Comcast's power play?

[RLC]

HD is digital, but digital is not HD. There is no FCC mandate for HD broadcast, only digital broadcast. Your other point I don't disagree with.

If you mean to say that the actual FCC legislation does not mention HD per say, this I agree with BUT does is it even need to be there?
If compliance is attained everyone using analogue will have been forced to buy new equipment, the net result will be the cameras bought to comply will be digital HD cameras and NOT already outdated digital non-hd cameras. The new digital hd cameras are available and the price has dropped so much as to replace the digital non-hd camera. So again my point of compliance to digital means more HD digital not more digital only.

 

[All-Star]

I have digital cable in Montreal and the sports channel are all over the place, RDS 33, RIS 99, TSN 60, Sportsnet 81 to 84, The Score 111, but you can always program your remote and put all your sports stations as your "favorite" stations.

I guess I just assumed digital cable was setup like the satellites... I simply don't understand the logic behind not grouping similar channels, so people can surf up and down without having to use the guide.

 

[MojoJojo]

If you have been paying attention to the way new technologies emerge, from DVD's to Digital cable, you would realize that HD is following a predictable course. Within the next year or two, as more demand for HD sets increases, the price for those sets will fall to close to what a regular set costs(sort of reverse of the usual theory of supply and demand). With more sets in peoples homes, the more content we will see provided, fueling the demand further. We are just seeing the HD industry turn the corner. The initial investment in R&D has been recouped, standards have been agreed to, and content is starting to be provided. In the next two years we could easily see half the new TV's sold support HD. In five, It will start to take over as the dominant standard.

 

[Dr Love]

If you mean to say that the actual FCC legislation does not mention HD per say, this I agree with BUT does is it even need to be there?

No, it doesn't need to be there. But I've seen a number of posts over the last few days stating that HD will be required within a few years, which isn't correct; I was trying to fix that.

 

[BigE]

HD broadcasts, without a doubt.

- T

Is it really all that and a bag of chips? I've never had the opportunity (nor the interest really) to watch any sports event on HD TV.

What's all the fuss about?

 

[Judge Smails]

Is it really all that and a bag of chips? I've never had the opportunity (nor the interest really) to watch any sports event on HD TV.

What's all the fuss about?

You really have to see it to understand....pop into your local electronics store and check it out. I saw part of a golf tournament in HD (Masters maybe) and the picture was so clear and sharp, that it seemed like the view on the TV was better than if you were actually there in person.

Plus, the widescreen view (the only way to go) gives a better shot of the ice surface in hockey.

 

[dwkdnvr]

I also think that HD should be central to any TV strategy the NHL puts in place. There was an article on some site (espn or si I think) along the lines of "I guess Tiger was great at the British Open, but I didn't watch since it wasn't HD". Going on about how he'll watch crap movies just because they're in HD etc. Sure, it's a case of being enamored with cool new technology, but there's an audience out there that will likely tune in just because it's in HD.

For the NHL, I think there are two factors that HD can help with. First, the higher resolution widescreen picture is just better for covering the action, and since so much in hockey happens away from the puck, it's more beneficial than in most other sports. Also, though, I think it opens up the possibility of more creative coverage 'tricks' - multiple synchronized split screen views to watch play develop from different angles (maybe best in replays). P-in-P player (or coach) isolation with enough resolution to be useful. Sidebars with running stats etc.

Of course, all the above would be even more interesting in a broadband/streaming setup with destop stats tools etc, but I don't think we're *quite* there yet in terms of bandwidth to make this a primary strategy.

Brainstorm question - What would be your reaction to the NHL developing something out of video-game technology where they distribute a hockey 'engine' (based on NHL 2005 or something) and make available via the web site a weekly package of 'highlights' which are scripted versions of the plays of the week, translated into animated video game format. The idea being that you could watch the original video highlights, then explore them 'in game' in 3-d with the ability to pause, change perspective etc. Do it with educational content/ analysis as a tool to bootstrap understanding/insight of the game. Has the cool/fun factor, and if you're not careful you just might learn something.
Of course, I'm not sure how feasible this is - are existing motion capture tools good enough to make this easy/cheap enought to be viable?