Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!taco!hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu!kdarling
From: kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CDTV News
Message-ID: <1991Jun16.130419.21035@ncsu.edu>
Date: 16 Jun 91 13:04:19 GMT
References: <1991Jun14.214105.1414@ncsu.edu> <1991Jun15.025015.13046@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991Jun15.064926.27796@ncsu.edu> <1991Jun15.092250.28773@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Lines: 49

rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes:
> kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes:
>> True, obviously NTSC can't show all the Photo-CD pixels.  But then,
>> you'd need a workstation to do that, wouldn't you?  The majority of
>> people will be viewing them on their home TV, for which CD-I is ideal.
>
> Exactly my point, the majority of people will be using TV's. Nuff said.
> HAM pictures dumped to a tv look good. The average consumer isn't going
> to complain about HAM, he won't even know.

I won't argue that for _certain_ pictures, this can be true.  But for all?
Hardly.  Even CBM doesn't agree with you, or else they wouldn't be talking
about including an extra cost video card for Photo CD customers.  Or do
you also think that _they're_ mistaken about this good (I think) plan?

> Care to tell me how you calculated DCTV's color range vs CD-I's?  [..]
> DC keeps their image format propriertary so I'd like to know how you
> know this.

By doing my homework, Ray :-).  Instead of posting immediate replies,
I first always spend several hours researching the hardest facts available.
In this case, the best data came from a file on CIS from someone who had
probed into DCTV and posted its image format and output capabilities.

> CDTV isn't automatically a failure because CD-I has better specs,
> the average joe doesn't even care.  Lately, people have had the
> annoying habit of defining what is "ample and adequate" to exclude
> the Amiga and CDTV.  As far as I know, noone has ever published a
> rule book stating what is adequate for computers.  [ and so on ]

It's just as annoying in my book to hear some people define "adequate" as
"whatever the Amiga currently displays", or that Joe Blow can't tell
the difference between minimum x colors and maximum y colors on a TV.

Get a clue, Ray!  For instance, there are plenty of published graphics
"rule books" about how many grey levels are required for "adequate" viewing
of a B&W photograph.  Common sense and experience come into play here too.

Speaking of which, I can't believe you compared freezeframe on a slutty
VHS tape recorder to digital video NTSC output; nor that you also declared
that interlaced NTSC always flickers.  What planet do you live on, guy?
Come down to earth and I'll show you plenty of crisp, clear, digitized
photos displayed on an interlaced output.  And they don't flicker.

> I don't think the interactive video market is a unary market, there is
> room for more than 1 standard. I wouldn't be surprised if C= adds
> CD-I compatibility in the future. 

Here you may be right.  Time will tell. - kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu