Talk:ATSC standards

message: Please use colors in graphics that are easy to distinguish even with red green vision deficiency. Also if other colors might seem more fancy (like those green and orange that are too close together, especially when the graphic has a small size).
Prefer clear contrast over style. And use yellow, too. Thank you, it would improve usability a lot.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.179.148.231 (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors of pictures/graphics for better usability! 

message: Who had the dumb idea to move ATSC to Advanced Television Systems Committee? Nobody will look it up or link it under that term and the acronym is still unambiguous. The only thing it does are unnecessary redirects and cumbersome links, where one of the key features of wikis is easy linking. Christoph Päper 14:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article location 

message: Any news on the ATSC and a 1080p60 standard? Jack Zhang 01:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly no plans for it that I've ever heard of, and I imagine it would work quite poorly given the bandwidth constraints and the fact that only mpeg-2 video is allowed. Snacky 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1080p60?

message: Its not clear from the article whether an ATSC tuner can display a PAL signal. Can someone who knows this please update the article with this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaashish (talk • contribs) .
:Why would it? PAL's an analog standard. Snacky 04:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory an ATSC television can display any PAL compatible video (576i), but you'd probably have problems with reception.  The NTSC analog half will display the black-n-white picture, but no color.  And the ATSC digital half is not compatible with the European Digital Television standards.  So there's really no point in trying it.  -  Theaveng 19:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Newer US HDTV sets have both ATSC and NTSC tuners; neither can receive PAL broadcasts. -Dawn McGatney 69.139.231.9 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PAL signal

message: I don't see why ATSC is compared to digital-terrestrial standards such as DVB-T or ISDB-T at some points in the article instead of comparing ATSC to to the more general standards DVB and ISDB. --Abdull 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because ATSC is a terrestrial standard.  -  Theaveng 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATSC versus digital terrestrial 

message: Seems like original research; also, practical amateur radio systems cannot implement this and aren't likely to for decades.  N8EVV aka Marc W. Abel 04:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth-Moon-Earth? 

message: Is a DT2 channel part of ATSC?  If so, is there an article that says what it is?  Jim.henderson 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. DT2 is the 2nd digital service within a physical RF channel. It thus should be specified in the station's PSIP, which is described in ATSC A/65C. -Dawn McGatney 69.139.231.9 (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DT2

message: The article does not explain, and I think it should explain WHY, rather than just say "it doesn't work".   -   Theaveng 19:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the need for an ATSC receiver to sample the transmitted signal at very precise times, the digital receiver cannot be in motion; motion would cause a slight change in the timing of the signal at the receiver due to the Doppler effect; this would make accurate sampling of an 8-VBS signal impossible. Enhanced 8-VBS or E8-VBS seeks to overcome this limitation by broadcasting a more robust signal at a lower data rate. -Dawn McGatney 69.139.231.9 (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why doesn't ATSC work in moving vehicles?

message: The article briefly touches on something interesting but doesn't explain it:
: If ATSC were able to dynamically change its error correction modes, code rates, interleaver mode, and randomizer, the signal could be more robust even if the modulation itself did not change. It also lacks true hierarchical modulation, which allows the SDTV part of an HDTV signal to be received even in fringe areas where signal strength is low.
Is this implying that an SDTV stream is sent with every HDTV stream? What are the characteristics of such "SDTV" feeds? Are they just 7xx*480 4:3 rebroadcasts of the NTSC analog feed (or what would be the NTSC analog feed, if it were still being broadcast in 2009)? A number of TVs are being sold as ATSC SDTVs, are these using the SDTV stream or they just reformatting the digital signal, at whatever resolution it is, to fit a ~500 line NTSC screen? --Squiggleslash (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: E8-VBS allows a more robust, lower data rate signal to be simulcast with a higher data rate signal; if things are "bad", a properly configured E8-VSB receiver can switch to the more robust, lower data rate signal. In addition, the lower data rate signal can used by an E8-VSB receiver to "learn". -Dawn McGatney 69.139.231.9 (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDTV and SDTV 

message: Inline footnote 1 simply goes to Businesswire's homepage, with a message saying "You must login or register before viewing this news release". 86.132.141.139 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead(?) link 

message: Will the ATSC transition cause the FCC to allow FM radio station licenses on 87.5~87.9? Because there won't be any analogue TV audio from channel 6 on 87.7 after 2009, maybe that would be a good idea... --DaniAmaranth (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about transition 

message: When originally added, this comment said that the ATSC transmission mode is a "robust waveform".  The word "waveform" was later changed to "signal", but the real problem is in what exactly makes the ATSC waveform or signal robust.  As mostly commonly implemented with 8VSB modulation, ATSC seems far from robust under various conditions when compared with the older analog NTSC standard, as well as other digital standards.  Under ATSC (with 8VSB) a viewer can experience severe or complete picture loss under wet weather or only mildly windy conditions, when pictures from analog NTSC broadcasts experience only slight degradation.  This statement needs justification, especially in light of comparison to older analog standards, which ought to be discussed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.142.183.42 (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison (robust signal) 

message: Though I'm bemused by the mention of North Korea in the ATSC section, does anyone have a source for North Korea's propaganda station aimed at South Korea converting to that standard? --Daniel Blanchette 06:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea adopting ATSC? 

