Atsc 3.0 - Page 79 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1396Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2341 of 2425 Old 01-14-2020, 03:51 PM
Senior Member
 
bobchase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
I assume OTA would continue to offer the normal CBS broadcast and the app/OTT stuff would be an Internet only addition?
There is a five year simulcast period where the licensed 3.0 stream must mirror the 1.0 station. You can do stuff with other streams but there is a 1 for 1 relationship, which in your example would be "normal CBS broadcast".


OTT stands for "Over The Top" a cute piece of jargon for "connected to the web". The broadcasters app can go either way. However, if we drop data/video onto a customers TV it would have to be very small, like a static view of hurricane evacuation routes, or list of shelters with space, or a weather graphic. Motion video would be OTT whatever its source was.
Tschmidt likes this.

We are experiencing some Technical Difficulties.
Please standby while we reboot our TV station...
bobchase is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2342 of 2425 Old 01-14-2020, 04:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,035
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2515 Post(s)
Liked: 1005
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobchase View Post
ATSC3.0 allows a station's 'app' to be downloaded to the TV. From the app, a viewer will be able to select various things, some OTA but mostly OTT. A link from the local CBS station's app to CBS All Access is not out of the question in this case.
Local stations already have mobile apps.

What keeps them from offering apps. for Apple TV, Roku, etc. now?

I doubt people will install apps. for each local TV station, unless they offer 4K or HDR content that you can't get anywhere else.

Sinclair was trying to get mobile phone manufacturers to integrate an ATSC 3.0 tuner chip into phones. But if they can stream directly to devices, why did they try this move?
wco81 is offline  
post #2343 of 2425 Old 01-14-2020, 04:16 PM
Senior Member
 
bobchase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tschmidt View Post
The RF modulation is much more robust then ATSC 1.0 and compression is better. I agree with you about targeted ads.

I don't understand the 4k hype. From my reading HDR dramatically improves image quality perception at a fraction of the bandwidth cost of 4k. Given the limited amount of channel capacity I'm guessing broadcasters will go that route since it represents a lot of bang for the buck while not chewing up channel bandwidth.
Some hype is just that - hype for the sake of something to print. Yes they talk too much about 4k but they are limited by what the consumer can understand at this point in time. Think a choice between 4k vs. HFR 2k. When consumers can see sports in 1080p120 vs 2160p60, they tend to choose the higher frame rate over the higher pixel count. But until a consumer can see HFR can they comprehend it?

HDR broadcasting is a $8k-ish cost for a card to convert SDR to HDR, so I would imagine that it will appear early on in the bigger markets during the simulcast period.
Tschmidt likes this.

We are experiencing some Technical Difficulties.
Please standby while we reboot our TV station...
bobchase is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2344 of 2425 Old 01-14-2020, 05:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,035
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2515 Post(s)
Liked: 1005
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobchase View Post
Some hype is just that - hype for the sake of something to print. Yes they talk too much about 4k but they are limited by what the consumer can understand at this point in time. Think a choice between 4k vs. HFR 2k. When consumers can see sports in 1080p120 vs 2160p60, they tend to choose the higher frame rate over the higher pixel count. But until a consumer can see HFR can they comprehend it?

HDR broadcasting is a $8k-ish cost for a card to convert SDR to HDR, so I would imagine that it will appear early on in the bigger markets during the simulcast period.
1080p at 60fps or greater would be a HUGE improvement over ATSC 1.0.

Still no indications from the broadcast networks that they're going to deliver content in such a format.

The incentives for the networks and local stations aren't to use up their allocated bandwidth for PQ. Instead, the incentives are in the opposite direction, to split up the bandwidth for a lot of sub channels.
aaronwt and Tschmidt like this.
wco81 is offline  
post #2345 of 2425 Old 01-14-2020, 05:13 PM
Rgb
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 8,503
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 723 Post(s)
Liked: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tschmidt View Post
The RF modulation is much more robust then ATSC 1.0 and compression is better. I agree with you about targeted ads.

