More DISHEARTENING news about HDTV

[highdef]

As published in THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER.

June 10, 2001
Canada TV slow to turn digital
June 06, 2001

OTTAWA -- Conceding that analog television sets will
not become obsolete here by 2006 as projected, the
Canadian government unveiled a plan Tuesday to simulcast analog and digital TV signals until the country's TV s
ets are fully converted to digital signals. Industry Canada, a federal government department responsible for broadcasting, is to provide every existing Canadian conventional broadcaster with a second channel to
broadcast their signals in the digital format. The plan would allow the networks to keep their existing analog signals until a full conversion to over-the-air digital television is completed. Industry Canada has already ordered that Canada embrace the ATSC standard for
digital television that will be adopted in the U.S.
market. The Canadian digital TV strategy is to follow
the rollout in the U.S. market to avoid early mistakes
and reduce the overall costs of conversion to digital technologies.

And now for my view:
Come on, the longer you postpone HDTV, 2006 is long
enough, the more comfortable the masses will become
with the current NTSC standard. Why let Canada decide
for us when HDTV broadcast should be in full swing?
Europe has had HDTV for some time now, so why must WE WAIT? ATSC is nonsense! Again this is the way to walk
the fence and not completely embrace the future that is already mounting. HDTV's are already available at local retailers and their prices are far lower than what
industry experts projected a year ago.

We have waited long enough for the emergence of HDTV broadcast. Now that it is here, although limited at
best, this international news piece from THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER sends chills of utter disgust down my spine.

What do you think?

[Hendrik]

"...Europe has had HDTV for some time now..."

...where ? Where ?? WHERE ???

. . .

[highdef]

HDTV, 16:9 sets have been around longer abroad.
That's what I am referring to in the post.
Sure these sets have carried an expensive price tag,
abroad that is, but they've been available all the same.

[Thunderball]

I know I'd love a HDTV, but I can't afford it. I'll be just as happy if it comes out later than sooner...I don't have the $$ to keep upgrading my tV

[Dazed]

I wouldnt hold my breath for HDTV unless the goverments force broadcasters and cable companies to use.

If a cable company has to choose between sending 1 HDTV stream or 5 or 6 Standard tv streams in the same bandwidth what would they choose ? 5 or 6 tv channels of course ( much more advertising revenue )

The UK has been digital for a few years now ( thanks to Sky TV and OnDigital) but I cant see HDTV happening there for a while either. Many people have bought Widescreen Tv's and would not buy another TV anytime soon ( you now have to look hard to find a 4:3 tv in the shops ).

I work for a company that writes HD editing software and although the broadcasters are now buying the software and editing in HD they seem to be doing this mainly for archival purposes ( with an eye on future broadcasts in HD when the demand is there ).

[highdef]

As we are both in the industry, how do you
unsqueeze an anamorphic DV-CAM image (from a
Canon XL-1 camera) to be displayed on a 4:3
set with a letterbox?

I can not get a straight answer from
industry professionals regarding this process.
When displayed over a 16:9 set, the image from
the XL-1 DV-CAM is correctly composed and there
is no geometric distortion. On a 4:3 set, the
image is vertically elongated. What do I need
to purchase to convert the image for a letterboxed
display?

[Edited by highdef on 06-10-01 at 10:01 AM]

[Easy]

Originally posted by Dazed
I wouldnt hold my breath for HDTV unless the goverments force broadcasters and cable companies to use.
If a cable company has to choose between sending 1 HDTV stream or 5 or 6 Standard tv streams in the same bandwidth what would they choose ? 5 or 6 tv channels of course ( much more advertising revenue )


Their choice. If HD broadcast were available and cable did not provide a HD signal I would drop the cable like a hot rock.

[beebs]

I think the government is bluffing with the 2006 broadcast date. I suspect we'll have plenty more HDTV stuff on the airwaves by then, but the broadcasters are gonna cry out together saying it costs too much to convert to this stuff. Adoption of HDTV will be slower than hopes/expectations of videophiles...

-Beebs

[cornflakeguy]

As long as HDTV is only available 'over the air' I'm not interested. I don't have satellite, so I can't partake there. And cable doesn't have the bandwidth for my digital cable NOW, much less for 200 HDTV channels. Plus, their equipment is all crap, just look at my digital cable! :)

We won't see HDTV as the standard until 2015....if then.

cfg!

[Jericho]

I'm not schoked at all. I've been told by various people how HDTVs are the wave of the future and how in a few years we'll all have them and so on. I've heard it for years. I think by some poele's predictions, we'd all already have them.

And while it's true it will all evebtually be like that and it will be of higher quality, I've always known it would take a while. Be realistic, this stuff will come but expect later ratehr than sooner

[Josh H]

If they want wide success of HDTV, then they are going to have to find a way to sell them for the same price as regular tvs. Joe Six Pack isn't going to buy an HDTV at the current prices, and until most Joe Six Packs have one, it will not be the standard. Hell I won't even buy one at current prices. $600-800 is about the most I'm willing to spend on a TV. Until they come out with a good 32"-42" 16x9 HDTV, I'll stick with my 27" Wega.

[Hendrik]

highdef: ...I think you're confusing a widescreen (a.k.a. 16:9) TV set with 'HDTV' - except for the aspect ratio, they are two entirely different animals!

Widescreen TVs in various sizes (28" diagonal and up) and prices have been available in Europe since many years. I watch a lot of French-language TV, and can confirm that, also since many years, virtually every made-for-(French)-TV movie, all made-for-(French)-TV miniseries, even several (French) sitcoms have been presented in 16:9 AR. However, this is not 'HD' but rather plain vanilla 'widescreen' TV...

. . .

[Sonic]

It looks like a nice mess considering HDTV is a step up and it's vital for the human race. Through television another world unfolds. With HDTV that world can be refined and there is no going back since you are so glued by those crisp high resolution images.

However..those prices for HDTV need to go waaaay down. I mean the Toshiba HDVT 56X81 when it first came out was $5000..now it's selling for $3000. We know the prices are way cheap. Companies want to make their money..but truth is..not everyone can afford a set for that price. Once you are talking about thousands..you have to be careful what you select and not get stuck with a piece of crap. You buy such an expensive set..and a better one is on the horizon that has extra features on that HDTV set.

So..If I am going to buy a HDTV set..I want the latest one that can't be beat for a long while.

No way in hell I am buying a HDTV set no matter how gorgeous it is for $1000 for $2000!

[Ryker]

I would love to have a hdtv but know way could I afford a 1000+ set. My wife was upset I spent 300 on my last 27" set. There is no way hdtv will catch on until prices come way down. I don't even know one person who has a hdtv and when I talk to friends and family about new sets and new audio equipment they have no idea what I am talking about. Like the previous poster the price would have to be 600 or less for the masses to start buying them.

[HepDude]

Yes, there is significant confusion out there:

- Between "digital TV" and HDTV : The FCC has mandated digital TV, but not HDTV.

- Between "widescreen TV" and HDTV : In Europe, widescreen TV (16:9) is the standard, but not HDTV.

Another point of confusion is that HDTV makes a significant difference in a 50"-80" size, but not much difference in a 27"-32" size. This is another reason that the average consumer is not interested. While 1080i may eventually be available in a $250 TV, a 61" screen will never be available for $250. Thus, the average consumer is never going to see much of a difference.

When a 32" Wega takes an anamorphic DVD and uses the squeeze mode to put all 500 lines in the 16x9 space, the scan lines become all but invisible, and the resolution is to the eye approximately equivalent to seeing the DVD on an HDTV set. The major difference is that on a big 61" 16x9 TV, HDTV will produce a BIG image with the same apparent quality, instead of the usual problem with a 61" set, where everything is blown up so big that you can see all the scan lines, and all the other defects in the picture quite clearly.

As a result, I think that we will have Digital TV some time in the next 10 years, but HDTV will probably remain a "videophile" product, just as laserdisks were 10 years ago.

[Movie_Man]

Here's a brain teaser for you. If the TV stations say they don't want to broadcast HD because there is not a big enough market, why do movie studios even bother with anamorphic DVDs? Both HDTV & anamorphic DVDs require similar equipment.

And yes, I do have a HDTV and a DTV receiver, but alas, I have only seen a grand total of about 2 shows in HD. Almost feels like kind of a waste.

[Illinois Enema Bandit]

I'm curious as to why so many widescreen, projection TV, DTV, and HDTV sets are sold with large built-in speakers. Seems to me that a lot of potential consumers might want to hook these sets to their existing HT gear, and would find the speakers in the TV redundant at best. Might even drive the cost down a tad if speakers were available as an option ;)

Are there many models available that provide only the TV and tuner?

