As you would expect, the majority of the SMPTE – USC Seminar “Preparing For ATV – The New Digital TV Broadcast Standard” was dedicated to the electronic side of the business.  There was little mention of film production beyond the virtual unanimous feeling that the best medium for originating “software” (i.e., programming) for the digital and high def broadcasting remains 35mm film.  ATV (Advanced Television) is the new buzzword for DTV (Digital Television).  Get used to hearing it, since it’s the accepted term for DTV.  The audience’s interest in the subject was clear.  The SMPTE announced the attendance was the largest it had ever had for this type of event.  Many of the people were engineers from local TV stations, and other stations around the country.  It was evident from the polling at the beginning of the day that the tech people outnumbered the business side by about 10:1 and the production side by about 40:1 (these are my estimates from hands raised in each category).  Only a handful of production people showed up.

 

 

 

 

What wasn’t mandated.

 

Initially I thought the mandate also included high def TV and the 16x9 format we’ve all heard so much about.  In fact it doesn’t.  What the seminar dwelled on was the number of options the FCC left open.  The buzz word for this was “Open Resolution.”  I won’t address all of them because there are so many.  But, as you might think, it revolves around money, lots of money.  The consumer electronic industries are vying to establish a convenient standard in order to sell more sets.  I can’t tell you the number of times I heard statements like, “This is a market challenge,” “It’s about sets and hardware,” “The eventual standard will be dollar driven.”   It’s crystal clear when a panelist stated 25 million TVs are sold every year.  This translates into $5-$8 Billion.  The only presentation that addressed art and aesthetics was John Hora’s, ASC.  In fact some of the presentations were blatant sales pitches.

 

High Def Not Mandated

Prime Time Simul-casting Not Mandated

Screen Ratio Not Mandated

Progressive v/s Interlace Not Mandated

No Standard Formats (e.g., 1920 x 1080i v/s 1280 x 720p or 16x9 v/s 1.33:1)

 

There’s another issue here too.  Since the signals are digital, they can be multiplexed with more than one “channel” simultaneously broadcast.  This is one of the underlying economic booms for the broadcasters.  On this bandwidth a great deal more information and services can be provided.  As long as one digital TV signal is broadcast, the FCC has left it up to the individual companies to utilize the rest of the bandwidth in any manner they see fit.  A non-high def digital signal takes less bandwidth than a comparable high def digital signal.  If a broadcaster wants to fill it with cell phones, subscription TV, pagers, or anything else, they are free to do it.   Again, the panelists hinted that they probably wouldn’t broadcast high def until the public demanded it.  

 

Overall, I feel there will be a greater need for programming, and that translates into jobs for us.  But I feel there’s a possible down side to this too.  Many of these jobs may be at a lower economic level.  Eventually there may even be a two tiered system in the unions to enable us to capture this work based on viewership and budgets.  More of the programming may be in the style of “Cops,” or the morning daily exercise programs scattered around the dial.  With the audience fragmenting, the smaller viewership will be reflected in a program’s smaller licensing fees.  Also, the initial lack of a network’s identity may be a problem that will translate into smaller productions and shifting network fortunes.

 

A Cinematographer’s POV

 

The highlight presentation of the morning was made by John Hora, ASC.  Anyone who knows John, knows that he could be comfortable with a red and green screwdriver in a pocket protector.  In fact he has played the part on the big screen.  His presentation was titled, “Implications and Challenges from the Visual/Creative Point of View.”  He opened with a format analogy that he feels will happen, although to his knowledge it hasn’t happened yet.  I’ll try to correctly paraphrase it.

 

 

        

Although the audience laughed, this is a very real issue for the creative community.  You can imagine a Director of Photography’s “angst” at seeing his image presented this way.  Unfortunately, some of this is already standard procedure, with more compromises on the way.  

 

The issue we hear so much about, shoot for 4x3 but protect 16x9 so the sides can be “harvested” later, is now upon us.  John mentioned how in the past studios would shoot two different versions of a film for different markets.  It was common for the “A” camera to shot an English version, and the “B” camera to shoot off angle with different actors on the same set for a foreign version.  Now we just dub it, or subtitle it.  But you can’t dub or subtitle different formats.  An operator can’t frame a perfectly composed shot in a shifting frame.

