Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
Thanks for your comments. The point of my post was that WM9 archieves
it's higher compression rate based largely on processor improvements
in the last few years (try to decode an MPEG-2 at 720p on a Pentium II
800Mhz system and you'll have no problem... try to decode a WM9 on
that same system and it won't happen, it requires a Pentium IV 3.0
Ghz. Now, for set top boxes that processor is going to be a dedicated
chip on the board, but the point is the processing power isn't present
in older boxes to accept a software/firmware based upgrade.
Current boxes will suffer the same fate in 3-4 years from now when
newer codecs come out, because processing power will increase. Even if
a model was adopted where a swapable board could be plugged in to the
main board to provide this decoding power it still would be a huge
hassel for cable and satellite providers to keep up with and keep
reinvesting in the equipment, this is why I say that at some point
there has to be a lock-down on the technology, without that standards
keep involving and if standards keep involving people (including
broadcasters and cable/sat providers) are not going to invest in
equipment out of fear of throwing away money on soon to be outdated
technology (how hard is that to understand?). Adoption of a standard
and paying that standard some respect for several years helps make the
whole process work.
Microsoft cares about making money, that's it. That's what their share
holders care about, as processing power increases they have the
platform now (WM9) to keep reinventing the wheel again, because as
processing power increases they will be able to enhance WM in future
versions for even better compression ratios. Why wouldn't they? In
doing that, they would just be offering up a new product to sell (new
standard = new product to license). Let's say they don't do it. Some
other company will and this lava never gets to harden, no one really
benefits except the corporations who own the patents.
My opinion won't stop any of this from happening, it's just an
observation.
-Jeremy
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<L8dxc.25710$Tn6.18764@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> JDeats wrote:
> > The problem Bob, is that WM9 is just the current format of the moment.
> > If you look into WM9, it's achievement over MPEG-2 relies heavily on
> > performance enhancements (i.e it requires a much more powerful
> > processor to decode in real-time than MPEG-2) it's also owned by
> > Microsoft, which is one of the most successful corporations in history
> > and one can attribute a large part of Microsoft's success to their
> > business model of reinventing their products in 2-3 year cycles.
> >
> > Today we have WM9, WM10 is already in beta (no I'm not being
> > fecicious), to my knowledge there aren't any huge improvements in the
> > WM-HD codec, but the point is this gives Microsoft (or whatever
> > company that wants to follow) a model of creating a higher compression
> > rate as processors become more powerful. At some point you have to
> > lock-down, because in two-three years WM9 will be old technology in
> > the same since that you're looking at MPEG-2 now. I have nothing
> > against Microsoft, but I can see how it would be in their interest
> > (and to their gain) to get WM9 adopted and from there it will just be
> > another product for them to cycle and reinvent.
>
> See below. Jeremy I know a little about codecs. Two of my partners
> started ON2 and the other is a chip designer by trade. VP6 is still the
> best.
> >
> > From my perspective, there's nothing wrong with MPEG-2, it delivers on
> > quality. It's very easy to look at technology such as WM9 and think
> > wow's that's what it's all about.. but establishing standards early on
> > is much more important.
>
> Early is not as important as right. Especially if you lock in as you
> suggest. That is the kiss of death as we have seen with the US DTV
> transition.
>
> Thankfully that's what the FCC has done and as
> > a fruit of their efforts. Most OTA network affiliates now broadcast HD
> > feed and while not everyone is pulling that via 8VSB OTA tunner, a
> > good number of satellite owners are, and for those that aren't this
> > transition has forced local affilates to get invest in the HD
> > equipment, inspired them to film HD content and that feed is provided
> > to local cable companies for non OTA consumption.
>
> Satellite does not use 8-VSB and is not locked into MPEG2. They can
> change their modulation and codec anytime they want.
>
> All of this has
> > added up to the US being #1 in accessiblity of HDTV programming. So
> > don't tell us about what's going on in Berlin or Australia because you
> > always have to take this back to Standard Definition Digital
> > Television discussion.
>
> Not SD in OZ or Japan. Soon maybe France and Norway.
>
> Look at what those countries have for HDTV
> > programming and then if you're ready to have that discussion we can.
