[opendtv] Re: Post on alt.tv.tech.hdtv of interest today
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "OpenDTV (E-mail)" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:34:24 -0400
Bob Miller wrote:
> A note on conversations I am having. Everybody wants
> receiver standards and or to be able to use COFDM and
> MPEG4. Virtual consensus. But everyone is still afraid
> to raise their hand unless everyone else does. No one
> wants to be tarred and feathered like Sinclair.
As long as these issues continue to be discussed, why
not get the terminology right? Is anyone really talking
about MPEG-4, or are we really saying H.264 over MPEG-2
TS? I think the latter. Isn't it just the AVC algorithm
that people want added in the ATSC or DVB standards?
> If they talk modulation they get hit with charge of
> delaying the transition. I think the delay is 8-VSB
> and the solutions is anything but.
They have a point, though. With COFDM, the allocations
would have to be refigured. But if the change makes
sense, you might still have a chance. However, some
of your arguments below, IMO, would cancel out any
possibility of change, and for good reasons.
> One thing I have suggested. If MPEG4 was allowed
> obviously all current receivers become obsolete so we
> could then talk modulation. If COFDM and MPEG4 both
> were adopted the US could do what Australia is doing,
> multicast SD and HD versions of the same content.
Why go one step ahead and two steps backwards? This is a
silly idea, Bob. There's no reason to compromise your
design when you start from scratch. Australia had to go
this way only because they wanted to use Euro STBs, and
HD signal reception was not available by default. What
would be our excuse?
Anything you gain by going to AVC you lose if you have
to simulcast MPEG-2 SD streams with HD. The price issue
is a non-issue. If we had a date certain, $50 ATSC HD
boxes would be available as well. So forget this. In
these situations, where lots of politicians have to
become involved, you have to REDUCE the noise level. I
wouldn't bring up any extraneous stuff at all.
> The thing is that the multicast with MPEG4 would be
> more efficient than the current MPEG2 HDTV single
> cast.
I'd say this the other way around. Rather than going
through this incredible hassle, it would be better to
stay with MPEG-2 and all receivers capable of receiving
HD streams. If you're going to bother with making a
big disruptive change, the least you can do is get it
right, for heaven's sake.
> Maybe in fact LG would be more happy making COFDM
> converters
More likely not. My bet is that without a date certain,
they couldn't care less what DTT standard is used. All
they know is that OTA is used by 15 percent of
households only, and that this 15 percent seems
content to stay with NTSC.
THAT'S the problem. Not modulation. ESPECIALLY now that
LG knows they can make 8-VSB work!!
IMO, if you want to get changes made, you need to focus
the arguments on only POSITIVE outcomes. Not muddy the
waters with a lot of unnecessary compromises that only
make your solution marginal at best. And also you
should lay off the marketing rhetoric.
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:
