Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the click-here-to-see-episode-2 dept.
the coose writes: "EETimes is running an interesting story describing the current turmoil over DTV standards. It involves many players, including, but not limited to, Microsoft, Sun, the ITU, and SMPTE."
referential connections (ie ensure a link encoded within the content)
If you make the assumption that everything is a computer and that XML or Java engines will be embeeded into every computer and consumer item known to mankind (and Mars 127.0,0.1) then if any any point you insert you hacked/hand-made/sniffer device that removes those not-so-subtle control signals, then you can kiss your replay features good bye. Look the technological trends, the Amiga/TAO/Sony announcement of being able to hook multiple IP cores within the same OS. The support of big name companies for selected XML "standards" (with convenient amnesia about certain inconvenient consumer friendly functions). If each silicon slice supports the necessary control protocols, then when you replay back an "interactive" movie, they will be able to tell who/when/what and be able to dictate the terms of the availability, target bits to a specific machine, and eliminate 2nd sale, redistribution, cross-transmission, and lending/borrowing priviledges. Education and entertainment are going to be big money spinners and the players want to keep every penny of it. If you think DVD was bad, wait until every bitstream is encoded.
Take a careful look at how the protocol extensions are to be used in their examples:
Sorry guys, not only can (as McNealy put it) you kiss your privacy goodbye but you might as well forget about keeping any bits you buy/lease/rent whether software or content.
The Chinese Lottery is essentially a crypto term referring to the following concept: Each of China's billion residents is given a set top box for their TV. The boxen each receive a block to attack(this can be broadcast simply by continually outputting a stream of if(serial == "12345"){block="0xAABB1234")). The cost of the attack is borne in small chunks by whatever the market will bear to pay for a set top box, plus each individual paying for the electricity(which is of less value, presumably, than the amortized value of each block being cracked).
Then whoever's box cracks the code displays a message, "You've just won a million dollars. Please call this number to claim it." The government collects the box and gives some sum to the winner. Then they take back most of that sum through taxation(OK that's not part of the Chinese Lottery, but it's part of *every* lottery), and everyone's happy.
Now consider that most of these settop boxen will end up actually having phone connections to the media owners, so that Pay Per View can be implemented. Now the owner of the box doesn't need to be paid off or even informed that his machine was being used to crack some code, and that the cost of that cracking was being borne by his electricity bill. The result of the crack can be sent down the pipe at will.
All they need is the ability to execute code...
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky DoxPara Research http://www.doxpara.com
United States DTV Standards Technical Details
by
QBasic_Dude
·
· Score: 4
There are actually already several Digital TV standards broadcasting companies announced they are going to use:
So called e-cinema or electronic cinematography seems to be moving toward two HDTV standards: 24p (24-frame progressive) and 60i (60-field interlaced). Those who are after the "film look" prefer 24p, especially since the progressive approach results in fewer artifacts (aberrations) and higher resolution. The 24 fps speed is also the same as film--even though the extra sharpness of video sets it apart from film. However, compared to 24p, 60i (30 fps) does a better job of tracking motion, which means that zooms and camera movements--especially when done rapidly--appear smoother. (These must be done slower with film or 24p video.) Either of these standards can be converted to film. With the proper equipment and electronic setup, either of these standards become almost indistinguishable from film when projected. (If there is any "fault" with digital video it's that seems "too sharp and clear" compared to film. Of course, I guess we can all get used to better quality if we really have to!) At the same time we are seeing the beginning of a move to e-theaters, or movie theaters that use video projection equipment. A dozen or so major theaters around the country use digital projection now. Several digital feature "films" are in the works now. The studio production standards we've cited are not to be confused with the broadcast standards listed below.
They're after an encrypted signal path from the studio to the screen. This is the single biggest hangup preventing (H)DTV from hitting the market, and is the reason why cable systems aren't carrying HD signals.
Forget video rental, it's pay-per-view only w/ (H)DTV.
The new "interactive features" will be used to track your viewing habits with alarming granularity.
Fuck DTV. Fuck TV.
-Isaac
-- I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The "ideal" resolution would be a resolution which was backwards-compatiable with what exists today. This would be (PAL x NTSC)/(Highest Common Factor).
Frame rate should be calculated the same way. 25f for PAL, 30f for NTSC. Therefore, the "ideal" frame rate would be 150f. Yes, this is a lot higher than existing systems go, but it makes transferring existing NTSC or PAL footage a doddle. You don't lose any information, and you don't need to do any interpolation.
Such a resolution and frame-rate should also reduce the horrible artifacts produced by MPEG. (MPEG cannot handle low light well. It looks like a JPEG in a 16 colour resolution.) The only way to remove artifacts is to INcrease the resolution & speed, not decrease it. If you decrease it, the artifacts are still there, they're just not so "visible". Which means exactly nothing, since you don't watch a single frame, but a whole movie.
-- It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
At least in Europe we have had trouble free DigitalTV for 2 years now. There is nothing wrong with it quality wise - Widescreen is excellent, the audio is excellents and the picture quality can be excellent.
Since noone has a TV capable of showing a 1920x1080 picture, or even half of that, I don't think that the lack of a high resolution DTV signal is that bad. That capability can be added on later, when there are more satellites providing more bandwidth.
Of course, HDTV looks amazing, so when it becomes affordable it could be an interesting option to purchase. Unfortuneately, there is nothing on TV to actually watch, so I don't currently have a TV and I don't intend to get one.
Last thing I want is to have to have a box with "Microsoft Media Player" logos on it. Looks like that is the way America wants to go, with MS-MPEG4, etc. A TV is meant to perform a function - show TV. In the UK, DigitalTV also has games, email, shopping etc as well, using Sky TV's Open platform. You ust can't browse the web using the box, but the next generation of DTV boxes in europe will be able to do that as well. Hopefully, Mozilla with its extreme customisability will be chosen for these boxes ahead of PocketIE or whatever.
Next: People to incorporate ReplayTV and DVD players into the DigitalTV's themselves.
Pay Attention to Copy Protection
by
ewhac
·
· Score: 5
There's a lot of behind-the-scenes dealmaking going on to try and insinuate copy protection methods into DTV signals. They're trying to prevent people from recording programming off the air (since that would prevent you from buying the home video version of whatever it is).
Pay very close attention to this. Look for copy protection systems in the upcoming standards, and call attention to them. It's very important that it not come to pass.
When all you have is a hammer...
by
First+Person
·
· Score: 3
Reading this article, I am reminded of a paragraph appearing in the 2 June 2000 issue of Science (Vol 288, p. 1597).
New Technologies often initially attempt to reproduce the previous technology in form and function. For example, when word processors were first introduced, many were designed to emulate typewriters: Characters were entered along one line at the bottom of the screen, and white "electronic paper" has to be scrolled up and down to the "writing head".
Interactive television strikes me as the same sort of revolution. Everyone's perspective is limited by what they know. TV will looks totally different in 20 years from the standards committees expect.
-- Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
Forget video rental, it's pay-per-view only w/ (H)DTV.
That's funny. Then why do I find plenty of examples in nearly every medium of people willing to give me content for free and sell advertising space to sponsors. I find this on the radio, TV, the Web, some smaller newspapers, checkout aisle swapsheets and low budget newsprint computer magazines. And people who buy the latest home entertainment technology are a really enticing market niche to be able to sell advertising time in front of. They have disposable income and are willing to part with it for new gadgets. They are likely to be younger and novaphiles, so they may become repeat customers.
There will be plenty of pay-per-view content, but to build the market there will be content available for free or at a flat subscription rate like cable. And that content will be lucrative to provide, so it will continue.
-- The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Re: holding back to film standards
by
FFFish
·
· Score: 3
It's inutterably stupid to choose a video standard based on 24fps, simply because that's what film uses.
Digital video is where it's going, and bloody fast. Set the standard at 48 or 72fps, and use every second or third frame if cutting back to film (or double or triple the frames if going from film to television).
And let's start seeing the wide format more in use. Most of our world is lived more horizontally spread-out than vertically spread-out, New York and Hong Kong being the notable exceptions.
Though, of course, all this is moot when considering broadcast television. That shite ain't worth watching no-how. I just want my DVDs to look good...:-)
I wonder if they aren't approaching this from the wrong direction.
We already have the interactive technologies in development -- the web stuff, SMIL, and so on, and we certainly have the TV infrastructure already in place.