>
> We can see below for schedule of OZ's HD.
> >
> > You should put more thought into your cause.
>
> You could to.
> >
> > -Jeremy
> >
> Well here is more thought Jeremy. They are doing it. It will be done.
> WM9, VP6 or MPEG4 will be used by USDTV and EMMIS to deliver more
> programming. Whatever you think about it is irrelevant. They will do it
> and current MPEG2 receivers will only receive one SD program IMHO.
> Microsoft does not own all the codec technology. We may use VP6. The
> Chinese may use something else but they did sign on to use VP6. The
> Japanese are using MPEG4.
>
> These codecs take more power but they also deliver twice the programming
> in the same bandwidth which means more HD, SD or ED programming and at a
> higher quality than MPEG2.
>
> At some point you have to lock down? That BS is right from the PR of the
> IP holders of MPEG2. And they did a great job of locking themselves in
> for another run of IP royalties. Instead of locking down maybe we should
> be looking at receivers that can be upgraded to better codecs for a few
> years and modulation chips that can do the same. And locking down is the
> kiss of death for all current TV/DTV models. Any locking down just gives
> the edge to the competitors. Cable and satellite are not locked down.
> They will and have to change when the competition changes. They have to
> look for every competitive advantage. Broadcasters now have to join that
> club and compete. They cannot be tied for 50 years to a format like they
> were with NTSC.
>
> In fact being tied to MPEG2 and 8-VSB has already put broadcasters at a
> competitive disadvantage and they know it. That is why they are and will
> go with models like Emmis and USDTV. And if cable, satellite and
> broadcasters all LOCKED UP then they will be run over by the Internet.
> It probably will happen anyway. The Internet is not locked up.
>
> The big hurry you seem to think was so important was to lock in the IP
> holders of 8-VSB and MPEG2 to the royalty river of money for as long as
> possible before it was too late. They saw the handwriting on the wall
> and spent lots of money in DC to LOCK IN to the gravy train. Every
> minute counted because the computer industry which had arrived at the
> party late was starting to make sense in DC. If they had waited another
> 6 months or year both 8-VSB and MPEG2 would not have stood a chance.
>
> The big hurry has now been followed by the BIG WAIT while NO one buys
> receivers. NO ONE should. It is a big rip-off and just because it is
> being carried out by the FCC, CEA and Congress does not make it any less
> a fraud than Enron. Same thing and similar numbers.
>
> You say MPEG2 delivers on quality? It barely can fit 1080i into 19.34
> Mbps as witnessed by every proponent of 8-VSB from the beginning. They
> all said that 8-VSB needed every single bit of that 19.34 Mbps to do
> 1080i and they were right because in reality it needs MORE. MPEG2 cannot
> handle 1080i in many cases as witnessed by macroblocking in action scenes.
>
> Here is the Australian schedule for HDTV
>
> http://www.widescreentv.info/
>
> For a country of 20 million or one fourteenth our size who has been
> doing DTV and HDTV for all of 2 1/2 years I don't think that is too bad.
>
> I did not find the Japanese schedule of HDTV but they have been doing
> HDTV for ten years so they probably have some content. They started DTV
> HDTV last December and they must have decent content since they are only
> in three cities so far and they have sold a million integrated HDTV sets
> since December.
>
> The very simple reality is that it may be as you say that the US has the
> most HDTV content though I would like to look at Japanese figures first.
> And it may be that we, in fact I am sure the US has the most extensive
> number of transmitters doing HDTV on the air.
>
> But that makes it all the more embarrassing that our DTV OTA digital
> transition is such a disaster. The fact that we have the most
> programming and the most transmitters should translate into the most
> viewers watching HDTV, the highest penetration of receivers into our
> households, the most active retailers selling OTA receivers with the
> most aggressive advertising and the LEAST expensive receivers in vast
> quantities because we are as you say the biggest market.
>
> But NONE of the above is true. How can you explain that?
>
> Why do the Japanese buy a million integrated HDTV sets in just a few
> months when Japan has just started, has transmitters in only three
> cities and may have less content than the US?
>
> It just doesn't make any sense does it.
