home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Software Vault: The Sapphire Collection
/
Software Vault (Sapphire Collection) (Digital Impact).ISO
/
cdr16
/
wired1_1.zip
/
NEGROPON
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-09-18
|
8KB
|
167 lines
***************************************************************************
********************* Wired InfoBot Copyright Notice **********************
***************************************************************************
************ All material retrieved from the Wired InfoBot is *************
***************** Copyright 1993 Wired, Rights Reserved. ******************
***************************************************************************
Requesting information from the Wired InfoBot (other than the help file)
indicates your acceptance of the following terms and conditions:
(1) These articles and the contents thereof may be reposted, remailed,
or redistributed to any publicly accessible electronic forum provi-
ded that this notice remains attached and intact.
(2) These articles may not under any circumstances be resold or redis-
tributed for compensation without prior written agreement of Wired.
(3) Wired keeps an archive of all electronic address of those requesting
information from the Wired InfoBot. An electronic mailing list will
be compiled from this archive. This list may from time to time be
used by the staff of Wired Online Services for the purpose of dis-
tributing information deemed relevant to Wired's online readers.
If you wish to have your name removed from this mailing list,
please notify us by sending an electronic mail message to
infoman@wired.com.
If you have any questions about these terms, or would like information
about licensing materials from Wired, please contact us via telephone
(+1.415.904.0660), fax (+1.415.904.0669), or email (info@wired.com).
***************************************************************************
**************************** G*E*T**W*I*R*E*D*! ***************************
_Wired_1.1_
Monthly column by Nicholas Negroponte,
Director of the MIT Media Lab
**************************************
HDTV: What's wrong with this picture?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
High-definition television is clearly irrelevant.
When you look at television, ask yourself: What's wrong with it? Picture
resolution? Of course not. What's wrong is the programming.
Why is this aspect of the big picture so unclear?
*Showgun*
During the late sixties, a few visionary Japanese asked themselves what
the next evolutionary step in television would be. They reached a very
logical conclusion: higher resolution. They postulated that the move
>from black-and-white to color would be followed by filmic-quality TV,
which in turn would be followed by 3-D TV. They proceeded, in their
inimitable style, to develop something called Hi-Vision by scaling up TV
as we know it in the analog domain.
Around 1986, Europe awoke to the prospect of Japanese dominance of a new
generation of television. For totally protectionist reasons, Europe
developed its own analog HDTV system, HD-MAC, making it impossible for
Hi-Vision, which the United States officially backed at the time, to
become a world standard.
More recently, the US, like a sleeping giant, awoke from its cryogenic
state of mind and attacked the HDTV problem with the same analog abandon
as the rest of the world. However, this awakening occurred at a time
when it was possible to think about television in the digital domain.
The perseverance of a few has resulted in our nation being the sole
official proponent of a purely digital process. That's the good news.
The bad news is we blew it. We made the same mistake as Japan and Europe
when we decided to root our thinking in high definition.
Despite a great deal of hand waving, the truth is that all these systems
(currently under consideration for a national standard by the Federal
Communications Commission - which President Clinton could then change)
were constructed on the premise that achieving increased image quality
is the relevant course to be pursuing. This is not the case, and there
is no proof to support the premise.
*Prime Time Is My Time*
What is needed is innovation in programming, new kinds of delivery, and
personalization of content.
All of this can be derived from being digital. The six-o'clock news can
be not only delivered when you want it, but it also can be edited for
you and randomly accessed by you. If the viewer wants an old Humphrey
Bogart movie at 8:17 pm, the telephone company will provide it over its
twisted-pair copper lines. Eventually, when you watch a baseball game,
you will be able to do so from any seat in the stadium or, for that
matter, from the perspective of the baseball. That would be a big
change.
As intelligence in the television system moves from the transmitter to
the receiver, the difference between a TV and a personal computer will
become negligible. It can be argued that today's TV set is, per cubic
inch, the dumbest appliance in your home. As the television's
intelligence increases, it will begin to select video and receive
signals in "unreal time." For instance, an hour's worth of video - based
on a consumer's profile or request - could be delivered over fiber to an
intelligent TV in less than five seconds. All personal computer vendors
are adding video capabilities, thereby creating the de facto TV set of
the future. While this view is widely respected, it is not yet accepted
worldwide.
*Reckless Nationalism*
TV is so bound in culture that even some very democratic countries
legislate the number of hours that foreign programming is allowed on
their domestic channels. Less democratic nations use TV for propaganda
and control. This blending of the cultural with the potentially
political has crept into the technical arena and, for a variety of
gratuitous economic reasons, we are presented with the likely nightmare
that Japan, Europe and the United States will go in totally different
directions vis-a-vis TV.
However, my bet is that 1993 will be the year these diverging courses
correct themselves and converge. Europe, Japan and the US will
collaborate, and being digital will be recognized, finally, as a truly
evolutionary step. Why am I optimistic after outlining such gloomy
polemics? For several reasons, all relating to one question: Where is
the action?
Nintendo, Sega, Apple, and IBM - not your run-of-the-mill TV makers -
will present us with a burst of multimedia products in the home very
soon.
At least 200,000 direct broadcast satellite receivers, fully digital,
will hit the stores in time for Christmas. And cable operators are
trying to get digital TV even sooner than that. Namely, there will be an
outpouring of digital video services that have absolutely nothing to do
with HDTV, and they will be in place long before action can be taken on
any FCC decision if, in fact, one is made.
Finally, a small band of multinational people are making great progress
in the standards arena. The roots of digital/video harmony reside in the
Motion Picture Experts Group, MPEG, which is a bona fide part of ISO,
the International Standards Organization.
*As Scalable as the US Constitution*
The biggest reason to be optimistic is that the digital world carries
with it a great deal of tolerance for change. We will not be stuck with
NTSC, PAL, and SECAM, but we will command a bit stream that can be
easily translated from one format to another, scaled from one resolution
to another, transcoded from one frame rate to another - independent of
aspect ratio. Digital signals will carry information about themselves
and tell your intelligent TV what to do with them. If your TV does not
speak a particular dialect, you may have to visit your local bookstore
and buy a digital decoder, just like you buy software for your PC today.
Being digital is a license to grow. The manner in which memory and
features are added to your PC or organizer will be the same for your TV.
When people argue over the number of scan lines, the frame rate, or the
aspect ratio of television in the future, one can rest assured they are
discussing the most irrelevant pieces of the puzzle. What they should be
talking about are the consequences of being digital and the enormous
changes that will affect the delivery of information and entertainment.
Namely, the future of video is no different from that of audio
or data; it will be nothing but a bit stream. ===
Next Issue: Will There Be a Bit Police?
Copyright (c) 1993 Wired magazine