| From: Michael Tan <michaeltanyk@gmail.com> | Mailed-By: gmail.com |
To: yeo_chun_cheng@mda.gov.sg
Date: Jun 20, 2006 4:20 PMSubject: High-Definition TV trials use widely adopted HD standard
Mr. Yeo,
I am one of the HDTV enthusiasts who have jumped on the HD bandwagon with gusto. I work in
the technology industry, in the IT environment.
A lot of us are so enthusiastic that we have made HD a chief topic of our blogs and post enthusiactically at forums. I maintain a blog at http://miketan.blogspot.com and a majority of our posts have been on HD.
Because we are at the trial stage of HD, and your organization has a large influence on HD formats, I would like to state a preference that most of us at enthusiasts forums in Singapore, including Hardwarezone and Xtremeplace, for PROGRESSIVE VIDEO FORMATS.
I include an article in issue 109 of WideScreen Review, an enthusiast magazine, on why progressive is better, technically. This article, Progressive High Definition Video, by Joe Kane, include the following points:
1) Interlace introduces artifacts, progressive escapes this.
2) Our video compression technologies for digital media content today are more efficient dealing with Progressive than Interlaced.
3) HD is our chance to escape the legacy of analog, embrace it - Interlace is an analog compression technology serving no good purpose in today's digital video environment.
4) Progressive reduces bandwidth, giving better quality at a given bandwidth. 1080p/24 takes up less bandwidth than 1080i/60, with significantly better picture quality.
5) Most of the masters for newer content is done in 1080p/24 already, not interlaced.
6) The majority of new displays appearing on the market today support progressive signals
7) We cannot always sell what the consumers want, because they are not qualified to know what better they can have. Some technology shift is necessary to reach the next stage. IF HENRY FORD GAVE WHAT THE CONSUMER WANTED, HE WOULD HAVE MADE A FASTER HORSE.
From the Singapore perspective, I would add the following points:
1) Singapore is now usually now at the forefront of product releases, almost at par with the USA. In a way, we are really quicker than the USA because our customs policies encourage free trade, and Singapore is almost totally a free-entry port. We have the newest products from USA, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China, and our tradesmen are very up to date in their product offerings. The smaller market make niche purchases more viable, our distributors do not keep containers of stock, and our product salesout are frequent, making it easier for the Singapore
market to introduce new models.
2) Singapore does not have a huge legacy of set top boxes which are incompatible with the 1080p standard. We are starting afresh, and it is imperative that we start with the most sensible, logical mode - Progressive Video.
3) The broadcasters can easily purchase content in 1080/24 at almost no additional costs - the bulk of the costs of programming is the license fee, but the media fee is minimal in comparison.
4) One of the considerations when 1080p was not made a standard in the broadcast industry was because manufacturers cited difficulties in making a decoder which could decode and output in 1080p. Today, 5 years later, this is not an issue. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD both are in mass
production stage, and decoders outputting in 1080p are easily obtainable, competitively priced with economies of scale offered by the giants selling 1080p-capable playback devices.
Mr. Yeo, we are at the true crossroads today. Mediacorp has the ability to deliver via DVB-T and IPTV, where Starhub can deliver via DVB-C, all of which video endpoints exist today. I felt compelled to try to write to you regarding this, at least, at the end of the day, I can't say I didn't try.
Thank you for your time.
__________________________
powered by performancing firefox
ATOM XML Feed