[Sonic]

Might even drive the cost down a tad if speakers were available as an option ;)

That would be great. Not only that..but I am sure the unit itself will be lighter to carry around and be moved. I will settle for two tiny speakers on the unit when I don't neccessarily need to hear 5.1 sound. I already have a super speaker system in my home setup. :)

I think that is a great idea.

[HepDude]

Here's a brain teaser for you. If the TV stations say they don't want to broadcast HD because there is not a big enough market, why do movie studios even bother with anamorphic DVDs? Both HDTV & anamorphic DVDs require similar equipment.

Because DVD is still not a mass media.

I am still the only person I know who has a DVD player. None of my relatives or personal friends have one. The only people I "know" who have DVDs are people I talk to on the Internet and have never met.

(This is starting to change, my closest local friend is planning on getting a DVD player soon.)

So, DVDs have things like anamorphic enhancement, because it is perceived as a "high end" medium.

Also, on a big blockbuster movie, the cost of anamorphic enhancement is something like - very roughly speaking - 3% of the cost of the DVD production, and something like .03% of the total cost of the film's production (not even including marketing costs).

Whereas for a TV station to convert to HD is millions of dollars. And, most TV stations are smaller units financially than one blockbuster movie.

Also, the same people who are watching the DVDs in anamorphic mode, are probably rarely watching broadcast TV stations at all very much. The big broadcast TV station viewers are the people with a $200 TV with rabbit ears.

[Josh H]

Originally posted by Movie_Man
Here's a brain teaser for you. If the TV stations say they don't want to broadcast HD because there is not a big enough market, why do movie studios even bother with anamorphic DVDs? Both HDTV & anamorphic DVDs require similar equipment.


Because HDTV's are mainly bought by videophiles, who also just happen to make up the majority of the DVD market. DVD's aren't mainstream yet, not even close. Since most people that have HDTV's also have DVD players, the studios include anamorphic transfer. Plus, Wega's are getting to be pretty common, and the 16x9 enhancement on them is great.

[vwmaniac]

to correct some of the above. The "wide" screen broadcasts in europe are in analog PALplus. This is based on the old pal system, i believe it has still the same resolution as normal PAL 625 lines/25 f/s. It is treu that most new tv's sold over here (The netherlands)are 16:9. Its hard to find a 4:3. The 16:9 hype is NOT because of widescreen TV but widescreen dvd's. Those new widescreen tv's are capable of displaying about 1000 lines of horizontal resolution.REAL Digital TV is NOT happening here also!!

[Scott]

Originally posted by Dr. Dank
I'm curious as to why so many widescreen, projection TV, DTV, and HDTV sets are sold with large built-in speakers. Seems to me that a lot of potential consumers might want to hook these sets to their existing HT gear, and would find the speakers in the TV redundant at best. Might even drive the cost down a tad if speakers were available as an option ;)
Isn't what you're looking for called a monitor?

[reverb]

Originally posted by highdef
As we are both in the industry, how do you unsqueeze an anamorphic DV-CAM image (from a Canon XL-1 camera) to be displayed on a 4:3 set with a letterbox?

I can not get a straight answer from industry professionals regarding this process. When displayed over a 16:9 set, the image from the XL-1 DV-CAM is correctly composed and there is no geometric distortion. On a 4:3 set, the image is vertically elongated. What do I need to purchase to convert the image for a letterboxed display?

Well, the only way you can acquire an anamorphic image with an XL1 is with anamorphic lenses. The 16:9 mode is basically a gimmick, using less lines of resolution by masking the CCD to that aspect ratio. The 4:3 native setting has more resolution than the 16:9 mode. If you use an anamorphic lens, such as those available from Century Optics, the image can be properly expanded by software in post (Final Cut Pro and Avid Media Composer for sure).

Btw, Thursday I will finally by shooting with the Panavision 24P HD camera and the new Primo Digital lenses. Will also be doing some film/HD acquisition/projection comparisons. I have already seen a lot of in-house data that puts the Panavised F900 so far beyond any other video camera it's quite amazing to ponder the results. It's almost all due to the lenses which use optical pre-filters and the modified prism block - for comparison consider that an f2.0 with 1.85:1 35mm film is equal to an f0.8 with a 2/3" CCD as in the F900, and the new Primo Digital primes and zooms are all T1.6-1.9. In this case, the lenses are considerably more valuable than the camera.

[highdef]

That sounds great, but what if the image is
already anamorphically enhanced?

