Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the click-here-to-see-episode-2 dept.
the coose writes: "EETimes is running an interesting story describing the current turmoil over DTV standards. It involves many players, including, but not limited to, Microsoft, Sun, the ITU, and SMPTE."
So called e-cinema or electronic cinematography seems to be moving toward two HDTV standards: 24p (24-frame progressive) and 60i (60-field interlaced). Those who are after the "film look" prefer 24p, especially since the progressive approach results in fewer artifacts (aberrations) and higher resolution. The 24 fps speed is also the same as film--even though the extra sharpness of video sets it apart from film. However, compared to 24p, 60i (30 fps) does a better job of tracking motion, which means that zooms and camera movements--especially when done rapidly--appear smoother. (These must be done slower with film or 24p video.) Either of these standards can be converted to film. With the proper equipment and electronic setup, either of these standards become almost indistinguishable from film when projected. (If there is any "fault" with digital video it's that seems "too sharp and clear" compared to film. Of course, I guess we can all get used to better quality if we really have to!) At the same time we are seeing the beginning of a move to e-theaters, or movie theaters that use video projection equipment. A dozen or so major theaters around the country use digital projection now. Several digital feature "films" are in the works now. The studio production standards we've cited are not to be confused with the broadcast standards listed below.
They're after an encrypted signal path from the studio to the screen. This is the single biggest hangup preventing (H)DTV from hitting the market, and is the reason why cable systems aren't carrying HD signals.
Forget video rental, it's pay-per-view only w/ (H)DTV.
The new "interactive features" will be used to track your viewing habits with alarming granularity.
Fuck DTV. Fuck TV.
-Isaac
-- I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The "ideal" resolution would be a resolution which was backwards-compatiable with what exists today. This would be (PAL x NTSC)/(Highest Common Factor).
Frame rate should be calculated the same way. 25f for PAL, 30f for NTSC. Therefore, the "ideal" frame rate would be 150f. Yes, this is a lot higher than existing systems go, but it makes transferring existing NTSC or PAL footage a doddle. You don't lose any information, and you don't need to do any interpolation.
Such a resolution and frame-rate should also reduce the horrible artifacts produced by MPEG. (MPEG cannot handle low light well. It looks like a JPEG in a 16 colour resolution.) The only way to remove artifacts is to INcrease the resolution & speed, not decrease it. If you decrease it, the artifacts are still there, they're just not so "visible". Which means exactly nothing, since you don't watch a single frame, but a whole movie.
-- It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Pay Attention to Copy Protection
by
ewhac
·
· Score: 5
There's a lot of behind-the-scenes dealmaking going on to try and insinuate copy protection methods into DTV signals. They're trying to prevent people from recording programming off the air (since that would prevent you from buying the home video version of whatever it is).
Pay very close attention to this. Look for copy protection systems in the upcoming standards, and call attention to them. It's very important that it not come to pass.
It's about data standards for interactivity
by
Argyle
·
· Score: 4
As a television engineer that was at the founding meetings of ATVEF and the ATSC commitee meetings I can tell you this is a very thorny subject.
Basically it boils down to two camps. One camp wants to invent new languages/scripting to be used for television. The other camp wants to incorporate and amplify IETF standards and utilize them.
I'm for the HTML based plan like ATVEF, since it has all the advantages of an established standard. Plenty of creation tools, few intellectual property issues, and plenty of people that know how to code it.
Those proposing new display engines (usually based on Java) point to the limitations of HTML and XML as unsuitable for use on television. The IP questions about using Java with a 'clean room' version are mind blowing. Noone wants to touch this issue except the electronics manufacturers since all they do is buy a chip and don't deal with any other licensing issues.
The real issue is what will the content providers choose to support. No content provider wants to code several versions of an enhancement to play on differing systems. They want one unified standard to code to all the time. I think most of the content providers have lined up with the ATVEF plans since they allow simple reuse of web apges and tools to make enhanced television.
Contrary to the above posts, the debate isn't about scan rate and format any more, it's about data enhancement.
