Results tagged “Digital TV” from CLICK

Now that the June 12 deadline has passed and the era of analog television is supposed to be over, most of the channels have indeed gone dark.

It's a bit eerie to turn on an old analog set (of which I have no shortage at present), flip through the channels and see nothing but snow.

In Los Angeles however, analog channels 2, 4 and 5 continue broadcasting. Except that they're all showing the same program: instructions in English and Spanish about how to hook up a digital TV converter box and antenna to receive DTV broadcasts on an older analog set.

If you didn't get ready for DTV, you'll learn all you need to know with what now appears to be the only programming available to non-DTV viewers.

KCAL doesn't offer embedded video from its player, but you can see the video of Channel 9's June 12 report via this link. And this much better video covers the shutoff of KCAL and KCBS Channel 2's analog signals. plus an earlier report before the analog signals of channels 2 and 9 were shut off.

KABC's embedded video player isn't working (at least not in this blog), so here's a link to the video of KABC Channel 7's final moments of analog broadcasting.

KABC's embedded player isn't working, so here's a link to the video of Channel 7's report on the night before the June 12 DTV switch.

Watch it here:

One of the great things about over-the-air digital TV is the extra channels that almost all broadcasters offer to viewers.

I'd like to say that my favorites are all the extras on PBS affiliates KCET, KDOC and KLCS, but that was blunted considerably by the fact that at least one of these stations devotes a digital channel to those insipid, soul-sucking "music of our lives" kind of contribution come-on programs that have made me vow to never, ever contribute a dime to public television.

Thus far, both KNBC (Channel 4) and KABC (Channel 7) have done fine jobs with their extra channels. Both have a dedicated weather channel. That's not earth-shattering, but it's pretty damn convenient and probably means I'll be waiting a lot less for Dallas Raines to tell me what's what.

But the best things about both of these stations is their extra feeds of actual programming. KNBC has its "NewsRaw" feed, which has been mostly showing pre-Olympic qualifying events. Why they couldn't show actual Olympic events is beyond me, but at least they're showing real programming.

The KABC extra station tends to run shows that have previously aired on the main ABC station. I saw "This Week" at the more civilized hour of 10 a.m., I recall, instead of the too-early 7 a.m. (is that when they show it?), and I was also graced with an episode of "The Mole," a show I had no idea was still on the air.

OK, so it's mostly potential and not exciting programming just yet. But it's better than infomercials, to which a lot of other stations are devoting a portion of their digital spectrum.

And I guess I was too hard on the three — yes THREE — PBS stations I'm able to get with my decade-old $5 VHF rabbit ears. When they're not on one of those puppy-killing Pledge Breaks, there's more great programming on PBS than anywhere else on broadcast television, and I welcome the opportunity to see more of it.

Shameless plug: Two days from now, my next digital TV article for the Daily News arrives in the printed version of the newspaper (remember those, with the ink and everything?) as well as at the Daily News Technology page

Look for it Saturday, Aug. 16, on page 2 of the Faith section (Business is one page after religion ... ponder that one, why don't you).

Of course it should also be appearing on the Daily News Technology page, if all goes according to plan.

One of the great things about digital over-the-air television is that when you can get a station at all, it comes in perfectly.

Unlike old analog TV (with pictures transmitted in AM, sound in FM ... long story there), digital is quite the all-or-nothing proposition.

And as I said in my previous post, I had marginal reception of the lower VHF channels, principally 2, 4 and 5. But now with all the digital channels in the UHF frequency range, I'm getting everything with perfect reception, except for Channel 13, which I don't get at all in digital, only in analog, while it lasts.

I'm pretty burned out on "Seinfeld" reruns, so it's not a huge loss.

Before I got a digital TV set or DTV converter box for one of my old ones, I was worried that I'd have trouble receiving high-definition digital signals from the local TV stations.

I say this because at my Van Nuys, Calif., home, we use rabbit ears — not even an outside antenna — and get quite a few analog channels pretty well, and a few critical ones pretty poorly.

The "analog" problem is with the lower VHF channels — 2, 4 and 5. It's hard to get one good without the others looking like hell. And that's when I look for a compromise in how I configure my two sets of rabbit ears so I can at least get 2 and 4 acceptably.

I was worried about digital TV, an unknown quantity in my house. Would I get any channels? I knew that digital signals are generallly an "all or nothing" proposition: They come in with total clarity, or not at all.

Once I had all the cables plugged into our new Vizio 22-inch LCD set (old-school VCR and DVD player), I turned the set on.

The Vizio started automatically scanning for signals. It got all of the analog stations I'm accustomed to receiving plus about 60 digital channels. Many if not most of the broadcast stations "split" their digital signals into between two and eight separate channels (how Channel 18 gets so many channels in there, I don't know).

Once the Vizio finished its scan, I ended up with perfect reception of every local station's digital signal but one, Channel 13.

I suppose I could tweak my rabbit ears a bit to get Channel 13 to come in via digital, and I probably will, but I'm not a big viewer of that station, and I'm honest-to-god impressed with my ability to get five dozen channels in digital with nothing more than a $5 pair of VHF rabbit ears on top of a cabinet (and remember that all HDTV signals are UHF).

I spent the princely sum of $12 on a Philips passive HDTV rabbit-ears antenna, but it looks like I won't need it.

As in all things that have to do with over-the-air reception, your mileage may vary, but if you have good reception of analog TV over the air, chances are good that you'll have good digital reception, too.

And in my case, the nature of digital reception means I have all but a single station with PERFECT reception — a far cry from what I get in analog.

I heard from more than a few readers of my digital TV column in Saturday's Daily News.

