Well put John... Mark the Mark that has lots to say, and some day will... ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 1:07:17 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York Subject: [opendtv] Re: Frames Per Second of 720P There's much I cannot say (but a small amount, compared to what Mark Aitken cannot say) or refute, due to certain agreements t which I am a party. I can say that I saw at NAB the booths of Haris' MPH proposal, and that of Audiovox/MobiTv/Rohde & Schwarz. These were competing proposals. At this point, it appears that one of those proposals was mostly a winner, and one of those proposals was mostly a loser. I could draw your attention to the press conference between LG and Samsung (historically hostile) in Korea in mid-May. Harris did show an expanded EPG. But, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no firm decision made on which ESG will be included in the MH candidate standard. I'm really amazed by the lack of leaks on the work of ATSC S4. There are some pretty amazing things in process, and concentrating on codecs or legacy receivers is to totally miss the point. At some point in the future, the candidate standard should be released to the public, and discussion here and elsewhere can ensue. It's totally absurd to mention the deprivation of legacy receivers in this context; it's like asking "how will color cameras affect black and white television sets?" Let me give you an example that I can talk freely about. When you shoot for small screens, you "shoot bigger" than when you shoot for a large screen. When shooting someone's face, you would tend to make their face fill more of the screen than if you were shooting for a large, or even room-filling screen. So, if you think that there's much utility in showing a screen-filling face on a large, room-filling tv set, rock on. I think it's also safe to say that for the most part, MH programming (like most mobile tv programming) will not be -30 or -60 minute 'traditional' tv programs but will be in shorter bumps. Fools acting on "behalf' of others might think that showing movies on 2 or three inch screens is a great thing, but the subtlety of (all but non-porn) movies is lost on the small screen. All standards are out of date in this time frame at the time they are adopted. But that's not the real problem with standards. "I love standards, there are just too many of them" is the real problem. But, thankfully, there is only one standard for digital tv transmission in the U.S. Back to the ESG (electronic service guide). Wouldn't it be cool if the same devices all over the world could employ the same bits to render an ESG? If that ESG would work over the web, over the air, and be usable on WiFi devices, mobile phones, web browsers, wireless routers, etc. etc., and be able to provide programming information on broadcasts, regardless of modulation or channel coding? There is already such an electronic service guide system, and I could even talk about it without violating the ATSC NDA. But I won't. "Already" might be an exaggeration, but only by a few weeks or so. If you think that 8-VSB is more efficient than a modulation scheme that you know nothing about, one wonders about your sanity. It seems to me that, since the payload of any modulation scheme for tv is largely carrying video (something like 95% or more of a program service is video) that the more relevant figure is the efficiency of video compression and how that is packetized. I suspect that you don't mean to imply that MPEG-2 is more bit-efficient than MPEG-4. I think that it's unlikely that "new receivers 'may" be able to take advantage of the new mobile bits to improve their ability to tune to any DTV channel " The ATSC M/H process had three different modulation/coding schemes to consider. I know not much about the Thomson proposal, and I haven't bothered to look it up. I know a bit more about the Harris/LG MPH proposal, and I know quite a bit about the A-VSB proposal thanks to one R&S engineer I talked to at NAB that provided me with an 8mb powerpoint presentation. (And, I've talked with several Samsung consultants over the years that their proposal has been pending.) To the best of my knowledge, nothing in these proposals would have aided the ability to tune into any legacy programming. Indeed, if we are talking about the early phases of the A-VSB proposal, it would have lessened if not merely prevented the ability to tune into legacy broadcasts. Much work is going on behind the curtain. At some point this year, the curtain will be pulled back. And, I suspect there will be much discussion here, but discussion of "what's new and cool" won't center on the modulation, coding or codecs. I can say that I am truly amazed, at my level of participation, of how most participants in S4's work have a clear interest in breaking from the past and not defending legacy concepts. From what I see today -- and not knowing about the layers of approval before this stuff becomes public -- ATSC M/H is a "whole new ballgame." I would also note that just about any improvement in digital modulation or coding (DVB-H, DVB-T2) doesn't work with well, if at all, with legacy receivers. So, that ain't an ATSC issue per se. John Willkie EtherGuide Systems -----Mensaje original----- De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Craig Birkmaier Enviado el: Saturday, July 26, 2008 5:34 AM Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Frames Per Second of 720P At 12:54 PM -0400 7/24/08, Mark A. Aitken wrote: >Your last statement flies in the face of reality. What HAS been >demonstrated, what IS being standardized, is a (relatively) simple >way to add 'mobile/handheld bits' in a backwards compatible way. >Nothing breaks. Reallocate bits - some for fixed reception, others >that can also be received while in motion. > >Where did you get the notion that almost everything had to change? >(we proposed doing that as you well know, but it did not get off the >ground due to political inertia and mass...and probably a bit of >shenanigans!) SORRY. I know that the standard will break nothing. I should have been more clear. We were having a discussion about the ATSC standard already being out of date, particularly with respect to the installed base of ATSC receivers, which will not be able to access the mobile services. These new services will likely use h.264 encoding and there will be new "support infrastructure" for the mobile bits that legacy receivers will not understand. At NAB Harris was demonstrating a newer and more capable program guide, than the one that exists in the current ATSC standard. So while the new mobile service does not break anything per se', it requires almost everything else to be updated with technologies that legacy receivers do not support. Furthermore, some of these new capabilities would ALSO be useful for legacy broadcasts - like h.264 HD encoding. THere is little doubt that once the standard for mobile is adopted, that we may see new fixed location TVs add support for the mobile and infrastructure enhancements. For example, we could see new TVs with h.264 and integrated PVRs, which could subscribe to a movie download service using the more efficient 8-VSB modulation. And new receivers 'may" be able to take advantage of the new mobile bits to improve their ability to tune to any DTV channel. So this is not a zero sum game. One could even suggest that this is a backdoor way to enhance the ATSC standard. It will be interesting to see what transpires. 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.