Pete and Keith, I suppose I've had large screen televisions for the last 20 years or so. Earlier they had a projector that sat on the floor and projected three colors to a screen. About a dozen years ago I went to replace my latest projector and came across back projection and found the picture was better than the projector. So, I got a 50" back projection TV.
Two years ago came the need to replace the 50" and I came across the HDTV sets. Most of them were ready for high definition - but required a separate tuner to be connected. I get my signals through digital cable and cable can't transmit HDTV. I cannot get over-the-air HDTV for I live in a canyon with my house right up against the mountain - a major reason for the cable. So, I forked out $4,000 for a top-of-the-line Mitsubishi 60" equipped for HDTV. My reasoning was that the engineers would have put every bit of sophistication into the circuits to equip it for the high definition signal. As you know the picture on the 60" screen is the same as that on the 25" screen. It's merely been blown up which means loss of sharpness - as with photographs. So, to get a crisp picture some electronic magic is necessary. This is the way it has turned out. The bottleneck seems to be in the source of the picture. When a 70 mm film is sent over the air as is - the picture is photographic. An average production comes over as - well, average. An excellent DVD source will be an excellent screen image. Incidentally, I could have bought a 16x9 aspect ratio model for the same cost - but there seemed little point. Most TV pictures are at the usual ratio. With the 16x9 much viewing would have been with a small picture with the sides of the TV dark. (This also leads to problems of burning one part more than another.) We like "letter box" movies - that is movies that retain the aspect ratio of the theater screens. Unfortunately, the notice "This film has been reformatted to fit your television screen" is too usual. I suppose, Keith, the same notice is served up in England. I have an aversion to commercials, so the local channels aren't watched much. We have about 200 channels on which to find nothing worth watching. (Plus 40 or 50 music channels.) Most are commercial free. (Not BBC-America, however. My wife watches Ballykissangel, and Monarch of the Glen and suchlike in spite of the commercials. However, we like movies including those from the 30's, 40's, and 50's about which my two sons and I insist on sharing our knowledge of long dead actors, directors, and writers. (They don't make them like they used to, you know.) No-one has to pay $4,000 for large screen television. Without the HDTV option, large screen televisions are fairly cheap. The market here, as you know, is very efficient - when it's allowed. Yesterday, I saw a 52" General Electric projection TV going for $899 or about 600 pounds. In similar fashion, I have no doubt that when a market develops for HDTV, manufacturers will draw down prices lower and lower - even as the quality improves. But, at the moment there seems to be little demand for it. In a command economy country such as we both have, the change can be enforced by government power. I doubt that it will happen here - but I'm sure it will happen in the UK - unless the politicos run into serious trouble. It's the sort of thing that European governments do. Anyway, I thought you might like to get a consumer's eye view of the situation rather than the broad overview of things that mostly gets our attention. Harry _________________________________________________________________________ Pete wrote: > Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >At 13:05 28/09/01 +0000, Pete Vincent wrote: > > > >(PV) > >>There is another fairly major spending imperative looming in north america: > >>the introduction of digital/high definition television is continuing > >>on schedule, with the old NTSC standard on track to be retired, and > >>>its frequencies reassigned, in the US, in early 2006, with Canada's > stated > >>intention to follow suit with about 18 months delay. While the minimum > >>requirement for the change is a set-top receiver/adapter box, new > >>programs in both US and Canada are already appearing in the 16x9 > >>aspect ratio of the hi-def standard, and new hi-def (1100x1900 pixel) > >>sets are beginning to appear for sale, albeit with very high early > >>market pricing (2-20k). The new frequencies (around 650MHz) are aready > >>broadcasting in the US, and in Canada the signal is now available > >>via satellite. I expect that once the tv-addicted population of north > >>america gets a look at the incredible image improvement offered by > >>the new hi-def standard, the demand for full capability sets will > >>totally occlude the market for the minimal set-top adapters. There > >>will be a wholesale upgrade of all the tv sets in north america, > >>starting right now, peaking around 