Jump to content

Abc3 - Devoted To Kid's Programs


Recommended Posts

Go for Moe,

Mobile DTV comes to reality as well as the CES article.

AlanH

You just don't get it do you alanh. No one disputes that ATSC has spec'd MPEG4 AVC for transmission. What everyone disputes is your claim that the USA is transmitting MPEG4 AVC for the sub channels. It just isn't happening. Are you going to face reality or not? I can see that this has already degenerated into another "PS & SBR must be used in DAB+ transmissions" situation where you refuse to accept reality.

Perhaps this quote from the article you linked will convince you...

In the United States, AVC is unlikely to be used in the near future for regular DTV broadcasting because the large installed base of MPEG-2 integrated receivers and set-top boxes in this country would be unable to decode such programming.

Hmm. That sounds like a familiar situation too, but I can't think of which country it applies to. Can you? ^_^

In their press release on AVC, for the first time in public, the ATSC refers to "ATSC 2.0."

Incidentally, part of 'ATSC 2.0' is support in the receiver for SFNs. ATSC SFNs are already possible (and with transmission zones measured in tens of miles). However, slight changes to the receiver need to be made to do it and while the ability has been in new ATSC receivers for some time it has not been part of the official standard. 'ATSC 2.0' remedies that.

How about we strike a deal. If ABC3 transmits as MPEG4 AVC instead of MPEG2 you can lord it all over us and bounce around the forum proclaiming 'I told you so, I told you so!' and I'll eat a nice big slice of humble pie. Until such time, please please please give it a rest. These endless MPEG4 AVC threads of yours where you make claims that simply are not borne out by reality really are becoming tiresome.

Edited by DrP
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

They currently use 395kbps on datacasting services that over 99.9% of viewers cannot use, which is enough for them to fit Dig Country in, but as I doubt g12345567 actually wanted to listen to the station, it isn't really important.

Hmm. It used to be much higher than 395kbit/sec, I haven't looked at the rate for about 6 months now. Do you know when it was lowered? ~400kbit/sec = 2 192k 'radio' stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this thread has been active overnight...

It will happen. The question is when.
And that is the question.

But you were saying it won't happen until 2013 (that is what your words said, I believe). And as the major metro areas won't be on a full, established digital basis until 2014 timeframe, it seems rather early for MPEG-4 to be used as the main standard.

MPEG4 decoding does not increase the price because of its use in ...
Spoken like an engineer, however since when have engineers set the price on these things? If it is a feature that people want, or even better need, expect a price premium.
The date will be when all analog TV is switched off to ensure the maximum number of MPEG4 receivers.
There's that indirect reference to 2013 again.

The 'maximum' number of MPEG-4 receivers will most likely continue to rise after analogue switch off.

By that time Digital TV has been transmitted in the major markets for 13 years.
I don't think anyone would disagree that the introduction of digital television in this country has been very poorly handled. That doesn't make a strong case for MPEG-4 as such though, does it?
As for being ambitious, look what happened to mobile phones. Analog to CDMA and then to 3G (NextG)
Market uptake is usually driven by peoples' interest in things. Mobile 'phones are much more common, and a must-have for the majority of the population.

That isn't the case for digital receivers.

Edited by charlesc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. It used to be much higher than 395kbit/sec, I haven't looked at the rate for about 6 months now. Do you know when it was lowered? ~400kbit/sec = 2 192k 'radio' stations.

A TS from this time last year shows two separate ones totalling around 400, and one from 6 months ago has the same 395. Perhaps there's a difference in Melbourne?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who can tell with ABC. About 6 months ago (from memory) the AC3 audio on the SD program was reduced to 256k in regional QLD and I'm fairly confident that the applet streams were up around 900k then. No explanation for the lower AC3 bit rate was forthcoming. If you were seeing two 400k streams then that's probably where I got the impression of about 900k from too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



If you were seeing two 400k streams then that's probably where I got the impression of about 900k from too.

These were using 0.19 Mbps and 0.14 Mbps respectively from a June 2008 TS reading

Stream Type: 0x05 ISO/IEC 13818-1 private_sections PID 7981 (0x1f2d)

Descriptor: Private Data Indicator Descriptor

4f 54 56 00 OTV.

Descriptor: User Private Descriptor: 0x90

90 .

Descriptor: User Private Descriptor: 0xfe

50 55 42 00 PUB.

