Milestone-Proposal talk:Digital TV Standards Convertor

Advocates’ Checklist

1. Is proposal for an achievement rather than for a person? If the citation includes a person's name, have the proposers provided the required justification for inclusion of the person's name?
2. Was proposed achievement a significant advance rather than an incremental improvement to an existing technology?
3. Were there prior or contemporary achievements of a similar nature?
4. Has the achievement truly led to a functioning, useful, or marketable technology?
5. Is proposal adequately supported by significant references (minimum of five) such as patents, contemporary newspaper articles, journal articles, or citations to pages in scholarly books? At least one of the references from a peer-reviewed scholarly book or journal article. The full text of the material, not just the references, shall be present. If the supporting texts are copyright-encumbered and cannot be posted on the ETHW for intellectual property reasons, the proposers shall email a copy to the History Center so that it can be forwarded to the advocate. If the advocate does not consider the supporting references sufficient, the advocate may ask the proposer(s) for additional ones.
6. Are the scholarly references sufficiently recent?
7. Is proposed citation readable and understandable by the general public?
8. Does the proposed plaque site fulfill the requirements? Is the address complete? Are the GPS coordinates correct and in decimal format?
9. Is the proposal quality comparable to that of IEEE publications?
10. Scientific and technical units correct? (e.g. km, mm, hertz, etc.) Are acronyms correct and properly upperercased or lowercased?
11. Date formats correct as specified in Section 6 of Milestones Program Guidelines? https://ieeemilestones.ethw.org/Helpful_Hints_on_Citations,_Plaque_Locations

Reviewers’ Checklist

1. Is suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?
2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation?
3. Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?
4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?

In answering the questions above, the History Committee asks that reviewers apply a similar level of rigor to that used to peer-review an article, or evaluate a research proposal. Some elaboration is desirable. Of course the Committee would welcome any additional observations that you may have regarding this proposal.

Submission and Approval Log

Submitted date:
History Committee approval date:
Board of Directors approval date:

Comment to Proposers -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Proposers.

I have read the proposal as of June 1, 2024.

For the reader's understanding, I will comment on this below.

（1） The Proposal states that the Television Standard is the subject of processing, but there is no mention of it. What is the TV standard? Could you please describe it.

（2） In relation to (1) above, readers don’t understand if this is about the processing of composite signals or component signals. Could you please describe it.

（3） The Proposal states that it is the all digital system, but there is no description of digital specifications. Could you please describe the minimum required digital specifications.

（4） The Proposal states comment about HD and 4K. Could you please state the evidences for this.

Dr. Tomohiro Hase, IEEE Fellow.

Comment to Proposers -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Proposers.

I have read the proposal as of June 1, 2024.

For the reader's understanding easily, could you please describe carefully the following three questions that the Proposal format asks.

The historical significance, obstacles to be overcome, and features set this work apart from similar achievements.

All three of the above are poor in content that impact from it cannot be read.

Dr. Tomohiro Hase, IEEE Fellow.

Comment to Proposers -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Proposers.

I'd like to comment on the proposal as of June 1, 2024.

The proposal states that it is the all digital system.

Thinking back to the 1970s, I think that real-time video processing could be achieved with only hardware.

However, this proposal does not describe the hardware.

For the reader's understanding, could you please describe the hardware in detail.

Dr. Tomohiro Hase, IEEE Fellow

Comment to Proposers -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Proposers.

I've read the proposal as of June 1, 2024.

For the reader's understanding, I will comment on this below.

(i) There is a description of "high resolution TV standards" and "minimized resolution degradation" in the Citation of the Proposal.

Could you please describe it in detail and provide it's evidences.

(ii) There is a description of "improved transmitted picture quality" in the Citation of the Proposal.

Could you please describe it in detail and provide it's evidences.

(iii) There is a description of "stabilized for easy operation" in the Citation of the Proposal.

Could you please describe it in detail and provide it's evidences.

Dr. Tomohiro Hase, IEEE Fellow.

Comment to Proposers -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Proposers.

I've read the proposal for June 1, 2024.

With the "obstacles to overcome" section of the proposal in mind, I dare to make the following comment.

I understood that the main point of appeal was the scanning line transformation and field interpolation method.

It is easy to understand if you have a knowledge the three-dimensional analysis of TV signals that was developed during the 1980s at the time of IDTV, EDTV and MUSE.

(a) The problem of Y signal processing in this method are certainly small.

However, the difference between horizontal and vertical specifications, and also time axis too, is serious from the viewpoint of resolution when converting methods.

You should describe honestly in your proposal that video quality degradation due to the scaling process is unavoidable.

(b) C signal processing in this method requires a rather difficult ingenuity.

Could you please describe the details of C signal processing by this method.

Dr. Tomohiro Hase, IEEE Fellow.

Comment to Proposers -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Proposers.

I've read the proposal for June 1, 2024.

With the "obstacles to overcome" section of the proposal in mind, I dare to make the following comment.

It is extremely rare for Television (TV) to be E-E Communication, now and in 1970s.

Considering that it was in 1970s, a C-type VCR for professional or broadcast studio use might be common.

The jitter at head switching point near V-sync of this VCR is several uSp-p, several % of a H scan line time, at a field rate of 60 Hz.

In addition, considering the all digital TV conversion, the jitter/flutter of the clock of 30-40 ppm, several sample points error per every field, cannot be ignored with the technology in 1977.

Could you please describe about the TBC and frame buffer of this converter.

Dr. Tomohiro Hase, IEEE Fellow.

Comment to Proposers -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Proposers.

I've read the proposal for June 1, 2024.

There is some confusion in the terminology in your proposal, so I will comment on it below.

Thinking back to the 1970s, display method of on CRT of TV set was on a lnterlace basis.

As you know, the NTSC, one of TV standards, has a interlace scan, it has 60 fields at 30 frames.

In the description part of Figure 1 in the proposal, the term of the "frame" is inappropriate.

For example, the title of Figure 1 would be also "field".

Descriptions of these paragraphs are not inappropriate.

Similarly, the term "intra-frame interpolation" found in the Reference, original authers of paper said, is not appropriate.

Dr. Tomohiro Hase, IEEE Fellow.