227 replies to this topic

[nbound]

alanh, on 15 April 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

nbound,
If you look at the ACMA link in one of my posts in this strand the ACMA was very firm that this was a trial and that it does not indicate that this standard will be used permanently. So far nothing has changed from this.

Never said they were chasing it pernamently at this stage. Personaly Id prefer they didnt.

[GoForMoe]

Harvey Norman will jump at the chance to sponsor a 3D Trial again, so they can sell more sets on the false impression these trials are permanent. I'm sure no one would care in store if you mentioned the reality of needing Foxtel plus Sport plus HD to get the Foxtel 3D channel as the only regular 3D broadcast in Australia.

[Basil]

Good to see your still going strong Alan,your going to make a the usual suspects eat crow over the  MPEG4 debate in a few Months time.
I just did a search and it didn't come up(may have been WP) but 9 announced plans to have a 3D channel up and running for the Olympics last year,they are also planning a dedicated 3D channel but obviously that will be years away.

[MLXXX]

Basil, Alanh's suggestions in the past re MPEG-4 were to use it across the board, not just for 3D purposes [or datacasting purposes].  It remains the case that a huge percentage of the population have digital TV sets (and set top boxes, and PVRs) that will not work with the MPEG-4 AVC video codec. The impracticality of use of MPEG-4 remains. That is why, in a few months' time, Australia's DVB-t video codec will still be MPEG-2.  There will be no crow eating in a few months' time in my camp.

3D TVs are of relatively recent manufacture, and do have MPEG-4 functionality, making it feasible to use MPEG-4 for 3D side-by-side broadcasts. This creates an exception to the general rule of employing MPEG-2 for digital terrestrial broadcasts.

[pheggie]

My 40" Samsung LED 3dtv bought at the time of the last 2010 3d trials had no trouble receiving the 2010 3d mpeg-4 trials what 2010 3dtv's can't receive mpeg-4? (Though Samsung was a sponsor of those trials I think. so knew they were okay for receiving the trials )

[MLXXX]

Pheggie, I don't think any 3D TV sold on the Australian market in 2010 or subsequently cannot handle MPEG-4. If I'm wrong about that, that would indeed be a possible impediment to using MPEG-4 for 3D in July and August this year.

It's interesting that at least one model of Australian 2010 Panasonic 2D TV requires the consumer to specifically enable MPEG-4 before it will work. (A mate of my mine has such a TV.) I am not sure what the purpose of that feature is. One possibility is for Panasonic not to have to pay licensing fees in respect of the patented MPEG-4 AVC codec unless a consumer specifically enables the codec. I am speculating here. Is there some better explanation for Panasonic providing a default setting that disables MPEG-4 AVC  functionality?

Edited by MLXXX, 15 April 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[DrP]

Is NINE's proposed 3D broadcast main stream programming, ie its here to stay and be broadcast all day every day or is it a special one off event that NINE is having to bow and scrape before ACMA for approval?  That's the question that should be asked before alanh & co start their usual diatribe.

I'd ask basil but that head wound he still bears is clearly affecting his thought processes!  

[DrP]

MLXXX, on 15 April 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Is there some better explanation for Panasonic providing a default setting that disables MPEG-4 AVC  functionality?

Perhaps to cope with broadcasters occasionally flagging MPEG-2 as MPEG-4 AVC.  If the receiver is set to assume everything is MPEG-2 it'll cope with such incorrect broadcast configurations.  Come the day that MPEG-4 AVC is the defacto in Australia the option can be changed so that the set will accept those broadcasts too.

[DrP]

MLXXX, on 15 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Basil, Alanh's suggestions in the past re MPEG-4 were to use it across the board, not just for 3D purposes [or datacasting purposes].  It remains the case that a huge percentage of the population have digital TV sets (and set top boxes, and PVRs) that will not work with the MPEG-4 AVC video codec. The impracticality of use of MPEG-4 remains. That is why, in a few months' time, Australia's DVB-t video codec will still be MPEG-2.  There will be no crow eating in a few months' time in my camp.

In fact, ACMA's own research, and the research of others, indicates that as late as last year there were still receivers on the market that could only decode MPEG-2.

Note to self:  Avoid the mindless drivel that alanh and his ilk post here.

Edited by DrP, 15 April 2012 - 05:57 PM.

[GoForMoe]

MLXXX, on 15 April 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

It's interesting that at least one model of Australian 2010 Panasonic 2D TV requires the consumer to specifically enable MPEG-4 before it will work. (A mate of my mine has such a TV.) I am not sure what the purpose of that feature is. One possibility is for Panasonic not to have to pay licensing fees in respect of the patented MPEG-4 AVC codec unless a consumer specifically enables the codec. I am speculating here. Is there some better explanation for Panasonic providing a default setting that disables MPEG-4 AVC  functionality?

I can't imagine licensing being based on whether a customer uses an option or not, as there's no way to track (or even data to project) the end user's use of MPEG-4. I'd suggest with most TVs of that era beginning to have USB input features, MPEG-4 licensing fees probably needed to be paid regardless to offer it as a supported codec for playback. Perhaps even to the point where MPEG-4 support was included just for the playback of data files, but added as an option for TV on an experimental basis (so they didn't have to do warranty claims over it not working).

Did the TV in question hide channels like the 3D Trial or TV4ME when it was running in MPEG-4 while that option was turned off? If that was the case, then perhaps the assumption was that hiding channels that were likely to be experimental or encrypted would be a better end user outcome.

[James T Kirk]

Basil, on 15 April 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

Good to see your still going strong Alan,your going to make a the usual suspects eat crow over the  MPEG4 debate in a few Months time.
I just did a search and it didn't come up(may have been WP) but 9 announced plans to have a 3D channel up and running for the Olympics last year,they are also planning a dedicated 3D channel but obviously that will be years away.

Best to be careful who you associate with, AlanH is a dill.
Unfortunately I can't say I can't believe what I read in his posts, yet again a whole bunch of his statements in this thread are just plain wrong.

Nine will do Olympics in 3D, it will be on UHF, it has never used SBS standby in the past and won't do this time, don't worry about where the transmitter will come from, it will be supplied by a willing lender and lastly ask any good TV tech if he could make his analogue transmitter pass DVB-T well and the answer is yes.  AlanH has no knowledge, no skill and no experience in this area.

James

[MLXXX]

GoForMoe, on 15 April 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

I can't imagine licensing being based on whether a customer uses an option or not, as there's no way to track (or even data to project) the end user's use of MPEG-4.

I thought it could be checked by servicing personnel on a sample of sets being repaired under warranty.

Quote

'd suggest with most TVs of that era beginning to have USB input features, MPEG-4 licensing fees probably needed to be paid regardless to offer it as a supported codec for playback.

Good point. (Although I don't know what USB files my mate's set can play back.)

Quote

Did the TV in question hide channels like the 3D Trial

As I recall, yes. I had to help my mate so that the TV would reveal the new RF station and its video stream.

Quote

or TV4ME when it was running in MPEG-4 while that option was turned off?

Once it was turned on, it was left on. TV4ME when it started a few months ago, temporarily with MPEG-4, was detected automatically.

Quote

If that was the case, then perhaps the assumption was that hiding channels that were likely to be experimental or encrypted would be a better end user outcome.

That explanation is probably as good as any other, in the absence of something official from Panasonic.

By the way with some pc audio cards, it used to be possible for the consumer to unlock codec functionality [i think it was the AC3 codec] for a fee. By default, the functionality was disabled.

[Basil]

MLXXX, on 15 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

The impracticality of use of MPEG-4 remains. That is why, in a few months' time, Australia's DVB-t video codec will still be MPEG-2.  There will be no crow eating in a few months' time in my camp.

I was talking about annoucements from the FTA networks,MPEG4 is still some years away as discussed in multitudes of threads across the net. My Niece is a Journo. and spoke to a network Exec. at a function only a few weeks ago,nothing much will be happening until analogue is turned off in the capitals Cities.

James,Alan doesn't always get it 100% correct but he's closer to the mark than most of our current Technical experts here.

[MLXXX]

Basil, on 15 April 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

I was talking about annoucements from the FTA networks

I don't follow. What sort of announcement are you referring to?

Quote

James,Alan doesn't always get it 100% correct but he's closer to the mark than most of our current Technical experts here.

On the contrary, Basil. Alanh's posts frequently suggest a shaky technical and/or factual grip, and in my humble opinion are in error at a higher rate than the posts of any other regular contributor. He has still not withdrawn his jaw-dropping suggestion that regular local radio broadcasting be undertaken in Tasmania using NVIS in the 27MHz band. That really took the cake for me.

Every time you attempt to support him, Basil, all that will happen is that others in this forum will feel obliged to dredge up alanh's previous (or current) technical (and/or factual) faux pas. You would be better off remaining silent.

Edited by MLXXX, 15 April 2012 - 06:57 PM.

[DrP]

Ah how the worm turns.  I wonder what revelations tomorrow will bring.  

Edited by DrP, 15 April 2012 - 05:57 PM.

[James T Kirk]

Basil, on 15 April 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

I was talking about annoucements from the FTA networks,MPEG4 is still some years away as discussed in multitudes of threads across the net. My Niece is a Journo. and spoke to a network Exec. at a function only a few weeks ago,nothing much will be happening until analogue is turned off in the capitals Cities.

James,Alan doesn't always get it 100% correct but he's closer to the mark than most of our current Technical experts here.

Basil,
AlanH appears convincing but it is only through being prolific with the number of his posts here, this creates the illusion of authority.
AlanH has no experience in radio or television broadcasting and appears to have an extraordinary amount of time to net surf to gather information for which he has turned misinterpretation into an art form.
James

[alanh]

James,
You were wrong about me going to Brisbane and I have had 25 years in the broadcast/television industry.
AlanH

[James T Kirk]

alanh, on 15 April 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

James,
You were wrong about me going to Brisbane and I have had 25 years in the broadcast/television industry.
AlanH

AlanH
I have no interest where you are. I may have suggested where you should go.
25 years in radio and television transmission?  No way, not even you could learn so little in all that time.
If you claim a connection to the radio and television industry, I must admit it would need plumbers, electricians, refuse collection, canteen operators etc so I suppose if that's the style of connection you claim that may be true, but nothing more.
James

[:)]

gees guys why all the personal carp. say your point move on.... yes you might not agree with whatever someone says. guess what you dont have to.here i am come to read about fta 3D and olympics in thread titled as so and instead presented with a bunch of guys giving someone a kicking. maybe take the head kicking to off topic or better still to PM if wanting to get personal. So we can just get back to discussing the topic at hand.

[MLXXX]

Yes, Al, this thread is beginning to go off the rails.  I'll just make what I hope are some constructive suggestions.

________

I suspect alanh's knowledge is drawn more from the era of analogue television, than digital, judging from a number of his posts. I note he has claimed practical experience adjusting FM deviation using Bessel nulls.

Whatever a forum member's experience and training they should try to stay within the limits of what they understand well, should check their facts before posting, and should remain open to revising their position if others with a better understanding or knowledge of the particular matter offer helpful clarification. (All too often, when clarification is offered to alanh, he digs his heels in.)

Posting in this forum is not heavily moderated. It relies on self control. I would encourage alanh to post less, and more carefully, and if clarification is offered, to consider it carefully before making any decision to reject it.


