FYI: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/technology/31HDTV.html
The Times says we belong to "the cult of early adopters." Never thought I'd have to admit to being in a cult. Oh well.
HDTV's Acceptance Picks Up Pace
By ERIC A. TAUB
LOS ANGELES, March 30 — It was an easy target and got a big laugh. At last week's Academy Awards ceremonies, the host, Steve Martin, noted that the awards show was being broadcast in high-definition television, or HDTV, for the first time. "So I'd like to say a big hello to the three guys watching at Circuit City," he said.
Since its rollout in 1998, HDTV has tended for most people to be the video equivalent of a tree's falling in the forest with no one around to hear it. Digital sets have been costly and the availability of high-definition signals on cable has been skimpy. But, in fact, the technology — digital-quality television with a supersharp picture the shape of a movie screen — has started to catch on in measurable ways.
Although HDTV still presents consumers with a confusing set of shopping issues and can be difficult to install, the sets and attendant equipment have come down in price from the ridiculous ($10,000 or more, initially) to the merely expensive (now less than $1,000 at the entry level). And so, sales are beginning to expand beyond the cult of early adopters, although the number of households with HDTV sets remains only a fraction of the nation's television audience.
Click link above to continue or go to www.nytimes.com, business, all articles.
Tyler Durden
03-31-2003, 10:47 AM
The WSJ (sorry, no link) had a huge article in a section that highlighted the 10 most important up and coming technologies, including a section on HDTV. For the most part, the article was very positive towards HDTV, in fact saying its nationwide adoption is 'inevitable'. Also looks towards the ESPN-HD launch as very positive (but doesn't dwell on the fact that none of us have it yet...)
phenom
03-31-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Tyler Durden
The WSJ (sorry, no link) had a huge article in a section that highlighted the 10 most important up and coming technologies, including a section on HDTV. For the most part, the article was very positive towards HDTV, in fact saying its nationwide adoption is 'inevitable'. Also looks towards the ESPN-HD launch as very positive (but doesn't dwell on the fact that none of us have it yet...)
I missed that article. What day did it appear?
Tyler Durden
03-31-2003, 12:26 PM
It's in today's WSJ (3/31), in a special section entitled "Technology" (pg R12)
All Dressed Up …
There's not a lot of high-definition TV programming. But consumers are buying, anyway
By LEE GOMES
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Americans are increasingly in love with those big, splashy high-definition television sets. And one day soon, that love will be requited and there will be enough high-definition television programming to keep the sets busy.
A weekend trip to the mall is ample demonstration of the manner in which HD television sets are packing them in the aisles at consumer-electronics stores, with shoppers oohing and aahing at the incredible color and sharp detail that the sets make possible. And shoppers aren't just looking, either, but are pulling out their charge cards, too. According to the Consumer Electronics Association, some 2.5 million HD sets were bought last year, or roughly one in 10 of all televisions bought in this country.
While only about 5% of Americans currently have high-definition sets, that percentage is on a sharp upward path, in large part because of the sharp downward path of HD prices. Industry observers are expecting entry-level versions of high-definition sets, using traditional cathode-ray-tube technology, to be retailing for under $1,000 by Christmas. And flat-panel plasma prices seem to be coming down by $500 every six months.
Where's the Signal?
But there is a problem for HD fans. By now, most people have figured out that simply buying an HD set doesn't mean you'll get high-definition television programs to watch. Instead, you need a high-definition signal for the set to display.
And while there is an ever-larger number of HD shows being broadcast over the air -- as well as sent out on cable and satellite systems -- the pace of that increase isn't quite fast enough to satisfy the growing legion of HD owners who are itching for something to tune into.
Before proceeding, some technical points. Traditional broadcast television, which in the U.S. is called NTSC, for National Television Standards Committee, is composed of 525 horizontal screen lines, with the screen itself having a 4-to-3 ratio of width to height. High-definition sets, by contrast, get their vastly better picture by virtue of having either 720 or 1,080 horizontal lines. They also have a wider, movie-style display, with a 16-to-9 ratio.
The numbers behind high-definition displays are somewhat misleading. A set with 1,080 lines in it is not necessarily 50% better than one with 720 lines, especially since the 720 lines are usually displayed all at once -- that is, they are "progressively scanned" -- unlike the "interlacing" that happens on the 1,080 sets, with only half the lines being put on the screen at any one time.
Conversely, most people say that the perceived improvement in picture quality between the 525-line NTSC signal and even a 720-line HD signal is much greater than the numbers would suggest, in part because the 720 lines are usually shown all at once, which doesn't happen with standard TV broadcasts.
