandwidth than 1080/60i.
>
> 1080/60p is not part of the ATSC standard, nor will it fit (without significant artifacts) into a 19Mbps MPEG-2 stream. But, since the only
> source that would benefit from 1080/60p would be live sporting events, and no cameras capable of 1080/60p exist, it's not much of a loss.

"That's why when Sony developed its 1080/60P multi-format camera
technology, Game Creek eagerly took delivery of 39 HDC-1500 multi-format
cameras..."
http/news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5826
>
> In addition, even though Bob talked about using MPEG-4 to deliver 1080/60p, it would do no good since current non-ATSC MPEG-4 receivers (Voom,
> primarily) cannot output 1080/60p, so the consumer would see no benefit.

> Until there is significant content available in 1080/60p, there will be no STBs that can output that resolution, and until there is equipment
> capable of receiving and outputting 1080/60p, broadcasters will not go to the expense of converting their equipment to use that format. It's
> a nice Catch-22.
>

All change involves a "Catch-22". This for example has been a problem
for HDTV and DTV all along. Doesn't mean it can't happen. It will happen
if there is interest.

You could have and many did use your exact arguments for never starting
the DTV transition, no content, no receivers no nothing so it would be
impossible right?

The opportunity is now to allow OTA to go MPEG4. The digital transition
is stagnant. We are at a turning point where the government is about to
do something to try to get off dead center. One way to go is the way we
are going, "stay the course", another is to close down free OTA
altogether and auction off all the spectrum, it may be a little early
for that, a few more years of stagnation and we will get that however.

A third way would be to fix the transition by taking advantage of the
stagnation and switch to MPEG4 which would obselete all current
receivers, not many out there, and that would allow for the
re-examination of everything including modulation. We then might be able
to bypass France for instance and have a truly modern OTA broadcasting
system.

This would then allow for 1080P broadcasting instead of the horrible
compromise which is 1080i.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Dave Oldridge wrote:
> Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in
> newsine.LNX.4.63.0504220844480.17694@shiva2.cac.washington.edu:
>
>
>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>>As volume 1080P capable DTV sets come to market the deficiencies of
>>>MPEG2 compression which already bit starves 1080i OTA broadcasting
>>>will deny 1080P. It will become more evident over the near term that
>>>the rush to lock in MPEG2 and 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting was a
>>>mistake, something that was evident to many in 2000.
>>>http/news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/132877.html
>>
>>Of course, as usual with Psycho Bob postings, the article from that
>>URL doesn't support his contention in anyway. In fact, the question
>>of MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 isn't mentioned at all.
>>
>>However, that article does have one interesting quote about the
>>"failure" of HDTV in the US that Psycho Bob keeps bleating about:
>> ... there are currently 4 million HDTV households in the US, up
>> from 1.6 million in March 2004
>>
>>So, a 150% increase (2.5 times) in HDTV deployment in one year
>>indicates failure.
>
>
> Gee, if it keeps failing at this rate, it will take until Christmas 2008 to
> get 100 million viewer market for the thing. What a dismal prospect! Not!
>
>
I think he was talking about HDTV sets in peoples homes which could be
attached to cable or satellite or to just good old NTSC. He would have
to say how many were attached to what. How many to OTA for instance. Not
many.

Again I was talking about the failure of OTA broadcasting in the digital
transition. HD the resolution can do well without OTA. It could do a lot
better with OTA. But OTA is not helping HD at all. It is hurting it.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Dave Oldridge wrote:
> Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in
> newsine.LNX.4.63.0504220844480.17694@shiva2.cac.washington.edu:
>
>
>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>>>As volume 1080P capable DTV sets come to market the deficiencies of
>>>MPEG2 compression which already bit starves 1080i OTA broadcasting
>>>will deny 1080P. It will become more evident over the near term that
>>>the rush to lock in MPEG2 and 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting was a
>>>mistake, something that was evident to many in 2000.
>>>http/news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/132877.html
>>
>>Of course, as usual with Psycho Bob postings, the article from that
>>URL doesn't support his contention in anyway. In fact, the question
>>of MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 isn't mentioned at all.
>>
>>However, that article does have one interesting quote about the
>>"failure" of HDTV in the US that Psycho Bob keeps bleating about:
>> ... there are currently 4 million HDTV households in the US, up
>> from 1.6 million in March 2004
>>
>>So, a 150% increase (2.5 times) in HDTV deployment in one year
>>indicates failure.
>
>
> Gee, if it keeps failing at this rate, it will take until Christmas 2008 to
> get 100 million viewer market for the thing. What a dismal prospect! Not!
>
>
Depends on how you count. If they keep selling 2.4 million HD sets like
they did in the last year till 2008 then we would have 11.2 million by
then not 100 million. Of course if you want to use compounding then it
could be 100 million. But then since it was 20 degrees cooler today in
New York then yesterday I can predict that we will reach absolute zero
sometime early next week if we compound the falling temperature rate.

