[opendtv] Re: Rising to the occasion ...

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:31:23 -0800

You probably should have waited until you looked at the visual evidence
before responding.  I have accessed the site four times in the last three
minutes, plus four "refreshes."  I can only say that it's in Texas, and
about equidistant geographically to both of us.  I am using a DSL line to
access the Internet.

I didn't note "native" in what I quoted, but you use the term "native" in
your response.  That's telling, and bad debating tactic after you raised the
challenge.  I wasn't asked to use everything you wrote, just something.

I don't know where this "native" is defined.  I looked for it in 13818-1 and
13818-2.  The only 'native" is as part of "alternative."  The same is true
for A/53.  Perhaps I should have looked for the definition in A/52?

I actually know the size of the program 4 video that is shown on the KYES-DT
stream capture, and it is well below the maximum of SDTV; 528 x 480.  It is
offered in 16:9 display area.  When you call that 4:3, you are referring to
the pixels, not the display.

When the display area is 16x9, that's a 16x9 display.  

You have no way of knowing what is native or what isn't, and there if there
is a definition in a document referenced normatively by A/53, I can't find

I did find several EDTV/enhanced mentions -- but no definitions -- in

Everything I quoted from you was written by you.  To assert these were not
accurate quotes is PATENTLY ABSURB.  You could have said they "were taken
out of context"; instead you said that I didn't accurately quote you.  You
are the first person in my life to ever say that I misquoted them; and I've
quoted many.  As a published writer, I consider that to be defamatory and
provably false.

So, I am done with this.  You need to use the "W" word as pertains to me; I
don't as applies to you, at least today.

John Willkie

-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de John Shutt
Enviado el: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:09 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Rising to the occasion ...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Here's what struck me in a post from John today:
> "Therefore, all SD programming is 4:3 exclusively."

Pitty that all of what I wrote didn't strike you, John.  To refresh your 
memory I also wrote:

"Therefore, even though anamorphic 16:9 is an ATSC SD format, it is
rarely if ever used, and will continue to remain so even as more 16:9 sets
are sold."

> And
> "In the US, 16:9 will forever remain the exclusive domain of HD."

Which again, native 16:9 video formats are exclusively the domain of HD. 
Emphasis on the "native," John, and your plethera of screen captures today 
reinforced my point to the nth degree.  Every single stream was a 4:3 
stream, not a single one was a 704x480i 16:9 aspect ratio stream.

> 704X480I is not an HDTV format,

I agree.  704x480i is not an HDTV format.  Never once did I even come close 
to asserting that it was.

Nor is it being used as a native widescreen format.  It is being used as a 
4x3 format, with letterboxing of the material as appropriate.

> and I'm not aware of any ATSC or
> ATSC-referenced specification that promulgates the use of the term 
> "Enhanced
> Definition" or ED.

Not all common industry terms are codified in ATSC specifications.  However 
a simple Google search on EDTV will alay your fears by showing that it is 
indeed a CEA term.

> I believe I have accurately quoted John Shutt, and unless provided with a
> reference to an ATSC or ATSC-cited MPEG specification to the contrary, I 
> see
> HDTV, SDTV, and things that are less than SDTV.

You did not even come close to accurately quoting me, John.  But you were 
spot on in proving my point with your posted sample of transport streams.

> I believe the statement directly above is incontrovertible.

I cannot refute what you perceive, John.

> So, all I need to disprove both of these is to show actual stream captures
> that are 1) displayed in 16:9 and 2) use a format that doesn't qualify as

Actually, all you need to show are broadcasters who currently present 
programming in 704x480i30 in native 16:9, not letterboxed 16:9 within a 4:3 

And since I did not say there wouldn't be the odd exception, you should be 
able to demonstrate several such broadcasters.  You did a fine job with 
demonstrating the opposite today with your very comprehensive list of 4:3 SD


> How's this? http://www.etherguidesystems.com/demos/default.aspx

Your server is currently not responding.  I'll try back later.

> And, I have previously conceded you were right about something - in my
> subject area, John.  I try to deal in facts, and I only try to attain
> perfection, I never have claimed to have achieved it.

In that case, John, you made an assertion that I refuted.  In this case, you

have utterly mischaracterized my position then proceeded to show where I was

"wrong,"  and ironically you proved my assertion while trying to do so.

I never mind being corrected by you, John, when it's warranted.  You've done

so many times in the past.  So have others.  That is how I learn.

However, in this case you cannot refute my assertion that there are few if 
any broadcasters in the United States who are using 704x480i29.97 in a 
native 16:9 video format.  Most, if not all, broadcasters, my own station 
included, are instead broadcasting 7-4x480i29.97 in a native 4:3 format, 
with widescreen material letterboxed as appropriate.

Pending examination of your link to Etherguidesystems, you have not shown 
one single broadcaster using 704x480i29.97 (because you wish to be soooo 
precise) in a 16:9 aspect ratio.  Therefore my assertion stands.

Perhaps I threw you off when I said "720p" as a shorthand for the 
1280x720p59.94 format that got you off on some weird "720x480" tangent. 
Perhaps you saw the "720" and assumed I meant 720x480, not realizing that 
720p is a common shorthand for 1280x720p59.94.  I don't know, as your though

processes are privy only to yourself.  However, I never uttered 720x480, you




P.S., your server woke up, and what awaited me was two TS reader screen 
captures.  The first is meaningless to our discussion, but the second has 
the video format information for transport stream pid 161 highlighted.

As Gomer Pyle would say:  Surprise, surprise, surprise!  Framerate 29.97 
Aspect Ratio 4:3.

Another one to reinforce my point, John.  Thank you for yet another 
confirmation that I was correct in my original assertion. 

You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at

- 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 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: