HDTV Connection

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> | No, you haven't. You keep saying you refuse to read AVS Forum, and I can
> | guarantee that every answer you want is right there, either in the HTPC
> | or the HDTV Recorders sections. I know it is, because I learned how to do
> | what I do from those sections, and I also know how much more is available
> | that I don't do, but you seem to want to.
>
> Google indexes AVS Forum.

To give you an idea of how bad the Google search of AVS Forum is, a search
for my username returns 7 hits, while I have over 1000 posts there.

There is a perfectly good search function at AVS Forum that is guaranteed
to search what really is there, not some random snapshot, including the
archives. An AVS Forum search returned 73 non-archived threads that I
have posted in. So, the Google return of just 7 is very inaccurate.

> | There are easily 10 different PCI boards that do this, and at least one
> | has open source drivers. One person has written a filter that allows
> | a programmer to grab the stream as it comes in and alter it in any way
> | before it is passed on. Others have written code that allows multiple
> | clients to easily access the same stream at the same time. Put these two
> | together, and you probably have the basis for most of what you have stated
> | you want. All of this info (including source code downloads) is available
> | at AVS Forum.
>
> So explain why Google searches come up empty.

In addition to the fact that the Google search of AVS Forum is bad,
perhaps you are fixated on the wrong keywords?

> You have told me to go to a place that has massive linear threads, which
> means hours and hours of wasted time reading things sequentially to find
> stuff.

I'm sorry you don't feel that it is worth your time to learn something
new, especially something you have expressed a desire to learn.

> I do know Google indexes AVS Forum because I've gotten lots of
> links to there from Google.

Try using the built-in search. Try just browsing through thread titles
in the right forum. Looking at what is there today, I see 4-5 threads
that should get you started. The best thing to do would be to become a
member and ask a question there and see what happens.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/BigDogs.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 23:28:23 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> | No, you haven't. You keep saying you refuse to read AVS Forum, and I can
|> | guarantee that every answer you want is right there, either in the HTPC
|> | or the HDTV Recorders sections. I know it is, because I learned how to do
|> | what I do from those sections, and I also know how much more is available
|> | that I don't do, but you seem to want to.
|>
|> Google indexes AVS Forum.
|
| To give you an idea of how bad the Google search of AVS Forum is, a search
| for my username returns 7 hits, while I have over 1000 posts there.
|
| There is a perfectly good search function at AVS Forum that is guaranteed
| to search what really is there, not some random snapshot, including the
| archives. An AVS Forum search returned 73 non-archived threads that I
| have posted in. So, the Google return of just 7 is very inaccurate.

A search for "modulator" yielded 10 minutes of no response followed by a
disconnect (no page content). I guess the search engine is down. I'll
try again later tonight.


|> | There are easily 10 different PCI boards that do this, and at least one
|> | has open source drivers. One person has written a filter that allows
|> | a programmer to grab the stream as it comes in and alter it in any way
|> | before it is passed on. Others have written code that allows multiple
|> | clients to easily access the same stream at the same time. Put these two
|> | together, and you probably have the basis for most of what you have stated
|> | you want. All of this info (including source code downloads) is available
|> | at AVS Forum.
|>
|> So explain why Google searches come up empty.
|
| In addition to the fact that the Google search of AVS Forum is bad,
| perhaps you are fixated on the wrong keywords?

Suggest a better keyword or combination of keywords.


|> You have told me to go to a place that has massive linear threads, which
|> means hours and hours of wasted time reading things sequentially to find
|> stuff.
|
| I'm sorry you don't feel that it is worth your time to learn something
| new, especially something you have expressed a desire to learn.

I do not feel it is a good expenditure of time to manually and sequentially
browse a disorganized web site that can't even keep a 28.8k modem busy.


|> I do know Google indexes AVS Forum because I've gotten lots of
|> links to there from Google.
|
| Try using the built-in search. Try just browsing through thread titles
| in the right forum. Looking at what is there today, I see 4-5 threads
| that should get you started. The best thing to do would be to become a
| member and ask a question there and see what happens.

So, you have a preference of which place you want to provide the answers.
Are you the one who runs AVS Forum?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> | In addition to the fact that the Google search of AVS Forum is bad,
> | perhaps you are fixated on the wrong keywords?
>
> Suggest a better keyword or combination of keywords.

Think about what you are really trying to do.

You are trying to take an HDTV (or digital TV) broadcast and store it
(however temporarily) on a computer by using a PCI card that is connected
to an antenna...so what do *other* people call this function? Yes, I'm
trying to teach you to fish (i.e., to think for yourself for once).

> | I'm sorry you don't feel that it is worth your time to learn something
> | new, especially something you have expressed a desire to learn.
>
> I do not feel it is a good expenditure of time to manually and sequentially
> browse a disorganized web site that can't even keep a 28.8k modem busy.

I have no problem reading the site quickly through a DSL connection.
Perhaps there is something wrong with your computer setup?

> | Try using the built-in search. Try just browsing through thread titles
> | in the right forum. Looking at what is there today, I see 4-5 threads
> | that should get you started. The best thing to do would be to become a
> | member and ask a question there and see what happens.
>
> So, you have a preference of which place you want to provide the answers.

No, it's just that it is one place that I know has the answers you seek
all in one place, at least in terms of links to other places.

> Are you the one who runs AVS Forum?

Even if I was, what would I gain from getting you to read and post there?
It's a free service. Although there are ads at the top of the pages, I
personally haven't ever click on any of them. And, the "AVS Forum Alliance
Member" list at the top of the page doesn't generate any money for AVS
Forum (the links aren't referrals).