Thanks for your comments. The point of my post was that WM9 archieves
it's higher compression rate based largely on processor improvements
in the last few years (try to decode an MPEG-2 at 720p on a Pentium II
800Mhz system and you'll have no problem... try to decode a WM9 on
that same system and it won't happen, it requires a Pentium IV 3.0
Ghz. Now, for set top boxes that processor is going to be a dedicated
chip on the board, but the point is the processing power isn't present
in older boxes to accept a software/firmware based upgrade.
Current boxes will suffer the same fate in 3-4 years from now when
newer codecs come out, because processing power will increase. Even if
a model was adopted where a swapable board could be plugged in to the
main board to provide this decoding power it still would be a huge
hassel for cable and satellite providers to keep up with and keep
reinvesting in the equipment, this is why I say that at some point
there has to be a lock-down on the technology, without that standards
keep involving and if standards keep involving people (including
broadcasters and cable/sat providers) are not going to invest in
equipment out of fear of throwing away money on soon to be outdated
technology (how hard is that to understand?). Adoption of a standard
and paying that standard some respect for several years helps make the
whole process work.
Microsoft cares about making money, that's it. That's what their share
holders care about, as processing power increases they have the
platform now (WM9) to keep reinventing the wheel again, because as
processing power increases they will be able to enhance WM in future
versions for even better compression ratios. Why wouldn't they? In
doing that, they would just be offering up a new product to sell (new
standard = new product to license). Let's say they don't do it. Some
other company will and this lava never gets to harden, no one really
benefits except the corporations who own the patents.
My opinion won't stop any of this from happening, it's just an
observation.
-Jeremy
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<L8dxc.25710$Tn6.18764@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> JDeats wrote:
> > The problem Bob, is that WM9 is just the current format of the moment.
> > If you look into WM9, it's achievement over MPEG-2 relies heavily on
> > performance enhancements (i.e it requires a much more powerful
> > processor to decode in real-time than MPEG-2) it's also owned by
> > Microsoft, which is one of the most successful corporations in history
> > and one can attribute a large part of Microsoft's success to their
> > business model of reinventing their products in 2-3 year cycles.
> >
> > Today we have WM9, WM10 is already in beta (no I'm not being
> > fecicious), to my knowledge there aren't any huge improvements in the
> > WM-HD codec, but the point is this gives Microsoft (or whatever
> > company that wants to follow) a model of creating a higher compression
> > rate as processors become more powerful. At some point you have to
> > lock-down, because in two-three years WM9 will be old technology in
> > the same since that you're looking at MPEG-2 now. I have nothing
> > against Microsoft, but I can see how it would be in their interest
> > (and to their gain) to get WM9 adopted and from there it will just be
> > another product for them to cycle and reinvent.
>
> See below. Jeremy I know a little about codecs. Two of my partners
> started ON2 and the other is a chip designer by trade. VP6 is still the
> best.
> >
> > From my perspective, there's nothing wrong with MPEG-2, it delivers on
> > quality. It's very easy to look at technology such as WM9 and think
> > wow's that's what it's all about.. but establishing standards early on
> > is much more important.
>
> Early is not as important as right. Especially if you lock in as you
> suggest. That is the kiss of death as we have seen with the US DTV
> transition.
>
> Thankfully that's what the FCC has done and as
> > a fruit of their efforts. Most OTA network affiliates now broadcast HD
> > feed and while not everyone is pulling that via 8VSB OTA tunner, a
> > good number of satellite owners are, and for those that aren't this
> > transition has forced local affilates to get invest in the HD
> > equipment, inspired them to film HD content and that feed is provided
> > to local cable companies for non OTA consumption.
>
> Satellite does not use 8-VSB and is not locked into MPEG2. They can
> change their modulation and codec anytime they want.
>
> All of this has
> > added up to the US being #1 in accessiblity of HDTV programming. So
> > don't tell us about what's going on in Berlin or Australia because you
> > always have to take this back to Standard Definition Digital
> > Television discussion.
>
> Not SD in OZ or Japan. Soon maybe France and Norway.
>
> Look at what those countries have for HDTV
> > programming and then if you're ready to have that discussion we can.