In the US there is debate that the approved VSB transmission method is far worse than the CODFM method used in Europe. I can tell you as a fact that CODFM is a better method than VSB, but the consumer electronic manufacturers will never allow a switch at this point.
-- nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
First off, the EE Times article is talking about the standards for interactive content, not the image specs. The image specs have already been set, as you pointed out. The current wrangling is over the set of APIs used to provide interactive "programming" for people's DTV sets and set-top boxes. It has nothing to do with the image specs. Read the article.
That said, there are a couple of incorrect statements in your post (actually, in the quote you have from the "CyberCollege" site). The first is this one:
If there is any "fault" with digital video it's that seems "too sharp and clear" compared to film. Of course, I guess we can all get used to better quality if we really have to!
First off, no matter what anyone tells you, the resolution of HDTV is not the same as film. Film is capable of resolving up to 4,000 lines, not 2,000. People see this all the time when scanning film in for the purpose of creating special effects. The current standard for scanning film in post-production is 2,000 lines ("2K" resolution). However, there is still scannable information left on the film that is not picked up at that resolution. 4,000 lines ("4K" resolution) would be the proper resolution for scanning film. 4K is what is needed to really replace 35mm film without any loss, not 2K resolution.
If you look closely next time you're at a movie theater, you can see that special effects shots look blurry compared to the rest of the movie. That's because of the loss in resolution due to scanning at 2K. Hopefully 4K will become the standard for doing special effects, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Most people think that 2K is "enough", even though it really isn't.
As for HDTV looking "too sharp and clear", this is nonsense. No one ever says that. The common complaint is that HDTV looks "too real" compared to film. And what people mean when they say this is that it looks too much like the evening news. Film is used for everything you see on TV these days except for the news and other "reality" programming, and so when people mean to say that something has too much of the video "look", they end up saying that it looks "too real".
The reason film and video have different looks is that they respond to light differently. Film samples light in a logarithmic curve, which is very similar to the way the human eye sees light. That is why film looks so natural. Video cameras, on the other hand, sample light in a linear fashion, which is what gives it that particular look. The fact is, if you want an image that looks the most natural, film is still the way to go.
The second incorrect statement is this one:
The studio production standards we've cited are not to be confused with the broadcast standards listed below.
Actually, the 1920x1080 24 fps progressive format is exactly the same format that is being used for Star Wars Episode II. That's right, it's being shot in the exact same resultion that is supposedly going to become the broadcast standard for TV. Why would studios being doing that? If they use the same resolution for movies as is going to be used for TV, why would people go to theaters anymore? It doesn't make sense.
Unless of course, they have no intention of ever giving us the HD resolution at home. And since all the major TV networks are now owned by movie studios, they can do that.
So, here what's going to happen. HDTV resolution will be used for theaters, which will be a step down in picture quality, and then regular resolution digital TV will be used for the home, and the extra bandwidth from the digital broadcasting licenses that were given away by the U.S. Congress will be used for a bunch of stupid "interactive" content. Isn't that nice?
Slashdot Mirror
More information on the DTV Standards is available.
CmdrTaco: The first link to EETimes is broken.
Content companies aren't about to allow VCRs.
They're after an encrypted signal path from the studio to the screen. This is the single biggest hangup preventing (H)DTV from hitting the market, and is the reason why cable systems aren't carrying HD signals.
Forget video rental, it's pay-per-view only w/ (H)DTV.
The new "interactive features" will be used to track your viewing habits with alarming granularity.
Fuck DTV. Fuck TV.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Frame rate should be calculated the same way. 25f for PAL, 30f for NTSC. Therefore, the "ideal" frame rate would be 150f. Yes, this is a lot higher than existing systems go, but it makes transferring existing NTSC or PAL footage a doddle. You don't lose any information, and you don't need to do any interpolation.