Why not just develop close synchronization between conventionally-delivered web and conventially-delivered TV content in some fashion, instead of deciding to cram everything conceivable down the broadcast channel?
The main thing it'd require would be the maturation of SMIL and a common schema/domain for "TV" URNs, and a little bit of hardware to pick up on synchronization info in the vertical blanking interval[1], but that's about it.
That'd leave you three options[2]:
1. watch TV on your TV while interacting with the synchronized web site on your PC
2. have the TV broadcast embedded in the synchronized website itself (courtesy of your TV card)
3. a WebTV-like set-top box that handles the web side of things, either doing as for #2, or compositing the website with the TV image in some other fashion
The technology for this kind of approach is here today, and it doesn't require pie-in-the-sky home bandwidth capabilities, nor does it require significant changes to the existing broadcast infrastructure.
I wonder why everyone seems so anxious to push their own proprietary solution, instead? I mean, Open Standards allow users control over their experience of the content, and that's a good thing, right?
---
[1] Maybe even current TV tuner cards could be pressed into service, depending on exactly what they offer; I don't know enough about them to say.
[2] Maybe more than that; these are the three I can think of off the top of my head
--
DNA just wants to be free...
It's about data standards for interactivity
by
Argyle
·
· Score: 4
As a television engineer that was at the founding meetings of ATVEF and the ATSC commitee meetings I can tell you this is a very thorny subject.
Basically it boils down to two camps. One camp wants to invent new languages/scripting to be used for television. The other camp wants to incorporate and amplify IETF standards and utilize them.
I'm for the HTML based plan like ATVEF, since it has all the advantages of an established standard. Plenty of creation tools, few intellectual property issues, and plenty of people that know how to code it.
Those proposing new display engines (usually based on Java) point to the limitations of HTML and XML as unsuitable for use on television. The IP questions about using Java with a 'clean room' version are mind blowing. Noone wants to touch this issue except the electronics manufacturers since all they do is buy a chip and don't deal with any other licensing issues.
The real issue is what will the content providers choose to support. No content provider wants to code several versions of an enhancement to play on differing systems. They want one unified standard to code to all the time. I think most of the content providers have lined up with the ATVEF plans since they allow simple reuse of web apges and tools to make enhanced television.
Contrary to the above posts, the debate isn't about scan rate and format any more, it's about data enhancement.
In the US there is debate that the approved VSB transmission method is far worse than the CODFM method used in Europe. I can tell you as a fact that CODFM is a better method than VSB, but the consumer electronic manufacturers will never allow a switch at this point.
-- nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
First off, the EE Times article is talking about the standards for interactive content, not the image specs. The image specs have already been set, as you pointed out. The current wrangling is over the set of APIs used to provide interactive "programming" for people's DTV sets and set-top boxes. It has nothing to do with the image specs. Read the article.
That said, there are a couple of incorrect statements in your post (actually, in the quote you have from the "CyberCollege" site). The first is this one:
If there is any "fault" with digital video it's that seems "too sharp and clear" compared to film. Of course, I guess we can all get used to better quality if we really have to!
First off, no matter what anyone tells you, the resolution of HDTV is not the same as film. Film is capable of resolving up to 4,000 lines, not 2,000. People see this all the time when scanning film in for the purpose of creating special effects. The current standard for scanning film in post-production is 2,000 lines ("2K" resolution). However, there is still scannable information left on the film that is not picked up at that resolution. 4,000 lines ("4K" resolution) would be the proper resolution for scanning film. 4K is what is needed to really replace 35mm film without any loss, not 2K resolution.
If you look closely next time you're at a movie theater, you can see that special effects shots look blurry compared to the rest of the movie. That's because of the loss in resolution due to scanning at 2K. Hopefully 4K will become the standard for doing special effects, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Most people think that 2K is "enough", even though it really isn't.
As for HDTV looking "too sharp and clear", this is nonsense. No one ever says that. The common complaint is that HDTV looks "too real" compared to film. And what people mean when they say this is that it looks too much like the evening news. Film is used for everything you see on TV these days except for the news and other "reality" programming, and so when people mean to say that something has too much of the video "look", they end up saying that it looks "too real".
The reason film and video have different looks is that they respond to light differently. Film samples light in a logarithmic curve, which is very similar to the way the human eye sees light. That is why film looks so natural. Video cameras, on the other hand, sample light in a linear fashion, which is what gives it that particular look. The fact is, if you want an image that looks the most natural, film is still the way to go.
The second incorrect statement is this one:
The studio production standards we've cited are not to be confused with the broadcast standards listed below.
Actually, the 1920x1080 24 fps progressive format is exactly the same format that is being used for Star Wars Episode II. That's right, it's being shot in the exact same resultion that is supposedly going to become the broadcast standard for TV. Why would studios being doing that? If they use the same resolution for movies as is going to be used for TV, why would people go to theaters anymore? It doesn't make sense.
Unless of course, they have no intention of ever giving us the HD resolution at home. And since all the major TV networks are now owned by movie studios, they can do that.
So, here what's going to happen. HDTV resolution will be used for theaters, which will be a step down in picture quality, and then regular resolution digital TV will be used for the home, and the extra bandwidth from the digital broadcasting licenses that were given away by the U.S. Congress will be used for a bunch of stupid "interactive" content. Isn't that nice?
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look at HTTP Extension Framework. Note a couple of key aspects:
- use of mandatory and optional items
- end-to-end transmission
- referential connections (ie ensure a link encoded within the content)
If you make the assumption that everything is a computer and that XML or Java engines will be embeeded into every computer and consumer item known to mankind (and Mars 127.0,0.1) then if any any point you insert you hacked/hand-made/sniffer device that removes those not-so-subtle control signals, then you can kiss your replay features good bye. Look the technological trends, the Amiga/TAO/Sony announcement of being able to hook multiple IP cores within the same OS. The support of big name companies for selected XML "standards" (with convenient amnesia about certain inconvenient consumer friendly functions). If each silicon slice supports the necessary control protocols, then when you replay back an "interactive" movie, they will be able to tell who/when/what and be able to dictate the terms of the availability, target bits to a specific machine, and eliminate 2nd sale, redistribution, cross-transmission, and lending/borrowing priviledges. Education and entertainment are going to be big money spinners and the players want to keep every penny of it. If you think DVD was bad, wait until every bitstream is encoded.Take a careful look at how the protocol extensions are to be used in their examples:
- Man: "http://www.copyright.org/rights-management"; ns=16
- 14-Credentials="g5gj262jdw@4df"
- Expires: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:12:31 GMT
- C-Opt: "http://www.meter.org/hits"
- Opt: "http://www.my.com/tracking"
- Cache-Control: no-cache="Ext"
Sorry guys, not only can (as McNealy put it) you kiss your privacy goodbye but you might as well forget about keeping any bits you buy/lease/rent whether software or content.LL
...Only there's no payoff.
The Chinese Lottery is essentially a crypto term referring to the following concept: Each of China's billion residents is given a set top box for their TV. The boxen each receive a block to attack(this can be broadcast simply by continually outputting a stream of if(serial == "12345"){block="0xAABB1234")). The cost of the attack is borne in small chunks by whatever the market will bear to pay for a set top box, plus each individual paying for the electricity(which is of less value, presumably, than the amortized value of each block being cracked).
Then whoever's box cracks the code displays a message, "You've just won a million dollars. Please call this number to claim it." The government collects the box and gives some sum to the winner. Then they take back most of that sum through taxation(OK that's not part of the Chinese Lottery, but it's part of *every* lottery), and everyone's happy.
Now consider that most of these settop boxen will end up actually having phone connections to the media owners, so that Pay Per View can be implemented. Now the owner of the box doesn't need to be paid off or even informed that his machine was being used to crack some code, and that the cost of that cracking was being borne by his electricity bill. The result of the crack can be sent down the pipe at will.
All they need is the ability to execute code...
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
More information on the DTV Standards is available.
CmdrTaco: The first link to EETimes is broken.
Content companies aren't about to allow VCRs.
They're after an encrypted signal path from the studio to the screen. This is the single biggest hangup preventing (H)DTV from hitting the market, and is the reason why cable systems aren't carrying HD signals.
Forget video rental, it's pay-per-view only w/ (H)DTV.
