[opendtv] Re: HDTV Forum 2004
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:54:53 -0400
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Although I think there's quite a bit of *really* annoying FUD
>in this article, not to mention inadequate explanation of just
>what this DTV/HDTV thing really is, one basic point it makes
>is something we have talked about here at length and amidst
>much acrimony. That is, you can't expect any consumer product
>to succeed if you mandate use of lots of extra boxes, networks,
>servers, media closets, or other such hindrance, not to mention
>the mysteries of encrypted digital interfaces that might be
>incompatible. (The article could have mentioned that analog
>interfaces are still an easy out.)
>
>The business about having to remodel your home for HDTV is
>a bit over the top too, IMO. Nonsense.
>
>The costs seem inflated. You can buy EDTV LCD screens today for
>much less than $3000, even if you have to throw in an STB. May
>not be HDTV, but it's certainly better than NTSC or SDTV!
>
>On the return on investment question, it seems to me that two
>points need to be made:
>
>1. There will *never* be any ROI if the Nielsen ratings don't
>count DTV households. Even if 100 percent of the viewing
>audience switches to DTV, you'd still see no ROI. Not sure
>why these obvious points aren't made. (I guess Nielsen has
>just started including DTV?)
>
>2. When analog is shut off, the ROI will be obvious.
>
>Bert
>
>----------------------------------------------
>Industry stumbles over high-definition hurdles
>By Rick Merritt , EE Times
>August 27, 2004 (11:31 AM EDT)
>URL: http://www.eet.com/article/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=3D44300012
>
>Los Angeles - As the world watched the Athens games in high
>definition last week, industry insiders here were warning that
>an olympiad of hurdles lies ahead before digital TV and HDTV
>hit their stride. The top problems are cost; the complexity of
>buying, installing and using the systems; and an industry that
>puts corporate over consumer interests, presenters said at the
>HDTV Forum 2004.
>
>The average selling price of a TV has hovered around $400 for
>many years. Analysts expect it will trend up toward $625 over
>the next five years as thin and wide flat panels replace aging
>CRTs. Even with the latest microdisplays, entry-level HDTVs
>start at $3,000.
>
>"If HDTV remains a $3,000 to $5,000 system, we will stifle its
>potential in the mass market. We may be strangling HDTV," said
>Bill Burnett, president of D2M Inc. (Mountain View, Calif.), a
>TV design house.
>
>Burnett called for a sub-$500 display panel that would enable
>low-cost HDTVs.
>
>Costs are also high on the production side, said Bryan Burns,
>vice president of strategic business planning and development
>at ESPN, which plans to broadcast 6,000 hours of HD content in
>2005.
>
>"We are still buying equipment with serial No. 1. That's scary
>from a live production standpoint, and it's expensive," Burns
>said. "I am starting to read that the costs of HD are going
>down, but I am not buying that yet. Super-slo-mo cameras for HD
>don't exist yet."
>
>ROI on HD
>
>Cable and over-the-air networks have yet to see a return on
>their investments in creating and broadcasting HD content.
>
>"We are the reluctant leaders in this resolution revolution,"
>said Randall Hoffner, manager of technical and strategic
>planning at ABC, which has 122 HDTV-capable stations and 41
>digital TV stations. About 75 percent of ABC's 22 prime-time
>hours a week are broadcast in HDTV, he said.
>
>"This is becoming the norm among all networks. It costs a lot
>of money, and we have yet to see if there's a return on this
>investment," Hoffner said.
>
>Harold Protter, senior vice president of technology for the WB
>Television Network, agreed, saying WB has spent $5 million and
>its affiliates some $100 million on HD content and facilities
>with no incremental revenue to date. "Cable operators have
>been slow to find space for our HD channel," Protter said.
>
>Only one major advertiser now finishes its TV commercials in
>HD format because there are not enough HD viewers yet, said
>Karl Meisenbach, director of advertising for startup HDNet,
>which produces and distributes HD content. "The numbers just
>aren't there."
>
>Several forum presenters bashed HDTV for being too complex.
>The format often requires multiple set-top, audio and video
>subsystems, connected with expensive cables and requiring
>custom installation. Even then, it can be difficult to
>operate.
>
>"My wife is an instrument-certified pilot," said Protter, and
>even she "will not push multiple buttons on multiple remotes
>to tune in Jay Leno in HD. It's way too complicated."
>
>Others noted that retailers tend to deluge prospective buyers
>with jargon related to the multitude of display and
>interconnect types, when those same retailers are often
>unfamiliar with the basic facts on how to get HD signals in
>their local area.
>
>Thus, consumers find that once they get a system home, they
>often must knock a hole in the living room wall, throw out an
>old credenza and tear out other built-in fixtures to make way
>for the HDTV gear.
>
>"It's no longer a decision to go flat-panel; it's a decision
>to remodel," said Chris Connery, a market watcher with
>DisplaySearch (Austin, Texas).
>
>
>"Most people don't fully understand what's going on -
>including me, and I've been writing about it for 20 years,"
>said Jeffrey Hart, a professor of political science at
>Indiana University and author of a just-released book on the
>politics behind digital TV.
>
>'Jury is out'
>
>Indeed, complexity and confusion reign even in the production
>environment. "We are just getting people trained in this
>equipment, and the jury is out on what the degree of
>difficulty will be," said Burns of ESPN.
>
>For the people on whom the camera is trained, meanwhile,
>HDTV's touted resolution is perceived to be a drawback.
>
>"One of the things that hinders acceptance of HDTV is that
>actors and actresses - the contract workers who run our jobs
>- think HD makes them look worse than film, and they don't
>want to use it. They think it shows more of their flaws.
>That's just the way it is," said Derek Grover, a
>cinematographer with Hollywood Digital Imaging.
>
>But for now that worry may be overblown, since once users get
>HD sets and services up and running in their homes, there's
>no guarantee of picture quality.
>
>One Toshiba engineer said he had been watching the Olympics
>in HD and had often seen picture defects, which he attributed
>to the use of compression in sending the signal. High-
>definition signals will take on the lowest common denominator
>of quality introduced anywhere in the chain, from acquisition
>to satellite and cable broadcasting, defects in home cabling
>or even design peculiarities in the set-top or TV that shows
>them, he said.
>
>Corporate interests
>
>Mark Cuban, co-founder and chairman of HDNet, stirred the
>conference with a defiant keynote on Wednesday, blaming
>companies all across the food chain with putting corporate
>over consumer interests.
>
>Hollywood studios are too focused on protecting and managing
>their content, Cuban said. Meanwhile, cable companies are
>dragging their feet on a needed transition to better codecs
>such as MPEG-4. And consumer electronics companies, he said,
>are locked in a battle over next-generation DVD standards
>that pose artificial limits on how HD content will be stored.
>
>"We need to use technology to increase the enjoyment of the
>end user," Cuban said. "If you just do what's best for
>content, cable guys will come along."
>
>Several vendors bashed the so-called Digital Cable Ready
>agreement, under which TV makers are putting a government-
>mandated slot into their digital sets and cable companies are
>selling an access card that provides the link to their
>services. But cable companies are discouraging the use of
>today's one-way CableCards because the cards do not support
>their video-on-demand or electronic program guide services.
>
>Negotiations are still dragging on over two-way cards. TV
>makers oppose demands from content providers to turn off or
>reduce resolution on analog HD transmissions to prevent
>consumers from copying unprotected HD analog content. No
>decision on the issue is expected for at least a year.
>
>TV makers fear users will want to return their Digital Cable
>Ready sets after cable operators advise users they should buy
>a set-top box rather than a CableCard.
>
>"It's a mess," said Cuban.
>
>Making matters worse, new competitors are arriving on the
>scene, hoping to make hay with the rapid transition from CRT
>to LCD and microdisplay TVs. They range from major PC
>companies such as Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Gateway to new
>names, many with connections to display and electronics
>suppliers in South Korea and Taiwan.
>
>"Anyone who has a checkbook and can fly overseas can be a TV
>company now," the Toshiba engineer said.
>
>All that said, many presenters here remained optimistic that
>an era of high-resolution, 16:9 aspect-ratio TVs is coming.
>But the sets will enter a world that still sports a bevy of
>low-res, 4:3 aspect-ratio TVs - and its own set of problems.
>
>"It will probably be 2010 before this tsunami hits the
>beach," said Burns of ESPN. "All my formal and informal
>sources tell me there will be about 100 million 16:9 sets in
>2010 and 200 million 4:3 sets. This creates some very
>difficult programming decisions."
>
>
>
I believe Nielsen will start counting DTV next April.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
