Hdtv Upconverter

[Fullmonte]

I have been following the release of this piece of equipment that will accept any standard signal and convert it to Hi Def. Take a look.

http://www.adstech.com/products/HDUP1500/intro/HDUP1500intro.asp?pid=HDUP1500

Mods: If this type of link isnt allowed please delete.


Thanks

-Full-

[Feverish]

As long as you realize if you take a crappy signal and quadruple it you still have a crappy signal. True anything can be converted to HD but remember the outcome is only as good as the source so don't be expecting COPS on the Fox Network run through one of these to all of a sudden be HDTV COPS , it aint gonna happen and you will be sadly dissapointed.

I already use an upconverter and all my signals are converted to 1080i or 720p(selectable) and can tell you first hand if it aint real HDTV its just tv, none of the networks on satellite magically are transformed to all HDTV contrary to what this company might want you to believe, only the real HDTV channels will show a dramatic difference but they do that without a upconverter like this... everything else on satellite pretty well looks the same.

Be aware also real upconverters that are quality are usually 3-20k usd, though this is a nice entry level product for many it's not going to do what many think it will for $500 or so.

[adb]

Can't be done, don't waste your money.

[Cherry Coke]

Originally posted by adb
Can't be done, don't waste your money.

Actually there are things you can do, especially with deinterlacing. I am not saying but that box or that it is even worth it...

The good news is the things that box can do and more can be done by your pc. For free.

http://www.dscaler.com/

[Mr. President]

Cherry Coke,

Have you actually used this program? If so, what is it actually capable of doing with DTV and HDTV?

I read a bit on the website, but don't actually understand what it means. I have a few laptops (1GHZ) lying around I could dedicate to running something like this for my Hughes E86 if I understood it better.

[Cherry Coke]

Actually if you have a HD box already there is not much else you can do, what dscaler is for is taking regular video (s-video or composite) and converting it to vga (nice if you HDTV has vga in.) It has nice deinterlace and inverse pulldown for movies. It can even stablize old VHS tapes for you.

As for running it on a laptop, it is unlikely because I don't think any non-internal capture sources are supported.

That box also looks interesting. Looks like somewhere in th $500 - $600 range. Conversly dscaler is free, but takes a pc 1Gig or so.

In any case, it won't be true HD, but it should look better.

[Mr. President]

Thanks for the reply, I understand it better now.

I do have a 65" Mitsubishi HDTV. My home sits in a large valley, and the area I live in does not allow antennas on the outside of the home. We have tried a number of attic antennas for HDTV, but the signals just aren't good enough to do any good in the valley I sit in.

The only channel DTV offers worth a crap in HD is HDNet, and you can only watch the same thing a few times without getting sick of it.

The HBO and Showtime channels are upconverted and don't have the stunning look that HDNet offers. Although better than normal, I would love to get that ability on every other channel on the DTV system. It will be years before everything is in true HDTV, so maybe this box is the answer for now.

[adb]

Mr. President

There is quite a bit of hope for getting HDTV perhaps sooner than you think. The last of March ESPN will begin broadcasting in HD (720p). It now appears that direct tv will begin broadcasting them in HD in the summer. Still to be worked out. Also it is beginning to look like both direct tv and dish are really focusing on carrying much more hd. Both are afraid the other is going to get out in front. As you know their holdup is that one channel in HD takes the equivalent of five regular channels so they just have to have the capacity, plus there is the question of whether they will be charged for the HD signal. The industry is moving rather rapidly right now. Many forums devoted to HDTV. Looks promising.

[Fullmonte]

Mr President, I have noticed the same thing with Hi-def Hbo and Showtime, the picture sucks compared to HDNet. Very disappointing. Hopefully things will get better.


-Full-

[jdevers77]

Mr. President

I'm fairly sure that it is within your legal rights to place any sort of antenna on your own house (assuming you own it, not a rental) regardless of local regulations. I don't know the specifics off hand but I'm sure just a few minutes of Googling would give you more specifics.

[Cherry Coke]

Originally posted by Mr. President
Thanks for the reply, I understand it better now.

I do have a 65" Mitsubishi HDTV. My home sits in a large valley, and the area I live in does not allow antennas on the outside of the home. We have tried a number of attic antennas for HDTV, but the signals just aren't good enough to do any good in the valley I sit in.

The only channel DTV offers worth a crap in HD is HDNet, and you can only watch the same thing a few times without getting sick of it.

The HBO and Showtime channels are upconverted and don't have the stunning look that HDNet offers. Although better than normal, I would love to get that ability on every other channel on the DTV system. It will be years before everything is in true HDTV, so maybe this box is the answer for now.

Federal Law prohibits them from prohibiting you. You need to check the FCC site for more info and what you can do. However, from what I understand, putting it up and making them fight you to take it down is easier than fighting to put it up.

I have many antenna's up. I am "required" to get permission first, however, I never have and I will fight ot keep what I have, FCC is on my side.

[adb]

Cherry Coke

Unfortunately there are some exceptions to the antenna rule you are talking about. For example, one with which I am familiar, is being part of or being a member of a home owners association which has had those restrictive covenents, such as no outside antennas. In this case locally these friends took it to court and lost. They brought up all the f.c.c. rules you mentioned, however since the restrictions had been in place for some time they lost their case. Their attorney suggested they not appeal since courts generally uphold this type of decision. I know of a few cities which have this prohibition in their ordinances which tie them in to tough architectural restrictions. Doesn't seem right.

[Cherry Coke]

Here are the full rules of the federal law, and some parts I pulled out for you... You are covered even if you rent as of 2001.

The FCC (federal) rule applies to state and local laws/regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property.

SO UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME LOCAL FIRE, SAFTY, OR HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAW, YOU ARE COVERED... read on...

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule?

A: The rule applies to the following types of video antennas:

(1) A "dish" antenna that is one meter (39.37") or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska) and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite.

(2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programming services via MMDS (wireless cable) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite.

(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.

In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on "masts" to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered by this rule.

Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?

A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose.

Q: What types of restrictions unreasonably delay or prevent viewers from using an antenna?

A: A local restriction that prohibits all antennas would prevent viewers from receiving signals, and is prohibited by the Commission's rule. Procedural requirements can also unreasonably delay installation, maintenance or use of an antenna covered by this rule. For example, local regulations that require a person to obtain a permit or approval prior to installation create unreasonable delay and are generally prohibited. Permits or prior approval necessary to serve a legitimate safety or historic preservation purpose may be permissible.

Q: What is an unreasonable expense?

A: Any requirement to pay a fee to the local authority for a permit to be allowed to install an antenna would be unreasonable because such permits are generally prohibited. It may also be unreasonable for a local government, community association or landlord to require a viewer to incur additional costs associated with installation. Things to consider in determining the reasonableness of any costs imposed include: (1) the cost of the equipment and services, and (2) whether there are similar requirements for comparable objects, such as air conditioning units or trash receptacles. For example, restrictions cannot require that expensive landscaping screen relatively unobtrusive DBS antennas. A requirement to paint an antenna so that it blends into the background against which it is mounted would likely be acceptable, provided it will not interfere with reception or impose unreasonable costs.

Q: What restrictions prevent a viewer from receiving an acceptable quality signal?

A: For antennas designed to receive analog signals, such as TVBS, a requirement that an antenna be located where reception would be impossible or substantially degraded is prohibited by the rule. However, a regulation requiring that antennas be placed where they are not visible from the street would be permissible if this placement does not prevent reception of an acceptable quality signal or impose unreasonable expense or delay. For example, if installing an antenna in the rear of the house costs significantly more than installation on the side of the house, then such a requirement would be prohibited. If, however, installation in the rear of the house does not impose unreasonable expense or delay or preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal, then the restriction is permissible and the viewer must comply.

The acceptable quality signal standard is different for devices designed to receive digital signals, such as DBS antennas, digital MMDS antennas, digital television ("DTV") antennas, and digital fixed wireless antennas. For a digital antenna to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal, the antenna must be installed where it has an unobstructed, direct view of the satellite or other device from which signals are received or to which signals are to be transmitted. Unlike analog antennas, digital antennas, even in the presence of sufficient over-the-air signal strength, will at times provide no picture or sound unless they are placed and oriented properly.

Q: Are all restrictions prohibited?

A: No, many restrictions are permitted. Clearly-defined, legitimate safety restrictions are permitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use provided they are necessary to protect public safety and are no more burdensome than necessary to ensure safety. Examples of valid safety restrictions include fire codes preventing people from installing antennas on fire escapes; restrictions requiring that a person not place an antenna within a certain distance from a power line; and installation requirements that describe the proper method to secure an antenna. The safety reason for the restriction must be written in the text, preamble or legislative history of the restriction, or in a document that is readily available to antenna users, so that a person wanting to install an antenna knows what restrictions apply. Safety restrictions cannot discriminate between objects that are comparable in size and weight and pose the same or a similar safety risk as the antenna that is being restricted.

Restrictions necessary for historic preservation may also be permitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use of the antenna. To qualify for this exemption, the property may be any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, restrictions necessary for historic preservation must be no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the historic preservation goal. They must also be imposed and enforced in a non-discriminatory manner, as compared to other modern structures that are comparable in size and weight and to which local regulation would normally apply.

[adb]

Thanks for the information. They were aware of the information you sent and that was the basis of the suit. However the ordinance was written in such a manner that it conformed with the FCC. It's been a couple of years now and I can't remember how it was worded, but I'll asked our city attorney next time I see him and let you know.