Xref: utzoo rec.video:11218 sci.electronics:10739 comp.graphics:10509 comp.std.internat:641
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!imagen!iit!sehat
From: sehat@iit (Sehat Sutardja)
Newsgroups: rec.video,sci.electronics,comp.graphics,comp.std.internat
Subject: Re: Image Format Sizes
Message-ID: <127@iit.UUCP>
Date: 20 Mar 90 03:16:13 GMT
References: <132563@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1990Mar16.205807.5971@cs.rochester.edu>
Organization: Integrated Information Tech., Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 21

In article <1990Mar16.205807.5971@cs.rochester.edu>, crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) writes:
> Why not 2048x1024?  This is easy to address, easy to store, exactly and two
> mega-pixels.  Why is it that the proposed standards have picked such bizzare
> numbers?  If people are serious about making images easy to manipulate on
> computers (and only the terminally unimaginative would not be), then we should
> choose a frame size that is very easy to manipulate on computers.
> 

The main reason to this is because in many digital motion video compression
algorithm such as the motion compensated DCT, some extra video memory area
may be needed to store some temporary image data. If you use all of the 
frame buffer, then you need additional storage chips to do this function.

Since the reduction in resolution is insignificant compared to the reduction
in cost, the trade off is justifiable.

-- 
Sehat Sutarja,

{decwrl!sun}!imagen!iit!sehat	| Integrated Information Tech.
sutarja@janus.Berkeley.EDU	| Santa Clara, CA. (408)-727-1885