The change to digital less noticeable than color was
 

I have had people come over and I would show them what a program looked like broadcast in HD. For the most part (even my wife) the response was less than enthusiastic.


When I was a kid a my dad took me to a tv store one day, my eyeballs just about popped out, there was a television and the show was in living color! I guess in simpler times color was much more of a big deal. In today's world with all the other distractions it almost becomes a ho-hum!

I agree that digital is more ho hum then color, but to me so far it's not been as nightmarish as I expected.

I think that the issue here is that today's public is spoiled by technology. Probably radio was the single most exciting technical development, the first time that a human voice was heard over the radio, as opposed to Morse Code. Then television itsself was a big one, and finally color.

Now with all the other technology around, there just isn't any true excitement no matter what the development is. We are now conditioned to just expect these developments regularly, and nothing is a great wonder anymore. Just as cellphones were a new excitement about 20 years ago, and I was only marginally fascinated when we were driving to Wisconsin last year, and Kay decided to get on the internet and do the company payroll from her laptop, with a cellphone modem, on a desolate highway in the middle of the Utah desert. Ho-hum, anymore.

Charles

---

I often think of what a big deal it would have been if HDTV had hit the market big back in the late 80s. It would have been a big deal, and would have saved a lot of people in the industry their jobs. (think Zenith)

Funny you should mention that because I remember seeing prototype HD sets at the consumer electronics show back in the 80's Remember there were several proposed hd systems back then and it was left up to the ATSC to decide which system the US would use

I have to agree that for most consumers that is probably the case.
After 10 years HD is still exciting for me because it mostly just works. When I started working in commercial TV in 1967, the station had just begun broadcasting locally produced color programming. At that time the effort required to make good color included complete camera setups and adjustments before every show, and usually while the show was in progress. Videotape in proper color was not at all easy to achieve, besides the fact that some of those 2 inch thick reels of tape weighed 30 lbs! It was sooo hard to make really good detailed and colorfull pictures at that time with the then current state of the art and to do it consistantly day in, day out.
With HD today all that is usualy required is to turn the equipment on and wait for it to boot!
Cliff

Hey Cliff - great- uh, I mean SUPER avatar!

Color produced a significant consumer benefit over B&W. For the past 20 years, NTSC color TV produced a quality picture. Only the most critical viewer can appreciate the difference between a decent NTSC picture and and HDTV.

Consumer acceptance was limited so manufacturers, now all foreign, lobbied for a mandated change to force public acceptance. If it were so great, it wouldn't be mandatory. Color was never mandatory. Customers and advertisers wanted it so broadcasters and receiver manufacturers provided it. Like most government mandated programs, we just endure it, not welcome it.

With over 70% of viewers on cable, the Feb '09 hard shutdown will have less effect so there is no urgency and diminished interest. Like digital cellular, digital TV is not about customers.

Hammer, meet Mr. Nailhead. :thmbsp:

For most people, standard definition is good enough.

When it comes to movies, VHS quality was good enough for most people.

The change to colour was a far more significant change for the average consumer than a change in resolution.

Last night I found myself in a hospital ER waiting area (sick relative).

Anyways, there was a Sony 16:9 flatscreen playing away. I'd guess about a 42". The picture was not squashed, it displayed correctly. The program was local news (WDIV Channel 4) Is there such a thing as low-def 16:9?

I ask because the picture was GARBAGE!!! Even accounting for things like incorrect adjustments, it still sucked. The talking-news-head's face appeared purpleish at the center, yet greenish around his ears. Any type of text was stair-stepped/pixelated. It also seemed like it was just slightly out of focus.

There is no way that could have been HD.

HD isn't all that exciting if you're going to watch it on a 20" screen, what is exciting is it's now possible to have a real Home Theater system with a 100" widescreen format and near theater quality.

If VHS was good enough for most people DVD would never have taken off, I thought it sucked from day one IMO.

I agree that we have all become used to hi tech, nothing quite has the power to amaze us like it did years ago but that's normal I guess.

Judging by some of what I have seen out there as "popular taste", the DVD format may have replaced VHS for the following two reasons, only:

-No rewinding, and
-No flashing 12:00 on the front panel.

"VHS quality" is an oxymoron.