ATSC 3.0 broadcast demo at CES show

[ChrisW6ATV]

Originally Posted by Username1

Young people have pretty much been programmed to accept $/Streaming and $/Song $/tv show too.... It's odd to hear of kids not care about making it to the tv at 8PM to catch some show, but paying out the $1.99 to watch it at some odd time on a 3" or less hand held screen, often while doing 3 other things as well..... But then, most of the kids who do that - that I hear of, don't work for that $1.99, don't make the choice between the tv show and gas in the tank, or something else.... Seems like a disconnect with money, & value or something I don't get....

THIS is so perfectly stated, and exactly what I fear is the biggest threat to free, over-the-air TV availability, far more than having to buy new/different boxes (if that is our choice) in a few years.

[ChrisW6ATV]

Lets be clear here that "ATSC 3.0" will be an available option to broadcasters, and NOT a planned "complete replacement" as the switch to digital was, at least as I understand the plans so far. So, when the new signals are approved, stations will only add them or switch to them if and when there is an incentive to do so. New TV sets will tune the signals at no extra cost at some point, just as all TV sets now tune the existing digital signals. And, converter boxes will be available for those who want to see the new signals on their existing sets, if/when there is even a value to doing so.

[Jeffhs]

What does all this have to do with ATSC 3.0? Another case of a thread being hijacked, I guess.

[Chip Chester]

Originally Posted by OvenMaster

That's something I've been meaning to look into. If most people don't use VCRs anymore, how do they record programs and give the recording media to someone else to watch? Here at home, I use my VCR upstairs connected to a roof antenna to record shows on VHS tapes that are watched on the TV downstairs, often more than once (movies, series, etc.).
If it's HDMI, how am I supposed to record shows?

I record OTA TV with a USB tuner and the included software (Elgato). It records the MPEG2 TS (transport stream) which is the actual data from the station. No (extra) compression unless you opt for an export that requires it. All the metadata is there, etc. I also have a stand-alone tuner/recorder that does the same thing in a "wrapper" for about $80.

I have a game recorder and a Blackmagic Design Hyperdeck Studio, both with HDMI inputs/pass-thru. At some point, I should test those on my DirecTV output. I'm guessing that they will allow recording, because otherwise my DVR couldn't record it.

Off-topic from ATSC 3.0, though.

Chip

[Username1]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

What does all this have to do with ATSC 3.0? Another case of a thread being hijacked, I guess.

Ha Ha Ha ~ funny as hell comment Jeffs !

3.0 has so many aspects that will change, it effects every part of the coming
NTSC Box experience.

From what I read about 3.0 I would like to see it, distributed booster stations
would help out reception where I live. I would not be interested in having 2
or more boxes on my tv to get to see content on my NTSC box, but we all
know "standards" are just short lulls between money grabs nowadays......

I want to go to the public hearings on adoption ! I want a few buttons added to
the next converter box. I want a button to dump a bucket of water on everyone
on the screen anytime I push it ! I want a button to get paid for my time
watching crappy commercials. I want a button to send direct live complaints
back to tv producers, programmers, and writers !

The biggest complaint I got about DTV is when they cut back signal coverage
areas..... Otherwise it ain't that bad as is.....

.

[etype2]

A healthy appetite for 4K content already exists. The continued rollout of new and lower priced 4K sets is increasing as evidenced by this week's CES show in Las Vegas.

So far we have content from Netflick, Amazon, You Tube, very soon, BluRay UHD and a few other content providers.

If the trend for 4K continues, that should provide a good motivator for broadcasters to roll out ATSC 3.0.

[Jeffhs]

I don't think 4K (let alone 8K, 16K or whatever follows) will catch on any time soon, with or without ATSC 3.0. I say this because, to get the full effect of 4K, one would have to sit within inches (!) of the screen, and I don't know of anyone who wants to sit that close to their flat screen.

I am almost 60 years old and well remember the warning about sitting too close to the TV: You'll ruin your eyes! That may have been true in the old NTSC 4:3 aspect ratio era, but I'm not sure about flat screens; in fact, I don't think sitting within inches of them could cause vision problems. After all, to get the full effect of today's HDTV, one must be within a foot or less of the screen; sit any further back and you will lose the HD effect immediately.

