[opendtv] Re: 20040921 Twang's Tuesday Tribune (Mark's Monday Memo)
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:36:30 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Here we completely disagree. EDTV quality is more than adequate for
> the vast majority of viewers. Only those with sets larger than 40
> inch diagonal need HDTV.
Can't agree here. A 40" diagonal set in a 16:9 ratio is less than 20"
high. I think there is a fairly large market for wide screen sets
bigger than this as the prices come down. But that means HD, not just
704x480p. While all content won't be that way we should at least plan
for it. And 1080p microdisplay based TV's will be inexpensive by a few
years from now.
- Tom
> At 11:13 AM -0400 9/22/04, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>
>>The Lechner distance analysis was particularly interesting
>>to me, and seems to reflect my reality too. That is, with
>>a 25" 4:3 set, at a viewing distance somewhat less than I
>>have at home, 480 scanning lines are perceptible. At
>>least, with interlace.
>
>
> Glad you added the part about interlace. It is appropriate to
> consider interlace like a filter that is overlaid onto an otherwise
> sharp picture, Unfortunately, this filter causes a reduction in both
> H & V detail, and the ADDITION of picture impairments that impede the
> viewers ability to perceive the available information in the picture.
>
>
>>And the effect of a 31" 16:9 set is the same. A 30" wide
>>screen set seems subjectively about the same size as a
>>25" 4:3, although of course more appealing because it's
>>wide more like a movie screen.
>
>
> True if the set is interlaced. As noted by another post, the vertical
> resolution is identical to the 4:3 set since the number of lines and
> picture heights are virtually identical.
>
>
>
>>As to "why buy an HDTV set," my answer would be simple.
>>If you want to watch TV on a screen bigger than 25" (or
>>31" wide screen), which is by no means large set by
>>today's standards, you need HDTV to avoid the "bigger but
>>proportionally fuzzier too" picture effect. Which is what
>>I always notice with anything larger than 20" in an NTSC
>>set, at approximately Lechner distance.
>
>
> You are on the right track here but still are missing the "big picture."
>
> To maintain a constant level of perceived sharpness as the screen
> size increases (at a fixed viewing distance), requires more picture
> information (high frequency details). One could come up with the
> numbers for a continuously sliding scale, but this ignores practical
> realities. While it IS possible to send image information in
> frequency sub-bands, which can be combined as needed, the practical
> solution - seems to be - to send enough information for the
> application. It is useful to note that JPEG 2000 is taking the
> sub-band approach, and it is being adopted by Hollywood for high
> quality theatrical presentations.
>
> So as a starting point, any claim about the need for "HDTV"
> resolution must be justified in terms of how much resolution is
> needed for a given screen size at the nominal designed viewing
> distance. We have been through these numbers before, but they are
> worth repeating.
>
> EDTV nearly doubles vertical resolution (versus interlace), and has
> the potential to SIGNIFICANTLY increase horizontal resolution as
> well. A progressive raster of 854 x 480 or 1024 x 576 is a
> substantial improvement over 704 x 480 or 704 x 576. In fact, it is
> substantial enough to deliver a sharp picture on screens with
> diagonals up to 40 inches. A 1280 x 720 raster can have sufficient
> detail to provide a sharp picture on screens of up to 100 inch
> diagonal.
>
> These statements are based on the well established reality that
> viewers will choose a viewing distance that is appropriate for a
> given screen size, and that there are practical limits on what that
> viewing distance can be - this is where the Lechner Distance comes
> in. Thus, as screen size increases, the viewing distance (measured
> in picture heights) typically decreases.
>
> The practical take-a-way here is that screens smaller than 30 inch
> diagonal are typically viewed at 7-9 picture heights. Screens between
> 30 and 60 inches are typically viewed at 4-6 picture heights, Only
> VERY LARGE screens are viewed at 3-5 picture heights - most homes are
> not large enough to allow this.
>
>
>
>
>>Perhaps EDTV would also solve the problem, just above
>>that threshold, but TV transmissions that want to get
>>beyond NTSC or SDTV quality might as well jump right to
>>HDTV.
>
>
> Here we completely disagree. EDTV quality is more than adequate for
> the vast majority of viewers. Only those with sets larger than 40
> inch diagonal need HDTV. And. it has been demonstrated MANY times
> that a good EDTV quality program can be upconverted for presentation
> at HDTV quality with very little perceptible difference. The most
> important factor is not the original source image resolution, but the
> quality of the samples delivered to the receiver. It can easily be
> demonstrated that the quality of an EDTV bitstream can be
> significantly BETTER than an HD bitstream that is over compressed.
>
> Ultimately it comes down to a question of bandwidth. A trade-off
> between choice (quantity) versus quality.
>
> 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.
Other related posts:
