hosting by

What if the Pig is Grace Kelly or Robert Redford? Or Outing American TV's Dirty Little Secret: NTSC Video

By Bill Warner

Amidst the current buzz about HDTV and the looming switch to digital television, one thing is perfectly clear: American television broadcasts are lousy. No, I don't mean the programs; they're an easy target. Instead, I'm referring to the quality of the picture we receive on our home television sets. If you take a close look at what we're given at home in the U.S., you'll be appalled to see the visual stew of sloppiness that we're subjected to.
For example, ghosts(ing); fuzziness (very poor resolution); interference artifacts; pucks, tennis balls, golf balls, baseballs and footballs that momentarily disappear; unrealistic color; and many others.

But as anyone who has traveled to Europe and watched much television there (in many countries, they only break for commercials at the bottom and top of each hour, so it's way easier to watch a film broadcast over a commercial network in Europe) can tell you, we've been getting the short end of the stick in the U.S. for years. The fact is, the American television technical standard, known as NTSC, is an ugly kluge of technical compromise and industry apathy that produces pictures barely worth watching. For starters, television in Europe is roughly 20 percent higher resolution than what we see in the U.S. (The Europeans' PAL or SECAM standards give 625 lines per screen, not the 525 provided via our NTSC). And the color, especially on the French system (which the technical guys all like to make fun of but which provides an excellent picture), is superb.

If you're not familiar with European television, there's another way to see what you're missing. Sit down at any run-of-the-mill computer monitor and take a close look at some video images, still or moving. What do you see? More detail and resolution than what your 27-inch NTSC monstrosity can give you. Why? Well, two reasons, mainly: first, your computer monitor displays data by design with higher resolution than your TV set can.
And secondly, American television uses what is called an interlaced display, meaning that it only shows half of its 525 lines at a time. First it displays the odd lines of the picture display, and then the even ones. Because of the persistence characteristics of human vision, your eye retains the first image even after it has been replaced by the second. You perceive the whole picture even though technically at any given 1/30th of a second interval only half the picture (roughly 250 lines) is on screen.

With a computer monitor, what you see is what's really there: all the lines of the picture are present the entire time you are perceiving the image. You see all 480 lines, refreshed every 1/60th of a second. The result? You get a crisper, clearer image than the lowest- common-denominator picture you get with your standard American television set. And if you really want to get a hint of what's to come, take a look at one of your graphic designer friends' 17- or 19-inch monitors. You'll see vivid color and picture detail that your 27-inch or bigger set does not show.

The European television systems and computer monitors give only a suggestion of what we can have if we demand more as consumers. If you've got any doubts about whether the move to digital and HDTV is worth it, squelch them now. Virtually everyone who experiences true HDTV and surround sound says the combination is "stop-you-dead-in-your-tracks" beautiful.

The ultimate goal of the HDTV standard has been to produce a picture and sound experience comparable to 35mm pictures. However, as Greg Coyle points out in "The Uncertain Revolution of HDTV, or a Pig in a Dress is Still a Pig," if the programming remains the same, there's no reason to convert to digital.

But the point is that the programming will change, and for a couple of reasons. First, there's an axiom in the TV biz that "you shoot for the display." This means that we don't see programming whose overall visual effects and level of detail can't be depicted on the standard TV screen. Why bother shooting what you can't show? But with HDTV, directors and writers will have options that aren't currently available, such as long shots, crowd scenes, wide-angle views, up-close details of buildings, statuary, sculpture, and paintings. If it can be shown, it will be.

Second, for a couple of years, certain organizations have been shooting some of their programs in both conventional and HDTV formats. There is already a lot of programming on the shelves waiting to be re-shown or shown for the first time when HDTV arrives. Certain sports events have already been broadcast and shown in HDTV, such as major league baseball and major world soccer matches. Ever watch the Travel Channel? Think what it would be like in HDTV. Or, how about a film like "Out Of Africa," or "A River Runs Through It"? Sports, nature shows, travel, first-run movies will all be available in HDTV eventually.

Still not convinced? How about the ability to choose whichever world network's coverage you like best for major sporting events, such as Grand Slam tennis tournaments? (Geez, the American announcers never shut up. Listen to the Brits or the Germans: they stop talking when points are in progress.) How about access to first-class films (not movies) from all over the world, not just what the Hollywood studios will allow into their very limited foreign distribution channels in the U.S.? How about watching the French Grand Prix Formula 1 race or the Tour De France from the cameras mounted on the cars or bicycles of your favorite competitors (say four)? Or, live HDTV broadcasts of first-run plays from London? We will eventually have options like these. Where we'll find the time to watch them is another issue.

Now that you know what you're missing, what can you do to get the manufacturers to change? The good news in this conversion to digital television is that we consumers have the potential to force the television industry to convert to digital TV, and eventually HDTV, faster than they otherwise will. The fact is that right now consumers have unbelievable leverage in the marketplace. So here's how to exert that leverage and get the picture (sorry, but for now, I can't do anything about the programming) we deserve. (See HDTV Advocate for a supportive, proactive consumerist view on the whole HDTV biz.)

For starters, demand your birthright: Let companies know that you want audio and visual quality at a level near the limits of your senses. Every one of us can help spur the acceleration of HDTV product introductions by holding off our purchases of video products until HDTV-capable versions are available. Start saving your money now. Don't buy any more low-resolution products. You should be very reluctant to buy NTSC-based products that you will be depressed to see after viewing the HDTV displays at the local electronics stores. Companies will notice and produce real HDTV products before you are too old to enjoy them. Those of you in the top 10 markets should keep in mind that HDTV broadcasts are mandated to begin in a little more than six-months, so digital video will soon be a reality for you.

I know, I know, the sets and set-top boxes seem expensive. But that's typical of consumer electronics products at the early stages of market development. Prices will drop, just as they have for personal computers. Initially, a couple hundred bucks for access to the digital stuff coming our way with picture quality slightly better than what we get via NTSC analog isn't a bad deal at all. And the sooner we stop buying standard NTSC television sets, the sooner the manufacturers will change and begin offering HDTV-capable equipment.