On Sep 22, 2014, at 7:55 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Craig Birkmaier wrote: > >> As we saw with DVD, high quality SDTV scales up nicely to HD. >> The same us true for HD to 4K displays. > > For sure. But, I'm sure it's not just me, this conversation has happened > already. Let's at least, acknowledge that fact, and acknowledge that the > nay-saying was proved wrong. > > My predictions would be more like, just as HDTV allowed the creation of a > whole new line of TV sets, with way bigger displays than even the most > expensive previous ones, this UHD evolution could prove to do something > similar. Bigger TVs, perhaps. Wrap around TVs, almost certainly. More > effective and capable image processing tools AFTER the MPEG decoder (i.e. > controlled by the user), almost certainly. Plus, you get better color in the > equation and an image that appears almost liquid. What's not to like? Nothing. And it will happen; it already has with the other screens that are being used to watch video. But we are talking about 4K as an emission format, not a display resolution. > There *is* a perceptible difference between the quality of upconverted DVDs > and BluRay, after all. Just like no one calls acoustic playback of 78 RPM > records "high fidelity" anymore, humans have a funny way of adapting to > improvements and of re-evaluating what they once believed. When improvements occur that are within the range of human perception they usually are broadly adopted. Component digital standard definition removed most of the limitations of NTSC encoding, but the level of detail possible was still well below the human threshold. BlueRay provided the extra detail, but the difference was not enough to make it a commercial success like DVD. Now they want to update Blu-Ray for 4k. Audio went through many generations of consumer products both analog and digital. But attempts to keep raising the sampling rate in commercial products fizzled when the quality was good enough. > > If the content can be distributed with the same quality as the master, > without having to wear out the master in the process, there's nothing wrong > with distributing this "master." The owner can still protect the master copy. > If it's true that H.265 can compress to half the size of H.264, which in > theory would mean 1/4 the size of MPEG-2 compression, I'd call it the next > evolutionary step, and looking forward to it. One word: oversampling. It applies in the acquisition/production process, and it applies to displays as well. The really important issue is the quality of the samples that make it through the emission encoding and decoding process. High quality samples scale easily; bad samples only get worse when scaled. We still see far too many compression artifacts with HD emission coding, especially in live action. It is the reason that 720p is used far more than 1080i for OTT distribution. With h.265 it should be possible to encode 4K masters at 1080P resolution with VERY high quality. And that will be more than sufficient for any in home display. A 30-40 foot screen in a movie theater is another matter. > > None of this disputes the mess these guys are creating, with incompatible > baseband copy protection schemes. It I'd a closed system that does not require backward compatibility. Let them play in their tiny sandbox while the rest of us use what we have learned to create practical high quality solutions. 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.