[opendtv] Re: --FCC OKs WiFi between TV channels
- From: "John Willkie" <jmwillkie@xxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 08:44:53 -0700
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Craig Birkmaier
"At 4:24 PM -0700 5/31/04, John Willkie wrote:
>Why waste all of our time? Why is this significant? Who, other than a few
>engineers, and a beat writer would care? The content is still bound to the
>shape of the screen: it it doesn't match, the mismatch needs to be
>accommodated somehow.
Because it is the emerging reality. The era of constrained formats is
nearing an end as the era of intelligent displays dawns upon the new
digital world. Try telling someone who is designing a computer
application or even a web page, that they must constrain the design
to a specific resolution and aspect ratio."
Why would I try to do such a thing? I AM writing a computer application
(optimized for 800x600) that, prerelease I have tried out on displays with
more pixels. There are nits to deal with: images that need to be scaled up,
and text labels that should be autosize. That's about it.
As for web pages, I cannot speak of all programmers, but since 1997, the New
York Times and Wall Street Journal have designed their web pages to deal
quite well with screens of various sizes. One trick: don't use frames.
As for constraint, the issue is how much time you will devote to "legacy
formats" like 640 x 480 or even 320 x 240. For me, that's none: my
application is hard coded to provide an error message and abort if the
monitor is even 599 x 799. I'm sorry, but life is too short ...
"The fact that many displays and many digital motion imagery cameras
conform to a few aspect ratios has more to do with economies of scale
than any other reason."
That can be said for just about anything that is limited these days. So,
uh, what?
"For displays a few aspect ratios are likely to
endure, at least until we can buy generic image tiles and put them up
on the wall to form displays of any size and/or aspect ratio. Cameras
will move away from formats more quickly, as it is easier to create
common high resolution sensors from which an image raster/aspect
ratio can be derived. Thomson is already doing this with the
Filmstream Viper."
You have been able to buy these tiles for almost two decades that I am aware
of. Sure, until recently, the equipment was quite expensive. But still,
they had only VERY limited demand. As for me, this sounds too much like the
media rooms from Fahrenheit 451 ...
"As for the mismatch between source and screen, what's the big deal? "
The question is one that should only be directed to you. But, you never
seem to answer it.
"What is important is how the unused areas of the screen are utilized
at any point in time. With intelligent display systems and powerful
media gateways that are decoding AND generating the imagery that is
presented on the display, there will be a multitude of applications
that will vie to fill up the unused screen areas, just as we have
seen with the use of a PCs desktop."
Wrong. What is important is how to get the larges image size possible on
you screen. Some will want stretch, others not ...
And, you just let me know when the FIRST consumer requests this type of
multi-image functionality. The research suggests they want less screen
clutter, not the ability to create it themselves ...
">On what planet is not ER transmitted in 16:9? You mean that NBC shrinks
>down the content to 16:9 and then transmits it in 4:3 on analog and
digital?
Yes for the analog feed. No for the digital feed."
Well, you finally have your feet on solid ground on this aspect. To what
end? It's what we discussed on this list within two days of ER going
widescreen in 2001.
">Are you so venal that you think that ANYBODY in broadcasting would do such
a
>thing? (Yes, you are that venal.) So, WHY do they do that you think what
>they do? (I ask this not to understand NBC -- you can't help me there --
>but to try to understand how/if you brain works.)
Many programmers are transmitting source that is letterboxed into the
4:3 NTSC raster. Not just programs...many commercials are using
letterboxing techniques today as well.
I have long held that the best way to get people to upgrade to
digital is to make NTSC less attractive to the viewer. What better
way than to transmit everything letterboxed into the source aspect
ratio? People would quickly tire of watching tiny ants playing
football on 75% of their low resolution NTSC displays...
NBC is simply promoting the fact that ER is produced in 16:9, and
giving viewers the opportunity to upgrade to digital so that they can
see a better version of the same program."
NBC is simply presenting ER in native form on digital, and in the next best
thing (common sides) on 4;3. It's not particularly creative or imaginative,
just functional. You seem to want to elevate it to "promotion." Incorrect.
So, if NBC is following your idea to make NTSC less attractive to the viewer
as the best way to get people to upgrade to digital, HOW ARE THEY DEFENDING
THE NTSC FRANCHISE?
">"With the DTV receiver, the source is decoded producing an HD raster
>in the display buffer. The receiver then creates various outputs
>which can be connected to different display types."
>
>I'll be sure and tell my 70+ year old mother that this is why she needs to
>upgrade her TV sets.
What an asshole. We don't need to understand how everything works.
Your mother-in-law probably doesn't give a rip about all of this. But
the current generation of teenagers and young adults, who will be the
primary consumers of the stuff we are developing, will care and they
will figure out that the new TVs are more flexible and useful than
the dumb old sets they are getting rid of at garage sales."
Takes one to know one. (You could have avoided that by saying that I was
acting like one.)
YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION! I mentioned my mother. You cited my non-existent
mother in law. "She" is just as likely as teenagers and young adults to
give a rip about what you say about coupling. After a few rounds, they
might even decide that you meant to use "binding" instead of coupling, but
what would they know? They don't reside in your ivory tower atop the
mountain of legacy knowledge.
">
>"An NTSC/S-video version - this could be 16:9 letterboxed into 4:3, a
>simple crop of the side panels to fill the 4:3 screen 9possibly
>guided by pan and scan metadata, or a geometric distortion of the
>16:9 to fill the 4;3 screen, possible with mild cropping."
>
>Why complicate things? By the way, this is coupling display to source, if
>only to know how to render it. You get hung up on your terminilogy.
It is not coupled, if the user has the ability to determine how the
source is presented. It is only coupled if there are no options for
either the content producer or the viewer."
You really need to understand the difference between coupling and binding.
The powered wheels in an automobile are coupled to the engine through a
universal or transaxle and transmission so that the car can coast without
turning the engine. If you could not do that, the wheels would be bound to
the engine. Yes, you have been using the term incorrectly for 4 years, and
this is the first time that I have seen somebody correct you on it.
">
>You are just cluless, but verbosely so. You need to esplain how one gets
>810 x 3 phosphors on a 40 inch wide screen, and keep within today's state
of
>the art. Are there phosphors for display screens that are less and 0.18?
Huh?
How this is done is dirt simple. My HD RP monitor has three 4:3 CRTs
WITHOUT shadow masks. The screen is scanned at 31.5 kHz to produce
480 lines progressive when displaying line doubled NTSC. When it is
showing an HD source it is scanned at 33.75 kHz to produce 1080
interlaced lines that fill the 4:3 raster. If the source is 16:9
(either 720P or 1080i) the image scaling circuitry in the monitor
scales the source to 810 active lines - the remaining 270 lines are
filled with a neutral grey to help prevent burn-in of the unused
screen area (although I think this can be "turned off " (to black).
Since this set has no shadow masks, the limiting horizontal
resolution is a function of the image processing engine and the
amplifiers that drive the CRTs (and then there is the MTF of the
display, which limits the ability to resolve high frequency details
due to the lack of contrast in higher frequencies.
Better give it up now John...you are just digging yourself in deeper
and deeper."
Nope, you are. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SIZE OF THE F**KING PHOSPHORS. You know,
what all but rp screens use to render images visually? You can't fit enough
phosphors into the "HDTV" screen you claim that a 40 inch set can provide.
Maybe not even in mono.
John Willkie
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:
