gordan@maccs.McMaster.CA (gordan) (09/07/88)
Well, if you've read the New York Times or Wall Street Journal lately
(or rec.arts.tv and rec.video), you know that the FCC in the United
States has decreed a standard for HDTV (high-definition television).
Unfortunately it's incompatible with both the Japanese and European
standards. But, hey, standards are a Good Thing, and the more the
merrier, eh?
I sure hope this hasn't escaped the attention of the CRTC. Just
imagine, Canada could adopt the European HDTV standard instead! With
one bold and visionary master stroke, we could safeguard Canadian
culture forever by making it impossible to watch American TV shows.
And, gosh folks, wouldn't that be wonderful?
--
Gordan Palameta
uunet!ai.toronto.edu!utgpu!maccs!gordanlyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) (09/08/88)
In article <1411@maccs.McMaster.CA> gordan@maccs.UUCP () writes: >And, gosh folks, wouldn't that be wonderful? More wonderful than you could *possibly* imagine! -- VE6BBM {alberta,pyramid,uunet}!ncc!lyndon lyndon@Nexus.CA
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (09/08/88)
I'm not so sure we need all these standards quite yet. There already exists a quite extensible standard for video, namely auto-sync RGB. The core of any HDTV system should be an auto-sync RGB monitor (capable of the resolutions and scan rates we're talking here, as a minimum) such as are now sold (for around $1000) for computers. I would want my HD VCR to drive the monitor with RGB video anyway, so there is no need for a special standard there. The only extra part is the receiver to RGB converter. Made a component, it would be easy to replace and upgrade as standards develop. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (09/08/88)
In article <2011@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >There already exists a quite extensible standard for video, namely >auto-sync RGB. The core of any HDTV system should be an auto-sync RGB >monitor (capable of the resolutions and scan rates we're talking here, as >a minimum) such as are now sold (for around $1000) for computers. There is a problem here though - HDTV doesn't use the 1.33 aspect ratio of NTSC, and of virtually all currently-available RGB monitors. It's 1.66, or 1.78, or something like that (the Japanese standard, at least, changed sometime in mid-stream). Also, do any of the $1000 monitors in existence do 60-70 KHz horizontal sweep? I doubt it. The cheap multisync monitors are designed for PCs and run at 30 KHz or so, but I want 70 KHz for a real graphics workstation (1280 x 1024 non-interlaced). This could handle HDTV non-interlaced too. I do agree that RGB should be the tuner-VCR-monitor interconnection standard though. Also get rid of those awful RCA phono plugs and F-connectors for video cables, and spend a few dollars on real BNC or TNC connectors. Who in their right mind would design a connector for shielded cable where the signal conductor connects before the ground?
rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) (09/08/88)
In article <1411@maccs.McMaster.CA>, gordan@maccs.McMaster.CA (gordan) writes: > I sure hope this hasn't escaped the attention of the CRTC. Just > imagine, Canada could adopt the European HDTV standard instead! With > one bold and visionary master stroke, we could safeguard Canadian > culture forever by making it impossible to watch American TV shows. > And, gosh folks, wouldn't that be wonderful? 30 or 40 years ago, Canada had the same golden opportunity to choose between the higher resolution PAL and the inferior NTSC. PAL would have forced us to produce Canadian programs and would have discouraged people from watching the US stations. I don't know if it was part of the same deal in which Canada decided to drop its film industry provided that Hollywood films make more mention of our country (e.g. referring to cousins in Montreal, and having backgrounds showing posters for Banff or sacks of PEI potatoes). What better way could there be to promote the Canadian identity, and at such a low cost?
