SCREEN-L Archives

April 1991


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
82 Malcolm Dean 213-5-5676 <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 11 Apr 91 09:38:00 PDT
text/plain (28 lines)
No, it would not. Your first point, do consumers care about
resolution, is easily answered by the advent of THX and Cinema
Digital Sound, not to mention the superior clarity of Laser Discs,
which are now a strong marketing success. People care not only
about clarity, but also about aspect ratio, hence the wide-screen
format of future TV.
As for going straight to digital, this is obviously the proper
way to go, and this point is being strongly argued by some of the
competing vendors, who are trying to keep the Japanese away long
enough to come up with a practical digital system. Clearly, if
current HDTV is permitted to become a standard, it will be
obsolete in ten years anyway. The boundaries between media and
platforms for the reception/manipulation will dissolve over the
next 20 years.
> It seems to me that the ones who think HDTV is so great are those who
> are in    the industry and academics.  What I wanna know is, do the
> consumers really care about higher resolution?  How great a picture does
> The Simpsons need?  If we're so het up about a better picture, why not
> just go straight to digital and work  out the compatibility problem
> once, instead of now for HDTV and later for digital?  It seems to me
> that since digital transmission will give a better picture than analog,
> no matter how high a resolution the analog might have, we should skip
> the middleman.  Then this discussion of film vs. video would be a mute
> point.  Or would it? ;-)