Craig Birkmaier wrote: > Video is going to proliferate at MANY resolutions, according to the > requirements of the applications - from video on cell phones and PDAs > to HD on the big panel display hanging on the wall. Please stop > trying to make force the future of motioning imaging into one rather > poorly designed box. I think I've posted this before but I'll go you one better on this one. I think it is only a limitation of current block based codecs that compressed video even HAS a resolution. Current codecs tend to keep a fixed resolution but decrease the precision when they start to run out of bits. But (wavelet codecs are better at this) it would probably be desirable to encode such that your stat mux can instead variably decrease the resolution as needed for high motion scenes, thin pipes, or busy prime time when there happens to be high needs from other channels in the pipe. Thus high bit rate compressed source could be send at variable bit rates for different times and needs, without the extra artifacts of re-encoding. I've heard it said that if you are re-encoding with MPEG2 you have to start off with about twice the target bit rate to avoid artifacts. If so, this is a shame, and would be unnecessary with adjustable resolution coding of some sort. But practically everybody encoding something these days is already starting from a pre-encoded source so it would be better if we could just alter the bit rate of that instead of real time re-encoding. Overlays, logos, etc. would be separate objects. Thus I'd predict we eventually will have compressed video that has a MAX resolution but not a fixed one and we can then just rate shape everything from a single source to multiple targets such as sub-channels and cell phones. Each step along the way might discard a bit more as needed. But the master archives would be pre-encoded at highest quality. Apart from being incompatible with basically everything in the world does anyone see a downside to this? - Tom > At 12:02 PM -0600 1/22/05, Doug McDonald wrote: > >>There is no spectrum space. A single HDTV program is all that >>will fit in one channel. Anything more than one other SDTV channel >>will ruin the HDTV quality. >> >>OTA digital is about HDTV, not multicasting. It's time to face that >>fact. > > > Let's just say that we disagree about BOTH points. > > With improved video compression, HD is less of a challenge - when it is > needed. > > But your comments completely miss the point. > > The current DTV standard is EXTREMELY wasteful of the spectrum > allocated to broadcasters. We are replacing one inefficient system > with another inefficient system. There is no question that we can > double or triple the number of 6 MHz channels available to each > existing market, while adding even more channels to provide > sub-market coverage. > > And this does not even take into consideration the bandwidth > multiplication effect of delivering content to local caches for > asynchronous consumption (e.g. premium services such as movies on > demand). > > As for OTA being about HDTV, you are dreaming. > > HDTV is an application. In terms of what local broadcasters can > deliver it is one of the least interesting applications. This is not > to say that ALL TV content should not improve. That is easily > accomplished if we simply let go of the legacy of interlace, 59.94 et > al. > > Video is going to proliferate at MANY resolutions, according to the > requirements of the applications - from video on cell phones and PDAs > to HD on the big panel display hanging on the wall. Please stop > trying to make force the future of motioning imaging into one rather > poorly designed box. > > > >>The broadcasters need to get on the ball and get HDTV to everybody. >>We still, for example, still don't have CBS in HD, or PBS on at >>all, not to mention WB in HDTV. CBS is supposed to be a big >>network ... they should be leading the HDTV parade, not terribly >>lagging. They should say to the locals "go HDTV or else". In our >>market, I'm quite sure that the WB station would be delighted to >>fork over the bucks to put in the HD equipment if CBS went to them. >>They are already full power, and CBS is running 1/800 their >>allocated power. > > > Even if every station you list carried every HDTV program their > networks offer, you would not have a viable HDTV service. The total > hours of HD offered by these services is still only a fraction of > what is offered in Prime Time. And, with the exception of PBS, these > programs are filled with commercial interruptions. > > HD is important. But it is not the end game. > > The end game is the ability to deliver digital media content without > having to suck up to a handful of powerful companies that seek to > keep us all prisoners inside their walled gardens. > > Regards > Craig > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > > - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at > FreeLists.org > > - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word > unsubscribe in the subject line. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.