24/48/72p

[Bruce Watson]

Ummm . . . why are you making this personal?

<confused>I'm not.</confused> You're the one who said "isn't going to change, so that's the way it is." I just don't respond well to "sit down and STFU". I don't imagine that you do either. The difference is, I didn't say it to you.

 

[David Jimerson]

Well, I'm sorry if it came across that way. But it isn't what I meant.

I simply meant that it is what it is, and not that you shouldn't talk about it. But implying that I'm stuck in the past and feel threatened by change isn't exactly warm and fuzzy either.

So let's just chalk this up to typical Internet tone confusion and move on. :beer:

 

[Mike Harvey]

Imagine what digital TV would have been had the same process been applied. Instead we have a horse designed by committee. Oy.

Do you understand how many *billions* of dollars it would have cost to do it "right" and build from the ground up? Ethernet isn't a standard that's been around since before WWII... TV broadcast standards have. And Ethernet wasn't in widespread use until the last decade or so. That can't be said about broadcast TV standards. To throw out that entire infrastructure and spend billions of dollars to do it "right" would have been worse than using the current system built on the old system and held together with Scotch Tape and Popsicle sticks.

 

[David Jimerson]

Plus, I think it's a fair conclusion for people to reach that the 1000/1001 standard isn't so "wrong" that it requires investing what it would take to "right" it.