Richard Lightstone, CAS Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Breaking: The House defeated the bill to delay the Digital TV switch of February 17th to June. Read all about it! Digital TV switch still set for Feb. 17 House defeats bill to postpone transition http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117999189.html?categoryid=14&cs=1 RL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Who wins or loses either way ... I don't quite get it. Is it possible this shares a little with the Y2K problem 8 years ago? I really have trouble believing that there are so many who will be affected --- maybe that's because I have always lived in big cities and can barley remember when my TV was hooked up to an antenna. - JW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimg Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 There are plans to bring the bill back up for a vote sometime next week. Yesterday's vote was under a suspension of the rules, which means no amendments, limited debate and a required 2/3 vote for passage. Rick Boucher, chair of the subcommittee dealing with telecommunications issues, wants another vote under regular order. That means a simple majority is required for passage. The Senate unanimously passed a bill on January 27th. Neilsen has reported that more than 6.5 million households will have a problem with the changeover to DTV. There is evidently a waiting list of about 3 million requests for the $40 coupons for converter boxes. All this legislative proceedure stuff is local news here in DC. Here's the story in today's Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012801883.html Best regards, Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 I think it will pass. It makes congressmen look concerned, and the average person could care less about the changeover. Philip Perkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek H Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I say stick to the plan... There has been enough psa about the switch to digital. I mean it's 2009 now, if we can't have flying cars then at least digital TV... -Besides even if a significant number of people will be affected by the switch (folks still employing the rabbit ears) would it really kill us to be without TV for a few weeks? Could make for an interesting social experiment if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergio Sanmiguel Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I say stick to the plan... There has been enough psa about the switch to digital. I mean it's 2009 now, if we can't have flying cars then at least digital TV... -Besides even if a significant number of people will be affected by the switch (folks still employing the rabbit ears) would it really kill us to be without TV for a few weeks? Could make for an interesting social experiment if you ask me. Ditto!!! I got my DTV coupon on time & got my converter box... and don't own a proper HD TV at this time, but I'd be quite a social experiment to see how a week of NO TV (not to say a couple of months) would do for "Corporate America"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I want to know if everything will be broadcast 16x9 after the switch. Sorry to ask a stupid question instead of looking it up, but someone here must know. Will that mean 3x4 shows broadcast in 16x9 and displayed on 3x4 TVs will have black bars on top, bottom, left and right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 If the show was mastered 4:3 then it will still be 4:3. If you have a 4:3 set and the show is 16:9 you will get letter box unless you have changed your display settings. Remember that digital doesn't mean HD it just means not a analog broadcast. Scott is right here and it is an important distinction. People tend to confuse this whole transition to digital transmission with all sorts of other issues, like High Def, aspect ratio, letterboxing, etc. I am sure everyone has noticed that even on a channel that is HD, some of the program material will be 16:9 aspect ratio, some will appear 4:3 (with sidebars) and image quality will vary from stunning Hi-Def quality to rather poor SD (with standard definition looking often worse on a big new screen). - Jeff Wexler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 RE: 4x3 SD on a 16x9 screen I've been watching over-the-air HD for several years now and it's been interesting to see how all-over-the-place TV stations have been in regard to 4x3 in a 16x9 universe. During this time, the stations (CBS, NBC, & ABC affiliates; PBS; PBS HD; independents; et al) have been trying a variety of schemes to come to terms with the changing aspect ratios -- usually to a mixed bag of results. The locally-originated material vs the network feeds would vary, station-to-station methods would vary, different times of day, it would vary -- apparently nobody thought about coming up with a standard method of dealing with this aspect ratio difference. In my mind's eye, I could see station decision makers all scratching their collective heads saying, "it just doesn't fit?" Compounding the issue is the amazing number of consumers who feel that if the TV screen isn't filled wall-to-wall, they're getting screwed. They want every inch they paid for to contain some kind of image: squeeze it, stretch it, mangle it out of shape, they don't care, just anything necessary to assure the viewer that not a bit of their precious screen real estate is being wasted with nasty nothingness. My fave is when a local TV station converted their news broadcasts to HD. Whenever they would include an SD news clip, they would put colored bars on each side with the letters HD plastered all over them. Sound is even worse. Sound levels vary widely from station to station, and from program to program -- one would blast you out, the next you could barely hear. The good news is that these things are slowly evolving. As stations start paying attention to what the competition is doing, some of the more absurd variations are disappearing. However, with the advent of digital TV, the differences between average program level and the drug commercial or car dealer screaming at you has gotten worse. That extra 10dB that those who observe what are supposed to be standards are leaving as headroom is being filled to capacity with an increasing number of abusive advertisers. All the while, in between martinis, TV execs wonder why they're losing viewers at an alarming rate. Why? Because they obviously have contempt for their viewers, that's why, and some of us are fed up with it! It's sad what greed and incompetence have done to a once-promising medium. These days I watch DVDs much more than broadcast television. (Once in a while a rant is good for the soul.) JB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lightstone, CAS Posted January 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 John, My fave is when a local TV station converted their news broadcasts to HD. Whenever they would include an SD news clip, they would put colored bars on each side with the letters HD plastered all over them. Local stations? Try CNN - they broadcast a 4:3 frame with "HD" running up both sides. RL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 I think all the stations do this HD sidebar graphic (vertical letterbox?) and some of them the graphic plastered with "HD" and "In HIGH DEFINITION" is obtrusive and distracting --- on some news casts, since most of their field reporting is SD, cutting from the over made-up star newscasters in the flashy Hi-Def set to some really poor quality Betacam local story is very jarring. - JW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Over a period of time, I've seen them squeeze, expand, zoom, crop, letter-box, pillar, and try various combinations of the above -- sometimes changing the format during a program. It's worse than a pan-and-scan movie which, as annoying as it is, at least has a fairly standardized methodology. JB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.279748a58a2b862b7aa5f3b84126e232.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.