I point you to AVS Forum so that hopefully your future posts (here, there,
and everywhere) will be a lot more intelligent and less annoying.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ShermansLagoon/LoanedDVD.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

> I point you to AVS Forum so that hopefully your future posts (here, there,
> and everywhere) will be a lot more intelligent and less annoying.
>

I've come to the conclusion that he wishes his posts to be stupid and
annoying. Why else would be be so adamant about refusing an education?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 12:13:09 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> | In addition to the fact that the Google search of AVS Forum is bad,
|> | perhaps you are fixated on the wrong keywords?
|>
|> Suggest a better keyword or combination of keywords.
|
| Think about what you are really trying to do.
|
| You are trying to take an HDTV (or digital TV) broadcast and store it
| (however temporarily) on a computer by using a PCI card that is connected
| to an antenna...so what do *other* people call this function? Yes, I'm
| trying to teach you to fish (i.e., to think for yourself for once).

There are 3 aspects to this:

1. I really don't want it in the form of a PCI card. I want an external
device, much like an STB. It would connect to the computer via an
interface that can handle the data rate, such as Firewire, USB 2.0,
FastEthernet, or whatever else is available at these speeds.

2. The devices I have seen so far (including boith PCI card tuners and
external STBs with an interface) only provide the A/V of one selected
channel/subchannel, not the entire whole ATSC stream.

3. The modulator is needed, too. What I want to do involves modulating
the bit stream back to RF, eventually ending up in some set or STB.


|> | I'm sorry you don't feel that it is worth your time to learn something
|> | new, especially something you have expressed a desire to learn.
|>
|> I do not feel it is a good expenditure of time to manually and sequentially
|> browse a disorganized web site that can't even keep a 28.8k modem busy.
|
| I have no problem reading the site quickly through a DSL connection.
| Perhaps there is something wrong with your computer setup?

When I visit a web site that is heavy on graphics, or has huge pages, or
when I download large files, my modem RD (receive data) light comes on
and pretty much stays on solidly. In a few cases when I go to a web site
that is heavily overloaded (for example the "slashdot effect on a small
web site"), I will see things just pause with no data coming across at
all (the RD light goes out except for the occaisional ping I'm running,
or a port scan from some hacker looking to see if I'm running Windows).

While loading up the main page of AVS Forum, as well as the thread list of
a couple forums I looked at just before doing the search, the modem got
very busy because AVS Forum is a bit graphics heavy. That's to be expected.
I'll just deal with that until DSL gets out here in the rural locations.

But the problem was with the search. I entered the search term and click
the search button. It simply sent back no content. The modem RD light was
mostly off. I let it just sit there working. I never clicked STOP on my
browser. After a few minutes, the server disconnected the TCP connection
having sent no data at all. I repeated it twice and got the same effect.
I'm back now and will be trying it again after I get through all the Usenet
newsgroups I regularly visit.


|> | Try using the built-in search. Try just browsing through thread titles
|> | in the right forum. Looking at what is there today, I see 4-5 threads
|> | that should get you started. The best thing to do would be to become a
|> | member and ask a question there and see what happens.
|>
|> So, you have a preference of which place you want to provide the answers.
|
| No, it's just that it is one place that I know has the answers you seek
| all in one place, at least in terms of links to other places.

A place that does NOT have hierarchical threads, treats so-called "regional
forums" as threads (instead of as forums), isn't indexed by Google (why or
why is that the case, when most sites are well indexed, given the large
amount of hits I get from Google from others), and whose search engine was
not working.


|> Are you the one who runs AVS Forum?
|
| Even if I was, what would I gain from getting you to read and post there?
| It's a free service. Although there are ads at the top of the pages, I
| personally haven't ever click on any of them. And, the "AVS Forum Alliance
| Member" list at the top of the page doesn't generate any money for AVS
| Forum (the links aren't referrals).
|
| I point you to AVS Forum so that hopefully your future posts (here, there,
| and everywhere) will be a lot more intelligent and less annoying.

If you were the operator of AVS Forum, you would _potentially_ benefit from
increasing readers, because some percentage do click on the ads. I know, as
they do on mine (none of which are forums ... though I've been contemplating
starting one).

If I were the operator of a forum web site which I believe had lots more
answers to things than a given newsgroup does, and someone asked a question
in a newsgroup that I knew the answer to, I'd just go ahead and answer it,
and tag the message with something like "and you can get answers to lots of
other questions like that on ...".

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> 1. I really don't want it in the form of a PCI card. I want an external
> device, much like an STB. It would connect to the computer via an
> interface that can handle the data rate, such as Firewire, USB 2.0,
> FastEthernet, or whatever else is available at these speeds.

OK, you could get that, if you want. Be warned that copy protection
issues come into play, as FireWire is your only option (short of hacking
an HD DirecTiVo to add 10Mbps Ethernet).

> 2. The devices I have seen so far (including boith PCI card tuners and
> external STBs with an interface) only provide the A/V of one selected
> channel/subchannel, not the entire whole ATSC stream.

This is wrong. Every PCI card has an option to record the entire stream.
For a while that was *all* they could do, because it was too much work to
sort out a sub-channel on the fly outside of hardware.

Once again, this shows how poor the quality of your "research" is.

> 3. The modulator is needed, too. What I want to do involves modulating
> the bit stream back to RF, eventually ending up in some set or STB.