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (09/09/88)
Don't tell me the suggestion of an independent HDTV standard was serious? Remember that HDTV will be bought first by the rich. It will also be broadcast from the US before it shows up on cable, although that could be altered with a big effort. Most of those rich live near the border. Faced with buying an HDTV tuner that could only get US stations and one that could only get Canadian stations, guess which one people will buy, particularly if the US stations go HD first, as they did with colour and stereo? Probably consumers would be forced to buy both. What a benefit. Of course the US ones will be a lot cheaper since they have ten times the scale. Or we'll just end up importing all ours from Japan or Europe. Or, just as there are expensive TVs that get both PAL and NTSC, Canadians may end up forking out for this sort of thing. Not that US programs would not show up on the Canadian stations, I guess. They will show up in the same amount, unless you pass laws limiting it. Unlike the old days where it cost a LOT to convert PAL->NTSC, it's now quite cheap. All you need is a frame buffer. Every TV station in Canada would have a real time HDTV format converter. In the end, having a different standard could well cause LESS watching of Canadian programs, because the Canadian stations won't change their programming, the consumers will have to pay more, and many will buy TVs that can only get US stations. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
woods@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Greg Woods) (09/09/88)
In article <2014@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > [....] >Or, just as there are expensive TVs that get both PAL and NTSC, Canadians >may end up forking out for this sort of thing. > [....] >Unlike the old days where it cost a LOT to convert PAL->NTSC, it's now >quite cheap. All you need is a frame buffer. Every TV station in Canada >would have a real time HDTV format converter. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 I'm not familiar with the standard that the USA has decided upon, but being that it is different than the existing European and Japanese standards, there is a good chance that it is based upon a scheme that provides a signal compatible with existing NTSC TV sets. In other words, US HDTV may be upwardly compatible with NTSC. Everyone gets to watch everything, and the rich just get a better picture. -- Greg Woods. UUCP: utgpu!woods, utgpu!{ontmoh, ontmoh!ixpierre}!woods VOICE: (416) 242-7572 [h] LOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (09/09/88)
In article <20776@watmath.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes: > >30 or 40 years ago, Canada had the same golden opportunity >to choose between the higher resolution PAL and the inferior >NTSC. PAL would have forced us to produce Canadian programs >and would have discouraged people from watching the US stations. Radio spectrum is a scarce resource. If we had adopted a standard different from the U.S., we would not have been able to watch their transmitters, but we wouldn't be able to re-use those frequencies for Canadian transmitters either. We wouldn't even be able to agree "you take channel 12 in this are and we won't use it for anything within 100 miles of the border", because PAL channel spacings aren't the same as NTSC either. Spectrum allocation would be real headache. You can build a PAL system that uses the same channel spacings as NTSC, avoiding channel allocation problems, but then you get the same horizontal resolution as NTSC. European PAL gets greater vertical resolution by using 50 Hz instead of 60 Hz vertical sweep, but if you choose 50 Hz in Canada you obsolete all of the existing B&W receivers, plus all of the equipment belonging to the TV stations. If you choose to use a 60 Hz vertical sweep for compatibility with existing Canadian equipment, you end up with exactly the same vertical resolution as NTSC. You can still standardize on PAL colour encoding instead of the NTSC standard, which would make U.S. programs watchable only in B&W in Canada, but there is no resolution difference anymore. There may have been nationalist arguments for choosing an incompatible system, but I find it hard to believe that it would have been a good compromise technically.
yann@ai.toronto.edu (Yann le Cun) (09/27/88)
In article <16094@onfcanim.UUCP> dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) writes: >I do agree that RGB should be the tuner-VCR-monitor interconnection >standard though. Also get rid of those awful RCA phono plugs and >F-connectors for video cables, and spend a few dollars on real BNC or >TNC connectors. Who in their right mind would design a connector for >shielded cable where the signal conductor connects before the ground? Hey, you guys are just a little late. There is such a standard in France since 1980, and in all Europe since a couple of years. Every single colour TV sold in Europe (or at least in France since 1980) has a so-called "Peritel" connector featuring RGB+Sync input, stereo audio in and out, video in and out..... This turns out to be very useful for connecting computers, VCR etc... and not worry about coding standard (France's SECAM versus everybody else's PAL). This a rare example of a standard that predates its potential aplications. those lucky europeans will be able to use their old TV to view HDTV programs using a simple decoder (yes, the European HDTV coding standard is supposed to be compatible with the old one). - Yann