The funny thing is that if we had been selling COFDM receivers in the US
at the same rate as they are currently selling in the UK we would reach
100 million COFDM DTV receivers sold in the US sometime this year with
NO compounding.

OTA TV in the US is failing and all of its spectrum would have been on
the auction block by now if it wasn't for the miracle of must carry. The
veils are lifting right now in Congress. They are really paying
attention for the first time to the DTV transition because it keeps
coming back to bother them. They really really want to see this problem
go away.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> dg (dan_gus@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>Is 1080p a real ATSC standard?
>
>
> Yes. 1080/24p and 1080/30p are both part of the ATSC standard. Neither
> would have any bandwidth problems. As a matter of fact, both should
> require *less* bandwidth than 1080/60i.
>
> 1080/60p is not part of the ATSC standard, nor will it fit (without
> significant artifacts) into a 19Mbps MPEG-2 stream. But, since the only
> source that would benefit from 1080/60p would be live sporting events, and
> no cameras capable of 1080/60p exist, it's not much of a loss.
>
Another 1080/60P camera.

http/millimeter.com/e-newsletters/hd_focus_03082005/

"Ikegami's new Editcam HD camcorder is one of several new Ikegami
cameras at NAB 2005 that employ advanced CMOS (Complementary Metal Oxide
Semiconductor) image sensors. CMOS technology offers several advantages,
including smaller camera size, decreased power consumption, and
multiformat and high-speed capabilities. All of these features are
present in Ikegami's new HDL-40HS High-Speed HD Box Camera, which can
produce images at 1080/60p and 720/120p for slow-motion applications in
conjunction with an EVS server."

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Really! Bob is a lot like herpes. Just when you think he is gone, he pops up
again in all of his irritating and annoying splendor......


"Mike Parisey" <mparisey@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:116itj2egoq24ae@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Boobstr.... I thought we were finally rid of you, MPEG 2 vs MPEG 4 while
> interesting would only let trolls like you multicast all the more, get
> lost you looser! Your funny! NOT!
>
> Fear can hold you prisoner
> Hope can set you free
>
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:xndae.10531$An2.8957@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Mark Crispin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> As volume 1080P capable DTV sets come to market the deficiencies of
>>>> MPEG2 compression which already bit starves 1080i OTA broadcasting will
>>>> deny 1080P. It will become more evident over the near term that the
>>>> rush to lock in MPEG2 and 8-VSB for OTA broadcasting was a mistake,
>>>> something that was evident to many in 2000.
>>>> http/news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/132877.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, as usual with Psycho Bob postings, the article from that URL
>>> doesn't support his contention in anyway. In fact, the question of
>>> MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 isn't mentioned at all.
>>>
>>> However, that article does have one interesting quote about the
>>> "failure" of HDTV in the US that Psycho Bob keeps bleating about:
>>> ... there are currently 4 million HDTV households in the US, up
>>> from 1.6 million in March 2004
>>>
>>> So, a 150% increase (2.5 times) in HDTV deployment in one year indicates
>>> failure.
>>>
>>> -- Mark --
>>>
>>> http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
>>> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>>> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
>>
>> I think it is great that HDTV is doing so well. How many of those 4
>> million are OTA? There are 109 million homes in the US. How many of those
>> homes are OTA DTV?
>>
>> The resolution HD is great. You will be able to get more and more of it
>> over cable, satellite and the Internet. How about OTA? Will it even be
>> around the way it is now going? Unlikely.
>>
>> Bob Miller
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

I completely disagree. Moving forward with 1080i/720p standards over
8-VSB was critical in establishing an infrastructure for HDTV in the
US, it's taken years to get things to the state they are today. Today
almost all of the US prime time programming is available in High
Definition. The availability of this content has driven High Definition
and HD Ready television sales. It put the wheels in motion to bring
about the HD revolution; which I would define as the general public
acceptance and embrace of High Definition and eventually the
replacement of SD with HD as common place. We're in the middle of that
now.

