Prev: Air conditioner "kickstart" capacitors?
Next: computer reliability
From: Joerg on 2 Aug 2010 13:39
Joel Koltner wrote:
> "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8bo8tlFnbvU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> Joel Koltner wrote:
>>> There's at least a silver lining that it's generally easier to figure
>>> out, e.g., which models *do* still assume you, the user, have at least a
>>> half-dozen brain cells still functioning than it would have been 20+
>>> years ago.
>> Some things are, because the manuals are often online. However, you are
>> pretty much stuck with what's available and with a lot of gear the
>> enclosures and names might look different but the innards are the same.
>
> I was thinking Amazon reviews and all the "dedicated to electronics"
> review sites as well; sometimes they get incredibly detailed about what
> little nuisances a product has and provide some comparisons with other
> products available. It can even drive product development -- back in
> the late '90s a lot of motherboards would have their ubiquitous dual-row
> header connectors just wherever it was easiest for the PCB guy to place
> them, but it really started improving after the review sites pointed out
> just how annoying that was for "cable management" and these days it's
> clearly something all the motherboard manufacturers think about with
> each new board they release.
>

One has to be careful with both online docs as well as reviews. Cases in
point: The official feature set listed 480p as the max DVD resolution
when playing back. This is wrong, you can set it to 720p, 1080i, and
some others. I almost knew it was wrong when ordering, just held my
fingers crossed that I would be right.

The other was a review comment. Someone wrote that the copying from
tapes to DVD play does not work, that you can't do it with this unit.
Now here I was very certain that the guy just hadn't figured out how to
do it. I need this feature to transfer the occacional noise case on VHS
I get from clients (med ultrasound) to DVD, and from there onto a PC for
diagnosis. No, not a medical diagnosis :-)


> But you make a good point that a lot of the same "guts" with a different
> housing -- and the other trend, where there are, e.g., 50 new TVs
> released per year, but they're just slight "evolutions" of the previous
> year's -- doesn't provide as much choice as one might first expect.
>

And all have tha same circuit board :-)

With image recording devices it's usually all from Funai these days.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
From: Jan Panteltje on 2 Aug 2010 14:05
On a sunny day (Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:53:44 -0700) it happened Joerg
<invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in <8bo80bFhgiU1(a)mid.individual.net>:

>> Even PAL, that still gave a picture when it was almost 100% noise,
>> was sufficient perhaps to see what was 'going on', cannot compare in
>> quality to high bitrate DVB-T.
>>
>
>I prefer to be able to see the news even when totally grainy versus what
>happened yesterday night. About 80% of all digital channels pixelated
>out, blue screen, and none of the channels with news was left. Time to
>turn on grandpa's tube radio. Because those work.

Well, the news is usually bad, x killed, disaster here, war there,
heat waves, bush fires, be glad it did not work:-)
Play some good music instead.


>> I do not see the connection between 8VSB and hi-def you are making?
>>
>
>It seems the chosen standards over here were squeezed to the limits WRT
>resolution. And obviously nobody really tested this under multipath.

Those are different things, resolution depends on bitrate,
the modulation system has some influence as a choice.
For terrestrial we have 64 QAM.


>For a visit, yes. Craving a nice Pilsener from tap, you can't get that
>in the US. Gordon Biersch brew pubs come close but it still ain't the
>real thing.

Yep.


>> I have a small box for DVB-T (terrestrial), it has an USB connection.
>> ftp://panteltje.com/pub/haupppauge66.gif
>
>
>That picture is smaller than a passport photo :-)
>
>How large is that box?

Oh, let me see, 14 x 14 x 3 cm.
But I was an early adaptor to DVB-T, the boxes these days are replaced by
USB sticks:
http://www.alternate.nl/html/summaryListing.html?searchCriteria=DVB-T&cat1=074&cat2=289&cat3=000



>> I even installed a new kernel on the eeePC that can use it, so how
>> big is that? Of course the media centre PC is much bigger, But many
>> modern laptops have a HDMI output, would not be a problem, and you
>> would be able to tweak things in software. Add an other box, a 1TB
>> external harddisk. Does not look so bad.
>>
>
>I can't imagine the eeePC to properly display a fast-changing 1080
>hi-def image.