You can go buy a professional 8VSB modulator, but you're just being
foolish. It's far easier to send the de-modulated stream, since every
device that could handle ATSC tuning can handle a stream that *isn't*
RF-modulated.

> A place that does NOT have hierarchical threads, treats so-called "regional
> forums" as threads (instead of as forums),

It's odd that thousands of other people have found it to be so useful the
way it is that numerous votes to shift structure have *always* fell on
the side of what they have.

Also, if you actually register and log in, you get many features that
allow you to better manage the threads that a guest does not get.

> isn't indexed by Google (why or
> why is that the case, when most sites are well indexed, given the large
> amount of hits I get from Google from others),

I can see you don't understand how Google works. It indexes pages. A
forum has threads that span multiple pages. Hopefully you can now
understand how multiple-term searches through Google wouldn't always find
threads on a forum.

--
Jeff Rife | "There was a guy that was killed just like this
| over in Jersey."
| "Yeah, but I figure, 'What the hell,
| that's Jersey.'"
| -- "Highlander"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 4 Sep 2005 21:01:50 GMT phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

| But the problem was with the search. I entered the search term and click
| the search button. It simply sent back no content. The modem RD light was
| mostly off. I let it just sit there working. I never clicked STOP on my
| browser. After a few minutes, the server disconnected the TCP connection
| having sent no data at all. I repeated it twice and got the same effect.
| I'm back now and will be trying it again after I get through all the Usenet
| newsgroups I regularly visit.

I tried again. It seems to be working now. Maybe it was down for some
kind of maintenance (it was 5 AM EDT when I tried before).

But, only a couple threads that really cvered the topic matched, and they
didn't mention products along the lines of what I wanted (but they pointed
out some 8VSB to QAM transcoders).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 18:21:21 -0400 Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
| (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
|> 1. I really don't want it in the form of a PCI card. I want an external
|> device, much like an STB. It would connect to the computer via an
|> interface that can handle the data rate, such as Firewire, USB 2.0,
|> FastEthernet, or whatever else is available at these speeds.
|
| OK, you could get that, if you want. Be warned that copy protection
| issues come into play, as FireWire is your only option (short of hacking
| an HD DirecTiVo to add 10Mbps Ethernet).

This is just a plain 8VSB modulator and demodulator (along with specific
scrambler, Trellis level, Reed-Solomon codes, frame size, symbol rates,
and channel filtering) that can turn a bit stream into an RF channel.
There is no copy protection involved at this point. If the transmission
being received is encrypted, then I'd get a bit stream that is encrypted.
Then I could send it to a modulator and it's still encrypted. Then that
would be received somewhere (like on the other end of a short piece of
RG-6) as an encrypted transmission of copy protected content. There is
no issue as I see it.

There are a lot of way to send a bit stream between 2 arbitrary devices.
Computers have common implementations of several. 10 mbps ethernet is
insufficient to handle the 19.39265846 mbps rate of ATSC. FastEthernet
is 100 mbps, so it has sufficient capacity to handle it (as long as other
concurrent uses don't tie up too much bandwidth). Firewire is 400 mbps
and can support an isochronous channel at 100 mbps. USB 2.0 is 480 mbps
but I don't know much else about it. No reason any of these cannot be
used by a modulator or demodulator.

Why you say "FireWire is your only option" does not yet make sense.
Are you saying that all the implementations of 8VSB modulators and
demodulators that you know of (that aren't PCI cards) only use Firewire?

While this isn't my main project (which I will not reveal at this time),
a completely different side project would be the use of 8VSB, 16VSB, 64QAM,
or 256QAM, to transmit data streams over amateur radio. And these would
not necessarily be ATSC data streams. I might send IP packets instead
(with a full-duplex pair) on a UHF or SHF band.


|
|> 2. The devices I have seen so far (including boith PCI card tuners and
|> external STBs with an interface) only provide the A/V of one selected
|> channel/subchannel, not the entire whole ATSC stream.
|
| This is wrong. Every PCI card has an option to record the entire stream.
| For a while that was *all* they could do, because it was too much work to
| sort out a sub-channel on the fly outside of hardware.
|
| Once again, this shows how poor the quality of your "research" is.

I've looked at the documentation of 2 such PCI cards a few months ago when
the first ideas of this came up. Neither of them identified any such
feature. I guess "poor research" means I didn't do any mind reading.

Suggest Google keywords.


|> 3. The modulator is needed, too. What I want to do involves modulating
|> the bit stream back to RF, eventually ending up in some set or STB.
|
| You can go buy a professional 8VSB modulator, but you're just being
| foolish. It's far easier to send the de-modulated stream, since every
| device that could handle ATSC tuning can handle a stream that *isn't*
| RF-modulated.

So you are saying that every ATSC tuner (STB or TV set) has a bit stream
input, such as Firewire, where they will accept the raw ATSC stream as is?

However, since I am wanting to do this with more than one stream at a time,
each on a different 6 MHz RF channel, I'm still going to need a modulator.
And the amateur radio side project would involve over the air, so even that
needs a modulator (1288-1294 MHz channel).


|> A place that does NOT have hierarchical threads, treats so-called "regional
|> forums" as threads (instead of as forums),
|
| It's odd that thousands of other people have found it to be so useful the
| way it is that numerous votes to shift structure have *always* fell on
| the side of what they have.

Presuming a decent structure was even proposed, I suspect most people
would vote based more on the fear of change.


| Also, if you actually register and log in, you get many features that
| allow you to better manage the threads that a guest does not get.

