3 predictions for HDTV rollout - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 6 Old 07-31-2001, 04:40 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Tryg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Washington
Posts: 9,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
1. 5C. Will it be our link to high quality HD like the consumer wants, or will it be the demise of Digital TV?

It may be the demise of Digital TV. The people that dreamed up 5C were so shortsighted they forgot who butters their bread. When and If, 5C and DVI interfaces become so common that they can actually down res "special" copyrighted material(as if there was something different)when trying to access it with something else, broadcasters, producers, hollywood, and everyone else in the chain will loose money. The rollout of HDTV hardware, content, and delivery will slow WAY down and the consumer will be the one that pays the ultimate price. Kill the DTV movement? Maybe. Is there a work around for the consumer? Of coarse, That is why this is so frustrating! They will spend years of slowdown on rollout of HDTV and the consumer will bypass it in 1 day. This reminds me of George Lucus not releasing Star Wars stuf on DVD. GEORGE pull your head out! get your money while you can(or before someone in Taiwan does). People will buy it on HD too!
Death to DTV? probably not, but years of unnessesary rollout issues.

2. What will bring on HDTV the fastest?

Cable "must carry"! Although having more options is good for the consumer, the american public is addicted to cable. Why? I have no idea. I guess people like the idea of having someone in charge. Who do they have to turn to when their signals not coming in with an antenna? Only themselves(to lazy to go up on the roof). I know this sounds ridiculous but like I said before we're addicted to cable. Solution? Make the cable companies carry, then you 'll see more hardware, better penatration and an HDTV snowball that NO ONE can stop.

3. Who's really gonna make the money?

Well at least for the next decade the people selling the merchadise. They are the link to the public for product and knowledge. Is HDTV plug and play? NO, and neither were computers. Look what kind of money has been made by people selling computers, support, and knowledge. The HDTV trough will be tapped too. Circut City is finally getting it. A year ago their HDTVs were in the back of the store. Today, they're up front. Someone finally realized they only have to sell 1 HDTV to make the profits of 10 analog TVs. If their $8 an hour sales force only hade some actual training about HDTV they could actually capitalize on that too. They will...follow the $$$$.

------------------
Tryg Hoff

Screen Reviews

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tryg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 6 Old 07-31-2001, 09:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Thomas Desmond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Plano, TX, USA
Posts: 2,334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Regarding the American "love affair" with cable -- I would probably describe it more as a love/hate relationship. Most folks that have cable (I'm not one) seem to loathe their cable operators, but when I suggest replacing their cable with an outdoor antenna/small dish combination (gaining more programming, a generally better picture, and costing less) the excuses start.

One thing that I think would probably be worthwhile would be for over the air broadcasters to band together and really market and promote the value of an antenna and over the air reception. A one time purchase that gains you crystal clear reception of a dozen or more channels with no monthly fee is a pretty good deal -- and that's what broadcasters will have to offer the public after the digital conversion is complete for all stations.
Thomas Desmond is offline  
post #3 of 6 Old 08-01-2001, 06:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kenglish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 5,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Unfortunately, most broadcasters (other than a very few real engineers) rely entirely on cable for their TV reception. Beyond that, a few have satellite.
Obviously, none know what a good TV signal is like.

------------------
Ken English, Sr. Engineer, KSL-TV/-DT.
"Not a REAL Engineer, but I play one in TV"

Ken English, Sr. Engineer, KSL-TV.
"The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent the Company positions, strategies or opinions."
kenglish is offline  
post #4 of 6 Old 08-01-2001, 10:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David Guill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Clifton, Virginia USA
Posts: 1,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Brian,

Quote:
I still think we would have have done better to first wean the public off a bad aspect ratio by implementing a cheaper form of DTV with 16:9 SD sets and widescreen broadcasting. DVD would have added to that success. Later introduce HDTV targeting the film buffs first.
Isn't this happening right now. The sources of SD are Satellite and DVD. DVD widescreen capability is more prevalent and satellite channels are beginning to provide widescreen broadcast. These are being watched on "HDTV capable" sets, some with 4:3 aspect ratios and others with 16:9. Very little HDTV material (with higher resolution) is actually out there being broadcast. No, the TV manufacturers are providing limited capability as are the broadcasters. They blame they hurl at each other is just a smokescreen.

