[opendtv] Re: Interlace Artifacts
- From: "John Willkie" <JohnWillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:56:24 -0800
Isn't there just a little bit of a problem putting 1080@60p into the spec?
You know, the one about there just not being enough bits to play with? So,
are you saying that we should have waited until MPEG-4 (permitting higher
bit rates) came into being?
I agree with the sentiment, in general. I was even going to voice it here,
until I recognized that by doing so, I could reignite the "is 720 hdtv or
better than 1080i argument."
John Willkie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Cordova" <arteffects@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 6:29 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Interlace Artifacts
> Amen, brother. I wondered a long time ago (on this list) why interlace
> wasn't thrown out with the subcarrier. I know we're far from along, but I
> just don't get it.
>
> The "i" formats give license to perpetuate a bad format for who knows how
> long. I wish 1080/60p had been included from the get-go, with all i's
> excluded. If 720/60p were the highest resolution format transmitted today,
> that would seem fine to me.
>
> I always figured plenty of people would WATCH interlaced signals, and
> manufacturers should be free to make whatever display they want to. But I
> like the way you put it - "stop collecting the images using interlace". I
> think it's tragic that we're still originating interlaced material. Phooey
> on that.
>
>
> At 06:13 PM 1/10/2005, you wrote:
> >There is a sub-plot here that is not being discussed. Why were/are
people
> >such as myself and many others (Tom for instance) pushing for an all
> >progressive universe? Because we knew "way back when" that the world
would
> >eventually move to native P scan devices (such as we are seeing with LCD,
> >DLP, Plasma) and the interlace artifacts would never be properly
corrected
> >with affordable conversion devices - it is cheaper and better to just fix
> >the problem at the beginning - stop collecting the images using
interlace.
> >It is interesting to see the asymmetric relationship in P versus
interlace
> >source origination. Any P source looks ok on an interlace display device
> >(my first HDTV set was native interlace, all I could afford, so even I
USE
> >TO have a hated interlace CRT in my home). Interlace on Interlace looks
> >ok. Interlace on P display looks terrible. Coupled with frame judder,
> >some fast motion imagery using interlacing scanning is just awful - have
> >you ever seen a 1080i basketball game over compressed in an ATSC
channel -
> >its awful. Contrast that with a 720p60 football game on ABC (and now
Fox).
> > On the same bandwidth channel, the pictures are STUNNING. When 720p60
is
> >displayed on a native 720p60 device (my home projector), my mouth drops
> >open every time I see the pictures in my own home.
> >
> >It is amazing that the old guard still sings their tired old songs.
> >Interlace in NOT the future (it never was). P scan forever!
> >
> >At 09:59 AM 1/10/2005 -0500, Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> > >At 12:16 AM -0800 1/10/05, Bill Hogan wrote:
> > >>When Tom McMahon says something you can believe he knows and can tell
the
> > >>difference between artifacts from displays and the signals feeding
those
> > >>displays. Yes, Tom's observations can be taken at face value.
> > >>
> > >>Regards, Bill Hogan
> > >
> > >I'll second that, and note that NONE of these display technologies
> > >have artifacts that can easily be confused with interlace artifacts.
> > >Contouring, the lack of detail in dark and bright regions, color
> > >fringing (single chip DLP) , and colorimetry issues as DISPLAY
> > >artifacts.
> > >
> > >The biggest problem continues to be that which Tom alluded to:
> > >
> > >It is very difficult to do a good job de-interlacing in the receiver
> > >as opposed to using a high(er) quality professional system prior to
> > >encoding for emission. It get's even harder if the receiver is
> > >forced to work with a noisy analog signal (aka cable) or a trashed
> > >MP@ML encoding that presents the de-interlace chip with excessive
> > >quantization noise (AKA DBS).
> > >
> > >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.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