Hmmm. Now I'm wondering if eye doctors are or will be getting more patients in if 4K does become the standard; if so, the problem will be eyestrain from sitting too close to the TV.

[OvenMaster]

Everyone, I sincerely apologize for the thread hijack. I was just thinking "aloud" to myself where the thread subject provoked me.

I'm sorry.

[etype2]

The debate on whether 4K is of any benefit has been discussed previously on several old threads.

With regard to viewing distance for 4K, the general rule of thumb is to sit back 1.5 times the diagonal measurement of your television screen. If you have a 55 inch screen, that would be 6.875 feet. If you have a 70 inch screen as I have, that would be 8.75 feet. If you only have a 20 inch screen the viewing distance would be 2.5 feet.

These recommendations are from SMPTE and THX.

This article describes a blind viewing test in which 49 participants out of 50 correctly identified a 55 inch 4K set from a 1080P set at 9 feet.
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-re...1312153517.htm

I am sure folks that think 4K is baloney can produce any number of Internet articles to that effect. One thing for sure, one needs a large screen to enjoy 4K, but it does not have to be threatical in size. 70 inches or better will do nicely. I have an average size viewing room and 70 inches fits in well. My 69 year old eyes can see the significant improvement of 4K over HD if the proper native 4K content is viewed and not up scaled 4K.

[Username1]

Hu.... Me and the wife have a NTSC box, I sit 7 feet away off 45 degrees from center.
She sits about 16 feet away from our 20" flat crt (Sharpest picture I have seen yet)
stereo tv. I'm pretty sure neither of us actually can tell if it's stereo from our seating
positions. Whatever tv's we get in the future will have basically the same distance, so
therefore even if we get a 40" screen, we'll not get 4K as it's signal loss is ~ 20%
per foot at lets say 40" transmitter size....? Most people I know that have a flatty
it's on the wall 4 -5 feet off the ground, and they sit 10 feet away..... Sunlamp style
almost..... So no 4K for the average viewer.....? Why....? Why get it....?

Oh, and no one needs to apologize for the direction a thread takes, everyone
sees a topic differently, and with their own concerns...... Be Happy -
discuss freely !

I understand the detail in a 4K image can be so fine that a good amount is
lost in transmission from the screen across the dusty divide to one's recliner,
but for full effect, this new technology will require some un natural viewing
style..... No ....? Yes....?

At any rate, I imagine in 5 years the price divide between 4k and pre 4K will
almost disappear and 4K will have arrived..... But then bleeding edge will be
........ 32K ......? and 96" roll up true wall dimension tv....?

.

[etype2]

Whatever floats your boat is fine with me.

Myself, I'm a self proclaimed movie, sports and news junkie. I'm retired. I don't enjoy going to movies in movie house anymore, listing to rude people talking on their cell phones and people complaining to management and disrupting the entire movie.

Il stay at home with my own movies and home theater, as best as I can afford.

[Sandy G]

I've never really understood the "NEED" for ANY of this stuff..I remember seeing the current HDTV demonstrated at the 1982 World's Fair in Knoxville, & I remember thinking, " THIS is what all the Fuss is about ?!? Big WHOOP.." Yeah, but you can have unlimited channels, interactive TV, yadda yadda yadda...& I thought, yeah, just that many more channels to cram ADs down our throat, & watch the same Hogan's Heroes shows that we were SICK of by 1973 or so..Whoopty-effin-Do...

[Username1]

I agree with you guys, Me & the Wife have not gone to a movie house in more than 12
years, the new ones we rent are pretty disappointing, as is the experience. The last
going out movie experience we actually liked was in Atlanta, they had a little movie
restaurant, not so great a screen, average food, good seats, people talked, you expected
it, and the movies were re-runs..... Popular spot for a year, then they closed..... too bad.....
17 years ago.......

Today we do redbox, the dvd movies are sharper than tapes, content not so much,
Big highlight to the evening now is re-runs of Carson, All in the family, not 4K.....

Yup, I've seen real HD on a flatty, "Big Whoop" It would be kinda nice to have a in home
theater setup for the once a year great movie almost worth going out for...... but
it just seems like big screen HD players were just made for blowing things up !
and after that, the plot falls flat......