These "companies" are following the IBM philosophy to the tee. That is, provide the smallest increments of new technology so that the foolish and ignorant public can allow the "company" to maximize its profits on antiquated technology. Then when the uproar is great and/or the government mandates a change then pull out the next small increment in antiquated technology.

In all fairness to the broadcasters and manufacturers it is difficult to make wholesale changes (analog to digital is a huge change) overnight. But, all this bickering and blaming is a smokescreen used to only eek out technology advances and have people pay for each small improvement. The small increments and the maximizing of profits by these companies is what gets me irritated.

Let me ask you this. How many of you have your favorite movie on VCR tape and went out and bought it again on DVD. If I may be so bold as to make this prediction, "when your favorite movie comes out again with a resolution of 1080 lines you will buy it again" and you will buy the equipment to display it. By the way the technology already exists. Do you see the ignorance in this? But you will do it anyway, the companies know this and will lead you like you were Pavlovs dogs.

Gotta love the American way, AHHH capitalism in its finest hour.

Dave
David Guill is offline  
post #5 of 6 Old 08-01-2001, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Thomas Desmond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Plano, TX, USA
Posts: 2,334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
> Therefore they depend on cable. DBS was a later option. You would probably find that true in other areas of the country, especially in areas with lots of hills blocking signals.

Of course some people will not be able to receive broadcast -- this is why cable originally started, by providing television to folks who couldn't get it off the air. It was a supplement to over the air distribution, instead of the other way around.

The bottom line is that most people who have cable could get a good picture off the air for free. Even comparing analog signals, the over the air image is frequently better than what cable provides. When comparing digital signals, the difference is huge -- even SD OTA digital is far better than digital cable.

Regarding the extra channels; combining an OTA antenna with some sort of satellite service is generally more cost effective than cable is. And broadcasters could address this issue as well through judicious use of multicasting. For example, Belo owned WFAA-DT could devote a few MBPS of their channel capacity to providing their Texas News Channel over the air. I think this could be done without compromising the quality of their main channel, since news shouldn't generally require a high bit rate.

Note that I am not talking about squeezing six low quality SD channels onto a signal frequency, but in most cases just two channels -- one HD primary channel and one SD subchannel. Since I have consistently read that the HD signal fits into 12 to 15 MBPS, that should certainly not result in a compromise in image quality. In an area like Dallas that has close to 20 over the air stations, the potential variety that could be offered over the air in this manner is quite substantial.
Thomas Desmond is offline  
post #6 of 6 Old 08-01-2001, 09:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 4,024
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 118
I live in a metropolitan area where a sizeable portion of the population cannot receive OTA signals. Therefore they depend on cable. DBS was a later option. You would probably find that true in other areas of the country, especially in areas with lots of hills blocking signals. And don't forget that many people get cable to add more selection in addition to the local stations.

I agree that "must carry" should have been a part of the ATSC program. Of course the whole ATSC thing is quite a fiasco. The broadcasters probably thought the government would never carry off a mandate that they must broadcast digital. Hollywood was too busy snorting coke and counting money to look up for a moment and think about what HDTV would mean in terms of giving away such "pristine" copies of their "precious" (questionable) goods.

In the meantime anyone with half a brain was telling the public not to watch so much TV. Now we are telling them to watch more and on more expensive sets. I still think we would have have done better to first wean the public off a bad aspect ratio by implementing a cheaper form of DTV with 16:9 SD sets and widescreen broadcasting. DVD would have added to that success. Later introduce HDTV targeting the film buffs first.

- Brian

Brian Conrad is offline  
Closed Thread Local HDTV Info and Reception

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off