Ron, the comments came from a couple manufacturing parties at IBC. It was simply stated, and sounded "CBSish" to me. I note that , yes, technically it is supported in a not so forward way via integration of (effectively) alternate fields via the 1920 x 540 frames you mention ('interlace helper tools'). :) Seems sloppy, and I have read that this has some less than desirable results as well (additional note: Panasonic seems to have a level of involvement and IPR as well). So...water cooler? Maybe. Attending, did not mean to indicate such, that was not said. I will attempt to run down the sources... Mark From: Ron Economos [mailto:w6rz@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:55 AM To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [opendtv] Re: 4k @ 60 fps encoded into 15 Mbps using HEVC Including 1080i and including interlace in HEVC are two different things. 1080i has always been included in HEVC. It can be coded as 1920x1080 at 29.97 progressive frames per second (not recommended) or as 1920x540 at 59.94 progressive fields per second. There are no interlace tools in HEVC. However, there are proposals to make HEVC at least be usable for interlaced sequences by adding metadata that describes the field sequence. For example, there's no way to signal a repeat field in HEVC (which seems like a step backward). These "interlace helper" proposals are coming from encoder/decoder companies such as Ambarella, Harmonic, Broadcom and Ateme. Ateme has also noted that coding 1080i as 1920x540@xxxxx<mailto:1920x540@xxxxx> causes chroma problems due to field misalignment (chroma "bleed"). I don't see anyone from CBS attending the HEVC meetings. Do you have a reference for your comment or is it just water cooler talk? Ron On 10/22/2012 9:11 AM, Mark A. Aitken wrote: Which leads me to another question??? Why is CBS (and dragging Sony & others) so adamant about making sure 1080i is included in the upcoming h.265 spec? Is there more than religion at stake here? Thanks...Mark (the other one...)