But I do not use hi-def, it has no problem with 720 p, and a VGA output.


>Encrypted doesn't do you any good. Our terrestrial HDTV isn't encrypted.

Right, do not pay for the advertising!


>> Unless you have 20/20 vision and a real
>> big screen you cannot see the difference anyways :-) So that saves
>> money :-) TV is far more advanced here, Sky will start broadcasting
>> in 3D HD shortly.
>>
>
>I definitely can see the difference between 720 and 1080. Not that
>mankind really needs that but looks nice. However, I would prefer NTSC
>over it any time because that always worked.

It all depends on the bitrate if it is worth it, even with good vision!
If they cram many channels in the same bandwidth, you get
motion blur, pixellation as you call it, loss of detail, all that.
And also the source material counts, garbage in garbage out.

>> TV recording and processing with a PC has way more possibilities.
>
>
>Yeah, but what if one doesn't need those? All we want is to record
>something and watch it later. That's it.

Now first you say that you cannot add single channels, then I say on a PCI card in the PC
you can do anything you want, then you say you do not need extra features ????
From: Joel Koltner on 2 Aug 2010 14:07
"Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:8boe6kFp58U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> The other was a review comment. Someone wrote that the copying from
> tapes to DVD play does not work, that you can't do it with this unit.
> Now here I was very certain that the guy just hadn't figured out how to
> do it. I need this feature to transfer the occacional noise case on VHS
> I get from clients (med ultrasound) to DVD, and from there onto a PC for
> diagnosis. No, not a medical diagnosis :-)

They just call you, "Dr. Noise." :-)

How old is the ultrasound equipment that still records to VHS? I'd think
they'd have upgraded to DVDs in the past handful of years, and at least had an
S-VHS option before that?

---Joel

From: mpm on 2 Aug 2010 14:47
On Aug 2, 11:11 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> > In article <8bm6dmF9d...(a)mid.individual.net>,
> >  Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Just curious: Why is it that "modern" TV/VCR/DVD devices only allow
> >> auto-scan for DTV channels but no "add some later"? As most of us know
> >> DTV is unreliable, meaning sometimes channel 6-1 pixelates out,
> >> sometimes 58-2 is gone. So upon setup it will only catch the ones that
> >> are currently receivable, which in our case is never more than 80% of
> >> digital channels. Changes all the time.
>
> >> But you can't add, it does a complete new setup, upon which Murphy says
> >> it'll miss a few channels it had detected on the previous run. That I
> >> find a rather daft technical decision. Is it just me thinking that or is
> >> the cleverness in electronics designs really taking a nose-dive?
>
> >> Sorry for the rant, but I had to let it out.
>
> > Some tuners will let you punch in the real channel in analog mode.  For
> > example, I can type "4 5 ENTER" (no dash makes it analog) and it will
> > hop to 44-1.  I use the trick to get Sacto stations that won't show up
> > in a scan but are viewable at night.
>
> With most gear that doesn't work because 44-1 could actually be near the
> old Ch 35 or soemwhere else. Stations gave up their precious VHF
> channel. HUGE mistake.
>
> > I wish I could delete obsolete mappings.
>
> Most gear actually lets you do that.
>
> --
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>
> "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
> Use another domain or send PM.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually, DTV performance on VHF isn't that great.
And TV-6 is a notoriously bad channel.

There's work afoot at the FCC right now to take TV-6 (and maybe even
TV-5) and reallocate it to the FM band.
Something I highly support doing!

Also at the FCC last week, there was a Public Notice (or Rulemaking)
on ILLR standards.
ILLR is an acronym for Individual Location Longley-Rice, the point
being, the FCC is seeking comments on the use of that model to better
predict DTV coverage.
I'm not as involved in that anymore, but I did glance at the Notice
and there were some really good gems in there.
Including a few links on Land Use Land Cover databases, etc...

