[opendtv] Re: Learning From the Veterans - local news in HD

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:58:52 -0400

At 1:57 PM -0500 4/29/10, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:

Craig Birkmaier wrote:


 Of course somebody - definitely NOT Bert - will want the larger 4:3 HD
 image to be delivered to next generation 4:3 HDTV displays...
You really should learn the art of conciseness, Craig. Drowning people with words is very counterproductive. It makes it seem like you don't get it. 

But the above quote is the crux of our rather total disagreement.
Bert, I said I would not continue this unproductive discussion with you, but I can't just let you get away with this absurdity... 

The comment you quoted above was a JOKE Bert.
Not that there would not be a few people who would want to see the larger 4:3 acquisition aperture.
You may have dreams of some future where squarish monitors rule again, but it is not reality. The reality is, the HD monitors are 16:9, and the SD are 4:3. The 4:3 extraction in reality goes to low res.
No Bert I do not have any dreams of a future where squarish monitors rule again. Nor do I have a dream of a future where all monitors are 16:9 or ANY OTHER aspect ratio for that matter.
In the future that I envisioned nearly two decades ago, display resolution and aspect ratio are totally irrelevant - these are consumer choices based on the application(s) for which the display is going to be used.
In the world I envisioned there will be displays of many sizes and aspect ratios and ALL OF THEM will be expected to do the best job they can accommodating content of any resolution or aspect ratio. Coincidentally, this is exactly what is happening in the REAL WORLD today.
The one general exception to this rule is TV land where for some reason there seems to be a belief that there needs to be "one size to rule them all."
HD monitors come it MANY aspect ratios - what makes them HD capable is the ability to deliver the resolution expected for an HD viewing experience at the designed viewing distance.
SD monitors ALSO come in many aspect ratios - what makes them SD quality is that they can only deliver SD quality at the designed viewing distance.
This may come as a shock to you, but there are dozens, if not hundreds of 16:9 SD monitors (aka TVs) on the market today. Any panel type TV that is smaller than lets say 25" Diagonal, is in reality an SD monitor when viewed at typical TV viewing distances. These small displays are INCAPABLE of delivering the HD viewing experience unless you sit at something that approximates a computer viewing distance. And this my friend is NOT what people do when they watch TV.
You could quibble and say that because these displays are progressive scan and have higher pixel densities than needed, that they are EDTV, but let's not quibble. 

SD DOES NOT = INTERLACED NTSC (or PAL).
If you doubt this, ask Jeroen what most everyone has been watching in Europe for the past decade or more.
And while you are at it, ask him WTF Philips is doing developing 21 x 9 TV displays. Obviously he did not get the memo from you that HD is 16:9.
Oh wait. I guess Hollywood did not get that memo either as they rarely if ever use that aspect ratio. Perhaps this may be the reason Philips is offering 21x9 displays?
Mark used the argument of how few wide screen movies truly incorportated more resolution (Cinerama, 65mm, 70mm). A similar point can be made for 4:3 HD displays. Hardly makes any sense to worry about them. 

NOBODY was talking about 4:3 HD displays Bert...except you.
What we were talking about was the ability to accommodate multiple aspect ratios from a common master format. And to do this in a manner that DOES NOT compromise the new HD version at the expense of the legacy format that hopefully is going away, however slowly.
Paramount has been shooting 4:3 HD masters on film and using Tilt and Scan extraction for at least a decade. John Sprung, who spent many years on this list convinced Paramount to do this after seeing my Tilt and Scan demonstration at the 1995 SMPTE Winter Conference.
Note: although I developed this idea independently, I do not claim to have invented it. I strongly suspect that similar techniques have been used in Hollywood over the years, because they PURPOSELY capture more image than needed so that they can reframe a shot in post production; and to derive multiple versions from the same masters. They may zoom into the frame and position the shot in any axis - that is yet another advantage of oversampling during acquisition.
Therefore, it makes a lot more sense to shoot HD optimized for 16:9, and then make the compromises, either in being able to discern the finer detail, or in cropping away the content on the left and right, on the 4:3 extraction. 

None of this is very difficult to understand, Craig. Honest.



Obviously this is difficult for you to understand Bert.

One more time then I am done.
Cropping the sides of a 16:9 master to produce a 4:3 extraction IS the problem that we have experienced with the transition to HD in the U.S.
This means that the safe image area is the 4:3 extraction area if you are trying to produce both a 16:9 HD version and a 4:3 SD version.
That is, you can't put anything important in the throw away side areas because it will not be seen by the larger legacy 4:3 audience. Watch the Tonight Show and you will see this in practice. Pan and scan does not help because you can't do this in real time on live TV productions.
For live sports both SD and HD are compromised, but to a lesser extent. As Dale indicated, he likes having the wider view of the field and does not like the fact that the sides are cropped in the 4:3 extraction. The HD is also compromised to some extent because close-ups are composed for the 4:3 safe image area that is extracted for NTSC.
Dale also mentioned that he is a REAL FOOTBALL fan (i.e. soccer). The Europeans have been taking advantage of 16:9 for more than a decade and you will typically see the camera sitting on wide shots because of the nature of the sport. Obviously the same wide shot in HD when shown on a large HD display would provide a better viewing experience. And that is what the European audience will get as they take the second step from digital SD to digital HD.
The whole discussion about common sides was about creating multiple versions WITHOUT compromising the 16:9 HD version.
Shoting an HD master in 4:3, with common sides, DOES NOT compromise the 16:9 extraction. The 16:9 extraction IS the safe image area; it looks no different and has no less resolution than the same scene shot with a 16:9 HD camera.
It is the 4:3 SD version that is compromised because the 4:3 master is optimized for 16:9 HD.
What this means is that on a legacy TV you will see more information, not less - i.e. the unimportant parts of the image above and below the optimized 16:9 extraction. However, since the master is being optimized for HD, certain types of shots will not work well on the smaller, lower resolution SD display. This is especially true for wide shots where the viewing experience will be like viewing a 20" flat panel (16:9) TV from a viewing distance of 7-10 feet. 

Ants marching down the field...

Regards
Craig







----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org 
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2010