James Trapp wrote:
> On 2 May 2008 23:17:05 GMT, phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 20:48:29 GMT in Technicolor? <cinerama@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>
>> | I appreciate all the various comments on my original question. I do
see a
>> | possible market for such a device if the economy of scale were there.
One
>> | problem people face as they go from one to two (or more) HDTV's in
the home
>> | is how to distribute non-OTA material (satellite, game, blu ray,
cable,
>> | etc.) from the one source to many outlets. So far, the cabling is
expensive
>> | and ***bersome with the use of various amps or distribution devices
adding
>> | to the cost. It would be awesome if the existing distribution in the
home,
>> | the coax already in the wall, could be used with an HDTV RF
Modulator.
>>
>> Or, consider the DishNet ViP722 receiver. It has an RF output for a
2nd TV.
>> At some point there could be enough demand for them to consider making
the
>> 2nd TV be fed an HD signal. Then they will need an ATSC or QAM
modulator.
>>
>>
>> | I think ultimately we may find source and viewing devices being
network
>> | devices and distribution might occur of Cat5E or Cat6 since they have
the
>> | bandwidth and are dirt cheap.
>>
>> That's a possible alternative. OTOH, I'm working to eliminate metallic
>> wiring in my home as much as I can (doesn't seem so easy for electric
power).
>
> On a related matter: I've noticed that BestBuy has all smaller HD LCD
> sets connected to a (coax) RF input. Picture quality surely appears to
> be HD, although this is difficult to ascertain on the smaller screens
> (up to 26"). I asked the sales person how BB manages to achieve such a
> fine image with only an RF input. His explanation, as expected, was
> somewhat rambling and made absolutely no sense. Any idea how this may
> be achieved?
Over RF HD is digital
With digital there's no snow or ghosts. You get either a nice clean
picture, hesitation, pixelization or no video at all.
|