I don't understand the 4k hype. From my reading HDR dramatically improves image quality perception at a fraction of the bandwidth cost of 4k. Given the limited amount of channel capacity I'm guessing broadcasters will go that route since it represents a lot of bang for the buck while not chewing up channel bandwidth.
OFDM for 3.0 vs 8VSB for ATSC 1.0
(RF modulation techniques)

https://www.smpte.org/sites/default/...ASTC%203.0.pdf

Quote:
OFDM ADVANTAGES
• OFDM has excellent robustness in multi-path environments.
• Ability to comply with world-wide regulations:
• Coexistence with current and future systems
• OFDM is spectrally efficient
• OFDM is inherently robust against narrowband interference
• Equalization is very simple compared to Single-Carrier systems
nathill, ThoraX695 and Tschmidt like this.
Rgb is offline  
post #2346 of 2425 Old 01-14-2020, 07:00 PM
Senior Member
 
bobchase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
1080p at 60fps or greater would be a HUGE improvement over ATSC 1.0.

Still no indications from the broadcast networks that they're going to deliver content in such a format.

The incentives for the networks and local stations aren't to use up their allocated bandwidth for PQ. Instead, the incentives are in the opposite direction, to split up the bandwidth for a lot of sub channels.
1080p/60 might be an incremental improvement, depending on the encoder brand doing the upconvert from 1080i/720p. If the networks can build the infrastructure for 1080p/60 original content, I'd put it at a moderate improvement. The TV's are 4k which means they are internally making 4 pixels out of each one actually broadcast in 2k. So you still have all of the artifacts and softness that occurs when the TV does that averaging/upconverting from 2k to 4k. I'm sure that's been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere on the forum.
I won't ague that the accountants are driving the cart - they are. However, I think you'll find that it will be a long time before DigiNets show up on 3.0 because there won't be any room.

We are experiencing some Technical Difficulties.
Please standby while we reboot our TV station...
bobchase is offline  
post #2347 of 2425 Old 01-14-2020, 07:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SFischer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Posts: 3,979
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobchase View Post
... However, I think you'll find that it will be a long time before DigiNets show up on 3.0 because there won't be any room.

But one of the advantages of ATSC 3.0 is that there is lots more room.

Remember that ATSC 1.0 uses the MPG2 encoding scheme even though the MPG4 scheme is allowed.

I watched a test of MPG4 on a mostly hidden sub-stream test. It was a duplicate of the 1.0 stream which used MPG2.

The Picture Quality was oh so much better and the bitrate used was oh so much less.

TSReader output from the test attached.

SHF
Attached Files
File Type: zip KQEH.zip (204.2 KB, 8 views)
Rgb and aaronwt like this.
SFischer1 is online now  
post #2348 of 2425 Old 01-14-2020, 08:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States, Earth
Posts: 2,308
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 847 Post(s)
Liked: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobchase View Post
There is a five year simulcast period where the licensed 3.0 stream must mirror the 1.0 station.

Just in case someone might misunderstand that, this is a quote from https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/201...-transmission/
Quote:
Thus, to ensure that consumers will not lose access to the over-the-air television signals they now receive, the FCC requires that stations converting to the new standard must also simulcast their primary video signal on a station in their market that continues to operate in the current ATSC 1.0 standard.

In other words, when a station starts broadcasting using ATSC 3.0, the secondary channels don't have to be transmitted using ATSC 1.0, just the designated primary channel has to be simulcast using ATSC 1.0.
aaronwt likes this.

My very humble setup:
Spoiler!
Mark12547 is offline  
post #2349 of 2425 Old 01-14-2020, 08:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SFischer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Posts: 3,979
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark12547 View Post
...

In other words, when a station starts broadcasting using ATSC 3.0, the secondary channels don't have to be transmitted using ATSC 1.0, just the designated primary channel has to be simulcast using ATSC 1.0.
Now that is a case of "No room for DigiNets". So don't expect any. Well in the beginning if one is bringing in a lot of money, or they are paid to carry the Diginet.

SHF
SFischer1 is online now  
post #2350 of 2425 Old 01-14-2020, 08:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,035
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2515 Post(s)
Liked: 1005
Does ATSC 3.0 allow for AV1?