Alanh has his heart in the right place in terms of encouraging efficiencies in modulation and codecs. However he should not assume other members are incapable of understanding such matters. He should not try to divert so many threads to a discussion of the merits of MPEG4 over MPEG2 or DVB-T2 over DVB-T. The technical advantages are obvious. What is not as obvious is how to move in an orderly fashion from one type of technical standard to another,  for millions of terrestrial transmission viewers.

Perhaps this thread could now resume discussion of the current proposal by the Nine network to broadcast the London Olympics in 3D.

[alanh]

MLXXX

Quote

Whatever a forum member's experience and training they should try to stay within the limits of what they understand well, should check their facts before posting, and should remain open to revising their position if others with a better understanding or knowledge of the particular matter offer helpful clarification. (All too often, when clarification is offered to alanh, he digs his heels in.)

Take your own advice and go back to accountancy.

AlanH

[James T Kirk]

:), on 15 April 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

gees guys why all the personal carp. say your point move on.... yes you might not agree with whatever someone says. guess what you dont have to.here i am come to read about fta 3D and olympics in thread titled as so and instead presented with a bunch of guys giving someone a kicking. maybe take the head kicking to off topic or better still to PM if wanting to get personal. So we can just get back to discussing the topic at hand.

Hmmm...............no font of wisdom there and clearly oblivious of the twaddle perpetrated by AlanH.
As a poster I am but a minnow, I have been nice, really nice, really rather very very nice in my responses to this troublesome individual, but it does not work. Consequently I simply correct as necessary and in a fashion to ensure no one is left in any doubt by the corrections made that this indiviual is a pest and commonly just plain wrong. Even in this small thread there are four things stated that indicate no knowledge whatsoever on proceedings and yet as usual he chooses to comment.
So what you may ask, the reason is that it affects others and sometimes these others are in my patch so please, what you don't grasp, leave alone.

Edited by James T Kirk, 15 April 2012 - 11:41 PM.

[MLXXX]

alanh, on 15 April 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

MLXXX


Take your own advice and go back to accountancy.

AlanH

If there is something pertinent to this forum about accountancy, and you have the understanding and knowledge to comment on it, and have checked your facts, you are welcome to post about it, alanh.

In the meantime, if my hobbyist's knowledge of matters discussed in this forum is sufficient for me to have the confidence to post I will do so. You may observe that the bulk of my technical posts are not queried. That is because I take care before posting, and I check my facts. If I am merely speculating I say so. Of course some subjects have special sensitivities with some members. (If I suggest double blind testing, I can expect strong responses!) By and large, I enjoy the confidence of this forum. Most technical posters do.

[McDigital]

alanh, on 13 April 2012 - 02:56 AM, said:

.
The link suggests channel 41
It cannot be used in Melbourne because of interference to and from ABC Ballarat which is receivable in Melbourne.

G'day Alanh,

You obviously don't live in Melbourne, I would suggest people in Bacchus Marsh can probably get Ballarat stuff, but on the East, they'll be getting Gippsland stuff, which is more available to Melbourne (and I'm talking the South coast), than what Ballarat is

Don't forget the South Yarra repeater, they'd need a 3D channel slot available too

[DrP]

People mention accounting.  Let's do some accounting.

Research by ACMA and general industry research indicates that in the five years prior to 2011 approximately 40% of receivers (TVs, PVRs, STBs etc) sold were capable of MPEG-2 only.  That same research goes on to say that in 2011 receivers that were capable of MPEG-2 only were still being sold (overall approx 10%).

Based on historical sales data and receiver turnover rates, atleast 20% of receivers in the field do not have the hardware to display MPEG-4 AVC but a more likely figure is 40%.  There's more to displaying MPEG-4 AVC than just having the hardware to do it too, as people have discovered.

So crushing is the above research that DTVforum's most vocal arm-chair expert has had to revise his prior position of all receivers for sale are MPEG-4 AVC capable to 'encouraging importers to not import MPEG-2 only capable models'.

I hope this sheds a little reality on the 'discussion'.