Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!uci-ics!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucsd!ucsdhub!celit!billd From: billd@fps.com (Bill Davidson) Newsgroups: sci.electronics Subject: Re: I don't need HDTV! Message-ID: <7351@celit.fps.com> Date: 17 Mar 90 00:03:18 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> <7322@celit.fps.com> <1990Mar1 Organization: FPS Computing Inc., San Diego CA Lines: 152 In article <1990Mar15.215645.20272@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >That's because your TV's color decoder sucks or the signal was recorded >by a lousy camera. If you continue to insist that television deliver >workstation quality color graphics then I suggest you invent a new standard to >implement it, because HDTV will not be used for graphics by most of its >intended market. I have a Sony XBR which I bought because it was the best I could find (except the Proton which was slightly better but was also more expensive and had fewer nifty feature-junky-pacifiers). I think my TV is close to being about as good as it gets. As for signal purity, I've seen NTSC composite video on many different computers and many different monitors and resolutions. NTSC just doesn't do color very well compared to RGB. It's inherent in the standard. I wrote: >> Color was an add-on and the implementation suffered in order >>to maintain compatibility with old black and white sets. >Oh? How would you have done it? You forget the installed base of black >and white TV sets, and the inherent cost difference which causes b&w sets >to still be manufactured and sold to this day. There is also transmission >bandwidth to consider. I probably would have done it the same way. Believe it or not, I do understand the installed base thing. I just think you can only take it so far. Also, I haven't seen a B&W set bigger than 8 inches in a store in about 5 years. I haven't seen one bigger than 13 inches in about 10 years. Very few people buy them anymore. If HDTV were to to approach the quality of RGB and have over 1000 lines, I think that NTSC sets would go the same way eventually, even if NTSC transmissions remained widely available. >> 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. >Very true. But what you are suggesting is impractical overkill that gratifies >graphics purists and is engineering hell to the standards committee. So? I think we need to make a standard that stretches things for now. It will probably be restricted to cable and satellite for quite a while but I don't see why that's a problem. It's going to be expensive no matter what we do. I admit to being on the lunatic fringe of resolution purists. When I was a photographer, I prefered to shoot pratically everything in 4X5 mostly because of the resolution gain (though somewhat for the greater focus-plane and paralax control). >>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. >Your frame rate is a good idea, because the primary benefit of HDTV will be >movie quality video rentals and cable. I don't know if a full 1000 lines >would be required, and I somehow doubt it. 800 sounds ok for a wide picture >but I'll defer to the movie experts. Yes, 800 would be a great improvement (more than double the current useful resolution) but to me it's not enough, especially if you have a large screen. Have you ever seen a laser disk on a 32" Proton? It's sharp but the pixels seem golfball sized. Larger screens are also becoming more popular and this is increasing the need for more resolution. >Where do you get square pixels? You're practically asking them to define an >exact display and graphics transmission standard along with it! Who's going to >use that, besides Pixar and Apple Computer? Yes I do want an exact display and graphics transmission standard built into it. Computer graphics is becoming more and more prevalent in video. To think that only two companies are going to care is ignorant. HDTV should be useful for a large number of applications (medical imaging, computer graphics, movies, home video, video conferencing). It would be great if all these things had compatible interfaces. Right now we have conversions galore, all degrading quality. It would be great. You could pull video into your computer graphics application (or vice versa) without any conversion. One monitor could serve for a TV, closed circuit TV, a computer screen, your Nintendo (TM) set and anything else. Monitors could become an interchangeable part for all of these systems. >> Why suffer with the old forever? >Because it addresses the realities of its intended use much more effectively >than what you're suggesting could ever hope to. I think you have a very limited view of it's intended use. >> 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). >No, it's the installed base. You can't just tell them to buy new boxes because >they'll tell you go screw. After all, if you talk them into paying you for a >whole new set of equipment, couldn't you just do it again in 20 years when this >standard is 'obsolete'? Who said we have to dump the old immediately? It could be brought in slowly over a period of 10-20 years, starting with cable. Even when we start radio transmissions, it could be done with just a few channels at first. In any case, cable is slowly taking over vast amounts of the US. In 20 years, it may be just about everywhere. >> 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. >Yes it does. We want movie quality television, more or less cheap, and now. It won't happen. It can't happen with NTSC. Also, NTSC is not about to become an international standard. What about the Europeans? It can't happen NOW. Nobody has made it. I think it will be difficult to widen the screen and impossible to change the frame rate and remain compatible with old equipment. >You just mentioned some storage mediums, which are dislpayed >through cables to a monitor nearby. These can have almost infinite quality >because the wires are shielded and the signal quality does not degrade. >As soon as you broadcast via radio, you have many engineering restrictions >on your picture quality; NTSC addresses them very well regardless of its age as >a standard. It does lack signal correction, but for many people the improved >quality and wider screen will make them happy campers. You got me here. I'm not much of an expert on radio transmissions so I don't know all the potential problems with putting out a high definition signal. It just seems to me that it should be possible. Maybe it will be expensive, but like I said before, almost all new technologies are. >>We have generations of people now who grew up watching TV and they are >>getting more and more demanding of quality video. >They can get it from a laser disk, or on their computer's monitor. In the world >of broadcast television it will end up more like Glenn's idea, because without >signal correction all the resolution in the world won't look much better than >NTSC anyway, especially when you start throwing noise and ghosts and other >radio phenomena at the signal. [...] >But please do not ask anyone to figure out how to transmit it via radio. Its >time will come when cable and fiber optic networks become the standard means >of communication. Until then, 'NTSC on steroids' will be the better choice for >movies and television. Sadly, it may turn out this way. Too many people want it to work with their old sets. To me, the loss is much greater than the gain. Fortunately, widespread fiber optic communications lines may not be very far away. Video conferencing may see to that. --Bill