High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

High Definition News & Informative Articles Get the Latest High Definition News & Informative Articles Here! Please post newsworthy information here only! This forum is NOT for your first post. Thank you!

LG Wins DTV Converter Box Certification

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-17-2007, 07:39 PM   #31  
Muscle Cars Forever!
Thread Starter
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,074
Default

Best Buy Exits Analog TV

http://www.twice.com/article/CA64921...?desc=topstory
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2007, 10:23 PM   #32  
Sony KD34XS955
 

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Pointe-Claire QC
Posts: 2,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
Ahhh that sorta/kinda makes sense, except I still have some questions:
However, why is S-video not allowed on these converter boxes?
S-video is allowed on the converter boxes, but it is not a mandatory feature.

The mandatory outputs are coaxial (user switchable between channels 3 and 4) and composite-video with stereo audio. A coaxial cable must be supplied with the boxes but other cables are optional.

Last edited by BrianO; 10-17-2007 at 10:36 PM..
BrianO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2007, 05:21 AM   #33  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianO View Post
However, there is one "allowable" output that I would have liked to see included: viz. S-Video. Note: "Allowable" features are ones that are not in the NTIA list of required features but do not disqualify the Box from certification for the rebate coupon program.
I agree 100%. A digital-to-analog converter without S-video will look like crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck View Post
Again, the reason for the restrictions are to reduce the coupon redemption to as few people as possible.
You mean you BELIEVE that is the reason. You do not know for certain and/or have it backed-up with a citation.

I repeat my question (rephrased):
- Why is the gov't concerned someone with an HD monitor would buy a digital-to-analog converter? Nobody's going to want to watch fuzzy standard def Analog on their shiny new HD set.

Thus the gov't is putting restrictions, to discourage "rich" HD owers, who never had any interest to begin with (because they want an HD receiver, not an SD Analog receiver). These restrictions address problems that don't even exist, as is typical with most government programs. ME, I want to use the coupon for my old analog sets, and also my parents' sets, but if they don't come with an S-video output, then that's supremely stupid. S-video should have been listed under the "allowable" category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY View Post
Why does our government always meddle in things that don't concern them? Why do they get to decide what features are "too much"?
Social Engineering. The belief by politicians that *they* can run your life, better than you can do it, thus they try to limit your freedom to just pre-approved choices.

Like 1984.

And government-run monopolies.

Last edited by electrictroy; 10-18-2007 at 05:43 AM..
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2007, 08:53 PM   #34  
Muscle Cars Forever!
Thread Starter
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,074
Default

Quote:
I agree 100%. A digital-to-analog converter without S-video will look like crap.
Troy . . can I have a link that proves this?

Something that compares S-Video to Composite
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 01:21 AM   #35  
Progress Not Perfection
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
A digital-to-analog converter without S-video will look like crap.
Digital to analog, modulated to Channel 3 or 4 would be about as good a signal as one could get, and most likely better than any NTSC set has ever seen before.
Scottnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 04:02 AM   #36  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Sorry Scott but that's false. I've spent a lot of time watching DVDs and games on my set, and you CAN get a better picture with better cables. To summarize:

- RF modulating to channels 3 or 4 == shit (picks-up interference from other electronics)
- Compositing chroma/luma == blurry & lo-resolution (420x480) since the C and L interfere with one another
- S-video == separated video == sharp images (700x480 with a clean source like DVD or PS2 or DTV)

I use S-video for all my DVD viewing and gaming, because the lesser standards are not acceptable quality.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
Troy . . can I have a link that proves this? Something that compares S-Video to Composite
So Lee's not really as smart as people think. Someone as "knowledgeable" as Lee ought to already know that S-video is superior to Composite. And why. Link:
http://curmudgeongamer.com/article.p...30909201123731
-and- http://nfggames.com/games/ntsc/

Last edited by electrictroy; 10-19-2007 at 04:32 AM..
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 06:50 AM   #37  
Progress Not Perfection
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
Sorry Scott but that's false. I've spent a lot of time watching DVDs and games on my set, and you CAN get a better picture with better cables. To summarize:

- RF modulating to channels 3 or 4 == shit (picks-up interference from other electronics)
Sorry, totally incorrect. It can be poor if implimented poorly (example a Radio Shack RF modulator using composite input to RF output for $19.95 = garbage in, garbage out.

However, if starting with a full definition SD digital signal, conversion to baseband analog and modulating onto an RF carrier will provide the best possible input signal for a standard tv - far superior to either composite of S-video. (I have no idea what wiki might mean by "picks-up interference from other electronics. They're just plain incorrect here.)