2006. > > > >Experience in England, where we've had HDTV for some four/five years, is > >that "wholesale upgrade of all the tv sets" has not occurred so far. Most > >HDTV sales so far are to the middle class for status reasons. The > >Government intended to close down analogue transmission when ownership of > >digital TV reached (I think) 95% and this was expected to happen by around > >the end of this year or early next. But this won't happen. At present, > >ownership is around 40-50% and the sales curve suggests that it might > >flatten out to about 75% ownership in the next year or two with slow > >take-up thereafter -- mainly depending on younger people buying HDTV in > >their first homes while the older owners of analogue are simply dying out > >over the next couple of decades. > >Do you know if a significant portion of the viewing day is being broadcast >in the full resolution (1100x1900) format? I would think the fraction >of material offered in full format would make a difference - old >format images, apparently, look pretty bad on the new hi-res sets, >as the image looks like what you get when you blow up a 320x400 >(the really old standard) digital image to full screen on a computer >screen - big blocky pixels. I also wonder whether the planners have >managed to harmonize the new standard across the world - no more ntsc vs >pal vs secam type headaches? > >Apparently on of the features of the new system is that broadcasters >can manage their digital channel however they like: the Seattle >PBS station broadcasts HDTV in the evenings at full resolution, >using all 6MHz of their bandwidth. During the day, they split >the channel up, broadcasting three different 640x480 programs >over the same band (this is the minimum resolution available in >the multi-resolution standard), providing children's programming, >educational programs, and something else. Apparently the new receivers >handle all this data, and allow you to view the individual data streams >contained in one broadcaster's channel. > > There are many like me in their mid-60s > >who could afford the present high-priced HDTV but have no wish to tap into > >multi-channel non-public service digital TV, are satisfied with the > >existing quality of the analogue screen, and couldn't care less about > >"keeping up with the Jones". I think I'm right in saying that present sales > >of set-top boxes (mainly to young and middle-aged working class male sports > >enthusiasts) is still exceeding HDTV sales -- but these won't be able to > >receive public service digital TV when analogue is cut off (not that this > >particular segment of the population would care very much!). > > >Hmm, possibly a different implementation, or a different terminology: >the set-top boxes for north america will be receiver/converters, which >will take the digital broadcast signal and process it for old >analogue machines. I expect that HDTV will eventually show up on >cable, though there's no sign of it yet, and the boxes will be >able to handle those signals as well, but they will work fine >for free broadcast signals. > > >Existing public service analogue TV (BBC and ITV) is now a precious part of > >the lives of millions of older poor people, who are often lonely and > >trapped in their homes most of the time, and there'd be a massive political > >backlash if the Government tried to cut off analogue transmission > >peremptorily within the next ten years or so. My guess is that the > >Government will call a halt to analogue TV transmission when ownership > >reaches around 75/80% (in, say, two or three years' time) but I'm pretty > >sure that they will have to give a special "TV grant" to pensioners in > >order to buy HDTV sets (in the same way that pensioners receive a "cold > >weather" grant at Christmas). > > >As to the price of HDTV sets, yes, they're still very high (at around > >US$900-1,000 compared with US$200-400 for analogue sets) as manufactured by > >Western firms which are creaming off at present. > >That is incredibly cheap compared to north america. The HDTV capable >sets for sale here are mostly gigantic, either monster crts or >projection systems, and few of them will actually manage the full >1100x1900: most take the signal and internally reprocess it to >display at something around 700x1200, which is still leagues beyond >the ntsc 512x360 (the vertical is higher resolution than the horizontal, >even though the horizontal dimension is larger). The smallest tube >sets run about $2k, the biggest projection sets cover the top end, >up to ~$20k. There are still very few to choose from, so the highest >ticket items are still a substantial fraction of the total offered. >But even at these prices, and when here in BC the US broadcasts >don't reach, and only a few stations are offered on one satellite >system, requiring a further layout of >$500 for the high end HDTV- >capable sat receiver system, yet some people are buying these sets. > >Considering that I see great huge NTSC tv's being bundled into homes >where incomes are not even average, and few other luxuries are >apparent, I expect if the prices here were like they are over there, >the market penetration for HDTV would easily reach 85 or 90% by >2006, or even earlier. > > > But now that China is in > >the WTO, I'd expect that Chinese manufacturers (which already make most of > >the analogue TV sets in the world) will be flooding Europe with (good > >quality), low-priced HDTV sets pretty soon. In America and Canada there > >might be intensive lobbying by home manufacturers against these imports but > >this won't wash much. If you think about it, cheap HDTV sets from China > >will let Governments off the political hook as regards helping pensioners > >to change over. > >Yes, I don't imagine there's a lot of opportunity for old/new world >manufacturing in this market, but I expect there will be western >ownership involved. And work for shippers and salesdroids. And >I suppose another big shift to asia in the trade balance. > >Some writers have suggested the new image >resolution will inspire a change in the style of tv programs, >to feature more "eye candy", and fewer talking heads. "Non-foveal" >is the buzzword I've been hearing: the set will not be placed >at the far end of the room so that the whole image fits in the >fovea of you eye, rather it will be larger, and closer, so you >can examine the rich detail everywhere in the picture. This may >lead to a change in the structure of the tv industry. I'm not >convinced, as I imagine it will just be like a movie theatre >image, and the difference between movies and tv is not so much >due to image quality as timeliness. > > -Pete Vincent > > Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >At 13:05 28/09/01 +0000, Pete Vincent wrote: > > > >(PV) > >>There is another fairly major spending imperative looming in north america: > >>the introduction of digital/high definition television is continuing > >>on schedule, with the old NTSC standard on track to be retired, and > >>>its frequencies reassigned, in the US, in early 2006, with Canada's > stated > >>intention to follow suit with about 18 months delay. While the minimum > >>requirement for the change is a set-top receiver/adapter box, new > >>programs in both US and Canada are already appearing in the 16x9 > >>aspect ratio of the hi-def standard, and new hi-def (1100x1900 pixel) > >>sets are beginning to appear for sale, albeit with very high early > >>market pricing (2-20k). The new frequencies (around 650MHz) are aready > >>broadcasting in the US, and in Canada the signal is now available > >>via satellite. I expect that once the tv-addicted population of north > >>america gets a look at the incredible image improvement offered by > >>the new hi-def standard, the demand for full capability sets will > >>totally occlude the market for the minimal set-top adapters. There > >>will be a wholesale upgrade of all the tv sets in north america, > >>starting right now, peaking around 2006. > > > >Experience in England, where we've had HDTV for some four/five years, is > >that "wholesale upgrade of all the tv sets" has not occurred so far. Most > >HDTV sales so far are to the middle class for status reasons. The > >Government intended to close down analogue transmission when ownership of > >digital TV reached (I think) 95% and this was expected to happen by around > >the end of this year or early next. But this won't happen. At present, > >ownership is around 40-50% and the sales curve suggests that it might > >flatten out to about 75% ownership in the next year or two with slow > >take-up thereafter -- mainly depending on younger people buying HDTV in > >their first homes while the older owners of analogue are simply dying out > >over the next couple of decades. > >Do you know if a significant portion of the viewing day is being broadcast >in the full resolution (1100x1900) format? I would think the fraction >of material offered in full format would make a difference - old >format images, apparently, look pretty bad on the new hi-res sets, >as the image looks like what you get when you blow up a 320x400 >(the really old standard) digital image to full screen on a computer >screen - big blocky pixels. I also wonder whether the planners have >managed to harmonize the new standard across the world - no more ntsc vs >pal vs secam type headaches? > >Apparently on of the features of the new system is that broadcasters >can manage their digital channel however they like: the Seattle >PBS station broadcasts HDTV in the evenings at full resolution, >using all 6MHz of their bandwidth. During the day, they split >the channel up, broadcasting three different 640x480 programs >over the same band (this is the minimum resolution available in >the multi-resolution standard), providing children's programming, >educational