The new "interactive features" will be used to track your viewing habits with alarming granularity.
Fuck DTV. Fuck TV.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Frame rate should be calculated the same way. 25f for PAL, 30f for NTSC. Therefore, the "ideal" frame rate would be 150f. Yes, this is a lot higher than existing systems go, but it makes transferring existing NTSC or PAL footage a doddle. You don't lose any information, and you don't need to do any interpolation.
Such a resolution and frame-rate should also reduce the horrible artifacts produced by MPEG. (MPEG cannot handle low light well. It looks like a JPEG in a 16 colour resolution.) The only way to remove artifacts is to INcrease the resolution & speed, not decrease it. If you decrease it, the artifacts are still there, they're just not so "visible". Which means exactly nothing, since you don't watch a single frame, but a whole movie.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Since noone has a TV capable of showing a 1920x1080 picture, or even half of that, I don't think that the lack of a high resolution DTV signal is that bad. That capability can be added on later, when there are more satellites providing more bandwidth.
Of course, HDTV looks amazing, so when it becomes affordable it could be an interesting option to purchase. Unfortuneately, there is nothing on TV to actually watch, so I don't currently have a TV and I don't intend to get one.
Last thing I want is to have to have a box with "Microsoft Media Player" logos on it. Looks like that is the way America wants to go, with MS-MPEG4, etc. A TV is meant to perform a function - show TV. In the UK, DigitalTV also has games, email, shopping etc as well, using Sky TV's Open platform. You ust can't browse the web using the box, but the next generation of DTV boxes in europe will be able to do that as well. Hopefully, Mozilla with its extreme customisability will be chosen for these boxes ahead of PocketIE or whatever.
Next: People to incorporate ReplayTV and DVD players into the DigitalTV's themselves.
There's a lot of behind-the-scenes dealmaking going on to try and insinuate copy protection methods into DTV signals. They're trying to prevent people from recording programming off the air (since that would prevent you from buying the home video version of whatever it is).
Pay very close attention to this. Look for copy protection systems in the upcoming standards, and call attention to them. It's very important that it not come to pass.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Reading this article, I am reminded of a paragraph appearing in the 2 June 2000 issue of Science (Vol 288, p. 1597).
Interactive television strikes me as the same sort of revolution. Everyone's perspective is limited by what they know. TV will looks totally different in 20 years from the standards committees expect.
Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
That's funny. Then why do I find plenty of examples in nearly every medium of people willing to give me content for free and sell advertising space to sponsors. I find this on the radio, TV, the Web, some smaller newspapers, checkout aisle swapsheets and low budget newsprint computer magazines. And people who buy the latest home entertainment technology are a really enticing market niche to be able to sell advertising time in front of. They have disposable income and are willing to part with it for new gadgets. They are likely to be younger and novaphiles, so they may become repeat customers.
There will be plenty of pay-per-view content, but to build the market there will be content available for free or at a flat subscription rate like cable. And that content will be lucrative to provide, so it will continue.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
It's inutterably stupid to choose a video standard based on 24fps, simply because that's what film uses.
:-)
Digital video is where it's going, and bloody fast. Set the standard at 48 or 72fps, and use every second or third frame if cutting back to film (or double or triple the frames if going from film to television).
And let's start seeing the wide format more in use. Most of our world is lived more horizontally spread-out than vertically spread-out, New York and Hong Kong being the notable exceptions.
Though, of course, all this is moot when considering broadcast television. That shite ain't worth watching no-how. I just want my DVDs to look good...
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I wonder if they aren't approaching this from the wrong direction.
We already have the interactive technologies in development -- the web stuff, SMIL, and so on, and we certainly have the TV infrastructure already in place.
Why not just develop close synchronization between conventionally-delivered web and conventially-delivered TV content in some fashion, instead of deciding to cram everything conceivable down the broadcast channel?
The main thing it'd require would be the maturation of SMIL and a common schema/domain for "TV" URNs, and a little bit of hardware to pick up on synchronization info in the vertical blanking interval[1], but that's about it.