Quote:
- Compositing chroma/luma == blurry & lo-resolution (420x480) since the C and L interfere with one another

- S-video == separated video == sharp images (700x480 with a clean source like DVD or PS2 or DTV)
I totally agree that S-video provides a superior picture over composite, - they both pass only 480i signals except S-video indeed separates the C and L signal components. Yes, anyone who has ever compared the two has readily seen the difference.
Scottnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 08:01 AM   #38  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Scottnot-

I'm certainly not an expert in RF transmission of TV signals.

Are you saying that an NTSC RF signal is not a composite signal--i.e. the chroma and luma are always transmitted seperately with no interaction from source to TV transmitter to TV receiver to screen?

If that's not the case, then I don't see how the RF signal could be anywhere near as good as S-Video. The interaction between the chroma and luma produces all sorts of undesirable crosstalk that usually requires limiting the bandwidth of the luma signal processor and even then you still get dot crawl, false colors and aliasing.
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 01:02 PM   #39  
Progress Not Perfection
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,715
Default

Can you please wait just a moment for my reply, I'm heating up a bit of crow to dine on while I write my response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY View Post
I'm certainly not an expert in RF transmission of TV signals.

Are you saying that an NTSC RF signal is not a composite signal--i.e. the chroma and luma are always transmitted seperately with no interaction from source to TV transmitter to TV receiver to screen?
Hope I didn't say that, because they are (or should be) identical, that is 4.2 mHz bandwidth containing chroma, luma and sync data.
The only difference is that composite is baseband while NTSC RF is modulated onto the channel carrier frequency. Note: in the case of NTSC RF, channel 3 = 60-66 mHz; picture carrier centered at 61.25 mHz; audio carrier at 65.75mHz.

Why should RF coaxial be "best" in the analog world? Consider OTA content; the signal arrives at your house as a composite signal that has been generated using studio quality equipment - it is obviously the "best" that you can get; any processing either to a separate composite cable or to S-video can only make it worse. It any event, it must be processed either by a seperate box or the tv itself and indeed, the croma and luma signals must be extracted.

Quote:
If that's not the case, then I don't see how the RF signal could be anywhere near as good as S-Video. The interaction between the chroma and luma produces all sorts of undesirable crosstalk that usually requires limiting the bandwidth of the luma signal processor and even then you still get dot crawl, false colors and aliasing.
In the case which this thread is addressing, no doubt, I was incorrect.
Since the original (and "best possible") signal is digital and therefore the chroma and luma components have already been separated by studio quality equipment, the more that they are "put back together", the greater the deterioration in pq.
So, I humbly revise my earlier comment as follows:
S-Video = should be the best possible output
Composite or RF coax will be lower quality than S-Video, but most likely equal in pq.

Sorry for the screw-up.
Scottnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 01:32 PM   #40  
Muscle Cars Forever!
Thread Starter
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
Sorry Scott but that's false. I've spent a lot of time watching DVDs and games on my set, and you CAN get a better picture with better cables. To summarize:

- RF modulating to channels 3 or 4 == shit (picks-up interference from other electronics)
- Compositing chroma/luma == blurry & lo-resolution (420x480) since the C and L interfere with one another
- S-video == separated video == sharp images (700x480 with a clean source like DVD or PS2 or DTV)

I use S-video for all my DVD viewing and gaming, because the lesser standards are not acceptable quality.



So Lee's not really as smart as people think. Someone as "knowledgeable" as Lee ought to already know that S-video is superior to Composite. And why. Link:
http://curmudgeongamer.com/article.p...30909201123731
-and- http://nfggames.com/games/ntsc/
That's your link? You have to be kidding me! How about something technical - not some fourm members observations.

How about something that discusses TV as opposed to gaming!

I asked you for the link because i wanted to see how smart you are. So far - not so smart.

Here . . . try this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Video

See that they handle the same bandwidth. The difference on the display will be a minimunal improvement at best.

Last edited by Lee Stewart; 10-19-2007 at 01:37 PM..
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 02:26 PM   #41  
Progress Not Perfection
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
That's Here . . . try this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Video
Interesting that the wiki article says:
Quote:
To summarize (for PAL formats substitute 576 instead of 486):

RF modulating to channels 3 or 4 == lots of interference from other electronics
Compositing chroma/luma == blurry & low-resolution (420x486 typical) due to C/Y crosstalk
S-video == Separated video == sharp images (approximately 700x480 when using a DVD source)
Indicating that composite is "blurry & low-resolution" while S-video provides "sharp images" and implies higher resolutions.

