Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!ucsd!ucsdhub!celit!billd
From: billd@fps.com (Bill Davidson)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: HDTV
Message-ID: <7434@celit.fps.com>
Date: 20 Mar 90 19:39:42 GMT
References: <1990Mar15.202510.4924@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> <2438@milton.acs.washington.edu> <1612@corpane.UUCP> <1990Mar20.120112.4942@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Organization: FPS Computing Inc., San Diego CA
Lines: 28

sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
> But I hope they go with square pixels
>because I have a feeling that HDTV will become the new computer graphics
>standard also. 

In article <1990Mar20.120112.4942@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes:
>I doubt that. It would require them to define a screen width and height
>and a dot frequency IN ADDITION TO all the other parameters they are already
>arguing over.

Yep.  Wouldn't it be great?  You could actually have expectations for
the edge of the picture.  Heck, you might even get to see the whole
image!  What a novel idea.  The edges of movies could actually be
seen!  The width and height don't need to be defined but their ratio to
each other does.  This isn't even just a computer graphics issue.  One
of the things that really pisses me off about current consumer
televisions is they don't show the entire signal.  They cut off the
top, bottom and sides a bit.  HDTV should define the number of pixels
that are shown (all of them dammit!).  They should be square and the
same number should be shown on all monitors.  Don't give me any crybaby
excuses that it's hard to do.  It needs to be done.  The bandwidth
problem is real but we can probably live with less channels and we
don't really need digital rgb.  If we can just do color a lot better
than NTSC I'll be happy.  I don't care if HDTV's are expensive at
first.  We real vidiots will pay for it.  As it becomes more commonly
available, it will get cheaper.

--Bill