[opendtv] Re: News: Nielsen Gives Fuzzy Picture of HDTV Penetration
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:09:02 -0500
At 3:48 PM -0500 11/7/07, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
By 1966, in the US, all broadcasting was in color, except for the
occasional old movie. Similarly, on FM radio, all broadcasting was high
fidelity maybe even longer ago than that, except for the occasional old
recordings which you can hear even today.
Really?
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_television#Color_television
All three broadcast networks were airing full color prime time
schedules by the 1966-67 broadcast season.[33] But the number of
color television sets sold in the U.S. did not exceed black and white
sales until 1972, which was also the first year that more than fifty
percent of television households in the U.S. had a color set.[34]
This was also the year that "in color" notices before color
television programs ended, due to the rise in color television set
sales.
Sorry to have to tell you this Bert, but there is MUCH MORE to
broadcasting in the U.S. than Prime Time - 21 hours a day to be
precise. And local stations program more than half of these
non-prime-time hours, often with syndicated programming that is
off-network.
I graduated from college in 1970. The first station I worked for had
just upgraded to color. In 1971 I move to Tampa and worked at a
station that had color cameras and film chain, but no color tape
machine capability; they bought the first IVC 1" color tape machines
in 1973.
It was well into the '70s before all stations had color production
capabilities, and many B&W syndicated programs were aired though the
'80s. You can still watch many of these shows on Nick at Night -
sorry, I forgot that you only get OTA stations.
The BIG breakthrough for local color production was the "color
under" U-matic tape machine which was standardized in 1970. But most
stations stayed away from the original U-matic, at least until
digital Time-base correctors became affordable. U-Matic was infamous
for expanding the blanking interval because of the way that the
system locked-up and synchronized, and the the FCC blanking police
were citing stations for having visible blanking edges in their
broadcasts. In the early '80s, Sony introduced the High-Band BVU
series, which many stations adopted for ENG work - the lug-able
portable recorder could be held with a shoulder strap and connected
to a portable camera. Some stations waited until the mid '80s, when
Betacam became popular to upgrade their local newscasts to color.
That's the trend for DTV as well. Slowly, HD takes over more and more of
the shows that were once only SD. Even our local news, from WUSA-DT, is
wide screen and HD these days. Even if you think that news isn't
"worthy" of being HD.
It's not what I think. It's what the audience thinks. It's all about ratings.
There was a time when competition between stations was a big deal -
before cable. It was not uncommon to see one station upgrade to a new
technology - like color or stereo - then the rest of the stations in
the market would quickly upgrade for competitive reasons. This has
not happened with the digital back-end infrastructure for stations
and it is not happening with HDTV. The major reason for this - IMHO -
is that local news ratings continue to decline to the point where for
many stations, local news is now a cost, rather than a profit center.
It is very difficult to justify the expense of upgrading to HDTV news
production when you are losing money on the proposition.
This is further exacerbated by the fact that MOST of the remaining
local news audience is now retired, and in most cases, less likely to
perceive the need to upgrade their TV to HDTV. There is a reason that
we talk about "Aunt Emily," or similar names, for the elderly
laggards who may be the last to switch to HD.
And yes, the need for HD in news is tenuous at best. I really do not
need to see the complexion problems with the news readers, and
frankly, the best news footage is now coming from private citizens
who are capturing events with their personal camcorders, digital
cameras, and cell phones.
We did not see live HD coming from the front lines in Afganistan and
Iraq - we watched lower than streaming quality video being
transmitted via satellite phones.
It doesn't matter whether absolutely 100 percent of all material
broadcast will be HD. What the trend will be is that virtually all
stations and all program types will migrate to HD, simply because people
will notice the fuzzy images of SDTV increasingly, as they buy new sets,
and these people will start tuning out the SD shows.
And this is where we have a major disagreement. I worked late last
evening - again - and came home to see the Country Music Awards on
the TV in glorious 4:3 SDTV. My wife says it is too much bother to
learn the 700 series channel numbers on our cable system where the HD
versions of the stations can be found. You may think HD is the
greatest thing since sliced bread, but many people think it is just
TV... no big deal.
What is happening is that most high value content is migrating to
HDTV for several reasons:
1. To preserve the archival value of the programming for the future
when HDTV MAY be a critical competitive factor.
2. To produce new shows in wide screen formats so that they can be
released in other countries that have upgraded to wide screen SDTV
broadcasts.
At the same time, however, there is a proliferation of new content at
many different levels of resolution. You may not appreciate it Bert,
but YouTube is a much bigger phenomenon than HDTV, and it is
typically no better than NTSC quality.
Oh yeah, and the aspect ratios will trend to 16:9 as this happens. Not
some infinite variety of aspect ratios. For instance, 14:9 will be
phased out, as people buy up 16:9 TVs and quit buying 4:3 TVs, as they
have already done.
Interesting that you mention this. The reality is that for some
industries we ARE seeing an almost "infinite variety of aspect ratios
as a result of the digital TV transition. Hollywood is producing
virtually no movies in 16:9. It is rare to find a DVD movie that is
16:9 - most use the wider aspect ratios that they were shot in.
Most video cameras have 16:9 sensors, but not all. Many of the higher
end digital cinematography cameras can shoot out to 2:1, and like
with film, you can always put a mask in the viewfinder to protect the
safe area of the 16:9 image that you will use for a wider screen
production.
The only thing for certain here is that TV programming is growing
wider to take advantage of the wider displays that now exist.
Today, most, but not all, broadcast programming from the
major networks is produced in HDTV. It is still predominantly
a Prime Time phenomenon, along with a relatively high
percentage of network sports broadcasts.
Remember just a couple of years ago, when I said that LCD TVs would take
over and CRT TVs would drop out? And how you insisted that most TVs sold
were still CRTs? It's the same thing on this subject. Trends, Craig.
NO, I do not remember this.
I started predicting the demise of the CRT long before you joined the
OpenDTV list Bert. The ONLY critical issue was price, which is driven
by manufacturing costs. Once LCD panels dropped below $1,000 they
started cannibalizing CRT sales. This was obvious by the late '90s
when LCD panels started to edge out CRTs in the computer display
markets. But it was still 2004 before LCD panels outsold CRT computer
displays, and 2006 before LCD panels outsold CRT TVs in most of the
developed countries of the world.
So for the record Bert, just a few years ago CRTs did outsell LCD TVs.
Trends are clearly worth watching. What one must be careful about is
falling into the trap that historic trends will continue in the
future.
The era of "One-Size-Fits -All" TV is clearly over. The real trend
here is to free video from it's format dependent past. In virtually
EVERY OTHER imaging industry in the world, there are a proliferation
of resolutions and aspect ratios. TV is the only imaging industry
that has been constrained by the perceived need for everyone to use
the same format - the trend is towards flexibility and choice, not
conformity.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: