Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcb!speaker
From: speaker@ttidcb.UUCP (Kenneth Speaker)
Newsgroups: net.video
Subject: Re: Digital TV Anybody?
Message-ID: <633@ttidcb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Jan-86 14:14:31 EST
Article-I.D.: ttidcb.633
Posted: Mon Jan 20 14:14:31 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 10:22:53 EST
References: <32100004@gypsy.UUCP> <419@unccvax.unccvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: speaker@ttidcb.UUCP (Kenneth Speaker)
Organization: Transaction Technology, Inc. (CitiCorp), Santa Monica
Lines: 16
Summary: 

Yes, digital TV fell flat because it didn't OFFER anything.  Picture-in-
a-picture?  Big deal!  BUT digital processing COULD offer a yot, like
echo cancellation, edge enhancement, color correction, noise filtering,
just about anything a TMS320 and your imagination could come up with.
My belief is that the manufacturers noticed no one cared about video
quality in VCR's so to sell digital processing you couldn't say "better
picture", but maybe "two pictures" would do it.  Surprisingly, it didn't.

What comes next?  MAYBE high-D TV.  Doubtful in my lifetime.  Ever thought
about how long it took to get stereo on a *FEW* stations when it was com-
pletely compatible at the receiver end (although a mess at the station).
How 'bout HDTV which is not compatible at the receiver end.  How do you
spell "phat chance"?

--Kne (in a pesimestic mood)