Suppose to be far more efficient than H.265.
aaronwt likes this.
wco81 is offline  
post #2351 of 2425 Old 01-14-2020, 09:58 PM
Senior Member
 
dhett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chandler AZ
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobchase View Post
Pearl TV is the one pushing for 40 markets.

<snip>

Here in Phoenix Univision moved their UniMas programming onto the Univision stick. To do that they had to take both 1080i network feeds, local CM's, etc. and convert them to 720p for broadcast. They also had to move a couple of the DigiNets off to other stations even though they still carry two DigiNets on the Univision stick too. That cleared KFPH ch35 stick to come up as a 3.0 experimental station. Scripps is doing the same thing with their KASW ch27 stick here in Phoenix. I don't believe that Scripps has made their partners public at this point.
On the contrary, Scripps, as a member of the Pearl TV consortium, has been quite public about their plans for KASW. This could be a road map for other markets, and due to the experience as the test bed, I expect Phoenix to be among the first of the markets to go ATSC 3.0 commercially, once they get their application to convert filed.

KASW ex parte filing - Pearl TV
dhett is offline  
post #2352 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 04:01 AM
Rgb
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 8,503
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 723 Post(s)
Liked: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1 View Post
But one of the advantages of ATSC 3.0 is that there is lots more room.

Remember that ATSC 1.0 uses the MPG2 encoding scheme even though the MPG4 scheme is allowed.

I watched a test of MPG4 on a mostly hidden sub-stream test. It was a duplicate of the 1.0 stream which used MPG2.

The Picture Quality was oh so much better and the bitrate used was oh so much less.

TSReader output from the test attached.

SHF
YEs, ATSC 1.0 really was too little too soon, a rush to get digital/HD on the air. Antiquated, bloated MPEG2 codec from the start vs going with a more efficient codec, though codec chips in the late 90's to handle 1080i/720p with MPEG4 or other better codecs were more expensive, ran hotter, etc.
aaronwt and DrDon like this.
Rgb is offline  
post #2353 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 08:01 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 17,326
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2387 Post(s)
Liked: 4573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark12547 View Post
In other words, when a station starts broadcasting using ATSC 3.0, the secondary channels don't have to be transmitted using ATSC 1.0, just the designated primary channel has to be simulcast using ATSC 1.0.
They don't have to be by rule, but I'm sure the contracts with the diginetworks call for it. That's mostly leased airtime or a diginet that's co-owned with the station group. Either way, stations won't be punting any of those diginets off of 1.0.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJeff View Post
At first blush it may not seem like station owners would be willing to turn down subchannel revenues but it makes more sense when you consider the long term business play of making 3.0 successful.
You'd think, but I don't know of a single General Manager who is graded on what might happen long-term. They live and die by quarterlies. IOW, they won't chop off diginet revenue anytime soon. If it's a co-owned diginet, it's even less likely to be yanked from the 1.0 tranmission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Sinclair was trying to get mobile phone manufacturers to integrate an ATSC 3.0 tuner chip into phones. But if they can stream directly to devices, why did they try this move?
It was all a PR stunt to nudge up their stock prices by making Wall Street believe they had the Golden Ticket to increased ad revenue.
tenthplanet and Tschmidt like this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.

Last edited by DrDon; 01-15-2020 at 08:20 AM.
DrDon is offline  
post #2354 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 08:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ricoflashback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 3,430
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1861 Post(s)
Liked: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobchase View Post
1080p/60 might be an incremental improvement, depending on the encoder brand doing the upconvert from 1080i/720p. If the networks can build the infrastructure for 1080p/60 original content, I'd put it at a moderate improvement. The TV's are 4k which means they are internally making 4 pixels out of each one actually broadcast in 2k. So you still have all of the artifacts and softness that occurs when the TV does that averaging/upconverting from 2k to 4k. I'm sure that's been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere on the forum.
I won't ague that the accountants are driving the cart - they are. However, I think you'll find that it will be a long time before DigiNets show up on 3.0 because there won't be any room.
***1080p/60fps would be a HUGE improvement over current standards for cable, satellite and broadcast TV, IMHO. It really depends on how well your 4K TV "upscales" (processor) your source content. For me and my 75" Sony 900F - - the picture upscaling is outstanding - - Bluray like quality. There are many times that I will "step down" from an Amazon Prime "4K" streaming selection to the 1080p choice. Maybe that has to do with compression or the way the 4K was mastered but my main point is 1080p/60fps looks outstanding on my set. 1080i via OTA also looks fabulous. Anything else, technology wise, is gravy as far as I'm concerned. Walk before you run.
aaronwt and tenthplanet like this.

Home Theater Setup
SONY 75X900F & 49X900E, BenQ W1080ST, Denon X5200 & Emotiva XPA-3
AudioSource 100VS, OPPO 103 & Samsung K8500, 9.1.4 Setup - Speakers - Studio 60's,
V.2 (FL/FR), CC-690 (C), V.5, ADP 590 V.5 (SS), MilleniaOne 2.0 (BS) - Velodyne 810 Sub,
Cornered Audio (FH/RH), Definitive Technology (Front Wides)
Ricoflashback is offline  
post #2355 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 08:31 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
They don't have to be by rule, but I'm sure the contracts with the diginetworks call for it. That's mostly leased airtime or a diginet that's co-owned with the station group. Either way, stations won't be punting any of those diginets off of 1.0.



You'd think, but I don't know of a single General Manager who is graded on what might happen long-term. They live and die by quarterlies. IOW, they won't chop off diginet revenue anytime soon. If it's a co-owned diginet, it's even less likely to be yanked from the 1.0 tranmission.



It was all a PR stunt to nudge up their stock prices by making Wall Street believe they had the Golden Ticket to increased ad revenue.

So if channel sharing happens and they have to keep 1.0 going, I would think they will run all the main channels and diginets at 480i with heavy compression to get them all crammed in.


Just because the FCC says you have to keep broadcasting 1.0, doesn't mean the picture has to look good or even be recognizable. Some of the 480i diginets are already a compressed mess.
aaronwt and tenthplanet like this.
ElevatorSkyMovie is offline  
post #2356 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 10:19 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 17,326
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2387 Post(s)
Liked: 4573
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElevatorSkyMovie View Post
Just because the FCC says you have to keep broadcasting 1.0, doesn't mean the picture has to look good or even be recognizable. Some of the 480i diginets are already a compressed mess.
There's a saying in TV advertising.. "If pictures are what you're selling, they better be pretty good pictures." The picture quality is never about what the public can handle as they've proven time and time again it's the program and not the PQ.

Local advertisers... that's a whole 'nuther animal. The driving force behind the HD stragglers wasn't ratings... it was advertising. I can point to a number of stations that didn't start local HD buildouts until advertisers started producing commercials in HD and demanded they be aired that way. Personally, I made some serious bank back in the day selling boxes to television stations. I only had to get ONE station to buy my box. Once the others started losing ad dollars because their commercials looked better on WXXX than WYYY, the orders came rolling in.

Point is, if a local jewelry outfit thinks their diamond rings are looking like broken glass or the local car dealer sees his shiny new cars screen-door as they drive by the camera.. they'll complain and something will be done about it.

This is why I've said stations that are already sharing thanks to the repack auction aren't likely candidates for ATSC 3.0 as there's no room for any additional payload on their 1.0 sticks without catching advertiser blowback.

The workaround, of course, is to use the 3.0 airchain to feed MPVDs and streaming. Cable has already said they don't want to carry 3.0. Could probably be talked into it for video only just for the better PQ, but if you're going to do that, why bother with 3.0 at all?

It'll all depend on the advertiser.

(diginets are different in that they're all national ads from companies who probably don't care what the ads look like so long as the 800-number rings every time Terry Bradshaw gets into a walk-in tub. Any local ads you see on diginets are "value-added" spots that don't cost the advertiser anything additional)
aaronwt and tenthplanet like this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #2357 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 10:49 AM
Senior Member
 
bobchase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1 View Post
But one of the advantages of ATSC 3.0 is that there is lots more room.

Remember that ATSC 1.0 uses the MPG2 encoding scheme even though the MPG4 scheme is allowed.

I watched a test of MPG4 on a mostly hidden sub-stream test. It was a duplicate of the 1.0 stream which used MPG2.

The Picture Quality was oh so much better and the bitrate used was oh so much less.