To no ones big suprise (except perhaps Bob Millers) The means by which
consumers are watching television haven't changed, cable and satellite
are still as viable as ever and HD is on it's first successful adoption
(US).

If you look at other countries and specifcly High Definition, there is
no one that comes close and that's very sad because Japan has had HD
longer than we have. The difference is in Japan HD television is still
a luxury item, in the US it's becoming common place.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Alan Figgatt" <afiggatt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ebednYiaZYLI1_TfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> in his entire life, so he is not someone you want to be stuck next to on
> a long plane flight. If you had to choose sitting next to the crying

Oh my god, can you imagine if you were seated next to him (unknowingly) and
you mentioned how you just got a new HDTV and how great the OTA broadcast
is? Ha Ha!

--Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
> Sad? Japan?
> They have sold 3.2 million mostly integrated HD OTA sets in Japan in just the
> last year.

But most of those sets aren't viewing terrestrial digital HD because
there's no signal to receive! Homes with HDTV in Japan are mostly
satellite or cable.

However, it makes no sense to buy an HDTV without an OTA tuner, even if
your area isn't served yet. The only reason HDTVs without tuners were
sold in the US is because Psycho Bob and his friends at Sinclair tried to
stop the DTV transition with it didn't go his way.

But Psycho Bob Miller won't tell you that.

Psycho Bob lies, either directly or by misleadingly presenting statistics.

Remember, whatever Psycho Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is true!

-- Mark --

http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> I completely disagree. Moving forward with 1080i/720p standards over
> 8-VSB was critical in establishing an infrastructure for HDTV in the
> US, it's taken years to get things to the state they are today. Today
> almost all of the US prime time programming is available in High
> Definition. The availability of this content has driven High Definition
> and HD Ready television sales. It put the wheels in motion to bring
> about the HD revolution; which I would define as the general public
> acceptance and embrace of High Definition and eventually the
> replacement of SD with HD as common place. We're in the middle of that
> now.
>
> To no ones big suprise (except perhaps Bob Millers) The means by which
> consumers are watching television haven't changed, cable and satellite
> are still as viable as ever and HD is on it's first successful adoption
> (US).
>
> If you look at other countries and specifcly High Definition, there is
> no one that comes close and that's very sad because Japan has had HD
> longer than we have. The difference is in Japan HD television is still
> a luxury item, in the US it's becoming common place.
>
Sad? Japan?

They have sold 3.2 million mostly integrated HD OTA sets in Japan in
just the last year. We have in the US seen the sale of a "suspect" 4
million HD sets in the last 8 years.

If you look at it in a percentage of homes basis Japan, after only one
year of OTA terrestrial HD broadcasting in only a couple of cities has
passed the US by.

3.2 million in a nation of 46 million households, Japan, for a uptake of
6.95% in one year.

4 million in the US a nation of 109 million households for and uptake of
3.7% in 8 years.

Japan did 6.95% of households in one year while the US did .46% per year
for the last 8 years. That is less than 1/2 of ONE% per year.

http/www.dibeg.org/news/news-3/news-e3.htm

Review of January 2005 domestic shipments of digital terrestrial
broadcast receivers

"A total of 182,000 digital terrestrial broadcast receivers (including
set top boxes - STBs for cable TV) were shipped in January, bringing
cumulative sales to 3,162,000 units."

"For January, digital terrestrial TVs accounted for 18.4% of all color
TV shipments, a decline of 8.2 percent from December 2004. ( but an
increased by 119.9% compared to the same month last year Classified
according to display type, digital terrestrial CRT sets accounted for
5.4% of CRT sets, while digital terrestrial TVs accounted for 95.2% of
PDP sets and 38.6% of LCD sets."

Australia has sold 640,000 receivers in a nation of 7 million homes (a
home in OZ has an average of 2.5 people) for a 9.1% penetration after
only two 1/2 years.

And in both OZ and Japan these are all OTA numbers. I am interested in
saving OTA in the US so that is what is being compared. Anyone know how
many of the US 4 million HD sets are OTA? Cable and satellite??? DVD????

Yes what percentage of US HDTV set owners would tell you that they are
watching HD when they are watching 480i DVD's? When their HD set is not
even connected to any HD service? Give me that number and don't bother
calling the CEA to find out they could care less they just want to sell
HD set anyway they can.

The US is falling behind in HD at an accelerating rate which is amazing
since we have by far the most coverage and content.