Stream Type: 0x05 ISO/IEC 13818-1 private_sections PID 7982 (0x1f2e)

Descriptor: Private Data Indicator Descriptor

4f 54 56 00 OTV.

Descriptor: User Private Descriptor: 0x90

90 .

Descriptor: User Private Descriptor: 0xfe

50 55 42 01 PUB.

But looking further at it, it isn't seemingly the same thing, yet still was using a lot more bandwidth than normal.

And this was reading 0.40 Mbps from November last year:

Stream Type: 0x0b ISO/IEC 13818-6 type B PID 6000 (0x1770)

Descriptor: Stream Indentifier Descriptor

40 @

Descriptor: ISO/IEC 13818-1 Reserved Descriptor: 0x13

00 00 00 04 00 .....

Descriptor: ISO/IEC 13818-1 Reserved Descriptor: 0x14

00 40 00 00 08 80 01 00 00 ff ff ff ff .@...........

Descriptor: Data Broadcast ID Descriptor

Data Broadcast ID: 240 Selector Bytes:

A current one shows the same as ^.

All very strange. I tried to find software that would decode it, but it crashed when watching the channel with it (though the MHP icon lit up).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DrP,

You have not read my post properly, where was the reference to the CES?

CES

I am responding to the statement that MPEG4 is used in ATSC transmissions in the US. The point being that the price of adding MPEG4 decoding is not a big issue.

Somebody commented that Blu-ray players are $1000 they are half that price. However what does this price consist of? How much is the MPEG4 decoder as compared to the mechanics, motor control etc. Also for retailers it is a premium product so they can charge a premium price. If every receiver must contain MPEG4 decoder chips then it will not be a charge extra for this model situation.

AlanH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am responding to the statement that MPEG4 is used in ATSC transmissions in the US.

Oh I've read the articles alanh and unlike you I've taken time to understand them. As usual you have read part of a document and then made completely incorrect assumptions as to what is happening in reality. US broadcasters are (and have been for some time) transmitting 'sub channels' as MPEG2. The MPEG4 AVC services referenced in the CES article are separate and in addition to these existing 'second' channels programs. I might add that at this point in time, even more contrary to your claim, these services are not actually present for public use.

Not that any of it matters anyway. How the USA broadcasting MPEG4 AVC to portable devices via 'ATSC 2.0' affects the transmission of Australian DVB-t TV stations for fixed receivers is completely beyond me. Perhaps you could explain how you link the two very disparate markets and methods, alanh. This might come as a shock to you to, but DVB has a mobile mode that supports the use of MPEG4 AVC too. What effect has this had upon Australian terrestrial DVB-t transmissions? I think 'zip' describes it quite nicely.

MPEG4 decoding does not increase the price because of its use in all blu-ray players, HD receivers in Europe and NZ. It is also present in all HD satellite receivers including those used for Foxtel HD and the US HBO. It is also being used for a second channel added to USA's ASTC TV transmission.

You made a quite clear and distinct claim. You have been called upon to provide supporting evidence for your claim and you have failed to do so. Why is that? Yes, that's right. The claim has been proven to be incorrect.

A question, alanh. Do you finally accept, in the light of 'ATSC 2.0' that ATSC supports SFNs and has supported SFNs for quite some time?

If every receiver must contain MPEG4 decoder chips then it will not be a charge extra for this model situation.

In much the same way that DAB+ receivers are not charged at outrageous premiums. Oh wait, basic DAB+ sets are quite expensive, aren't they?

Edited by DrP
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Somebody commented that Blu-ray players are $1000 they are half that price. However what does this price consist of? How much is the MPEG4 decoder as compared to the mechanics, motor control etc. Also for retailers it is a premium product so they can charge a premium price. If every receiver must contain MPEG4 decoder chips then it will not be a charge extra for this model situation.

A Blu-Ray player with a DVB-T tuner is $1000, a plain blu-ray player is indeed half that, it was a response to your idea that blu-ray players are somehow an installed base of MPEG-4 decoding devices for DVB-T use.

You said "MPEG4 decoding does not increase the price because of its use in all blu-ray players", which is entirely irrelevant unless you were talking about such a device that does do DVB and Blu Ray, which are all prohibitively expensive.

The premium for MPEG-4 is well demonstrated by the fact that a Topfield HD MPEG-2 box is on sale for $128 at Dick Smith this week. Topfield's MPEG-4 capable Freeview box is $229.00. The DG-Tech is $99.00 in MPEG-2 form and $189.00 with MPEG-4 support. Doubling the price does not constitute a small premium at this price point.

