Xref: utzoo sci.electronics:10784 comp.std.internat:648 rec.video:11252 comp.graphics:10540
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!jupiter!kassover
From: kassover@jupiter.crd.ge.com (David Kassover)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,comp.std.internat,rec.video,comp.graphics
Subject: Re: I don't need HDTV!
Message-ID: <6231@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 21 Mar 90 20:51:18 GMT
References: <sa0KhqO00Uh7M2R25C@andrew.cmu.edu> <5478@okstate.UUCP> <BOWERS.90Mar21114921@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Followup-To: sci.electronics
Organization: Aule-Tek, Inc.
Lines: 52

In article <BOWERS.90Mar21114921@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
...
>I realize that this is a little out of place but as an example we in
>the aircraft industry prefer to sample at a minimum of 5 times the
>maximum frequency of interest and we usually prefer 10 times the max
>frequency.
...
I also work in conjunction with the aircraft industry, and have a
devil of a time convincing the airframe and powerplant types that
sampling at more than their beloved 10x maximum frequency just
introduces sampling noise into the analysis (and therefore
anything downstream of the sampler)  (As well as making it hard
for me to build hardware and software that can actually sample
*and* do the required calculations that fast 8-) )

Remembering way back into High School Health, the generally
accepted *nominal* range of human hearing is 20-20kHz.  I don't
think there's a problem with building audio components that are
"flat" (well, flat enough. +- .5 dB?) out to say 30kHz.  And
economic for most of us to buy.  If someone wants to spend more
than that and get "better"  frequency response, they may.

Assuming, of course, that the input signal contains meaningful
information at those high frequencies, anyway.  (NOT whether it
should, just whether it does).  The case of an audio frequency square wave
is somewhat misleading, since the mechanical components of the
system possess enough inertia to low-pass filter the signal.
(like speaker cones, eardrums, and ossicles)

Back to the point.  The standard that is adopted should be
capable of providing a *reasonable* benefit for most people.
Even unreasonably, say 3.5 sigma out from "normal" or "average",
and furthermore should allow for those 4.0+ sigma people to add
on, at additional cost to themselves.

I don't see why there is so much agony about making the people
who want video to do traditional graphics and the people who want
video to look at more true-to-life images have to put up with the
same standards.  I submit that *most* people who do both kinds of
activities will not need to convert from one to the other often,
and those who do will be able to get hardware, software, or
whatever to do it.  I submit that it is not necessary to
displease everyone, nor to provide the new technology immediately
to the man on the street for only $49.95 in 1990 dollars.

Before you all flame me for wasting bandwidth:

I am reading this through comp.graphics.  The article I am
following-up was posted to no less than 3 other newsgroups, none
of which I read.  IMHO, the proposed standard for HDTV is a reasonable piece of
information for posting here.  The argument, polemics, and other
such stuff is maybe better restricted to someplace else.