One reader contended with my suggestion that a larger TV might not look so swell up close when compared to a smaller screen of similar resolution.

That reader said that the resolution of such TVs are so good that even bigger screens up close look good.

Since getting my own HDTV in the past few days, a low-rent 22-inch Vizio LCD, I'm almost inclined to believe it. I still think, however, that a 46-inch set sitting a mere 7 or 8 feet from my head just might be a bit overwhelming, especially to my small-TV psyche, which has spend quite a bit of time in front of a 13-inch analog set.

However, I'll amend my recommendation to say that you should still measure the distance and angle from which you'll be regularly viewing the set and still audition potential TV purchases from that angle. Look at everything you can, take notes on quality and price, and then make your decision.

And as I said in the column (although I think this part got cut for space reasons), whatever you buy now is going to be a huge leap forward in quality — especially if you're going to be viewing an HD signal (either over the air, or via cable or satellite), and you'll be pretty much amazed at what you're looking at. With the rapid advancement in TV technology, who knows what'll be available five years from now. I bet it'll be cheaper TVs that process bits and bytes faster, output them to better screens and generally improve the viewing experience by huge leaps.

So just like I suggest with computers, don't overspend for a TV today. Digital TV technology is, if not in its infancy, still in its toddler stage. Buy something in the midrange (or for less) and then feel better about getting something a whole lot better five years down the road, knowing you enjoyed your cheap TV while the industry fell all over itself to build something better, faster, stronger and cheaper.

Another reader pointed out that almost all full-power broadcast stations are transmitting in 1080i resolution and not 720p. That's true.

I got that one wrong. I didn't do enough research, and ABC-TV's Web site led me well astray. As I've seen for myself, the dial is full of 1080i signals.

That same reader pointed out something I already did know: That over-the-air broadcasters can't transmit in 1080p because they don't have enough bandwidth in their signals to do so.

This very smart reader (he's an engineer, I think) also said that a 1080p signal could potentially look too jerky on screen because it doesn't refresh as often as a 1080i signal of the same refresh rate due to the doubled number of passes at creating the image that an interlaced signal has over the progressive-scan signal.

Did I get that right?

All of this terminology is way too technical for the average TV viewer, and I'm having a bit of trouble with it, too.

To clarify again: The cheaper TVs with 720p resolution can receive and display the 1080i signals transmitted by most stations. The more expensive 1080p receivers will display the same signals in 1080i mode. They will also render a Blu-ray DVD at 1080p with more detail.

Manufacturers aren't helping the matter any. All TVs with 1080p resolution seem to advertise and label themselves as such. But the lower-resolution sets are sometimes called 720p, sometimes 1080i, sometimes none of the above.

Again, it's very confusing.

But having two kinds of resolution dominate the TV landscape (720p/1080i and 1080p) isn't profoundly confusing.

And I predict that a couple of years down the road, there will be no more 720p/1080i, just 1080p (with the ability to receive and display all of the digital TV modes out there, just like now).

That will make it easier for TV buyers.

So if I, myself, led any readers astray, I apologize. I'm learning about this just like you.

Technological transitions are always difficult, and buying just about anything is a bit of a gamble.

Since my column on buying a digital TV set ran in the Daily News, I've gotten a lot of e-mail, learned quite a bit that I didn't know, both from readers and elsewhere, and we also bought an HDTV set.

I'll go into all of that soon enough, but for now, I'll just say that we went for the low-priced ($350) Vizio 22-inch model at Costco.

That's pretty cheap. I didn't think that the service and warranty of Vizio and the other relatively unknown TV makers (Olevia and others) were all that great, and this article from the HD Guru confirms that.

However, Costco extends the warranty on these TVs to two years, I'm in the same state as Vizio as far as shipping the thing back (and yes, I am saving the original box in which to do it if needed), and if the set dies within the first 90 days, I can take it back to Costco for replacement.

According to the HD Guru, we should have gone with the Samsung at $479, since it is made by a major manufacturer with more sane warranty, parts and return policies.

I acknowledge that Vizio has a less-than-optimal return and repair policy, but I also realize that in this day and age, things like TVs, especially those costing $1,000 or less, are more disposable than we've come to think. I can't remember the last time I had a TV repaired.

I'm older than you think, and I fondly remember taking the TV to the repairman on Oxnard Street near Woodman Avenue (Phillip's TV, I think it was called -- and the guy's name was Phillip), and he would fix whatever was broken, usually a bad tube.

But since the '70s -- and we're talking 30 years here, I haven't had a TV, VCR, DVD player, piece of audio equipment, or anything else repaired.

So I'm more than willing to save $125 over the Samsung and a) have the TV fit in the space I have, b) gamble that it will last 5 years with no trouble and c) be willing to replace it if it craps out before then.

That said, if you're worried about future repairs (instead of future replacement), I'd go for a name brand, and certainly if you're spending a couple thousand on a TV, you'll want a Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, or something of similar ilk.

But down in the low-priced trenches where I live, anything that replaces a nearly-20-year-old 13-inch Sharp color portable is going to be knock-my-socks-off great. The bar is low, and so far, I'm loving every minute of HDTV.

And I'm comfortable rolling the dice on this, especially with 90 days within which to bring the Vizio back to Costco, should it die in that time period. I'm gambling that if set will make it to 90 days, it stands a very good chance of making it 5 years, and you can't ask for much more (although I'm fairly accustomed to getting it).

Coming up:

• Technical clarifications (thanks readers!)
• I get almost every digital channel out there with RABBIT EARS

For an enlightening look at the transition to digital-only TV broadcasting from a very intelligent individual, read Doc Searls' lengthy piece at LinuxJournal.com.