I have never spent time behind the camera but I think I have to go with John on the framing issue. It seems quite obvious to me that how you best frame the picture will indeed depend upon the expected amount of detail being presented to the viewer.
I have a Sprint HTC phone with a subscription that allows me to watch CNN in (IIRC) a 320x240 resolution on about a 3" diagonal screen, though I suspect the delivery resolution may be less. Anyway, that makes it about 1.75" high in 4:3 landscape mode. I seem to hold that about 15" away from my eyes so I guess that's about a viewing distance of 8.5 screen heights.
Meanwhile CNN is muchly talking heads. And much of the info watching people talk is actually non-verbal, maybe assessing their credibility, intent, or emotional state from various clues visible in face to face communication. But at 8.5 screen heights the ability to see that information far trumps the gain from widening the field of view to provide more context.
Meanwhile, in HD sitting close to a big screen the reverse is true. There is marginal extra value in being able to count pores or nose hairs on the talking heads so instead the experience is enhanced by spreading it out a bit and providing info on a wider area.
I personally think the extreme example of this is in something like soccer, where suddenly the ability to provide the context of the player(s) makes that game much more desirable in HD, being able to zoom out a bit and provide better context without losing the needed detail on the most central players.
The net result is I really do want things framed differently between my phone and front projector.
- Tom John Willkie wrote:
This is fun! I can say that some content owners today have the position that they won't use M/H on their transport streams. But, they are interested in selling some of their content to others in the M/H space. Just like exists today in other mobile tv spaces. I can also say that I have personally talked to engineering executives at several broadcasting group owners that don't own much of the content that they air -- including one discussion yesterday -- that are very interestedin using M/H, even on the bleeding (expensive) edge.One engineering executive in the first group told me -- even though his company's stock isn't doing well -- that broadcasters interested in M/H think that it will gin up their stock. Certainly, that's true if the services take off. Craig, I'm happy that you think your iPhone screen has more resolution (I guess you mean pixels) than an NTSC screen. In other words, it's better than a circa-1948 receiver, and without the curved edges. I'm also glad to hear that while Steve Jobs is sick, he won't tell the details to anyone on the record, and it isn't a recurrence of cancer. It is you that is out of touch with the reality. I've been reading about and actually watching mobile tv content for several years. Apparently, you have not been doing either, or you weren't taking advantage of the betterthan NTSC resolution of your iPhone screen.Without exception, everything I have read about or seen in mobile tv was either hard to see, or was shot "close-in." This has been addressed in EVERY ARTICLE I'VE EVER READ ABOUT THE SUBJECT. Perhaps you have read too much about Apple instead. I attended a private summit just last week where this "new difference" was discussed. I would suggest that you engage in some reading on the subject -- or better yet -- try to watch "ER" on your iPhone, to see what happens to 16:9 video when shown on a mini 4:3 screen. Last time I checked, the responsibility of dps ended the moment they captured an image to video or film. They largely are clueless about realities beyond that. Remember the ASC trying to halt the DTV transition because they weren't consulted (and didn't discover) the 16:9 issue until well into the game? (They didn't hold things up for even a day.) At this summit I attended last week, one guy who works closely with dps gave their concerns as a reason to not do Active Format Description! That was a riot, since AFD is the only way to prevent their worst nightmares from being realized in homes! They are totally and utterly clueless about the realities beyond their viewfinders. But, you are missing the point. There's a world of difference between framing an XCU (extreme close up) for dramatic effect and making a wholepresentation that way. One of the first content companies to present their content in mobile tv wasMTV, in the form of MTV Mobile. They found within a few broadcasts that they couldn't just repurpose their standard content because 1) the images were just too small to see on small screens and 2) the :30/:60 form was just too long for mobile video, where people just don't have the linear time to watch that length of content.You have heard of the concept of 'webisodes', haven't you?You think Google is working on an electronic service guide? Who the hell cares? They aren't involved in any standards-development work that I'm familiar with. They are working on much, but much of that never is released to market, or is late (Android) or very difficult (Android) to work with in the real world. That's why standards are important, with the involvement of all parties in the ecosystem; most of the issues are worked out in the development of the standard, not months after the press releases when outside engineers try to make your mush work. If there are issues, the process insures that all parties will know about it and will work to resolve the issues on a multilateral basis. Google is also working on TV advertising systems. I even get web hits fromgoggle.com web sites on MPEG-2 syntactical elements.Here's something to keep in mind: even though I use Google for web site statistics, when a google.com employee searches for something on my web site, they are never able to discern the geographic location? In other words, they'll tell me much information about routine web site searches, but they "don't know or won't tell" the location of their employees. And, since you may not be experienced with Google Analytics, I know the difference between a google gulp of my web site (which they don't report to me, either), a search that came through a google web site, and a search that came from a google employee. I'm a fan of google. While they