Why is that? Another one of those "lets give guest less capability"
approaches to get people to sign up?


|> isn't indexed by Google (why or
|> why is that the case, when most sites are well indexed, given the large
|> amount of hits I get from Google from others),
|
| I can see you don't understand how Google works. It indexes pages. A
| forum has threads that span multiple pages. Hopefully you can now
| understand how multiple-term searches through Google wouldn't always find
| threads on a forum.

I can see you don't understand how Google works. It indexes pages. The
various multiple pages that make up a thread are all indexable. Here is
proof that Google does indeed index beyond page number 1 of the threads:

http://tinyurl.com/eybww

with about 9260 such pages indexed. I also ran a search for teh very
generic (for that site) term "hdtv" which would be expected to match up
a lot of pages, and Google finds about 26600:

http://tinyurl.com/bunsu

Whether 26600 hits represents all of www.avsforum.com I don't know, and
I'm inclined to believe that it is not. But it certainly represents a
lot of pages of threads.

One method to get better indexing by Google is to host Google ads. The
ads are selected for a page by scanning the already indexed keywords for
the page in Google's massive index base, and deliver ads based on those
keywords. When Google gets an ad box load request for a URL it has not
indexed before, it delivers only generic ads the first time, but it will
soon index that one page (following links on it probably won't happen
until the next spider cycle). If every page on a site has Google ads
on it, you're going to be keeping Google actively indexing the site as
the pages get read by users.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> | OK, you could get that, if you want. Be warned that copy protection
> | issues come into play, as FireWire is your only option (short of hacking
> | an HD DirecTiVo to add 10Mbps Ethernet).
>
> This is just a plain 8VSB modulator and demodulator (along with specific
> scrambler, Trellis level, Reed-Solomon codes, frame size, symbol rates,
> and channel filtering) that can turn a bit stream into an RF channel.

You're thinking too much. You don't care about anything until after the
error correction is removed. Really. If you don't reach the correctable
error limit, everything is 100% and nothing you do can be better than the
hardware. If you do reach the error limit, then you could possibly do
better than the hardware if you had some really fast DSP deciding how to
interpolate the data, but if ATSC framing info (PSIP, etc.) around the
MPEG stream is corrupt, you basically have to give up, because you have
no clue where a bit might belong.

So, just learn to deal with the error-corrected transport stream that
contains all the ATSC data, which is all anybody really cares about anyway.
If you intend to build your own 8-VSB demodulator, well, you care about
the rest, but you never said you wanted to do that.

> There is no copy protection involved at this point.

Well, there might be, if the broadcast flag gets re-instated.

*Any* BF-compliant ATSC tuner must respect that flag, which means that
once the ECC is stripped, there might be a requirement to then encrypt the
data before sending it on. Unless you buy a PC card now, you *will* have
to deal with broadcast flag issues.

> Why you say "FireWire is your only option" does not yet make sense.
> Are you saying that all the implementations of 8VSB modulators and
> demodulators that you know of (that aren't PCI cards) only use Firewire?

The only approved wire for an ATSC transport stream is FireWire with
copy protection extensions (again, if the broadcast flag gets re-upped).
Because of this, nobody has built anything else.

> |> 2. The devices I have seen so far (including boith PCI card tuners and
> |> external STBs with an interface) only provide the A/V of one selected
> |> channel/subchannel, not the entire whole ATSC stream.
> |
> | This is wrong. Every PCI card has an option to record the entire stream.
> | For a while that was *all* they could do, because it was too much work to
> | sort out a sub-channel on the fly outside of hardware.
> |
> | Once again, this shows how poor the quality of your "research" is.
>
> I've looked at the documentation of 2 such PCI cards a few months ago when
> the first ideas of this came up. Neither of them identified any such
> feature.

The cards have no such "feature" since it is *all* that they do: dump an
ATSC transport stream out their output ports over the PCI bus. It is the
job of the software to decide what gets done with that transport stream.

> I guess "poor research" means I didn't do any mind reading.

No, it means you didn't bother to read the documentation for the entire
product: hardware plus software. It also means you don't even begin to
understand how these things actually work.

> | You can go buy a professional 8VSB modulator, but you're just being
> | foolish. It's far easier to send the de-modulated stream, since every
> | device that could handle ATSC tuning can handle a stream that *isn't*
> | RF-modulated.
>
> So you are saying that every ATSC tuner (STB or TV set) has a bit stream
> input, such as Firewire, where they will accept the raw ATSC stream as is?

No, I'm saying that every device that can tune and demodulate ATSC has all
the internals necessary to handle a transport stream. Some devices have
inputs to handle that transport stream and some don't. If you are looking
to send things around your house, I hope you can figure out which you
should buy.

The advantage to dealing with transport streams is that there are cheap
devices available today that accept them over Ethernet and output HDMI,
DVI, or component video. These devices will only get cheaper, while ATSC
tuners will never be in *every* display.

> However, since I am wanting to do this with more than one stream at a time,
> each on a different 6 MHz RF channel, I'm still going to need a modulator.

Don't do it that way. Use Ethernet. Seriously, it handles things far
better and far cheaper. The cheapest price I can find for an ATSC
modulator is over $10K, and you *still* wouldn't be able to use adjacent
channels. A switched Gigabit Ethernet system is cheap and can handle 20
streams with ease. Even at the current prices of $300 (or so) each for
devices that plug into that and play back transport streams, it's a
bargain.

> | It's odd that thousands of other people have found it to be so useful the
> | way it is that numerous votes to shift structure have *always* fell on
> | the side of what they have.
>
> Presuming a decent structure was even proposed, I suspect most people
> would vote based more on the fear of change.