programs, and something else. Apparently the new receivers >handle all this data, and allow you to view the individual data streams >contained in one broadcaster's channel. > > There are many like me in their mid-60s > >who could afford the present high-priced HDTV but have no wish to tap into > >multi-channel non-public service digital TV, are satisfied with the > >existing quality of the analogue screen, and couldn't care less about > >"keeping up with the Jones". I think I'm right in saying that present sales > >of set-top boxes (mainly to young and middle-aged working class male sports > >enthusiasts) is still exceeding HDTV sales -- but these won't be able to > >receive public service digital TV when analogue is cut off (not that this > >particular segment of the population would care very much!). > > >Hmm, possibly a different implementation, or a different terminology: >the set-top boxes for north america will be receiver/converters, which >will take the digital broadcast signal and process it for old >analogue machines. I expect that HDTV will eventually show up on >cable, though there's no sign of it yet, and the boxes will be >able to handle those signals as well, but they will work fine >for free broadcast signals. > > >Existing public service analogue TV (BBC and ITV) is now a precious part of > >the lives of millions of older poor people, who are often lonely and > >trapped in their homes most of the time, and there'd be a massive political > >backlash if the Government tried to cut off analogue transmission > >peremptorily within the next ten years or so. My guess is that the > >Government will call a halt to analogue TV transmission when ownership > >reaches around 75/80% (in, say, two or three years' time) but I'm pretty > >sure that they will have to give a special "TV grant" to pensioners in > >order to buy HDTV sets (in the same way that pensioners receive a "cold > >weather" grant at Christmas). > > >As to the price of HDTV sets, yes, they're still very high (at around > >US$900-1,000 compared with US$200-400 for analogue sets) as manufactured by > >Western firms which are creaming off at present. > >That is incredibly cheap compared to north america. The HDTV capable >sets for sale here are mostly gigantic, either monster crts or >projection systems, and few of them will actually manage the full >1100x1900: most take the signal and internally reprocess it to >display at something around 700x1200, which is still leagues beyond >the ntsc 512x360 (the vertical is higher resolution than the horizontal, >even though the horizontal dimension is larger). The smallest tube >sets run about $2k, the biggest projection sets cover the top end, >up to ~$20k. There are still very few to choose from, so the highest >ticket items are still a substantial fraction of the total offered. >But even at these prices, and when here in BC the US broadcasts >don't reach, and only a few stations are offered on one satellite >system, requiring a further layout of >$500 for the high end HDTV- >capable sat receiver system, yet some people are buying these sets. > >Considering that I see great huge NTSC tv's being bundled into homes >where incomes are not even average, and few other luxuries are >apparent, I expect if the prices here were like they are over there, >the market penetration for HDTV would easily reach 85 or 90% by >2006, or even earlier. > > > But now that China is in > >the WTO, I'd expect that Chinese manufacturers (which already make most of > >the analogue TV sets in the world) will be flooding Europe with (good > >quality), low-priced HDTV sets pretty soon. In America and Canada there > >might be intensive lobbying by home manufacturers against these imports but > >this won't wash much. If you think about it, cheap HDTV sets from China > >will let Governments off the political hook as regards helping pensioners > >to change over. > >Yes, I don't imagine there's a lot of opportunity for old/new world >manufacturing in this market, but I expect there will be western >ownership involved. And work for shippers and salesdroids. And >I suppose another big shift to asia in the trade balance. > >Some writers have suggested the new image >resolution will inspire a change in the style of tv programs, >to feature more "eye candy", and fewer talking heads. "Non-foveal" >is the buzzword I've been hearing: the set will not be placed >at the far end of the room so that the whole image fits in the >fovea of you eye, rather it will be larger, and closer, so you >can examine the rich detail everywhere in the picture. This may >lead to a change in the structure of the tv industry. I'm not >convinced, as I imagine it will just be like a movie theatre >image, and the difference between movies and tv is not so much >due to image quality as timeliness. > > -Pete Vincent ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 352-2242 *******************************
