SCREEN-L Archives

February 1993


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Michael K. Kuentz" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 19 Feb 1993 19:14:10 EST
text/plain (23 lines)
The whole idea behind HDTV is not only clarity but true to form three
dimensional viewing. The color is supposed to be superb and the defintion,
grain, and focus is supposed to be great, what with nearly 1200 lines of
resolution.  The audio is supposed to be 4 channel quad-surround sound and
is billed as going to place the viewer right in the television set. The whole
idea here is a better quality picture and sound, Whoopy - thats what I say.
  For better pictures and super sound (sound that when someone passes gass
on the movie set I can here it? no thanks). The other night, someone on Arsenio
Hall, the name escapes me, gave a humorous speech about surround sound, you can
what it sounds like when someone digs into their ear, coughs, or clears their
  And the cost? The american people are already inundated with taxes and high
cost and now the NAB and FCC expect us to pay for running fibre into our homes,
buying a converter box and buying a $1400 HD set?  But knowing the americans,
they'll pay the extra for the comfort of watching a 3d football game with
the sounds of the field right there with them, instead of paying taxes or child
  I think you have to weigh both sides of the coin here. Yea, HDTV offers a
great alternative but for what price. Even TV stations will have to get all
new equipment and a new transmitter for the HDTV signal. Is it worth it?
paradoxically yours, mkk