Now in the minds of a viewer, why would they purchase MPEG-4 equipment as a deliberate choice when there is nothing broadcasting? Why would you broadcast MPEG-4 when no one owns the equipment?

Eventually that is going to break on one side, and not by ABC3 being in MPEG-4, it will be by consumers eventually replacing equipment with new stuff. My first STB is still working well, but it has long since been replaced with a HD box, and later a HD integrated TV. Eventually every new TV will have it built in, because other parts of the world are going MPEG-4 (either because they waited for digital this long, like NZ, or they never had HD, like the UK), then the majority of STBs will be MPEG-4 capable, with the MPEG-2 only ones rare. So in 10-15 years time, we will have an installed base of MPEG-4 receivers large enough to make a switch.

A MPEG-4 switch now will create market confusion, two 'digitals' is confusing enough when explaining HD vs SD, imagine trying to explain to someone their newly bought plasma doesn't have a new enough tuner to watch an ABC kids channel.

No one is arguing against MPEG-4, but it is not its time yet. We need to definitely wait at least 5 years after analogue is turned off before even thinking of another transition, because consumers don't care about bit rates. How often do you see people watch the SD channel during native HD programming on a big screen? They honestly wouldn't notice if ABC3 was MPEG1 at 2Mbps 288i.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing at all wrong with DVB-t. In many ways DVB-t is superior to ATSC, not forgetting that by selecting DVB over ATSC we have a wealth of receivers at our disposal.

The issue is that certain members are overly optimistic WRT the arrival date of MPEG4, although over time we have slowly but steadily been making these people come to realise that MPEG4 is some time off yet. One person in particular has now adjusted his position to 2013 (still a tad early IMO) but far closer to the 10-15 year time table many have been stating for many years now than his previous 'now' and 'yesterday' comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing at all wrong with DVB-t. In many ways DVB-t is superior to ATSC, not forgetting that by selecting DVB over ATSC we have a wealth of receivers at our disposal.

The issue is that certain members are overly optimistic WRT the arrival date of MPEG4, although over time we have slowly but steadily been making these people come to realise that MPEG4 is some time off yet. One person in particular has now adjusted his position to 2013 (still a tad early IMO) but far closer to the 10-15 year time table many have been stating for many years now than his previous 'now' and 'yesterday' comments.

I bet he has still got the Receipt and Original box that the STB came with ready to hand back to Hardly Normal for an Exchange. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites



...that can handle 2 HD MPEG4.10

Hopefully, sooner or later, with all the article reading that is going on, the 'conventional' way of referring to the standards will become more obvious.

...high-quality decoding of MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4.

...from 1988 to 1995 and has participated to the making of the MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 Video standards

...The SMP8640 family provides highly-integrated solutions for products requiring high-definition MPEG-4.10 (H.264), SMPTE 421M (VC-1), AVS, WMV9, MPEG-4.2 and MPEG-2 decoding.

Caps and Hyphens.

The more they're written differently, the more that gets picked up and used by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles,

The broadcast version is called MPEG4 Part 10 or +H234 which are the same thing but labelled by different standards organisations. All of the other versions are from software companies and used on the net or on computer discs.

AlanH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CWT,

Your link has lead me eventually to a single chip decoder that can handle 2 HD MPEG4.10 at the same time.

AlanH

It is the younger brother of the Sigma Designs 8623 in the Beyonwiz. I tried comparing the 8623 and 8630 quite a long time ago and didn't see much (any?) difference really. The beast to get is the 864X or 865X series. Most of the current range of "NMT" network media tanks have the 863X series in them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Charles,

The broadcast version is called MPEG4 Part 10 or +H234 which are the same thing but labelled by different standards organisations. All of the other versions are from software companies and used on the net or on computer discs.

AlanH

Hmm. Another typo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this makes it all interesting....for an off topic post about how ABC3 is going to be presented, see my post ABC Outsources Pres & MCR

If that is true then :o and I'm sure everyone in WIN territory is probably thinking :o :o :o Time to stock up on the DVDs. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, its a typo.

AlanH

I do like your comments re 'other versions' - presumably you are referring to the other profiles. 'All of the other versions are from software companies and used on the net or on computer discs'. Quite entertaing, but then again your posts usually are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
To Top