Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
>[snip]
>
>So we will soon be able to see Frasier at higher resolution?
>And our old TV sets will be not just unfashionable but
>unusable except to receive static from the ether?
That appears to be the size of it. Any video you see on your screen
which is "letterboxed" into 9x16 aspect ratio has been recorded in
the new format, and is probably available right now from an HTDV
broadcast near you. It remains to be seen how much one will have to pay
for the set-top receiver/converter which will preserve the functionality
of old analogue tv sets. And it has occurred to me that the FCC is only
regulating broadcast on the open airwaves, so it may be possible that
cable companies may preprocess the new protocol signals, and send out
old ntsc signals on some frequencies, which could be directly received
by old sets with cable subscriptions, for some period of time after ntsc
disappears from the airwares.
>The deeply wise Jesuit scholar of communication media, a student of
>Marshall McLuhan's, Walter Ong, once asked the question
>about new higher-resolution (etc.) communication media:
>
> What is the purpose of a person acquiring perfect French pronunciation
> if the person has nothing of value to say in any language?
Plus ca meme chose?
-Pete Vincent