But don't just automatically think VHF has great distance propagation
so it MUST be good for DTV.
Turns out, the propagation through walls is pretty bad (ray-tracing,
etc..), I think the sweet spot for OTA-DTV would be in the low-20's.
That said, I have DirecTV even though the market I'm in has more that
the average number of DTV sources (situated between two big markets).

-mpm
From: Joerg on 2 Aug 2010 16:36
Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:53:44 -0700) it happened Joerg
> <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in <8bo80bFhgiU1(a)mid.individual.net>:
>
>>> Even PAL, that still gave a picture when it was almost 100% noise,
>>> was sufficient perhaps to see what was 'going on', cannot compare in
>>> quality to high bitrate DVB-T.
>>>
>> I prefer to be able to see the news even when totally grainy versus what
>> happened yesterday night. About 80% of all digital channels pixelated
>> out, blue screen, and none of the channels with news was left. Time to
>> turn on grandpa's tube radio. Because those work.
>
> Well, the news is usually bad, x killed, disaster here, war there,
> heat waves, bush fires, be glad it did not work:-)
> Play some good music instead.
>

But one needs to know the bad news as well.

[...]

>>> I have a small box for DVB-T (terrestrial), it has an USB connection.
>>> ftp://panteltje.com/pub/haupppauge66.gif
>>
>> That picture is smaller than a passport photo :-)
>>
>> How large is that box?
>
> Oh, let me see, 14 x 14 x 3 cm.
> But I was an early adaptor to DVB-T, the boxes these days are replaced by
^^^^^^^

Hopefully not :-)


> ... USB sticks:
> http://www.alternate.nl/html/summaryListing.html?searchCriteria=DVB-T&cat1=074&cat2=289&cat3=000
>

Out here they look the same but ATSC and less expensive :-)

http://www.iunitek.com/iunitek/index.cfm?fuseaction=shop.dspSpecs&part=11224920

>
>
>>> I even installed a new kernel on the eeePC that can use it, so how
>>> big is that? Of course the media centre PC is much bigger, But many
>>> modern laptops have a HDMI output, would not be a problem, and you
>>> would be able to tweak things in software. Add an other box, a 1TB
>>> external harddisk. Does not look so bad.
>>>
>> I can't imagine the eeePC to properly display a fast-changing 1080
>> hi-def image.
>
> But I do not use hi-def, it has no problem with 720 p, and a VGA output.
>
>
>> Encrypted doesn't do you any good. Our terrestrial HDTV isn't encrypted.
>
> Right, do not pay for the advertising!
>

No, we fast forward through it. One box even has an advertising FFW
button that hops it 30sec at a time.

>
>>> Unless you have 20/20 vision and a real
>>> big screen you cannot see the difference anyways :-) So that saves
>>> money :-) TV is far more advanced here, Sky will start broadcasting
>>> in 3D HD shortly.
>>>
>> I definitely can see the difference between 720 and 1080. Not that
>> mankind really needs that but looks nice. However, I would prefer NTSC
>> over it any time because that always worked.
>
> It all depends on the bitrate if it is worth it, even with good vision!
> If they cram many channels in the same bandwidth, you get
> motion blur, pixellation as you call it, loss of detail, all that.
> And also the source material counts, garbage in garbage out.
>

Dancing with the Stars from BBC is super material, you really see a
difference.


>>> TV recording and processing with a PC has way more possibilities.
>>
>> Yeah, but what if one doesn't need those? All we want is to record
>> something and watch it later. That's it.
>
> Now first you say that you cannot add single channels, then I say on a PCI card in the PC
> you can do anything you want, then you say you do not need extra features ????


I want the regular stuff to work right, my wife will not want a nerd box
in the living room ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Air conditioner "kickstart" capacitors?
Next: computer reliability