How do I unsqueeze it for a 4:3/letterbox
playback? Are you saying that the "Final Cut Pro"
and "Avid Media Composer" will expand the image
for the above playback?

If not, what will? Currently working in the
HD filmmaking arena, the process that you've
decribed in the above IS totally viable. I was
asked by a good friend of mine to shoot a direct
to DVD documentary using the Canon XL-1 in in
the 16:9 mode. When played back on my HD set,
the image is really spectacular. Remember now,
this is all from a DV camera, not HD.
The unsqueezing of the image for a 4:3
letterboxed presentation is what puzzles me?
As most consumers DO NOT have a widescreen or
HD set, 4:3 letterbox must be offered
as well.

[Edited by highdef on 06-13-01 at 04:53 AM]

[reverb]

Originally posted by highdef
That sounds great, but what if the image is
already anamorphically enhanced?

How do I unsqueeze it for a 4:3/letterbox
playback? Are you saying that the "Final Cut Pro"
and "Avid Media Composer" will expand the image
for the above playback?

If not, what will? Currently working in the
HD filmmaking arena, the process that you've
decribed in the above IS totally viable. I was
asked by a good friend of mine to shoot a direct
to DVD documentary using the Canon XL-1 in in
the 16:9 mode. When played back on my HD set,
the image is really spectacular. Remember now,
this is all from a DV camera, not HD.
The unsqueezing of the image for a 4:3
letterboxed presentation is what puzzles me?
As most consumers DO NOT have a widescreen or
HD set, 4:3 letterbox must be offered
as well.

[Edited by highdef on 06-13-01 at 04:53 AM]

If you are shooting 16:9 with a Canon XL-1 and are not using an anamorphic lens, your image has not been optically compressed. It is not a true full resolution anamorphic 16:9 image. The XL-1 is not capable of producing said image on it's own. To achieve true 16:9 with an XL-1 you must shoot in 4:3 mode with an anamorphic lens. Shooting in 16:9 mode on an XL-1 is absolutely not viable for professional production, and looks quite poor in comparison to any other true full-chip 16:9 video, per every test I have done or seen and all data sheets. Shooting in the 16:9 mode with an XL-1 uses about 33% less of the CCD than shooting 4:3, so there is obviously no benefit other percieved 'widescreen'. Obviously this is proved out in your problem, as apparently you are not shooting for 16:9 displays. If you were, the image, directly from the XL-1 in 16:9 mode, would no longer be distorted.

The reason your image is distorted during playback on conventional 4:3 monitors is because it doesn't have the black letterbox bars in the video signal, and it's not an enhanced 16:9 image with the TV generating the black bars. Yes, FCP and Avid can correct the image. If you were shooting in 16:9 mode on a Sony PD-150 your image would display properly on a 4:3 display as the camera does not manipulate the image to essentially hide the fact that it is simply masking the CCD. Another reason I prefer Sony at this price point (see below). Since you shot this way with this particular camera you will need to produce two separate versions of the project, for 4:3 TVs and 16:9 TVs. The settings changes, as I said, can be made with editing software.

I am very familiar with prosumer DV and concur that great videography is possible. Personally I don't care at all for the XL-1 (terrible viewfinder, focus lag, problems your having, more), but we do have a PD-150 with matte box and filters and all that has worked as a 'B' or 'C' cam for various applications to great effect. Besides component video and superior colorimetry on the Sony, the XL-1 can not record in DVCAM mode which is totally unacceptable. But for swappable lenses the XL-1 has few redeeming qualities.

As another nod to DV, we just did a shoot in TX entirely with the Sony DSR-500 as the 'A' cam, a shoot that we ordinarily do on 16mm. Does it compare to 16mm - no way, but there are continuously more and more applications that we use it. Also kind of a bummer - the 500 (with matte box/rods, et al) weighed in slightly heavier than a simarly outfitted BVW-D600WS...

Sorry to put down the XL-1, but I'm just being candid.

[highdef]

Reverb, thanks for your input in this matter.
As I do not completely agree with all aspects
of your appraisal, your professional opinion
as a fellow industry colleague is duely noted.

Clearly the XL-1 is not perfect, but the images
that it captures, at least from what I've shot,
are simply beautiful. As an HD filmmaker my
reason for even using the XL-1 was that of
convenience. The project did not require HD
and its budget was limited at best. I will take
into consideration the advice that you've given
and move ahead accordingly.

Thanks again.