Pretty cool! I can't wait until 2014, so we can watch Star Wars and Indiana Jones on HD-DVD!!

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/07/26/hddvd/

Ok, I'm still glad it's coming. But, the best DVD's took years to come out!

Murph

so why to wait ? buy an D-VHS, you can record on your own and find many D-VHS prerecorded tapes with nice movies...
and it cost already half of the price annouced for HD-DVD.

Oh, i forget, mac users always want the tomorrow technology...
;-)

D-VHS ain't my cup of tea...I hate tape, even HD tape. I've been dealing with tape for my whole career, so I want digital files! No more rewinding of tapes and drop outs!

The other reason I want HD-DVD is my library...I've got 1000 DVD's now. The format is backwards compatible...

Also, I HATE the stupid Mac/PC thing...so, don't even go there! My Mac is great and if your PC is great then we're both winners.

Murph

you are right, tape is silly,but actually it is the same digital stuff you get for your sony and JVC cams. (i got the same ones).
You would find a great advantage with d-vhs, being able to transfer from/to sony or the jvc (even in HD) or even from your mac to the d-vhs , directly from/to the firewire plug.

What about us UK peoples??


Heck HD aint even mentioned in the UK, AND HD-DVD is gonna comming out...

That means we will get the HD-DVD here in the UK hmmm by say next time theres a Blue moon!


Oh well....

i hope someone will do some HD awareness in UK type thing

You know what Anhar, much of the fuss over HD in the US is pretty ridiculous. HD is worthwhile to get worked up about, but it's still so pricey. I don't know about the rest of the wold, but we Americans go crazy for buzzwords and concepts like HiDef (anything that's better than what we have now), but in reality not many people actually have Big-Screen HD sets, and even the small HD sets are still way over priced (and what's the point of a small HD set).

Most everybody I know uses a TV until it dies (my Sony Trinitron still rocks and is 20 years old!). HD won't be widely adopted by the mass market until we all get forced to D-TV, and even then it will probably be slow.

The funniest thing I've noticed about HD, are all the people clamoring for HDV camcorders, and don't/won't even have sets to watch the footage on. Of course I'd love an HDV cam too, but we won't get cheap HDV models worth a damn (JVC - great ideas, poor implementation) until "Joe Consumer" has a TV set to watch it on (he is the guy the world's companies really care about).

Now that Canon has passed up on releasing a prosumer HDV model, everyone else can rest easy. This either means Pana will come out with an HDV DVX100 to really take down the Canon giant (and hurt their own pro division...unlikely), or everybody will sit back and wait around awhile to release prosumer HDV models.

So don't feel bad if HD isn't catching on in the UK. It really is more buzzword than reality here.

I am from switzerland and jumping now into this HD stuff.
what prevents you to do the same ?
After all the american HD is same resolution than the the future european one.
And what the heck about 30fps ?
People are not so shy when they play zone 1 , ntsc DVD on their multistandard TV ?
You will purchase a several thousand HD big screen that is able to display probably all of the 18 HD specifications, so where is the problem ? your spectator will not see that.
for 2300$ you can get the HD JVC on B&H site in less than a week
On onecall.com you can get the D-VHS , latest model for less than 600$. compared to the price of a DVX100 or PD170, it is cheap.
And you can get easily some prerecorded D-VHS tape with good & recent hollywood movies for almost the saome price of the DVD.
And anyway until you get HD DVD ready, you will become a master in HD, get taped all the stuff you need, ready for HD-DVD (that will start too with 30fps probably).
and if you need to distribute HD now, just use microsoft codec WMV9 HD version , so it can be read on any powerful PC with an 1280 resolution screen or projector (easy to find).

Just to note that there is one flaw in that article on digital rights. 24% of internet users have not downloaded movies. The study that came up with that was seriously flawed and their conclusion was designed so that they could alarm folks unjustly. They are trying to reverse fair use.

Hey Guys...

Facts are facts. I worked at WMUR-TV in the US in 1997 when it was one of the first stations that went HD. We are less than 2 years away from the mandated changeover to HD from NTSC. Yes, there have been problems along the way. However, it's happening no matter what...because most broadcasters are HD now. (when i say most, i'm talking ABC/NBC/CBS and big cable channels etc.)

