Xref: utzoo comp.ivideodisc:330 comp.mail.multi-media:65
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!zds-ux!gerry
From: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason)
Newsgroups: comp.ivideodisc,comp.mail.multi-media
Subject: Re: U.S. HDTV STANDARDS DELEGATION SCUTTLES 1920x1080 COMMON IMAGE FORMAT
Message-ID: <213@zds-ux.UUCP>
Date: 8 Mar 90 16:09:35 GMT
References: <132614@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1990Mar7.102855.22820@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Reply-To: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason)
Followup-To: comp.ivideodisc
Organization: Zenith Data Systems
Lines: 24

In article <1990Mar7.102855.22820@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) writes:
>poynton@vector.Sun.COM (Charles A. Poynton) writes:

>>U.S. HDTV STANDARDS DELEGATION SCUTTLES 1920x1080 COMMON IMAGE FORMAT
>>February 23, 1990
 [ ... ]

>Doesn't sound like too much of a setback. I mean: "decided that the [US] should
>take no position regarding the addoption of ... [CIF]"  sounds GOOD to me.
>In another group, someone posted that the FCC is doing extensive research 
>into many standards.  The US HDTV Standards Delegation would be STUPID to
>take a position before all of the facts were in.  Especially since the FCC
>must approve of their decision to put the force of law behind the standard.

I agree, there is no pressing need to rush into standards at this time.  HDTV
will not be cheap enough to become widespread for at least three if not five
or eight years (cheap enough is probably less than $1000).  Furthermore, I
don't think you want a standard with a frozen image format (again something
that needs to be looked at more closely).

On the other hand, it might be a very good idea to adopt this Common Image
Format for near term R&D, testing, demonstration, etc.

Gerry Gleason