yes.. and a few weeks ago Letterman also finally switched to 16:9, and HD for what its worth. There is no question that 16:9 and HD is the future, and its coming a little faster than alot of people thought it would.
-DVX100b-
- Thread starter Ill Eagle
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
(methinks Jarred aimed that at me) 
Hey, may be faster than some people thought it would, but the FCC approved high-def broadcasts 9 years ago. So here we are 9 years later, and I'd say about 1/2 of 1% of the broadcasts on television are originated in and broadcast in high-def.
Drives me batty -- I'm watching the US Open today in standard-def, and it just looks AWFUL compared to the high-def broadcast yesterday! I sure wish they'd get on with a transition. But there are 600 million televisions in the world, and it's going to be years and years before even the majority of programs are broadcast in high-def (and by that I don't mean up-rezzed SD, which also looks awful).
Hey, may be faster than some people thought it would, but the FCC approved high-def broadcasts 9 years ago. So here we are 9 years later, and I'd say about 1/2 of 1% of the broadcasts on television are originated in and broadcast in high-def.
Drives me batty -- I'm watching the US Open today in standard-def, and it just looks AWFUL compared to the high-def broadcast yesterday! I sure wish they'd get on with a transition. But there are 600 million televisions in the world, and it's going to be years and years before even the majority of programs are broadcast in high-def (and by that I don't mean up-rezzed SD, which also looks awful).
wasn't directed to you, even though i know your hanging onto SD for awhile
A few things, First the FCC approved hi-def 9 years ago.. when a hi-def camera cost over a million dollars. At that point it would be like networks switching to Imax to shoot everything, there was no delivery methods, no HD televisions, no HD cable or Satellite. So yeah, sure it took 9 years but in the last 2 years you must admit its been a huge turn to HD... now that people can afford to shoot with it, and afford to view it.
And as for 1/2 of 1%.. i think that's a little exaggerated. I mean NBC has 90% of its prime time lineup shot with HD.
American Dreams, Saturday Night Live,Last Call With Carson Daly, Crossing Jordan, ER, Las Vegas, Law & Order, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and The West Wing, Medium, Revelations, Joey, and pretty much everything else, All HD, either from HD native or from 35mm.
today, its pretty hard to buy a big screen Television that isn't HDTV capable. So, i don't know about years and years, I think in the next couple years almost all Television will be broadcast in hi-def, and in our territories it will probably be shortly after that most TV's are hi-def.
A few things, First the FCC approved hi-def 9 years ago.. when a hi-def camera cost over a million dollars. At that point it would be like networks switching to Imax to shoot everything, there was no delivery methods, no HD televisions, no HD cable or Satellite. So yeah, sure it took 9 years but in the last 2 years you must admit its been a huge turn to HD... now that people can afford to shoot with it, and afford to view it.
And as for 1/2 of 1%.. i think that's a little exaggerated. I mean NBC has 90% of its prime time lineup shot with HD.
American Dreams, Saturday Night Live,Last Call With Carson Daly, Crossing Jordan, ER, Las Vegas, Law & Order, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and The West Wing, Medium, Revelations, Joey, and pretty much everything else, All HD, either from HD native or from 35mm.
today, its pretty hard to buy a big screen Television that isn't HDTV capable. So, i don't know about years and years, I think in the next couple years almost all Television will be broadcast in hi-def, and in our territories it will probably be shortly after that most TV's are hi-def.
Barry_Green
Moderator
NBC shoots a lot of HD, yes. But I'm talking overall. If you subscribe to DirecTV, you have a choice of about 235 channels. 15 of them are high-def. That's about 6%. Same with cable TV. And most of those HD channels are the broadcast networks, and other than prime-time there's very, very, very little HD on those broadcast networks.
So, okay, you're right, 1/2 of 1% was too low, it's really about 6% overall, but if you look at it from the perspective of at-any-given-time-is-there-HD-on-this-channel, I doubt my 1/2 of 1% guess is too far off.
The major networks are doing better with their percentage, and very few of the cable channels are airing any sort of HD.
I think about 5 years from now, HD will have some serious market penetration.
If you define the % of broadcasts as the odds that whatever channel you turn to will have a high-def broadcast on it, I think it's going to be a *LOT* longer than 2 years before that transition is made! Maybe in 10 years. I think 2 years from now HD will be fairly common on the four big networks, yes. But the overwhelmingly vast majority of programming sent to people's homes will still be standard-def.
So, okay, you're right, 1/2 of 1% was too low, it's really about 6% overall, but if you look at it from the perspective of at-any-given-time-is-there-HD-on-this-channel, I doubt my 1/2 of 1% guess is too far off.
The major networks are doing better with their percentage, and very few of the cable channels are airing any sort of HD.
I think about 5 years from now, HD will have some serious market penetration.
It depends on what you mean by "all television". Last I checked, there are lots of times where more people are tuning in to cable shows than into network broadcasts. And somewhere around 0% of cable networks are broadcasting HD.
If you define the % of broadcasts as the odds that whatever channel you turn to will have a high-def broadcast on it, I think it's going to be a *LOT* longer than 2 years before that transition is made! Maybe in 10 years. I think 2 years from now HD will be fairly common on the four big networks, yes. But the overwhelmingly vast majority of programming sent to people's homes will still be standard-def.
True; but how many of them actually have tuners? Lots and lots of people who have HDTVs have no way to watch any sort of HD on them! There's "HD Capable", "HD Ready", and "HD Built-In" after all...
Nope -- I can't stand SD. I'm converting to entirely HD by the end of this year. I'd pull the plug on SD today if I thought I could get away with it (and I'd also eliminate interlacing and tape while I was at it!) But like I say, just because you and I may prefer something, that doesn't mean it's going to happen...
Barry_Green
Moderator
There are practically no 1080-native sets on the market. Just about the only 1080 sets are CRTs, and nobody's buying CRTs, they're all buying flat-screens (LCD and Plasma) and almost-flat projection screens (DLP and LCD-projection). "Thin is IN", as they say.mmm said:
Barry_Green said:
I think we are talking about 2 different things, delivery with the source.. sure, there are only a handful of HD channels, but on the other "SD" channels, alot of the content has been down sampled to SD from either HD, or 35mm > HD > SD. From my experience, SD channels that I have sold to strongly request a HD deliverable.
However, even if we only take those 6 channels in account, and go for the 6% figure, its not really a fair sample because, sure, there are only 6 out of 100 channels that are HD, but what your forgetting is that those 6 channels are being watched by 80% of the people at any given time. I know for me, that figure is close to 95%... I have HD in my house and it would be very rare for me to not be on a HD channel.
As for the TV thing, "tuners" are something people where talking about 5 years ago; that comment is a little dated.. of course you need a source to watch HD, like a HD cable box, which all cable companies deliver. TV's can take HD in over analog Component inputs/DVI or via HDMI.
And there are actually quite a few 1080p sets on the market, in fact you can buy crappy name brand 40" flat panel sets for $1800 now, with 1920x1080 native resolution.
Barry_Green said:
wow.. dont know if you where joking here or not. The ones people watch, are all HD, I mean damn, HBO is in HD and so is Showtime. TBS broadcasts HD. USA network similcasts HD on universal HD... Discovery Channel, yes you guessed it, HD... almost every sports channel is HD.
I hope you where joking..?
Its funny i think this is the only topic me and Barry ever battle on.
Barry_Green
Moderator
No need to battle, I guess all we have to decide on is what the terms are that we're discussing. For origination, yes high-buck origination is becoming less common on SD, although there's still a lot of it being done. Most of the sports I can get here are all broadcast SD, it's rare indeed when we get HD. The NBA playoffs were all SD, up until the finals for example. The US Open tennis tournament has been broadcast all SD except for the two or three days CBS broadcast it. The Kentucky Derby and other horse races were all SD, except for the actual race itself (so one minute out of the 60-minute broadcast was HD, all the rest was awful up-rezzed SD). We get some primetime programming in HD, but absolutely no daytime programming in HD, and even the primetime coverage is far from complete...
Of all the cable channels in the universe, I think there are maybe six that we get here on Cox cable that are HD. Discovery, ESPN, InHD1 and 2, a channel of HBO, a channel of Showtime... I think that's about it, other than the broadcast networks. Not exactly every channel! That's why I said "around 0%". But you do make a point -- a large percentage of the biggest channels are broadcasting some HD. I was looking at it from the perspective that there's probably 250 channels on the dial, and maybe 10 are HD, and half of those are the broadcast networks ABC/Fox/PBS/NBC/CBS. We don't get TBS or Universal here.
I'm not talking from a production perspective, I'm talking from a consumer-adopting-it perspective. Of the channels that are on in my house round-the-clock, none of 'em are HD (although I wish all of 'em were).
Then again, you're coming at it from the young-single-male perspective, whereas I'm the old-married-family-of-four type, so obviously our perspectives are different. So Jarred can easily say "hey, everything I watch is HD", and I can say "there's very little HD on" and we can both still be right. It depends on what you're watching, and who's watching the channels that are broadcasting HD, and who's watching channels that don't broadcast HD.
Of all the cable channels in the universe, I think there are maybe six that we get here on Cox cable that are HD. Discovery, ESPN, InHD1 and 2, a channel of HBO, a channel of Showtime... I think that's about it, other than the broadcast networks. Not exactly every channel! That's why I said "around 0%". But you do make a point -- a large percentage of the biggest channels are broadcasting some HD. I was looking at it from the perspective that there's probably 250 channels on the dial, and maybe 10 are HD, and half of those are the broadcast networks ABC/Fox/PBS/NBC/CBS. We don't get TBS or Universal here.
I'm not talking from a production perspective, I'm talking from a consumer-adopting-it perspective. Of the channels that are on in my house round-the-clock, none of 'em are HD (although I wish all of 'em were).
Then again, you're coming at it from the young-single-male perspective, whereas I'm the old-married-family-of-four type, so obviously our perspectives are different. So Jarred can easily say "hey, everything I watch is HD", and I can say "there's very little HD on" and we can both still be right. It depends on what you're watching, and who's watching the channels that are broadcasting HD, and who's watching channels that don't broadcast HD.
your far from an old-married-family-guy... in fact im not that young, The only difference between us is I turn right at stop signs and you dont, and You run over old ladies at crosswalks and i dont
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, first of all it's "turning right at red lights", and second of all, how are you supposed to run 'em over if you DON'T stop at the lights? Gotta lure 'em into the crosswalk after all...
lol.. i think you actually did stop for a second before you stepped on it and clipped the old lady in the wheelchair and really pissed off her cane-waving husband.
Barry_Green said:
oh yeah. and you gotta be careful about your Zero percent and No statements.. Dude, your favorite show, The Young and the Restless, has been shot in and broadcast in HD for almost 5 years now.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Are you serious? HD soap operas? There's no way that's been broadcast in HD for five years... is there?
No way...
Okay, well, that lets you know the last time I watched a soap opera. You're right, "zero percent" and "absolutely no" are words that just get me in trouble...
Oops, gotta go -- The Young and the Restless is on!
No way...
Okay, well, that lets you know the last time I watched a soap opera. You're right, "zero percent" and "absolutely no" are words that just get me in trouble...
Oops, gotta go -- The Young and the Restless is on!
Barry_Green said:
nope.. zero chance, absolutely not
Dude.. 5 years where ya been? I betcha your wife knows all about it." In June 2001, CBS became the first to broadcast HD in Daytime when it commenced daily weekday HD broadcasts of television's leading daytime drama THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS. "
http://cbs4.com/tvtechtalk/local_story_286221153.html
Barry_Green
Moderator
That's a hard one to call.
1080 has a bigger number associated with it, so people think it must be "better", right? Isn't bigger = better?
But 1080, as currently implemented, means 1080i. And interlaced is definitely not better!
Most sets, almost all sets, are 720p native. Even Sony, which doesn't make a 720p camera or deck of any type, all their new series of LCD HD monitors are all 720p. The EBU has recommended 720/50p as the only broadcast standard in Europe. They have no interest in interlaced in an HD future.