Such a resolution and frame-rate should also reduce the horrible artifacts produced by MPEG. (MPEG cannot handle low light well. It looks like a JPEG in a 16 colour resolution.) The only way to remove artifacts is to INcrease the resolution & speed, not decrease it. If you decrease it, the artifacts are still there, they're just not so "visible". Which means exactly nothing, since you don't watch a single frame, but a whole movie.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There's a lot of behind-the-scenes dealmaking going on to try and insinuate copy protection methods into DTV signals. They're trying to prevent people from recording programming off the air (since that would prevent you from buying the home video version of whatever it is).
Pay very close attention to this. Look for copy protection systems in the upcoming standards, and call attention to them. It's very important that it not come to pass.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
As a television engineer that was at the founding meetings of ATVEF and the ATSC commitee meetings I can tell you this is a very thorny subject.
Basically it boils down to two camps. One camp wants to invent new languages/scripting to be used for television. The other camp wants to incorporate and amplify IETF standards and utilize them.
I'm for the HTML based plan like ATVEF, since it has all the advantages of an established standard. Plenty of creation tools, few intellectual property issues, and plenty of people that know how to code it.
Those proposing new display engines (usually based on Java) point to the limitations of HTML and XML as unsuitable for use on television. The IP questions about using Java with a 'clean room' version are mind blowing. Noone wants to touch this issue except the electronics manufacturers since all they do is buy a chip and don't deal with any other licensing issues.
The real issue is what will the content providers choose to support. No content provider wants to code several versions of an enhancement to play on differing systems. They want one unified standard to code to all the time. I think most of the content providers have lined up with the ATVEF plans since they allow simple reuse of web apges and tools to make enhanced television.
Contrary to the above posts, the debate isn't about scan rate and format any more, it's about data enhancement.
In the US there is debate that the approved VSB transmission method is far worse than the CODFM method used in Europe. I can tell you as a fact that CODFM is a better method than VSB, but the consumer electronic manufacturers will never allow a switch at this point.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
That said, there are a couple of incorrect statements in your post (actually, in the quote you have from the "CyberCollege" site). The first is this one:
First off, no matter what anyone tells you, the resolution of HDTV is not the same as film. Film is capable of resolving up to 4,000 lines, not 2,000. People see this all the time when scanning film in for the purpose of creating special effects. The current standard for scanning film in post-production is 2,000 lines ("2K" resolution). However, there is still scannable information left on the film that is not picked up at that resolution. 4,000 lines ("4K" resolution) would be the proper resolution for scanning film. 4K is what is needed to really replace 35mm film without any loss, not 2K resolution.
If you look closely next time you're at a movie theater, you can see that special effects shots look blurry compared to the rest of the movie. That's because of the loss in resolution due to scanning at 2K. Hopefully 4K will become the standard for doing special effects, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Most people think that 2K is "enough", even though it really isn't.
As for HDTV looking "too sharp and clear", this is nonsense. No one ever says that. The common complaint is that HDTV looks "too real" compared to film. And what people mean when they say this is that it looks too much like the evening news. Film is used for everything you see on TV these days except for the news and other "reality" programming, and so when people mean to say that something has too much of the video "look", they end up saying that it looks "too real".
The reason film and video have different looks is that they respond to light differently. Film samples light in a logarithmic curve, which is very similar to the way the human eye sees light. That is why film looks so natural. Video cameras, on the other hand, sample light in a linear fashion, which is what gives it that particular look. The fact is, if you want an image that looks the most natural, film is still the way to go.
The second incorrect statement is this one:
Actually, the 1920x1080 24 fps progressive format is exactly the same format that is being used for Star Wars Episode II. That's right, it's being shot in the exact same resultion that is supposedly going to become the broadcast standard for TV. Why would studios being doing that? If they use the same resolution for movies as is going to be used for TV, why would people go to theaters anymore? It doesn't make sense.
Unless of course, they have no intention of ever giving us the HD resolution at home. And since all the major TV networks are now owned by movie studios, they can do that.
So, here what's going to happen. HDTV resolution will be used for theaters, which will be a step down in picture quality, and then regular resolution digital TV will be used for the home, and the extra bandwidth from the digital broadcasting licenses that were given away by the U.S. Congress will be used for a bunch of stupid "interactive" content. Isn't that nice?
Free Hans!