Newsgroups: rec.video
From: tlai@cs.toronto.edu (Tony Wen Hsun Lai)
Subject: Re: HDTV Questions (second, broadcasters)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:03:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul19.053730.7679@bpdsun1.uucp> rmf@bpdsun1.uucp (Rob Finley) writes:
>In article <l68gv2INN38@manx.cs.utexas.edu> dhs@cs.utexas.edu (Douglas H. Steves) writes:
>>I find it interesting that people in this group, in particular, and
>>computer people in general have shown little interest in the HDTV
>>imbroglio, leaving it to the networks to heavily influence the FCC's
>>decision. Who cares about broadcast TV anyway? Fewer than 40% of
>>the households with TVs receive terrestial broadcast (not DBS or cable)
>>signals now, and that percentage is dropping rapidly. Basing the 
>>decision on terrestial broadcast quality within the bounds of a 6MHz
>>channel is just plain stupid. Or am I missing something?

The FCC has jurisdiction over only terrestrial broadcasters.  Also, most
broadcasters (including cable and satellite) are waiting for the FCC's
decision because they do not want to see multiple incompatible ATV formats.

>When I do plunge down my money for a system, I would like to have access
>to as much HDTV programming as possible (don't really care if some of
>it has commercials as long as I don't have to pay more than $20/month 
>for cable).  [The Last Boyscout] gave us a taste of football in the 1:1.85
>aspect ratio and I loved it.  Sounds like ESPN, not HBO.
>Superbowl in HDTV anyone?

A serious problem with HDTV will be the availability of software for the
first, say, 10 years.  For instance, many terrestrial broadcasters will be
slow to convert to HDTV, especially in less densely populated regions,
since HDTV carries extra costs without attracting many extra viewers or
advertizers.  Cable broadcasters will likely charge a premium for HDTV
because of the small number of viewers.  DBS may be the most practical
means of transmission for a while.

[stuff deleted]
>Video Magazine has a picture of the shoebox-sized DigiCipher HDTV 8mm 
>VCR along with a technical overview of the five systems in a recent issue.  
>Probably using 8mm metal tapes.  S-VHS gets you NTSC at 4Mhz using oxide-
>formula videotape.  Surely 6Mhz can be attained.
>(VHS NTSC compatibility?  Please?  Just wondering...)

Do you realize how disgusting VHS will look on an HDTV monitor?

[more stuff deleted]
>o  Programming carried on a low-power digital signal can produced near-
>   perfect, interference-free images, even when a higher power signal
>   is broadcasting on exactly the same channel from a nearby transmitter
>   (provided it is something like analog NTSC.  They tested on ch 36)

Probably a major reason why Zenith and AT&T, MIT, and Philips abandoned
their hybrid or analog ATV systems after the appearance of DigiCipher is 
because of the problems of analog simulcast systems using taboo channels.

>o  Shots taken with standard [NTSC] TV equipment can be upgraded to be
>   shown on a high-definition system.
[even more stuff deleted]

I'd wonder how good the results would be with NTSC-to-HDTV conversion.
Many EDTV systems such as SuperNTSC or ClearVision use either a 525-line
progressive-scan camera or an HDTV camera.

Tony Lai
--
Usenet.  The triumph of noise over signal.