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'). JSeems 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...)