Comments on: TV industry frets over high definition
High-definition gear doesn't come cheap. And that's just one of the things clouding the HD picture for broadcasters.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Old but awesome: The YouTube piano
January 7, 2010 5:36 PM PST
- Viacom, YouTube inch towards courtroom showdown
January 7, 2010 4:43 PM PST
- RealD signs big names for 3D TV
January 7, 2010 3:37 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
Once you've got that working, you need the digital broadcasting equipment -- and chances are the equipment they already have will work save for some minor modifications (how major or minor would depend on the configuration and age of the equipment).
The smaller production houses creating VHS training tapes will be utterly unaffected. Their clients will still hook up VCRs to the new mandated DTVs in the way they always have. There is no broadcasting involved...
the story still seems to be mixing up the two topics -
(1) digital broadcasting and (2) HD capture/recording.
There is no requirement that all source material be in
hi-def, since that would obviously limit greatly what
programming could be shown.
Once you've got that working, you need the digital broadcasting equipment -- and chances are the equipment they already have will work save for some minor modifications (how major or minor would depend on the configuration and age of the equipment).
The smaller production houses creating VHS training tapes will be utterly unaffected. Their clients will still hook up VCRs to the new mandated DTVs in the way they always have. There is no broadcasting involved...
the story still seems to be mixing up the two topics -
(1) digital broadcasting and (2) HD capture/recording.
There is no requirement that all source material be in
hi-def, since that would obviously limit greatly what
programming could be shown.
The variability of the signal. I live in a major metro area (DC) 15 miles from the city in a very populated neighborhood. When the wind blows, and trees shake, I lose my HDTV signal on all 5 stations (but not the analog ones). When it rains or snows hard, I lose my HDTV signal on all 5 stations (but not the analog ones). This creates safety issues. Last year I was able to track the progress of a very nearby tornado on analog but not on HDTV.
I love it when it works.
(and yes, I've spent over $1,500 on antennas, rotors and the like and cut down trees to try and improve things).
The variability of the signal. I live in a major metro area (DC) 15 miles from the city in a very populated neighborhood. When the wind blows, and trees shake, I lose my HDTV signal on all 5 stations (but not the analog ones). When it rains or snows hard, I lose my HDTV signal on all 5 stations (but not the analog ones). This creates safety issues. Last year I was able to track the progress of a very nearby tornado on analog but not on HDTV.
I love it when it works.
(and yes, I've spent over $1,500 on antennas, rotors and the like and cut down trees to try and improve things).
If you have to get a 40" LCD, that's your own issue and has nothing to do with the cost of converting to HD.
However, the sky IS falling so let's all run around screaming about the end of the world.
Thanks (really needed a laugh right now)
If you have to get a 40" LCD, that's your own issue and has nothing to do with the cost of converting to HD.
However, the sky IS falling so let's all run around screaming about the end of the world.
Thanks (really needed a laugh right now)
You can get most of the relevant information from the Internet without having to worry about having to be online at a certain time, and the opportunities for interactivity makes it much more interesting than TV for persons wanting to make a difference.
What's left is news & debate(which I watch), and entertainment (which I skip). But seriously, noone should expect that the ability to watch Desperate Housewives in super resolution will convince me to take time out from whatever else keeps me busy. If I want entertainment (and that happens), my DVD player does a much better job at getting me what I want when I want it.
Sure, TV will not cease to exist - but to expect the entire system to switch to HDTV in a mere three years? That's optimistic, and extremely so :)
The government is requiring broadcasters to switch to Digital TV and give up their Analog signal. This has nothing to do with the "Quality" of HD and everything to do with the goverment wanting to use the analog bandwidth for emergency services.
Even after the mandated switch to DTV, broadcasters are still free to broadcast standard definition programming. The only thing driving the switch to HD is consumer demand.
Personally, I love HDTV and I think there is more good content out there than you realize (PBS has some fantastic HD content), but I can see how people that prefer small TV's (<= 32") don't care that much about it.
You can get most of the relevant information from the Internet without having to worry about having to be online at a certain time, and the opportunities for interactivity makes it much more interesting than TV for persons wanting to make a difference.
What's left is news & debate(which I watch), and entertainment (which I skip). But seriously, noone should expect that the ability to watch Desperate Housewives in super resolution will convince me to take time out from whatever else keeps me busy. If I want entertainment (and that happens), my DVD player does a much better job at getting me what I want when I want it.