>
> We can see below for schedule of OZ's HD.
> >
> > You should put more thought into your cause.
>
> You could to.
> >
> > -Jeremy
> >
> Well here is more thought Jeremy. They are doing it. It will be done.
> WM9, VP6 or MPEG4 will be used by USDTV and EMMIS to deliver more
> programming. Whatever you think about it is irrelevant. They will do it
> and current MPEG2 receivers will only receive one SD program IMHO.
> Microsoft does not own all the codec technology. We may use VP6. The
> Chinese may use something else but they did sign on to use VP6. The
> Japanese are using MPEG4.
>
> These codecs take more power but they also deliver twice the programming
> in the same bandwidth which means more HD, SD or ED programming and at a
> higher quality than MPEG2.
>
> At some point you have to lock down? That BS is right from the PR of the
> IP holders of MPEG2. And they did a great job of locking themselves in
> for another run of IP royalties. Instead of locking down maybe we should
> be looking at receivers that can be upgraded to better codecs for a few
> years and modulation chips that can do the same. And locking down is the
> kiss of death for all current TV/DTV models. Any locking down just gives
> the edge to the competitors. Cable and satellite are not locked down.
> They will and have to change when the competition changes. They have to
> look for every competitive advantage. Broadcasters now have to join that
> club and compete. They cannot be tied for 50 years to a format like they
> were with NTSC.
>
> In fact being tied to MPEG2 and 8-VSB has already put broadcasters at a
> competitive disadvantage and they know it. That is why they are and will
> go with models like Emmis and USDTV. And if cable, satellite and
> broadcasters all LOCKED UP then they will be run over by the Internet.
> It probably will happen anyway. The Internet is not locked up.
>
> The big hurry you seem to think was so important was to lock in the IP
> holders of 8-VSB and MPEG2 to the royalty river of money for as long as
> possible before it was too late. They saw the handwriting on the wall
> and spent lots of money in DC to LOCK IN to the gravy train. Every
> minute counted because the computer industry which had arrived at the
> party late was starting to make sense in DC. If they had waited another
> 6 months or year both 8-VSB and MPEG2 would not have stood a chance.
>
> The big hurry has now been followed by the BIG WAIT while NO one buys
> receivers. NO ONE should. It is a big rip-off and just because it is
> being carried out by the FCC, CEA and Congress does not make it any less
> a fraud than Enron. Same thing and similar numbers.
>
> You say MPEG2 delivers on quality? It barely can fit 1080i into 19.34
> Mbps as witnessed by every proponent of 8-VSB from the beginning. They
> all said that 8-VSB needed every single bit of that 19.34 Mbps to do
> 1080i and they were right because in reality it needs MORE. MPEG2 cannot
> handle 1080i in many cases as witnessed by macroblocking in action scenes.
>
> Here is the Australian schedule for HDTV
>
> http://www.widescreentv.info/
>
> For a country of 20 million or one fourteenth our size who has been
> doing DTV and HDTV for all of 2 1/2 years I don't think that is too bad.
>
> I did not find the Japanese schedule of HDTV but they have been doing
> HDTV for ten years so they probably have some content. They started DTV
> HDTV last December and they must have decent content since they are only
> in three cities so far and they have sold a million integrated HDTV sets
> since December.
>
> The very simple reality is that it may be as you say that the US has the
> most HDTV content though I would like to look at Japanese figures first.
> And it may be that we, in fact I am sure the US has the most extensive
> number of transmitters doing HDTV on the air.
>
> But that makes it all the more embarrassing that our DTV OTA digital
> transition is such a disaster. The fact that we have the most
> programming and the most transmitters should translate into the most
> viewers watching HDTV, the highest penetration of receivers into our
> households, the most active retailers selling OTA receivers with the
> most aggressive advertising and the LEAST expensive receivers in vast
> quantities because we are as you say the biggest market.
>
> But NONE of the above is true. How can you explain that?
>
> Why do the Japanese buy a million integrated HDTV sets in just a few
> months when Japan has just started, has transmitters in only three
> cities and may have less content than the US?
>
> It just doesn't make any sense does it.
Facebook
Twitter