CompuServe Messages

Barry, The difference in communications is that you're starting with an audio signal, converting it to digital, and then ultimately back to an audio signal. Certainly you can do that with video, and it is done now in the existing digital formats (D1 and D2, and Panasonic's D3 formats are examples). But what we're saying here is that the inherent design of the RS-170A video signal is fundamentally flawed. That signal was designed on the order of six decades ago, based on then-current technology. It was subsequently modified to add color to the basic black-and-white signal, in such a way as to unintentionally introduce artifacts to the signal (without going into great detail, the picture-detail and chroma portions of the signal overlap somewhat, resulting in a signal that produces false colors in areas of extremely high black and white detail). So RS-170A is limited resolution, low contrast ratio, interlaced (which causes its own problems), non-wide-screen, and full of visual artifacts — at its best. So rather than taking the existing signal, and converting it to the digital domain, what we're talking about here is completely redesigning the manner in which the video image is represented electronically. Such a redesigned signal would be unrecognizable to a television set of current manufacture. I'm not saying there are no answers to this problem; but obtaining general agreement on just what approach to take has stalled the evolution to a better televion image for years, and I don't think anything will happen in that direction any time in the immediate future. Certainly something will happen sooner or later; better minds than mine will have to tell you when. Pete