HD conversion too expensive for broadcasters: Rabinovitch
This is a little old-news, but just catching up… CBC/Radio-Canada president Robert Rabinovitch has told the CRTC that the broadcast industry “does not have the financial wherewithal” to fund the transition from the nation’s analog transmission infrastructure to one suited to over-the-air delivery of digital HD in a “timely and effective manner.”
Rabinovitch said it would take “another 12 years to achieve full digital/HD conversion of our English and French TV services” based upon ad revenue projections from PricewaterhouseCooper.
The CBC chief told regulators that no one questions whether conventional broadcasters should keep pace with developments in digital communications. The questions that must be answered are “how best to do this, how it is to be funded and how quickly” conventional broadcasters should make the digital transition, he said.
Okay, so… I know you want HDTV if you own a HD TV and receiver. But what’s your call: Should HDTV be higher up on the priority scale? Remember, CBC has limited dollars to spend. How important is HDTV, really.
|
Email This Post |
| HDTV |
I heard that CBC News will never be HD for the following reasons:
1. Personalities complain that they will look “older” in HD. Higher definition means you can see wrinkles easier.
2. Money will have to spent to make all of the sets wider to accomidate the 16:9 aspect ratio
3. Talking heads don’t need to be in HD.
I’m not really in a hurry to get it yet.
HD Now!
And the huge energy costs (more electricity use) for a soon-to-be-ubiquitous computer intensive service in each and every home. They use more juice. So much for global waming on coal and new nuclear and ‘imported’ dirty electricity.
I got my HDTV in 2001, and have been waiting for HD ever since. Now that I have it, i find myself watching HD programming exclusively. This rules out a vast majority of Canadian programming. Thank goodness for Rick Mercer and HNIC.
HD should not a major priority. I mean, do you really need the National in HD? For all that mind blowing action? In case Peter Mansy needs to whip out a rocket launcher when the set is attacked by Terrorists? Analog has just done fine. Unless there’s a need for watching Coronation Street in High Definition, I suggest the Ceeb focus on making programs worthy of HD. Better programming, less ads! How about making CBC radio in Vancouver an FM station?
Re: news in HD
There are talks about The National going HD — Serious discussions about how it might be roled out. One problem is the 16×9 vs 4×3 problem. Most people will still watch on conventional sets, so videographers will still have to shoot 4×3 “safe” so the action isn’t happening off screen.
The HD may be rolled out when they do a revamp on the national. It is the only network news show that didn’t really change with the news rebranding earlier this year…new graphics pack, but still the same old set, and still Peter staring into a single camera.
What I’m confused about is all the talk of over-the-air HD vs digital cable HD. I know that HD OTA is available in major cities (CBC and PBS in HD are apparently available over the air in Toronto)… but are we talking about replacing the national analog OTA system with an HD OTA system?
Doesn’t that sound counter-productive? Analog OTA serves TV viewers who are typically looking for a practical, cheap TV signal. They aren’t audio/video philes. What is the likelihood that anyone with an HD set is going to opt for over the air signals vs. Bell Xpress VU and/or Rogers? Anyone who wants an HDesque experience is probably going to spend the extra $45/month for an digital sat/HD subscription.
Also – as for the ‘news in HD’ points, I would contest all of them. Newscasters might be worried about the ultra-clarity of HD, but a pure digital signal can be ‘massaged’ with good old software vaseline – and still provide suitable continuity with other news footage.
It would be easy to fill a 16:9 frame with the same talking head aspect ratio and more flowing text or data on the other side. And finally – the real reason we should want news in HD is so we can see the highest quality pictures from local or international news.
This has got to be one of the strongest arguments to push HD for all broadcasters. It will truly be like standing on the scene once it’s all rolled out. The biggest challenge imho is getting adequate sound mixes from location shooting.
I don’t plan on buying any new tv capture cards for my homebrew PVRs (http://mythtv.org/).
What TV broadcasters, including CBC, are trying to do is use the move to HDTV as an excuse to get rid of inconvenient and unprofitable over-the-air TV transmitters. The major OTA broadcasters have told the CRTC that they are willing to updgrade their transmitters in ‘major markets’ to digital and want to be able to mothball the rest. That would mean that outside about 36 cities, people in Canada would no longer have free access to the CBC.
There’s no question that it will cost money to upgrade the existing system to digital. But once you do it, there are other possibilities beyond HD. For example, using a single digital transmitter and frequency, you could broadcast several different stations. That’s called multiplexing and it’s already happening in Germany and the UK. In rural Canada, where satellite is your only option and it doesn’t guarantee you programming from your region, getting four or five stations over the air might actually be a useful alternative!
And if you really like HD, I understand the quality over-the-air is second to none.
One final note: no other country in the world is using the move to digital transmission as an excuse to stop over-the-air TV. Even Germany, where about 95% of households are said to be cable or satellite subscribers, the public broadcasters were required to preserve their over-the-air coverage after moving to digital transmission. It’s a question of public policy and the Government needs to step up on this one.
HD looks to be just a couple of years away, program by program, and nothing will stop it .
Not the silly reasons suggested here.
I have no intention of subcribing to cable or sattellite ever.
I could care less if the signal is available in HD.
As far as I know, the CBC is obligated to provide service from coast to coast to coast. If it decides to scrap the free signal it should be sold off and the profits used create stations that will serve and be freely accesible to all canadians not just those that choose to blindly case after the next best thing.
Switching to HD and closing the signalto those who have the cash will be a boon to print newspapers, video rental companies and pirate download sites.
As much as I love the CBC. I will dance on its grave for such a betrayal.
I bought a widescreen high definition screen in order to enjoy watching hockey. Last week on Hockey Night in Canada,(on Bell’s high definition channel), we were able to enjoy a Toronto game in HD. The second show, for my home town Canucks, was not in HD. It looks like the only Vancouver HD hockey is on TSN. Why is that???