April 26, 2006 4:00 AM PDT

TV industry frets over high definition

Related Stories

Filmmakers flock to the Net

April 13, 2006

High-def TV not ready for Net's prime time

April 7, 2006

Tuning up for HDTV

September 15, 2004
A correction was made to this story. Read below for details.

LAS VEGAS--Just like consumers, TV broadcasters are worried about the costs of high-definition television.

Shoppers may only have to sweat over the $1,500 price tag of a 32-inch LCD (liquid crystal display) TV set. Smallish production companies and independent TV stations, on the other hand, are fretting over HD cameras that can set them back $80,000.

The federal government's requirement that broadcasters move to digital TV signals 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. They attended the event with an eye toward investing in new HD equipment or finding a way to put off upgrading for another year.

Meanwhile, the companies--such as Sony, Avid and Apple Computer--that provide digital tools to the TV production industry are trying to ease old-school TV executives into high definition by offering low prices on equipment and software that's compatible with older models and formats. Nonetheless, broadcasters say it's hard to form an HD strategy when there are still so many questions about technology, price and the public's desire for HD content.

"There are 140,000 people here, and they're all trying to figure out how to get HD-ready," said Scott Jacobs, general manager of VideoDailies, a Chicago-based start-up that specializes in digitizing videotape overnight. "What we have is lots of options and alternatives but no clear path."

Unlike the public, TV stations can't wait forever to make a decision about HD.

Last February, President Bush signed into law a requirement that all over-the-air broadcasters must switch from transmitting analog TV signals to digital TV by Feb. 17, 2009. That deadline has rattled big-time network chiefs as well as administrators from small production companies.

A digital signal has the potential to be much clearer than analog, whether it's received via cable or over the air. High-definition television (HDTV) offers the highest resolution available, above standard-definition and enhanced-definition TV.

"The public wants this, and we're going to be ready."
--Bill Burson, Georgia Public Broadcasting IT department

After decades of using analog, the switch to digital prompted Bill Burson, assistant director of information technology for Georgia Public Broadcasting, to attend his first NAB conference since 1997.

Burson said his group, which represents nine viewer-supported TV stations, is moving forward with a plan to spend $32 million within the next two years to convert to HD. "I knew it was time when I started seeing high-definition televisions in Wal-Mart," Burson said. "The public wants this, and we're going to be ready."

Taking a slower approach to HD is the University of Tennessee. Brad Prosise, post-production specialist and videographer at the school's Video and Photography Center, traveled here this week on a fact-finding mission for the video program and the school's football team.

Typically one of the nation's powerhouse football programs, Tennessee is concerned that ESPN and other sports broadcasters will begin requesting high-definition footage of the Volunteers and there won't be any, Prosise said.

The school is also considering an overhaul of its 10-employee production studio. Working within the video and photography program, the studio is designed to train students in video broadcast but is also a for-hire business that has tackled productions worth $100,000, Prosise said.

"Training broadcast students to work in HD is vital," he said.

Holding back on HD
But not everybody is embracing high definition.

"We're just not getting any calls for HD," said Scott Herrick, director of videography at Vital Video Production Group. "We're still working with (videotape). I don't think the business is going to move over until the public does, and I just don't see it happening."

Herrick said he couldn't justify paying for a top-quality HD camera with such little demand for content. Headquartered in Cleveland, Vital Video works mainly for hospitals that need training videos. He isn't worried if the market switches quickly. Should a customer ever request HD, that person can rent a camera from one of the professional camera shops in Los Angeles, he said.

"Until Joe Public is interested, I don't know that we're going to do a thing with HD," Herrick said.

Avid, one of the biggest names in editing tools, wants to make the jump to HD easier. The company offers steep discounts to universities that wish to give their students instructions in the latest products from the company.

Patrick McLean, Avid's senior product manager, said the Xpress Pro software, which allows people to edit on standard or high definition (on both Macintosh or Windows) is priced for independent videographers and filmmakers.

Sony understands the reluctance of some executives to plunk down big money for new equipment, said Bob Ott, vice president of optical and network systems at Sony Electronics. He still tells people: "HD isn't coming. It's here."

Nonetheless, Sony offers the HD Cam, which shoots in both high and standard definition, Ott said. That way, television stations can continue to work in standard definition and they'll be equipped to upgrade when the time comes.

"The HD Cam is future proof," he said.

 

Correction: This story misstated the kind of signal the federal government is requiring broadcasters to switch to. They must move to digital signals.

See more CNET content tagged:
broadcaster, digital television, HDTV, TV, analog

110 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
If I remember correctly...
The mandate is to switch to DTV, not HDTV -- big difference. In either case, HD cameras aren't necessary. You need a digitizer and trancoder/transcoding software. That can be had for a few hundred bucks and no doubt the stations all have the hardware, just not the software.

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).
Posted by Zymurgist (397 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You are right.
You are exactly right. It is unfortunate that this article, like many, is unable to distinguish between the two related but independent shifts in the TV industry.