 

 

 

The “Star Trek” Phenomena Or The High Road To The Future Is On 35mm Film

 

Two other issues were clear from the morning’s discussions.  One, 35mm film is “digital” ready, and archival considerations demand a film original.  Under ideal conditions, I’ve been told that video tape’s half life is 7 years.  That means that every 7 years the producer should retransfer the show to the current “stable” medium.  Film’s half life is about 50 years (or about 100 years total.)

 

One speaker mentioned his love of the original “Star Trek” shows.  He said, the newly transferred episodes of “Star Trek” have greater depth and visual information than the originals.  Since the shows were filmed on 35mm, the producers could go back and retransfer the negatives to the current standards.  His comment about the original transfers and broadcast (with apologies to Gerry Finnerman, ASC) were, “They were pretty ratty.”  But the past electronic transfer was the issue, not the cinematography – as was proven with the current telecine transfers.  Producers who chose to originate their programs on film will have “legs” to the future.  If the technology changes again, they will be in place to simply reach into the “can” and retransfer the show.  With the electronic medium, this is possible.  But the question is, will electron originated material have enough information for the next new technology or standard?

 

Daytime & Game Shows/Sports:  Digital World & High Def

 

Virtually all of the panelists and speakers agreed the last programming to become high def, or digital, would be the day time soaps and game shows.  The execs who make these decisions all feel that the American public couldn’t tell the difference between NTSC and high def.  To broadcast digitally is a simple up-conversion from NTSC to digital.  If they want to broadcast high def, then another up-conversion is in order.  Although this isn’t a good solution, the network will be in compliance.  Only if the public demands a better image will it come into being.

 

 

Interactivity & the Computer Companies ( & NBC) Absent

 

One can argue about the benefits of progressive v/s interlaced scanning.  In a word, interlaced is what we have now, and progressive is what the computer uses.  You can look on your own screens and see what the benefits are.  You should also be advised that when the convergence of TV and the computer happens, it’s going to be in a progressive scanned world.  The technology exists.  The software exists to bridge the program and user interface.  But the resistance from the mainly Japanese manufacturers rests on the antiquated system in place in Japan.  This system, over a decade old, is high def, interlaced, and 16x9.  The manufacturers have that tooling and technology in place, it’s going to cost something for them to change.  If the American public can be sold an interlaced system, the profits from that old technology will go to those manufacturers.

 

On the other hand, if the computer marries the TV, for better or for worse, it will need to be in a progressive scanned world.  If the Interactivity we are promised is going to be delivered, most likely it will also be in a progressive scanned world.  The computer, with it’s monitor, approaches interactive TV.  I was in a discussion almost a year ago, and made the statement that the standard would be decided in the marketplace.  I was told I was naïve, because the major players in this fight were all foreign.  But what I maintained, and was lost in that discussion, was that the computer was going to play a huge role in media’s future.  My feeling then, and it hasn’t changed, is that people want to be able to (but not necessarily always) interact with a subject and see a clear picture.  The broadcasters may make many promises, but the Web exists right now and fulfills many of their promises.  If the Web, or a satellite Web (in development), were implemented on this digital bandwidth, interactive TV would be here now.  I can see the market being driven by Home Shopping Network type of programs, but think of the possibilities if one were to put even a sliver of this bandwidth to educational uses.  Unfortunately the poor and school districts won’t be able to pay as much for this service as the revenues for a Thigh Master might generate.  This is the reality of a free market economy.  If we don’t want to sit and watch it, and buy the products that will be presented on it, or subscribe to it, then it simply won’t happen.  PBS is the exception.

 

 

 

How does this affect us in the creative community?  I feel we will have more opportunities to show excellent work on better home viewing systems.  More film will be shot on prime time dramas and sit coms.  Along with this, breaking news, game shows, the soaps, and other “low end” programming will continue to be originated on the existing NTSC equipment and up-converted for digital broadcast.  When high def comes to these markets, most of the news departments will probably retain their current cameras for conversion to high def.  A few engineers volunteered that current up-converted NTSC signal mortised into a high def newscast appeared “quite acceptable.”  I guess that means it didn’t jump out as awful.  There was no quantifiable statement about this, but in relation to the costs of changing over all the field video equipment, I’m sure the picture quality was just fine.

 

Eventually things will change, but in the meantime we will have to shoot for one format and protect for another.  The exception will be the possibility that the TV/Computer convergence will happen sooner than later, or when a standard is finally adopted.  When will we know the future is here?  When a studio head says, “Shoot is 16x9,” or whatever the new standard is.  Then we’ll know we’ve arrived.