TSReader output from the test attached.

SHF
Folks are approaching the early days as if there will be a only one station on a 3.0 stick. The most likely outcome is multiple stations in a consortium. We call them lighthouses and you are going to see a lot of them. At 3 ~ 5 Mbps per station, yes, there will be no room for DigiNets. It is possible that owners of a duopoly station might decide to spend the $1.5 mil to convert their 2nd station to 3.0 and go it alone. However, if they can get 1 to 5 other broadcasters to share the cost and split the bits, which way do you think it's going to go?

We are experiencing some Technical Difficulties.
Please standby while we reboot our TV station...
bobchase is offline  
post #2358 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 12:26 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
There's a saying in TV advertising.. "If pictures are what you're selling, they better be pretty good pictures." The picture quality is never about what the public can handle as they've proven time and time again it's the program and not the PQ.

Local advertisers... that's a whole 'nuther animal. The driving force behind the HD stragglers wasn't ratings... it was advertising. I can point to a number of stations that didn't start local HD buildouts until advertisers started producing commercials in HD and demanded they be aired that way. Personally, I made some serious bank back in the day selling boxes to television stations. I only had to get ONE station to buy my box. Once the others started losing ad dollars because their commercials looked better on WXXX than WYYY, the orders came rolling in.

Point is, if a local jewelry outfit thinks their diamond rings are looking like broken glass or the local car dealer sees his shiny new cars screen-door as they drive by the camera.. they'll complain and something will be done about it.

This is why I've said stations that are already sharing thanks to the repack auction aren't likely candidates for ATSC 3.0 as there's no room for any additional payload on their 1.0 sticks without catching advertiser blowback.

The workaround, of course, is to use the 3.0 airchain to feed MPVDs and streaming. Cable has already said they don't want to carry 3.0. Could probably be talked into it for video only just for the better PQ, but if you're going to do that, why bother with 3.0 at all?

It'll all depend on the advertiser.

(diginets are different in that they're all national ads from companies who probably don't care what the ads look like so long as the 800-number rings every time Terry Bradshaw gets into a walk-in tub. Any local ads you see on diginets are "value-added" spots that don't cost the advertiser anything additional)
I understand what you mean. In my area, one station group owns ABC and CBS/CW. Another owns NBC and FOX.
Each network has 3 subs at 720p or 480i.


Each network has it's own antenna. I can see how they could each take an antenna and put both stations 3.0 signal on one antenna.


So if ABC moved their signal to CBS, the 1.0 tower would now have:


CBS 1080i
CW 720p
ABC 720p
TELEMUNDO 720p
METV 480i
CIRCLE 480i
ION 480i



The 3.0 tower would possibly have??



CBS 1080p
CW 1080p
ABC 1080p
TELEMUNDO 1080p



I don't see how you put all of the 1.0 signals on the other antenna. Something has to give.


Either diginets are removed or all signals on the 1.0 tower are 480i with tons of compression.
ElevatorSkyMovie is offline  
post #2359 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 01:11 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 204 Post(s)
Liked: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgb View Post
YEs, ATSC 1.0 really was too little too soon, a rush to get digital/HD on the air. Antiquated, bloated MPEG2 codec from the start vs going with a more efficient codec, though codec chips in the late 90's to handle 1080i/720p with MPEG4 or other better codecs were more expensive, ran hotter, etc.
Your version of history doesn't match up with reality. In the late 90's, there were no MPEG-4 codec chips. I should know, I was working at a codec silicon company at the time.


MPEG-2 still has a lot of life left. All of the VOD content on Comcast is still MPEG-2.
Ken H and scowl like this.

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is online now  
post #2360 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 01:28 PM
Rgb
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 8,503
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 723 Post(s)
Liked: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 View Post
Your version of history doesn't match up with reality. In the late 90's, there were no MPEG-4 codec chips. I should know, I was working at a codec silicon company at the time.


MPEG-2 still has a lot of life left. All of the VOD content on Comcast is still MPEG-2.
I was thinking the MPEG4 based "divx" codec popular on the darknet at the time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DivX

Quote:
DivX ;-) (not DivX) 3.11 Alpha and later 3.xx versions refers to a hacked version of the Microsoft MPEG-4 Version 3 video codec (not to be confused with MPEG-4 Part 3) from Windows Media Tools 4 codecs.[5][6] The video codec, which was actually not MPEG-4 compliant, was extracted around 1998 by French hacker Jerome Rota (also known as Gej) at Montpellier. The Microsoft codec originally required that the compressed output be put in an ASF file. It was altered to allow other containers such as Audio Video Interleave (AVI).[7]
Rgb is offline  
post #2361 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 04:30 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 2
Does "Diginet" refer to sub-channels like Quest, Cozi, Buzzr, Court TV, etc.?

Sometimes these sub-channels have no affiliation to the primary channel, but some of them are owned by major networks. It would seem strange if those were summarily dumped.
Chut Mingy is offline  
post #2362 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 05:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NashGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 1,564
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1021 Post(s)
Liked: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 View Post
MPEG-2 still has a lot of life left. All of the VOD content on Comcast is still MPEG-2.
Maybe Comcast's VOD library is encoded in both MPEG-2 and H.264 but I doubt it's ONLY available in MPEG-2 given that it's all accessible via their Stream app for Roku, iOS and Android. Many of those devices do not support MPEG-2 decoding.
NashGuy is offline  
post #2363 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 07:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,035
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2515 Post(s)
Liked: 1005
And now there is yet another new codec which may be too late for ATSC 3.
wco81 is offline  
post #2364 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 11:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SFischer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Posts: 3,979
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElevatorSkyMovie View Post
So if channel sharing happens and they have to keep 1.0 going, I would think they will run all the main channels and diginets at 480i with heavy compression to get them all crammed in.


Just because the FCC says you have to keep broadcasting 1.0, doesn't mean the picture has to look good or even be recognizable. Some of the 480i diginets are already a compressed mess.
I just took a quick look at "PROGRAM 11: 16-9 U-ChTV"

The picture was 16:9, a little blurrily and the audio totally not understood.

If I was from one of the original countries I would be very happy at the selection With local ad's.

You are almost verbally quoting what was said before about the previous record number of video channels, twelve.

I did not agree with those comments and the video, got better with time.

Now if you will not settle for anything less than 36K with sharpness you can see the hair roots, there will no possibility of changing your opinion.

If
Quote:
doesn't mean the picture has to look good or even be recognizable. Some of the 480i diginets are already a compressed mess.
If the video and audio are that bad, there will be no viewers and the diginets will be off the air soon.

Your standard does not match the viewers of RF 20.

We got the not ready for prime time ATSC 1.0 because people wanted any HDTV and they wanted it now!

It was several years later that a useful tuner was built for ATSC 1.0 and demonstrated in the famous NYC basement room.

SHF

Quote:
SCANNING: 509000000 (us-bcast:20)
LOCK: 8vsb (ss=100 snq=81 seq=100)
TSID: 0x1FC7
PROGRAM 3: 16-1 Hai Le
PROGRAM 4: 16-2 Hanh Le
PROGRAM 5: 16-3 VietSky
PROGRAM 6: 16-4 VLife
PROGRAM 7: 16-5 QHTV
PROGRAM 8: 16-6 NetViet
PROGRAM 9: 16-7 VietTop
PROGRAM 10: 16-8 VBS
PROGRAM 11: 16-9 U-ChTV
PROGRAM 12: 16-10 VNA TV
PROGRAM 13: 16-11 SETTV
PROGRAM 14: 16-12 IBC-TV
PROGRAM 15: 16-14 VietUSA
PROGRAM 16: 16-15 NetV
PROGRAM 17: 16-16 RB-NetV
PROGRAM 18: 16-17 FaithTV
SFischer1 is online now  
post #2365 of 2425 Old 01-15-2020, 11:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SFischer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Posts: 3,979
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chut Mingy View Post
Does "Diginet" refer to sub-channels like Quest, Cozi, Buzzr, Court TV, etc.?