But the question has always been 720/60p vs. 1080/60i... there's no doubt that 1080/24p is better than 720/24p, and 1080/30p is better than 720/30p.
Some sets are now coming to market that are 1080p native. Problem is, we won't see a broadcast standard in the US that's 1080/60p... it's taken us 19 years to get to the point we're at now! AFAIK, 1080/60p isn't even on the map, as far as broadcasters having an appetite to retool again.
So what actually is going to happen is anyone's guess. I would definitely say that 720p looks better on a 720p-native set than re-sized/de-interlaced/scaled-down 1080i would.
But 1080/24p would look better on a 1080p-native set than 720/24p on a 720p-native set.
Europe may perhaps play a big role in setting the stage for what really is going to happen. The EBU is solidly behind progressive-scan, there appears to be no appetite whatsoever to saddle the European continent with the old interlaced compromise. It was leaked that the EBU actually endorsed 720/50p as the European broadcast standard, but then I guess Sony really got in there and stirred things up (because Sony doesn't make any 720p gear, and a 720p continent would likely have a significant impact on Sony's sales!) So the EBU pulled back, at least for a while. Last October they announced that they were formally endorsing 720/50p, with an eye towards 1080/50p if it ever becomes available.
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_text_r112-2004_tcm6-16462.pdf
As of right now, a majority of US broadcasters that have high-def capability are broadcasting their high-def in 1080i. Japan is thoroughly 1080i. If the EBU were to somehow reverse themselves and endorse 1080i, that would really leave 720p in a lurch... but with Europe endorsing 720p, then that could really shake things up over here.
Frankly, I think that because Europe has stalled for so long, the only way for them to go is 1080p. I think Europe is proud that PAL is a "better" system than NTSC, and I think Europeans will insist on having at least as good, if not better, than the US HD system. And that can't be 1080i, because the EBU rejects interlaced; they are thoroughly sold on progressive. And it may not be 720p, because while the EBU declared 720/50p "currently the optimum solution," people who think that quality starts and ends with the size of the numbers will throw a fit, as will Sony. Whereas 1080p leaves a happy middle ground -- 1080i can broadcast within a 1080p signal, 720p can uprez nicely to 1080p, it solves the EBU's concerns about wanting/preferring progressive, and it lets the European union retain bragging rights to the highest-quality TV system.
But then that leaves the "sticky widget" of broadcasting a signal that requires twice the bandwidth of 1080i or 720p... plus somebody has to actually engineer some 1080p cameras and decks and such... not exactly small feats.
The EBU endorsed 720p, with an eye towards 1080p. But they acknowledge that some broadcasters may want to broadcast 1080i also. As far as they're concerned, though, progressive is *it*. And they're right -- interlaced must disappear.
(and this is all speculation... the only people who really know what's going to happen aren't talking!)
1080 has a bigger number associated with it, so people think it must be "better", right? Isn't bigger = better?
But 1080, as currently implemented, means 1080i. And interlaced is definitely not better!
Most sets, almost all sets, are 720p native. Even Sony, which doesn't make a 720p camera or deck of any type, all their new series of LCD HD monitors are all 720p. The EBU has recommended 720/50p as the only broadcast standard in Europe. They have no interest in interlaced in an HD future.
But the question has always been 720/60p vs. 1080/60i... there's no doubt that 1080/24p is better than 720/24p, and 1080/30p is better than 720/30p.
Some sets are now coming to market that are 1080p native. Problem is, we won't see a broadcast standard in the US that's 1080/60p... it's taken us 19 years to get to the point we're at now! AFAIK, 1080/60p isn't even on the map, as far as broadcasters having an appetite to retool again.
So what actually is going to happen is anyone's guess. I would definitely say that 720p looks better on a 720p-native set than re-sized/de-interlaced/scaled-down 1080i would.
But 1080/24p would look better on a 1080p-native set than 720/24p on a 720p-native set.
Europe may perhaps play a big role in setting the stage for what really is going to happen. The EBU is solidly behind progressive-scan, there appears to be no appetite whatsoever to saddle the European continent with the old interlaced compromise. It was leaked that the EBU actually endorsed 720/50p as the European broadcast standard, but then I guess Sony really got in there and stirred things up (because Sony doesn't make any 720p gear, and a 720p continent would likely have a significant impact on Sony's sales!) So the EBU pulled back, at least for a while. Last October they announced that they were formally endorsing 720/50p, with an eye towards 1080/50p if it ever becomes available.
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_text_r112-2004_tcm6-16462.pdf
As of right now, a majority of US broadcasters that have high-def capability are broadcasting their high-def in 1080i. Japan is thoroughly 1080i. If the EBU were to somehow reverse themselves and endorse 1080i, that would really leave 720p in a lurch... but with Europe endorsing 720p, then that could really shake things up over here.
Frankly, I think that because Europe has stalled for so long, the only way for them to go is 1080p. I think Europe is proud that PAL is a "better" system than NTSC, and I think Europeans will insist on having at least as good, if not better, than the US HD system. And that can't be 1080i, because the EBU rejects interlaced; they are thoroughly sold on progressive. And it may not be 720p, because while the EBU declared 720/50p "currently the optimum solution," people who think that quality starts and ends with the size of the numbers will throw a fit, as will Sony. Whereas 1080p leaves a happy middle ground -- 1080i can broadcast within a 1080p signal, 720p can uprez nicely to 1080p, it solves the EBU's concerns about wanting/preferring progressive, and it lets the European union retain bragging rights to the highest-quality TV system.
But then that leaves the "sticky widget" of broadcasting a signal that requires twice the bandwidth of 1080i or 720p... plus somebody has to actually engineer some 1080p cameras and decks and such... not exactly small feats.
The EBU endorsed 720p, with an eye towards 1080p. But they acknowledge that some broadcasters may want to broadcast 1080i also. As far as they're concerned, though, progressive is *it*. And they're right -- interlaced must disappear.
(and this is all speculation... the only people who really know what's going to happen aren't talking!)
Barry_Green
Moderator
... did a little googling, and found this article from Philip Laven, the Director of the EBU Technical Department. Makes for interesting reading, especially the comments from Yves Faroudja...
http://www.ebu.ch/trev_301-editorial.html
http://www.ebu.ch/trev_301-editorial.html
MovieSwede
Well-known member
Yes the big question is what will the european consumer want?
Do so many really feel the need of going to 720p or 1080i.
Here we are just about to shut down the analog net in some areas in the country. Forcing the consumer to go digital SDTV. The response from the public is very moderate. Many complain about the lack of
recording and watching to different channels
watching different channel at the same time
motion artifacts of sportsbroadcasting
Most sets that have been selling is 480p sets, they cant even take full advantage of PAL SDTV broadcast.
So many homes will not want to embrace this new technology.
When the sets get ready for 1080P and the broadcast will send 1080 50P it can start something. But im not sure people here really feel the need of going to either 720p or 1080i.
16:9 PAL SDTV looks good enough for 95% of the population.
Do so many really feel the need of going to 720p or 1080i.
Here we are just about to shut down the analog net in some areas in the country. Forcing the consumer to go digital SDTV. The response from the public is very moderate. Many complain about the lack of
recording and watching to different channels
watching different channel at the same time
motion artifacts of sportsbroadcasting
Most sets that have been selling is 480p sets, they cant even take full advantage of PAL SDTV broadcast.
So many homes will not want to embrace this new technology.
When the sets get ready for 1080P and the broadcast will send 1080 50P it can start something. But im not sure people here really feel the need of going to either 720p or 1080i.
16:9 PAL SDTV looks good enough for 95% of the population.
Cheers Barry... Good article, but still the same old "nobody will make up their minds so we're going to use both. We want 1080p50/60 now, but can't have it. So we'll settle for 720p and 1080i."
For broadcasters it makes a strong case for the HVX's flexibility... If only it could do 1080p50/60, that would be a real bit of future proofing! I suppose P2 could handle it, but what compression could be used? Does anything support 1080p50/60?
For broadcasters it makes a strong case for the HVX's flexibility... If only it could do 1080p50/60, that would be a real bit of future proofing! I suppose P2 could handle it, but what compression could be used? Does anything support 1080p50/60?