Sure, TV will not cease to exist - but to expect the entire system to switch to HDTV in a mere three years? That's optimistic, and extremely so :)
The government is requiring broadcasters to switch to Digital TV and give up their Analog signal. This has nothing to do with the "Quality" of HD and everything to do with the goverment wanting to use the analog bandwidth for emergency services.
Even after the mandated switch to DTV, broadcasters are still free to broadcast standard definition programming. The only thing driving the switch to HD is consumer demand.
Personally, I love HDTV and I think there is more good content out there than you realize (PBS has some fantastic HD content), but I can see how people that prefer small TV's (<= 32") don't care that much about it.
Plus there's a lot of other equipment. Switchers, routers, VTR's, video processors, etc that need to get swapped out to handle the HDTV signals.
A lot of equipment in the industry is already Digital, though.
Plus there's a lot of other equipment. Switchers, routers, VTR's, video processors, etc that need to get swapped out to handle the HDTV signals.
A lot of equipment in the industry is already Digital, though.
I'm talking about that all-to-common phenomenon of "thinking old school". The types that believe you still have to sink all your capital into expensive custom switcher consoles, patch bays and "suites" w/ consultants called in a 1K per hour just to place the speakers.
There's no argument that you need pro-level hardware: think top-end encoders, routers, etc. But much of everything else in the production pipeline isn't custom/turnkey hardware driven...it's off-the-shelf PC and SOFTWARE driven. That way, your facility's technological infrastructure evolves w/ Moore's Law (faster/cheaper exponentially), and upgrading is a constant (but MUCH less expensive and modular, almost like an installment plan).
Of course, old suits don't see it that way--they want to be able to do tours of the facility and say, "That's a *blank*, which cost us a half million, but it's top of the line"; and most of the facility engineering staff are still pining for the long-lost days of 1-inch machines and ginormous Grass Valley consoles and Quantel paintboxes--you know, install them and then maintain them for 6 to 10 years, and want nothing to do w/ having to keep up with constantly upgraded 3D cards and workstations w/ consumer chips and software updates every other week.
In short...this year will prove if the TV industry can shake is old ways and move forward; if it can move past prejudices and misconceptions and simply go w/ the most cost effective tools to do their jobs and deliver HD to the market. For example, one of the most impressive things I saw on the show floor this week was Canon's new XL H1 HD camera. It records DV/HDV, which makes it consumer, but has top-notch optics, the ability to pipe out uncompressed 1.5Mb/sec HD streams and can be computer controlled in multi-camera setups w/ an SDI I/O option...all at the $10K price point. The image quality I saw, live and pre-recorded, touted as absolutely unaltered (not digitally post-treated), was stunning. So, a facility could buy 7 of these for one of the traditional solutions...i.e. outfit a fleet of field news trucks. But will they? No, they'd rather sit around talking about how expensive it is--to do things the way they've done them for 30+ years, that is.
I'm talking about that all-to-common phenomenon of "thinking old school". The types that believe you still have to sink all your capital into expensive custom switcher consoles, patch bays and "suites" w/ consultants called in a 1K per hour just to place the speakers.
There's no argument that you need pro-level hardware: think top-end encoders, routers, etc. But much of everything else in the production pipeline isn't custom/turnkey hardware driven...it's off-the-shelf PC and SOFTWARE driven. That way, your facility's technological infrastructure evolves w/ Moore's Law (faster/cheaper exponentially), and upgrading is a constant (but MUCH less expensive and modular, almost like an installment plan).
Of course, old suits don't see it that way--they want to be able to do tours of the facility and say, "That's a *blank*, which cost us a half million, but it's top of the line"; and most of the facility engineering staff are still pining for the long-lost days of 1-inch machines and ginormous Grass Valley consoles and Quantel paintboxes--you know, install them and then maintain them for 6 to 10 years, and want nothing to do w/ having to keep up with constantly upgraded 3D cards and workstations w/ consumer chips and software updates every other week.
In short...this year will prove if the TV industry can shake is old ways and move forward; if it can move past prejudices and misconceptions and simply go w/ the most cost effective tools to do their jobs and deliver HD to the market. For example, one of the most impressive things I saw on the show floor this week was Canon's new XL H1 HD camera. It records DV/HDV, which makes it consumer, but has top-notch optics, the ability to pipe out uncompressed 1.5Mb/sec HD streams and can be computer controlled in multi-camera setups w/ an SDI I/O option...all at the $10K price point. The image quality I saw, live and pre-recorded, touted as absolutely unaltered (not digitally post-treated), was stunning. So, a facility could buy 7 of these for one of the traditional solutions...i.e. outfit a fleet of field news trucks. But will they? No, they'd rather sit around talking about how expensive it is--to do things the way they've done them for 30+ years, that is.
The federal government's requirement that broadcasters move to HD within three years had scores of tiny production houses, public broadcasting stations and university communications departments pacing the aisles at the National Association of Broadcasters 2006 electronics media conference here this week.
________________________________
A couple of points to make here:
* First, while the sentence above paints a vivid picture of a dilemma facing the television industry, it is FACTUALLY incorrect.
There is no requirement for broadcasters to transmit in HD; in fact, the only requirement is that they shift to digital broadcasting, which may or may not be in HD.
Second, the cost of moving to digital is a fraction of moving to HD, and while it's not trivial, the broadcasters have had the better part of 10 years to get themselves ready for this change.
The majority of these broadcasters, particularly local stations, have been dragging their feet and doing a generally miserable job in the transition. Stations that are digital and able to passthrough HD programming from a network, have made a hash of simple things like ensuring the HD feed is on the air when HD programming is available.
In my view, broadcasters are spectacularly unworthy of any crocodile tears from CNET or any other corner of the media.
are not required to broadcast in high definition, only digital.
Stations can simply take their existing NTSC analog signal and
convert it to digital to satisfy the Federal requirements. This does
not mean having to buy new cameras, switchers and VTRs.
Incidentally, it was the broadcast TV community that originally
pushed for the switch to digital transmission. Then they proceeded
to drag their feet and ask for deadline extensions from the FCC.
The federal government's requirement that broadcasters move to HD within three years had scores of tiny production houses, public broadcasting stations and university communications departments pacing the aisles at the National Association of Broadcasters 2006 electronics media conference here this week.
________________________________
A couple of points to make here:
* First, while the sentence above paints a vivid picture of a dilemma facing the television industry, it is FACTUALLY incorrect.
There is no requirement for broadcasters to transmit in HD; in fact, the only requirement is that they shift to digital broadcasting, which may or may not be in HD.
Second, the cost of moving to digital is a fraction of moving to HD, and while it's not trivial, the broadcasters have had the better part of 10 years to get themselves ready for this change.
The majority of these broadcasters, particularly local stations, have been dragging their feet and doing a generally miserable job in the transition. Stations that are digital and able to passthrough HD programming from a network, have made a hash of simple things like ensuring the HD feed is on the air when HD programming is available.
In my view, broadcasters are spectacularly unworthy of any crocodile tears from CNET or any other corner of the media.
are not required to broadcast in high definition, only digital.
Stations can simply take their existing NTSC analog signal and
convert it to digital to satisfy the Federal requirements. This does
not mean having to buy new cameras, switchers and VTRs.
Incidentally, it was the broadcast TV community that originally
pushed for the switch to digital transmission. Then they proceeded
to drag their feet and ask for deadline extensions from the FCC.
Peered though into a certified usb(x2) port, and reaped in my AquarisQ898911 (185k);you all should know this one by Guru3D.
Results; less a C:Drive<PMCIA of anykind, raised the glass ceiling and spread the 'rez' with amazing granuloure (french) footprint. Front panel not included.
LCD 20"
Peered though into a certified usb(x2) port, and reaped in my AquarisQ898911 (185k);you all should know this one by Guru3D.
Results; less a C:Drive<PMCIA of anykind, raised the glass ceiling and spread the 'rez' with amazing granuloure (french) footprint. Front panel not included.
LCD 20"
not really "need" I can watch the game just fine on my regular non
HD TV. I really don't need to see the pours on the local weather
man's face. If they really want HD adoption, give me 45% off on my
old TV as a trade in. Until then I'll stick with what I currently have.
- HD is a Luxury
- by brian.lee April 26, 2006 8:11 AM PDT
- HD is a Luxury (as in expensive) that the average consumer does
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- HD is a Luxury
- by paulsecic April 26, 2006 3:53 PM PDT
- I fully agree. With sattelite you must pay more for HD.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (112 Comments)not really "need" I can watch the game just fine on my regular non
HD TV. I really don't need to see the pours on the local weather
man's face. If they really want HD adoption, give me 45% off on my
old TV as a trade in. Until then I'll stick with what I currently have.