That'd leave you three options[2]:
1. watch TV on your TV while interacting with the synchronized web site on your PC
2. have the TV broadcast embedded in the synchronized website itself (courtesy of your TV card)
3. a WebTV-like set-top box that handles the web side of things, either doing as for #2, or compositing the website with the TV image in some other fashion
The technology for this kind of approach is here today, and it doesn't require pie-in-the-sky home bandwidth capabilities, nor does it require significant changes to the existing broadcast infrastructure.
I wonder why everyone seems so anxious to push their own proprietary solution, instead? I mean, Open Standards allow users control over their experience of the content, and that's a good thing, right?
---
[1] Maybe even current TV tuner cards could be pressed into service, depending on exactly what they offer; I don't know enough about them to say.
[2] Maybe more than that; these are the three I can think of off the top of my head
DNA just wants to be free...
As a television engineer that was at the founding meetings of ATVEF and the ATSC commitee meetings I can tell you this is a very thorny subject.
Basically it boils down to two camps. One camp wants to invent new languages/scripting to be used for television. The other camp wants to incorporate and amplify IETF standards and utilize them.
I'm for the HTML based plan like ATVEF, since it has all the advantages of an established standard. Plenty of creation tools, few intellectual property issues, and plenty of people that know how to code it.
Those proposing new display engines (usually based on Java) point to the limitations of HTML and XML as unsuitable for use on television. The IP questions about using Java with a 'clean room' version are mind blowing. Noone wants to touch this issue except the electronics manufacturers since all they do is buy a chip and don't deal with any other licensing issues.
The real issue is what will the content providers choose to support. No content provider wants to code several versions of an enhancement to play on differing systems. They want one unified standard to code to all the time. I think most of the content providers have lined up with the ATVEF plans since they allow simple reuse of web apges and tools to make enhanced television.
Contrary to the above posts, the debate isn't about scan rate and format any more, it's about data enhancement.
In the US there is debate that the approved VSB transmission method is far worse than the CODFM method used in Europe. I can tell you as a fact that CODFM is a better method than VSB, but the consumer electronic manufacturers will never allow a switch at this point.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
That said, there are a couple of incorrect statements in your post (actually, in the quote you have from the "CyberCollege" site). The first is this one:
First off, no matter what anyone tells you, the resolution of HDTV is not the same as film. Film is capable of resolving up to 4,000 lines, not 2,000. People see this all the time when scanning film in for the purpose of creating special effects. The current standard for scanning film in post-production is 2,000 lines ("2K" resolution). However, there is still scannable information left on the film that is not picked up at that resolution. 4,000 lines ("4K" resolution) would be the proper resolution for scanning film. 4K is what is needed to really replace 35mm film without any loss, not 2K resolution.
If you look closely next time you're at a movie theater, you can see that special effects shots look blurry compared to the rest of the movie. That's because of the loss in resolution due to scanning at 2K. Hopefully 4K will become the standard for doing special effects, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Most people think that 2K is "enough", even though it really isn't.
As for HDTV looking "too sharp and clear", this is nonsense. No one ever says that. The common complaint is that HDTV looks "too real" compared to film. And what people mean when they say this is that it looks too much like the evening news. Film is used for everything you see on TV these days except for the news and other "reality" programming, and so when people mean to say that something has too much of the video "look", they end up saying that it looks "too real".
The reason film and video have different looks is that they respond to light differently. Film samples light in a logarithmic curve, which is very similar to the way the human eye sees light. That is why film looks so natural. Video cameras, on the other hand, sample light in a linear fashion, which is what gives it that particular look. The fact is, if you want an image that looks the most natural, film is still the way to go.
The second incorrect statement is this one:
Actually, the 1920x1080 24 fps progressive format is exactly the same format that is being used for Star Wars Episode II. That's right, it's being shot in the exact same resultion that is supposedly going to become the broadcast standard for TV. Why would studios being doing that? If they use the same resolution for movies as is going to be used for TV, why would people go to theaters anymore? It doesn't make sense.
Unless of course, they have no intention of ever giving us the HD resolution at home. And since all the major TV networks are now owned by movie studios, they can do that.
So, here what's going to happen. HDTV resolution will be used for theaters, which will be a step down in picture quality, and then regular resolution digital TV will be used for the home, and the extra bandwidth from the digital broadcasting licenses that were given away by the U.S. Congress will be used for a bunch of stupid "interactive" content. Isn't that nice?
Free Hans!