Could it be that they US picked the wrong modulation?

Watch France, they picked both a right modulation and compression, COFDM
and MPEG4 for HD. I predict that when they start HD this year they will
also very quickly pass the US in the percentage of homes with HD.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Bob Miller (robmx@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Another 1080/60P camera.

Still can't read, huh?

> http/millimeter.com/e-newsletters/hd_focus_03082005/
>
> All of these features are
> present in Ikegami's new HDL-40HS High-Speed HD Box Camera, which can
> produce images at 1080/60p and 720/120p for slow-motion applications in
> conjunction with an EVS server."

Note that this camera only produces 1080/60p for a special slow-motion
setup, which would then be played back at 1080/30p. So, although the
camera can do the job, the output from the EVS server is at best 1080/30p
(or 1080/60i).

--
Jeff Rife | "In those days Mars was a dreary uninhabitable
| wasteland much like Utah, but unlike Utah, Mars
| was eventually made livable."
| -- Professor Farnsworth, "Futurama"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>> Sad? Japan?
>> They have sold 3.2 million mostly integrated HD OTA sets in Japan in
>> just the last year.
>
>
> But most of those sets aren't viewing terrestrial digital HD because there's no signal to receive! Homes with HDTV in Japan are mostly
> satellite or cable.
>
> However, it makes no sense to buy an HDTV without an OTA tuner, even if your area isn't served yet. The only reason HDTVs without tuners were
> sold in the US is because Psycho Bob and his friends at Sinclair tried to stop the DTV transition with it didn't go his way.
>

In Japan with little OTA HD broadcasting Mark admits a lot of HDTV sets
are being sold. That could be because there may be more broadcasting
than Mark admits of knows of and it could be because the players in the
OTA HDTV business in Japan are more confident of their system. The
manufacturers retailers and therefore their customers all are on board,
confident and eager to buy into their OTA COFDM ISDB-T system. Why could
that be even in the face of little broadcasting as Mark suggest?

Well if your are a retailer selling big bulky integrated HDTV sets you
will not be aggressive in selling them if you find a lot of them coming
back because of problems. If the OTA receiver built in is a problem it
would be better to push the HD set without the receiver and sell the
receiver separately. When it comes back because of problems it is a much
smaller part of the sale, weighs less and is just a smaller problem.

In the US a lot of receivers come back and become open box specials.
This has kept receivers out of integrated sets and caused the FCC to
mandate what the industry, the retailers abhor. So in the US with almost
universal DTV coverage, lots of HD content, a rich country eager
normally to be the firstest with the mostest our problematic modulation
has stymied our DTV transition.

While in Japan with little coverage and less content people are being
sold by eager retailers very expensive equipment that can't even receive
HD yet while in the US people are taking home HD sets with no receiver
in them to watch DVD's while there is a lot of free OTA being broadcast.
And in many cases we find that the salespersons didn't even inform them
of the HD options.

And it is all because Bob Miller is posting on a newsgroup in the US and
not Japan.

Good logic!!!

If the US with all its content and universal coverage had been selling
8-VSB integrated HDTV sets at the same, non accelerated rate, as has
taken place in Japan this last year, the US would have seen the sale of
90 million INTEGRATED HDTV SETS over the last five years. That is the US
is six times as large as Japan. 46 million households compared to 290
million households. Five years of 3 million sales per year equals 15
million multiplied by 6 times as many households equals 90 million.

But we should have expected an acceleration as the first years sale so 3
million happy households induced more than 3 million the second year.
The US with only a minor acceleration over the Japan rate would have
seen more than 109 million HDTV integrated DTV sets sold in the last
five years if we had the same sales rate as Japan with even half of the
accelerated sales that Japan will see this year over last.

THE US TRANSITION WOULD ALREADY BE OVER WITH!!! Every house would
already have an integrated HDTV set.

But Bob Miller all by himself thwarted this entire industry.

Hint, if this entire industry believes this they can buy me off a lot
cheaper than Congress and the FCC. A few million my way and they can be
selling billions and billions of 8-VSB integrated sets tomorrow.

And I will lead the band right down main street beating the drum for 8-VSB.

Bob Miller


> But Psycho Bob Miller won't tell you that.
>
> Psycho Bob lies, either directly or by misleadingly presenting statistics.
>
> Remember, whatever Psycho Bob Miller says, the exact opposite is true!
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http/staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.