[opendtv] Re: B&C: NAB Battles Microsoft's White Spaces Play
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 23:38:35 -0400
On Jul 7, 2017, at 9:13 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Old news, Craig. You need to get with the times. There was a period of time
when 16:10 existed, for no obvious reason since it's so close to 16:9, but I
think you'll find those days are in the past.
16:10 still exists in many products. All MacBooks use 16:10 displays, while
iMacs are now 16:9, as are most larger computer panel displays. Here is how
Wiki explains this:
LCD computer displays using the 16:10 ratio started to appear in the mass
market from 2003. By 2008 16:10 had become the most common aspect ratio for
LCD monitors and laptop displays.[1] Since 2010, however, 16:9 has become the
mainstream standard, driven by the 1080p standard for high definition
television and lower manufacturing costs.[2][3]
It is ironic that Wiki says 1080P is the standard for high definition
television. Where can I get native 1080@60P source other than the Internet?
The reality is that 1080P is now the standard for cheap TVs that display the
available HDTV formats; and many of these displays refresh at 120 Hz, not 60.
As UHD becomes the reality over the next decade 2160P may become a common (U)HD
format. It is far more likely, however, we will still be watching scaled up
1080P.
Sadly, the CE industry is still stuck in the past, using line lengths that were
derived from analog formats, rather than being optimized for common memory
formats - essentially almost 7% of the RAM is unused. Why not 2048 x 1152 and
4096 x 2304?
35mm film has a 3:2 aspect ratio. Most DSLRs use either 3:2 or 4:3 image
sensors and full memory line lengths.
Still images are cropped primarily based on the content, not an arbitrary
aspect ratio. And portrait mode is VERY meaningful in photography.
Are there any standard still image resolutions or aspect ratios for the web?
NOPE.
Hollywood has dozens of aspect ratios, so why do we need formats anymore?
Clue - we don't. Displays can now accommodate any format. And the relationship
between formats, image sensors and displays has little meaning as we move to
oversampling in acquisition and display.
The Surface tablet seems to have gone from 16:9 originally to 3:2, but that's
not universally liked. Why should it be?
Depends on what you are doing with your Surface Pro.
Why buy an expensive Surface tablet just to watch TV. The whole point is that
you are buying a PC with a detachable tablet, to do real work on...
RIGHT?
I just looked at several Surface forums, and the vast majority LIKE the 3:2
aspect ratio. Why?
In tablet mode you can turn the screens to portrait mode. Most of the comments
I saw said that 16:9 was too narrow in portrait mode, and did not show enough
of documents in landscape mode. One source talked about something Mark Schubin
has discussed extensively over the years - The Golden Ratio (or Golden
Rectangle) - 3:2.
Despite the fact that 3:2 is considered to be the most pleasing aspect ratio,
it is not ideal for every application, which is equally true for 16:9. That is
why we still have a wide range of displays available, based on the application
requirements.
Far more important, we can easily display any content in any aspect ratio,
regardless of the display aspect ratio.
In any event, why Microsoft should have delayed matters by whining about 16:9
for HDTV is beyond me. And now, what they have to say about TV OTA spectrum
is also beyond me.
They love to create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. What they did to BluRay by
backing HD DVD was one of their most successful gambits. They knew video
streaming would kill packaged media...
Eventually.
They did not want Blu Ray to succeed as a high definition replacement for DVD.
So they backed the HD-DVD camp and both were largely market failures due to the
FUD.
In the case of CICATS and the DTV Team, there were two main agendas:
1. Like many in the computer industry, Microsoft wanted progressive scan
formats that could be implemented cheaply on PCs; they also wanted to integrate
computer graphics with the video.
Like the Europeans, they knew it would take years for Moore's Law to make the
ATSC HD formats affordable; interlaced SD was an intentional barrier to slow
progress for the computer industry. So they pushed for formats that could be
implemented early on - 1280 x 720@24P for movies and 480@ 24P, 30P, 60P.
2. They wanted to control the game - they were completely absent from the ACATS
standards process until the standard was completed. But we were still putting
pressure on the FCC to get rid of the format table and let the market deal with
everything above the modulation and transport layers. We were making real
progress on this front until Microsoft inserted themselves into the process
through CICATS. They pissed EVERYONE off.
Who knows why they want the white spaces...
I certainly want more unlicensed spectrum, but it is far from clear how useful
UHF spectrum will be for rural broadband.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
