Broadcasting Strikes Back

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#1
ATSC 2.0, ATSC 3.0 And The Future of TV

ATSC is developing further enhancements to DTV, collectively called ATSC 2.0. The new standards will bring to broadcasting all the features modern media consumers have come to expect from their TVs, tablets, and pocketable media players—and maybe even some features they don’t yet know they want.

Among other perks, ATSC 2.0 will enable newer receivers to store programs, clips, and movies locally for playback on demand. It will also let viewers subscribe to additional free or paid broadcast channels and personalize the look of their displays as well as the programs and advertising they receive. And there’s at least one potential game changer: ATSC 2.0 will take advantage of Internet-connected TVs by enabling broadcasters to integrate online content, such as voting platforms or social networking services, into shows delivered over the air. For instance, viewers could pick, in real time, the winners of contestant game shows, such as “Dancing With the Stars.” Or, while watching a broadcast news program, they could read relevant hyperlocal updates on their TV screens, tablets, or phones.
Advanced digital standards like ATSC 2.0 may be just the key to revitalizing the broadcast industry within the next decade. But technology, like the modern television viewer, never sits still for long. To provide really transformative services in the future, broadcasters will need to completely overhaul digital systems. As receivers get smarter, display sizes grow and shrink, and techniques for packaging, labeling, and modulating data advance, existing digital standards won’t be able to sufficiently support them. In anticipation, the ATSC and other standards organizations have already begun work on third-generation standards, which, unlike MDTV and ATSC 2.0, won’t be compatible with today’s receivers.
Read More: The Broadcast Empire Strikes Back

This is a great article that will tell you lots about digital television broadcasting. While I may not like the idea of having a new non-backward compatable standard, I certainly understand the forward motion of technology. After all, in 1995 we were living in a world where a computer server with a 1 G hard drive was considered to be "plenty of storage." Now, I have 36 times that on my low end 7" tablet.
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#2
The question I have is:
Will TV manufacturers and broadcasters support all this?

For example, current PSIP is capable of providing fairly detailed programming data several days out. Many broadcasters and most TV manufacturers don't even try to put it to good use for a decent program guide, or to program a DVR.
 

qubeular

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#5
i dont think broadcasters have really explored all of atsc 1.0 yet. from what i have read atsc supports the sif resolution. which is apparently a common, if not the most common digital catv "standard-def" resolution. this could really open up the market in terms of how many acceptable quality video streams can be broadcast through one television channel. theoretically up to about 20 per channel. that means more programming. that also means rural areas wouldnt have to go too far in numbers of low power repeaters to get the programming distributed. and as well more power could be devoted into lowering antenna requirements as well, as increasing range. and freeing up raw bandwidth as well.
 

nbound-au

The Graveyard Shift
#6
SIF (240/288p) is lower resolution than SD CATV (480i) and would look horrible. Watching the lowest quality youtube videos on a 50in screen isnt pretty, this would be the broadcast equivalent. The main reason for repeaters isnt weak transmitters, its terrain shielding, no matter how much signal you point at Mountain XYZ, very little signal will be in its RF shadow.
 

Jim5506

DTVUSA Member
#8
I don't think so. An interlaced NTSC 480i frame is comprised of two fields of 240 lines each.
But the frame itself contains 480 lines.

A digital display wil display the two fields simultaneously making a frame of 480 lines.

An analog display has persistemce as does human vision so we see 480 lines even if they are not displayed simultaneously.

240/288p would be horrendous on anything over a 15 inch screen.
 

qubeular

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#9
it is to be said. many if not most of these people do not in fact have hdtvs or giant power and expensive bulb hungry projectors. as i have mentioned and perhaps suprisingly digital catv set top boxes were apparently designed to run sif resolution material exclusively. if any of you all have had as i have mentioned, in quotes no less, "standard-def" digital catv it was very likely this resolution again exclusively.

this is television for most if not all of us, not just some of us.

it is quite suprising that i would get so many posts of people trying to correct me on this when they themselves either hadnt read or simply glossed over the post so readily they missed the point.

lets not beat around the bush here, i am trying to appeal to station operators here to try out sif as a means for getting ME more channels for free. as they had done when i was paying them.

not trying to start a flame war.
 
Last edited:

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#10
qubeular, I agree with you on some points but I think that most cable providers are using 480 lines of resolution.

You can easily tell what resolution cable providers are carrying in your area from SiliconDust's channel lineup page:

Channels | Welcome to SiliconDust

Enter your ZIP and you will get a report of channels in the area. They have for both digital antenna (OTA) and cable (unencrypted aka "Clear QAM").

For my area (Northwest NJ) for example:
http://www.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/lineup_web/US:07461#lineup_9567972


Time warner in Los Angeles, CA:
http://www.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/lineup_web/US:90036#lineup_9568067

Comcast in Philly:
http://www.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/lineup_web/US:19120#lineup_9562946

FiOS in Tampa FL:
http://www.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/lineup_web/US:33602#lineup_9563497

Most of the SD channels are 704x480, 720x480 or similar. Nothing less than 480 lines of resolution.
 
Last edited:

qubeular

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#11
hmm, i didnt know that website existed. still, as i can see, some channels are listed as a close second in resolution as 352x480 which i see as can exist on a bandwidth of around 2 megabits. still around ten steams per channel. and i refuse to accept that these streams cant be passed to endpoints at a lower frame size. if i had the chance i would try it. its really is the diffrence between some poor soul breaking his or her neck falling off a roof and not. and importantly as well, the diffrence between me getting qubo or not!


as well, that isnt to say these endpoints didnt or simply can not parse mpeg2 sif at any point past present or future. nor am i to assume that the community at large would be aganst me on this. simply beause some bulb starved yahoo wouldnt want to know the video shlepped up on the screen of that horrid dlp machine was any less in quality than the perhaps only the most money crazed blu-ray tzar could contrive.

wiping tears from my eyes for a moment. i want create, and me, and bounce, and ion, and live well, and...
 
Last edited:

nbound-au

The Graveyard Shift
#12
it is to be said. many if not most of these people do not in fact have hdtvs or giant power and expensive bulb hungry projectors. as i have mentioned and perhaps suprisingly digital catv set top boxes were apparently designed to run sif resolution material exclusively. if any of you all have had as i have mentioned, in quotes no less, "standard-def" digital catv it was very likely this resolution again exclusively.
Well I dont know about the US, but here, most people have at least one reasonably sized LCD/LED/Plasma display, if not two or three.

As for low bandwidth channels, we have quite a few, and they look that horrible, they are reserved for shopping channels. Even CCTV footage is generally of a higher resolution than SIF.
PAL SD is 720x576i, yet these channels are often broadcast at 544x576i or 480x576i. The bitrate is approx 2Mbps each. A normal PAL SD channel here is ~4Mbps, with HD being 8-10Mbps. The difference between these shopping channels and standard tv is very noticable.

If you want more channels you are better off pushing for them to be broadcast in MPEG4 compression.
 

qubeular

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#13
as well, i could see if sif or 352x480 ( i forget the name) could perhaps be used in a transition to the new avc video format. in avc it would be possible for hd(720p) to be pushed at around 2 megabits, along side with this lower frame size and importantly compatable stream. yes, forcing the hd heads to upgrade. and perhaps putting their now older endpoints onto the used market. and again if this compatable stream is pushed alongside the newer standard hd stream. there is no loss of programing combined with an aproximate 2/1 reduction in bandwidth.

of course it is or will be possible to fit about 40x512k video streams into a standard 8vsb channel.

should, again, sif be used as a frame size. this quality will in fact be a bit better than the basic youtube quality in some more important metrics. the image will or would be slightly softer with the tradeoff being less bit starving, visibly less ringing and macroblocking. since the frame size will be reduced from 640x360 to in this case 320x240, about a third the pixels.

it really is quite exiting.

and in response to the above post. the problem with these lower frame size channels is they dont lower the frame size enough for the given bandwidth. it is quite a shame and really taints the water for these assumed lower quality channels. and more importantly stifles the chance for these new and likely perhaps very entertaining new channels to thrive.
 