Also, another fact you can't avoid is that ALL NTSC television will need a HD converter in 2006 to display content from any FCC liscensed source. That's every single channel going over the air.

Now, another quick fact - the price difference for all "small" (30 inches or under) is LESS than $200 almost everywhere in the US. I was in Best Buy the other day and it's a fact - they only had 3 NTSC televisions in their entire store on display and like 20 HDTV's!!!! All sizes and prices....and it's only 2004 and not 2006. In the year 2006...every single person out to get a new television will buy an HDTV. (ok, i know...some will buy cheap $50 tv's and get a $25 converter box because they are STUPID!)

Sooo..I'm not trying to be hardnose here. But, in the US...we are living in an HDTV worrld now and anyone who isn't will be in a very, very short time....it's not only inevitable it's the LAW! :)

Now...all of us are complaining about little facts here and there. But, the overall situation is that I have an HDTV and have had one for 2 years and every month or so they add a new HDTV channel....they just added "Discovery HD" last week! I don't have to pay for it...it's free with my HD cable box and will remain free because the FCC mandated that broadcasts are free way back in the 1950's - that's not changing. There is also a Discovery NTSC channel in my lineup and I never watch it because it's fuzzy as heck! In the next 1 1/2 years the HD lineup will fill up because the LAW mandated it...and the NTSC channels will dissappear at some point in 2006. (Ok, the broadcasters have complained like crazy about it...but, ain't no stopping it and the only thing that MIGHT happen is a short delay on when the NTSC channels will disappear.)

What we're talking about here is $$ - the FCC and everyone else need this transistion because it's going to take us into the next few decades. NTSC ain't cutting it to the new generation of whiz-kids...and there are more pressing issues than HD channels like Internet videos that look BETTER than NTSC channels!! I've downloaded HD footage online and that's somehthing no one can regulate. We're heading towards some very interesting times because people will be downloading HD movies and television shows for free on P2P. It's really not that hard to encode MPEG 2 HD compliant broadcasts and send them up just like NTSC programs. The Gov in the US has so much work to do!

Here's a fun question: What happens when some unknown company releases an AMAZING codec that allow better than HD footage to be squeezed into a streaming file smaller than the smallest files online now? That's when the whole world of captured media goes into overdrive. It's going to happen sooner or later...we've already got this far with codecs and it's only going to continue...HD streaming online? Definately possible!

EDIT:

After writing this post I came across this article!

http://bth.broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_congress_debates_setting/index.htm

Murph

Great point Chris

HDTV is not that expensive. There are HDTV sets from 499 on up and as you say in 2 years you should be able to by an HDTV 30" or above for the same price.

HDTV isn't just about resolution, the color fidelity and richness are unmistakable. Even with a small HDTV tube you can see this.

I applaud the FCC mandates. Broadcasters can be lazy and sometimes you have to push them into the future.

I will not buy another NTSC TV. And while I like HDV I think it's a rather poor choice for consumer HD recording. I'm hoping that Panny is holding out for something a bit better for those of us that need better editing functions.

Microsoft has backed HD-DVD for Longhorn. This will put pressure on Sony to add VC-9 support to Blu Ray and to make sure they are compatible with computers. I'm glad HD-DVD and its forum members are being more agressive. Bring on the pre-recorded content!! I'll be ready.

Hey, you actually made a good point after my good point. ;)

The best viewing experience I've had with HDTV has been on those $600 HDTV's at Best Buy. It looks to me that the best HDTV's will be the ones smaller than 30 inches! That's actually great news overall because the adoption will be that much faster for middle of road America.

The reason, I think, that the resolution on the 30 inches or less is so awsome is that the image isn't being stretched so far. The original resolution is so damn good that keeping it small is only going to give it a better overall look. Plus, there is less reflection to deal with on a smaller screen...you're generally closer to the tv too. I've got a 46" HDTV and the image is great, but it's TO big!

Anyone want to trade a 46" HDTV for a 40" or less??

Murph

Misconceptions About HDTV

Digital Cable is the Same As DTV False. Digital Cable is in fact digital, meaning it is transmitted as ones and zeros, but that does not make it DTV or HDTV. It is true that you can get DTV from a Digital Cable subscription, but just because you are getting Digital Cable does not mean you can get DTV and/or HDTV signals.

DTV is the Same As HDTV False. Digital Television, DTV, is a set of 18 different formats for broadcasting televison in a digital format put out by the ATSC. High Defintion Television, HDTV, is six of those 18 DTV formats that has a resolution of at least 720p and has an aspect ratio of 16x9.

All Television Will Be HDTV in 2006 False. The FCC has mandated that by May 2006 that all broadcasters broadcast DTV signals. This pertains to Over The Air transmissions and does not mean anything about DTV through Cable or Satellite companies. HDTV takes up a lot of bandwidth and it is up to the Cable and Satellite companies to move from sending you regular Analog to true DTV signals. This also means that broadcasters can send DTV signals that are of lower resolution then that of true HDTV. FOX, for instance, is currently broadcasting 480p in many areas and this meets the FCCs regulations.

...this is an excerpt from http://www.hdtv.net/
HD is not coming to the masses, but DTV is. HDTV is very expensive, DTV's are not.

Well, well, after some researching it seems US folks "over the pond" might be getting HDTV after all.

It seems that the current Digital TV wether cable, satelite, or terrestial (over the Air) implements the European DVB standard......ie Digital Video Broadcast and has more specific off-springs known as DVB-S (for satelite), DVB-C (for cable) and also DVB-T (for terrestial),. and also DAB (Digital Audio Broadcast, or digital radio, its starting to cacth on slowly)

Anyway DVB was kicked off from 1994 and is now mainstream.

AND GUESS what they are already working on DVB -S2
its much; much better than the existing DVB-S

and surprise surprise they will be geared for HDTV! (they will even allow WMV 9)

check it out :

http://www.dvb.org/

and also : the White Paper:

http://www.dvb.org/documents/white-papers/wp06.DVB-S2.final.pdf


cheers!

excerpt from DVB...
"Many countries have already implemented DVB-T or have decided to use it for future digital terrestrial television deployment."

So are you saying that you have had a Digital TV broadcast system since 1994, which is now completely mainstream, and you are already getting an improved Digital TV format? I think your country (apparently mine as well) may have accepted the DVB system for future use, but it does not mean it is currently being implemented. I know it isn't being used here right now, but the US is noted as having the system as well. Unless you and almost everybody you know are using Digital Television and/or Digital receivers, it is not the mainstream.

Again, even though they are preparing for DigitalTV, it doesn't mean they have it now, nor does it mean that when they do, HDTV will become very prominent. One HD channel sucks up enough bandwith to run many SD channels, and broadcaster rather save their bandwith than give the best looking programs. I hate to keep being the harbinger of bad news, but HDTV as the mainstream is still well a ways off.

On a better note, it's good that they are going to put WM9 to use. It seems to be a strong HD codec.

When i say mainstream, i stand corrected i meant common place,

Yes most people i know in the UK either have Satelite (Sky OR Sky plus) or they have cable and those that do not have these can use the FreeView digitbox that connects to your existing antenna and recieve FTA (Free To Air) digital Terrestial Channels (DVB-T, and most newer TV's come with a digibox inside ready to recieve these channels, there are even PCI cards for PC that will recieve these channels and even record them includeing EPG recording) from a set top box that costs less than £50 (and getting cheaper) you can pick one of these from almost any high street electrical shops.

basically to get digital TV in the UK is easy its already up and running,

now to clarify although the DVB was standaised in 1994, we havnt seen the applictions (or noticed it) untill about late 1998/9(at least from my experiance, i'm sure you can find the actual dates from searching)

I agree with you on the HD thing being a while away yet.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jesse Bekas : You know what Anhar, much of the fuss over HD in the US is pretty ridiculous. HD is worthwhile to get worked up about, but it's still so pricey. I don't know about the rest of the wold, but we Americans go crazy for buzzwords and concepts like HiDef (anything that's better than what we have now), but in reality not many people actually have Big-Screen HD sets, and even the small HD sets are still way over priced (and what's the point of a small HD set). -->>>