message: The standard was amended in 2008 to include 1080p50 and 1080p60 signals. Someone please update the resolutions table accordingly from the amended specification. --188.123.237.4 (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1080p60 

message: That used to be about ".ts", a common extension. I question the validity of the references for ".tp". I question the removal (and replacement) of the ".ts" section. Why was that done? Who reviewed it?--134.130.183.101 (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one has removed anything, this section was in fact added with ; I think it is redundant, since the heading of the Video section specifically mentions MPEG transport stream. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 20:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "TP" 

message: History of ATSC section needed?  Like when ATSC signals were first broadcast etc. Gooolog (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of ATSC section? 

message: I don't know the right way to modify the cite, but the MIT Tech article cited for the preceding sentence describing the MIT-Dolby bribery scheme also verifies that a proposal was made for Zenith to be bribed as well, for a possible discount off patent royalty payments. Just saying "Citation needed" seems to imply there is no source, but the linked article discusses this issue (in the article's continuation on page 15, not on page 1).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.200.69 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation not really needed for Zenith payoff sentence 

message: The following sentence seems to contain an error:
The ATSC specification also allows 1080p30 and 1080p24 MPEG-2 sequences, however they are not used in practice, because broadcasters want to be able to switch between 60 Hz (news, soap operas) and 24 Hz (prime-time) content without ending the MPEG-2 sequence.
Is it 60 Hz and 48 Hz content, or 30 Hz and 24 Hz content? Or should it be represented in fps instead of Hz? 60 and 24 doesn't make a whole lot of sense for MPEG-2. Also, the 60 would seem to conflict with the table earlier in the section, stating the values in Hz a 1080p stream can handle; 60 Hz is not one of those. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about 24 and 30 fps progressive source formats - i.e. film stock (or digital movie camera for prime-time shows) - encompassed in a 60 fps interlaced format. As they say above, broadcasters prefer to convert 24 fps progressive source (big screen movies) to 1080i60 with telecine#2:3 pulldown technique (thus a reference to '60 Hz') vs. directly using the 1080p24 format in the transport stream and switch back to 1080i60 as necessary. And 30 fps progressive source (TV shows) is seamlessly encompassed by a standard 1080i60 transport stream using 1080sf30 (progressive segmented frame) technique.  I rephrased the above sentence to include this explanation. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 08:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, you should consider the paragraph preceding the quote above, which says that some TV stations actually use 1080p24 (or 1080p30) as the encoding format in their 1080i60 transport stream. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 08:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in "MPEG-2" 

message: According to the map Surinam is using the DVB standard and not the ATSC standard, yet this article mentions it as switching to the ATSC standard. So which is it actually switching to? Sion8 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Surinam ATSC or DVB? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on ATSC standards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407071216/http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a72/A72-Part-1-2014.pdf to http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a72/A72-Part-1-2014.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407071209/http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a72/A72-Part-2-2014.pdf to http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a72/A72-Part-2-2014.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509104358/http://www.atsc.org/cms/pdf/ATSC2013_PDF.pdf to http://www.atsc.org/cms/pdf/ATSC2013_PDF.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509105751/http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/ATSC-3-PHY-CFP.pdf to http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/ATSC-3-PHY-CFP.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130401051516/http://www.atsc.org:80/cms/index.php/communications/press-releases/315-advanced-television-systems-committee-invites-proposals-for-next-generation-tv-broadcasting-technologies to http://www.atsc.org/cms/index.php/communications/press-releases/315-advanced-television-systems-committee-invites-proposals-for-next-generation-tv-broadcasting-technologies
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226070820/http://www.atsc.org:80/cms/pdf/pt2/PT2-046r11-Final-Report-on-NGBT.pdf to http://www.atsc.org/cms/pdf/pt2/PT2-046r11-Final-Report-on-NGBT.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823142941/http://www.atsc.org:80/cms/index.php/communications/press-releases/225-dominican-republic-adopts-atsc-digital-television-standard to http://www.atsc.org/cms/index.php/communications/press-releases/225-dominican-republic-adopts-atsc-digital-television-standard
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113150024/http://mobile-dtv-viewer.com/ to http://www.mobile-dtv-viewer.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at 
).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first paragraph in the MPEG-2 section states that the frame size (before display) is 1920x1088,
rather than the displayed 1920x1080, because it has to be divisible by 16.  But 1920x1080 _is_
divisible by 16.  Is there a boo-boo somewhere?
BMJ-pdx (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that this wasn't phrased correctly.  MPEG-2 requires divisibility by 16 to apply to the width and height separately, not to the product of width times height. 1920x1080 (i.e., 2073600) is divisible by 16, and so is 1920, but 1080 is not. 1080 divided by 16 is 67.5, so it is not divisible by 16, and that is why it is padded out to 1088. Mulligatawny (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious statement in "MPEG-2" section 

message: The paragraph and table following it immediately currently claims levels 3 and 3.2 are allowed, but level_idc in the source given only talks about 31, 40 and 42.
Part 2 says for level_idc: Values shall be as defined in Table 6.3 of ATSC A/72 Part 1. However, the last one is table 6.1 in the document. It hints that a value of 31 would be level 3.1, while 40 is level 4 and 42 level 4.2 respectively.
Where did the other numbers for levels come from? In example, is it accurate for 1280×720 to support level 3.2 in standard, while the document referenced only mentions 40 for it? 84.250.0.210 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  H.264/MPEG-4 AVC disputed accuracy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on ATSC standards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070519082346/http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2007/r070517.htm to http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2007/r070517.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606212323/http://www.atsc.org/cms/index.php/communications/press-releases/128-mexico-to-adopt-the-atsc-dtv-standard to http://www.atsc.org/cms/index.php/communications/press-releases/128-mexico-to-adopt-the-atsc-dtv-standard
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified