Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet you fail again. I didn't SAY that digital VIDEO didn't exist in 2001
Yes you did say that, and you even highlighted it in RED yourself! What is wrong with you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
yeah. analysis of highly compressed video on the net and not from the ORIGINAL High Quality tapes (yes TAPES). Digital versions of video didn't exist in 2001, and were only encoded to digital formats in the days after 9/11.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Get it?
Yeah, I got it .... you make zero sense, and you contradict yourself.
Tomorrow, Saturday, May 1st, FCC rules become effective calling for the ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC affiliates in each of the top ten television markets to begin programming on their digital television channels. I am pleased that the DTV transition is largely on schedule and that broadcasters are joining the digital revolution .
straight from the source, the FCC
fact the tv news was still using ANALOG cameras in 2001..the STATION may have been BROADCASTING in LIMITED areas and availability in digital..but had to continue to broadcast in analog all the way to 2009 (extended until may 2010)
And your point is what exactly? This is exactly what I said. That both digital video and digital broadcasts existed before 2001. Your FCC news above is dated 1999, which supports my statement. But you seem to want to insinuate that I made some claim that analog broadcasts disappeared? I never said that analog wasn't still being broadcast ... show me were I said anything even close to that? I simply responded to the ridiculous claim that digital video didn't exist in 2001.
So what is your major malfunction? You seem to be manufacturing some issue in your own mind to argue with me about .. there is no need to do that ... there's plenty that already exists to chose from since I don't believe you possess a valid point on much of anything ... so no need to create some imaginary point. Just state your opinion, and I'll most likely disagree ... then you'll have a real argument to argue.
And your point is what exactly? This is exactly what I said. That both digital video and digital broadcasts existed before 2001. Your FCC news above is dated 1999, which supports my statement. But you seem to want to insinuate that I made some claim that analog broadcasts disappeared? I never said that analog wasn't still being broadcast ... show me were I said anything even close to that? I simply responded to the ridiculous claim that digital video didn't exist in 2001.
So what is your major malfunction? You seem to be manufacturing some issue in your own mind to argue with me about .. there is no need to do that ... there's plenty that already exists to chose from since I don't believe you possess a valid point on much of anything ... so no need to create some imaginary point. Just state your opinion, and I'll most likely disagree ... then you'll have a real argument to argue.
why dont you understand
while they were starting to BROADCAST in digital....the CAMERAS IN THE FIELD were analog
doesnt matter if they broadcasted it in digits, the SOURCE was analog
I had lots of questions and I was curious enough to spend 75% of my free time for 5 years doing just that.
That in itself is pretty disturbing.
The psychological term that would be used for someone like you is, I believe, "complete goner."
Here's the problem, DD. You've invested so much time and effort in confirming your whackadoodle theory that you're not going to let anything change your mind. Your mind simply won't accept that so much time and energy was wasted, therefore, you are completely cemented into your position.
Frankly, people like you scare me, and all I can say is that I'm glad you don't live in my neighborhood.
The psychological term that would be used for someone like you is, I believe, "complete goner."
Here's the problem, DD. You've invested so much time and effort in confirming your whackadoodle theory that you're not going to let anything change your mind. Your mind simply won't accept that so much time and energy was wasted, therefore, you are completely cemented into your position.
Frankly, people like you scare me, and all I can say is that I'm glad you don't live in my neighborhood.
while they were starting to BROADCAST in digital....the CAMERAS IN THE FIELD were analog
doesnt matter if they broadcasted it in digits, the SOURCE was analog
Why don't you understand .... the claims made were both FALSE and IRRELEVANT. That's one point. The second point is ... like usual, you're wrong too and not just wrong ... nooooo ... ridiculously, absurdly wrong .. and you continue to hammer away on a pointless irrelevant point and manage to be totally wrong at the same time.
But for the sake of accuracy, the reality is ... lot's of pros were using Sony DVCAM as early as 1995, which is about the same time frame that Sony had Digital 8 cameras on the market for Joe Schmo consumer. 1995 marked transitional year of the Digital Video revolution ... not some mystery date after September 11, 2001. In fact, a brand new digital format of higher quality was the new high standard for video in 2000 ... DV video format, and a whole new line of pro and consumer cameras were rolled out then ... and this was the precursor to HDV. So not only were a lot of pros using DVCAM for several years ... they were switching to the 2nd GENERATION, latest and greatest DV camera format in 2000, which is prior to September 2001.
Do I know what percentages were using digital versus analog in 2001 .... no ... and I really don't freaking care, because it's irrelevant. Both formats during the 1990's produced excellent quality video. But it's a safe bet that a significant percentage had already converted .... and certainly the majority in the major market areas, of which New York happens to be one of the biggest. I'm only bothering to address this because of your inane insistence that I'm wrong and you are correcting me. This is simply not at all true. You are totally, completely wrong ... all across the board.
The truth is, (and always has been), that contrary to your suggestions otherwise, the technology in the field has ALWAYS led the Broadcast side of Television. And for obvious reasons. Broadcast technology changes represent a far greater investment cost, and those changes never occur first ... they always ... always lag behind. Another reason, besides costs, is due to technology competition and the slow adoption of established standards. That was the primary hurdle in the advancement of High Def ... competing standards ... and nobody wanted to go out on a limb with capital equipment investments until firm standards were agreed to.
So, like usual ... you are totally backwards in your claims and contentions. But you'll not see a surprised look on my face ... this is a well established pattern with you.
Is it that you just like to argue? Is this why you always seem to take the wrong and antagonistic side of every issue, every time? I mean, a broken clock is right twice a day ... so you seem to defy the laws of mathematics which would suggest you'd be right, even if accidentally, once in a while.
At least you openly admit that you refuse to look at the evidence presented to you, while dismissing it as "preposterous". But in my opinion, by doing so, you forfeit the right to call anything preposterous, because there is nothing ... nothing more preposterous than refusing to look at this evidence.
I guess you've never heard the story of the boy who cries, "Wolf!"
You are that boy. After a while, people just stop paying attention. You have nobody to blame but yourself for that.
while they were starting to BROADCAST in digital....the CAMERAS IN THE FIELD were analog
doesnt matter if they broadcasted it in digits, the SOURCE was analog
One other point I've been remiss in pointing out .... the fallacy of this massive improvement in quality of digital. The reality is, from a pure quality standpoint, analog is viewed by high end pros as superior to digital. Digital represents a major cost savings more so that major quality improvement, among other advantages..
This is particularly true with audio, but the same theory applies to video, which is why super high end productions with big budgets preferred to use film, rather than video tape.
The reason for this is clear ... an analog signal transmits the entire captured content ... whereas digital is off and on, based on the sample rate. And right now, even today, the sample rates are not yet high enough to close the gap between digital and analog signal content ... in both audio and video, content is missing when the digital signal is off.
The human eye doesn't detect the loss as much as the human ear, which is why the music and audio world are more reticent to embrace digital. Musicians worth their salt refuse to use digital equipment in live performances ... preferring 1960's and 1970's technology over what is available today. Vacuum Tube amplifiers rule over solid state like corvettes rule VW's.
Audiophiles by a large majority prefer vinyl over digital recordings ... it's the consumer that has been implanted with this myth that digital represents this big quality improvement. It's just not true .... there are a multitude of advantages in digital ... but raw quality isn't one of them.
Just an FYI
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No Comment 