Sometimes these sub-channels have no affiliation to the primary channel, but some of them are owned by major networks. It would seem strange if those were summarily dumped.
https://www.rabbitears.info/networkgrid.php

SHF
SFischer1 is online now  
post #2366 of 2425 Old 01-16-2020, 07:41 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1 View Post
I just took a quick look at "PROGRAM 11: 16-9 U-ChTV"

The picture was 16:9, a little blurrily and the audio totally not understood.

If I was from one of the original countries I would be very happy at the selection With local ad's.

You are almost verbally quoting what was said before about the previous record number of video channels, twelve.

I did not agree with those comments and the video, got better with time.

Now if you will not settle for anything less than 36K with sharpness you can see the hair roots, there will no possibility of changing your opinion.

If

If the video and audio are that bad, there will be no viewers and the diginets will be off the air soon.

Your standard does not match the viewers of RF 20.

We got the not ready for prime time ATSC 1.0 because people wanted any HDTV and they wanted it now!

It was several years later that a useful tuner was built for ATSC 1.0 and demonstrated in the famous NYC basement room.

SHF

Yes, I understand your point.


But my example is not religious and foreign language channels. Most of those are already at 480i. Most are already heavily compressed.


I am talking about the major networks. Will ABC and CBS allow their 1.0 signals to look that bad?

Right now they protect them and mandate that the locals keep a certain amount of bandwidth for the main station.
When things are moved around to allow for 3.0, will the networks allow their 1.0 station to go to 480i and look like compressed mush?

I am guessing they will not allow that.
Rgb and nathill like this.
ElevatorSkyMovie is offline  
post #2367 of 2425 Old 01-16-2020, 07:54 AM
Rgb
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 8,503
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 723 Post(s)
Liked: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElevatorSkyMovie View Post
Yes, I understand your point.


But my example is not religious and foreign language channels. Most of those are already at 480i. Most are already heavily compressed.


I am talking about the major networks. Will ABC and CBS allow their 1.0 signals to look that bad?

Right now they protect them and mandate that the locals keep a certain amount of bandwidth for the main station.
When things are moved around to allow for 3.0, will the networks allow their 1.0 station to go to 480i and look like compressed mush?

I am guessing they will not allow that.
Prime example of the shortcomings of MPEG2 with ATSC 1.0, ie there are some OTA channels in SE MI with 5-6 video subchannels! Compressed to bitrates so low that MPEG2 was never meant to be used for at 480i.
aaronwt likes this.
Rgb is offline  
post #2368 of 2425 Old 01-16-2020, 12:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 8,322
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2442 Post(s)
Liked: 2082
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Does ATSC 3.0 allow for AV1?

Suppose to be far more efficient than H.265.
From what I understand no but then AV1 still isn't yet ready for prime time. It reminds me of the DVD authoring tools back in 2000 most all of which were just running the very slow demo encoding source. H265 (HEVC) seems like a simpler codec even than VP9 which also could have been used but there are always politics in these decisions.
aaronwt and scowl like this.
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #2369 of 2425 Old 01-16-2020, 12:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,035
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2515 Post(s)
Liked: 1005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
From what I understand no but then AV1 still isn't yet ready for prime time. It reminds me of the DVD authoring tools back in 2000 most all of which were just running the very slow demo encoding source. H265 (HEVC) seems like a simpler codec even than VP9 which also could have been used but there are always politics in these decisions.
I heard AV1 was finalized more or less in 2017.

Yeah it's not clear which devices have decoders. When they mentioned that the 2020 LG CX OLED TVs would have AV1 decoding, it may be one of the first devices with AV1 decoding.


Too bad, really poor timing by ATSC, both times. Supposedly AV1 has much broader support. For instance both Apple and Google support it so maybe future versions of Youtube on iOS or AppleTV will actually support 4K and HDR.
aaronwt likes this.
wco81 is offline  
post #2370 of 2425 Old 01-16-2020, 12:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartford-New Haven
Posts: 2,371
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chut Mingy View Post
All of that makes me a little sick to my stomach. I don't care about getting custom ad insertions or being another cog in big data. If they don't plan to exploit 4k, what else is good about it?
If they're going to do custom ads or DRM, I'm out. I have tons to watch on streaming. PBS won't do that sort of thing anyway, which is 95% of what I watch OTA.
BiggAW is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Technical

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off