Well, if I can chime in on this, I have a 34" direct-view Sony set. It's one of the multi-synch models that can run native at 1080i, 720p or SD resolutions. I have High Definition cable coming in at 720p and I have a really hard time switching to SD stations. The High Definition signal looks SO good SO much of the time that it's tough to look at SD. And of course there's the aspect ratio. Once you get used to widescreen it's annoying when the black bars pop up on the sides and you have to watch a pan and scan movie. I'd never known how bad a DVD could look until I got an HD set, too. People would complain about bad transfers and I could see a little difference, but it seemed minor until I got a set that resolves so much detail that differences in transfer quality and compression started jumping out at me.

Personally I can't wait for high definition video, be it blu-ray or HD-DVD. As more people see the difference firsthand I imagine it will develop a lot more support in the marketplace.

I agree so much with what you said regarding getting used to HDTV and not wanting to look at SD. It has to be something really good for me to watch it. I've found myself watching movies that I'd never watch before on my HDTV because they look so damn good. I remember when I first got HDTV - it was some lame Cameron Diaz chick flick movie. Get this...I watched the whole thing and my girlfriend said she couldn't believe I watched the whole thing. I told her it was a combination of being able to "see everything so clearly", and also being able to see the beautiful girls! It's really life-like when you have all the lights off.

Murph

I don't want you guys to think I am bashing HD here. I have seen the mighty magic of HiDef, and it's almost painful to be stuck watching SD programming all the time. It is similar to having to go back to dialup after using broadband. I want HD to be mainstream enough that we ALL have it on our TVs, and shoot it on our camcorders. Hell, I want it to be so mainstream that while the general public enjoys it, us nuts will be dreaming about UD (Ultra-Def). So while I'm not anti-HD by any means, I am just pointing out that it will be some time before...

A) it's affordable for everybody (and don't tell me $1,000 TV is affordable because it isn't for most)

B)Most proramming is HD. This is the one that is really gonna take some time because programmers aren't gonna show all HD shows until the majority of the public has the equipment. It's gonna be very "chicken and the egg" for awhile. Consumers are going to have to be convinced that HD is coming immediately, and that they can't live without it. Then after they get the HD sets, and they see there is a lot more SD content than HD, they'll clamor for it in the streets and we'll all get it.

...On a side note, for Robert, HD sets actually have a hinderence with their high pixel counts, to show SD. It has been said in many articles that HD sets make SD content look worse than it actually is. Some of the pixels don't down convert well, and turn into fuzz, and other "artifacts" that would not be seen on an SD set. So if you watch SD on an HD set, that makes it seem like HD is even that much better. For a true comparison you have to watch the same program on 2 sets next to each other, HD on HD, and SD on SD.

There will soon be HD sets for a couple hundred bucks just like NTSC ones. It's only a matter of time...and not much at that.

Also, there is more content in the "vaults" of Hollywood in 16x9 than in other formats...ready to go. We'll soon have "Classic" channels up the wazo in HDTV. There have been 16x9 movies for some 50 odd years now. Also, older television was shot on film too...maybe not 16x9, but they'll tweak it for 16x9 televisions. The 80's brought on horrible video cameras which we all use, but Hollywood has general kept their content HD (or film I should say) since way back before any of our time.

My opinion is that Hollywood is going to make a killing for 2nd time on older content first. It's already showing on my HDTV cable system...they have made deals on INHD 1 and 2 for all kinds of old movies. Some I think suck bad, but others aren't to back at all. I can see how they're trying to make money by not spending any right now...and that'll pan out until probably 2006-2007 when all the early adopters are overshadowed by the newbies. The next generation HDTV'ers (3-5 years from now) will most defintely be the ones who spend $$ on HDTV accessories (HD-DVD etc). This one is paying for the Beta testing!