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...
Posted by wwhit710 (22 comments )
Link Flag
I believe you do remember correctly
Despite the correction listed at the bottom of the article,
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.
Posted by Jackson Cracker (272 comments )
Link Flag
If I remember correctly...
The mandate is to switch to DTV, not HDTV -- big difference. In either case, HD cameras aren't necessary. You need a digitizer and trancoder/transcoding software. That can be had for a few hundred bucks and no doubt the stations all have the hardware, just not the software.

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).
Posted by Zymurgist (397 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You are right.
You are exactly right. It is unfortunate that this article, like many, is unable to distinguish between the two related but independent shifts in the TV industry.

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...
Posted by wwhit710 (22 comments )
Link Flag
I believe you do remember correctly
Despite the correction listed at the bottom of the article,
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.
Posted by Jackson Cracker (272 comments )
Link Flag
There are downsides to HDTV
The expense of the external antenna (if you aren't on cable or a satellite.

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).
Posted by mikefocke (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Move the antenna
If you've got unused attic space try paling the antenna inside. The radio waves will still get to the antenna (unless you've got a metal roof) but the wind won't.
Posted by booboo1243 (328 comments )
Link Flag
Another downside...
Besides the classic antenna issue, there is a picture quality issue. Sure you have the higher resolution, but there is plenty of macroblocking that you just don't get with analog signals. Unfortunately the bandwidth needed for good analog HDTV would be too high to be practical. Then again, the bandwidth for uncompressed digital would be too high as well.
Posted by ddesy (4336 comments )
Link Flag
There are downsides to HDTV
The expense of the external antenna (if you aren't on cable or a satellite.

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).
Posted by mikefocke (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Move the antenna
If you've got unused attic space try paling the antenna inside. The radio waves will still get to the antenna (unless you've got a metal roof) but the wind won't.
Posted by booboo1243 (328 comments )
Link Flag
Another downside...
Besides the classic antenna issue, there is a picture quality issue. Sure you have the higher resolution, but there is plenty of macroblocking that you just don't get with analog signals. Unfortunately the bandwidth needed for good analog HDTV would be too high to be practical. Then again, the bandwidth for uncompressed digital would be too high as well.
Posted by ddesy (4336 comments )
Link Flag
stop the madness
Let me be very clear about something. HDTV DOES NOT involve a $1500 LCD. I purchased a Panasonic HD widescreen 26" CRT with HDMI, component, svhs and composit inputs last fall for $385. More expensive than a 4:3 SD tube, sure, but not even close to $1500.
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.
Posted by skeptik (590 comments )
Reply Link Flag
That was really funny
seriously - "sky is falling..." that was great.

Thanks (really needed a laugh right now)
Posted by Chevaliermusic (72 comments )
Link Flag
Dude - the SKY is falling & the apocolypse is approaching SOON
Iran/Israel will send us spiraling into hell.
Posted by baswwe (299 comments )
Link Flag
stop the madness
Let me be very clear about something. HDTV DOES NOT involve a $1500 LCD. I purchased a Panasonic HD widescreen 26" CRT with HDMI, component, svhs and composit inputs last fall for $385. More expensive than a 4:3 SD tube, sure, but not even close to $1500.
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.
Posted by skeptik (590 comments )
Reply Link Flag
That was really funny
seriously - "sky is falling..." that was great.

Thanks (really needed a laugh right now)
Posted by Chevaliermusic (72 comments )
Link Flag
Dude - the SKY is falling & the apocolypse is approaching SOON
Iran/Israel will send us spiraling into hell.
Posted by baswwe (299 comments )
Link Flag
HDTV is nice, but...
Unless they come up with something much better to show on it, I'll not invest in a TV set at all. With the expansion of the Internet, the market for good documentaries and serious programming has diminshed steeply.

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 :)
Posted by Frodo420024 (13 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You're missing the point
Probabably in part because the author of the article got thier facts wrong.

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.
Posted by jbrunken (16 comments )
Link Flag
I thought HDTV was for porn
Frankly, who else than people watching porn wants to see close-ups?
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
I thought HDTV was for porn
Frankly, who else than people watching porn want to see close-ups?
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
HDTV is nice, but...
Unless they come up with something much better to show on it, I'll not invest in a TV set at all. With the expansion of the Internet, the market for good documentaries and serious programming has diminshed steeply.

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 :)
Posted by Frodo420024 (13 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You're missing the point
Probabably in part because the author of the article got thier facts wrong.

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.
Posted by jbrunken (16 comments )
Link Flag
I thought HDTV was for porn
Frankly, who else than people watching porn wants to see close-ups?
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
I thought HDTV was for porn
Frankly, who else than people watching porn want to see close-ups?
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
I have an HD cam...where's the problem?
For a few grand you can pick up a Sony HDV camera that delivers pristine 1080i resolution images. True, this is a "compressed" HD signal but its quite acceptable for production material. I'm just a hobbyist, and I have the prosumer/consumer version Sony HDR-HC1 HDV cam and the image is outstanding. (For less than $1500) Its as good as any source I've picked up over-the-air from my locals...
Posted by bigRedITGeek (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You consumer, they broadcaster
The cameras and associated equipment available for consumers is miles away from what broadcasters need to use. Your $1500 camera has an image that would look like trash compared to the Sony and Ikegami HD systems that are used in HD broadcasts, especially in the environments they're in. There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes in television, more than your HD cam.

