At 4:11 PM -0400 10/18/04, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >Craig Birkmaier wrote: > >> But to imply that an OPEN specification will lead to >> a few de facto standards where no standard is needed >> is absurd. > >Then explain why Alan Roberts mentions 1920 X 1080 and >1280 X 720, 50/60i or p, as HD formats, and not >others. Because that is the way the debate is being framed by those who seek to control the evolution of DTV. This is to be expected, since the standards processes are controlled by the special interests who seek to impose these format restrictions. An obvious artifact of this reality is that we are even discussing the need for both 50P and 60P. In the future displays will easily support both, so why even have two frame rate families for Europe and the US? For instruction, look at the motion picture industry, which somehow seems to manage their business with literally hundreds of format options. > >By the way, I would think that the way these Grand >Alliance de-facto hold-over standards would handle >1440 X 1080 would simply be to draw two black columns >on the left and right screen edges. At least, that >would be the correct way. How could this be correct, when the camera is capturing a 16:9 image at 1920 x 1080 samples. 1440 samples is what some cameras use for compression, since there is no useful information in the upper spectra of the 1920 samples. Likewise, 1440 is used for emission, again to deal with the reality that you get more information out of the encoder by reducing the number of samples while improving the accuracy of the remaining samples. We fought very hard for square pixels. They are REALLY important on the display if you are going to base the non-Nyquist rasterizing capabilities on a single pixel geometry as is the defacto standard for computers. But we also learned that for Nyquist filtered imagery the sample geometry is not all that critical. You can stretch or squeeze, and distort these samples as much as you want, if you use proper filtering techniques. >My PC monitor has a 1.25:1 aspect ratio. How does it >manage this oddball ratio? Very simple: distortion. >It won't display a circle unless I draw an ellipse >(when it's set to anything other than 1280 X 1024). > >For a PC, who cares. For a TV or a movie theater? I care. The reality is that your display is optimized for 1280 x 1024, providing square pixels that fill the available screen real estate. Yes, you can change scanning rates and introduce distortions; you can also adjust the vertical size to eliminate these distortions by allowing small black bands at the top and bottom of the screen. I don't want distortion in any display, unless I choose to distort the images for some aesthetic reason. Clearly the accommodation of different aspect ratio sources on a fixed aspect ratio display involves the possibility of such aesthetic compromises. I do not mind letter or pillar boxing. I'd love to use these throw away areas for other kinds of information as I do on my computer desktop. But some people want to stretch 4:3 sources to fill their new 16:9 screens, or to crop widescreen sources on their 4;3 screens. It is easy to support both approaches. By the way, Movie theaters have a low tech solution for the problem. They can change the masking of the screen to support different aspect ratios by simply moving the curtains that define the top, bottom and sides of the screen. Regards Craig > >Bert > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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.