Murph

<<<-- Originally posted by Jesse Bekas : ...On a side note, for Robert, HD sets actually have a hinderence with their high pixel counts, to show SD. It has been said in many articles that HD sets make SD content look worse than it actually is. Some of the pixels don't down convert well, and turn into fuzz, and other "artifacts" that would not be seen on an SD set. So if you watch SD on an HD set, that makes it seem like HD is even that much better. For a true comparison you have to watch the same program on 2 sets next to each other, HD on HD, and SD on SD. -->>>

Well, most sets are doing conversion to their own native display resolution. Especially with plasma sets, I imagine that looks terrible. Like playing a video game at a non-native resolution on your laptop. My set is a CRT set, though, with multisynch. It doesn't upconvert or downconvert, it changes its native display resolution to match incoming content just like a computer monitor.

Jesse I don't understand where you're getting this.


A. Best Buy, Walmart and Costco all have Hidef screens from $499 on up. Costco just recently sold through the 30" widescreen Philips model for $599. By claiming that Hidef sets are $1000 and ignoring the models below I think you tell a lie by ommission to prove your thesis.

B. That is why the FCC is mandating Digital Broadcasts. If we left it up to the broadcasters we'd be using NTSC for the next decade. Here in Washington it's easy to get HD programming. Comcast has been rolling it out and even the smaller fringe cable companies have a decent selection. By 2006 if you want HD you'll be able to get it.

I would have to say i'm pretty impressed. The cost of entry to HD has dropped from thousands now to hundreds. I myself will be eyeballing the new Samsung or Toshiba 26" widescreen CRT HDTVs $699 but I know they'll be on sale when I'm ready to buy. There is no reason now to fear the HD rollout. By 2006 a 26" HDTV should be with tuner from multiple major brands for $499 and less for tier 2 brands.

> That is why the FCC is mandating Digital Broadcasts.
> If we left it up to the broadcasters we'd be using NTSC for
> the next decade.

The FCC is mandating digital because the hardware manufacterers lobbied theirs heads off to be able to continue to sell TV sets. This didn't happen in Europe, where governments are less influenced by business and more publically-oriented. Even though there are Europe-approved HDTV standards, they are rolling out a backwards-compatible analog high-definition extension to PAL. Because it is compatible with 50 year old analog receivers, it makes sense for the broadcasters to implemente technology that serves their whole audience (not seperate technologies for legacy and new receivers).

More info in this other thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&postid=207055

I was completely unaware of HD sets over 30" for less than $1,000, so if that's what I was implying I was wrong. I really don't understand getting an HD set smaller than 30", though, unless it's for a PC that you'll be sitting right in front of. Considering you can get an SD set of that size for $250, I don't think $500+ for relatively small HD screens is what the general public are willing to pay, thereby keeping HD on the fringe for awhile longer. My original reason for posting anything on this thread, was just to say that HD wasn't already, nor will it soon be mainstream...in 2 years it will be more widely accepted, but will not be mainstream until the larger sets are as cheap as their current SD counterparts, which I can admit, may be a possibilty...and 2 years is not an eternity, but it isn't as "soon" as many people are implying.

>>Well, if I can chime in on this, I have a 34" direct-view Sony set. It's one of the multi-synch models that can run native at 1080i, 720p or SD resolutions. I have High Definition cable coming in at 720p <<

I get Comcast at 1080i and for those who don't think the video look has a future, they are wrong. The look was so stunning I was watching one of those crappy travel videos about a place I will never go to (Tacoma Wa) and couldn't turn it off. Now I know more about Tacoma then I ever wanted to.

I'm actually watching baseball on TV for the first time in over 11 years and with Hidef, it's almost as good as being there (will pitchers start having to wear makeup to hide their zits?, hehehe),
and Cameraon Diaz really does have a serious skin problem, ouch!!!

Film sourced entertainment like NYPD blue and others look outstanding too.

btw, for anyone living in the Arlington/DC metro area. The Circuit City at Bailys Crossing is having a fire sale on 'ALL' their HD capable sets,crt and RP based systems are marked down the lowest. They had a 46inch Panasonic RP with stand for 899.00, they had a 26inch 16x9 samsung CRT for under 400. If I had the money I would have bought that one for editing purposes.