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.
Posted by Jahntassa (158 comments )
Link Flag
I have an HD cam...where's the problem?
For a few grand you can pick up a Sony HDV camera that delivers pristine 1080i resolution images. True, this is a "compressed" HD signal but its quite acceptable for production material. I'm just a hobbyist, and I have the prosumer/consumer version Sony HDR-HC1 HDV cam and the image is outstanding. (For less than $1500) Its as good as any source I've picked up over-the-air from my locals...
Posted by bigRedITGeek (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You consumer, they broadcaster
The cameras and associated equipment available for consumers is miles away from what broadcasters need to use. Your $1500 camera has an image that would look like trash compared to the Sony and Ikegami HD systems that are used in HD broadcasts, especially in the environments they're in. There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes in television, more than your HD cam.

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.
Posted by Jahntassa (158 comments )
Link Flag
Thinking "old school"...I've seen it.
I've been to six or seven NABs. I've spent some time in broadcast facilities and come from post production where even there it's exibited.

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.
Posted by shanewalker (57 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thinking "old school"...I've seen it.
I've been to six or seven NABs. I've spent some time in broadcast facilities and come from post production where even there it's exibited.

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.
Posted by shanewalker (57 comments )
Reply Link Flag
No REQUIREMENT for HD
________________________________

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.
Posted by ClearlyResolved (11 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Digital, not necessarily HD
I'm glad to see this important point being made. Television stations
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.
Posted by CBSTV (780 comments )
Link Flag
No REQUIREMENT for HD
________________________________

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.
Posted by ClearlyResolved (11 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Digital, not necessarily HD
I'm glad to see this important point being made. Television stations
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.
Posted by CBSTV (780 comments )
Link Flag
Better Programming Needed
A conversion from Analog Crap Programs to HDTV Crap Programs isn't going to solve TV's fundemental quality problem.
Posted by john55440 (1020 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Better Programming Needed
A conversion from Analog Crap Programs to HDTV Crap Programs isn't going to solve TV's fundemental quality problem.
Posted by john55440 (1020 comments )
Reply Link Flag
EVGA community - "Of interest; Hp included."nValue" RF_News!
Sing a pretty song! Here is the Skin:
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"
Posted by Pop4 (88 comments )
Reply Link Flag
EVGA community - "Of interest; Hp included."nValue" RF_News!
Sing a pretty song! Here is the Skin:
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"
Posted by Pop4 (88 comments )
Reply Link Flag
HD is a Luxury
HD is a Luxury (as in expensive) that the average consumer does
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.
Posted by brian.lee (548 comments )
Reply Link Flag
HD is a Luxury
I fully agree. With sattelite you must pay more for HD.
Posted by paulsecic (298 comments )
Link Flag
HD is a Luxury
HD is a Luxury (as in expensive) that the average consumer does
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.
Posted by brian.lee (548 comments )
Reply Link Flag
HD is a Luxury
I fully agree. With sattelite you must pay more for HD.
Posted by paulsecic (298 comments )
Link Flag
The $64,000 chicken-or-egg question
If a $250 camcorder can have both digital (500-530 lines) and analog video out, adding a converter to an existing system cannot be THAT hard - technically. It's mostly a matter of logistics - of getting enough paying customers for the economy of scale to kick in. So there's been this chicken-or-egg situation for the last 10 years or so: who has to switch first - consumers or TV stations? And, since the law originally mandated the switch AFTER a certain percentage of consumers bought digital eqiupment (that's right, we were supposed to buy digital equipment in advance and marinate it...), it's a miracle we're finally making this switch.
Posted by byl01 (34 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The $64,000 chicken-or-egg question
If a $250 camcorder can have both digital (500-530 lines) and analog video out, adding a converter to an existing system cannot be THAT hard - technically. It's mostly a matter of logistics - of getting enough paying customers for the economy of scale to kick in. So there's been this chicken-or-egg situation for the last 10 years or so: who has to switch first - consumers or TV stations? And, since the law originally mandated the switch AFTER a certain percentage of consumers bought digital eqiupment (that's right, we were supposed to buy digital equipment in advance and marinate it...), it's a miracle we're finally making this switch.
Posted by byl01 (34 comments )
Reply Link Flag
HD
Wow, you would think people would do a bit more research before
writing a piece like this, guess not. On the Mac even the FREE
applications iMovie and iDVD are fully HD functional. The only real
issue is when the cost of HD cameras will get down low enough to
let the average person use them.
Posted by JJIndy (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
HD
That's why small production companies like mine or those we hire to do our films have been renting digital equipment for each job for a long time. Doing it for HD will be a logical next step.
Posted by saz4landl (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
HD
That's why small production companies like mine or those we hire to do our films have been renting digital equipment for each job for a long time. Doing it for HD will be a logical next step.
Posted by saz4landl (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.