No, people who *use* it every day know what it can do.

> | Also, if you actually register and log in, you get many features that
> | allow you to better manage the threads that a guest does not get.
>
> Why is that? Another one of those "lets give guest less capability"
> approaches to get people to sign up?

Among other things, SPAM. You can't let non-members learn details about
members for this (and other reasons). Along with that, how could a "guest"
use any of the "notify me when..." features? Should it just guess where
to send the e-mail?

> | I can see you don't understand how Google works. It indexes pages. A
> | forum has threads that span multiple pages. Hopefully you can now
> | understand how multiple-term searches through Google wouldn't always find
> | threads on a forum.
>
> I can see you don't understand how Google works. It indexes pages. The
> various multiple pages that make up a thread are all indexable.

Which makes no difference if you search for the words "ATSC" and
"modulator" and they appear in the same thread, but on different pages.

Google will also give you results where the word appears on a page but in
different posts, so the terms may not be related. Google will also index
every signature that appears in posts, which the built-in search does not.

So, basically, you *didn't* understand why Google searches aren't going
to give the same results as the built-in search, and why it will show
you very wrong results of either kind: too few hits or too many.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/MailerDaemon.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> |> There is no copy protection involved at this point.
> |
> | Well, there might be, if the broadcast flag gets re-instated.
>
> If I demodulate the bit stream, then pass that bit stream to a modulator,
> then pass that RF to copy protection capable TV set, why would it not work
> given that the bits are all the same.

The demodulated bitstream over FireWire might be encrypted, and this
encryption happens in the ATSC receiver. This encryption makes the signal
no longer a legal transport stream unless the device on the other end has
the ability to decrypt it. So, passing it to an 8VSB modulator would
result in garbage at the output.

I take it you don't actually understand how the broadcast flag is
implemented in current hardware?

> | *Any* BF-compliant ATSC tuner must respect that flag, which means that
> | once the ECC is stripped, there might be a requirement to then encrypt the
> | data before sending it on. Unless you buy a PC card now, you *will* have
> | to deal with broadcast flag issues.
>
> If copy protection is implemented that way, it would be WAY TOO EASY to
> crack.

Actually, there is nothing to "crack" with the broadcast flag. It is
against FCC regulations to encrypt the stream of a OTA broadcast. Other
streams in the transmission may be encrypted, but not the "free" one.

So, the encryption is generated by the STB for output over FireWire. At
this point, though, there is nothing easy about cracking it.

This is yet another reason to use current PCI cards. None of them respect
the broadcast flag, nor do they ever have to.

> They did not describe their function that way. They DID describe having
> MPEG decoding, which would take place AFTER the bit stream is interpreted
> as ATSC.

Well, duh! The whole point of these cards is to enable people to record
and watch digital TV. That's what they talk about in ads (which is
apparently all you have read). But the actual documentation (or a simple
question here or at AVS Forum instead of the dumb-ass roundabout "I've got
an important secret use for this stuff that I don't want to tell anyone")
would have given you the answer.

> | No, it means you didn't bother to read the documentation for the entire
> | product: hardware plus software. It also means you don't even begin to
> | understand how these things actually work.
>
> I'm not looking for software ... just hardware.

Have fun writing drivers without documentation, then.

> ALSO ... the "combined product", being a TV tuner "product" would have
> to honor the "broadcast flag".

So, you haven't researched this, either? The text of the FCC ruling on
this is fairly easy to find, and I suspect if the studios get Congress to
pass a law, it would be pretty much the same text.

> But something that is a plain demodulator
> to plain bit stream, having no ATSC in it at all, would NOT (protection
> would be required at the first point ATSC is interpreted).

You'd make a lousy lawyer, too. Read the ruling, which has text that
refers to "covered demodulator product". As soon as you do the A/D and
get the bits, you have to comply.

> What comes from an 8VSB demodulator is NOT necessarily ATSC.

The FCC ruling doesn't care, as long as the device can demodulate OTA TV
frequencies.

> | Even at the current prices of $300 (or so) each for
> | devices that plug into that and play back transport streams, it's a
> | bargain.
>
> Then how do you get that switched Gigabit Ethernet system back into the TV
> at the other end?

Still can't read, huh? Use one of the "devices that plug into [that]
Ethernet and play back transport streams". You'll find a lot of discussion
about them in the HDTV Recorders and Players AVS Forum.

You can bitch and moan about not wanting to read it, or you can read it
and have a solution to your problem in your hands in less than a week.

> Having an option to show postings in properly threaded order, however,
> would be quite reasonable for a guest user.

Threading isn't important. Content is.

> What I understand is that AVS Forum is doing something goofy to keep a lot
> of their pages from being indexed by Google.

No, every forum (by its very nature) is this way.

> Doesn't matter, because the search engine did come back up, and I tried it,
> and the results are still not found.

This is because you are still fixated on the wrong terms.

> So at this
> point, still a dead end.

No, you still aren't thinking. Learn to search. Learn to think of
alternate search terms. Learn to think, in general.

--
Jeff Rife | Coach: Yeah, Norm, how come you and Vera never
| had any kids?
| Norm: I can't, Coach.
| Coach: Gee, I'm sorry, Norm.
| Norm: I look at Vera...and I just can't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>> Many stupid things, snipped
>
> Any single post of mine has more accurate information than the sum total
> of everything you have ever said. I've had it UP TO HERE with your
> stupidity and attitude. You will get no new information from me, but
> you will get abuse for every post.
>

You have far more patience than I. He is a complete waste of bandwidth.