I get Comcast at 1080i and for those who don't think the video look has a future, they are wrong. The look was so stunning I was watching one of those crappy travel videos about a place I will never go to (Tacoma Wa) and couldn't turn it off. Now I know more about Tacoma then I ever wanted to.-->>>

I hate to chime in just to say, "me too" but this is pretty much exactly my experience. INHD has all these IMAX films that have been transferred to HD and Japanese documentaries shot in HD and HD travel films and stuff. A lot of it is stuff I'd flip off if the images weren't just so amazing. Instead I'll sit there and watch a travelogue down Route 66 or aerial highlights of California or undersea photography of mollusks and I can't change the channel. This is the stuff.

This is hilarious...I thought I was the only one out there watching the travel and nature stuff?

It's even more funny when you guys talk about sports. I've not watched sports since I was a kid, but I swear that it's actually fun to watch it now on HDTV. It's possible that Hockey will become way more popular in the near future....you can see the puck!

Also, anyone else find themselves watching movies they'd never watch? I've been watching some of the corniest 80's movies...INHD has them on all the time. They're so bad, but I can't help but watch the widescreen HD content. I'm sure this will wear off someday, but I've had my HDTV for almost 2 years now!

Murph

LOL...even funnier is that I went to Jr High and HS in Tacoma. Trust me there's nothing there that'll make you book a flight.

LOL!!!

I'll chime in as well.

First, regarding european government being more for the people then business oriented, I'm not sure but isn't it much more expensive to get a camera with a firewire in and out in PAL land because then it's classified as a VCR so it costs more tax wise, so companies can sell camera's and decks instead of one camera for both...

Second, I think the old movies you were talking about are 1.85 to 1 or 2.35 or 2.40 to 1 so there will still be some cropping I do not believe they were native content. I think the reason these movies are getting blown up is because the rights are so cheap to purchase.

Third, I don't agreee on the 30" models having the better picture, I have a 42" rear projection LCD that was CHEAPER then the 30" I was looking at and has a picture easily just as good if not better. Best BUy is an awful place to view picture quality because often times one model won't have the correct hook ups or will have the picture quality tweaked (or not) so that it will look better then another model that may be slightly cheaper. (take the pana 50" and the Sony 50" for example same picture quality when turned to cine mode but the sony looks loads better straight out the box)

Let's Also not forget that the FCC did set a hard date for the HDTV switch over but then pushed it back so it is entirely possible that it will get pushed again.

I'm In L.A. and unfortunately I can only get adelphia cable which in my area does not do HDTV when they finally do switch over it only the terrestrial channels, which I was able to get with a set top box already. As a result I went with VOOM which has been amazing, though I must say HD does have some disadvantages, On the Porn Channels you can see everything, which isn't usually all that glamourous, (think cameron diaz's skin only well... everywhere.)

<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Hiltgen :
Second, I think the old movies you were talking about are 1.85 to 1 or 2.35 or 2.40 to 1 so there will still be some cropping I do not believe they were native content. I think the reason these movies are getting blown up is because the rights are so cheap to purchase. -->>>

This is something that's been bugging me a lot with HD. The single big drawback, IMO. There are a lot of movies that air on INHD that I know started out as 2.35 and they're full-screen HD (1.85) when they air. I guess it's not nearly as bad as cropping them for 4:3, but now there are multiple versions of some great films out there in 4:3 for SD, 1.85 for HD and 2.35 for DVD.

Maybe it's just my gear, but 1.66 movies show full screen on my HD set, too. I put in the Criterion DVD of 'A Night To Remember' a few nights ago and it played full screen on my set, even though it's definitely in 1.66. I guess the overscan just shaves off a little of the top and bottom.

I believe full screen hd is 16x9 (1.77)1.85 would be something like 16.65 x9 but the difference is nominal I suppose, However with 2.35 you're right something is happening there if it's playing full screen, which also annoys the heck out of me to. Robert when you say you "know" they were 2.35 is that because you did some work as a projectionist to?

<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Hiltgen : I believe full screen hd is 16x9 (1.77)1.85 would be something like 16.65 x9 but the difference is nominal I suppose, However with 2.35 you're right something is happening there if it's playing full screen, which also annoys the heck out of me to. Robert when you say you "know" they were 2.35 is that because you did some work as a projectionist to? -->>>

Just film club stuff, never a paid job. No, the reason I know the films are 2.35 is because I know those films were shot in 'Scope. I have a fascination with anamorphic optics and I'm always making note of compositional details in films shot on anamorphic optics. Several films I own on DVD in 2.35 have popped up on cable full screen. What's equally odd is that The Shining has popped up full screen. Now I know it was shown that was theatrically, but Kubrick shot in 1.33 and the DVD's have been transferred 1.33, so for them to show it 16:9 they had to make their own decisions about cropping, which is almost as bad as cutting off the sides to make the 'scope films fit full-screen.

>>On the Porn Channels you can see everything, which isn't usually all that glamourous, (think cameron diaz's skin only well... everywhere.)
<<
HiDef porn. Now we know for sure HD will succeed. Think VCRs.

The only bad thing is the lower channels on my set are SD, and don't look so good. Comcast sports is just SD strectched to HD and looks even worse.

Dream on, HDTV elitists. There will be a substantial portion of the U.S. population that will be unable or unwilling to invest in another TV set, for many more years, if they have an SD TV that still works. Most of you probably don't know any of them, but millions of people struggle to survive financially and won't be joining the HDTV crowd, anytime soon. Even a $200. converter box would be a luxury beyond the reach of many.

If the advertisers, that drive all the decisions about television, know that 40%, 25% or even 10% of their potential customers would be cut off by an end to SD broadcasting, they will, as before, be accomodated by the FCC and SD programing will continue well past 2005. With the narrow profit margins that separate successful and failing competitors, no business will be willing to ignore any of its potential customers.

Steve McDonald

I don't think there is any argument regarding SD's future. My take is that HDTV users and producers are focused on that market....SD is a given and will have a place for many years. But, that revenue stream is in place already....HDTV is beginning and there ARE many users already and many more coming. I know plenty of single people and couples that are non-industry folks that bought an HDTV in the last year....probably 40% of the people I know have an HDTV right now.

It's not a requirement to own one today, so that should say something right there. Let's also remember that poor people that can't afford HDTV aren't the target market for the users anyway. It's economics 101 - HDTV buyers have $ and advertisers will be spending HDTV dollars on them. Commericals in HD will be cars, applianaces, housing related, big dollar items for many years to come. No one is going to produce a nationwide HD commericial for "As seen on TV" type products until the penetration is out there. (my guess is 3-4 years from now)

Murph

Steve if $200 is a luxury to some people then conventional wisdom would have it that they aren't the ideal demographic for targetted adds.

Don't be supprised to see advertisers flock to HDTV channels because that's where the middle class and affluent will be.

In 1965 I bought a 21" round tube Zenith color TV (all tubes) for $400. That was the year the networks went to 100% color. It wasn't long after that when everyone had color! I was making about $11,000 a year at channel 6 in Indianapolis. I think HD might just be for everyone by 2006!

--->Commericals in HD will be cars, applianaces, housing related, big dollar items for many years to come. No one is going to produce a nationwide HD commericial for "As seen on TV" type products until the penetration is out there. (my guess is 3-4 years from now)
---

Hey Murph,

I hope you're right about that one. I for one am sick and tired of seeing nothing on daytime tv but ads for ambulance chasers, bankruptcy lawyers, back pain clinics, and the latest (insert job title here) trade school. Maybe those guys will stay on the SD channels for awhile.

Anyway, this Sep 11th will make my 65" rear projection tv two years old. I wouldn't call myself an HD elitist. I needed a new tv, this one was on sale, they had 18 mo. no interest financing, and...it was SEP 11TH. I bought it as my own personal FU to the terrorists who wanted to kill our economy and our people. I originally got very few OTA hidef programs, but more and more are switching over. The main thing is the networks and local affiliates switching to hi def cameras. Heck, even 'Wheel of Fortune' went hi def last year.

I was also recently made aware of the timeline for switchover. IIRC, starting 2005, all tv sets must be manufactured with an HD compatible tuner. An HD converter box will be made for use with older SD sets.

True HD to me looks like a photograph from a 35 mm slr camera, exept it moves. It is truly breathtaking.

regards,