HDTV... WHY ALL THE FUSS?

     As a technician, I tend to think of how new technologies, systems, and component parts would be integrated into what is already here. Few people are prepared to throw out all their old equipment and start over, but that's what true HDTV (High Definition Television) would require. For point-to-point teleconferencing and distance learning, undoubtedly HDTV will be the format of the future. Throw a standard video image on a very large screen and you begin to see the reasons why the existing television technology is just not good enough for the big screen. For home TV sets, the need is not there, but it appears we have no choice in the matter. Money drives the market. 
     Present technologies co-exist because they can function with and enhance each other. We have gone from phonograph records to audio tape to audio CD's in a very short time, and each represents an improvement of some sort, although always with some inherent disadvantages. So far, each new unit could work with existing equipment. Plug the latest CD player into any audio amplifier and any speaker and you get sound. Each time a part of the system is upgraded, you begin to see shortcomings in the other parts, but the overall quality improves. Audio CDs represent a quantum leap in quality over tape and much improvement in phonograph records fragile surface. On the other hand, some records nearly 100 years old still work fine. I doubt today's CDs will last that long. In those future days, there will not be any players to run them, assuming the plastic disks themselves survive, so the point is moot. Few electronic devices made today are expected to last more than five years and they are not considered repairable when they break down. There are always tradeoffs to high technology "improvements". Waste is one of them.
     True HDTV is a departure from everything we have, so that gives it even more of a foggy future as far as the average consumer is concerned. By its very nature, it will not integrate, but requires new equipment from source to viewer to get the benefit of true HD. I can only imagine what the first HD VCRs will cost. Notice that all but the most expensive computers can store only minutes of high quality full motion video. Strangely enough, magnetic tape is still a viable method for storing information, both analog and digital, because it can store a lot of information in a small space. Not even the best memory chips can match it for size, at least so far. Computer hard drives are getting there, but are still comparitively bulky and require lots of "support" to make them go. The "TIVO" consumer recorder is actually a dedicated computer and large hard drive. 
     For years to come, I'm sure we'll see TV sets and projectors that are "native mode HDTV" but that will also work for earlier analog sources, so don't toss out your home VCR and DVD playerjust yet. Eventually, display devices will go "all HD" as the analog market dries up, at least as far as broadcast television is concerned. Surveillence systems have mostly been low-tech and will probably stay that way. Not everything needs the benefits of high resolution imaging. For TV reception, we'll see set-top boxes to convert those new digital sources down to older display devices, such as what DVD players and DSS receivers do now. There are several digital (but hardly HD) formats to deal with, and each requires the appropriate adaptor box (like DSS and the Dish Network use different but similar systems). There are still many "standards" for transmission, potential "conversions" when dealing with cable systems, satellite downlinks, etc. The "experts" still cannot agree on "standards". We already have digital satellites, but most of them convert to some form of NTSC video at the receiving end. True point-to-point digital is out there if you can afford it, but digital doesn't necessarily mean HD. Even though some television broadcasters are already transmitting in true HDTV (of which there are still several competing formats), there are not many consumer sets sold due to the high price tag. High definition doesn't necessarily mean 16x9 format either. 
     Say "digital" and some people salivate like Pavlov's dogs. As with everything else, money, not quality, drives and will continue to drive the market. You will be paying more for HD hardware and software as control shifts from user to programmer. I personally don't see a need for HDTV to take over. It's depressing to see what the average viewer is watching now. Good NTSC is fine (unless you want a 20' picture), but it's hard to find. Cable systems generally are average to low quality. Over-the-air signals degrade quickly and have limited range. With the switch to digital, all of the problems don't go away, and some new ones are created. The promises made to potential satellite subscribers went essentially unfulfilled, but unless you get a satellite dish of some kind, digital TV will be limited to local broadcasts or cable... as it is now. Most cable services are not HDTV ready, so we'll probably get some form of compressed (read poor quality) signal down that wire unless they upgrade to systems that can handle the increased bandwidth of an increasing number of HD channels. Quality always takes a back seat to profits. The present digital satellite signals now offered on DSS systems contain horrible artifacts of compression (to squeeze more channels onto a single transponder), but this is still seen as an improvement over analog. As good as the reconstituted digital picture is, the dark areas are always blotchy. It's not "fade to black". It's "fade to blocks". It doesn't reproduce things like fog very well either. Some channels still have picture streaking like a bad videotape. Static images look very good, but fast motion always shows up the shortcomings of that system. Live with it... that's the future.
     So what's the point of all the fuss? The main reason for going to digital formats is not for a higher quality image. The real reason is that it's cheaper for the sender, because you can put six or more digitized channels in the same bandwidth space where one analog channel was before. Bandwidth is expensive and analog systems are considered wasteful of that finite resource. I fear HDTV will have the same faults as digital satellite has now, namely compression problems, as more and more information is pushed down that little pipe. It looks great now, but as soon as they start cutting corners, the shine will wear off quickly. Money will dictate quality, or rather the lack of it. We will not be able to go back. Perhaps it's better we forget about what we had. In this case, perhaps ignorance is bliss. My kids don't know what "clockwise" is on their digital watches. They can live with it.

Ray Carlsen