[opendtv] Re: (No Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:30:37 -0400

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "OpenDTV (E-mail)" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:04:31 -0400

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

> Most actually are more clever, offering additional
> modes to fill the screen when the source has a
> different aspect ratio. For example, some DTV
> display offer a nonlinear distortion of 4:3 to fill
> the 16:9 screen; the central area of the screen is
> not distorted, but as you move closer to the edges
> of the picture the image is distorted more severely.
> The result is that objects moving to the edge of the
> screen appear to grow "fatter" as they leave the
> screen.

I'm baffled why you think it's "more clever" to
design a DTV system that will perpetuate image
distortions for all time.

Of course, *anyone* who has ever used a wide screen
TV knows all too well about distorted images. The
only way to rationalize having to put up with that
is the knowledge that soon, the 16:9 ratio will be
the norm rather than the exception. And that is
what the TV show producers have done, whether or
not the FCC buckled under back in the mid 1990s.
DTT transmissions, be they SD or HD, are now 16:9.

> We are never going back to only one aspect
> ratio.

Wanna bet?

Naturally, just like always, a TV transmission
does not need to fill ther entire screen in
*principle*. That goes without saying, and has been
true for as long as I've watched TV. But if you
want to avoid distortions *and* if producers want
to avoid having viewers crop their carefully
crafted frames at will to fill their odd-sized
screens, the simple answer is to use a standard
display aspect ratio.

> Likewise, we are not going to migrate to a single
> level of resolution.

We've been over this many times. (1) No one said
we need to have only one level of resolution in
displays. That's never been the case regardless.
NTSC TVs are not all created equal. (2) In a
broadcast medium, the only advantage to different
levels of res is to make room for multicasts.
Nothing earth shattering about that. The bit
rate used in broadcast can simply be set to
fill up the pipe. You then let the receivers use
those bits as best they can.

> Why are you so resistant to the notion of
> providing the same flexibility for electronic
> media, even as you are staring at a digital
> media appliance that has been designed to provide
> this flexibility?

It's all a matter of perspective. I object to mixing
apples and oranges. For example, in a unicast medium,
having various levels of resolution helps in terms
of download times or channel bandwidth requirements.
For a small PDA, you would opt for a low res image,
especially if you have a narrow band unicast
connection. You don't need the resolution, and you
want to get speedy downloads.

Similarly, one can open different windows on a PC
screen, where each one is sized differently. If
you're working with multiple windows open, this
is useful.

But to me, to use these examples as reasons why DTV
should have no standards is simply an indication of
"not getting it." The examples are irrelevant to
broadcast DTT (or even digital cinema).

For one, broadcast and unicast have different
constraints. For another, watching a TV show or a
movie is inherently different from working
interactively on documents or programs, or web
browsing. So I'm just unimpressed with arguments
that miss the point, or with attempts to create
standards that perpetuate image distortion.

Bert
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2004