Consumer-electronics industry analysts say that most people buying HD these days are aware of the relative scarcity of HD television programming. And so while people wait for more HD broadcasting, they are using their sets to watch DVD movies.
DVDs don't generate a high-definition picture; instead, they display things in an intermediate visual-quality level that, while markedly better than standard TV, is still a notch or two below true high definition.
Even with that limitation, the experience of watching DVD movies on a wide-screen, high-quality set -- especially if a surround-sound speaker system is part of the experience -- is more than enough to persuade people to take the HD plunge right now. HD owners routinely say that after watching DVD movies on their new systems, it's impossible to go back and watch them on a standard television.
Any hardware-format change, like the current migration to HDTV or the earlier switch in music from LPs to compact discs, is always a chicken-and-egg proposition. People won't buy the hardware unless there is something to play on it. But broadcasters, for instance, are reluctant to undertake the expense involved in switching their studio equipment and transmission facilities to HD with only 5% of the market able to receive it.
(The Federal Communications Commission has required all broadcasters to shift to digital TV by 2006, and some stations are stretching out the transition for as long as possible.)
In the case of high definition, the chicken-egg entity got a big nudge forward, when ESPN launched its high-definition channel, ESPN HD. The network is promising hundreds of hours of HD programming this year and more next year.
Sports is considered one of the "killer apps" of HD, since few things are better at getting large numbers of people gathered around a set. TV salespeople always report a boost in sales each year around the time of the Super Bowl.
ESPN plans to have both an HD and a standard-broadcast channel, and says it will talk up the benefits of high definition to viewers of its regular-resolution shows.
HD owners, who tend to be boosters about the technology, have great expectations for the move by ESPN, which they hope will help catalyze more hardware purchases and eventually lead to the availability of more programming.
ESPN's foray into high definition is the latest instance of a network using HD for more than just the occasional blockbuster show, like the Academy Awards, which were also shown in HD.
Other cable and satellite channels, like HBO, offer portions of their lineups in high definition, though not all cable companies carry them. It's the same for the broadcast offerings of network television. Some local network affiliates send them over the air in HD, while others don't. People in the biggest media markets usually have some form of HD signals available over the air for free, assuming, that is, that they have a line-of-sight connection between the transmitting tower and their house, where they must set up an antenna.
There is also HD-Net, an all-HD cable channel that is something of a labor of love by Internet entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Its usual fare is travelogues and sports, but lately it has been adding movies and concerts, and has even discussed screening television reruns like "Hogan's Heroes," all in HD format.
Finding the amount of HD programming available in a particular area involves some research; for most people, it will mean first checking with their local cable or satellite provider. That's likely to be a hit-and-miss affair, at least for the time being, with different providers each having a different menu of offerings.
The good news here is that cable and satellite companies are starting to use the availability of HD programming to compete with each other, with each implying that that have more HD than the other guy.
Equipment Needs
Besides sporadic programming, the other challenge for HD owners involves equipment. It turns out that buying an HD set is just the start of things. For most sets, one also needs a separate HD tuner to pick up the signals. Satellite customers need one supplied by either DirectTV or Dish Network, the two satellite networks, since those signals are encrypted and require proprietary hardware to be descrambled. These can get pricey; the HD tuner sold by Dish, for example, is $600.
Some of this is expected to change soon, as late last year the Consumer Electronics Association brokered an agreement that sets the technical standards necessary to allow consumers to plug a HD-bearing cable directly into their TV, without the need for a separate tuner or set-top box. TV sets built to these specifications are expected to start showing up later this year or early next year. Since most Americans get their TV signal through cable, the availability of these sets is expected to be a boon to HD.
Then there is an antenna, which may be necessary in some areas to pick up local HD broadcasts, such as those of local network affiliates not carried by cable or satellite. Since HD signals are digital, the reception from these antennas will either be perfect or nonexistent.
One other temporary drawback to HD: There are currently few ways to "time shift" shows, recording them for later viewing. TiVo, for instance, which makes a popular personal video recorder, has announced an HD version of its product. But it's not expected to be available until the end of the year, at the earliest.
All this may seem like a lot to do just for a better TV picture, and for many people, it will be. But the early days of color television were something of a bother, too. Neighbors would gather at the house of someone with a newfangled color set; in school, the lucky kids would tell jealous classmates about what things really looked like on "Disney's Wonderful World of Color," as the show was then called.
After a while, color became commonplace, a destiny that surely awaits HD as well.
phenom
03-31-2003, 03:44 PM
*not reading*
*just grabbed WSJ off doorstep*
*not reading*
*just grabbed WSJ off doorstep*
:D