Matthew

--
"... Mr. (Gregory) LaCava, a producer-director who could be called a
genius except for the fact that Orson Welles has debased the term ...",
H. Allen Smith, "Lost in the Horse Latitudes"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <dfisgb0b9m@news2.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
>
>Output in the clear that can be displayed can be recorded.
>
>I do realize that in cases of separate devices (e.g. an STB and a display
>that doesn't have a tuner) the likely connection will be HDMI with HDCP.
>Oh, now that begs the question whether HDMI/HDCP is encrypted.

HDCP is encrypted. It doesn't take long to find this information out on
the internet.

>|> then why the hell not do the encryption at the
>|> transmission location?
>|
>| Because that would break all existing ATSC receivers. In addition, the
>| protection requirements are such that there may never be an encrypted
>| output from a device, yet it must encrypt the signal over any "public
>| bus" inside the device.
>
>They are breaking all existing (before HDCP) TV sets with their HDCP.
>Why would they worry about breaking some ATSC receivers?

NO THEY ARE NOT. Am I explained over and over in the over thread, people
without HDMI displays are happily using STBs with component output. If
and when future STBs move to only having HDMI outputs, then you can be
certain that all displays on the market will HDMI inputs or they'll not
sell enough.

Those people without HDMI displays can quite qesily get compatible STBs
now.

>If the device output is NOT encrypted, it is recordable. If it is analog
>HD component, that still going to be pretty damned good quality. If it
>is DVI/HDMI digital, it will be as perfect as OTA gets.

If, if, if. However, HDCP content is encrypted. And the fact that HD
component *is* good quality and unecrypted is exactly why they want to
move to HDMI only for Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

>| No, they couldn't. ATSC started broadcast in 1998. The broadcast flag
>| ruling didn't come up until 2004. Lots of legacy devices existed, and
>| they would *all* break.
>
>So. HDCP breaks pre-HDCP devices.

No, it doesn't. They will continue to work with pre-HDCP sources, many
of which are still available.

The broadcast flag, on the other hand, is silently ignored by any device
too old to understand it.

>BTW, in the case of stupidity of law, I don't give a damned about it.
>Obviously there are ways around it. And if needed, I'll just import
>a batch from China (I'm sure they would have no qualms about it).

Maybe not, but you'd be breaking the law for knowingly importing goods
with the intention of circumventing a copy protection device.

Ralf.
--
Ranulf Doswell | Please note this e-mail address
www.ranulf.net | expires one month after posting.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <431d5494$0$32690$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
usenet-2005-09@zion.ranulf.net (Ranulf Doswell) wrote:

> HDCP is encrypted. It doesn't take long to find this information out on
> the internet.

DVDs are encrypted, too.

I love the computer world.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 06 Sep 2005 08:34:29 GMT Ranulf Doswell <usenet-2005-09@zion.ranulf.net> wrote:
| In article <dfisgb0b9m@news2.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
|>
|>Output in the clear that can be displayed can be recorded.
|>
|>I do realize that in cases of separate devices (e.g. an STB and a display
|>that doesn't have a tuner) the likely connection will be HDMI with HDCP.
|>Oh, now that begs the question whether HDMI/HDCP is encrypted.
|
| HDCP is encrypted. It doesn't take long to find this information out on
| the internet.

But Jeff says it is not. I'll believe you before I believe Jeff.


|>|> then why the hell not do the encryption at the
|>|> transmission location?
|>|
|>| Because that would break all existing ATSC receivers. In addition, the
|>| protection requirements are such that there may never be an encrypted
|>| output from a device, yet it must encrypt the signal over any "public
|>| bus" inside the device.
|>
|>They are breaking all existing (before HDCP) TV sets with their HDCP.
|>Why would they worry about breaking some ATSC receivers?
|
| NO THEY ARE NOT. Am I explained over and over in the over thread, people
| without HDMI displays are happily using STBs with component output. If
| and when future STBs move to only having HDMI outputs, then you can be
| certain that all displays on the market will HDMI inputs or they'll not
| sell enough.

If the component output is reduced resolution, as I have read that it will
be, then it fits under my "broken" definition, as that means you don't get
the full capability of the HD display. But maybe this is only for discs?

If the component output is full resolution, then it can be recorded with a
good quality A/D conversion and compression device, which, while not cheap
as consumers would like, its not way overpriced, either.

But what about sets/monitors that have non-HDCP DVI or HDMI, and no analog?


| Those people without HDMI displays can quite qesily get compatible STBs
| now.

Will that remain true in the future even after the Broadcast Flag is
reinstated?


|>If the device output is NOT encrypted, it is recordable. If it is analog
|>HD component, that still going to be pretty damned good quality. If it
|>is DVI/HDMI digital, it will be as perfect as OTA gets.
|
| If, if, if. However, HDCP content is encrypted. And the fact that HD
| component *is* good quality and unecrypted is exactly why they want to
| move to HDMI only for Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

Understandable. So it won't be an FCC issue if STBs continue to have a
component output, and Blu-ray/HD-DVD matters are not FCC to begin with.
This might be an FTC issue, but it's a weak case because no one ever said
the first HD TVs would work with some new future content source.

