HDTV question

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Right now, with Time Warner digital cable, I get about 170 channels.
About a dozen of them (in the 700 range) are categorized as HDTV.
Of those, most of the prime-time programming they show were recorded using
an HD camera.

My question is, regarding the other 160 channels, approximately when does
the industry expects that the vast majority of all TV shows will be recorded
with an HD camera and transmitted in high def?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Gary Wachs wrote:
>
> Right now, with Time Warner digital cable, I get about 170 channels.
> About a dozen of them (in the 700 range) are categorized as HDTV.
> Of those, most of the prime-time programming they show were recorded using
> an HD camera.
>
> My question is, regarding the other 160 channels, approximately when does
> the industry expects that the vast majority of all TV shows will be recorded
> with an HD camera and transmitted in high def?


The 'rerun' Cable channels may never go to HDTV by 'it's nature'...
and are not required to do so by US law to change !!

Old rerun Network Sports can not go to HD quality based upon the tape
source...

Recording TV Shows/Programs in HD & Surround Sound is more expensive,
Therefore More 'Pure' HD Programming (Source to your screen) will
evolve as it becomes more Cost Effective to run Full HD
Productions...

Remember, Only OTA (Over the Air antenna) Networks & locals
are forced into the Government DTV timelines to Upgrade.... Not
Cable Networks... They may run some Analog or Analog converts
to DTV for a long time ........

Only the 7 major OTA Networks must upgrade to DTV; HDTV via
competition.
ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, UPN, & WB.....

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> "Gary Wachs" <email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:kfpBd.42962$Ew6.32665@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> Right now, with Time Warner digital cable, I get about 170 channels.
>> About a dozen of them (in the 700 range) are categorized as HDTV.
>> Of those, most of the prime-time programming they show were recorded
> using
>> an HD camera.
===========
Sorry, but most HD shows are recorded on film, then telecined to tape/disks
for transmission. But often comedy series are taped at 1080/24p, which
emulates film, so no telecine is required. CBS's soap Young and Restless and
NBC's Leno is taped are taped at 1080/60i, the broadcast format, so neither
image-degrading telecines nor judder-inducing 24p-to-1080/60i conversion is
required. There are lots of show variations in between. Usually, programs
taped directly at 1080/60i, such as those on Discovery or INHD or PBS HD
have an ultracrisp 'window-effect' look. The telecine process, while it
doesn't need to, generally makes film shows look fuzzier, even though film
negatives have the best overall resolution. The switchover to required H/DTV
digital delivery in the future will still have mixes of film/tape, but
less-costly all-digital recording is gradually replacing film production.
John

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"RV" <race1000k_nospam_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SI%Bd.11951$qf5.3113@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "John Blake" <jblake@bamspam.com> wrote in message
> news:tmXBd.48403$ld2.17681938@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>The switchover to required H/DTV digital delivery in the future will still
>>have mixes of film/tape, but less-costly all-digital recording is
>>gradually replacing film production.
>> John
>
> Isn't there even a bigger problem with a switchover to HDTV? Like the
> fact that current technology can't accomodate 170 channels of HDTV because
> there's not enough cable bandwidth? I was wondering if some of the
> channels maybe would be transmitted in a wide screen format in 480P in
> order to save bandwidth. I don't know much about the technical issues
> involved, so I'm asking if anyone else here knows what the plans are.
>
> Race

The problem is not technology -- but money.
One HD channel consumes the bandwidth of 10 ugly overcompressed digital
cable channels.
Those 10 ugly channels have 10 commercials on, the beautiful HD channel -
only one.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Not enough bandwidth is not exactly true. The digital broadcasts can be HD
or whatever, but have to "fit" in the 6 MHz bandwidth that typical analog
standard definition NTSC 480i are occupying right now. I suppose that a lot
of the digital channels carried on cable right now use less than this
bandwidth. Having 80 channels in analog is "hurting". So at least 80
channels could be converted to HD without bandwidth penalty. That could
probably cover 98% of what I watch. (I am not going to watch QVC, wether
it's in HD or not)
The demand for HDTV is growing extemely fast. I believe that majority of
TV's sold is HD capable, and anyone having a TV like that automatically
demands it. It's really easy: I scan the HDTV channels first for something
worth watching.
I agree on the extremely expensive part to produce HDTV.

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LrQBd.16063$_3.186999@typhoon.sonic.net...
> "Gary Wachs" <email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:kfpBd.42962$Ew6.32665@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> Right now, with Time Warner digital cable, I get about 170 channels.
>> About a dozen of them (in the 700 range) are categorized as HDTV.
>> Of those, most of the prime-time programming they show were recorded
>> using an HD camera.
>>
>> My question is, regarding the other 160 channels, approximately when does
>> the industry expects that the vast majority of all TV shows will be
>> recorded with an HD camera and transmitted in high def?
>
> Good question. I won't actually say "never" (the question will doubtless
> seem silly in the year 2134 or whatever), but I'd guess that for many
> cable and satellite channels it might start to feel like it's never going
> to happen.
>
> First, there is no FCC requirement for them to do so, and probably never
> will be.
> Second, there is, at present, insufficient bandwidth for the cable or
> satellite companies to carry all of those channels in HD format even if
> the channels wanted to do so.
> Third, there is, at present, little or no demand from customers for them
> to do so.
> Fourth, it is, at present, obscenely expensive to convert over to HD
> production.
>
> So, someday, they might, but I expect it to take a very long time. I
> expect that within 5-10 years, once most everyone has a widescreen digital
> TV, many of them might convert over to a 16:9 progressive scan format, but
> probably a 480-line format with a horizontal resolution in the 700-850
> range. It will probably be 5-10 years after that before most of these
> channels actually switch to HD broadcast, and even longer before they're
> ALL HD.
>