Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (
More info?)
"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:1146kaaj0tbp41c@corp.supernews.com...
> RicSeyler wrote:
>>
>> LOLOLOL
>> NOW That's just MEAN!!! hehehe
>>
>> I can understand some people being aggravated seeing what they aren't
>> used to or expecting,
>> I don't take it personally, but I don't want to "across the board" bottom
>> post or kill HTML just
>> for the few that get aggravated. Hope that doesn't make me a bad/selfish
>> person. ;-)
>>
>
> Actually, it does.
>
> Matthew
"Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca895fc4aa8e56a989692@newsgroups.comcast.net...> In article
<1111250050.517418.110450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com says...
>> >From what I've been told, current Plasma lifespans are also comperable
>> to CRT technology, when you're laying down $3000-$6000 for one of these
>> nice deplays, that just isn't acceptable for a lot of people. Many
>> people don't know this when they make their purchase. LCD technology
>> has potential for a much longer life because LCD displays do not burn
>> phospher the same way Plasma and CRT displays do.LCD displays do not
>> suffer from burn-in in the same way that Plasma and CRT technology
>> does. I'm not sure how much these factors weighed in on Sony's
>> decision, but I would bet they had something to do with it.
> But, LCD/DLP require some form of light source. DLP and projection LCD
> typically use special bulbs with a life of only 2000-3000 hours. That
> means replacing it every 2 years or so, at about US$200-300 each!! Flat-
> panel LCD typically uses some form of fluorescent, but even they have a
> finite life and are not user-replaceable. Using LED's as a light source is
> coming, although there could still be issues as even LED's can dim as they
> age, with different colors dimming at different rates.
> OLED shows promise, although aging problems are still a big issue.
> If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
> All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
> law!!
> http
/home.att.net/~andyross>>> I have answered but will do so again.
>>> Those who were responsible for the test tell me that they worked with
>>> bitrates as close to 19.34 Mbps for all modulations. They are Chinese
>>> and are possibly biased toward DMB-T but do not have any bias as to
>>> DVB-T or 8-VSB.
>>> They claim that DMB-T blows away DVB-T mobile which is of interest to me
>>> so that we will be testing their receiver and modulator. They dismiss
>>> 8-VSB as of no interest. They said though that they tested the latest LG
>>> receiver but not a 5th generation. I don't think that LG's 5th gen
>>> receiver is better as to S/N.
>> In other words, you know nothing real ... these so-called tests could
>> be complete lies. Real tests imply verifyability: you sullply the
>> bits at the input end, and verify them at the output, they supply
>> the pipe. And you verify that they are not cheating on pipes.
>> But at least we got the answer you got.
>> Doug McDonald
> The only time I have something "real" that I know is when I have tested
> it. We have tested COFDM and 8-VSB including the 5th gen LG receivers. We
> know what works for us, COFDM for mobile and fixed and 8-VSB for fixed
> with 5th gen receivers.
>
> We will test DMB-T because they want us to and we want to also. Makes
> sense that the latest attempt at a modulation would be the best, they do
> have the benefit of all previous work done. But I will believe it when I
> see it.
> What is really interesting is the dynamic of the Chinese market for the
> next few years. One, they want to impress the world with their 2008
> Olympics and roll out as much HD by then as possible and two they are NOT
> focused on export markets. They are focused on their own internal market.
> This is a big difference than the Japan experience over the last 40 years
> or so where Japan's industrial policy was always directed at world market
> share at any cost.
> have to come out of the box in quantity and at very low prices. The story
> at the URL below talks about how fast things can happen in a
> The US should seriously consider switching to DMB-T if it turns out to be
> what they claim but this seems politically out of the question.
>
> Bob Miller
>
> Story on China
>
http/www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/business/worldbusiness/26yuan.html
>
> "Liang Hong, a Goldman Sachs economist here, said the government had
> expanded the capacity of many ports 30 percent to 60 percent within
> months, a task that would take years in practically any other country."
> After all this is still a "centrally planned regime" as the article notes.
> You can expect a lot more action for DMB-T between now and the Olympics
> than you get from the FCC mandate for 8-VSB. For one thing if these test
> are right (and people I trust who tell me how good DMB-T is) then DMB-T
> works far better than either DVB-T or 8-VSB. The Chinese probably have a
> better mandating formula.
<inkyblacks@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106619347.145888.91330@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>
http/english.sina.com/technology/1/2005/0123/18829.html
> an old story I found:
> SHANGHAI, Jan. 23(Xinhuanet)-- China's first ever home-made digital TV
> chip"Zhongshi No. 1" Saturday passed technical appraisal by experts
> from Chinese Academy of Sciences and Chinese Academy of Engineering.
> The chip, which integrates more than 70 memory units, 2 millionlogic
> gates and 20 million transistors, has outperformed European and
> American products in term
> s of sensitivity and anti-jamming capacities at far lower costs.
> The chip was made by Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation and
> Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, according to
> Zhou Dian, president of the School of Microelectronics of Fudan
> University, independent designer of the product.
> "Zhongshi No. 1" was based on China's DMB-T standard and has outdone
> European and US standards for experimental broadcasts of digital TV,
> respectively known as DVB-T and ATSC, in terms of definition, noted
> Zhou.
> He acknowledged that a dozen domestic electronics makers have
> integrated the new chip technology into their products, including
> Changhong, TCL, Skyworth and Haier. Central China's Henan Provincehas
> applied the new technology to launch mobile TV programs, and at least
> 10 other localities-- including Beijing, Tianjin and Guangzhou-- have
> reported success in trial operations.
> Analysts say mass production of the cost-effective chip is for sure to
> boost China's digital TV industry.
> The chip embodies the core technology for the new generation high
> definition television(HDTV) that has been the focus of research and
> development for many countries since the early 1990s.
> Official statistics say the world's most populous nation has more than
> 370 million TV sets and an average 40 million sets are being sold each
> year. China plans to broadcast the 2008 Beijing Olympics with digital
> TV and to popularize digital TV nationwide by 2015.
"Paul Keinanen" <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote in message
news:fmrok0hd9mjpu93e2e441mlcjfm36cpl3r@4ax.com...> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004
21:47:15 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
> Dyson) wrote:
>
>
>>> Doesn't a two-blade shutter in a film projector give a flicker rate of
>>> 48Hz? And isn't film supposed to be wonderful?
>>>
>>Movie theatre lighting is quite different from the typical household
>>lighting.
>
> The viewing angle in a movie theatre is typically also wider than when
> watching TV and the eye is more sensitive to flicker in the periphery.
>
>>There is NO NEED to require that anymore, other
>>than for legacy reasons that just dont' exist anymore. Creating a
>>720p50 HDTV standard is bordering on ludicrious, where a 720p72 standard
>>would border on BEAUTIFUL.
>
> Since a DTV receiver must contain a frame store anyway, I do not see
> the point that the transmission and display rate had to be the same.
> The natural transmission rate for film based material would be 24p,
> but it is up to the DTV receiver to convert it to any rate required by
> the particular display technology requires, such as the sooner or
> later obsolete CRT displays.
> _Assuming_ good quality motion vectors, intermediate pictures can be
> generated between the actual transmitted pictures, thus the display
> rate can be completely asynchronous (such as 83.731 fps) to the
> transmission rate.
> The question is, is 24 fps+motion vectors enough for sports etc. i.e.
> is there significant accelerations between the actual frames (such as
> changes in direction) that would require additional sampling points
> between the 24 fps.
> Generating such high quality motion vectors in real time is a
> challenge and it started the whole thread about the 50/60 Hz
> conversion artifacts.
> My guess is that operating the camera at a significantly higher rate
> (100-200 fps) would produce pictures that only slightly differ from
> each other and it would be easier to track any moving feature more
> reliably and thus generate better motion estimation vectors. When low
> camera frame rates are used, some features move a lot and the motion
> estimator will mix up features moving in opposite direction and
> generate completely incorrect motion vectors.
> Such high frame rate would reduce the number of photons in each frame,
> which would require more light or the picture would suffer from noise.
> For stationary objects, the frames within the transmission frame
> period could simply be added to improve the SNR and since the motion
> vectors for the moving objects are known, the objects could be moved
> back to the time of the base picture time and added without creating
> blur. The transmission rate could be 24 fps and each display unit
> could convert it up to any rate as required by the particular display
> device.
> Unfortunately it would be quite hard to generate good motion vectors
> from film material due to the low original sampling rate and the film
> grain noise would make it even harder, but on the other hand film
> transfers do not require realtime processing, so more computing power
> would be available.
> Paul
> Actually, it does.
>
> Matthew
What? ;-)
co0e.2281$gI5.1249@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Facebook
Twitter