HDTV

Interesting article in the NY Times today about how “HDTV’s Acceptance Picks Up Pace,” but, as the article addresses HDTV still has a long way to go.

The article talks a lot about which broadcasts are becoming HDTV. ESPN seems to be making the most effort to go HD. Not surprising since “…many people consider sporting events in HDTV to be perhaps the technology’s most compelling application.” I, however, could care less about sports.

To me, and many I know, movies would be the most compelling application. Many movies shot specifically for the big screen would work perfectly with a wide screen, high definition image. While it would be nice to watch 24 or Smaville or the academy awards in high definition, HDTV would have a much bigger impact with Blade Runner, Lawrence of Arabia or the Lord of the Rings. Indeed it amazes me that people spend so much money and effort to come out with high quality DVDs with 5.2 surround and still end up looking at a picture with a paltry 480 lines of resolution.

There really needs to be some kind of standard HDTV playing device with studios releasing content on it. I realize that there are already HDTV VCRS, but do they have any content? I mean there is already a consumer level HDTV Camcorder, yet there are few major movies available on HTDV.

Another problem: cable. Via the article:

Until several months ago, the cable industry was a no-show in HDTV, with many local operators complaining that they could not afford the bandwidth, or network capacity, the signals require. Roughly speaking, a single HDTV channel on cable uses the bandwidth that might otherwise go to five or more digital channels in standard definition. Last May, though, the 10 largest cable operators pledged to provide up to five HDTV services in their larger markets this year.

While the cable companies are improving, they still have a ways to go. I also expect most of their customers may prefer more channels to HD. In addition I hope they don’t compress the images beyond recognition refuting the claim of high definition.

The alternative, basically rabbit ears on one’s >$1500 set, is even more problamatic:

For the majority of Americans who still cannot receive HDTV programming via cable, picking up HDTV broadcasts has been as challenging as listening to shortwave radio stations. The broadcast networks’ digital feeds, with a few exceptions, can be received only by using old-fashioned rabbit ears or rooftop antennas.

And digital transmissions in some local markets are far from perfect. Pictures pop in and out as the signal strength falls below the viewable threshold. Shows occasionally revert to standard definition for no apparent reason. The transmission of last week’s Academy Awards show in the Los Angeles market was plagued with audio pops and the complete disappearance of the picture several times a minute, making the HDTV version of the event, for some, unwatchable.

Sure, its a ‘perfect’ digital broadcast, but all that means is that instead of getting audio and video static from bad reception, one gets blank frames or part of frames and pops in the audio.

Even worse is the potential for “broadcast flags” an other thing mandated by Hollywood limiting the way we can use our own equipment. All this new technology will be of little value, and won’t catch on, if people can’t have flexibility in how they can use it.

There doesn’t seem to be a standard connecter, but I don’t think this is nearly as much of a problem as the other issues. There are some propositions for a standard already. Besides, regular TV already has RF, composite, S-Video, and component inputs. Technically inclined people, i.e. those who are most likely to buy HTDV, can handle converters and set top boxes. As more people get HTDV, standards can be better established.

While we still want our HDTV, it has quite a few kinks to be worked out first. (Story via Slashdot.)