Quote:
See that they handle the same bandwidth. The difference on the display will be a minimunal improvement at best.
Here is another on the same topic.
http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/svideo.html

It's been pretty well established for quite some time now that S-video is superior to composite.
Scottnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 02:35 PM   #42  
Muscle Cars Forever!
Thread Starter
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,074
Default

NTSC is 640x480i. That is what is being broadcast from the transmitters. The Hort. Res. is 330 lines. (VHS was 240 and LD was 400)

We are not discussing DVD. We are discussing the transition from Analog TV to Digital TV .

So forget DVD . . it doesn't apply.

Stick to the thread subject and don't go off on a tangent.

The people who are going to buy a A to D converter will have a 4x3 NTSC TV. Most will be 36" or less. (display size)

Last edited by Lee Stewart; 10-19-2007 at 02:39 PM..
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 04:01 PM   #43  
Administrator
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 16,971
Default

I agrre with Lee on the difference in improvement between s-video and composite would be minimal at best. And that would only be on certian equipment. You know about the composite to s-video and s-video to composite adapters? Well, guess what? Some equipment just build them in to allow for the two connections. Internally the signals on these are either treated as composite or are derived from the composite signals so all of the merits of s-video is lost anyway. That's truly when it won't make any difference.

As far as it being my opinion that the reason for the restrictions on the converter (tuner) boxes being that they intend to cause fewer coupons to be redeemed, yes it is my opinion. I doubt any official would say so either. Frankly, I'm suprised they allow any connection other than the RF myself, but I suppose the analog connections was to accomodate a VCR or such.
rbinck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 05:11 PM   #44  
What's all this, then?...
 
BobY's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,197
Default

Ehh, it's really a moot point since S-Video connectors are not forbidden.

If your 4:3 analog TV has a real S-Video input (i.e., it doesn't recombine the S-Video signals back into Composite Video before using it, then an ATSC DTV-to-S-Video box would give you the best results.

Although for a given signal from the tuner, the luma signal technically doesn't have higher bandwidth on S-Video as compared to Composite (the bandwidth is determined by the incoming signal), in practice, the Composite Video processing circuitry in the TV routinely filters the signal to reduce interaction between the Luma and Chroma, so the S-Video version will look sharper on the same signal. Also, it eliminates the color fringing and other issues when the Luma modulates the Chroma and vice versa.

The best possible result would be DTV-to-Component Video outputs, since you avoid all the problems with NTSC phase-encoded color, but there probably aren't that many analog-only TV's with Component Video inputs.
BobY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 05:24 PM   #45  
Muscle Cars Forever!
Thread Starter
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobY View Post
Ehh, it's really a moot point since S-Video connectors are not forbidden.

If your 4:3 analog TV has a real S-Video input (i.e., it doesn't recombine the S-Video signals back into Composite Video before using it, then an ATSC DTV-to-S-Video box would give you the best results.

Although for a given signal from the tuner, the luma signal technically doesn't have higher bandwidth on S-Video as compared to Composite (the bandwidth is determined by the incoming signal), in practice, the Composite Video processing circuitry in the TV routinely filters the signal to reduce interaction between the Luma and Chroma, so the S-Video version will look sharper on the same signal. Also, it eliminates the color fringing and other issues when the Luma modulates the Chroma and vice versa.

The best possible result would be DTV-to-Component Video outputs, since you avoid all the problems with NTSC phase-encoded color, but there probably aren't that many analog-only TV's with Component Video inputs.
1997 and on they were very popular to go with DVD so there may be more than you realize. That's 9 years of production. But I am guessing that this connection will be limited to 32" and above size TV's. AFAIK - all NTSC RPTV's had it.

As far as the Composite connection - the 3D Comb filter would seperate the chroma from the luma and some TV's had very good ones.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


to LG Wins DTV Converter Box Certification
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Comcast box hd converter? madkiwi Cable Providers 3 07-05-2009 05:34 PM
Motorola HDT101 vs. Samsung SIR-T451 jeffkrug Local HDTV Info and Reception 8 02-02-2008 02:18 PM
Verizon and DTV ivanl DirecTV Forum 1 07-06-2007 06:44 PM
Halliburton WINS No Bid Contract to Supply Converter Boxes HondoHDTV Local HDTV Info and Reception 2 03-15-2007 04:01 AM
High Def Converter Box wrecker29 Cable Providers 1 08-13-2004 08:57 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:12 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands