Xref: utzoo sci.electronics:10602 comp.graphics:10390 comp.std.internat:611 rec.video:11112 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ns-mx!iowasp!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!rutgers!usc!jarthur!uci-ics!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucsd!ucsdhub!celit!billd From: billd@fps.com (Bill Davidson) Newsgroups: sci.electronics,comp.graphics,comp.std.internat,rec.video Subject: Re: I don't need HDTV! Message-ID: <7322@celit.fps.com> Date: 15 Mar 90 18:57:00 GMT References: <8Zx8Ip200ioEMMrHEF@andrew.cmu.edu> <132618@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <2694@sactoh0.UUCP> <1990Mar13.023805.24765@athena.mit.edu> <1990Mar15.090214.9871@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> Followup-To: sci.electronics Organization: FPS Computing Inc., San Diego CA Lines: 48 In article <1990Mar15.090214.9871@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) writes: > I'd be perfectly happy to settle for the telivision picture tubes of today! >It's the signal that's so horrendous! I mean: If you've ever seen the >output of a laser disc player, it's awesome! It shows what your picture tube >can do. It's the low signal to noise ratio of the broadcast signals that we >receive that's horrendous! I disagree completely. Resolution is sickly compared to what it could be. Have you ever seen a high resolution screen? Laser disks are as good as it gets on a regular TV but the resoulution is still pitiful. The pixels are huge and there's no signal that can possibly fix that. Maybe I'm spoiled by looking at 1000+ line computer screens so much (I'd like HDTV to be even higher resolution but that would *really* be expensive). > I commend the FCC for requiring that the new format signals be backwards >compatible, but I think that the standard could easily offer more than just >backwards compatibility. [idea deleted --billd] How long do we have to carry around the baggage of a standard that was designed so long ago that it can't even get the colors right most of the time? Color was an add-on and the implementation suffered in order to maintain compatibility with old black and white sets. At some point you have to say "enough is enough". We can do so much better now. We know a lot more about video signals than we did when NTSC was designed. Also, the frame rate is annoying. It destroys resolution when converting 24 frame/sec film to video due to frame mixing. I want a standard with at least 1000 lines and a 72Hz frame rate. Wide screen would be nice for films and square pixels would be nice for computer graphics. Why suffer with the old forever? Just because most people won't be able to afford it is rediculous. Most people couldn't afford pocket calculators when they first came out (or TV's, or cars or most other major new technologies). We need to define a standard that is good and is doable and which can be foreseen to become cheap with time. It doesn't have to be cheap now. It would be nice if it was an international standard as well so that video tapes and laserdisks will work anywhere. It took CD's 5-6 years to really break into the US market. A lot of people thought they were rediculous when they first became available. They were very expensive (both the players and the disks). Now it's getting hard to find records stores that have more vinyl than aluminum coated plastic. It took laser video even longer (it's back and gaining a lot of momentum right now). HDTV will be the same story. We have generations of people now who grew up watching TV and they are getting more and more demanding of quality video. --Bill