As for leakage of content to the internet, even HDCP won't stop it. It
only takes one leak, and that one leak doesn't even have to be perfect
quality because it won't get any worse as it gets copied around the net.


|>| No, they couldn't. ATSC started broadcast in 1998. The broadcast flag
|>| ruling didn't come up until 2004. Lots of legacy devices existed, and
|>| they would *all* break.
|>
|>So. HDCP breaks pre-HDCP devices.
|
| No, it doesn't. They will continue to work with pre-HDCP sources, many
| of which are still available.

Keep in mind my remark was for Jeff to apply a logic argument against his
inconsistent statements. I simply have not had the time, and will not for
another week or so, to look into those documents.


| The broadcast flag, on the other hand, is silently ignored by any device
| too old to understand it.

And probably will be by black market devices in the future. Hollywood may
still hold back some movies from broadcast for quite a while.


|>BTW, in the case of stupidity of law, I don't give a damned about it.
|>Obviously there are ways around it. And if needed, I'll just import
|>a batch from China (I'm sure they would have no qualms about it).
|
| Maybe not, but you'd be breaking the law for knowingly importing goods
| with the intention of circumventing a copy protection device.

I'd have a moral problem with doing things like theft or rape or murder.
I have no such qualms abuot importing a device that lets me fully utilize
for myself, the content I get to have. FYI, I do not share movies online.
And the music I have downloaded is specifically already free and legal
(from sites such as magnatune.com ... the low quality samples). Movies
are too big (for now) to download just to sample them. And promos for
them usually suffice, anyway. OTOH, if I am unable to get Blu-ray/HD-DVD
to display ... the way I want it to ... I would have no qualms about using
any kind of device to get it to do so, or download a pirate copy of what
I already have a purchased copy of (and keep), to get something functional.
I would not be depriving the movie/music producers of anything in so doing.
So I have absolutely no moral issues with it. My mind is clear.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On 06 Sep 2005 08:34:29 GMT Ranulf Doswell <usenet-2005-09@zion.ranulf.net> wrote:
> | In article <dfisgb0b9m@news2.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
> |>
> |>Output in the clear that can be displayed can be recorded.
> |>
> |>I do realize that in cases of separate devices (e.g. an STB and a display
> |>that doesn't have a tuner) the likely connection will be HDMI with HDCP.
> |>Oh, now that begs the question whether HDMI/HDCP is encrypted.
> |
> | HDCP is encrypted. It doesn't take long to find this information out on
> | the internet.
>
> But Jeff says it is not. I'll believe you before I believe Jeff.
>

That makes you a lazy, stupid, self centered lying son of a bitch.

It must really be hard to live with yourself.

--
Matthew

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 07:22:31 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
| In article <431d5494$0$32690$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
| usenet-2005-09@zion.ranulf.net (Ranulf Doswell) wrote:
|
|> HDCP is encrypted. It doesn't take long to find this information out on
|> the internet.
|
| DVDs are encrypted, too.
|
| I love the computer world.

When dealing with content that is intended to be seen/heard by the masses,
as both the movie and music industries work for, the encrypted content
somehow has to get decrypted before being seen/heard. The further back
that decryption is from the ultimate point of seeing/hearing, the more
opportunity exists for it to leak. About the best they can do is have
the decryption take place in the TV/monitor and in the amplifier that
drives the speakers. People determined to do this will find a way, such
as tapping into the circuitry in their TV/monitor/amplifier, and then it
has leaked and spreads on the internet anyway. The first leak might be
less quality, but because the internet is digital, it doesn't get worse.
So none of this is going to stop the pirates from making it available on
the net or as bootleg copies (that probably play fine in places the real
copies won't).

Yet, while not plugging the leak (just limiting the number of places it
does leak), they are making things more difficult for people to do what
they normally like to do. I've already heard about people who find that
some copy protection of CDs they buy prevents then from playing in their
computers, so they hold on to the CD and download a pirated copy someone
else as managed to successfully ripoff.

The content industry is more quickly alienating people and pushing them
to the internet and bootleg piracy market, than it is stopping pirates
getting any of this content. Watermarking will help, some, initially,
but it will get cracked because it is fundamentally a weak scheme.

Both the RIAA and MPAA have worried about "perfect copies" being pirated.
They figured the lower quality of pirate copies would hold down that market.
But today, once leaked, the quality is fixed at the level leaked. And the
leak quality now days won't be much worse than what adding another round of
compression does, and people are happy with that. The masses really don't
care that much about "perfect copies". Most of them are not seeing/hearing
anywhere near perfect quality, anyway, so how would they ever know.

They really would be better off making it _easier_ for those who really
would pay for the content to do so, and spend more money on marketing to
them (which I estimate to be 80% of the market), and just write off the
rest. Much, perhaps most, of the market for piracy/sharing/bootlegging
will not translate into legitmate sales even if content protection really
could be made absolutely perfect.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:

Major snippage

As hard as I find this to believe, I am now convinced that
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net has managed to become more ignorant as a
result of posting here. Certainly enough help and useful information was
provided to educate anyone capable of learning. Many people have arrived
here knowing less and have gotten more out of many fewer responses to
their posts. I guess a willingness to learn rather than a need to
pontificate helps.

--
Matthew

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <dfk8qp01u90@news3.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
>On 06 Sep 2005 08:34:29 GMT Ranulf Doswell
><usenet-2005-09@zion.ranulf.net> wrote:
>| In article <dfisgb0b9m@news2.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
>| HDCP is encrypted. It doesn't take long to find this information out on
>| the internet.
>
>But Jeff says it is not. I'll believe you before I believe Jeff.

You don't have to believe anything. A google search for "HDCP encyption"
comes up with 10 relevant links on the first page. This one, also on the
first page, even gives you everything you could possibly ever want to know
about HDCP:
http://cryptome.org/hdcp-v1.htm

>But what about sets/monitors that have non-HDCP DVI or HDMI, and no analog?

I don't beleive there are any, nor can I imagine any sets being produced
with component for legacy devices for a long time to come. Possibly, you
might find a set with just DVI and D4, but D4 is only popular in Japan, and
in that market D4-to-component cables are easy to come by.

>| Those people without HDMI displays can quite qesily get compatible STBs
>| now.
>
>Will that remain true in the future even after the Broadcast Flag is
>reinstated?

Not after 2007, no, but if anyone has bought a HDTV set now with only
component inputs and hangs around until 2007 without buying a STB and so
never actually uses their set for HDTV, then I really have no sympathy
for them anyway when they discover they can't get HDTV another 2 years
down the road.

>| The broadcast flag, on the other hand, is silently ignored by any device
>| too old to understand it.
>
>And probably will be by black market devices in the future. Hollywood may
>still hold back some movies from broadcast for quite a while.

I wouldn't suspect any more than they do now. If they think there is a
market on DVD, Blu-ray, HD-DVD, VHS or whatever, they will continue to
squeeze as much out of that market as they can before they allow it to
be shown on TV. Things only get on TV when the station pays more than
they think they'll loose in lost sales.

>OTOH, if I am unable to get Blu-ray/HD-DVD
>to display ... the way I want it to ... I would have no qualms about using
>any kind of device to get it to do so, or download a pirate copy of what
>I already have a purchased copy of (and keep), to get something functional.
>I would not be depriving the movie/music producers of anything in so doing.
>So I have absolutely no moral issues with it. My mind is clear.

Maybe not, however it _is_ still breaking the law.

I happen to agree with you that after paying for a CD or DVD, I should be
able to listen or watch it however I please. However, legally, we only buy
a licence to use it in a way that the copyright holder chooses.

Ralf.
--
Ranulf Doswell | Please note this e-mail address
www.ranulf.net | expires one month after posting.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:01:43 -0400 Matthew L. Martin <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On 06 Sep 2005 08:34:29 GMT Ranulf Doswell <usenet-2005-09@zion.ranulf.net> wrote:
|> | In article <dfisgb0b9m@news2.newsguy.com>, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
|> |>
|> |>Output in the clear that can be displayed can be recorded.
|> |>
|> |>I do realize that in cases of separate devices (e.g. an STB and a display
|> |>that doesn't have a tuner) the likely connection will be HDMI with HDCP.
|> |>Oh, now that begs the question whether HDMI/HDCP is encrypted.
|> |
|> | HDCP is encrypted. It doesn't take long to find this information out on
|> | the internet.
|>
|> But Jeff says it is not. I'll believe you before I believe Jeff.
|>
|
| That makes you a lazy, stupid, self centered lying son of a bitch.
|
| It must really be hard to live with yourself.

See, just personal attacks. You never intended to ever help people here.
Your entire focus is an anti-social game.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 06 Sep 2005 19:19:56 GMT Ranulf Doswell <usenet-2005-09@zion.ranulf.net> wrote:

| Not after 2007, no, but if anyone has bought a HDTV set now with only
| component inputs and hangs around until 2007 without buying a STB and so
| never actually uses their set for HDTV, then I really have no sympathy
| for them anyway when they discover they can't get HDTV another 2 years
| down the road.

They won't need a new STB until 2009. Thus it is plausible to believe
that people won't buy another one now. And even for those that do, it
is certainly possible for an STB to die an early death and need to be
replaced. Given that an STB would be connected to an antenna, and many
antennas will be outdoors, being struck by lightning is certainly a
possibility, increasing the likelihood of the STB dying before the TV
display does.

HDCP for HD disks is not an FCC issue, and I'm not worried about that.
But if the FCC makes a rule that does not ensure that ALL HDTV sets
sold since they started promoting to have people buy into HDTV and DTV,
then they have done a disservice to the public.


|>| The broadcast flag, on the other hand, is silently ignored by any device
|>| too old to understand it.
|>
|>And probably will be by black market devices in the future. Hollywood may
|>still hold back some movies from broadcast for quite a while.
|
| I wouldn't suspect any more than they do now. If they think there is a
| market on DVD, Blu-ray, HD-DVD, VHS or whatever, they will continue to
| squeeze as much out of that market as they can before they allow it to
| be shown on TV. Things only get on TV when the station pays more than
| they think they'll loose in lost sales.

That sounds about right. Still, I see no need to have a Broadcast Flag
that cripples some HDTV sets.


|>OTOH, if I am unable to get Blu-ray/HD-DVD
|>to display ... the way I want it to ... I would have no qualms about using
|>any kind of device to get it to do so, or download a pirate copy of what
|>I already have a purchased copy of (and keep), to get something functional.
|>I would not be depriving the movie/music producers of anything in so doing.
|>So I have absolutely no moral issues with it. My mind is clear.
|
| Maybe not, however it _is_ still breaking the law.
|
| I happen to agree with you that after paying for a CD or DVD, I should be
| able to listen or watch it however I please. However, legally, we only buy
| a licence to use it in a way that the copyright holder chooses.

Which is not what is agreed to when the purchase is made, because no such
contract is ever signed, despite what anyone else says. If someone offers
to sell me a copy of something, and I buy it, that's that as far as I am
concerned. And I bet the majority of people agree with that, despite the
government constantly trying to screw people in this regard.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------