Slashdot Mirror
Broadcasting HDTV On Analog Bands
Texas writes "Check out this new development in HDTV signal-encoding tech. As you know, HDTV currently requires an entirely separate broadcast channel, which the FCC have allocated to current broadcasters in order to simulcast HDTV and regular NTSC signals. This new tech from Los Alamos puts the HDTV info into the current NTSC band, and is even compatable with analog TV (which won't see the additional HDTV data since it's hidden in vestigal sidebands and unused closed caption data space). Also, this new method only requires slight changes to current NTSC broadcast stations and HDTV receivers, and will not make current
analog sets obsolete."
I just cancelled my cable today, and I feel better already. Now I will have more time to do productive things, like spend time with friends and family, read, or even exercise. That's not to mention the fact that I will have $57 extra per month to spend on whatever I want.
Time is really the most valuable thing you have. Don't waste another minute watching cheezy sitcoms and braindead ads. Crap is crap, even if it's 1920x1080.
They are not going to change anything. The FCC already refused to changed the VSB format to the better CODFM transmission system.
There is no way in hell they are going to change the bandwidth allocations at this point.
Oh, but how history could repeat itself!
If one takes a look at the history of NTSC, you'll note that a quite similar thing happened before with the introduction of color TV. To summarize:
CBS developed an incompatible standard. They pushed the FCC to take it. RCA at the last minute reveals their standard - compatable with the (at that time) current standard.
FCC takes CBS's standard. Broadcasts are done in both standards, and due to a number of circumstances, it isn't catching on. It's scrapped after 4 months.
After a long unfriendly story, the FCC takes RCA's standard over CBS's. It worked with existing sets, and only one broadcast was needed.
I wonder, is this technology based on some sort of differential encoding scheme, where you encode the difference between the standard and high-defitinion signals? To me, that seems to be the only way to cram that much information into the leftover space in analog signals (but what do I know?)
If that is true, it would certainly result in much lower-quality output.
Anyway, I can't really see any TV stations bothering to add yet another broadcasting mechanism (though I suppose it might be interesting/fun to play with).
--
IMHO the main thing that's slowed HDTV adoption has been the 1000 different standard that have been proposed/adopted over the past decade
If this new scheme were to become the standard it would mean that plain old VCRs would have another 10-20 years of useful life left to them, meaning I can still copy stuff off the air. I'm not so sure that would still be the case after a complete switchover to a digital format and the obsolesence of NTSC.
--
You are incredibly accurate except for this point. Must-Carry is a clause that means that a Broadcast station can demand that a cable system must carry its channel up to a certain number of channels. Your local NBC affiliate is most certainly not demanding must-carry status on the cable company - it is getting paid by the cable company to be carried. No additional must-carry channels were set aside for HDTV, but NBC's HDTV channel could envoke must-carry if it really wanted to...
As 47 USC 534 reads, "a cable operator with more than 12 usable activated channels shall carry the signals of local commercial television stations up to one-third of the aggregate number of usable activated channels of such system." Later in the section it mentions that standards for transmission of "Advanced Television" signals will be established. Sounds to me that HDTV qualifies as "commerical television broadcast."
-nosilA
To elaborate on an earlier reply, 1280x720 is the resolution for progressive scanned HDTV. This has twice as many fields (half frames) as the 1920x1080 interlaced format. So one way of looking at is that only one of the two primary HDTV formats is supported by this new method, but it's not "reducing the spec" as you put it, it's just supporting one of two options.
720p isn't necessarily inferior either, with progressive scanning images with lots of movemewnt and animation will look cleaner and sharper than with interlaced images which can't keep up with fast moving images as well.
The ultimate plays for Madden 2006
I just had an epiphany as to what's wrong with the /. moderation system (after how many years here, I finally figured this out?)
I was going through the posts, as I got moderator status today, and I realized, jeez, there's a lot of posts here that need to be moderated down. They're not BAD, I don't want to hit this guy and cost him a karma point, and possibly get bitchslapped in metamoderation. They're just needless noise. There's too much of it. But these posts aren't necessarily bad, they're just not what someone who reads at 2 wants to have to deal with - who has the time?
I wonder if it would help if there was a way to half-moderate a post, knock it down a level without taking away the poor guy's karma. That way, moderation would do what it's supposed to, and reduce the noise for the people who read at 2, not forcing them to go to 3. Yet, also not getting people pissed off by whacking their karma.
I guess I'm just feeling kind of wishy washy today.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I would like a filter option where I can see all posts that have received positive moderation. This would be better than just reading the 3-or-greater posts, for instance.
And perhaps a secondary free-for-all moderation where every logged in user can vote once on any post, which gets tallied into a score for the post, which can be displayed for just the info, or used as a sort/filter key.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
32768 Channels, and nothing on...
-Lab-
You are displaying it on a $$$$ pricy TV! I am not sure that a standard sub $300.00 HDTV will look even near that good...
Corporate America overlays technologies again!
I figured we would have learned our lesson after the first wave of "new gui apps" that ran overtop of 5250 terminals came along. Now that we have a few million dollars in development invested in these sweet gui apps, we can never ditch the 5250 connections that they work over!
Is is just me, or is anyone else sick of nearly every company's urge to overlay new technologies on top of legacy technologies?
There's a reason that the intel chipset is so obfuscated, and this is a prime example.
Closed captioning only requires two scan lines to encode...IIRC there are eight lines allocated. So where's the problem in putting the other six to use? Besides, it's not like there isn't enough to go around...of the 525 scan lines in the NTSC standard, only 480 are considered part of the viewable image (which is one of the places we get the VGA standard, btw!). The remaining lines are taken by closed captioning, VITS...and that's about it.
As I read the article, people with analog sets aren't losing anything, except the pressing need to buy an HDTV receiver within the next five years. And broadcasters don't have to buy as much new equipment to make the mandated cutover; just enough to maintain back-compatibility. I'm betting their transmitters are even up to the task with very little, if any, modification.
Just my two cents' worth...donate the change to your local TV station's equipment fund.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
"Unused closed caption data space" ... Is this going to interfere with closed captioning transmission and/or viewing? If it does, then those of us who depend on those closed captions to watch television are out of luck -- and by law, those caption decoding chips must be in all TVs 13" and larger.
i am a soviet space shuttle
I've seen a couple of Sony widescreen (anologue) PAL+ sets from about 1995, they were pretty smart, however as you said, it really ate up the spectrum. And the amorphic cropping didn#t look too smart when a standard PAL 4:3 channel was displayed.
The modern Sony WEGA 16:9 sets with intergrated digital tuners look way smoother, and the Dolby surrond beats the pants of NICAM. PAL+ obviously didn't have DigitalText either, but I think there was an incremental update to the old Teletext standard.
The Japanese HDTV standard from the early 90's was originally anologue just like PAL+, it flopped and a bunch of government back research went down the pan. However, they've seen sense and now use MPEG2 based broadcasts, but the US and Japan aren't using the COFDM encoding scheme thought because of the spectrum issues, IBOC sounds good, if the encoding actually works.
Channel 4 in the UK use PAL Plus for some broadcasts. e.g. they used to use if for their Sunday night movie, a couple of years back.
Basically the sidebands and used to store additional vertical resolution, taking PAL's 625 line res (compare 525 for NTSC) up to around 8-900 hundred lines (dunno the exact figure).
The best thing is that because its in the sidebands, it makes no difference to ordinary TV viewers. If your TV can use it, you're in luck, if it can't it has no effect. Cool.
All in all a bit link anamorphic DVDs.
I saw "The Shawshank Redemption" on a 16:9 widescreen TV, broadcast in PAL +. Easily the most beautiful broadcast TV I ever saw. It just looked wonderful (OK, well the source material isn't exactly poor).
Shame it never really caught on...
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
A little bigger on the inside than out
How is this different from saddling all of today's computers with crap left over from 1980's systems?
People here have complained about being forced to buy a new TV by 2006. Why is that such a bad idea? The average buyer gets a new set every 7 years, I think that's part of why they figured that people would be able to switch by '06. "It's too expensive" people say -- well, it's cheaper today than it was a year ago, and as people buy it, it'll get cheaper. But if we allow backwards compatibility, we get cheapened signals, continued reliance on a 50+ year old standard, and STILL don't necessarily get cheaper HDTV sets.
I'm just confused. It seems to me that we've fought long and hard for a standard, and now people are trying to change that standard before it's even had a chance to gain momentum. What if all manufactures had stopped making normal DVD players when DIVX was announced? Would DVDs be anywhere nearly as successful as they are now? (I know it's not exactly the same thing, it's late and I'm rambling...)
Rather than trying to find new ways to send yet another different standard to the user, shouldn't the industry focus on getting cheaper chipsets and TVs on the market so that HDTV really takes off? I mean, geez!
Also, this new method only requires slight changes to current NTSC broadcast stations and HDTV receivers, and will not make current analog sets obsolete
Hence the reason the MPAA doesn't like it.
---
Check in...OK! Check out...OK!
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Lets see... 80% of the quality and no one will notice? Umm... well I think I'd notice.
I mean, I've been suffering for years from my overseas friends lambasting me about the superiority of PAL vs. NTSC (Never Twice Same Color or whatever you want to call it). So now our "Americanized" HDTV signals are going to be crippled too?
Crud. Why don't they work on making a cheap way to convert true HDTV signals into something an old analog TV can understand instead of trying to keep the old technology working. Sheesh.
I can see it now, in the year 2056 we'll be buying our new super 3d VR televisions, but they'll have to make it so they conform to the old standard, which conforms to the older standard, ad infinitum, so that bubba can watch rastlin' on his 5" B&W TV.
The inventor has disavowed the press release. Look down the middle of this page http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/011881.ht ml . This http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archiv e/01-023.html is the original press release.
The standards are set, the FCC & Consumer Electronics Manufacturers have spoken.
They are not going to change anything. The FCC already refused to changed the VSB format to the better CODFM transmission system.
There is no way in hell they are going to change the bandwidth allocations at this point.
For those interested in a brief history of HDTV, here it is:
Here's how it went:
Broadcast Industry asks for bandwidth for HDTV
FCC says "OK, we'll set aside bandwidth for HDTV"
FCC says "What standards?"
Industry says 'No Standards Please' and come up with EIGHTEEN recommended formats for HDTV. I am not shitting you.
FCC says "Isn't 18 different standards a bit much?"
Industry says "Shut the fuck up FCC, we know what we are doing. The 'market' will handle this!"
Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
Industry says "What? We really just want the free bandwidth. You really want us to do HDTV??
Congress says "Fuck you Industry. Broadcast HDTV or we'll legislate your asses back to Sun-day!"
Industry says "We're fucked. 18 formats? Why the hell did we do that? Let's change it."
Consumer Electronics dudes say "You ain't changing shit. We are already building the boxes you said you wanted built."
FCC says "Yah, ya boneheads we told you 18 was too many, now you gotta live with it."
Industry says "Well FCC, will you at least make the cable companies carry the HDTV at no charge?"
Cable companies say "Fuck you! You gotta pay! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"
FCC says "Yep, no federal mandated on HDTV must carry, we are letting 'the market' handle that"
Industry says "We are so fucked. We are spending 5-10 million per TV station in hardware alone and have 1000 HDTV viewers per city, even in LA!"
Consumer at home says "Where is my HDTV? Why does it cost so much? Fuck it, I'm sticking with cable/DirecTV."
Consumer electronics dudes, broadcast industry, FCC, and congress all cry. Cable companies laugh and make even bigger profits.
-----
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
The inventor didn't disavow. Rather the author of the article is bias slanting against any change in the status que. The only relevant info is that Bruce Franca from the FCC's technical arm, and Mark Richer, Executive Director of the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), and each politely told him that there would be little-to-NO interest in his system at this stage of the game.
This system has nothing to do with copy protection.
If encrypted broadcasts / bit munging are wanted on the part of the producer, it will still occur. Sure, they'll only be able to cripple the digital signal. But if they're willing to do this, they'd likely have no qualms about TAKING AWAY the analog portion of that program in its entirety.
So, you're left with a protected digital signal, with no analog counterpart -- just like with existing HDTV standards.
End result: Issues of fair use and copyright protection are unaffected by this system. The war is not yet over. And you should be shedding tears, because this proposed system sucks.
Kid-proof tablet..
With all the 'copy protection' fizznits we've been heaving about being added to the HDTV standard, I think the ability to crack the signal is pretty important.
Will it be easier to crack CSS systems in the NTSC signal than the band allocated directly to HDTV broad?
Is this completely irrelevant?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Well that was because a color picture was forced to fit within' the same specifications as a B&W picture.
Now doing that saved the populc millions of dollars and I don't think th TV comnpanies will let that happen a 2nd time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah, the cable companies would love that, another opportunity to render "cable ready" TV's and VCR's obsolete and force people to rent converter boxes.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
That said ...
Why can I see the movie industry balking on this, fighting this technology?
Because a pure HDTV system that does not allow backward capability allows them to digitally block services according to their desires. Take a look at recent slashdot stories on Direct TV and HDTV. It takes a spanner (wrench) and throws it right into the gears of their plans to assert perfect control over copying, etc. Everyone can still make their tapes, and the old analog recorder might not even copy the HDTV code correctly to ensure watermarks, etc.
While it will allow the more rapid adoption of HDTV, it will also reveal their plans to rip off the consumer by covert standards. It slaps them up side the head.
This is something that should be urged for adoption as quickly as possible. It is the best good for the public. The media moguls will fight it tooth and nail.
I shed no tears.
You may want to share your opinion on this with your political representative.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
First off it's my understanding that there are multiple HDTV formats, not just the single 1,280x720 one listed in the article.
Second the visual content of HDTV is, according to all reports I've heard & demos I've seen, dramatically better then what we see with NTSC video. This story presents this flavor as being almost as good ("you can barely tell the difference") which begs the question: Why bother?
Third the whole price theme seems to be irrelevant in most other parts of the world where better-then NTSC/PAL/SECAM TV is available. True this sort of stuff comes out in high-end video first but apparently the majority of TV purchases in the EU are now their better-flavor.
Fourth why are my tax dollars paying for research & developments that I need to pay for again to use? Hell - I already paid for it to get it invented. If manufacturers want to do their own R&D and pass the costs on to me fine but I don't see why a Federal Lab is patenting & licensing the products of it's publicly financed work.
So, for those who do know more then I about HDTV what are the advantages of this almost-as-good format, how does it stack up against "real" HDTV, how interoperable is it (since HDTV is more then just the broadcasting but also the recording & editing) and finally will anyone care since HDTV is already rolling out?
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
I think for DoE to come out say "Hey we developed this cool technology for nuclear tests, but it would work great for this private sector technology," is a huge step in the right direction. How much money will taxpayers save if they aren't forced to buy new TV in 2005?
Spin off technology from the space program has been a huge boost to the economy, and to the wellfare of the US as a whole.
New plastics, life saving devices, and yes, fun toys.
Don't forget the spave program is resopocible for many kids becoming scientists.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Maybe this will put an end to the FCC's idiotic forced obsolesence of analog TV, saving millions of people the unnecessary expense of buying a new $3,000 TV to watch "Oprah" and "Friends."
Granted, the TV manufactureres would have their "subsidy" reduced by this, but that's a good thing!
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
You know, there are a lot of hearing impaired people out there that use close captioning. It seems selfish to take their bandwidth away just for a better picture on a $5,000 TV. Now, if all the hearing impaired were given broadband so that they could download the closed captioning, that might work.
Plus, I like to turn on closed captioning at loud parties, so you can still follow the flow of teh show and laugh at the mispellings.
$3000 dollars? You're on crack. The HDTV module for my Dishnetwork 6000 DBS system cost $99 dollars, it will down convert to a standard TV. Or output compoent or VGA. Down converted OTA looks like a really good DVD. And that's from a pair of rabit ears.
This new encoding scheme breaks that plan completely!
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
With the addition of HDTV signals, digital information can now be decoded easily, without clogging up the already-crowded airwaves. In addition to this, transmitters can now encode into their signals specific copy-protection schemes so that people receiving HDTV signals cannot use them illegally.
By making this transition painless for the everyday user, HDTV can now incorporate more heavily-enforced copy protection schemes, preventing pirating of signals. I look forward to this happening. Less signal pirating will lead to better programming, because more people will pay for their signal instead of getting it for free. More money leads to better talent, which will lead to more money...
Bring on HDTV, I say!
------
That's just the way it is
and will not make current analog sets obsolete.
Then why would a TV manufacture want this? There the ones that want HDTV to be manditory, there sales need boosting.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's all well and good, but who wants to continue analog transmissions. After all, you can't use your Digital-TV-version-of-SDMI if the old analog sets can still pick up the signal!
Gasp! People might record shows and (horrors!) watch them again, or cheat hard-working sponsors by skipping the commercials!
This is a neat innovation to be sure, but I'm sure the subversives who created it will swiftly be brought to justice. After all, conceiving of a technology that, if it were implemented and distributed, could conceivably be used to violate the DMCA is undoubtedly illegal under the DMCA.
All citizens reading the referenced article are expected to report to reducation centers for cumpulsory brainwipes. Failure to do so will result in summary termination.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
"According to the lab, the technology used in the compression algorithm was initially invented there for processing images from nuclear tests."
Riiiight... I'll bet it was technology stolen from the webcam in the rec-room.
-Lab-
In other news, a car propelled entirely by water has been developed. The only waste produced by the vehicle is Beer.
Please note that the HDTV over analog and water-powered car inventors have been shot. All documentation has been destroyed, we now return you to your regularly scheduled channel (one of which we got for free!)...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
The inventor has disavowed the press release. Look down the middle of this page. This is the original press release.
So?
We still need to fight it, and it can be changed. Instead of boohooing and grossing about how bad life is , perhaps you should right letters, let people know how much money there going to be spending? Turn this into a PR nightmare, they will change.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sorry, I'm new at this. The inventor has disavowed the press release. Look down the middle of this page. This is the original press release.
Why didn't they think of this before now? Surely it's not like cramming more stuff into the existing signal is a new technique - it's we got color television after all.
While I like the start-fresh approach, there's a lot to be gained by piggybacking the signals. At least temporarily.