The change to digital less noticeable than color was

[Don Lindsly]

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.

[Carmine]

Originally Posted by Don Lindsly

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.

[oldtvman]

Originally Posted by Don Lindsly

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.

That's the response when relatives come over and watch HD, I do mention the program is broadcast in hd, but I get this ho-hum response.

On the other hand we were the first family to get color in 1963, and when relatives came over we got an oh-wow! Response. Color was a tangible change to where HD for us in the business is a major improvment over analog but is wasted on the masses

[oldtvman]

I was such a critical color viewer, I could tell you which network you were watching based on the color images broadcast by the networks.

Of course that was back in the sixties. Now I gues it really doesnt matter.

[oldtvman]

I can remember going to relatives homes in the late sixites and early seventies when color was finally starting to overtake b & w. And I was horrified by what people were content with. I don't think they ever tried to adjust the color pictures for accurate color rendition.

My favorite was always the Motorola 23" color series. People just loved that soft, inaccurate color picture. I gues the lack of detail helped hide the lousy design put out by Motorola, the best part of those sets was the cabinets made by the Drexel furniture company.