Entertainment desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 22

Strange broadcast TV substation in Detroit

In the US, digital TV stations have from 1-6 substations, typically numbered x.1, x.2, etc. But for channel 20, we have 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, and 20.2817 ! There seems to be very little identifying info broadcast for that channel, such as no program info. However, there is a portion of a logo shown at the lower, right corner of the screen, which says:

vib
TV N

I would guess that's the Vibe (TV channel), except that that is a New Zealand station and their logo is red, while this "vib" is hot pink, and a bit different style. The program on it was a drama with what looked to be a family from India, but the credits say it was made in Australia, not NZ. I checked the Titan TV listings for my area, and only 20.1, 20.2, and 20.3 are shown. Note that this sub-channel has been here for several months now, but it had no audio for a lot of that time. I get the impression the local (re)broadcasters are rank amateurs.

So, my questions are:

1) How is it even possible for a substation to have a number that high ?

2) Which TV network is this ?

3) Is there any reason they picked that number, or is it just a bug in the software ? StuRat (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A search taking less than 20 seconds for '20.2817 detroit' found WHNE-LD which mentions PR2817 as a simulcast of VIBRANT or Vibrant TV Network. This info has been in the article since 29 July 2016 or earlier. The same search finds this is also shown in Template:Detroit TV and the article history suggests since 6 July 2016 or earlier. This doesn't answer 1, but does answer 2 and suggests an answer for 3. P.S. Do you not have 14.6 on your set for some reason, or is there some other reason you never noticed 14.6 is the same channel as 20.2817 or is 20.2817 not a simulcast of 14.6 where you live? Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Our article mentions some sort of VOD service but [1] and [2] seems to confirm they have a streaming service in Detroit and elsewhere. That, our article and their Facebook page seems to demonstrate that they primarily show foreign programming. I guess since their target audience is English, it looks like a lot of it is English so it seems to be old or new Australian, NZ, British, Canadian (maybe also Irish etc) programming that wasn't picked up by someone else although there is some non English (well Italian) stuff there too. I'm not seeing any Australian series with a family from India (a few with Indigenous Australians) but may be it was a single episode or I missed something. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for an answer to the first question, it's possibly something best asked at Computing or elsewhere. But [3] suggests the minor channel number is only supposed to be 2 digits. Virtual channel#North America suggests minor channel numbers between 100 to 999 are supposed to be used for "additional informational data channels". Probably it's best to go to the ATSC standard. Which seems to more or less confirm the info, [4] (page 32). It says minor channels which are digital television or audio should be between 1 to 99. But minor channels in general can be between 0 to 999 with 0 being reserved to analog television.

(However I think our article is misleading. Minor channels between 1 and 999 can be used for any other defined services including data broadcasting. Assuming there are more services than additional informational data channels, digital television, audio only and analog television, this means 100 to 999 can actually be used for more stuff. More importantly, our article doesn't correctly indicate that 1 to 99 are also valid for additional informational data channels.)

More interesting, that source suggests the minor channel number is only a 10 bit field so a maximum of 1023. If I had to guess, something is confusing the system probably due to some error/non compliance in the information transmitted hence why some show it as 817. This would concur with the simulcast being in error (also the lack of audio, and maybe the logo being cut off unless that simply due to vision problems). This is presuming it's really simulcast and not simply a mistake in the main transmission making it appear twice, but I'm not sure how well this has been looked in to. (The lack of audio may seem to indicate a simulcast presuming this doesn't happen on the other channel, but it could also be simply due receivings being confused by a non compliant transmission.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A) I did try a Google search, for "20.2817 vibe tv", since that's what I thought it said. That gave me the NZ channel.

B) This is a digital TV. I also have an analog TV with a set-top digital-to-analog converter, and it doesn't find this sub-channel at all. As far as other sub-channels for 20, both TVs find 20.1, 20.2, and 20.3, and nothing else.

C) So, it sounds like a combination of them broadcasting invalid, or at least unexpected, data, and my digital TV not knowing how to handle it. StuRat (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it sounds like C.

Be aware that your area has both a virtual channel 20 and a physical channel 20. (See RabbitEars.Info - Detroit, Michigan Market Listing. The WMYD 20.x digital channels are on physical channel 21. The WHNE-LD 14.x digital channels are on physical channel 20.)

My hypothesis is that the 20.2817 is supposed to appear as channel 14.6, but the virtual channel value is missing or corrupted, and your TV is creating a substitute value by combining physical channel 20 with some kind of stream number present in the signal.

In other words, I suspect the channel 20.2817 on your TV is not a "simulcast" of 14.6, but the actual original broadcast of 14.6 with an unexpected channel number display. Although the normal-looking 20.1, 20.2, and 20.3 channels originate from a different signal, your TV is putting 20.2817 in numerical order after them.

(Your TV can probably also tune Clear QAM digital cable channels. This ability lets you see unencrypted digital cable channels -- typically local channels -- by connecting the TV directly to a cable outlet without a set top box or CableCARD. However, my understanding is the channel numbers will appear as these unpredictable "physical.stream" values when you do this. I suspect your TV is using that same channel label behavior as a fallback on problematic antenna channels, but perhaps your converter box doesn't attempt to display the channel at all if the virtual channel value is missing.) --Bavi H (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Odd that this problem has persisted for months. I often get the impression that nobody at the station actually watches the broadcast TV station anymore, as even a no-audio bug can take hours to be fixed on a main channel, without any crawler explaining that they know about the problem and are working on it. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some exhibition sometime with a video clip in it

There was an exhibition at Brisbane’s Gallery of Modern Art a few years back, maybe 2009, I don’t remember what it was called but it was all sort of dark/dystopian, and included a lot of short video pieces. I was trying to identify one of these that was a maybe half hour loop, on genetic modification and animal exploitation, and I remember it had a bit about the Mad Cow Disease episode in Britain, and cloning sheep. It was a silhouette animation I think. This sounds really vague…

130.102.82.90 (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of past exhibitions here or you can email them at gallery@qagoma.qld.gov.au --Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you recognize this actress from 1945 Hindi film Zeenat?

Can you tell who the performer is (not the voice) appearing in this video (the famous female pseudo-"qawwali" sequence from the 1945 Hindi film Zeenat) in the close-ups at 1:25, 2:48, 2:55, 4:10 and 4:37. The notes at YouTube or the WP article did not help me much. It is certainly not Shashikala, Shyama, Cuckoo or Zohrabai. It could be Rehana but I really doubt it. The WP article has three other names (Zebunnissa, Kalyani, Yasmin) but I could not identify who those people were or a fortiori find their pictures. The IMDB page for the movie is a joke. She's clearly the central character in that sequence. Thank you for any help. Contact Basemetal here 13:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name of this cinematic effect?

I'm looking for the name of a Russian film theorist (or director? or both?) from the silent era whose name is attached to the assertion (which he attempted to prove empirically) that the viewers of a silent movie interpret the facial expression of an actor in context, so that the exact same facial expression can convey diametrically opposed emotions depending on the context. It's called the "____ effect" where "____" is the name of that guy. Does this ring a bell? Contact Basemetal here 15:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuleshov effect? ---Sluzzelin talk 15:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's him! Thanks Sluzzelin. Contact Basemetal here 15:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translate from French to English

Bonjour,

I recently wrote a French biography of a Canadian Opera composer, Joachim Ulric Voyer. See fr:Joachim Ulric Voyer

I want to translate it in English but I am kind of lost on how to preceed. I tried the translation tool Special:ContentTranslation but it smply copy the French text without translating it.

So, using this tool, do I have to translate phrase by phrase myself? If so, can I use (copy-paste it )the translations from Reverso?

Or, rather than using this tool, should I rather create a new article directly from https://wiki.riteme.site, writing it from beginning to the end, with phosos, references, categorie?

I need to know what is the best way to proceed. Where do I start?

Thanks for your help. Son petit-fils (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are fluent enough in both French and English, please go ahead and translate it yourself. Wikipedia:Translation covers the basic process. There's a section there titled "how to translate" that walks you through best practices. I hope that helps!