Last edited:

qubeular

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#15
perhaps the operators at those stations dont care enough about maintaining the appropriate video quality outright. they wouldnt likely tell you others this under any circumstance for fear of losing a job. i can tell you that i am and have been watching video for years that would fit apropriatley 20x on a standard atsc channel using that resolution.

and i hate to say i am joe public, yet, nothing will convice me otherwise on this.

i mean,

im on slashdot reading and article about how since computers are simply fast enough these days that sales are down, and i can concur. the first few posts nevertheless remain as contived as ever in the most overt jabs toward microsoft blaming them as such, that the now start button-less windows 8 had done it primarily.

i simply cant rule out incompetence and/or politics on this matter.
 
Last edited:

nbound-au

The Graveyard Shift
#16
perhaps the operators at those stations dont care enough about maintaining the appropriate video quality outright. they wouldnt likely tell you others this under any circumstance for fear of losing a job. i can tell you that i am and have been watching video for years that would fit apropriatley 20x on a standard atsc channel using that resolution.

and i hate to say i am joe public, yet, nothing will convice me otherwise on this.
Yep, the people trained and experienced to do this job dont know anything, and joe public who has "been watching video for years" is 100% correct, and is infalliable on the subject. Its all a biiiiiiig conspiracy isnt it?

Noone is denying its an interesting idea in theory, but in practice it would, and does look horrible.
 

qubeular

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#17
i encode the video. rhetorically, have you ever seen what it actually looks like looks like? from what i gather, you havent. also, for conspiracies theres a rule that states that what one could perhaps ascribe to malevolence can and maybe more often than not apparently be explained as simple incompetence, as you may already have heard.

and if i havent made this clear enough the reason for these posts is to perhaps form a basis of a foundation for some curious broadcast engineer(s) to look into decreasing the frame size or other similar methods as a way to provide people with more useful programming. i really think its worth trying out as it could be the next step, and could just prove to be whats necessary in really cutting down on headaches as dtv becomes more and more of a viable alternative to traditional cable tv.
 
Last edited:

nbound-au

The Graveyard Shift
#18
i encode the video. rhetorically, have you ever seen what it actually looks like looks like? from what i gather, you havent.
Ive been "watching" and encoding/transcoding video for many years myself. Both within and outside of the industry.

Encoding a few videos does not make "Joe Public" an expert on the matter, nor is he qualified to claim anything about the knowledge of people in the industry. Whats more likely, one random citizen is an infalliable source of information, or an an entire industry consisting of thousands of people is just really silly and does not know a thing about what they do for a living, despite trade or university qualifications stating otherwise.

for conspiracies theres a rule that states that what one could perhaps ascribe to malevolence can and maybe more often than not apparently be explained as simple incompetence, as you may already have heard.
Or how about the common sense rule, more often than not, conspiracies just plain arent true.


You've made up your mind anyway, so I wont be commenting any further on this particular topic, just hoping to prevent others from being misled by something that sounds good, but in reality would deliver poor results.
 

qubeular

DTVUSA Jr. Member
#19
i cant agree about the quality assertions.

and as much is i would like to console myself with the notion that i am somehow too closely likened in my own mind, to a millionare fighting over a candybar.

simply: Please, sir, I want some more.

in reference to the amount of channels i can recieve, of course.

"time will tell."

insofar most known conspiracies can be ascribed to cognitive bias. and are more often likely explained as being religious in nature than anything else.


i could find that this bias against providing viewers with more programming over some possibly contrived "fear" of providing the people with what they may moreover want. i liken it almost to saving the blue m+ms for last. simply, amongst other things hedging the bandwidth for the coming avc craze without remorse for economic and ecological ramifications.

as a partial aside: importantly i would like to see these neat netflix set-top boxes have the capability of making use of sdr usb devices. simple enough (in theory.) atsc 2 and 3 compatability through software updates.

no requirement for any change in sampling hardware, as things should be, sounds like a viable reality.
 
Last edited:
#20
Or how about the common sense rule, more often than not, conspiracies just plain arent true.
I don't think this is common sense at all. Everybody conspires with everybody else all the time. The problem is you can hardly ever PROVE a given conspiracy, because effective conspirators aren't idiots. And you can hardly ever be sure WHICH conspiracy is the operative one, since there are usually multiple competing possibilities.

But there's little doubt conspiracies are a prime mover in history. Simple example: did top officials in the German Nazi party conspire to massacre Jews during WWII? Of course they did, and it was all too effective. :(
 

Similar threads

Top