| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 562.1 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Mon Dec 23 1991 10:11 | 10 |
| 562.2 | | HYDRA::SCHAFER | Mark Schafer, SPE MRO | Thu Apr 03 1997 10:55 | 7 |
| Today's paper says that Digital TVs will be in the stores in time for
Christmas 1998. Lots of other info, too, about prices and broadcast
channels for digital and analog.
Is this really it, or is there more to the story?
Mark
|
| 562.3 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Thu Apr 03 1997 12:09 | 14 |
| What is being discussed is a digital broadcast format. "Digital TVs", which
receive analog signals but process them digitally, have existed for years.
I have one which I bought in 1986.
Yes, it does seem likely that digital broadcast signals will be available
in the next couple of years along with TVs that will receive them - at price
premiums of $1500 or so over a comparable "analog" TV, at least at first.
The stated goal is that sometime in the future (7-15 years, depending on whom
you ask), broadcasters will stop transmitting analog signals and "return" that
spectrum to the government. You would then need an adapter to view the digital
signals on your analog sets (such will certainly be avaiable soon after
digital signals start being transmitted.)
Steve
|
| 562.4 | | JAMIN::WASSER | John A. Wasser | Thu Apr 03 1997 13:42 | 9 |
| > The stated goal is that sometime in the future (7-15 years, depending on whom
> you ask), broadcasters will stop transmitting analog signals
A news piece I just heard said that the proposed regulations
say "9 years". They also said that "some" digital broadcasting
would be required within 10 years. I guess that means that
a broadcaster that chooses not to go to digital can continue
sending analog for 9 years, then nothing for 1 year, then they
loose their license.
|
| 562.5 | Better reception? | ASDG::SBILL | | Tue Apr 08 1997 14:19 | 8 |
|
Will this provide better reception of over the air broadcasts? With analog
signals, you basically have to get perfect reception in order to get a watchable
picture. Will changing over to digital allow people in fringe areas to get a
perfect picture even with poor reception of the signal?
Steve B.
|
| 562.6 | | SOLVIT::SNORAT::OLOUGHLIN | The fun begins at 80! | Tue Apr 08 1997 14:53 | 10 |
|
Another question please.
How does Digital TV broadcast into a DTV stack up against
DVD and LDs?
Rick.
|
| 562.7 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Tue Apr 08 1997 16:04 | 13 |
| Re: .5
It might do better, but the DTV signals are in the UHF band, which typically
has more problems with reception than the VHF band.
Re: .6
The HDTV signal is potentially better than both DVD and LD. DVD and LD are
neck-and-neck in overall picture quality, but a lot depends on the program
material and how it is mastered onto the disc. DVD has less chroma noise than
LD, but LD's resolution is consistently good whereas DVD can be variable.
Steve
|
| 562.8 | | NPSS::NEWTON | Thomas Newton | Wed Apr 09 1997 00:22 | 16 |
|
The last I heard, the broadcasters and the computer industry "agreed to
disagree" on HDTV signal formats.
- The broadcasters want to use some fixed number of interlaced (TV
style) resolutions. Their interest is in grabbing onto the free
spectrum being given away by the Government before someone wakes
up and starts charging for it.
- The computer industry wants to use a non-interlaced picture, and
to let the resolutions be programmable. (This alternative would
make it easier to use a HDTV set as a computer monitor and would
also provide higher picture quality.)
It is up to buyers to determine which format lives ... and to determine
whether their new HDTV set is compatible with their programming sources.
|