OTHER TECH

According to Setos, going with a higher-resolution format for the game would have meant using fewer cameras, forsaking slow-motion playback, and relying on relatively unsophisticated graphics. Viewers have come to expect fancy animation for the onscreen scoreboards and player biographies - even better when there's a whooshing sound effect to match the images flying onto the screen.

Rumors were rife that Fox had actually used 480i-format digital cameras to shoot the Super Bowl, which would have resulted in images only slightly better than we get from the old analog system. Setos skillfully skirted the issue, stating that "the broadcast, including the pregame show, was all shot in digital 16:9 widescreen except for archival and B-roll footage shot around New Orleans before the game." However, Richard Friedel, Fox's senior VP of engineering and operations, did confirm that the game was shot at 480i and then upconverted to 480p. RCA parent company Thomson Electronics provided the cameras, including ones with Super Slo-Motion digital capability, and the 480p signal was converted for the analog feed, cropping the edges of the widescreen frame to accommodate traditional 4:3 aspect ratio TVs.

When the other networks do high-def broadcasts of sporting events, they bring in two separate production teams, complete with different announcers, to address the different camera setups. Fox's arrangement allows both the analog and digital crews to enjoy the same A-list production, with the same announcers and camera angles. Fox is willing to trade off lower-resolution images for the higher production values it feels make the broadcast more entertaining.

There has also been much speculation that Fox plans to use its digital bandwidth for multicasting. At 19.34 megabytes per second (MBps), the 1080i signal almost completely fills a network's allotted bandwidth of 19.4 MBps, while a 480p signal uses at most only 8 MBps. The remaining bandwidth can be used for additional programs, interactive content, online shopping, and other purposes. For instance, the network could show a soap opera on one channel, a talk show on another, and children's programming on another. All of the shows would still be DTV, just not HDTV. But whether multicasting is Fox's real motive for using 480p remains a company secret. Setos would only concede that the network is considering "new services for viewers."

Seeing Is Believing

Numbers aside, exactly what do viewers see when they compare standard-def with high-def pictures? The lower-resolution 480p images clearly lack some of the lifelike detail, depth, and rich color palette the 1080i format allows. At its best, 480p uses 344,600 pixels to define an image, while 1080i uses up to 2,073,600. However, a 480p broadcast is roughly equivalent to the output of a progressive-scan DVD player viewed on an HDTV, and not many people have complained about that.

Interestingly, Fox hasn't completely shut the door on high-definition broadcasting. Its Hollywood studio, 20th Century Fox, supplies movies to HBO in 1080i and also supports the new D-Theater high-definition digital VHS format. Ironically, Fox has to convert its movies from 1080i to 480p when they're shown on its own network. On the other hand, do we really need to see Bart Simpson mooning us in high-def? And if network execs are concerned about how Hollywood's beautiful people look in the very revealing world of high-def TV, can you imagine what the guests on Jerry Springer would look like in 1080i?

Fox's decision has implications beyond just lines of resolution, though. Showing the Super Bowl in high-def could have inspired many people to make the leap to an HDTV set at a time when the technology seems poised to move into the mass market. More than 300,000 homes have TVs equipped to display high-def programming, but those numbers won't rise significantly until there's a greater variety of compelling shows to watch.

Necessary Compromises

Broadcasters claim there's a limited market for high-def programming because not many people have HDTVs, while TV manufacturers claim that without a lot more high-def programming, they can't sell many more digital sets. Caught in the middle are HDTV's early adopters, who've ponied up the big bucks and are impatiently waiting for more to watch.

Thomson Electronics' sponsorship of Fox's standard-definition broadcast of the Super Bowl prompted some people to question its support of HDTV. Dave Arland, Thomson's director of trade and public relations, replied, "We believe that high-def programming is essential to the transition. Naturally, since we sell high-def equipment, we'd prefer if everyone had high-def sets, but not everyone can drive a Cadillac. I was prepared to dislike the Fox Widescreen coverage, but I was pretty impressed. It was clearly not high-def, but it looked pretty damn good. In the future, 480p is the worst TV should ever look."

Arland said, however, that Fox missed some opportunities: "I was hoping they might have done something creative with multicasting, such as alternate camera coverage, background stories about the game, or even alternate announcers. Without high-def material, however, there's no reason for consumers to buy new equipment. The 480p format isn't good enough to drive the transition."

In a perfect world, all broadcasts would be in high-definition, and everyone would watch them on high-end monitors. In reality, what the public wants most from TV is to be entertained, so for many people picture quality isn't the highest priority. For those of us who do care, the main thing right now is to move the country from analog to digital TV, and Fox's use of the 480p format can be seen as a step in that direction. When DTV is a success, as it surely will be, market forces and public outcry might be strong enough to persuade Fox to broadcast HDTV. It's true that you have to learn to walk before you can run. But it would give digital TV a big boost if Fox would only walk a little faster.