Low-Definition TV
EmailIn a couple of years, we’re told, conventional TV sets will be obsolete and we’ll all be watching HD. That’s Hi-Def. High Definition. Poke through our HDTV GUIDE if you haven’t. But the road to success is paved with–no, wrong metaphor. The road to success, perhaps, has plenty of puddles. Witness this piece in "TV Week." They polled people who watched last Sunday’s Super Bowl. "There was only one thing HD Super Bowl fans could seem to agree on: The rain sucked. "With CBS Sports’ camera lenses fogging due to the Miami downpour on Sunday, fans watched helplessly as their expensive HD sets—many purchased specifically for the occasion—showed images of the field that were partially obscured by rain and sometimes were downright blurry…." HD? Blurry? The rest of the piece is HERE.
Space Station Flies Over Eastern U.S. at Night 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
The problem that I foresee with HDTV is the one you discuss in today’s blog: its content (and I don’t mean the quality of the writing and acting of its programs). HDTV can reproduce programming more accurately, more precisely, and in far greater detail than our current standard-definition TV system can. But if the programming is recorded under less-than-ideal studio conditions, then HDTV reveals every problem, flaw, smudge, smear, and imperfection present in the original material. And HDTV even has some actors and actresses worried about their appearance, since it showcases all flaws which wouldn’t be noticeable on standard TV. (Industry analyst Phillip Swann of TVpredictions.com even has a list of which celebrities are hurt most by HDTV.) In the end, I guess, it goes back to that old saying involving a silk purse and a sow’s ear.
Posted by: chuck | February 9, 2007, 1:49 pm 1:49 pm