know quite a bit about you, they prevent us from knowing much about them. What a fun attitude! Worse than the number of standards is "non-standards" like Android. Middleware that supports standards on both ends is a good idea. Otherwise, you end up (like Android) plowing two fields at the same time when it comes to implementation. Here's a prediction: If Google wants to play in the ATSC ESG or M/H space, they will have to become a customer of or will have to purchase one of the four or five companies that appear to be positioned to serve the space. Or, since they are not listed on this page http://www.atsc.org/atscmembers.htmlthey will most likely be way behind.Come to think of it, I need to prepare web pages for M/H syntactical and semantic elements so I can unveil them when the time comes. John Willkie-----Mensaje original----- De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Craig Birkmaier Enviado el: Sunday, July 27, 2008 7:09 AM Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Frames Per Second of 720P At 10:07 AM -0700 7/26/08, John Willkie wrote: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?"Really?The important question to ask in this content is what is being done to enhance the the ATSC standard for fixed receivers in the home? Or to be more precise, will broadcasters support any enhancement that will not work for legacy receivers?Clearly, h.264 is a desirable enhancement for both the new M/H service and for fixed receivers. One must ask whether broadcasters will use this codec for full resolution HD broadcasts, knowing that legacy receiver will go black (or blue screen).Let me give you an example that I can talk freely about. When you shootforsmall 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 moreofthe screen than if you were shooting for a large, or even room-filling screen.This illustrates how out of touch you are John. My iPhone screen has more resolution than most NTSC displays. I seriously doubt that image capture and framing techniques will change because of mobile. By the way, I used to think that way about the web on mobile devices, until Apple solved the problem, making it possible to view ANY web page on a small screen.But this does not prevent some content creators from building web pages optimized for small screens, just as there will be a new genre of short form video for mobile devices.So, if you think that there's much utility in showing a screen-filling face on a large, room-filling tv set, rock on. \Apparently many directors of cinematography have no problem filling a movie screen with a face...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.Really? The ATSC standard uses h.262 encoding for video.DirecTV and DISH are using both h.262 and h.264 encoding for digital TV transmissions.Apple is using h.264 for selling and renting TV shows and movies to the masses. Others are using Windows Media for digital TV. And Flash is being used by YouTube and others.I guess John is just focused on terrestrial broadcasters, who now capture less than 1/3 of the digital TV audience (full day ratings, not just prime time).And did I mention that the new ATSC mobile standard has competition too...Back to the ESG (electronic service guide). Wouldn't it be cool if thesamedevices 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 ATSCNDA.But I won't. "Already" might be an exaggeration, but only by a few weeksorso.I think Google is working on this... ;-)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.\Uhhhhh John...8-VSB is significantly more bit efficient than any of the proposals for mobile/hand held. Depending on the constellation that will be used there will be an additional 25% to 50% bit penalty for the ruggedized modes of the mobile standard.What I MEANT TO IMPLY - actually I clearly stated it - is that it would be possible to offer a movie download service that would deliver the bits using 8-VSB to maximize bits per hertz, and also use h.2645 for encoding, which would maximize compression efficiency relative to MPEG-2.Obviously, no legacy receiver would be able to view these movies, but that's OK.I said this in the context that some manufacturers will most likely build the new ATSC enhancements into their fixed receivers. This will allow these fixed displays to use all of the new services offered for the mobile/hand held market, and to decode h.264 bitstreams that can be delivered with 8-VSB, the M/H modulation, a DBS broadcast, cable in the near future, and Internet download. This assumes that the M/H standard will use h.264, which I believe to be a safe assumption at this time.I doubt that a broadcasters would be concerned about the incompatibility of legacy receivers with h.264 bitstreams delivered using 8-VSB, if these bitstreams are a separate paid service like Moviebeam.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 anyDTVchannel " 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.)What has ANY of this to do with the possibility that ATSC M/H features may be incorporated into future fixed receivers?To the best of my knowledge, nothing in these proposals would have aidedtheability 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.This is NOT my understanding. I have been told that several of the techniques that are being evaluated for the M/H standard can also be used to help guide the equalizer in the tuner, even if the goal is to capture an 8-VSB portion of the modulated signal. Time will tell.From what I see today -- and not knowing about the layers of approvalbeforethis stuff becomes public -- ATSC M/H is a "whole new ballgame."Hmmmm... I believe I said much the same thing, and was reprimanded by Mr. Aitkin:"Where did you get the notion that almost everything had to change?"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.The nature of extensibility is to add to existing functionality without breaking it. This allows us to continuously upgrade consumer devices to do new things, but not break existing devices - you just need to upgrade if you want the new stuff.Regards Craig----------------------------------------------------------------------You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings atFreeLists.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.
-- Tom Barry trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org