It is pretty funny though, that when the "Unlimited Channels" part of the HD
came out, they are pretty much filled with 50 year old tv shows.....

.

[Robert Grant]

I doubt that there will be widespread use of 4K in OTA DTV when 3.0 rolls out. Broadcasters would likely prefer three streams of 1080 to a single stream of 4K, just as many have chosen one stream of 720 and three streams over a single 1080 low-compression stream with ATSC 1.0.

HDTV on a 50" screen looks better than NTSC at 50", but on a 19" screen, you'd need a special display and reading glasses to tell the difference. 4K looks better than 1080 on a 100" screen - but not everyone sees (no pun intended) the need for that. Yes, 4K looks better than 1080 on a now common 50" set, if one is standing close to it - but how often do people watch TV standing up?

My suspicion is that there will be a flash-cut transition day when everything switches from 1.0 to 3.0., and it could work beautifully, if it were to be done correctly. They would have to market converters that automatically decoded 1.0 or 3.0, whichever was being received. The customer could install the new converter as soon as he brought it home. The user would not notice transition day at all (unless he noticed fewer dropouts, less pixellation, and new subchannels).

They would have to equip newly manufactured sets with the capability for receive 1.0 or 3.0 almost as soon as the new standard is chosen (not nine years after broadcasts started, as was the case with ATSC 1.0)

They owe it to the environment to see that converters with NTSC outputs (not just HDMI dongles) are available. There are still millions of sets (including some HDTV sets) that either lack any HDMI input or have only one HDMI input that is likely to be claimed by another HDMI device. If only HDMI dongles were to be distributed, there will be another large flood of E-waste.

They will also need to rethink the power limits on the three different television broadcast bands (scientifically, channels 2 to 6 and channels 7-13 are really two different bands). The current power levels were chosen in an attempt to give stations, be they on low-VHF, high-VHF, or UHF, a "level playing field". Since VHF signals of a given power travel farther than a UHF signal of the same power (and low-VHF travels farther than high-VHF), stations on UHF actual channels were allowed much more power than those on high-VHF, and the few going to low-VHF were allowed even less power. The problem was that the power levels were based on natural noise, not taking into account the fact that modern consumer electronics was already producing RFI often far more severe than natural noise. Power limits for VHF stations (especially low-VHF) need to be raised to combat real-world RFI.

The FCC really should evaluate the possibility of using the second transition to "rationalize" the use of the DTV spectrum by broadcasters. Channels could be "de-intermixed" as had been proposed in the 1950s (and had actually done in a few markets) so that any area would have either low-VHF, high-VHF, or UHF, not a mixture of them, so they could get good reception with only one antenna. In markets where TV transmitters are scattered, they could be realigned to one "union tower" so viewers could have reliable reception without a rotator (which almost nobody has nowadays). In markets with rugged terrain, the primary transmitters could be low-VHF, while populated valleys would have low-power UHF translators (by being in the valley, they would not be interfering with the stations in nearby UHF markets, or their own translators on the same channel in other valley cities). European TV divorced itself from the "one TV station has one transmitter" model fifty years ago.

[etype2]

[QUOTE=Robert Grant;3153669]I doubt that there will be widespread use of 4K in OTA DTV when 3.0 rolls out. Broadcasters would likely prefer three streams of 1080 to a single stream of 4K, just as many have chosen one stream of 720 and three streams over a single 1080 low-compression stream with ATSC 1.0.

HDTV on a 50" screen looks better than NTSC at 50", but on a 19" screen, you'd need a special display and reading glasses to tell the difference. 4K looks better than 1080 on a 100" screen - but not everyone sees (no pun intended) the need for that. Yes, 4K looks better than 1080 on a now common 50" set, if one is standing close to it - but how often do people watch TV standing up?"

I agree, not everyone wants or cares about 4K. However, there is a healthy market for it in the same way that people purchase high end audio equipment. Many folks set up their own home theaters with outboard surround sound speakers. 4K is not for the casual television observer who isn't going to bother setting up the viewing room for proper furniture placement and lighting. I don't agree with your assessment that you have to be standing up to see 4K properly.